General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Rachel had it Right, now DU is getting it wrong. [View all]davidpdx
(22,000 posts)1) DU represents a small sliver of Democrats in the nation.
2) While some on here may have stated they would vote Libertarian or Green I would venture to guess it wasn't enough to swing many elections (note: I also disappeared for awhile and was around less frequently until the beginning of this year).
3) Enthusiasm in the 2010 election was pretty low on the Democrats side. Turn out is generally lower in mid-term elections and usually the party in the White House loses seats in the first mid-term after taking office (note this happened during both mid-terms under Clinton and during Bush's second term).
I think you have to be careful about laying this squarely at the feet of DU as you seem to be insinuating. The problems with the 2010 mid-term elections goes way beyond this website and what a bunch of keyboard warriors said. We simply did not do what we needed to in order to hold seats in the House.
On the argument about purists/non-purists: I would say I am not a complete purists, but I do believe we have to stand tough to get revenue raised to solve the financial problems. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to continue for those who make over $200,000 is plain ludicrous. Republicans refused to compromise on dozens of issues last time around and instead voted 31 times to repeal the ACA. They are fucking clowns. It is also my belief that they are looking for some way to try (not that I'm saying it will work) to impeach Obama. If that happens I would seriously think the purists/non-purists argument goes out the window. It will come down to Democrats standing behind Obama or letting the Republicans attack him.