Last Night's big lesson from kos

[eridani]

http://kos.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/11/4/800316/-Ton...

There will be much number-crunching tomorrow, but preliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:


--If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary "bipartisanship", you will lose votes.
--If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.
--If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.

Tonight proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.

The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren't going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they're voting for, and it ain't you.

[joeycola]

1. WP: ANALYSIS Contests serve as warning to Democrats: It's not 2008 anymore

I imagine we will see lots of these type article coming up.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
ANALYSIS
Contests serve as warning to Democrats: It's not 2008 anymore


By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 4, 2009; 12:46 AM

Off-year elections can be notoriously unreliable as predictors of the future, but as a window on how the political landscape may have changed in the year since President Obama won the White House, Tuesday's Republican victories in Virginia and New Jersey delivered clear warnings for the Democrat.................



For months, polls have shown that independents were increasingly disaffected with some of Obama's domestic policies. They have expressed reservations about the president's health-care efforts and have shown concerns about the growth in government spending and the federal deficit under his leadership.

Tuesday's elections provided the first tangible evidence that Republicans can win their support with the right kind of candidates and the right messages. That is an ominous development for Democrats if it continues unabated into next year. But Republicans could squander that opportunity if they demand candidates who are too conservative to appeal to the middle. ...............

[T Wolf]

2. Let's hope that the party learned this lesson. I hope it does not take even-greater

defeats in 2010 and 2012 for them to wise up.

They have that long to show us that there is"a reason to vote" for them.

[watrwefitinfor]

30. I do believe the lesson they will take is that

their candidates weren't conservative enough. I think you're gonna see a gigantic wheel around, even more to the right, a la rahmism.

Hope I'm wrong.

Wat

[AndyA]

3. I wish I could recommend this 100 times!

Give us a reason to vote for you
Give us a reason to vote for you
Give us a reason to vote for you
Give us a reason to vote for you
Give us a reason to vote for you
Give us a reason to vote for you
Give us a reason to vote for you
Give us a reason to vote for you
Give us a reason to vote for you
Give us a reason to vote for you
Give us a reason to vote for you
Give us a reason to vote for you
Give us a reason to vote for you
Give us a reason to vote for you
Give us a reason to vote for you
Give us a reason to vote for you

I think this message needs to be sent to EVERY DEMOCRAT TODAY. Tell them yesterday's losses will be tomorrow's reality for them if they don't GIVE US A REASON TO VOTE FOR YOU.

[ddeclue]

4. False conclusions folks - Dems just don't in off year and off off year elections.

That's every time folks, not simply because Dems are suddenly unhappy with Dems in Congress over healthcare reform. The OP is wrong.

[countingbluecars]

5. I agree. n/t

[fasttense]

6. Perhaps, but that win in New York sure makes it clear that even Republicons Wont

Vote for the Palin and Limpball ticket. Even Republicons can't stomach these 2 ultra radical conservatives coming in and pushing aside their local candidate.

Any time Palin throws her weight around we need to shout "Hoffman, baby Hoffman."

[lapislzi]

9. Palin must be encouraged

To campaign vigorously for vulnerable seats at every level of government. She is our best asset.

[T Wolf]

7. Hide your head in the sand if you want, but there are many of us who have been lied to

many times too often to fall for their bullshit again.

This election was pretty minor in terms of what was at stake. If they do not learn the lesson that ignoring the "base" in a futile effort to attract the reich-wingers, the next cycle will bring much more serious losses. And they will deserve it.

The only problem is that it is "we the people" who suffer the consequences, not the elites in "power."

[emulatorloo]

8. Gee whiz, a couple lousy gov candidates got their asses kicked.

Exit polling showed it had to do with local issues not Obama.

MSM and some DU'ers are making way too much out of this.

===

OTOH the teabagger went down in FLAMES.

[glinda]

15. nothing is "minor"

[T Wolf]

16. Actually, EVERYTHING is minor. It is only the individual that deems something of major importance

to themselves.

The secret is convincing (conning) others into thinking that your priorities are theirs. The pukes are much better at that than the Dems are. Hence, their electoral victories.

[glinda]

32. The pukes are just louder. They keep getting a free bull horn. Aggression always

has more power because people recoil. They will keep this up until they are shut up.

[Egnever]

28. I could cut and paste that into free republic and get a huge positive response

all i would have to do is change reich-wingers to liberal duchebags.

[Robb]

12. Yup. nt

[Horse with no Name]

10. And if WE sit at home

then it is a sure bet YOUR ASS will sit at home. Get it Congress??
You're not doing anything for US. Why waste our time and our money on you?
Here is my line in the sand:


If you don't stand for basic Democratic principles, then you need to find gainful employment elsewhere.

[Bitwit1234]

11. YOU ALL know the problem

Too much TV, cable, IPhones, Blackberrys and messaging and on and on. People are used to INSTANT everything..they expect things to happen in the snap of a finger.

You have to remember that congress and the rest of the political action is working with people. And that they don't just jump into things overnight. They can't make and pass bills in an blink of an eye. People are harder to convince than pushing a button on an electronic device. And they are subject to changing that mind over a period of time.

I think right now, republicans should be ignored and the house and senate should get on to the business they were elected for. And the MSM should be informed that it is their job to report on all the things congress is doing for them, and if they don't they will loose their BREAKING NEWS in politics and the white house access. Cut em off and let them know that.

[flyarm]

23. really? they sure can work in secret against us fast enough!

as in secret meetings with big Pharma and the Inusrance industry leaders and the hospital conglomerates..and then of course this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/acta----a-patr...

what was that excuse again???????

[sandnsea]

13. And if you tell people Dems are accomplishing nothing

Oh my god, people will believe you.

Kos strikes again.

[kentuck]

14. I disagree with the premise.

Although turnout was pitiful. But that is not that uncommon in off-year elections. Democrats tend to stay home. Democrats seldom win in these types of elections. Under the circumstances, high unemployment and rabid opposition, I would say they did fairly well. I think there is danger in reading too much into this election.

[slay]

17. I'm not voting until the Dems show some spine and start serving THE PEOPLE instead of corporations

And I mean it. I've always voted before, but my not voting is change you can believe in! unlike the promises of some others.

Or if by some miracle some great liberal can fend off the huge pockets of the corporate interests to actually have a real chance, I'd vote for him/her. Don't worry though, the corporations will never allow that to happen.

[johan helge]

18. Nothing makes Repubs happier than liberals not voting or voting Green

I'm so sick of all those who think not voting or voting Green is the way to prove a point.

They don't remember this:

Short term: Florida 2000, I rest my case.

Long term: Weak Dems means conservative Dems - because if liberals don't vote Democratic, the Dems must get conservative votes to win.

[slay]

19. If it takes me writing in Kucinich, that's what I'll do

I'm tired of "the game". There are real people out there like you, me, our relatives - who these assholes in government screw over constantly and brutally. How LONG do they have to wait for this mythical long term strategy of the Dems? Cause I tell ya, it ain't working IMO. No more lesser of two evils! No more conservaDems. If it takes 12 years of Republican domination to wake people up to this reality, then it is a slap in the face this country sadly, but evidently sorely needs. Progressive officials/Dems or bust!

Kucinich/Saunders 2012!



Kucinich/Saunders 2016!

[johan helge]

33. I love your enthusiasm, but you just make Karl Rove happy.

I don't mind having Kucinich/Saunders as candidates (if they can win, and they can?). But I do mind not voting if the Dem candidate is not Kucinich.

You really think letting the Repubs win three times will make people wake up? What happened after Reagan + Bush sr. was that Bill Clinton had to move towards the right, to win.

Millions of potential Democratic voters, e.g. many blacks, try your strategy in every election - they stay at home, just like the Repubs want them to. And the result is that the average voter is pretty conservative, so the Dem candidate must be pretty conservative to win.

In short: The parties are just mirrors of the voters. If liberals don't vote, the voters and both parties become more conservative.

[depakid]

26. trouble is- Dems think they can get Republican votes- and blow off the base

as well as many others who might register and vote if the Dems weren't so busy abandoning their traditional values and creating a vacuum on the left.

THAT was the lesson of 2000. And Dems ignore it at their peril.

[johan helge]

34. If Gore felt he could have been more liberal in 2000 and still win,

he would have been more liberal. Because that's what he wants, just look at him now. And look at his opponent, Bush jr.: He ran as a "compassionate conservative". But he really wanted to govern like a right-wing maniac, and that's what he did, because he thought he could get away with it in 2004 (and he did).

If the Dem base votes, that will allow the Dem candidates to become more liberal.

In short: The parties are just mirrors of the voters. If liberals don't vote, both the voters and the parties become more conservative.

[western mass]

31. Rahm Emmanuel, is that you?

Message brought to you by the Corporate Democratic Party.

[johan helge]

35. Repubs reading this must be laughing their heads off -

they don't even have to fight for the power, these liberals want to give it to them!

[bvar22]

20. No more "New Democrats" (DLC) Bullshit for me anymore.

I will only be voting for REAL Democrats.

“The Economic Bill of Rights”
Excerpt from 11 January 1944 message to Congress on the State of the Union

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[Liquorice]

21. I disagree. The left and right of both parties always say the same

thing when they lose. The right wing said Bush and the republic congress needed to go harder right and that's why they lost congress in 2006. LOL Now it's the left wing's turn to say the same BS about this election.

I don't put much stock into anything that happened today. There was no groundswell of angry republicans, nor were dems so extremely dissatisfied that they protested Obama by not voting. It was just an average off-year election. Big deal.

Obama does need to step up and start some major forward momentum on health care and the economy, but that has nothing to do with the results today.

[eridani]

29. The thing is, that Bush DID go harder right, despite what the wingers think

Republicans play to and coddle their base. Dems flay them in public. The 2006 victory was in large part a story of populist and antiwar Dems doing well, anyway.

[flyarm]

22. Hear , hear!!..100% correct! eom

[Egnever]

24. My bet is the proportion of senior to everyone else turnout was way up

No offense to the awesome seniors we have here on DU

Couple that with a couple of craptastic candidates and a couple of not as objectionable as they could have been pukes and walla!

[depakid]

25. Let's see- how many years has it been since 1994?

Dems should have learned that lesson long ago- yet (inexplicably?) the pandering to the right has continued.

[Greyhound]

27. This time especially stings. 2009 was a once in a lifetime opportunity to achieve greatness.