Smart Democrats are worried about base turnout In 2016

[pa28]

From Gaius Publius and Howie Klein. You should take a few minutes to read about this. It seems our party elders learned absolutely nothing from the losses in 2014 congressional and state level losses which badly compounded those of 2010.

We left our centrist leadership structure intact and not surprisingly they are pursuing the same losing formula for 2016 of recruiting Wall Street approved, big business friendly House and Senate candidates.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/smart-democrats-are-worried-about-base.html

Starting with the Senate, your key perps are Chuck Schumer, faux-progressive and current DSCC head Jon Tester, and before him, blatant "centrist" and former DSCC head Michael Bennet (who is both a TPP perp and up for reelection in 2016):

When Wall Street gets bent out of shape over the populism of Bernie Sanders and, especially, Elizabeth Warren, they go whining and fuming to Schumer, and to their House tool, Steve Israel. Both are working hard to please Wall Street by recruiting conservative pro-Wall Street, pro-Big Business candidates to run as Democrats. Schumer is fighting like a savage to make sure lifelong Republican and Wall Street suck-up Patrick Murphy is the Democratic nominee for Marco Rubio's open Senate seat in Florida, and he is vigilant that as few Democrats as possible from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the party get near party nominations.

That's the Senate. And in the House?

Your key perps, Wall Street favorite and former DCCC head Steve Israel, current DCCC head Ben Ray Luján, and she who assigns these people the task of selecting candidates — Nancy Pelosi:

Steve Israel and hapless sock-puppet Ben Ray Luján are also running around recruiting Blue Dogs, New Dems and outright Republicans. Their latest is Mike Derrick, to run against popular Republican Elise Stefanik in NY-21, a district in which Obama beat Romney 63.3 to 35.2%-- a phenomenal 28.1 point spread. Derrick is a Republican who's conveniently calling himself a Democrat now. Apparently Israel doesn't think a real Democrat could win in NY-21, despite Obama's landslide there. Similarly, Schumer doesn't want Grayson, an outspoken tribune for working families, to win a Senate seat, and his solution is Republican-"turned"-Democrat Patrick Murphy, a New Dem backbencher who votes with the Republican Party more than nearly any other Democrat in the House.

Current data shows a 19% enthusiasm gap going into the 2016 election. That's exactly what killed us in the twin disasters of 2010 and 2014 and rather than changing strategy by turning to the Elizabeth Warren wing of the party we're apparently going on the theory that it will be different this time by just relying on demographics and get out the vote. What we're not doing is finding a compelling reason to convince the public to give us their votes.

Much more commentary at the link.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/smart-democrats-are-worried-about-base.html

[Agschmid]

1. Kick, I also worry about turnout.

But who doesn't, no way to really solve it unless we get more folks registered.

[daleanime]

8. And better candidates.....

[zentrum]

58. We have a better candidate

…already as far as the democratic base goes. We need to not depress the base by shutting them out via an establishment coronation.

[daleanime]

63. For each of the congressional races?

[silvershadow]

68. We need 435 better candidates. nt

[MineralMan]

99. No, we don't. Don't write off all representatives.

I know two who should be re-elected until they choose not to run again: Keith Ellison and Betty McCollum. If you think all Democrats in Congress are the same, you need to look again at voting records.

Such broad, sweeping statements demonstrate a lack of knowledge.

[silvershadow]

107. Actually, I have a very strong knowledge. Perhaps you didn't notice, but I was

actually being snarky to the poster.

[tech3149]

85. Freakin A! I've seen it first hand

I'm sure most of you have seen the same thing. Back when Senator Magic Bullet needed a replacement, we had a perfect progressive candidate who was willing to take on the job.
Unfortunately Sen Wall St and Fast Eddie Rendell decided that we needed a big money raiser, name recognition candidate.

I may not be the most vocal member or informed member of the community but I'd much rather invest my energy for someone or something that I believe in as opposed to choosing the path where I won't lose as much as I could.

[still_one]

2. Anyone who doesn't turnout to vote has no right to complain.

[MoonRiver]

4. But they will anyway.

[still_one]

12. I know, and sometimes the loudest it seems

[Fuddnik]

50. I've never missed an election since 1972.

And, I'm getting to the age, where this might be my last.

But, If they don't give me candidates to vote FOR this time, instead of the "lesser" evil, I've cast my last vote. My nose is sore from holding it to vote for repackaged Republicans.

Patrick Murphy? Not a fucking chance. Hillary? Even less.

To quote Jim Hightower, "If God intended for us to vote, he'd give us candidates.

[still_one]

59. Good, then don't vote if Hillary is the nominee. Fuck the supreme court, women's rights, social

security and medicare, and a ton of issues that will really matter if republicans win. It probably won't affect you anyway, but it sure as hell will affect a lot of people decades to come

Oh by the, I have never missed an election since 1972 either, and I never will.

[MoonRiver]

66. Really makes you wonder.

[still_one]

69. I get very frustrated by that logic obviously.

[Fuddnik]

72. Keep bring up the Supreme Court.

We had a sizable majority in the Senate when Scalia and Thomas were confirmed. And Joe Biden was Chair of the Judiciary Committe at the time. Sure, they bounced Bork, but the other two are no improvement.

[still_one]

81. Scalia and Thomas were appointed by a republican president, not a Democratic one. Yes, the

Senate rejected bork, and they could have continued to reject all the nominees submitted, but they choose their battle with bork, and dis not wish to further delay the process.

However, the first step is electing a President that will start the nomination, and who a Democratic president would nominate verses a republican president should be quite obvious from history

[calimary]

76. THIS ^^^^^^^

Fuck the Supreme Court, women's rights, social security, medicare, the Affordable Care Act - AND EVEN LGBT RIGHTS.

You think marriage equality is a done deal? Set in stone? Cast in bronze? Supreme Court has spoken and that is simply that?

THINK AGAIN.

I would warn my LGBT brothers and sisters - never mind what Rachel Maddow says. She's WRONG. DO NOT take this victory for granted and DO NOT let down your guard. Because it is NOT over. Any more than Roe v Wade was over when the Supreme Court okayed THAT. Lo these many years later, that supposedly "settled law" is now in tatters. If a CON gets into the White House a woman's right to choose will probably be killed off completely before the second term. You watch. Is it THAT worth it, to stay home and pout because good enough wasn't really good enough, and it had to be perfect and perfect didn't carry the day?

NONE of this is over. NONE of this that we've all fought so hard for and pushed for and advocated for and argued for and petitioned for and marched for and protested for and rallied for and emailed/called/texted/faxed for. As long as there's a very healthy and well-funded and well-backed opposition that doesn't like it and will NEVER go along with it, this is NOT OVER!!!! And LGBT activists and the rest of us on their side will have to fight this and stay vigilant and protect the ground that's been gained - for the rest of our lives. Because the enemy intends to do that til death do they part. And they think God is on THEIR side, because maybe maybe part of the Book of Leviticus is.

It's NOT over. And it won't EVER be over until the last of them dies out. And probably not even then, either. The opposition will never rest. So we can't afford to.

[still_one]

82. I agree. Of course Congress can make and change laws, but the Supreme Court can either delay

or accelerate an action. Roe would have been overturned by now if it wasn't for the decisions coming out of the court. The reason Roe is being whittled away is because republicans in some states have been winning elections, and implementing law that do NOT outlaw Row, but makes restrictions extremely difficult to obtain one, such as closing Clinics that perform abortions that don't meet unrealistic criteria.

North Dakota tried to ban abortion directly, and it was ruled against by a federal court. Federal judges are appointed by the president to, not just the SC, and there is a difference between who republicans and Democrats support.

Everything you said is absolutely correct, the fight is never over

[MoonRiver]

97. Who cares? Not me.

[pa28]

29. The article points to a 19% enthusiasm deficit for Democrats.

That's similar to the gap we were looking at before the 2014 election.

Giving them a good reason to vote for Democrats will help close it and recruiting actual Democrats in places like the NY-21st will also help.

the 2014 catastrophe is telling us about the "lesser of two evils" argument. It might sound rational but it's not enough to convince voters to turn out for us.

[still_one]

49. Anyone who doesn't realize the importance of the vote, or the difference between republicans and

Democrats, doesn't really give a damn about women's rights, gay rights, civil rights, healthcare, Medicare, Social Security, environment, etc.

I have no patience for that kind of idiocy.

That they have to be "motivated" and told that the Supreme Court is important, I have very little respect for that type of mature thinking.

[salib]

83. Anyone who sits on the sidelines and blames those who do not vote

For lack of enthusiasm needs to wake up and realize this is a democracy and it should reflect these people's interests as well.

Yeah, sit in your ivory tower and bombast down on those who did not vote. Still, if we believe in democracy we better be doing something that they can be enthusiastic about.

Simply being superior about is not going to help.

[still_one]

90. Did you even read my posts? Where did I blame or not blame anyone for NOT voting on the outcome?

I merely stated an opinion that people who do not vote have no right to complain. That does not mean they won't complain, they just don't have any credibility in my book.

As far as some imaginary "ivory tower", or superiority you think I have, I don't know what the heck you are talking about.

People who don't want to vote, that is there decision. We are supposedly all adults. They can do whatever they want. I am just a jerk on a political forum, take it anyway you want

[jeff47]

55. Your unwillingness to listen to their complaints will TOTALLY get them to vote. (nt)

[still_one]

65. who in the fu*K am I. If they feel that way, then they will live with the consequences of their

actions, and then they can bitch some more.

Jesus, don't throw that crap on me, "my unwillingness to listen". This is just a forum, and people are free to vote for whoever they wish.

[jeff47]

100. And you get to live with the consequences of treating them like morons.

Consequences like them not voting. That'll work out great for you, won't it?

People not voting is a major problem to solve. Pissing on people who do not vote will not solve it.

[still_one]

101. Won't bother me at all. If people do not feel it is important enough to vote it isn't my issue

A person should vote because they feel it is important, not because someone pushes or motivates them

[jeff47]

105. So...your threat is the non-voters get a bad result. But you don't care if you get a bad result.

Way to be logically consistent.

[still_one]

106. People should not have to "beg" people to vote. Have a good day

[TBF]

109. It's not that they don't wish to vote -

it is that they see no one who represents them.

Maybe certain candidates ought to think about what the word "democrat" is supposed to mean and figure out how to reach out to them.

Oh, but it's easier to sit behind a screen and say "sucks for them" isn't it?

It makes one wonder WHO is really running the party currently.

[still_one]

110. Then they should vote, instead of "hiding behind a screen and say", I won't vote if so and so

becomes the nominee.

They don't have to vote for someone they don't like, but there are other issues on the ballot besides elected offices, and people can always write a name in. Anyone who doesn't vote is copping out, which is their right.

Happy fourth

[TBF]

111. You can deliberately misunderstand

but that doesn't change the fact that corporate candidates are not what the people want.

We can mock people or we can fix this problem before it's too late. I applaud Bernie for trying to fix it in a peaceful manner.

[still_one]

112. I never said anything against Bernie.

[malokvale77]

87. "Anyone who doesn't turnout to vote has no right to complain."

If the D or R party can't find better candidates to inspire voters, the parties have no right to complain.

I have voted in every election since I was old enough (1971). I'm complaining.

The parties have screwed us for so long, I was ready to give up on voting.

The 3rd way is not building membership.

Bernie Sanders has inspired me and my family and friends to give the process one more chance.

[still_one]

93. Ok, then complain.

[orpupilofnature57]

7. And that's Bernie's Ace in the hole, everyone else running is a crook .

[brooklynite]

9. So you're accusing Clinton, O'Malley, Chafee and Webb of corruption...

Any evidence?

Of course not...

[orpupilofnature57]

11. Thanks, He's the only Believable person running, the proof is President Obama .

[Katashi_itto]

92. I won't vote for Hillary.

[still_one]

51. Really. Do you know Bernie's position on Israel? I suspect some of Bernie's supporters on DU

would not be too happy with his position of Israel.

[orpupilofnature57]

5. That's the appeal of Bernie and Elizabeth they're not a party of or to the Crime .

[brooklynite]

10. But they're happy to work with and support those crooks in the Senate, right?

[orpupilofnature57]

14. They're willing to work with without knuckling under to, or coercing with, Right ?

[brooklynite]

33. I see - i't okay to work with crooks if you stand your ground...

...And BTW, you have evidence that the crooks have attempted to make them knuckle under?

[orpupilofnature57]

74. WMD's ? Bailout ? and the rest of History .

[orpupilofnature57]

86. Crickets........... 2 hrs

[still_one]

54. really. Senator Sanders voted for the ACA, even though he was against it, because he

wanted Medicare for all. That is kind of "knuckle under", your words, not mine

[orpupilofnature57]

75. Yes because he identified his opposition, and hasn't given up on the notion, he's capable

of putting his Ego in check, unlike others .

[still_one]

79. The point is he was pragmatic enough to realize that it was better than what was before, and though

most here would want single payer, including myself, it is highly unlikely that it will happen until we are able to take back the house, and due to the gerrymandering, that will be very difficult until at least the next census, if even then

[orpupilofnature57]

84. Agreed .

[bvar22]

114. Bernie is not through fighting for Medicare for ALL.

You can't declare a "winner" until the fight is over.

[still_one]

116. It won't be until at least the next census because the house is

Gerrymandered in the republicans favor

[bvar22]

117. That doesn't matter.

This fight ain't over.

[Le Taz Hot]

6. Well, this time the election is going to be out of their control.

WHEN Bernie gets the nomination he and his supporters will energize the 2016 presidential elections that other "Democratic" candidates only wish they could.

The Powers that Be have learned nothing. I guess I'd be reluctant to accept that I was no longer useful in FORCING candidates on us by the preverbal wisdom: "Who else ya gonna vote for?" Question answered.

[2banon]

16. Excellent Point Le Taz Hot.

Bernie's candidacy offers great potential for motivation to participate and ultimately deliverance of the vote therefore a potential opportunity for a huge turn around of status quo. It may just be a dream, but it's a good one and it's really all we have going for us.

Here's to Bernie and the long awaited Revolution!

[Le Taz Hot]

23. I'm sorry, did you say,

"It may just be a dream?"

I'm telling Skittles. SKITTLES!!!!!!

Now, repeat after me: "Bernie Sanders WILL be the Next President." Skittles will be here directly. I'd start bending over now if I were you.

[2banon]

39. No! Not Skittles!!

[Le Taz Hot]

42. . . .

[Rosa Luxemburg]

17. People will come out to vote for Bernie

he is addressing the reasons why Democrats lost in 2010 and 2014.

[Le Taz Hot]

21. We need to start recruiting progressive candidates

for office NOW because Bernie's gonna have coattails. The others? Not so much.

[still_one]

94. and if Bernie gets the nomination 99.9% of the DUers will vote for him. However, whoever gets the

nomination, the election is not, and has never been in anyone's control. There is not one Democrat running, including Bernie and Hillary that is not going to have a formidable challenge to win the general election, especially in the red and purple states.

[Le Taz Hot]

102. Right.

So the Citizen's United and McCutcheon ruling had absolutely no impact on our entire Democracy.

[PowerToThePeople]

13. No more third way bullshit!! n/t

[tularetom]

15. I keep hearing about the imminent demise of the republican party due to demographics

But I have to say, IMO it's a lot more likely that the Democratic party is going to splinter into factions, especially if we keep nominating these almost-republican centrist lightweights for congressional and presidential offices.

[davidn3600]

20. If the GOP falls apart, it's not necesarrily good if you are far left

A lot of moderate Republicans and libertarians will join the Democratic party and start voting in those primaries. It'll eventually pull the Democratic party platform to the center and away from the left because those candidates with moderate/libertarian views will start winning primaries.

[tularetom]

22. How will we know when that happens?

That sort of describes what is taking place right now in the absence of the republican party falling apart.

[truebluegreen]

48. fwiw, it would have to pull the Democratic party to the left

to reach the "center." The Democratic party establishment is already well to the right of where we were historically, and imo where the country still is.

[still_one]

95. There is no such thing as a moderate republican or libertarian anymore

[pa28]

26. Meanwhile the Republicans are hard at work disenfranchising minorities.

If we think waiting around for demographics to bury Republicans is going to be a winner we need to think again. Voters need a compelling reason to vote for you.

"Vote for us because we're not quite as bad as the other guy" is a proven loser and it will keep losing.

[mopinko]

18. yup. they are primarying kelly westlund in wis 7.

she wants to make a second run. even tho she got thumped pretty hard she is willing to step back into the ring. with russ feingold and bernie sanders on the ticket, i am sure she would make a way stronger showing. they both endorsed her last time.
rather than support her, they are trying to block her.

same shit, different day.

[bvar22]

19. No blaming the "Fringe Left" for any losses in 2016.

As this OP demonstrates, the Loser Ball belongs squarely in the "Centrist Republican &Wall Street Appeasers Court".

Of course, there will be the wailing & gnashing of teeth as the Wall Street, Republican Lite, Centrists try to blame The Left for their own failures. ( a characteristic of Conservatives)

Is there some way we can get rid of Schumer?
That single individual has done more damage to the Democratic Party than anyone else I can think of at the moment......maybe Debbie Wasserman-Schultz could match him,
but she hasn't been around long enough to worm her way to the middle of the Apple and rot out the core like Schumer has.

[HooptieWagon]

30. DWS and Nelson have killed Dem Party enthusiasm in Fl.

Another of their Third Way candidates will be a sure loser, even though Dems outnumber Rs by close to a million. They don't care if Third Way loses to an R, they just don't want a progressive on the ballot.

[bvar22]

32. Funny you should mention that.

Last edited Tue Jul 12, 2016, 03:06 PM - Edit history (1)

The Arkansas Democratic Primary of 2010 was a heart breaking eye opener for the Grass Roots and Organized LABOR. We were given a Look Behind the Curtain,
and it wasn't very pretty.

[font size=3]We did EVERYTHING right in Arkansas in 2010.
We did EXACTLY what the White House asked us to do to "give the President Progressives in Congress that would work with him."[/font]

We organized and supported Democratic Lt Governor Bill Halter, the Pro-LABOR/ Pro-Health Care challenger to DINO Obstructionist Blanche Lincoln's Senate seat.
Halter was:

* Polling BETTER against the Republicans in the General,

*was popular in Arkansas in his OWN right,

*had an Up & Running Political machine,

* had a track record of winning elections (Lt. Governor)

*Had the full backing of Organized LABOR and The Grass Roots activists

*was handing Blanche her Anti-LABOR ass

...and we were WINNING!

Guess what happened.

The White House stepped in at the last minute to save Blanche's failing primary campaign with an Oval Office Endorsement of The Wicked Witch that Wrecked the Obama Agenda who was actually campaigning at that time as the one who had killed the Public Option!!!

Adding insult to injury, the White House sent Bill Clinton back to Arkansas on a state-wide Campaign/Fund Raising Tour for Blanche,
focusing on the areas with high Black Populations, and bashing Organized LABOR and "Liberals" at every opportunity.

For those of us who had worked hard to give President Obama Progressive Democrats who would work with him, it was especially difficult to watch his smiling Oval Office Endorsement for DINO Blanche Lincoln which played 24/7 on Arkansas TV the week before the runoff Primary election.

White House steps in to rescue Lincoln’s Primary Campaign in Arkansas

"So what did the Democratic Party establishment do when a Senator who allegedly impedes their agenda faced a primary challenger who would be more supportive of that agenda? They engaged in full-scale efforts to support Blanche Lincoln.

* Bill Clinton traveled to Arkansas to urge loyal Democrats to vote for her, bashing liberal groups for good measure.

*Obama recorded an ad for Lincoln which, among other things, were used to tell African-American primary voters that they should vote for her because she works for their interests.

*The entire Party infrastructure lent its support and resources to Lincoln — a Senator who supposedly prevents Democrats from doing all sorts of Wonderful, Progressive Things which they so wish they could do but just don’t have the votes for.

<snip>

What happened in this race also gives the lie to the insufferable excuse we’ve been hearing for the last 18 months from countless Obama defenders: namely, if the Senate doesn’t have 60 votes to pass good legislation, it’s not Obama’s fault because he has no leverage over these conservative Senators. It was always obvious what an absurd joke that claim was; the very idea of The Impotent, Helpless President, presiding over a vast government and party apparatus, was laughable. But now, in light of Arkansas, nobody should ever be willing to utter that again with a straight face.

Back when Lincoln was threatening to filibuster health care if it included a public option, the White House could obviously have said to her: if you don’t support a public option, not only will we not support your re-election bid, but we’ll support a primary challenger against you. Obama’s support for Lincoln did not merely help; it was arguably decisive, as The Washington Post documented today:"

<much more>

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/

After the White House and Party Leadership had spent a truck full of money torpedoing the Primary challenge of a Pro-LABOR Democrat for Lincoln's Senate seat, the Party support for Lincoln evaporated for the General Election, and as EVERYBODY had predicted, Lincoln lost badly giving that Senate seat to a Republican virtually uncontested in the General Election.

Don't you find it "interesting" that the Party Establishment and conservative Power Brokers would spend all that money in a Democratic Primary to make sure that their candidate won, and then leave Their Winner dangling without support in the General Election?

Many Grass Roots Activists working for a better government concluded that the current Democratic Party Leadership preferred to GIVE this Senate Seat to a Big Business Republican rather than taking the risk that a Pro-LABOR Democrat might win it, and it was difficult to argue with them.
This was greatly reinforced by the Insults & Ridicule to LABOR & The Grass Roots from the White House after their Primary "victory" over Organized LABOR & the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary.

When the supporters of Pro-LABOR Lt Gov Bill Halter asked the White House WHY they had chosen to throw their full support behind Lincoln at the last minute, rescuing her failing campaign, the only answer was ridicule and insults.

Ed Schultz sums up my feeling perfectly in the following clip.
http://crooksandliars.com/heather/ed-schultz-if-it-wasnt-labor-barack-obama-

So what did the White House gain by Beating Down Labor and the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary?
We don't know.
The White House has never responded to our questions with an explanation, only insults.
To date, the White House has refused to answer our questions,
or issue an apology for their taunts and ridicule against Organized LABOR and the Grass Roots in the Arkansas Democratic Primary.

[pa28]

35. Thanks for adding this.

Why is it that we keep the same corporate friendly leadership team in place despite the fact they've lost everything that isn't nailed down?

You know the numbers but I'll repeat it again. 24 States under total Republican control 31 governorships and an unprecedented majority in the house.

They've failed miserably and as the article points out. They appear to value status quo in the power structure rather than winning actual seats.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

[bvar22]

37. Things like this do NOT happen by accident.

*

[stuffmatters]

41. Halter was beating Lincoln, so Arkansas severly thinned voting access in districts leaning Halter.

As their grande finale against Halter. There was no protest by the Arkansas Dem Party, not a peep. I live in Ca but contributed to Halter bkz Lincoln was such a sellout on the public option. Watching him lose that day, in a state machine which had clearly manipulated voting access against him, was gut wrenching.

I do believe Halter would have won both the primary against Lincoln and the Senate seat.

[bvar22]

67. Needless to say,

....there isn't much support for the Party that told Arkansas to Go Fuck Yourselves!

Those fighting for UNIONS in Arkansas will not forget the taunting and ridicule from the White House because we backed a Pro-UNION candidate.
The current Democratic Party Leadership has no love for Organized LABOR or the Grassroots.


[font color=red] Anytime the National Party, the DSCC, the DCCC, the DNC,...or ANY other arm of the National Democratic Party gets "involved" in choosing winners in local Democratic Primaries, their goal is to thwart the Will of the People..... ALWAYS.

[HooptieWagon]

45. Yes. The lie is perpetuated that the DLC was formed because liberal Dems couldn't win.

That's false. A liberal grass-roots candidate won in 1976, which panicked Wall St. DLC was formed to guard the back door, to place the DNC in control of corporatists, so they could keep liberals from even getting on the ballot. And of course once the DLC name became toxic, they changed their name to Third Way. Now some are claiming to be "progressives" (Clinton) just to muddy the water further. But whatever the name du jour, they're corporatists, and they're in Washington to do the bidding of their corporate masters.

[kath]

113. You should post this as an OP

People should be made aware just how much the once-proud Democratic party is being ruined by these Third Way, DINO, Trojan Horse assholes.

[jeff47]

57. Of course they will blame the "Fringe left". It's what they've been doing since 1968.

Why should they stop now? They'll keep on doing it until the party fractures, and then happily move into the new right-of-center party. It'll occupy the historical position of Republicans (think Ike)

The other faction will settle in the historical position of the Democratic party (think FDR).

What is yet to be determined is which one will retain the "Democratic" name.

Oh, and this will create chaos that fucks us all for a decade or so, and the more-and-more insane Republicans will be able to win some due to the civil war the centrists want to fight in our party.

[bvar22]

118. The "Centrist" Democrats are Waaaaay to the Right of Eisenhower.

[jeff47]

119. Yep, but an actual left-of-center party would create competition

And the insane Republicans would still have the right end locked-up, so there wouldn't be as much room for the new right-of-center party to go as far into crazyland.

[leveymg]

25. In Pres election years, turnout is all determined at the top of the slate. Will Third Way Hill GOTV?

Democrats have a reason to be worried about the base.

[6chars]

103. she is polling very well

will probably get very high turnouts among the groups that are strongly for her.

[pinto]

27. I disagree. It's becoming clearer and clearer what the stakes are. Dems will show up, imo.

Not buying the fatalism some in the media are stating, whether on TV, in print or digital media.

[djean111]

28. So, it is not just me......

Similarly, Schumer doesn't want Grayson, an outspoken tribune for working families, to win a Senate seat, and his solution is Republican-"turned"-Democrat Patrick Murphy, a New Dem backbencher who votes with the Republican Party more than nearly any other Democrat in the House.

[HooptieWagon]

31. Yep, party elites trying to shove Murphy down our throats.

Response by base is <yawn>. Don't need another Third Way candidate, hoping Grayson runs.

[Fuddnik]

62. They've been doing that for years in Florida.

I managed a congressional campaign in 2006, when Debbie Weaselman-Schlitz praised our Republican opponent (her friend) so enthusiastically, she didn't need to utter the actual words, "I endorse". And she refused to support Dems running against the extremist Diaz-Ballart brothers or Ros Lehntin, or however the fuck you spell it. Bill Nelson wouldn't support anyone either.

In 2008, Rahm Emmanuel sent Barbara Boxer down to hold a fundraiser for a Republican turned Democrat during the primaries against Jan Schneider, who came within a couple of points of defeating Katherine Harris in '06. Result? Republican Congressman Vern Buchanan, rated one of the most corrupt members of Congress.

[djean111]

73. It is so frustrating to be condescendingly told we need to elect local Progressives if we

want Progressives in national office. The damned DNC just shoots them down. And then asks for money for their DINOs.
I am not playing that game any more.

[Eleanors38]

115. FL's Demo party is worse than TX's: Enough power to sabotage anyone left of Eisenhower.

[SoapBox]

34. I have said before...

We need to be energized on all levels of local, state and national elections.

It's way over due that we get rid of PukeBaggers that infiltrated any and all elected positions.

Go Bernie!

[FloridaBlues]

36. Can someone tell me

How can an independent candidate sen sanders get on any dem primary ballot?

[HooptieWagon]

47. He's not an Independant candidate.

He's a Democratic Party Primary candidate.

[jeff47]

60. He says "I want to run in the Democratic primary" and the party says "Ok".

There isn't a secret handshake or anything else that stops him.

[4139]

38. Hillary Bush vs Jeb Clinton will depress turnout

On both sides

[jeff47]

61. Nope. Republicans will be thrilled to vote against Clinton.

The Republicans have spent 20 years convincing their base that Clinton is Satan incarnate. They will be thrilled to vote against her.

[Thespian2]

43. Unfortunately,

the DLC/Turd Way "democrats" are excellent at running "democrats" who seem to be more Republican than Democrat...Charlie Crist, well-known loser as a Repukian and as a "democrat"...exactly how stupid are the leaders of the "democratic" party?

[MFrohike]

44. Not a shock

In 7 years, the Congress and the majority of the states have gone from Democratic control to solid Republican. This is usually blamed on low turnout by liberals, but there's never evidence offered for this argument. The evidence actually shows above average turnout in 2008, 2010, and 2012. 2010 was a year of high Democratic turnout and unbelievable Republican turnout, despite all the bullshitting from the usual suspects. 2014 was the year that saw a big decline in Democratic turnout.

At some point, people have to actually examine what happened.

[stuffmatters]

46. All House & Senate Wall Street Dems who voted for fast track should be primaried by real Dems

Fast track is completely against everything the Democratic Party stands for. It will now enable all these Dem poseurs... anti democracy, anti worker, anti environment, anti corporate protections for powerless American citizens.

This is The Issue of the primary season and needs to be bull horned to every Democratic voter especially in Democratic leaning districts.

If Hilary does prove to be a President for the middle class & represent Democratic principles or if Bernie gets elected by
a huge wave of people disgusted with our national, insatiable bilking by the corporate overclass (These "Trade Agreements"read like the most extreme agenda imaginable of the Global ALEC Bill Mill)...they are going to need support from principled Dems in House, Congress and way, way down ballot.

[HooptieWagon]

52. Which is why a Sanders Presidency is important.

He becomes Party Chairman. He can fire DWS and all the other committee chairs who surrendered the party to Wall St. Put in place committee chairs who welcome REAL progressives, who will fight for Labor, Main Street, and the poor and middle classes. Re institute a 50 state strategy, rebuilding dysfunctional state parties like Florida. Get ready for the 2020 re districting battle. All that shit is important.

[Politicub]

53. I have never heard of Gaius Publius or Howie Klein

Hyperbole much?

[Blue_Tires]

56. Then I'd hope the base is

stumping like crazy for Warren or Sanders, then...

[MisterP]

64. "if the voters don't respond to the program it's not the fault of the program, now is it?"

and '10 and '14 were great for the DNC: they fundraise about the same amount, win or lose

[Springslips]

70. Deja Vu all over again.

They were saying the exact same shit in 2012--the republicans have the passion the dems don't bla-bla-bla. . . I swear the press is a one trick monkey, they think it is still 1992. . . So dumb.

Listen, the world has change and it keeps changing. The repubs are in a worse position as they were in 2012--more of their base has died off, and they have yet to modernize. Forget midterms, midterm will always trail demographic change as only we hardcore political followers vote in it: the young and disengage don't. Midterms will come.

The base will turn out. Repubs big mouths will guarentees it. Trump is doing a great job of insuring hispanics show to the polls. The 1992, 1996, 2002, 2004 model doesn't apply anymore.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

71. The Corporate Dems gave up claiming only Corporate Dems can win in Red States....

Now they run them in solid Blue States knowing the alternative is a guy who wants to harvest the organs of the poor.

[bobclark86]

77. It's funny the blogger bring up the 21st...

Because that area has elected precisely one Democrat since Reconstruction. And that was only because a) he was an independent and not a Democrat, b) he ran in a special election eight months after Obama took office, c) the Republican dropped out in a special election, and d) Owens was obscenely pro M-I-C (an Air Force veteran and the district is home to Fort Drum) and very pro-Keystone XL.

BTW, he declined to run again, leading to Stefanik creaming her opponent by 24 points about eight months ago.

So there's all of that. Might want to pick a different district to use as an example of centrist Democrat = bad, and progressive = always win ...

[swilton]

78. Not surprising

When sycophants lose they become insecure and tend to circle the wagons....In cases of historical reform movements, it has happened over and over.

[CharlotteVale]

80. They still get rich regardless of turnout. That's all they care about.

[malokvale77]

88. "Smart Democrats are worried about base turnout In 2016"

First of all they don't understand who their base is (or maybe they do and it is not who they would like it to be).

Democrats have been traditionally working class. The party has ignored us for too long.

If the Democratic Party wants people to show up and vote, they better get behind a "real progress" candidate.

[davidpdx]

89. This is exactly the problem with our party right now

We are settling for conservative Democrats who undermine the party platform and live off corporate money.

Case in point, the congressman in my district Congressman Kurt Schrader is a bluedog. I'm not just making this up, go to his official website it says HE IS a bluedog. Schrader voted for fast track and supports free trade, voted against four weeks of paid parental leave for federal employees, voted against removing forces from Afghanistan, takes a tough on crime approach, opposed legalizing marijuana.

[joshcryer]

91. The only way there's a "horse race" is if the MSM...

...expends this "no turnout" narrative.

[True Blue Door]

96. It seems our VOTERS learned absolutely nothing from the 2014 losses.

I.e., that failing to turn out NEVER, EVER produces good results.

Let's hope that if we get Bernie Sanders nominated, that can turn around.

[sendero]

98. They should be worried..

... anyone truly in the "base" would not vote for most of these fake-ass Democrats. I know I won't.

[HassleCat]

104. Triangulation

When Bill Clinton did it, it was called "triangulating." The idea was to start at the base of the triangle, then work toward the point, moving always along the path that brought the two sides closer together, until finally reaching the point of the triangle, where the two sides met. This was considered political magic when Clinton did it, and nobody looked too closely at which side of the triangle was moving, and which side was stationary, since everybody just assumed it was a equilateral triangle, where both sides tipped toward each other at equal angles. Turns out it was a right triangle, a term that seems particularly appropriate, since the right side never bent at all, never varied from vertical, while the left side happily tipped 30 degrees to the right. Now we have two major parties, one extremely conservative, and the other not quite as conservative. The public is not highly motivated to go to the polls when they see no meaningful differences between the candidates.

[L0oniX]

108. This is only one big reason of many reasons Hillary will lose the GE.