We lost the election because we lost sight of America's most important political truism.

[Xithras]

People vote their self interests. Always.

Health care reform.
Credit card reform.
Hate crimes laws.
Guantanamo Bay.
Student loan reform.

These are the laurels that the Democratic leadership hoped to rest on and use as a platform for this election. Unfortunately, they overlooked one important fact: None of these things made the slightest amount of difference to the average Joe American.

Sure, from a philosophical and general moral perspective we agree that it's a good thing to prosecute gay bashers, or that human rights are now being respected, but none of these have made even a modicum of difference to most of us. The laws are either not in effect yet or only benefit a small number of people.

People are losing their jobs. They're watching their neighbors and relatives lose their homes. They're watching prices climb while their wallets shrink. They're uncertain about their children's future. They're watching higher education simultaneously become more expensive, and less relevant. They're seeing their taxes go up, while government services still go down. They're witnessing an overall degradation of their lifestyle, and the conditions of their communities.

The Democratic Party has spent the past two years focused on niche subjects that benefit a few million people. In the meantime, the other 300 million people in the country have been suffering, and have been largely ignored by both the White House and the legislature. We need to see fundamental changes to our economic laws, to reduce the outsourcing of manufacturing, to provide priority to the purchasing of American made goods, to eliminate the massive monetary burdens that health care and education saddle us with, and to restore the the technological leadership that has made America great over the past century. Instead of vision and innovation to turn America around, we were given some repaved roads and new overpasses.

The Democratic Party flaked. And now the voters have flaked right back.

[108]

1. I would put outsourcing at the top of the platform for 2012

this will create a stark difference between Dems and Pubs

also, campaign finance reform

[w4rma]

6. Might as well. The big corps aren't going to be giving any of that Citizen United money to us

anyway. I think this previous election proved that.

[Codeine]

31. +1 nt

[arbusto_baboso]

2. No. People vote for what they THINK are their own interests.

Too often, they are only deluded idiots who think their jailers are their friends.

[de novo]

4. If they are out of work, see their friends and family out of work,

and are underemployed, they will vote against whomever is in charge.

It is that simple. Perception of who does what is largely irrelevant. Results are all that ultimately matter.

[Xithras]

10. It comes down to basic psychology. Maslows Hierarchy of Needs.

Social concerns take a back seat when you are concerned about your physiological well-being and your own personal safety (physical, economic, resources, etc).

People fear for their own well-being, so they vote for whomever promises to secure that well-being. The Democratic Party has utterly failed to address this over the past two years.

[arbusto_baboso]

12. Riiiiight. Because it was Dems who blocked extension of unemployment benefits.

Sorry, but this issue isn't nearly as simple as you both seem to think.

[de novo]

14. That doesn't matter in the big picture.

All that shows is that the Dems were ineffective at implementing their agenda. Don't you see? They have been proven to be ineffective.

The debate can be had about why they were unable to get results, but they failed, and you presented just one example. They couldn't lead when we needed it.

Of course, the repugs are regressive and disgusting. They will hurt us ever chance they get. But, the Dems, by their failure to produce results, gave them some power back.

[arbusto_baboso]

15. No argument on Dems ineffectiveness, BUT....

Why would many not see it things for the Republican obstructionism that truly WAS at the heart of the "ineffectiveness"?

You DO know that the rethugs used the filibuster a record number of times, right?

[de novo]

16. Of course I know.

The question is why didn't the Dems own the frame the past two years? Why doesn't every American know it?

Why are the Democrats always on the defensive? The Dems were ineffective in enacting their agenda AND in explaining themselves to America. Not enough political wit, wisdom or backbone.

[arbusto_baboso]

19. The real problem is that Dems just assume their superior logic will win out.

But most Americans really do need to have things laid out for them as if they were 3rd graders. That's because half of them are too busy making ends meet to pay necessary attention to politics, and the other half really ARE that effing stupid.

But again, that just proves my point. People vote for what they THINK their own interests are, and wind up actually voting the exact opposite of those interests.

[de novo]

20. You got it.

3rd grade presentations win out.

[Xithras]

22. Which is cutting unemployment for 1.2 million Americans, or 0.38% of the population.

Again, an example of my fundamental point. We've allowed ourselves to be consumed by political fights that only impact a small percentage of the population, while the rest of the country waits for more fundamental and sweeping change. The nation is suffering AS A WHOLE, but we're still looking at the small picture. We need someone to plot a way forward on a national scale, but instead we're getting caught up in partisan infighting over minority interests.

Not one leading Democratic politician has offered a plan to restore the American economy. That really says it all.

[tigereye]

23. although i agree with much of what you say, I disagree that issues like

jobs and unemployment were not addressed - Congress did pass bills which extended unemployment and paid for employing others in various projects and have tried to reduce unemployment. But you could also argue that another main issue is credit- the banks were given all this money, and then refused to lend it out to those who needed it, and were ALLOWED to continue to do so. :( How can the economy grow if people are out of work, large and corporate businesses are not hiring because they are sitting on all that low interest cash, have to finance apartments since they have lost their homes, and can't get funding to continue to keep their businesses open during the downturn...

:shrug:

[kctim]

25. Riiiiiiiight

because YOU know what is in their best interest better than they do.
:sarcasm:


Pefect example of what happened last night.

[arbusto_baboso]

28. And you think America voted in its own best interests last night?

Of course you don't.

Don't slam ME for elitism, when your own arrogance is so palpable I can cut it with a knife.

[kctim]

35. Um

I am not naive or pompous enough to believe that I know what is in the best interest of others.
Which was the reasoning for my initial post.

Ex: My belief that single-payer is in my neighbors best interest means nothing if my neighbor believes his freedom of choice is in his/her best interest.

[arbusto_baboso]

40. Wow. You have no inkling of what politics really is, do you?

Or any clue about your own hypocrisy, apparently.

[ieoeja]

57. What does single-payer have to do with freedom of choice?

You could have just as much, or more, freedom of choice with taxpayer funded medicine.

[Naturyl]

39. Sorry, but chances are, he does.

This is one way the right-wing indoctrination machine has shredded us over the past 30 years. The idea is that we're all such horrible, awful elitists because we think we know other people's interests better than they do.

Of course, the reality is that we very often DO - precisely because all this outrage over "liberal elitism" is designed to cover the fact that people are being indoctrinated and programmed to have no frigging clue what their actual self-interest is.

[arbusto_baboso]

41. That was the point I was trying to make.

And the other poster's reactions merely point out the truth of what we both say.

[Naturyl]

44. DU is not immune to the infiltration of right-wing memes.

Some don't realize this, but if they advocated for poverty issues (or LGBT issues, from what I've seen), they'd find it out soon enough.

"Liberal elites thinking they know your interests better than you do" is a classic, fundamental staple of the right-wing narrative. And its purpose is to conceal the fact that in many cases, we actually do. Why? Not because we're geniuses or mind-readers, but because we see how the indoctrination and programming process works.

[arbusto_baboso]

46. And because many of us have been on the margins ourselves and know how it works.

It's kinda why most actors tend to be liberal. Even if they are currently successful and make shitloads of money, they still remember waiting tables and scraping by to survive.

[Naturyl]

50. Very true.

Another problem at DU is that there are a lot of wealthy, comfortable people who mean well but really have no clue what the ground realities of all this are. I salute them for their good intentions, but when they step in to argue with those of us who have been there about what we know from personal experience, it can be discouraging.

[kctim]

47. Interesting

Then maybe, instead of screaming the tired 'right-winger' slogan at someone who does not follow in lock-step with you, perhaps you can tell me, or give an example of, how you know better than I as to what is best for me?

[Naturyl]

51. Judging by your "1%er" sig, if it means what I think it does...

I probably don't. The concerns of 1%ers (at least economic ones) are something I admittedly know squat about - except to say that a more progressive world is ultimately better for all of us, even those who might have to scale down the Olympic-size pool to get it.

And if "1%er" doesn't mean that, then feel free to disregard this.

[kctim]

59. Getting closer

A more progressive world is better only for all who agree with you're world view based on what you view as important. The same is true of other beliefs who don't care what size pool you have.

BTW: It's 1% as in motorcycle life.

[arbusto_baboso]

54. Hey, YOU painted me with that brush.

Straw man, baby. Go away.

[Naturyl]

38. Hehe, +1000.

I should have read all the replies before I posted exactly the same thing downthread.

You got it. People vote what they are trained and programmed to think of as their self-interest - not what actually is.

[kctim]

49. Nothing but weak excuses

Claiming people do not vote for you or you're policies because they have been brainwashed is nothing but a weak excuse used by partisans who refuse to acknowledge that everybody does not think just like them.

I realize it is easier than facing the truth, but just how effective has that tactic worked lately?

[Naturyl]

53. So MSM brainwashing, propaganda, indoctrination, and conditioning do not exist?

Wow, good to know. Fox News will be delighted.

[HALO141]

3. You're mostly right.

Except that I would disagree with regard to the health care reform. Many average joe's have already seen increases in their health insurance premiums because of that legislation. Not as many as one would have believed from the play in the conservative media but enough. And that bill was pushed through largely due to strong-arming a bunch of the Dem. lawmakers and it was all very public. I dare say that more than anything else, THAT bit of theater really pissed off conservatives. Yeah, the bailouts pissed 'em off too but Bush had already started the ball rolling on that. Health care was 100% Dem. and they didn't forget.

Furthermore, the economy has pretty much gone the way the Reps. said it would "if Obama's policies are realized." I'm not saying they could have/would have fixed it but trying to make that argument is futile. It's a hypothetical and you just can't prove it.

[The Backlash Cometh]

5. Not Joe Americans. Ugly Americans.

[Winterblues]

7. I seem to recall the number one issue for Americans in 2006 and 2008 was Health Care

Health Care Reform was considered an intricate part of economic reform (Jobs) as was an immediate Stimulus..However we did not get Health Care Reform (Insurance Reform instead) and over a third of the "Stimulus" was tax cuts which really didn't stimulate much at all. Democrats fucked the pooch and still don't understand that the people noticed..

[Xithras]

8. And they delivered something that was unpalatable to most.

The healthcare legislation only benefited a small percentage of American's, while saddling the rest with higher rates and mandatory purchases. For most of us, there was no tangible benefit from the reform. It helped a few million, at the expense of a couple hundred million others.

People only vote altruistically when their own needs are satisfied. In this case, those needs weren't satisfied.

[TwilightGardener]

9. Sorry, health insurance, student loans, and credit cards are indeed part of everyday life--

those are concrete achievements that shouldn't be dismissed or run away from. And according to Newsweek, it was seniors that put Teapublicans into office--not necessarily the desperate unemployed, or those without healthcare. Something to think about.

[Xithras]

13. Only for a relatively small percentage of American's.

These certainly impact millions of people, but a law that improves the lives of 10 million American's deosn't do much for the other 300.6 million.

The health insurance "reform" and student loan reform have made no difference to most Americans. The Republicans managed to build in great poison pills, so we are seeing our rates skyrocket, while any benefits are delayed for years and will only help a comparatively small number of people. Credit card reform had the potential to make big changes, but the financial companies simply shifted their fees and cut people off, so it's a wash in practice. Our credit cards cost us just as much today as they did 5 years ago.

None of these laws has created any substantial change in the day to day lives of the average American. Certainly not on a level that can counter the economic fear and uncertainty that has gripped the nation over the past several years.

[TwilightGardener]

17. I disagree--especially about HCR. If Republicans attempt to repeal

it, suddenly people will find certain aspects of the bill to be very dear. What I think was lacking was not achievement and progress, but a clear pride in that progress, and a clear message of what that progress means to the average American.

[Codeine]

32. They won't find aspects of it dear, because they don't even know

what's in it. They just know it's Obamacare and it's BAD.

[Capitalocracy]

11. And the Republicans

are going to focus on making changes that help only a few thousand people.

It's also about strong leadership, effective messaging, and accountability. That would've helped us win out against the big money and fascist propaganda on the Republican side.

[GSLevel9]

18. one of the better OP's of the day.

It REALLY IS that simple. The voters just chased the DEMS around the living room with a rolled up newspaper for pissing on the rug.

[bobbolink]

21. You leave out poverty, the largest and most traditional of Dem platform planks.

When you discount the votes of poor people by leaving us out of your "priorities", you lose votes.

Its really simple politics.

[arbusto_baboso]

24. And given the ever growing numbers of poor....

You'd think Dems would give up trying to cater to a small demographic already bought-off by the right.

But what do WE know, eh?

[bobbolink]

26. When young, white, affluent males are deciding party priorities, they are guarnateed to fail.

Interestingly, I was just speaking with a man who I had never met before.... he said he was very active in the Bennett campaign. What he saw was very upsetting to him, he told me... young white males so sure of their entitlement that they were turning off people right and left, so to speak.

Sad.

More than sad, a tragedy.

They refuse to hear us, so not only are *we* lost, but it is the doom of the party.

Oh well.., they have had plenty of warnings.

[Xithras]

27. An anti-poverty program would have done WONDERS for the administration.

And would have been far more relevant to most Americans. 17% of Americans are living below the poverty line RIGHT NOW. 58.5% of Americans have spent at least one year of their lives living below the poverty level at some point. It's an issue that Americans can connect with. Given the general fear of the middle class that they will fall into poverty, a strong anti-poverty program would have offered assurances to most Americans that they wouldn't watch their kids starve, even if the worst DID happen.

So where is that anti-poverty program? Where is the aid and improved safety nets? Where is the economic development to pull the poor out of poverty?

Nowhere, because the current Democratic Party leadership doesn't think that way.

[bobbolink]

30. Could you please run for office?

"17% of Americans are living below the poverty line RIGHT NOW."

That's a lot of votes, and it isn't even including that the "poverty line" is woefully understated... just like the unemployment figures.

What would 17% have done to change all the races? Yes, not all would be voting, but just look at what could have been different just with that one factor.

"58.5% of Americans have spent at least one year of their lives living below the poverty level at some point."

And, again, the "poverty level" is NOT accurate.... but what would 58% of voters amount to?

Goddess, the lack of IN-FUCKING-INTELLIGENCE is absolutely astounding!

Again, I repeat.... could you please run for office?

:yourock:

[Xithras]

33. Oh, I'm pretty sure that I'd be laughed off the ballot.

I'm doing pretty good today, but the media would have a FIELD DAY with my history.

A kid who grew up as the dirt poor offspring of a couple of teen parents, who accidentally knocked up his 15 year old girlfriend when he was 17, who is openly bi and has an openly bi wife, who is very open and honest about his past drug history, and who ran a porn website to help pay the bills in college...while simultaneously dating his roomate, who worked her way through college by selling herself as an escort. I can sympathize and understand societies "discards" because I've been there. Unfortunately, that also makes me unelectable.

I could probably run for Barbara Lee's seat if she ever wanted top vacate it, but I doubt that a person with my history could be elected anywhere other than a few small uber-liberal enclaves.

Besides, I love my kids too much to ever do that to them.

[bobbolink]

34. Your last sentence is the one that makes sense to me. ^_^

I don't know if what you said about your past torpedo-ing you, but I will take your word for it.

What I know is that you have MUCH to give... your wisdom is borne of your past experience, and needs not to be wasted. There are many with tattered pasts who would listen to you.... I hope you will find a venue for that.

Sadly, believe me, those of us who were Goody Two-Shoes have also been vilified..... so our pasts really have little bearing on it. I mean, DAMN! I haven't even had a damned traffic ticket, and yet, people find all sorts of things to bash me for.

Our real problem is that those of us who see all this clearly aren't coming together and supporting each other and figuring out ways to creatively make real progress out of our combined wisdom.

I underline *my* last sentence... please reread it, because I think this is our worst failing.

[Naturyl]

43. Sadly, I disagree. Prioritizing poverty would tank the Dems.

Wish it weren't so, but it is. We live in a country whose fear and hatred of "welfare" knows no bounds - literally. Many (including some on "the left") would rather the poor die than get an "undeserved handout." Die, as in death. That's a fear and hatred that literally knows no bounds, and we can thank Saint Ronnie and his "revolution" for it.

And that's the political reality of this country since 1980 (and only getting worse), which is why poverty is off the table as an issue for Democrats.

[Xithras]

45. I wasn't talking about welfare.

Welfare is a band-aid, and should never be the core or focus of any anti-poverty programs.

Fixing poverty is largely an economic development issue. Locate industry in areas with the highest poverty rates, so the poor can earn a paycheck. Provide childcare so that single mothers can go to work. Provide healthcare so that the poor won't miss a week of work and lose their jobs because a tooth is rotting out. Provide education so that the poor can start their own local economies, dependent on their own local labor.

Welfare is required as the last safety net, to keep people from starving, but it ultimately solves nothing. The elimination of poverty demands a revolution in the way we view society, and how we obtain goods and services. It demands that we put tools in the hands of the poor, that they can use to build their own sustainable economies.

[Naturyl]

52. Fixing poverty is actually a "pass a one-line bill" issue.

The bill would say:

"No American shall ever fall below _____ income, and shall be supplemented up to that income through a guaranteed minimum income grant if necessary, regardless of any consideration, including race, creed, color, or employment status."

One bill, one signature, poverty fixed forever. It can't possibly be that simple can it? Yep, it can.

[Xithras]

55. I disagree. You're talking welfare.

Most of the poor I know would rather have a job with a living wage, than have a welfare check every month. Welfare has its role, but shouldn't be central to an anti-poverty initiative.

[Naturyl]

56. Jobs aren't the magic answer. That's right-wing indoctrination.

"Jobs" cannot be, and will never be, a sufficient answer to poverty. For one thing, millions of poor don't work, can't work, or are otherwise totally removed from the job market. Employment is totally irrelevant to them. For another thing, there will simply *never* be enough "jobs" to keep even those who can and do work fully employed. Economists agree that capitalism requires at least 5% unemployment to function in the long term.

I certainly am talking welfare, and in regard to poverty, I will never talk anything else. Direct guaranteed income payments are the only way to go. Any other scheme leaves people hungry and homeless - and that certainly includes the magical "jawbs."

[CBR]

29. If they do not think those affect their lives, then they are dumb as shit. nt

[lanlady]

36. I disagree that people always vote their self-interest

If that were the case, why did 45% of Nevadans vote for a candidate who openly called for abolishing Social Security? Why did people like my brother, a Teamster, vote for a party that is aggressively anti-union? Why did Kentucky give a mandate to a man like Rand Paul who vows to take a wrecking ball to social programs that help keep them out of poverty?

Our elections have little to do with self-interest anymore, and more to do with mis-directed anger and self-delusion.

[Xithras]

42. Because you're confusing "self-interest" with "social needs"

why did 45% of Nevadans vote for a candidate who openly called for abolishing Social Security?

What percentage of Nevadans are collecting Social Security? If someone is collecting it, then it's a "need". According to Maslow (phych 101), it would be a safety need.

If you aren't collecting it, then it's not an immediate safety need. Supporting that, and other "social needs", becomes part of self-actualization, which is only a priority when all of your other needs are met.

? Why did people like my brother, a Teamster, vote for a party that is aggressively anti-union?

What is your brothers opinion on the union, and his perspective on the benefits he receives from it?


A persons "self-interest" is not a fixed thing, but is defined by the challenges they are currently facing. For a person living well, those self-interests are going to cover higher level needs such as actualization, social work, and esteem. For a person facing an uncertain future, those self-interests tend to focus on lower level items like food and jobs.

If you're 35 and worried about losing your job next week, Social Security isn't even on your radar.

[Naturyl]

37. Correction, people vote what they THINK is their self-interest, always.

People are certainly selfish and will always vote what they THINK is their self-interest - but thanks to 40 years of right-wing indoctrination, most have absolutely no idea what that actually is.

[Initech]

48. Face it - we lost the election because of Fox News.

For the GOP it's great to have what's essentially a 24/7 propaganda arm at your disposal.

[MellowDem]

58. Don't agree...

People vote for what they THINK is in their self interest. But rarely do they get it right anymore.