Well, is the party getting the message now?

[MadHound]

The left can either make or break a campaign, anywhere in this country, even in that bluest of blue states, MA.

You simply can't deny that fact. Yes, Coakley was a weak candidate, but the fact of the matter is that if the left hadn't been pissed, you could have put a Klan Kleagle in the race as a Dem and the Dems would have won.

The left is pissed. They've seen an escalation in a war that they oppose, with no end in sight for either war. They've seen the LGBT community thrown under the bus. They've seen banksters bailed out while the rest of us continue to suffer. They've seen what was supposed to be healthcare reform turned into a club that is going to be used to beat on the middle class and the unions. They've seen education shoved over the cliff of privatization.

Make no mistake, the reason that Coakley lost is because the left either withheld their votes, or voted for Brown.

Consider this a wake up call. Obama and the Democrats need to start changing course, start going to the left, otherwise they are going to be killed this fall.

Sadly, many pundits and so called experts are trying to spin this defeat as being a call for the Dems to go even further to the right. Let me tell you this, everytime that the Dem party has gone to the right, they haven't gained more votes in the center or on the right, but rather have lost votes on the left. The largest untapped voting pool out there are the non-voters. Most of these non-voters are liberals and progressives and the only reason that they're not voting is because they feel that neither party represents their interests. It is time for the party to tack left, show these people, along with the rest of us, that they actually care about the ordinary person. If they do that, they will win victory after victory. But if the party tries to shy right again, they're going to lose. It's that simple.

One other thing that the party needs to do, and that's start showing some backbone. Instead of tap dancing around trying to please centerists and conservatives, willing to surrender at the slightest bit of resistance, the party needs to start fighting again. After all, it isn't like they don't still have large majorities in Congress. It isn't like they don't control the White House. This whole bullshit about needing sixty votes to accomplish anything is just that, bullshit. It is an excuse for the Dems to do nothing, or worse than nothing, passing bills that actually harms their constituency. Historically we have seen, time and again, Democratic congresses and Democratic presidents pass through serious progressive legislation not because they had a super majority, but because they fought, they fought long and hard, and they didn't cave the first time some neo-con asshole said boo.

This is where the party stands this morning, at a crossroads. They can take a path on the left, and start fighting for what is right and just in this country and win. Or they can once more, like they've done so often over the past couple of decades, go out and cave. If they do that, they'll lose, badly.

It's that simple, and the choice is theirs.

[FBaggins]

1. Yes. The problem is that they're "getting" two conflicting "messages".

And it's going to rip us up.

The lack of real exit polling from the race is going to make it even easier for both sides to spin the loss... AND make it harder to see reality.

[MadHound]

3. The lack of real exit polling is a problem

But the fact that this was in the bluest of blue states should state the message loud and clear. No amount of spin can cover up the fact that this was done in MA, of all places.

[FBaggins]

12. The question is still "WHY?"

Some voters went against us (or stayed home) because things have moved too far to the left... some stayed home (though I can't see voting for Brown) because things hadn't moved far ENOUGH to the left.

The question is how many of each were there? Which clear message from the voter is the one we need to respond to?

Without good exit polling (or likely even with it), the answer to that question is going to depend on who is doing the listening. And that's very dangerous.

[MadHound]

17. That sort of question would be applicable in most any other state

But this is MA, the bluest of the blue. It is a sure bet that in a state like that, the loss was due to the left staying home, or even voting for Brown out of spite (that's indeed happened before, just ask Gore what his pro offshore drilling stance cost him in Florida).

Furthermore, the party has consistently been moving to the right for a long time now, long enough to disprove the notion that moving to the right brings about a win. When you continue to do something time and again, but expect a different result each time, then some consider that insanity. It's time to stop that particular insanity and move back to the left, back to the roots of the Democratic party.

[FBaggins]

41. Nah... It's applicable here too.

If independents had stayed away and/or voted for Coakley, that would be true. Instead, they showed up and voted for the other guy.

My concern here is that it isn't either/or... It's both.

And that means we have a real problem that may not have a solution.

[rudy23]

35. One must look at the reality---did we actually move left?

People can say what they want to, but what did the Democrats do that was a move to the left?

[FBaggins]

40. Depends on who "we" is.

Have Democrats moved left? I wouldn't say so. But that's not the issue. We've moved public policy well to the left... Just not far enough so for many of us.

More importantly though... No... Reality isn't what counts. Perception is everything.

[grahamhgreen]

44. I disagree. HC crap, Iraqistan, bank bailout, no war crimes prosecutions - all far right ideals.

[FBaggins]

45. Hardly.

That's a common (and understandable) misconception. It's like assuming that anyone who disagrees with me in part must agree with the opposition in whole. The current HC position is far from a progressive ideal, but it is nothing like what the far right wants. If it were they would be jumping on it and claiming credit.

[flyarm]

7. anyone who wants to see reality can see it very clearly ! And the Op is 100% correct! Thank you n/t

[notesdev]

22. The pols putting the brakes on HCR

Webb, Frank... they saw clearly what this was about.

No more thousand page bills! No more bank bailouts! No more industry insiders writing our laws!

[NightWatcher]

2. the admin cannot be "progressive" and corporate whores at the same time

they turned their backs on the Progressives in exchange for corporate sponsorship and will reap the whirlwind this November.

This "message" they should be getting will be replaced by the DLC with "you damned lefties, why did you do this to us?"

They might want to prove the character of anyone running in November and start ACTUALLY CAMPAIGNING NOW instead of waiting till Halloween and expect to just phone it in. Obama needs to throw the Progressives a bone or two, or November WILL BE A MASSACRE!

The New Team of the DLC is about to sink this ship

[MadHound]

5. Yep, the left will get bludgeoned over the head by the DLC,

And you know what, if that happens we're going to have to deliver the message time and again until they get it.

Corporations can give the party lots of money, but they can't vote. It's that simple.

[glitch]

53. Corporations don't pay for progress, they pay for profits.

Even if they have to steal those profits from the taxpayers.

[T Wolf]

4. What they should do and what they will do are far apart. I have every "faith" that the

party "leaders" will go even further reich. They've done it before and show no inclination to change their stripes.

The worry I have is how far into the insanity of puke values and policies will they think they have to go.

Who will be the next group abandoned?

What will be the next traditionally Democratic value to be thrown away in the search for riech-wing voters?

[MadHound]

8. Sadly I think that you're correct.

They've shown time and again that the only play in their playbook is to go right, that's why we're having more and more people staying home out of sheer disgust.

Well, if they continue to do this, eventually they will fade into oblivion and a new party can rise out of the ashes on the left. We'll see what happens.

[Better Believe It]

6. The working class and middle class is pissed even more than the "left"!

They blame those in power for the wars and the economy.

[flyarm]

9. the working class and middle class is mostly to the.. left! eom

[MadHound]

11. The working class, and even the middle class have traditionally been dominated by the Dems

In fact the working class, especially the unions, have been the backbone of the left.

And they have every right to blame those in power for the wars and the economy. Granted, Bush started these problems, but sadly this administration have and are making them worse.

[dem629]

10. What difference does it make at this point?

Haven't both parties proved themselves to be nothing more than a bunch of smooth-talking swindlers, who get the people riled up over social issues that have little or nothing to do with most of our lives, while they (the politicians) and their friends on Wall St. and banks and big corporations run away with our tax dollars?

It's a game to them. And they win every time. I'm to the point of withdrawing from it altogether because the outcome is always the same. I just wish I hadn't placed so much hope in the last election. That's the last time I'll get swept up with that kind of emotion and excitement.

[MadHound]

13. It's both tempting and easy to take that route,

But the fact of the matter is that while the Republican party is beyond all redemption, the Democratic party still holds out the hope of being the champion of the ordinary person. The trouble is they have listened for far too long to the advice and strategy of the corporatists in the party, the DLC, the third way folks. If the party goes back to its roots, then it can not only win again, but do much good for this country.

[dem629]

16. I'd like to think you're correct...

...but what's your reasoning for this? "The Democratic party still holds out the hope of being the champion of the ordinary person."

I see no evidence of that, something real, beyond rhetoric found in speeches.

[MadHound]

18. Call me an optimist,

I've seen the party as the champion of the ordinary person in my life time. Granted, that was long ago, but still, it has happened.

If we simply consign the Democratic party to the dustheap of history, yes, at some point another party will rise to take it's place. But that interim period could literally be a killer.

[alberg]

14. Called both my Senators and Congressman this morning

and told them that the message from Massachusetts is that Americans want real HealthCare reform, not mandated giveaways to the Insurance Companies. We want jobs and a regulated Wall Street that prevents bankers from holding our economy hostage. That means moving to the "left", not the "right".

[cali]

15. the left voted for Brown? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Yes, they certainly do need to move toward the left but anyone who thinks that's the message they'll take away from this election, is in complete denial.

[MadHound]

19. Yeah, I know that the truth hurts, but it is none the less the truth.

After all, it's happened before. Look at Gore in Florida. His pro offshore drilling position pissed off enough people down there during the '00 election that 400,000 self described liberals and 200,000 registered Democrats voted for Bush out of sheer spite.

Hell, I've even voted for a 'Pug, once, because the Democratic alternative was a right wing, corporately corrupt so called Dem who needed to be shoved out of office by any means possible.

Sorry, but most people in this country aren't lockstep voters, push on them hard enough and they'll get pissed and start pushing back.

Besides, let me repeat, this happened in MA, where there aren't enough genuine conservative voters to fill a football stadium. So where did all those votes for Brown come from?

[cali]

25. lol. you haven't posted any evidence for your claim.

and sorry, there are lots of "Reagan democrats" who will vote for a charismatic repub in MA.

[MadHound]

29. Ah yes, typical

Ignore the truth if it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions.

What, Florida isn't a good enough example for you? Hell, what happened with Volkmer isn't a good enough example for you?

Keep that head of yours firmly planted in the sand, and keep watching the Dems lose. Or wake up to reality, it's your choice.

[cali]

34. MA voted twice for Reagan. that's right. twice. that's just as powerful

and example as yours. I'm not a simplistic linear thinker like you who tries to make everything fit into their frame, dearie. There were many factors involved in this.

Keep your head firmly planted in that dark hole.

[MadHound]

36. What, over two decades ago, d'uh.

Electorate aren't static, voting patterns aren't static. You've got to keep up with the times or get left behind.

Apparently you want to be left behind.

[xiamiam]

20. nothing to show voters..hey, look what s been accomplished this year

wall street held accountable, war profiteers and criminals held accountable, an effective loan mod program for homeowners, legitimate health care reform, we're out of gitmo and iraq and will not be escalating more wars and sending emotionally ill soldiers on their 4th and 5th tours...etc etc etc

pretty damned ineffective congress and administration ...lots of talk from all sides and little being done except the fat cats continued looting...

[Motown_Johnny]

21. MA. has 51.4% independent voters. This was lost in the middle not on the left

Sorry.


You can't frame this as "we should move to the left".


You can frame this as "stop taking voters for granted and give us good candidates to support".

[MadHound]

23. Another one who conflates the idea of "independent" with "centerist"

That's simply not the case. An independent voter is, by definition, one who simply doesn't belong to either party. That doesn't mean that they hold centerist positions, in fact in many, if not most cases, independents tend to be more politically towards the fringes of the political spectrum, either right or left.

This mythical middle consisting of independents is just that, a myth. By continuing to pull further and further towards the right, the party is leaving behind a bunch of independents on the left, who are either sitting out elections, or voting for 'Pugs out of sheer spite.

[jgraz]

32. And even if all MA independents *are* Centrists (they aren't)

How do you expect to win their votes by acting even more like the weak party they've already rejected?

[drm604]

24. They're just as likely to get the message that they should move further to the right.

In fact that's the message they're more likely to get. Someone further to the right wins the election, so we expect them to take that as a message to move further to the left? Does that really make sense to anyone?

Sure, we can achieve our goals by voting for Republicans, or by withholding our votes from Democrats. Yep, that'll work. :sarcasm:

People who believe that are letting themselves be manipulated by the right. The idea that electing someone further to the right will somehow help the left sounds like something straight from Karl Rove or Frank Luntz. Up is down. War is peace. Elect a Republican to send a message!

[treestar]

27. +1000

[jgraz]

30. If they do that again, then they're truly too stupid to hold office.

Either that, or they're losing on purpose.

[drm604]

37. So let's vote for the bad guys instead?

I doubt that they'll move drastically to the right, but the "message" of electing a Republican isn't likely to push them to the left either. All it achieves is giving the Republicans another seat.

[jgraz]

38. The problem is, it's getting harder to tell who the "bad guys" are.

All it would take is for Democrats to start acting like Democrats again. We'd never see another Repuke majority in our lifetimes.

[MadHound]

31. So tell me, how's that Democratic record been since they've started moving to the right?

Oh, yeah, that's it, abysmal. By some definitions continuing to do the same thing over and over again, while expecting a different result each time is a form of insanity. The Dems have been engaged in this particular form of insanity for a couple of decades now and what's happened?

It's time for you, and the party to wake up. Consider this a wake up call.

[drm604]

42. I'm fully awake.

Maybe you need to wake up and explain to me how pushing the Senate further to the right fixes anything? If we're concerned that the Democrats have moved too far to the right (and they have) then the answer isn't to elect people even further to the right.

They've moved to the right because of the psychological manipulation of the American people that has been going on for decades.

The idea that we can advance our cause by electing people even further to the right is more of that manipulation, and I find it frightening that it's caught on so much here on DU.

We need to run primary challengers. That needs to be done at the grassroots level. I've been the organizer for two different meetup groups, both of which are currently inactive due to non-participation. That non-participation is the problem.

We don't suffer from a lack of Republicans in office, so electing more of them is not the answer. We suffer from a lack of progressive Democrats. The answer to that is to elect more progressive Democrats. While we're working on that, we also have to avoid pushing Washington even further to the right.

[L0oniX]

26. It's a repeat of Clinton's center right shit which lost us the house.

[Orsino]

28. The Party is just fine with this message.

I predict no substantive changes in strategy will follow. When our platform depends on our being just a little bit more humane and honest than the GOP, the occasional loss is inevitable.

[MadHound]

33. You could very well be right,

And the party will lose badly this fall. Just like they've been losing for years and decades now by following this strategy.

[donco6]

39. They WANT to go further right.

This provides the perfect cover

[drm604]

46. Thank you.

I'm shocked that so many DUers think that some kind of useful message has been sent. Change has to occur at the primary level. Start running and electing progressive challengers, that's a message they might get.

[donco6]

47. It's an old cliche, but . . .

leopards really don't change their spots. You elect conservaDems, they're going to be conservative. Duh.

[BuelahWitch]

49. Didn't MA run a more progressive Dem in the primary

But the Party machine backed Coakley. That's our problem, the party MACHINE wants right wing candidates.

[drm604]

50. Which is why we all need to get active within our local parties. n/t

[Kaleva]

52. Yes, two of them but the left ignored both.

[SlingBlade]

43. K & R. Your spot on brother, Spot on !

The left is pissed !
Ignore the base at your own peril Mr. Obama

LIEberman IS NOT YOUR FRIEND !

[Blue_Tires]

48. well, Kaine still has a job this morning, so i guess not...

[dajoki]

51. K&R

[Faryn Balyncd]

54. k and r......The idea that corporatism = centrism is plain wrong. Independents who voted for Obama &

then for Brown favored a public option (82%).


on policy issues, Middle America has more in common with "the fringe left" than they do with corporatist pseudo-centrists.






K and R