This is what happens when you don't fight, when you don't stand up for issues the people care about,

[MadHound]

The people of this country gave the Democratic party great power in '08. In doing so, their mandate was to fight for what is right, what the people desperately want and need.

Yet on legislation after legislation, the Dems didn't fight. They compromised away the public option, the repeal of DADT, our civil liberties, on and on. They simply did not fight.

That is what depressed voter turn out. Not the media, not the attack ads, not tricks. What killed the Democratic turn out was simply this: The people of this country were fed up and simply disgusted with the fact that the Dems caved time and again. They didn't want post partisanship, they didn't want reaching across the aisle. What they wanted was that fabulous 'Pug legislative machine that pushed through so much crap over the years to be seized by the Dems and used to help them out.

Instead we got more corporate compromising crap.

The fault for this election doesn't lie with the media, with Jon Stewart, with the people. The fault lies with the Democratic party leadership who failed to stand up and fight for the people of this country.

Hopefully there are lessons learned from this debacle. If not, well, you will see that lesson repeated in 2012, 2014, 2016. . .

The Dems have absolutely got to get a spine and stand up and start fighting. For their own political good, and for the good of this country.

[TornadoTN]

1. Yes indeed but brace yourself for the backlash

It's always someone elses fault for our parties trouble! It never could be anything that we do (or in this case - don't do)!:sarcasm:

[Vincardog]

2. Good luck getting the 'New' Dems or the old DLC to admit to any of that truth

[Yeshuah Ben Joseph]

3. "The fault lies with the Democratic party leadership..."

Or more specifically with the fact that no such thing exists. There has only been one LEADER in the Democratic Party in the 21st century......



And the sickening contrast between the party with him, and the party without him couldn't be more obvious than the contrast between Myself and this guy ---> :evilgrin:

[MadHound]

7. Yeah, I saw the effect of that in my own state.

With Dean's fifty state strategy, Missouri elected a Democratic Senator in '08, a Democratic governor, and virtually tied on the Bush/McCain slot. Without the fifty state strategy, Carnahan was abandoned to the wolves, as was Missouri, and we sunk down to being deep red.

After all, the Democratic leadership have to devote tons of time, money and resources to Nevada because apparently Reid couldn't handle a batshit crazy challenger on his own.

[Catherina]

4. But it's the media's fault along with those pesky gays and their ponies

and the poor, and the teachers, and the antiwar folks, and the homeowners underwater, and the (insert your own here).

Bought and paid for, both parties. We can't keep electing nonprogressives to represent us and then acting shocked when they don't. From now on, if a candidate doesn't meet all my pet *peeves*, I'm not voting for them.

Excuse me while I go build a shed for my pony.

Rec'd

[Fire1]

5. Oh, I hope like hell he's a one termer and the republicans

CONTINUE taking a dump on this trash bin of a nation. You only miss your water when the well runs dry. If he is a one termer, 2008 was my final vote and I'm not alone.

[AnArmyVeteran]

6. I reced you but get ready to be savagely unreced as I was for saying this very thing.

Not many democrats in this forum want anyone to tell the truth about the lack of leadership in the democratic party.

[blindpig]

8. Not to worry

The Republicans got no game, no plan either. Either party is enthralled by Capitalism and it's demands. The problem is that there is no real solution to the capitalist crisis that does not involve either reducing the power and profits of Capital or throwing the burden of Capitalism's failure upon the masses. Guess what we're gonna get, and even that is but a temporary fix to the unfixable monstrosity of Capitalism.

[Catherina]

10. It's going to be very painful for those who refuse to see where we're headed.

I'm not looking forward to the transition from the unfixable at all but it's best to be realistic and face things so we can prepare and make it less painful for us and our families.

[MadHound]

11. Frankly I've seen this coming down the pike for twenty five years,

And have been making preparations accordingly. Our country is headed for a deep, dark place, and while ultimately I think that we will wind up with a better place when we come out the other side, it's going to be an ugly, bloody journey to get us there.

[Catherina]

20. Yes, same here

I went as far as moving completely out of the country because I figured by the time I bought a piece of land and set up living as independently as I could, it would be cheaper and healthier just to leave. It was the best move I ever made. The reverberations of the bloody journey will be felt all over though.

[Dr.Phool]

15. You can buy a lot of game with unlimited corporate cash.

[MuseRider]

9. I could not agree more.

If all we do is whine about who wronged the dems, who made it impossible, who was nasty or rich or mean then we will never again win unless we have another corporate friendly candidate that manages to fool people with beautiful words and intelligence and charisma.

[Catherina]

19. Well said

I wholeheartedly want to agree but an underlying question is nagging at me as I type. I think we need to examine what we're really winning since their job is to protect capital, not people.

[HughMoran]

12. Nonsense

Most progressive legislation in a generation, and you seek to destroy the Democrats. Interesting...

[MadHound]

13. Goes to show you how little truly progressive legislation the Dems have proposed

I mean really now, there's a reason that Clinton was/is known as the best Republican president we've had since Lincoln.

[TexasObserver]

14. recommend

[alsame]

16. We, as a party, are

better than our leadership.

All of us, from the most 'leftist' to the most conservative Dem, are more willing to fight and have more enthusiasm for real change than do our elected leadership.

We the people are not pawns of big business and corporate America - we just want a better country. They want to maintain the status quo.

[Dr.Phool]

17. Kick and Rec!

[leftstreet]

18. K&R

[gratuitous]

21. The so-called enthusiasm gap was in the non-affiliated vote

Both Republicans and Democrats turned out in their usual numbers, but a lot of progressive/liberal independents did not vote, while the conservative independents voted in numbers comparable to their 2008 numbers. People who are politically aware voted as they usually do. People for whom politics doesn't appear to have a connection to their day-to-day voted in greater numbers for Republicans.

The question is why didn't the same progressive/liberal unaffiliated voters who installed the Democratic majorities and president in 2008 bother to vote in 2010? I think there's a share of blame to go to the popular media, which is obsessed with the horse race aspect of politics to the exclusion of everything else, and a grave detriment to the country. A share goes to the Democratic party faithful for failing to work as hard in 2010 as they did in 2008. A share goes to our good corrupt friends on the Supreme Court who tore down the wall between corporate money and the political process under the guise of free speech. A share goes to those same corporations for corrupting the process with their outsize monetary influence.

But the biggest share indeed belongs to our party leadership, which couldn't articulate decent reasons for what they had accomplished in two years, or even to list those accomplishments. A host of Democratic candidates ran away from their own record, and the Blue Dogs paid a heavy price for their spinelessness. But how hard is it to say, in the face of repeated yammering about "repealing Obamacare" to simply say, "So, you're in favor of a return to pre-existing conditions?" When the big lie got out about $500 billion in "cuts" to Medicare, how difficult would it have been to chuckle indulgently and say, "Well, that's the first time I've ever heard 'savings' re-cast as 'cuts.' Our reforms will save $500 billion for Medicare in the next 10 years. Those aren't cuts, those are better efficiencies for a better program."

Instead, we got mealy-mouthed wishy-washiness, a failure to blame Republican obstructionism (and there are zillions of examples to choose from, anyone could have adopted a different pet Republican block depending on their circumstances), and poor party discipline such that the Blue Dogs thought their best move was to run as Republican Lite, the nincompoops.