Post mortem thread. Why did we lose?

[lumberjack_jeff]

Ground rules;
a) "we didn't lose" = delusional.
b) "voters suck" = irrelevant and pointless. To win, we need their sucky votes.
c) "Fraud! Cheating! Vote suppression!" = denial

I guess I go first. The democrats were overdependent on single female voters.

[still_one]

1. because the country is right wing, and has been so for some time

[lumberjack_jeff]

4. I don't think that's the case and besides, I know that "right wing" isn't one thing. n/t

[sabrina 1]

165. Wrong, and its way past time to end this deception. In poll after poll the American people

support a Progressive agenda.

We WON in 2008 because Dems RAN ON A PROGRESSIVE agenda.

Then they stopped being Progressive and they lost voters, see 2010.

The Dem Party turned RIGHT after it was infiltrated by the DLC/Third Way who support a Conservative agenda. We don't need two Republican Parties.

Now we'll see if THIS TIME the Dem Party finally gets it. They need to start standing up for the ideals that they claim to stand for.

Caving, even when they WON with a mandate, to the Right, lost them the confidence of the people who elected them in huge numbers, handing them the WH, the Senate AND Congress. Right off the bat they should have kept the campaign promises they WON ON. But that didn't happen.

Until they are pulled all the way back to the Left, they will continue to lose.

The current leadership despises the Left almost as much as Republicans do. Left Independents stayed home in 2010. The leadership lied and blamed Democrats WHO DID VOTE. People are sick to death of all the excuses which sound more like attacks on the people who ELECTED THEM.

So sick of it all, sick of losing, sick of watching them cave to Republicans even when in the majority.

Now it's time to end this experiment where the Dem Party goes further and further to the Right, because it isn't working.

[kentuck]

168. If we truly believe this...?

It is never going to happen with the present structure of the Democratic Party. We are destroying ourselves from the inside.

[sabrina 1]

176. We are not 'on the inside'. WE are not destroying the party. The Third Way/DLC has destroyed

the party. The leadership will support any right leaning candidate, even a Republican, over a Progressive candidate any day. See Christie eg, when they abandoned a good Progressive candidate and actually endorsed the Republican.

It IS our fault to an extent, but it is not our choice. How many actual Progressives have been placed in the President's cabinet eg? We have plenty of Republicans, but name some Progressives if you can. THAT was not our choice because we had no say in it.

So, what do we do now? Soon we will have two Republican Parties, one a bit more moderate. Unless the people organize and start participating in choosing candidates, and REFUSING to go along with the deception.

[kentuck]

180. I agree with you...

How long do we stay in this relationship? And what is the most advantageous way to end it?

[deutsey]

225. +1

[workinclasszero]

239. You win this thread my friend

We WON in 2008 because Dems RAN ON A PROGRESSIVE agenda.

Then they stopped being Progressive and they lost voters, see 2010.

The Dem Party turned RIGHT after it was infiltrated by the DLC/Third Way who support a Conservative agenda. We don't need two Republican Parties.

[lumberjack_jeff]

241. Your title indicates that you disagree with me

But I don't disagree with very much in your post. I agree that the "right wing nature" of this country is massively overstated.

Except to say that we have to reach people where they are. The voters in Abilene TX aren't going to accept the entire progressive social agenda (as du would define it) in one election.

The winning message is economic populism.

[sabrina 1]

304. If you look closely at what happened in this election, when ISSUES were on the ballot

Liberal/Democratic issues WON. It was the Dem Representatives, supposedly of those issues, who lost. What does that say? To me it confirms that voters across the board support the Democratic Party platform. But certainly Democratic voters WANT their Reps to FIGHT for those issues. That they lost is a simple statement of fact, people voted, when they could, for the issues we support as Democrats, they did not vote for those claiming to represent those issues.

My main point was that this is NOT a Conservative country mostly as was stated above. It isn't just polls that prove that, it is voters as we saw in this election.

But clearly the voters do not believe that Dems are standing up for those issues.

Will the Dem Party FINALLY get it and STOP trying to be more Republican than Republicans, or will they continue to 'compromise' on major issues, like SS, like the Keystone Pipeline, like the Environment (another area where voters, when it was on the ballot, voted FOR the Environment), like Wall St corruption as they have been doing for years now?

My guess is that we are going to see the Keystone Pipeline supported by both parties. That SS will be 'back on the table' and the Chained CPI will pass, with Dems NOW claiming, 'we couldn't help it, Repubs are in charge'.

I think we do mostly agree. Now, how do we get Democrats willing to FIGHT for the people's best interests, into power, and start removing those who either are too out of touch with the people to care what they want, care more about their jobs, or those who are actually working for Corporate America?

It would help if the party was not split as it is now. United we CAN win, we lost because we have not been united.

[lumberjack_jeff]

309. voters in *that place*, support *that issue*.

That the D candidates lost strongly suggests that there is something that wasn't on the ballot about which they disagree - a deal killer.

[Warren DeMontague]

294. I agree. It's hard to convince people to vote for you if you can't articulate what you stand for.

[merrily]

303. +1 Not only polls by pollsters, but at the ballot box yesterday. Yes, yesterday.

Increasing the minimum wage and sick pay initiatives won. Those are not rightist policies at all.

Yesterday, the voters voted for change, and for leftist policies.

How do you think the election would have gone if Obamacare had been Medicare for all? If the Senate could have figured out how to pass Warren's student loan bill?

Plus, the more Democrats went rightward toward Republicans, seeking that "center," the more Republicans went right.

[sweetloukillbot]

5. And we were trying to win seats in right-wing strongholds... n/t

[KingCharlemagne]

65. Wrong! Polling consistently shows that broad swaths of the electorate

favor a progressive agenda. The country is NOT right wing, although pockets of it are.

[still_one]

72. I don't agree. CO, MI, WI are perfect examples, and those are NOT traditionally considered red

states. People like Walker and Synder do not get elected because there are too many liberals

and when Michael Moore mentioned that in 2000 it might of had some validity, but the subsequent republican victories sure do not confirm that.

[KingCharlemagne]

82. Sigh. I don't have links to the relevant polling data, but there are many

surveys by many different organizations that suggest that a solid majority of Americans support a progressive agenda. Maybe one of the polling wonks can weigh in here to help adjudicate this disagreement. Until then, we shall have to agree to disagree.

[still_one]

91. It definitely used to be that way, but a lot of things have changed. Here is a

Gallop poll:

"PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans continue to be more likely to identify as conservatives (38%) than as liberals (23%). But the conservative advantage is down to 15 percentage points as liberal identification edged up to its highest level since Gallup began regularly measuring ideology in the current format in 1992."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/166787/liberal-self-identification-edges-new-high-2013.aspx

[KingCharlemagne]

96. Oh, puh-leeze. Most Americans couldn't define 'conservative' or 'liberal' to save

their ignorant racist souls. When presented with a non-partisan slate of progressive policy ideas (like single-payer, higher minimum wage, LGBT rights, etc.), though, Americans support them by wide margins.

BTW, 70% of Americans believe angels actually exist. So you'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people. But they still support the progressive program when it is presented without party affiliation as a set of proposals.

[still_one]

106. Actually you are proving my point unfortunately. Liberals are far better critical thinkers, and

believe in education and science.

Incidentally, as this election demonstrates I never underestimate the stupidity of the American people

[KingCharlemagne]

113. You do understand that Americans can support a basket of progressive proposals but also

be deeply racist, right? The two are not mutually exclusive necessarily.

If Obama vetos every piece of filth the Repub Congress sends him (assuming Repubs nuke the filibuster), then the only way his veto will be overridden will be if those Dems remaining join Repubs to override the vetos.

I want to see Obama start wielding the veto pen tomorrow and not let up until Jan. 2017.

[still_one]

117. Sure, "whats the matter with Kansas". We definitely agree and hope Obama does his job and gets the

veto pen out

[kentuck]

138. But I doubt that he will do that..

I wish he would.

But he will probably sign the Keystone Pipeline bill as his first act with the new Congress?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

160. Your attitude, my friend, is exactly why Democrats lost. Really.

[kentuck]

164. And that would be what?

??? That I do not have 100% faith in this President to adhere to Democratic Party principles? Sorry.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

189. You don't need 100% Kentuck. But you rarely even ANY percent. I've witnessed your rhetoric.

And really it's tiring. Because the president isn't 100% pure or liberal...or he is forced to work with moderate/conservative Democrats and Republicans because...well, that' the Congress that was given to him, you and others around here NEVER let up on this president.

I'm sorry, but Bill Clinton did far worse things. In fact, many of his policies we are currently feeling the impacts from. Wanna know why the jobs that have been created under Obama are low-paying and shitty. Thank Bill Clinton and his NAFTA policies. But, I seldom hear DUers discuss this. They lay ALL the blame at the feel of THIS president. Why is that?

Wait, don't answer that. It was rhetorical.

And on a night when people are hurting and feelings are raw, you just cannot help but jab your fist into those wounds. You just can't help but pick at those open sores, can you? You couldn't even wait until after tonight when the reality of the losses tonight has sunk in.

I live in Maryland and I'm still trying to process the fact that we just lost the fucking governorship, despite all the good things Martin O'Malley did for this fucking state--all because greedy-ass, self-serving ignoramuses want their taxes lower. Really? That's why they would rather have a Republican governor when the last ReTHUG governor we had nearly destroyed the Maryland state economy? Really?

And yet here you are. Just can't wait to jab your fist in the face of this president.

Shame on you for that.

[kentuck]

194. I don't think I am jabbing my fist in the face of the President.

And you are not the only person hurting from losing tonight.

I think the problem with our Party is much deeper than any of us want to admit. We need to change it. I hope the President vetoes everything the Repubs throw at him. Do you think he will? If he doesn't, I'm sure he may see some jabs headed his way but not from me.

I've been critical of this President at times but I have also been very supportive at times and have defended him when he has been attacked by others. I have bragged on his record. I disagree with your comments.

[Red State Rebel]

232. I saw a few consistent subjects in Rep ads that I think we need to pay attention to...

Republicans were hammering Dems about Obamacare. A lot of people are still not happy with how it is working, the cost and the possibility of losing their subsidies - losing their doctors and restricted use of hospitals. Here in St. Louis, most plans do not have access to the premiere hospital system and when that happened a lot of people were pissed.

Immigration/Employment - A lot of ads about wholesale immigration reform and how it will affect the employment of citizens already here who are out of work.

Regulation - Hammering about the cost of government regulation on businesses and jobs.

I'm in St. Louis and these are the things I noticed in ads regarding real issues and not just mud slinging. We need to either fix these things or reframe them or we will see them again in the next election.

[amandabeech]

305. Those are issues that won't go away with reframing.

Obamacare needs fixing.

People who are already here and legal need decent jobs.

We need to talk to business and figure out if they are just bellyaching or whether there are regulations that could be done better, especially small businesses.

We also need to turn out in mid-term elections.

[morningfog]

2. This should go well.

I liked your ground rules, then....

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. I'm curious about all theories... at least actionable ones.

This should be a teachable moment for us.

[Freethinker65]

3. $$ and apathy. n/t

[LeftInTX]

19. I agree

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. I didn't see any gun grab attempts.

I saw nothing but rumors of them.

[lancer78]

39. Rumors are enough

Gun Control died the day Di-Fi opened her mouth.

[Le Taz Hot]

48. DiFi isn't running this year.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

87. Washington state voted to close the gun show loophole

and it's passing.

http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/State-Measures-Initiative-Measure-No-594-Concerns-background-checks-for-firearm-sales-and-transfers.html


All incumbent congress people are getting re-elected as well.

http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/current/Federal-All.html

[marlakay]

190. I was surprised actually here

I live in the red part of state and even dems have guns...I wonder if the Marysville shooting swayed people.

Sad about class size though, my cousin is a teacher in Seattle and says its dangerous to do labs in her science class with so many kids.

[derby378]

276. There's the SAFE Act in NY and some of Colorado's new laws

They clearly didn't help our cause.

[WinkyDink]

112. See, it's THAT type of Rush Limbaugh lie that persuades ignorant Americans to vote Republican.

[Lee-Lee]

8. Failure to embrace progressivism

Of you are a progressive, BE A FUCKING PROGRESSIVE! Don't hide from it, don't pretend you are not, don't base your campaign on being a wishy-washy "moderate".

Have principles, stand up for them.

[marions ghost]

36. So you think

that will make more people vote? Something about principles will stir them to the polls?

People tend to like "moderates." Dems don't flip to the other party if their candidate is less progressive.

[Lee-Lee]

54. I think

If the people we elect to represent our party hide from what our values should be and pretend to not embrace them that it means the electorate will see those progressive values as bad.

And we will never win a Damm thing if the message we keep sending is that progressive values are so bad even our elected Democrats reject them.

[lumberjack_jeff]

64. You're absolutely right about articulating values.

But I think that candidates in swing states need not articulate precisely the same values candidates do here in Washington.

[marions ghost]

70. There seem to be a lot

in this thread who agree with you. So convince me, then. I'm not convinced.

We already represent a big negative "contrast" to Rethuglicons. And so we should come off to the electorate as being even more "progressive?" Even when we can't deliver on that? Because there is really no avenue for liberal candidates. I don't really blame the Dem candidates so much.

IMO there are other societal factors at work that are hindering any efforts we might make in a more progressive direction. It's just not going to be allowed by the PTB.

[CANDO]

115. "Societal Factors"

Even though the economy turned around from the great recession, it is still not reaching the vast working population. And then you factor in the ever rising costs of health care and insurance premiums, and energy/gasoline. What I see is the right's ability to continually win the message war. They excel at this whole "free stuff" garbage. That message hits a home run with the working man who just goes bat shit mad over the idea someone (usually minority) is getting a free ride on his dime. That is a powerful weapon in the message wars and the Republicans are winning handily. The Democratic/Liberal side had better find a way to regain the national narrative or it's all over if the right wins in 2016. If they win in 2016, they will cement the Supreme Court conservative majority for generations.

[marions ghost]

118. You mean the lies?

= the "message wars" ? Because basically the Rethug constituency is being manipulated and lied to. So how do we argue against those who will lie, cheat and steal to win? There is a basic problem with integrity--the Repugs are ethically challenged. Might makes right.

How do you message against lies? There is no way to win when the playing field is not level.

If the Repugs control everything, they will succeed in destroying this country.

[CANDO]

166. Yeah pretty much lies

But the Dems don't seem to counter them with anything. I try my damn-est to counter the bullshit. It's a tough sell when the poor and struggling are buying the message that their problems lie with those who are worse off then they are, rather than those at the top of the food chain.

[marions ghost]

192. So you tried and you know how hard it is

to convince people that they are being lied to, systematically, ruthlessly, daily--ie. brainwashed. So why do you think that people who run as Dems for political office can do it any better than you? We are at a serious disadvantage. The right wing propaganda machine has no scruples.

[CANDO]

230. Well for the most part

They don't seem to try countering the conservative driven narrative. And they have access to a much bigger bullhorn than I'll ever have.

[marions ghost]

271. How would you suggest they counter

what you call conservative "narrative" but I call lies?

[CANDO]

316. Why do you keep parsing my posts?

It's not too difficult to get what I'm saying. Are you trying to sniff out a conservative sleeper by suggesting my use of the word narrative should be "lie" instead? I hope I'm not over reacting, but damn. I can't be the only liberal Democrat who thinks the various pols in our party are big sissies when it comes to using their media face time to get tough with the other side's bullshit. That's all I'm saying.

[marions ghost]

317. And all I'm saying

is how do you counter lies that have been indoctrinated so well at this point into the constituency you are talking about?

"Lies"-- more direct rather than diplomatic --which is what "narrative" suggests to me, when applied to ethics-challenged Republicans.

Yeah don't over-react. I'm FOR being more direct and getting tough. Our side playing hardball for a change--yes I get that.

So back to the bigger question--how do we counter the lies of a party that cheats and steals from the party that (for the most part) tries to play fair?

[CANDO]

318. I don't know...

Other than just getting plain pissed off and tell it the way we see it. And that's what I mean for our politicians when they get their faces on TV. Stop being so damned pleasant. Call these people liars to their face. Let them be offended! And just stand back and say you respect truth above all else.

[Scootaloo]

136. So you think Democrats lost because they were too extreme?

[marions ghost]

139. No

but I don't think voters would have responded to them being more
left" or liberal or whatever. I think they mostly did the best they could in the current climate.

I don't blame our candidates so much.

[Scootaloo]

147. Then you don't understand why people sit elections out

[marions ghost]

154. I think they sit elections out for many reasons

not only because the candidate is not liberal enough for them.

As long as we have corporate dominance of the government, as long as there is so much money and power in politics, we of a more liberal persuasion will not be granted power or even a minor voice in government. The PTB will make sure we fail.

Do you not see the game is rigged?

[Scootaloo]

159. Yes, the game is rigged. How do you beat a rigged game?

[marions ghost]

172. Not sure

--because they stop at nothing to win and have no basic sense of integrity, we are at an almost insurmountable disadvantage. I see that what we're doing currently is not working very well. But then I don't have easy solutions either. To have time and energy to put into trying to alter the course of the Titanic is a luxury these days. It takes so much money and resources.

But I know these are the questions we must be asking. We must acknowledge that the game is rigged and decide how we will confront that. What is the best approach to dealing with it? Blaming the Dem candidates who are trying to play the game and falling short of our expectations is really beside the point.

[Scootaloo]

191. There are two ways

Ever seen a bad gambler in Vegas? The guy at the table who's losing with every hand, but insists he has a "strategy" that will beat the house and make him a rich man, and all he needs is more money to keep playing? That guy is the democrats we have in office. Your moderates. People stuck in the rigged game, but convinced that they'll make it big if only people keep giving them money. Of course, they knew from the start that the game was rigged for them to lose. So all they're doing is wasting all that money on something they can never actually hope to win. so yes, i will sure as fuck blame them for it.

So what are the two ways to win a rigged game?

The first was made famous by that movie, "War Games" - the only winning move in an unwinnable game is to not play the game. This is the major reason for people deciding not to vote. They know they can't win, so they opt out.

The second way? By flipping over the table the game is being played on. Sweep the pieces to the floor, and demand a new game that isn't rigged. Obviously not a viable strategy in Vegas, but it works pretty well in politics. Ask the Tea Party.

Get leftists on the ballot. Only support outspoken progressives and liberal. Rock the fucking boat.

[marions ghost]

197. So I get your

gambling analogy but we are all stuck in this rigged game--even those who don't vote are playing the role expected of them. Not voting, or opting out, whatever-- is not a winning strategy. (I know, I've done it).

Even those who get out there and demand things-- are playing their role and they will be squashed. The Tea Party aligns with the PTB--big diff.

"Get leftists on the ballot". You can try. Likely the corporates won't let them win but you can try. I'm skeptical that will turn things around but it should be tried. The reality of politics is such that the real progressives wont stand much of a chance. Chewed up either before the election or if they do get elected.

Is there another strategy....? One where we're not blaming but learning from the recent past?

[Scootaloo]

200. Feel free to sit on your couch then.

You know the answer. You don't like it, but there it is. If you're happy with running moderates and losing, then sure, whatever works for you I guess. Me, I'm going to be doing what I can to keep your milquetoast wallet-suckers off the ballots. It might not work, but it's better than slumping around pretending shitty sellout centrists are the best I can ever hope for.

[marions ghost]

203. Eh?

When did I ever say or imply I am happy running moderates or even think it's a good way to go? I do not think so. I am saying we are left with very few winning strategies--because they lie and cheat. I am not sure how we appeal to the non-voting to vote for anybody, moderate OR liberal. I don't have answers.

[Scootaloo]

207. Well, running moderates and centrists is what we've been trying all this time

Doesn't seem to work well.

Time to try something else.

[marions ghost]

209. Duh

--might as well try it. But I don't think the PTB are going to allow what we want to see happen. You are assuming we have democracy, but I think it is corporatocracy and we serve them, on their terms. But don't misunderstand that by saying that I am supporting moderates and centrists--absolutely not--that's not working.

[Scootaloo]

214. The only enemy is apathy

Cure that, and the rest is swept away.

The cure to apathy is inspiration. And right now, the democrats' main mode of inspiring has been "We're not liberals, but still, don't vote for republicans! And give us money!" Not exactly inspiring stuff.

You're worried about "that the PTB allow?" Why? If you don't make the effort then it doesn't matter if "they allow" or not, does it?

[marions ghost]

219. You have to be "inspiring" because people

won't vote for a decent, hard-working Dem candidate who is honest and has a good track record? Something called inspiration will wake up the voter who's not paying attention or has given up? I think the disgust and resistance to political participation is stronger than that.

You avoid the question of suppression and the fact that the Rethug PTB is going to cheat to win. And we are supposed to answer liars and cheaters with "inspiration?" That's just setting us up to dash people's hopes when Lucy snatches the football away once again.

These old solutions are just not working any more. They are remnants of a time when people trusted government more and the opposition party was a less depraved and vicious animal.

Yes I think we are facing a time when all the effort in the world, all the great liberal candidates in the world, all the money in the world, may not save us. That will be the even bigger challenge. If you can blame the losses solely on our "moderate" or bad or uninspiring candidates, you ignore the other factors at work, which need to be addressed. In saying this, I am NOT saying our candidates haven't make mistakes and disappointed. But I think it's not the only reason we are losing. I'm tired of this self-flagellation and the other side loves to see it.....in fact they promote this view.

[GummyBearz]

222. It would

It make me a whole lot more excited to vote. And for those who don't want to hold their nose in the voting booth, it may just get them to show up.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

143. Yes, Dems should not be ashamed of their legacy

It made me furious when the Republicans started making "liberal" a swear word, and Dem politicians fell all over one another saying, "Liberal? No, nobody here but us moderates! We're business friendly and for a strong defense!"

The hell with that.

[marions ghost]

148. There IS no avenue for Liberals

at present. The PTB will not allow it. We are not represented.

Find me 10 people who'll tell you they would have voted for a more liberal Dem if there weren't so many moderate Dems --and I might start to believe you.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

151. Easily

Most of the Minnesota DUers, in fact, as evidence by our gatherings.

I'm eager to hear from bvar22, a former Minnesotan now living in Arkansas, about what went on there and what he hears from his neighbors.

[marions ghost]

158. OK well bring it here

I don't see it where I live.

[BeyondGeography]

9. White guys hate the President

Maybe they'll hate a white President less, but not if she's a woman.

Basically, they're ashamed to admit they need help from government to counteract their white male owners. Shame leads to anger at those who would help them, i.e. Democrats. Especially when they're not white guys.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

This is not an argument for white male candidates. White guys need to grow up, and growing up only happens the hard way.

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. Udall was a white guy. n/t

[BeyondGeography]

27. How'd he do with white guys?

[lumberjack_jeff]

60. Obama is no more or less black today than he was when he won... twice. n/t

[BeyondGeography]

75. If you don't have an answer, I'd prefer you didn't answer n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

85. I gave my answer.

"because voters suck" is ultimately pointless. There's nothing to recommend participation in a political discussion board if that's the case.

Tonight should be a wake up call. We need to look at the mirror critically and identify the mistakes - and they ARE mistakes, we should crush the idea that the average voter simply isn't pure of heart enough to be in our club.

I'd say that that attitude is another big reason for our loss.

[BeyondGeography]

105. How did Udall do with non-college educated white males?

[lumberjack_jeff]

109. Yes. Like that one. n/t

[YoungDemCA]

140. White men are noticeably more right-wing in politics-at least, in terms of voting-than other groups

That's a fact, whether you accept it or not.

[lumberjack_jeff]

240. That's not an explanation, it's a problem statement.

So long as we think there's something inherently broken about white men so that we shouldn't seek their votes, we'll continue to lose.

[YoungDemCA]

252. I am uncomfortable with explicit appeals to the votes of white men as a group

Not because there is anything wrong with white men per se, but because of the-how do I put this-disquieting history of such appeals....

[lumberjack_jeff]

258. That is apparent.

The disquieting recent history is one of lost elections.

[Warren DeMontague]

299. they are a demographic, like it or not.

[Warren DeMontague]

312. Here's an issue: Men favor Marijuana legalization, statistically, more than women.

Would you be in favor of the Democratic Party attempting to win over more male voters by adjusting our national platform and party priorities to reflect the pro-legalization voting majority, particularly among men?

http://wordpress.vermontlaw.edu/narcolaw/2012/12/05/the-pot-gender-gap-men-favor-women-oppose-marijuana-legalization/

Even if that meant "risking" alienating some women voters who believe we should continue to arrest and incarcerate millions of Americans for pot smoking?

[BP2]

21. The sad reality is that the Senate leader will be an old white guy, just like it is now.

Sorry Harry -- it's harsh, but true.

[marions ghost]

46. There does seem to be a problem

with the attitudes of male voters--something about pride and misdirected anger you are getting at rings true to me. it's not the only factor at work, but one of them.

[lumberjack_jeff]

61. Political parties don't correct voters, they appeal to them. n/t

[marions ghost]

90. If the voters are not hearing you they're not hearing

--no matter how good your appeal is. The Republicans are disproportionately the party of white male dominance. There is an insecurity and sense of being downtrodden among male voters that should be acknowledged. They can't vote for the Democrats, the wussy party, the kumbayah party as they see it. They are attracted to the toughness, to the macho "might makes right', winner take all attitudes and ruthless behavior of the Rethugs.

Just one of many factors but I think it's in there.

[lumberjack_jeff]

262. Guys aren't born with a GOP party ID.

In fact, it appears to many guys that the progressive package (as defined in 2014 terms) is designed to marginalize them.

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2kvezx/what_gamergate_has_taught_me_about_being_a/

I could provide many more examples, starting with the ACA.

It wasn't always this way. Men supported FDR, Kennedy, Carter and Clinton.

Setting aside the basic justice of choosing to represent one gender or the other, the difference between the voting patterns of married women and married men are negligible. In practice, we can't ostracize men without also ostracizing their wives.

[Starry Messenger]

49. +1

[woo me with science]

73. Yeah, nobody noticed he was black until after this:

Funny how everyone turned out when he was promising to rein in the surveillance security state, stand up for the 99 percent and force banks to help homeowners, put on his walking shoes for unions, and not sign anything that didn't include a public option.

[BeyondGeography]

80. If he'd only been a TRUE Progressive!!!

Tonight should tell you something about the relevance of that argument, but it won't.

Carry on.

[woo me with science]

97. LOL. Way to ignore the point.

Lots of crowds....a landslide, even...when he was promising to do all those things.

Nope. No crowds now that he has continued, entrenched, and expanded the Bush agenda for six years. What part of "Given the choice between a real Republican and a fake one, people will choose the real one every time" is difficult to understand?

People don't like being lied to. They resent being played. And even when they know both choices are corrupted by corporate money and working against them, they will oscillate between them in an attempt to send a protest message when they feel trapped.

It's not rocket science....Unless you really *would* like to try to explain how nobody noticed he was black until after that day.

[deutsey]

228. I knew a lot of Democrats after '08

who had dedicated their lives (time, energy, and resources, i.e., $$$) to getting Obama elected were dismayed at his bending over backwards to "reach across the aisle" while the GOP screamed about "death panels" and "socalizm" and him being a "muslin" and all that Tea Party nuttery.

I witnessed this firsthand as the 2010 election was approaching when I attended a townhall meeting where I live (which is a reddish purple part of Maryland). It was put on by Obama For America and the OFA guy told the packed room of these Democrats that he was there to get ideas/feedback from the "grassroots" that he would be put into an Excel spreadsheet and email directly to the White House that very night after the meeting.

What he got was a lot of appalled and angry people demanding to know why the Party wasn't fighting back and putting forth the agenda they had worked so hard for during the campaign. The OFA guy didn't have any answers that placated the anger in that room.

[Number23]

125. Exactly. The same crowd that refuses to accept that far too many Americans consider Obama to be

too liberal will continue on with the vacuous, bewildering and nonsensical argument that Obama is too right wing which is why Americans voted for Republicans.

[BeyondGeography]

128. I expect the board will be flooded with such tripe tomorrow

now that precious email boxes aren't being violated anymore.

[Number23]

135. 'Tripe' is an exceptionally kind word for that sort of cluelessness.

Every poll when asked by Americans "do you think that Obama is a too liberal or conservative?" has by WIDE margins people saying that they believe he is too liberal.

2012 - http://www.gallup.com/poll/152954/half-say-obama-liberal-agree-issues.aspx
2013 - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/11/25/how-liberal-is-president-obama-really/
2014 - http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251382903

This is why so many (including Hillary) are attacking his foreign policy choices and doing the classic Dem-in-office dance of being "worried" about a terrorist attack.

But despite these irrefutable facts, there is a loud, thankfully small though mildly terrifying group here that see these numbers and have concluded that this means that he is too conservative and that this is why people voted for Republicans, because Republicans are more bona fide or... something. Somehow the is the only thing I can think of to respond adequately to that foolishness.

[woo me with science]

157. More importantly, polls show consistently that on actual ISSUES,

voters across party lines are well to the left of the agenda we've been fed under corporatism. By strong margins, voters detest austerity, want to rein in the warmongering, distrust the security state, want to hold banks accountable...

Voters are unhappy with the direction the country is going, by 76 percent, I believe. That's across party lines, too.

And those issues on which they stand clearly to the left of corporate Democrats are precisely the issues about which corporate Democrats lie their way through campaign seasons in order to get votes: because they KNOW the electorate is more liberal than they are.

Application of broad, generic labels such as "liberal" and "conservative" are meaningless in a country where a corporate-purchased media machine consistently distorts the meaning of those words. Hell, FOX New viewers think Obama is a *socialist,* for gawd's sake.

Hell, look at corporatists right here at DU who bleat defense of "Kill Lists" and indefinite detention and corporate school policies and drilling and fracking and mass surveillance and austerity....and then turn around and describe themselves as "liberals"!

What a joke. It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.

[Number23]

188. The fact is the majority of Americans consider Obama too liberal.

And no hysterical screed is going to change that. Even if it's true that most Americans support liberal values, when it comes to the voting booth, as has been proven over and over again, many don't want liberals and they don't like them.

Reality.

[woo me with science]

206. Well, now you're simply repeating the same argument I already answered.

Never a good sign for the strength of your argument.

Nite, nite.

[Number23]

283. Your argument is not and has never been coherent. So there's that.

[Deny and Shred]

280. Based on that logic, we're doomed because ...

... the GOP just has to label every dem as liberal and they lose automatically, their positions on issues be damned.

Which of Obama's efforts were too liberal? He's pushed many issues that are hardly part of the liberal agenda.

If Americans support liberal values and the dems still lose, why continue to move at all to the right? Do you think apathetic American voter guy supports Republican lite over the genuine article? Yesterday should have proved otherwise.

[Number23]

285. As I said, right or wrong, this is a view that many Americans have of this president

If Americans support liberal values and the dems still lose

To me, this is the crux of the issue. WHY do Americans support liberal values/issues but still dislike liberals? That is the biggest issue that needs to be addressed.

Do you think apathetic American voter guy supports Republican lite over the genuine article? Yesterday should have proved otherwise.

That is nonsensical. As I have already showed, people do not view Obama as "Republican lite" so that needs to be your starting point. People view the president as too liberal. So the idea that Obama is viewed as too conservative which is why people voted for Republicans aka "the genuine article" makes absolutely no sense. This was a refutation of what people view as Obama's wild and out of control liberalism.

[Deny and Shred]

288. Whoosh. Obama didn't run yesterday.

All the dems running yesterday who distanced themselves FROM Obama as hard as they could are the 'Republican lite' to which I refer. 'Average voter-guy' had the choice of a Republican or an acting-like-they-are-a-right-leaning-anti-Obama Democrat. The right-leaning dems were trounced by the genuine Republicans. Is that sensical enough?

Nice dodge, too. Which of the President's efforts were too liberal? Especially the 'wild-and-out-of-control' ones. If they weren't actually too liberal why continue to move to the Right since we'll never out-right-wing the GOP?

[Number23]

290. Even the president acknowledged that HIS policies were the ones on the ballot

Surely you must know that. Right??

I did not and have not ever said that I think the president's policies were out of control liberal. And if I misinterpreted your post or the fact that you were interested in a conversation and not being rude as shit for absolutely no reason at all, I apologize.

The whole 'why do people dislike liberals?' thing is becoming much clearer, not that I have any indication that you are one at all.

[Deny and Shred]

298. Easy. I'm all about the conversation.

Instead of answering the question that I asked pretty politely, you go with my point is 'non-sensical', so I tried to elucidate.

Now, you swear at me and tell me I'M rude as sh!t. Oye. Calling Woo's point clueless tripe - is that rude?

The candidates themselves disavowed themselves of the President, his achievements, his policies, and anything to do with him. Several did so to try to paint themselves as just-as-anti-Obama as the Republican.

At that point, Obama's acknowledgements aren't at issue. If they ARE then still the issue, then every single dem candidate ought to have fallen on their sword and conceded the moment he said that because they are all hopelessly tied to what you refer to as his 'wild' liberal policies.


Why do people dislike 'liberals'? Seriously, I could never figure it out. If its clearer to you, please do tell.

If you're saying that I'm solidifying you're dislike of liberals, then I don't know what to tell you other than you're dislike is misplaced.

[nilesobek]

216. Your comments cut right to the core.

Those crowds showed up at the inauguration full of hope and fresh campaign promises. When the reality sets in that this country cannot and will not escape its violent dysfunction, refuses to free itself of the corporations and spies ruling them, and ignores the alarming disparity among classes and minorities, then apathy arrives. The crowd doesn't believe anymore because the President cannot keep all his campaign promises. What President ever has?

In some ways, I feel the USA has trapped itself on top of the heap, and the only way to go is down. We cannot remake the Middle East and sustain this country at the same time. Remember when Bush said the oil would pay for the war? Was that 10 trillion dollars ago? We are trapped defending an old European worldwide empire that Europe was not able to sustain itself. How did we inherit this role in the world? Its destroying us.

I don't blame the Democratic Party or the President for these crushing losses today. The problems are far too broad for that, its systemic and we had better find a cure.

[woo me with science]

149. So how was it that this racism that accounts for low turnout

didn't kick in until AFTER Obama won in a landslide in 2008?

I"m sure you're right that his promises on policy couldn't have had anything to do with the extraordinary enthusiasm for his campaign then.

I'm sure you're right that his promises to put on his comfortable walking shoes to support unions and raise wages, and roll back the horrendous security state, and stand up for Americans against corrupt banks, and not sign anything that didn't have a public option were irrelevant to the enthusiasm. I'm sure that his "Hope and Change" message implying that he would oppose rather than entrench and expand the Bush agenda didn't have anything to do with the crowds.

Somehow, there was a tear in the universe that year that allowed landslide support for him despite the racism that makes it impossible to expect such levels of support for him or any Democrats associated with him now.

But how? Was there a solar phenomenon active just during the months of that campaign that kept voters from noticing his skin color?

[marions ghost]

155. The fact that many of those campaign promises

did not materialize...does not lessen the fact that the changes ARE what this country needs. He just hasn't been able to pull off miracles. For many reasons. But does that mean these goals are wrong? The Obama presidency has clearly defined what we're up against. The fact that he hasn't been able to accomplish these things doesn't mean anyone else can either. The forces against us are very powerful.

[woo me with science]

167. There's that word, "miracle" again. It's a neat way to gloss over the actual record and

to pretend that "miracles" are needed to appoint people to your cabinet and administration who are not raging corporatists, over and over and over again.

To pretend that it takes a "miracle" NOT to go to the Supreme Court over and over again to defend and expand Bush's surveillance and police state. Or decline to renew an executive order collecting mass surveillance on Americans. Or choose not to sign approval of "Kill List" and indefinite detention, or choose not to reject an amendment to your approval of "Kill Lists" that would have made it clear that American citizens are not included. Or reject Cass Sunstein at the door rather than embracing his visions of mass propaganda aimed at Americans to get them to support this fascistic garbage.

To pretend that it takes a "miracle" NOT to embrace Arne Duncan as your education secretary and oversee the continued corporatization of American schools. Or to choose NOT to sell off huge parts of the Gulf of Mexico to gas and oil companies. Or maybe not to choose to ramp up the US nuclear weapons program to the tune of a TRILLION DOLLARS right now, after you've just signed *another* round of food stamp cuts and a farm bill based on "pension smoothing" and one out of four American children live in poverty.

To pretend that it it takes a "miracle" NOT to wage a war against journalists and whistleblowers, to hold a journalist in prison in Yemen, to change the meaning of the Espionage Act so that it now applies even to receipt of leaked information by journalists that is NOT harmful to the United States....and to use that Espionage Act against more journalists than any other president in history....to the point that we are plummeting in press freedoms and reputation around the world.

To pretend that it takes a "miracle" to *start out* in budget negotiations with something on the table other than cuts in social services for the most vulnerable Americans....say, even to MENTION something like corporate welfare instead, or maybe NOT making 75 percent of the Bush tax cuts permanent.

And to CHOOSE....when one third of American families are a paycheck away from homelessness and your "recovery" has resulted in a mass replacement of good jobs with low pay temporary and service work, to CHOOSE as your upcoming big agenda items the TPP and the TISA, which will slash jobs, force Americans to compete with Third World workers, and hand corporations unprecedented power over even our own democratic laws and protections.

You know, people have posted those lists over and over and over again. You know the lists I mean...the ones that keep getting longer and longer and longer....The lists that don't show the administration putting progressive ideas on the table and being obstructed, but rather show them PROACTIVELY, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, defending, entrenching, and expanding the MOST malignant policies that began under Bush and aggressively expanding the corporate agenda.

Remember? Here is a whole truckload of specific examples for you, if you're still pretending you don't:

Poor Obama.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5601580

Seriously. Nobody is asking for a miracle. They are asking for representation for the people rather than corporations. Which they are not getting now, because BOTH PARTIES ARE FLOODED WITH CORPORATE MONEY. Why did President Obama appoint a shill for the telecoms to the FCC, and why is the administration now dragging its feet on protecting net neutrality, all their empty words (read: lies) about their intentions notwithstanding? Look at corporate contributions to the Obama campaign. And multiply that across every issue, across every corporate Democrat and every corporate Republican. The parties are bought. Our nation is bought. A study through Princeton University has confirmed that we are bought.

You know it's systemic and a bipartisan problem. You're not stupid. I don't know the motivations of those who cooperate in selling this garbage, this absurd corporate narrative of incessant denial that poisons this nation and keeps us circling wagons and unable to unite against the corruption that is murdering democracy and allowing these corporate monsters to drive millions into war and poverty and despair. But I wish those participating would take a good, long, hard look at what they really want to stand for in their lives and for their families and children.

Stop pretending. Seriously. Spare it.

[marions ghost]

187. Nice rant

You've listed a lot of the grievances we progressives have against the administration. I don't argue with a thing you've said. All your questions are ones I have.

Yes it's the corporate agenda that is in control. We are bought. I don't advocate circling any wagons around the corruption. The exact opposite. I advocate shining a laser beam on it.

I don't understand why you are dissing me exactly. I think you misinterpreted. We are on the same page. It's no surprise to me that Obama hasn't pulled off any miracles--but I think a lot of people --supporters-- expected him to. I would have been surprised if he WAS able to turn anything around all that much--that's how pessimistic I am. I don't think we have democracy in America. We didn't before him and we don't now.

[woo me with science]

205. What a surreal response.

The whole of your participation in this thread is joining those who mock and belittle any mention of these things and instead push absurd, apologistic fantasy narratives to explain the anger of voters at corporate Democrats ....such as that voters who elected Obama in a landslide are now inexplicably gone too racist to support him even though he is doing a good job.

Don't you get whiplash?

And it's especially absurd, because you continue to act as though he's merely unable to STOP things, even though the examples I gave, over and over again, were of proactive, often unilateral choices to wield a whole new axe after axe at Americans. Is it your contention that he was forced to do all of this proactive damage? He gets memos on his desk saying, "Today you will expand police militarization, or decide to sell off the Gulf of Mexico, or push the TPP, or appoint Cass Sunstein to propagandize Americans re: the NSA? If you truly believe that things have gone so far that Obama is crying at his own agenda and appointments and executive orders, and trembling behind his desk because they keep making him, day after day after day, proactively take these whacks at all of us....

Then how the HELL do you explain your repeated expressions of support and contentment with this presidency, and all your posts praising the administration and supporting those who mock and disparage those of us who point these outrages out, over and over again?

You can't have it both ways. This is the problem with Third Way messaging. It's absurd. It's beyond absurd. It's embarrassing.

[marions ghost]

208. OK stop ranting, and read and hear me

1. I do not defend Obama nor have I EVER defended suckup corporate Democrats. NEVER. Obama has made mistakes --many of them--but I don't necessarily see him as the biggest problem we have. You can make him the fall guy entirely but I see him as part of a whole contingent of middle way Dems including the Clintons. And I see other factors that enable these types of Dems. Did I ever say I like it? You mistake my tone for acceptance. FAR from it.

2. I agreed with your list of grievances against the administration--every one of them. I do not support the Obama track record as a whole--can I be ANY more clear? But then I didn't expect him to change anything much from the beginning. You need to understand I am coming from a very cynical place. I don't believe any elected official can stop what is happening in this country.

3. When did I bring in anything about racism? I accuse nobody.

4. You're looking for a target and it ain't me. Or you have me mixed up with somebody else.

[marions ghost]

145. It is nonsensical IMO also

Obama is seen as a BIG contrast to the Repigs. More progressive-ism would not have reached those who are centrist or conservative.

[Number23]

152. That's exactly right. In my later post I posted links to polls that say that many Americans

consider the president ALREADY too liberal. I just went back to 2012 but that is a consistent perception (right or wrong) that the majority of Americans have of this president.

So the befuddling and befuddled argument that Obama and the Dems had such a poor showing because they weren't liberal ENOUGH makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Not even a little bit.

[marions ghost]

161. Right

--they see liberal values and strategies as having failed. More liberal policies obviously speak to many on our side --sure I'd love to see some liberal candidates, but they would be fought and marginalized.

Because the other side wants NO real opposition.

[lumberjack_jeff]

242. We voted for him thinking he was going to be a liberal.

They rejected him when his corporatist policies were found to be no different than everyone who came before.

[Number23]

286. I did not vote for Obama because I thought he was going to be a liberal

And neither did alot of Democrats, independents and Republicans who hated McCain/Romney.

And I guess those "corporatist" policies are what's lead to the winding down of the war in Iraq, health insurance for more Americans than ever before, increased protections for gay Americans, a DoJ that is interested in civil rights for the first time in decades, more women/liberals on the Supreme Court and other policies that just scream "corporatist" to a (THANKFULLY) miniscule few.

[sibelian]

202. You think America's stupid...

And you wonder why they won't vote for you.

Maybe they KNOW you think they're stupid. It's not like your opinion of them is a secret.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

231. One needs to be careful about painting large groups of people with the same brush.

Conservatives aren’t going to like liberal policies regardless of the color of the person involved, just like you wouldn’t like conservative values regardless of race (I'm assuming).

Painting everything as racism dilutes those real acts of racism out there.

[BeyondGeography]

233. As I mentioned, a white woman would get the same treatment

Most white men wouldn't do that much better. Poll after poll shows non-college educated whites think government should do less. Meantime, they fall further behind. There's more to it than racism (as I also suggested) although that is a major factor.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

237. Then you should rephrase the title of you previous post.

You cant exactly title it "White guys hate the President" and turn around and say "There's more to it than racism" when the title scream racism.

You can see how that would be confusing right?

[BeyondGeography]

238. If you only read the title, yes

[BP2]

10. We lost because of Netflix and video games. As long as young people

have these comforts, why bother to get out and vote?

[TacoD]

247. And what would your solution to the Netflix and video game problem be?

[DonCoquixote]

11. ah yes

blame those women. Hey, didn't we field a lot of bland candidates that begged white males to say "please vote for me" only to get rejected by that party of white males, the GOP? (sarcasm)

There will be no amount of kissing up to them to make them like us, or as truyman put it, given a chocie between fake and real republicans, the realrepublican wins ever time" too bad the country loses.

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. The only woman I'd blame is the DNC chairwoman. She helped choose the policies. n/t

[DonCoquixote]

41. and to just said that we depend too much

on single woman voters,....please, do not try to wiggle.

[KingCharlemagne]

104. I blame Pelosi for taking impeachment off the table back in 2006. Pelosi demonstrated thereby

that Dems were almost as cynical and amoral as Republicans.

[AleksS]

13. Because we ran away from our issues.

Because we ran away from our issues.

Notice how well minimum wage referendums did for example.

People DO like the issues. Which is why it is baffling that we ran away from them.

When the Republicans put a popular ballot initiative (think gay marriage bans) on the ballot, they tie their campaign to it. Why didn't we when we had the chance?

[Wella]

14. Dark money, Citizens United

Crossroads GPS

[marions ghost]

55. Right

a bigger factor than people want to admit.

[deutsey]

229. +1

[Hissyspit]

15. 1.) It's a 6-year midterm election

3/4 of the way into a two-term Dem Presidency.

This is not historically atypical.

[BP2]

28. It didn't make a difference for Bill in '98.

[Hissyspit]

45. You are correct.

But they did retain House and Senate.

I was just listing it as the first reason, not the only one. Pres. Obama is not under (serious) threat of impeachment.

[lancer78]

50. The economy was going gangbusters

and public backlash over impeachment.

[amandabeech]

306. The economy was unbelievable.

Even though Obama is unpopular for reasons discussed here all the time, if middle and lower income people thought that the economy FOR THEM was really picking up, we would have done better.

Here at DU, there are many non-economic issues that motivate us, but for the average voter, the economy is the first issue almost all the time.

Way back in 2008, the President picked the wrong folks for his economic team to begin with, didn't change them when the economy for the average person didn't perk up.

At this point, it seems that the economy will just limp along like this for a long time, if not get worse with more stupid trade bills. No one in Washington will pay attention to the fact that the Korean trade agreement didn't result in new jobs here in the US, so long as corporations can make more money.

[Art_from_Ark]

77. In Bill's case, 1998 was backlash against the impeachment circus

However, Bill lost the House in 1994-- after 40 years of control by the Democrats.

[Warren DeMontague]

291. Because the GOP massively overreached, trying to impeach him over a blowjob.

It backfired.

[cemaphonic]

184. Yes, exactly

Plus, the southeast is heavily represented in this Senate grouping, and we did unusually well in this group in 2008 thanks to Obama's coattails, and the unaligned being sick of Republicans at the tail end of the Bush administration.

Doesn't make it a foregone conclusion of course, but the odds were against us from a structural viewpoint, even before any of the actual races started.

[libtodeath]

16. We didnt have a real choice,our red/purple state candidates said we are really the same

so vote for us.
If you are going to lose you might as well lose fighting rather then treading water.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

132. Yes, you have to be DIFFERENT from the opposition

People in business know that if your product is exactly the same as your competitor's, you look like a cheap knock-off. Your product has to have distinguishing features.

[AgingAmerican]

17. Centrism

When you live in a country with no center, centrism fails EVERY time.

Well played, centrists!

[Marr]

103. Agreed.

The easy answer is voter apathy, but that's only a symptom. Voters were apathetic because they didn't have a party to vote for that was unabashedly pro-working class, and actually pushing real, tangible things to improve their lives. The working class and all of the social systems they've built, maintained, and depended on is being looted by the investor class, with the help of both political parties.

[TwilightGardener]

18. The media plants the idea of the opposition party

taking over the Senate, pounds on the President for everything, buys and promotes the R narrative and framing since 2012, chickenshit Dems don't bother standing together as a party or defending the President, and this is the result.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

163. THIS RIGHT HERE! Problem is, Democrats are just as susceptible for the corporate media memes and

propaganda as everyone else. We pretend not to be, but we are. I see it every single day right here on DU when it comes to this president, in particular.

[TwilightGardener]

175. When the President is successfully blamed for Secret Service not protecting him or his family

(chalked up to his supposed lack of management skills, or some such bullshit), there's no salvaging the country, for the time being.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

183. Yep. You're right. Today's Washington Post's op-ed about "6 mistakes Obama made" that cost the Dems.

Was absolutely bullshit!

They blamed Obama for the beheadings by ISIS and wavering on whether to send troops to war? What?
They blamed Obama for the ebola crisis. Really?
They blamed him because Republicans shut down the government. Oh yes indeed!
They blamed Obama for the lack of immigration reform, even though the Republican congress blocked every single measure. (Now, I think this is the only valid argument because the day he reversed himself on immigration reform was a HUGE mistake. I actually do think that he may have turned off Hispanic voters. Nevertheless, it's Obama's fault, according to the writers, that women and children were being raped and killed at the Texas border.)
They blamed him for the ACA rollout. O.K. somewhat valid but negated by all the successes we've seen.

And I can't remember what the last one was.

But every single day, I come here on DU and witness Democrats peddling these exactly same memes that the Corporate Media and Republicans dish out and lay at the feet of this president--all the while saying nothing about the fact that Republicans have done absolutely nothing to help ordinary Americans.

Oh, we deserve what we get. We deserve it all.

[Dont call me Shirley]

22. Because the lies have been told enough times now that the voters believe them

[Brigid]

23. Sorry, but I am going to break rule #2.

Far too many Americans are complete f****** morons. This election is a perfect illustration of that.

[Vattel]

24. I don't know, but I hope it is because

Latinos didn't turn out to vote for Dems who break their promises to Latinos. At least that might send a good message to Dems.

[maced666]

25. None of the above.

If I had to pick one it would be B

[LittleBlue]

26. Pretty simple. $1tr to fight ISIS passed with no debate

No relief for those who are getting poorer every year. Just doctored unemployment and inflation numbers. We're up there with a straight face touting stock market gains as proof that life for ordinary people is improving.

Winning the war of ideas wasn't the problem. It's turnout. The Democratic base is demoralized by this shit. The political process is broken and people aren't showing up to vote because they don't think it will make a difference.

[Puzzledtraveller]

83. Winner!

spot on.

[Inkfreak]

217. "26. Pretty simple. $1tr to fight ISIS passed with no debate"

So true!!!

[Rex]

29. Mostly because we have a main stream media that uses social engineering to get what they want.

And what they want is simple - to get as many corporate bodies in office as possible. Also they work for the same paymasters (the M$M and GOP) and that is their most powerful weapon.

The M$M is to blame for our sharp turn right over the last few decades.

[marions ghost]

101. A large part of it

---LARGE part.

[Baitball Blogger]

30. Maybe there wasn't enough of an agenda to interest the minority vote?

[Qutzupalotl]

33. The numbers were against us too long on the economy.

Just now that it's improving, they'll take credit, you watch.

[H. Cromwell]

52. add to it...

too many people still not working or working min wage jobs. No real economic improvement.

[Qutzupalotl]

119. The Cheap Labor Republicans won't be any help there.

The party that practically invented outsourcing under Bush.

[msongs]

34. harry truman said it decades ago: Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a

Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time

More truman quotes showing he knows what current party leadership is incapable of understanding: http://www.firedupmissouri.com/editorials/10-truest-things-harry-truman-said-about-republicans

[dflprincess]

35. That's just what I was going to post.

Though I expect the Wall Street sell outs will continue to pull the Democrats to the right.

[KittyKat13]

37. Racism

The re-thugs made race the issue. I can't believe it worked for them, but it did .

[Puzzledtraveller]

84. No, us overusing this claim did not help us.

When you claim anyone who doesn't agree with you on all points is a racist they may begin to not like you, on all points.

[LeftInTX]

38. For the same reason we lost in 2010

The Redneck Spring which never went away. Voter apathy, R turn out higher during midterms, Koch brothers, Citizen's United etc.

You know that Sheldon Adelson pumped a bunch of money into Florida to beat the med marijuana referendum. Scared all the seniors into thinking that they would have criminals in their back yards. Who has that much money to throw around on something like that? Go figure.

[marions ghost]

114. Yep

---

[quakerboy]

40. It all goes back offering a contrast

We've got R and R lite. We had candidates running away from democratic principles.

However, I reject your "ground rules", particularly C. We did have the deck stacked against us via fraud, vote suppression, gerrymandering, etc. I tend to think without that we would likely have had significant pickups in the house without those factors, and we might even have held the senate.

[Scootaloo]

42. You really want to know?

Just curious. Do you really want to know?

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. Yes. n/t

[Scootaloo]

123. Alright.

The democratic party lost tonight because for the most part the party is composed of losers. it's not this demographic or that one, it's not any one magic button, it's everything. It's systemic. You know how people here will tell you to "hold your nose ang vote?" Well, that smell you're protecting your nose from is gangrene. Internal rot.

The democratic Party has abandoned the left, has ditched progressivism, retreats from the liberal label at every turn. I'm willing to believe that this isn't out of a sincere desire to do so, on the part of all the candidates. But the infection is clearly circulating around the heads of our party. Word from on high is that liberalism is damaging, avoid it. Progressivism is chancy, don't even try. leftism is suicide, stay away!

After all, you heard Rahm Emmanual, we're all a bunch of "fucking retards," we liberals, and progressives, and leftists. Embracing the right is a winner, the party leads tell us. Again and again, they tell us that they need more money, always more and more money, but does policy ever change?

As others on this thread are saying, if people want republican policy, they will vote republican. And when republican policies are all that's offered? Same thing, they'll go with the experts on that policy; republicans. And of course the problem isn't just the policy (or lack of it) - it's the sources of that policy. it's time that we, as voters, turn our backs on the conservative and centrist dems who have consistently proven that they only seek office for reasons of self-interest. Lop off the dead limbs. Tuck down the big tent a little bit, it doesn't need to be that big.

So long as the Democrats keep being the center-right accommodation party, they will keep losing. And I don't think there's anyone in the party who can light ass-fires quite like Obama did in 2008, so, we have two years to figure out how to get the right-lighters the fuck gone and bring the left back - and with it, all those "undecided" voters who are undecided primarily because they can't see a useful difference. We can't rely on a personality to pull us through 2016, we need policy and principle.

[BlindTiresias]

179. Excellent post

[laundry_queen]

218. + a million. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

263. I agree about articulating principle and values.

Policy too often gets confused and commingled with electoral calculus.

I see the world through my own lens, but I'd start with the word "equality" and create values around that, not just policy designed to put misplace a wedge in the electorate.

Thanks for the candid answer.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

102. Hey, scoot. Hoe goes?

[Scootaloo]

127. Sawright

McDermott beat Keller like paper beats rock. Kind of expected, keller was just there so the republicans could have claimed to run someone, nothing else.

Sucks about the rest of the country though, yeah?

[jamzrockz]

43. Its the economy stupid

When you have a shitty economy the voters stay home or vote for the other guy. I know, I know, the numbers say we are having a recovery. The unemployment numbers are low, the stock market is sky high but the truth is that most average Americans don't believe it.

[maryellen99]

94. If that's the case why did Romney not win? Nt

[Scootaloo]

129. Because putting Romney in charge of money is like putting Jack Sparrow in charge of the rum

But he'll get his chance in 2016. Think democrats will wise up and find a real candidate by then?

[maryellen99]

131. Let's hope so nt

[TBF]

275. Stock market and unemployment

are extremes at either end. With the exception of their 401Ks (which are rip offs) most Americans are not investors. Unemployment numbers may be a little lower but that isn't going to give you a large number of votes either. Overall, middle America knows that they are having a hard time economically. So they blame the people in charge - which happened to be democrats.

It also looks like voter turnout was again the big issue - with maybe 40% making it to the polls. 60% took a pass. That is what the democratic leadership needs to look at.

[Le Taz Hot]

44. We need to run as LIBERALS.

And ensure there is a Democratic challenger in every race.

[Throd]

47. Fuck it. I still have beer. We'll talk tomorrow.

[lumberjack_jeff]

56. Maybe a good plan.

Except, humans being who we are, most of our quality thinking time will be used inventing rationalizations.

I think we should stare this defeat square in the eyes... now... and learn something.

[JI7]

51. Red States, Ebola, ISIS , Black President, Whore Media, and Voters actually WANT that Creepy

ass fucking Governor of FLorida.

[workinclasszero]

53. Failure to differentiate ourselves from fu**** republicans

Give a working class person a reason to vote. Or a collage grad drowning in student loan debt, etc.

I mean hell lots of dems ran hard to the right it would seem and the results tonight show how well that worked LOL!

Why vote for a republican lite democrat when you can have the pure hate from a republican bagger?

[BKH70041]

57. I think you're onto something.

You can't build a party appealing to young women, minorities, and eggheads. That'll never be enough, and you could see tonight coming months ago.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

58. To some extent, we're overthinking this

1) In virtually all two-term presidencies, the midterm after the re-election whipsaws against the party holding the WH. There are a bunch of technical reasons for this, but it has a lot to do with first term Senators who rode in on the President's coattails getting knocked out. Similar results took place in 1986 and 2006.

2) Americans don't feel like the economy is recovering.

3) Americans feel like the government is dysfunctional, and blame the Democrats inasmuch as Barack Obama is a Democrat.

4) Young people and African Americans weren't showing up in the kind of numbers they came out in 2008 and 2012. We did not unite behind a message that brought them to the polls.

[Barack_America]

59. If Dems are going to be the "not Republican" party...

...as opposed to actually fighting for a platform, voters are going to need to be continually reminded "why not Republican".

If you don't use political capital when you're given it, you're going to end up handing it right back.

Of course that's never going to happen as long as both parties are beholden to the same corporations. Dem vs. Republican has fundamentally become a brand war. And really, how much of a difference is there between Coke and Pepsi?

If it weren't for the Supreme Court, there would be no point to any of this...

[geek tragedy]

63. Fancy that --the Men's Rights crowd blaming women.

Or, rather, blaming people who are identified with women.

[lumberjack_jeff]

67. I'd be interested in seeing the exit polling.

I suspect that, like in previous elections, married women voted for the Republicans, so don't presume to speak for women.

The problem with wedge politics is knowing where the wedge is going.

[geek tragedy]

69. The problem is that the disadvantaged don't vote.

The privileged do.

Shrugs.

[lumberjack_jeff]

74. Well maybe today's winners will represent the disadvantaged.

Failing that, maybe next time we should win.

[geek tragedy]

107. Most people hate the government and then they vote for

people who validate that hate.

Kansans voted to ratify Sam Brownback's economic policies. I'm not going to lose sleep trying to figure out how to appeal to the hopelessly stupid. The solution is to live in areas where they are a minority.

We'll win in 2016, the Presidency at least.

Our base manages to show up in presidential years. Apparently they don't care about congress or state level races.

[marions ghost]

110. True

the system is skewed to favor the privileged and they are now taking full advantage.

[YoungDemCA]

144. Married WHITE women skew that result

nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

243. Married women - in general - supported Romney

The truth, though, is that other demographic characteristics have considerably more significance. A widely reported example is marital status. Fifty-three percent of married female voters went for Romney. Among single women, by contrast, Romney was about as popular as an extra 20 pounds; a mere 31 percent supported him. The gap between married and single women, then, is wider than the male-female gap that the media have been touting. And it isn’t new; married women have voted Republican in every presidential election since 1980, with the one exception of 1996, when they preferred President Clinton by 4 percentage points.

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/eon1116kh.html

The things that are important to single women are not the same things that are important to married ones.

[YoungDemCA]

251. Reread what I said. Married white women skew that result

I can't imagine many married black women, or married Hispanic women, or married Asian women, voting Republican-can you?

And note that married women aren't nearly as Republican as single women are Democratic.

What exactly do you mean by this?: "The things that are important to single women are not the same things that are important to married ones."

[lumberjack_jeff]

257. I'd be interested to see any polling that supports what you're saying.

and my meaning should be immediately apparent, and more importantly, supported by the polling data.

The efforts that democrats have made to appeal to women voters have only been effective with single women.

[jillan]

66. I'm going to add that the left does not have a voice in the media. Look at us -

Jon Stewart and Bill Maher are the only ones that report the news.

Even Rachel has gone soft.

We lost Randi Rhodes. Ed Schultz was replaced by Alan Colmes on my drive home on the radio.

All the righties have to do is scream Librul Media and the liberals back down.

Dems are never even on the Sunday shows.

They scream Isis! Ebola! and everyone is talking about Isis and Ebola and how we are all going to die.

We need a voice. We need another Keith without the temper.

We need to control the message instead of responding to their message.

[AndyTiedye]

86. They Own the Media

Robber barons bought the media so they could control the message.
We don't have enough money to do a hostile takeover, which is what it would take to get it back.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

193. Thanks to Bill Clinton. I don't understand why DU won't listen to me. As must as liberals/Dems bash

Obama, it was really Clinton's policies that we are feeling the effects from.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 deregulated the media to the point that there is now no truth in advertising; no standards for reporting; hence, Chuck Todd declaring that it's not his job to report the truth. Now there's 5 or 6 mega-media conglomerates, and we wonder why Rachel Maddow, who is no smarter than Randi Rhodes, has "gone soft".

We complain that though Obama has created jobs, those jobs suck. Why do those jobs suck? Thanks to free trade policies under Bush I, Clinton and Bush II, the good jobs are gone. It's all now about cheap labor. An under-skilled working class now. That's not Obama's fault, though he gets blamed for shit that previous presidents set in stone.

I could go on and on, but I think you catch my drift.

[AndyTiedye]

210. It Has Been That Way Since Reagan Killed the Fairness Doctrine

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

211. Yes, Reagan dismantled the Fairness Doctrine, but deregulation under Clinton killed ANY

hopes of bringing it back. We've got to be honest about that.

If we wonder why even MSNBC is peddling pro corporate media memes and Chuck Todd tells us that he has no responsibility to correct the record, we've got to understand exactly what has happened to our once-esteemed Fourth Estate.

[KMOD]

68. No coherent platform, and some felt kicked out of the tent. Just my opinion.

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. Agree.

http://www.vox.com/2014/11/1/7136343/gamergate-and-the-politicization-of-absolutely-everything

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2kvezx/what_gamergate_has_taught_me_about_being_a/

[YoungDemCA]

142. ....

[Puzzledtraveller]

81. +1

[Puzzledtraveller]

76. overusing same messages

Most people I talked to said they wanted to hear what they would do better, not what republicans might do if they win, etc..

[Blaukraut]

78. The usual midterm cycle of losing Senate seats.

Other than that, the message could have pivoted to the economy, but I doubt it would have made much of a difference. The President's party has always lost Senate seats in the midterms. Just buckle down for a rough ride. 201 we'll take them all back and then some.

[brooklynite]

93. Doesn't explain our poor performance in Blue State Governorships...

MA: Martha Coakley losing
CT: Dannel Malloy losing
MD: Anthony Brown losing
IL: Pat Quin declared loser

[geek tragedy]

116. Lousy candidates and the reality that white people

(A) are more rightwing than they've ever been in our history and (b) vote in disproportionate numbers in off - year elections.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

177. Being from Maryland and still in shock, I have several explanations for why Brown lost.

He and Coakley had the same problem:

They are policy wonks. Very effective at their jobs but are very weak candidates.
If MA has issues electing women to higher office, then MD has the same problem with women and blacks. Brown would have been the first black governor
But, Anthony's real mistake: he botched the implementation of Obamacare at the state level and that was just unacceptable in a BLUE state. We can blame the Republicans all we want, but there's no excuse when it's the bluest of BLUE states. He was put directly in charge of this administration and botched it terribly. That hung around his neck for awhile.
One other issue: Apparently Maryland voters--I assert many of them higher-class whites--complained about high taxes. I live in Montgomery County, perhaps the wealthiest or one of the wealthiest counties in the nation; high performing schools. But in recent years, we've been competing very heavily with counties in VA, namely Fairfax, County, which boasts lower tax rates but just as good if not better performing schools. While O'Malley left office fairly popular and voters seemed to appreciate all he's done for the state, for some reason, they think change in the form of a Republican would be better. Honestly I've never understood this logic. If the Democrats are doing well and managing well, why switch parties? I think the high taxes have become an issue, especially if we're competing with VA.

Pat Quinn made a lot of mistakes in IL. He seemed always at odds with the Democratic legislature. Another weak candidate.
Daniel Malloy? I don't get that one. I thought he was a strong candidate.

As for Coakley, I am baffled. She is the worst candidate ever! Why do MA Dems insist on running her for office? After Patrick had done such an outstanding job in that state, I simply don't get why the Democrats just give away the pooch.

Apparently low voter turnout hurt the Democrats across the board.

But when you have a Corporate Media gleefully shouting 24-7 that Republicans are poised to win, why bother. Anthony Brown should have won the state handily, but it looks like black voters in Prince George's County and Baltimore City decided to stay home today. Why? Maybe they thought Brown had the election won. I certainly thought he did. Even when the polls started tightening up, I had no clue and did not expect Hogan to win at all. I'm still very much in shock and very much embarrassed by my state.

[amandabeech]

308. I'm in Maryland, and the Obamacare roll-out was really a problem for Brown.

I didn't want to pull the lever for Brown after that botch job, but I did.

A lot of people probably stayed home because they didn't want to either. Why reward someone who did so badly in such an important roll?

And now we're stuck with Hogan. I just hope that the legislature is able to reign him in.

[Zorra]

79. Democrats squandered all their political capital in 2009-2010 by

not crushing republicans when they had the chance. Their very first move should have been to end the filibuster. We could have had a decades long dynasty.

Instead, we have tonight.

Their Third Way policies have destroyed our party; it's hard not to believe that this was the plan from the moment Obama was elected.

Tonight was the coup de grace.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

98. They also squandered a lot of political capital attempting to install post-Newtown gun reform

I'll be curious to see if the Republicans try to end the filibuster.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

108. You really should look forward instead of backward.

Wear comfortable shoes and stick to your robust core principles.

[Zorra]

133. I've always found that learning from my mistakes helps me avoid repeating them.

Maybe the DNC should hire me for the 2016 election.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

88. My theories

1. Ebola (fear!)
2. ISIS (fear!)
3. Low Democratic voter turnout (a problem which continues to plague us).

[lumberjack_jeff]

272. re: #3. We should do more to appeal to those who vote. n/t

[AZ Progressive]

89. Republicans succeeded in getting the people to blame Obama for not getting things done

and then taking their anger on Obama by voting for the Republican candidate or not voting for Democratic candidates.

[KingCharlemagne]

92. Refusal to 'natioanlize' the election to counter Republicans' anti-Obama

messaging. If Republicans wanted to make 2014 a referendum on Obama, Dems should have picked up the guantlet and shoved it down those fascists' throats. Instead, they ran like a bunch of fucking chickensh*ts, as though the American people couldn't see that chickensh*t behavior for the cowardice that it was and is.

Now we're all going to get raped for the next two years. 2016 can't come soon enough.

[still_one]

95. There is no question in my mind is it is because of Ebola, and if President Obama hadn't brought

Ebola over from Kenya, where he was born as a Muslim, we would be celebrating a victory right


(Note: Sarcasm)

[JCMach1]

99. FEAR

- Ebola, ISIS, etc etc etc


MONEY

and

DEMOCRATIC MIDTERM APATHY

[lastlib]

100. 1) Repuglikkkan gerrymandering;

2) No Dem message ("Vote for us because they suck" isn't a message). We RAN AWAY from our strongest messages--it's still the economy, stupid, and we didn't hold our record out against theirs.

3) Media alliance w/ GOP--this rigs the game against us.

There's more bouncing around in my head right now, but I'm too tired and disgusted and sick to my stomach to put it into words tonight.

[WinkyDink]

111. The R-W media drumbeat of ISIS and Ebola and Obama's "incompetence." Geraldo called these the

"October Surprise."

Moreover, no Democrat, including the Prez, ballyhooed the economy's improvement.

[marions ghost]

122. yep to the drumbeat

--the lying, the distortion, the whipping up of fear

I don't think the economic arguments were going to have an effect. People vote their gut.

[flamingdem]

120. Sorry for this but - female candidates in mid terms when voters are

old white male farts.

[lumberjack_jeff]

273. If the voters are "old white male farts"

Then to win we should reevaluate our strategies.

[Waiting For Everyman]

121. Too many people did not vote.

A lot of these races were very close. I would take a hard look at left-leaning independent types.

[Tsiyu]

124. Vast disenfranchisement- 40,000 in Georgia alone

voter apathy from all the tales of a do-nothing Congress.

A populace that feels cut off from the political process.

Biggest reason among actual voters: Some are zealots and vote the way their preacher tells them to, some are die-hard Republicans and many this mid-term had no clue what Democrats stood for, but plenty of ads demonizing Democrats.

And please don't discount fraudulent ballots. No one is that naive.

[steve2470]

126. lack of Democratic turnout was a factor

It definitely was in Florida.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

130. The Dems should have learned from the experience of Labour in Britain

Margaret Thatcher, like Ronald Reagan, wrecked the lives of the working class in the UK and was rejected by voters in 1997 for Labour. So what did Labour do? They not only failed to undo any of the damage that Thatcher had done but also added offenses of their own, like the Iraq War, increased surveillance and heavy-handed police techniques; allowing unlimited immigration by Eastern Europeans, thereby creating competition for lower-level jobs; and in general favoring the banksters over the ordinary people.

As a result, Britain voted the Conservatives back in 2011. They're even worse than before, cutting welfare benefits, raising tuition at universities, etc.

Now two recently prominent parties are the Scottish Nationalists in Scotland, although they lost their referendum, and the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which is anti-immigration and anti-EU, with fascist overtones.

In both cases, from what I can see in the UK press and on the websites of these parties, there's a great deal of "What have you done for me lately?" in both protest groups.

The Scottish Nationalists like the fact that their part of the UK is the most politically and economically liberal, and they feel that England is a drag on them, and the UKIP are white working class people who feel ignored and disrespected. I can't really compare them to the Tea Party, since they don't have a black president to react against, but they feel downright oppressed by the Conservatives and ignored and unrepresented by Labour.

Over here, the Dems have forgotten their roots and what they stand for. It's as simple as that. They have forgotten how to appeal to working class voters with programs that really benefit them. They have forgotten how to be bold. They worry more about their donors than about ordinary people.

The best case scenario would be that this defeat serves as a wake-up call for the Dems, but I'm not hopeful. The loss of the Senate in 2002 brought us only more timidity.

If we had proportional representation here, I'd vote Green or Socialist. That's how disgusted I am with the way Democratic politicians continually buddy up to corporate interests.

If I had the ear of Democratic strategists, I would tell them to go into communities with high percentages of non-voters and just LISTEN for about a year. Contrary to the myth spread by the Beltway crowd, non-voters aren't refraining from voting because the Dems are "too liberal." After all, if they want more conservative candidates, the Republicans are available.

I firmly believe that working class non-voters fail to vote for the same reasons that educated non-voters fail to vote: they feel that politicians are a bunch of self-important egotists who are in it for the money and don't do anything that really effects positive changes in the lives of ordinary people.

The ACA? Well, it improved things for some people, but as we all know, in too many cases, it has just given people insurance that they can't afford to use, and by leaving Medicaid decisions up to the states, it made sure that people in large parts of the country don't benefit. (I hate to play "I told you so," but I told you so.)

Instead of adopting Mitt Romney's health plan, Obama and the Dems should have told the Blue Dogs where they could stuff their contributions from the insurance companies and then put single payer on the table as their first bargaining chip. Sure, the Republicans would have kicked and screamed, but I have already outlined in other posts about how Obama should have borrowed a trick from Reagan and gone on TV to appeal directly to the public, as well as mobilizing his still "warm" swarms of volunteers.

Trade agreements? Nobody but corporate types likes those. Really. Lay off already. They have devastated entire communities.

Bailing out the banks without penalty? This is one of the few issues that brought universal condemnation from both right and left in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune's website. (Minnesota may be bluer than the average state, but our right-wingers can get pretty nutty and are usually racist.)

More wars? I am no fan of Dr. Phil (my mother was), but I do like one of his pet phrases. "How's that workin' for you?" Appropriate for use whenever the Republicans start saber-rattling.

Now I'm going to say something controversial, and I hope that people to whom these issues are important don't take offense, but in campaigning in red states, we need to emphasize behavioral issues less and economic issues more. For example, if a heckler brings up abortion, don't get involved in a fight about it, just say, "How is preventing abortion going to bring jobs back to your community?" and move on. Or if a heckler brings up guns, ask pointedly, "Name me one Democratic politicians who has proposed banning all guns" and then move on. Or if someone starts raging about "queers," say, "Same-sex marriage is gradually becoming the law of the land. If you don't like it, don't marry another man" (chances are likely that the heckler will be male) and move on.

The Dems need to get together and develop a unified populist message and tell their candidates in no uncertain terms that only those who support that message will get support from the national committees. Give preferential treatment to the Progressive Caucus.

When the time comes to campaign, emphasis free, open rallies rather than meetings with corporate contributors. Raise funds through fundraisers affordable by ordinary people.

Suppose you raise a million dollars with five hundred contributors who give you $2000 each at a series of rubber chicken dinners. Now imagine that you raise a million dollars with 2500 contributors who each give you $200. Which approach yields more votes? Or go into less affluent neighborhoods and run a lower-budget campaign with pizza fundraisers for $50 (taking a clue from Oregon's Peter DeFazio) or a bare bones campaign for poor neighborhoods with $5 coffee and cookie fundraisers. Remember, you don't need money if you can get the votes another way. Above all, those cheap fundraisers will put you in touch with ordinary people.

[laundry_queen]

223. excellent post

I like your point about how things worked out in the UK too. One thing I noticed in Canada during our last election, in which the NDP, a socialist party, became official opposition (yes Stephen Harper won a majority, but it was the first time a socialist leaning party ever had so many votes) was that when the left stands up for their principles, the right might not like them but they respect them. My family is quite conservative but in that particular election, whenever Jack Layton (then the leader of the NDP) was mentioned, the comments were along the lines of, "I don't agree with his policies, but I respect him. You know where he stands, and he fights for what he believes in. That's admirable." That was from people who would rather die than vote NDP. Imagine the people who were undecided and how they liked the message. People will pick strength over wishy-washy every time and it's pretty hard to be 'strong' on centrist, moderate policies.

[YoungDemCA]

134. The Democrats did not turn out enough voters

nt

[LadyHawkAZ]

137. We lost???

I was under the impression that we got exactly what we wanted.

I don't know where you've been the last couple of years, but all I've been hearing is:

"Obama is a Nazi/Stasi/authoritarian/fascist/corporate Dem/failure/disappointment/warmonger/not a real liberal" (this is known as "discussing policy disagreements&quot

and

"~insert random (D) name here~ is a corporate/center-right/warmongering/DINO/not a real progressive" (this is known as "holding feet to the fire&quot

and

"Give us something to vote FOR, not AGAINST"/"I don't vote for the lesser of the evils"/"Principle before party!"/"We need real progressives"/"Scare tactics like "Republicans would be a lot worse" won't get MY vote!" etc.

We were all reliably and repeatedly informed that this was in no way related to rodents having intercourse. So presumably all the people who were ever so vocal about voting their conscience either stayed home or voted third party, since to have said all that and then voted Democrat would have been, well, rodents, right? Therefore, the desired outcome has been achieved- we stood on principle and ejected a few of the elitist bastards. Next time they'll earn my vote instead of taking it for granted!

So what exactly did we lose?

[lumberjack_jeff]

246. Our club is more pure now.

[brentspeak]

141. 1) A debacle of a Democratic president

A man who was trotted out by 3rd Way corporatists for this very moment: so that there could be a a corporatist Democratic president signing "bipartisan" legislation written by a GOP-controlled Congress.

[LeftyMom]

146. You blame women. Shocking.

[lumberjack_jeff]

278. If you're not Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, I'm not blaming you. n/t

[YoungDemCA]

150. Another factor I would add: the urban-rural divide doesn't favor us in midterms

Sure there are a lot more people in urban areas than in the countryside, but many of the demographics most favorable to the Democratic Party-the poor, ethnic and racial minorities, young people-don't vote at the same rate as rural and suburban, middle-class white people do. Middle-class (broadly speaking) white people in rural and suburban areas=the Republican voter base.

Also with the way districts are drawn and how Democratic voters are packed into cities via gerrymandering doesn't help. Or the fact that two Senators from Wyoming=two Senators from California. Lots of urban-rural inequality in terms of population distribution between different states and within them, as well.

[frazzled]

153. Each race had its own reasons

To try to find an overarching answer is a fool's errand, imo. If the American people had consistent political philosophies, perhaps one could attempt such a general analysis. But they don't.

There were many factors at play tonight, from candidates' personalities and missteps to funny commercials, voter apathy or misunderstanding, or just plain conservatism.

Plus, historically, the party in presidential power for a second term ALWAYS loses seats in a 6th year. That's been true since Eisenhower. It's simply a fact, and we shouldn't have been surprised about most of tonight's results.

[kentuck]

174. I hope the explanation is that simple...

But I have doubts.

[kentuck]

156. King Charlemagne had a thread a day or two ago....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025717948#post164

The real battle is between "centrist Dems and progressive Dems (Socialists and other points left)."


(my response)
That is where the real battle is and it divides the Democratic Party, in my opinion. We would be a much stronger Party if were to differentiate between the two for voting purposes. The traditional Democrats would support labor issues, such as increase in minimum wage and organizing unions, defending Social Security and Medicare, and equal rights for all workers, support for the 2nd Amendment, and protecting the privacy of Americans.

On the other hand, we would have the Progressive Democrats, which must always be a branch of the Democratic Party, because neither of them could exist on their own as a viable Party. They allow the traditional Democratic Party to always have room for growth. We grow in areas like civil rights, gay rights and gay marriage, equal pay for women, questioning the voracious appetite of the defense industry, at the expense of others, that may be more needy, in our society.

The Progressives would also call for more strict gun laws. We have to find a way to keep these guns out of the hands of mentally-deranged people. It is to the benefit of us all.

Progressives would be the part of the Democratic Party that would fight for progress, in order to keep growing as a people and as a Party. In doing so, they would not separate from the Democratic Party but would be the second arm, next to the traditional Democrats.

Why? What purpose would it serve? Because it represents the reality of the present Democratic Party. There are Democrats that support the 2nd Amendment and do not always agree with the Progressive branch of the Party on some social issues. We may not like that. We might say they do not belong in the Democratic Party? But that is exactly the point. That is the reality - not what we would dream it to be.

But your question being why does Republican Party enjoy such high support, year in and year out? And I would argue that many Democrats leave our Party because they don't feel comfortable, either about the 2nd Amendment or something else entirely. They will not fit in the Progressive branch of our Party. We should still permit them to be part of the traditional Democratic Party. The reality being what it is.

Think about it. We need change in our Party. We are losing voters to the Republican and Tea Parties. We cannot continue on the same road. It is my opinion that the progressive left is necessary for the Democratic Party but it is a drag because it is not the mainstream of America. We need to separate from the Democratic Party but our voting preferences would remain with the Democratic Party.

Another post that coincides with this theory:

I think it should start with the Congressional Black Caucus...

They should divorce themselves from the moderate DLC Democrats, the traditional Democrats. The progressives of our Party should follow the CBC. We should take every controversial issue, every progressive issue, and adopt it as part of the New Progressive Coalition. The traditional Democrats would not have to worry about the NRA, or abortion, or prayer in schools, or gay marriage, or gun control, or any controversial issues that might harm the traditional Democrats chances for electoral success. Democrats that love their guns can stay with the Democratic Party. Pro-life Democrats can stay with the traditionalists.

Think of how the Republicans were able to take all their "crazy extremists" and assign them to the Tea Party. But they kept the Tea Party in their fold for electoral purposes. They got the benefit without the burden of keeping them in the traditional Republican Party. The progressives in the Democratic Party are not extremists but are necessary for progress to occur in our country. We should leave the Democratic Party for voting purposes only. We can carry all the controversial issues that are necessary for progress and leave the traditional Democrats a larger tent whereby they can grow the Party.

I could explain the theory in more detail because I know it is blowing some minds but I am tired right now.

[lumberjack_jeff]

264. I think you're on an interesting track.

But I foresee insurmountable implementation issues.

The democrat running for Montana Senate not only has to explain his or her own views, vision and "traditional democrat" values, but also ameliorate the voters concerns about the coalition he or she is going to join in DC. Republicans have a similar problem in this regard.

I think that the message needs to be simplified, not complicated. Take one issue we can all agree upon - economic populism - and run with it. Everything else is administration.

[kentuck]

267. Economic populism should be blueprint for Democrats..

I would agree.

But my fear is that the Democratic Party is shrinking to the point of irrelevance.

I think there are irreconciliable differences within our own Party but we are unable to address it?: I think our Party needs two branches, similar to the Republican Party, who send all their crazies over to the Tea Party. I think we should send all our controversial issues over to our Progressive branch, so that our entire Party is not harmed because we alienate certain voters, such as gun owners or right to life voters. The Republicans have alreafy figued it out. We haven't because the left of our Party does not have the guts to do what they know needs to be done.

[AnalystInParadise]

162. Because

things in this country are a lot worse than we like to admit. The economy is still in a shambles, TOO many people have not seen benefits for the ACA, and overall people want jobs, are scared of ISIS and see Immigration (especially what happened earlier this year) as huge problems.

[840high]

315. ... .

[liberal_at_heart]

169. The democrats don't do enough to improve average people's lives.

Democrats must get back to supporting unions, supporting a living wage, supporting teachers, supporting education, supporting average people.

[kentuck]

171. And if they don't ...?

What are we prepared to do? My suggestion is that we separate our Party into two branches.

[liberal_at_heart]

173. oh, I have no doubt we are headed in the direction of having four major parties.

[kentuck]

185. Although the Tea Party is only a place where the Repubs dump their "crazies"...

What would be wrong with more Parties? Why can we not have a Progressive Party that caucuses with the present Democratic Party? Would that be much different from the Tea Party caucusing with the Republicans?

[liberal_at_heart]

186. no argument here. I agree with you.

[Gloria]

277. A Parliamentary System

not the junk system we have today....

[alp227]

170. So why would unmarried female voters vote differently than married female voters?

What issues would both types of women vote differently on based on self-interest? Can you explain?

[True Blue Door]

178. This is trolling.

You offer no specific information that vote suppression was not decisive in the result.

Instead you try to "frame the debate" in pro-GOP terms.

[lumberjack_jeff]

260. Then offer specific information that it was.

More to the point, offer a path forward that gets us back in a position to eliminate this vote suppression.

Is forcing people to confront unpleasant facts "trolling"? If so... guilty as charged. Blowing sunshine up our collective backsides isn't my MO.

[Azathoth]

181. It's pretty obvious why we lost

Last edited Wed Nov 5, 2014, 04:15 AM - Edit history (2)

1) Democratic voters as a rule don't turn out in midterms.

2) Democratic voters are depressed. It's not because of progressive vs. centrist division or voter suppression or anything like that, it's because nothing has gotten done and we have nothing to look forward to except more GOP gridlock and soul-crushing insanity from the teabaggers. Democrats had nothing to run on except recycled issues like the war on women. McConnell's "shut it down" strategy has taken its toll.

3) Instead of pushing through immigration reform right after he got reelected, Obama got derailed with gun control and he never recovered. Since then, it literally has been one fumble after another from the White House, from the Obamacare website fiasco to the Syria red line to Bergdahl, I can't even keep track of them all. Sure, some of those fumbles were more about optics than substance, but politically, that's a distinction without a difference, and the net result is that many, many people have lost faith in Obama and Democratic governance.

4) Bad luck. Sometimes external events just hit at the worst possible time. ISIS, Ebola, etc. Now we know how McCain felt when the economy crashed two months from election day.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

182. WE ARE NOT AS ORGANIZED AT THE GRASSROOTS LEVEL AS THEY ARE.

[BlindTiresias]

195. My theory?

The Democratic party talks a dynamic, populist game and then defaults to a comfortable center-right area which has the effect of stimulating and then frustrating voters who vote Democratic. This has been a consistent pattern for several decades now but after each repetition the country gets more right wing in nearly all areas but some narrow social issues. If the Democratic party wants to stimulate voters beyond national elections it needs to stir people's political imaginations.

[mylye2222]

196. We can thank The Clintons to have

sided with the rethugs by relaying their Obama undeserved criticism....

[Odin2005]

198. You just had to inject your MRA crap in, didn't you?

[mylye2222]

201. No crap. only facts.

It was their strategy. It was not the first time they used it. Far from it.

[LanternWaste]

256. You seem to confuse "fact" and "editorial". Easy mistake to make...

You seem to confuse "fact" and "editorial". Easy mistake to make...

[lumberjack_jeff]

287. Or "crap" for "editorial" for that matter. n/t

[Glitterati]

199. It's so simple - because DEMOCRATS are no longer DEMOCRATS

Plain and simple - you give the voters a choice between Republican lite and Republican and they'll select the real Republican every time.

When Democrats learn to walk the walk, talk the talk and behave like DEMOCRATS, they'll win an election.

[Tatiana]

212. In most places, this was a referendum on the President.

I'm sitting here stunned in Illinois. We appear to have elected a right-wing, wealthy Republican as our governor.

In Illinois.

The same state that returned Democratic Senator Dick Durbin to Washington.

So, voters are making choices. They are splitting party votes. They are deliberately picking Republicans in certain races and Democrats in others (see Kentucky, where they retain Democratic control of the state government).

I can only take this as a way for voters to express their displeasure with the President, which is usually what happens in midterms. It didn't happen to Clinton because people generally were satisfied with his performance and didn't want him thrown out of office.

One of the biggest ads for Pat Quinn stated "Quinn has President Obama's back" or something to that effect. Guess it didn't really help him much.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

213. We didn't state our accomplishments and were nice little puppy dogs. The Reps had nothing....

...... But propaganda. It's like a cute nice little puppy dog battling against a mean Pitbull. As long as we play nice and by the rules without any dirty tricks it's tough.

[Vinca]

220. We lost because Democrats were afraid to stand on their accomplishments.

I don't know why. Those 500,000 people in Kentucky are going to miss their Obamacare.

[demwing]

221. Ask again week from now

Too much bitterness today...

[chrisa]

224. People see Obama as a wimp / incompetent, and Democrats as the same.

They wanted new leadership after years of perceived ineffective/weak government.

[HereSince1628]

226. IMO because in the US blaming others dominates helping others.

For many Americans 'others' is a euphemism for 'lazy minorities'.

Fundamentally, the democratic message is linked to supporting social programs.

Exluding military spending, the republican/tea party's message is pretty much the opposite, their message is 'don't steal my money and give it to those lazy people'. And the teahadists are highly motivated.

The national teaparty/republican message is closer, sometimes spot on the simplistic thinking that promotes blaming others.


In WI every incumbent won back their congressional seats, the one open seat went to Glenn Grothman.

A man with a truly staggering lack of cognitive capacity, but a man who nonetheless can recognize a winning meme.
He ran on and handily won as a transplant into the district on a campaign of lowering taxes and cutting back on social programs that go to the lazy people. Because that represent 'Family Values'.

[Bettie]

227. Koch money

For each ad for any Dem candidate, I saw at least three hit pieces from right wing groups for those candidates.

Hail Citizen's united.

[cyberswede]

234. Money

...and the Democrats don't have a clear message about what they stand for.

[JustAnotherGen]

235. If that snip beyotch

Jodi Ernst has her way - a lot single women will be dead.

Problem solved - no need to worry about women anymore.

[deaniac21]

236. They got more votes than we did.

[cap]

244. Jobs....jobs...jobs

It's not just the economy stupid....the economy is growing...unemployment is going down.
It's what kind of jobs are being created...its where's my raise...I need a full time job... If I get laid off, can I find a good job quickly.
People blame the president when there are no good jobs...

All the good things done by obama pale when there are no good jobs.

What we need is a labor movement.

[lumberjack_jeff]

245. I'd call it economic populism, but yes.

Hillary's courage to finally say "businesses don't create jobs" gives me some hope.

Employment to population ratio

[AngryAmish]

248. Because the country sucks right now and we hold the presidency.

[Avalux]

249. Because Americans are afraid and paranoid about everything.

The GOP knows how to use that fear as a motivation, and they do it extremely well. They don't need a coherent message, they don't need to explain in detail how they'll improve the lives of Americans. All they need to do is convince people they're going to protect them from the evil that lurks around every corner. People will vote for the devil himself if they think they'll be safe.

[nolabels]

250. Like Duh, people didn't vote because of many reasons

One of the biggest, is when the economy is on an uptick during a midterm people just stay home and think everything is just okay. And many others that were underhanded and slowly done but orchestrated none the less, but still would be hard to put an exact finger on.

Don't worry, greedy people always overreach

[treestar]

253. The states up for election in the Senate were red states

[sakabatou]

254. Campaigning too much on getting out the vote instead of issues

This is what I've heard another person said.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

255. The people wanted change the Democrats offered them "more of the same".

[LeftInTX]

265. Sometimes they just want change whether it is good or bad

Kinda like when you order something from take-out or buy a new outfit.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

266. Or, they think anything will be better than the status-quo.

[IdaBriggs]

259. Lost control of the messaging with the media.

Instead of touting success and "we've gotten this far, and working together, we can do more!" it became "politicians all suck so it doesn't matter which way it goes because they aren't going to do anything anyway."

[Niko]

261. Unfortunately, a lot of it has to do with Obama being black

Let's not kid ourselves here. Record job numbers, stock market at all time highs, and the number one issue was the economy.

So what's the problem exactly? Oh, right. Black man in the white house. There's a reason all those Democrats in red states decided to distance themselves from the president, and it wasn't because of his record.

[kentuck]

268. Absolutely!

And it worked better in some states than other. But they knew it was racist when they planned it.

[noiretextatique]

279. so utterly sad, sickening...and true

and look how well they fared. what fucking cowards!!!

[Warren DeMontague]

300. I suspect your post is intended as satire or snark, but in case it isn't

that's ridiculous.

He was just as black in 2008, when we cleaned the GOP's clock.

[Awsi Dooger]

269. Obama's slumping approval rating

Nothing else mattered.

Single females not voting in midterms is a known trend. It's not going to change. That's why I posted on Monday night that our party has basically become a presidential election specialist with very little chance in midterms, unless there's a sitting GOP president with a low approval rating.

[lumberjack_jeff]

270. Maybe pinning our hopes on people who don't vote is a poor strategy. n/t

[Gloria]

274. The analysis I heard was that the Dems needed to win over 6% more votes

than they would normally need just to counteract gerrymandering...I think
it was Norman Ornstein on the BBC last night with that factoid.
So, turnout was what they really needed...Not sure how that was last night, but
I read that early voting was down...

[DCBob]

281. Midterm funk. Happens all the time.

Easy to bash those in power when lots of scary things are happening... plus voter apathy plus RW media.

[Warren DeMontague]

282. Several reasons, combined:

1) The DNC has been on autopilot. We need new leadership.

2) Too many candidates ran away from Obama's signature issue, they should have embraced and articulated a defense of the ACA.

3) Standard, predictable 2nd term midterm anti-WH incumbency, a disadvantageous senate map going in, AND the GOP reaped the benefits of the 2010 redistricting in a big way.

4) Obama is not blameless. Whether or not Americans are stupid panic ninnies around something like Ebola, lecturing them and calling them ill-informed morons for expressing fear over a lethal, communicable disease was not the way to go. And the image projected for two solid months was a combination of patronizing happy-talk combined with blatant ineptness. Every time Tom Freiden opened his mouth in September, our poll numbers dropped.

5) Calling groups of people idiots, marginalizing them, insulting them, wagging your finger at them, telling them to "check your privilege", etc. is NOT the way to win elections.

6) Speaking of winning elections, Gun Control is simply and purely a loser issue at the federal level. All other considerations aside, our party should drop it.

7) There is a strong socially libertarian streak afoot in the electorate, and our party ignores it at its own electoral peril. 4 STATES now, have legalized -fully- marijuana. Where the fuck is our national leadership on this issue? Debbie Wasserman Schultz thinks the problem is, we're not arresting enough brownie-eating cancer grannies.

Maybe if someone finds a Biblical Passage about it, Hillary Clinton will decide to talk about pot. She sure has no problem staking out positions on the issues that really matter to the American people, like whether or not the Bible is the bestest book ever!




Solutions? Honestly, I think we need to find new leaders, preferably from West of the Mississippi. That quote that Einstein didn't actually say about insanity and doing the same shit over and over, applies. Maybe our "inevitable" leaders need to be swapped out for some new ones. Or bring back Howard Dean.



The Beltway conventional wisdom goobers don't seem to have a fucking clue how to do anything, except send 20 hyperbolic emails a day.

[lumberjack_jeff]

284. Well said. n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

289. The party needs to back-burner behavioral issues

Same-sex marriage is being allowed in more states all the time, thanks more to GLBT people themselves than to anything the politicians have done.

Abortion rights are still the law of the land, a right that women in their child-bearing years take for granted.

There's a huge divide between urban and rural voters on guns.

This is not to say that we should drop these issues, only not forefront them. I really wondered at the wisdom of Wendy Davis highlighting women's reproductive health in her campaign, especially not in a heavily Southern Baptist and Catholic state. It would alienate the good ole boys as well as the fundamentalist women. But economic issues would have had a broad appeal.

I'm convinced that if we can take care of some of the economic issues, a lot of the behavioral issues will take care of themselves.

There are a lot of economically stressed people in this country, and if they're not very savvy, they are easy prey for those who want to appeal to their various kinds of bigotry and paranoia.

You'll never get rid of all the creeps, but I suspect that easing the economic stress would go a long way toward lessening bigotry and gun worship.

[kentuck]

295. Bingo!

Lydia, I think you may be on to something there.

[BlindTiresias]

293. On point

Very astute analysis, I would have to agree with you on all points.

[Warren DeMontague]

292. The party that is seen as intolerant, rigid, ideologically narrow and strident, generally loses.

But good luck getting the peanut gallery to listen, on that point.

Axe grinding is way too much fun.

[Douglas Carpenter]

296. stagnant wages/income /lack of upward mobility

Although unemployment has dropped and the Dow is soaring since 2008 - some key industries have been saved - For the vast majority of Americans in both reality and perception - things are just not getting much better. More people have jobs - but many are not in the work they went massively in debt to train for and many are otherwise underemployed. Of course this has been the trend before President Obama - But this new economy is simply distributing income less equitably regardless who is in office. Unfortunately the President and his party usually take the blame especially in midterm elections for this kind of malaise.

[ozone_man]

297. The 6th year into an 8 year presidency

tends to go this way. Specific aspects include the economy, which is not as rosy as the White House says. I think mainstream America has a different opinion. Wages and the labor participation rate are low. People vote with their pocket books and the 1% are only 1% when it comes to the ballot box. The 99% are not happy campers, and even if only half of them vote, that is enough. And these economic factors would not necessarily improve at all under Republican leadership, just that change is what the populace likes, when government is not living up to expectations. Personally, I think Obama listened too much to his Wall Street cronies, and the Fed policy was aimed at boosting asset prices and not toward main street consumers/Americans.

They lost hope that there would be change?

[LibDemAlways]

301. The MSM's relentless anti-Democratic pro-Republican propaganda and

(I know you are dismissing this, but I'm going to say it anyway) too many people are knuckle dragging assholes who vote against their own self interest out of ignorance, stupidty, or some combination of the two.

[ucrdem]

302. re: "Fraud! Cheating! Vote suppression!":

We know they'll tell any lie, pull any trick, bend any law to get what they want. Last night they got exactly what they wanted, and today they're crowing about how much we all love GOP "policies." Why is it denial to point that out they're full of sh*t?

[customerserviceguy]

307. The Pukes figured out

how to stop the tea partiers from taking over their primaries. This year, no Sharon Angle, no Todd Akin, no Christine O'Donnell, and no Richard Mourdock. Yes, on some occasions, tea party candidates won the race, but their welcome has long since worn out. The Rethuglicans figured out how to stop them this year, so they could field stealth candidates that could appear as moderate electables.

Add in the unpopularity of the President, and the normal six-year itch, and you have the basis for a GOP group orgasm.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

311. You forgot Joni Ernst

If she doesn't have the airheadedness and smugness to be a Tea Partier, I don't know who does.

[customerserviceguy]

313. Yes, they did have her

But aside from some references to hog testicles and gun love, she didn't really say anything that was tea party stupid. Both of the aforementioned exceptions were acceptable to the Iowa electorate.

[JoeFH]

310. We lost because ....

First, I can't live up to your ground rules. My honest opinion is 3 fold ..

1) I do blame voters, sorry. I am a lifelong democrat and my family has fought tooth and nail every election - every one. We will never win and maintain a win if every midterm our voters stay at home. We're always rebuilding because people won't get off the couch. I worked the phones hearing tens of hundreds of our people commit to come out - but don't. (yea, I manned that many phone banks)

2) We have accomplished a lot of positive things in the last 6 years. But you wouldn't know that from our candidates. They were so busy running away from Obama that they never highlighted what good was accomplished. I found that disgusting and given that fact alone, we deserved to lose.

3) We have allowed the right to control the message for six years. On subjects wide and broad they bad-mouthed us at every turn from the ACA to budget fights. Rarely did we see any kind of push back against the never-ending onslaught of untruths and half truths that happen every single day - in not only official capacities but also in viral email campaigns. Ya know, truth or not, people hear things over and over again unopposed, they begin to believe it. If we can't begin to defend ourselves against these attacks long before election day, if we surrender the message to the conservatives, we will lose and continue to lose.

As you can tell, I am feeling tad disgusted today, and yea, trying to claw back from "Why Try".

[Hamlette]

314. It's the difference between the Tea Party and Occupy

Republicans looking for power or fame bought the Tea Party. With that funding, and agreeing to be bought, they flourished. They had a voice and pushed the GOP further right. Yes, they are puppets of the same corporate power but they got power because that's what the money wanted.

Occupy decided not to allow coopting or leaders and it died. Initially they got the nation thinking about progressive issues, income inequality, minimum wage etc but did not have the kind of influence that the Tea Party had. In a way, its like the hippies. No, we didn't end the war in Vietnam but we did make people think about Jim Crow and sexism and conformity. But it too fizzled.

I don't advocate going the way of the Tea Party but wish we could come up with a way to sustain the discontent at a large enough level to push the Dems left and to get a few more wins. Probably can't happen but I'm open to suggestions.