I don't think it's out of hand to view the opposition and results in the midterms as validation

[bigtree]

. . . for our President and party who passed historic legislation (HCR, stimulus, auto worker bailout, etc.) over opposition that stymied or scared-off previous administrations and Congresses from following through to a successful conclusion.

Sometimes you just take hits for doing what's right, and this past election registered more anger and fury from republican voters than from Democrats. There may well be a number of folks who are frustrated and angry that needs and concerns that affect them most aren't being resolved or are under attack by this administration, but there isn't much evidence of that in the results or in exit polling.

What we see after the election are seats in red districts, which were held tenuously by conservative members of our party, reclaimed by the republicans and liberal seats held fast in the Democratic camp. What I don't see is some backlash among Democratic voters against the politics practiced by the White House or our Democratic leadership.

You can claim that we'd get more Democratic voters to the polls if the party tacked hard to the left (my preference), but it's not clear what the ideology or attitude is of the voters who sat on the sidelines. There's certainly no clear repudiation of the President in those numbers. The midterms are traditionally ignored by a majority of registered voters overall. I'm not seeing much discontent with the President or our party in the results which gave the House to republicans, or some pent up demand that he carry forward with many of the complaints from progressive critics; like Guantanamo, DADT, DOMA, habeus corpus, wiretapping, Bush crimes, etc.. Most Democrats are solidly behind the President and the party.

It's in those red states and districts that we seemed to be running into just enough resistance from conservative voters to allow republicans to regain the House. That resistance was a direct response to the historic enactment of planks of our Democratic agenda, more than it was some backlash from Democrats against our President and party.

Are we supposed to respond to that republican resistance by reshuffling or replacing the political deck which the majority of Democratic voters are comfortable with enough to pull the lever for our party's candidates? It's not as if a more progressive tone and direction from the White House (my preference) is going to change the minds of conservative voters in the red states and districts. We may well motivate progressive-minded voters to the polls with a more liberal agenda, but, in these red areas of the country, you can just as easily whip up the opposition with that approach.

There has to be a political balancing of intentions and actions to make and hold our legislative majority. I would argue that the President and our Democratic leadership have done a pretty good job in the past two years in balancing that predictable backlash from republican voters looking to undo the results of the last election and the determination to advance major planks of our Democratic agenda.

Pointing to the midterm as proof that the President doesn't 'get' Democratic voters isn't supported by the exit data or the results of the election. There's more proof in the results that this President is determined to make progress on our Democratic agenda without undo regard for his political hide. That will become more evident, I think, as he moves closer to his re-election and beyond. Hopefully, he can make enough further progress on that agenda to further aggravate the republican opposition and still allow our party to regain the seats we need to take back our Democratic trifecta.

[mzteris]

1. it appears that "sitting on the sidelines" royally backfired

everyone now believes that "the country" wants to move further RIGHT.

Way to go, people!! You sure sent THAT message, eh?

[bigtree]

3. I think our party responded pretty well, given the pent-up republican showing

Self-identified Democrats matched republican voters in percentages. Self-identified independents made out the rest of the voter make-up. It's not clear to me that progressives have the numbers in these red states and districts right now to have made a significant difference in the results. They were certainly visible in the states and districts which traditionally lean Democratic.

[Lisa D]

2. Great post!

You get it.

[Tatiana]

4. We basically lost the midwest.

Obama's old Senate seat has gone to a millionaire Rethug.

I knew the southern areas would track conservative. The only way we are going to make inroads there is with Dean's strategy and it doesn't look like he's coming back anytime soon.

We can't win in 2012 without the midwest. We lost this area because of the economy and because a lot of the voters who came out in 2008 were not ideological. They just knew things were bad under Bush and were voting for change. Now those same voters mostly stayed home or voted for the Republicant. We have to give these people a reason for coming out and voting Dem again.

Obama is by nature a consensus builder. He is always going to want bipartisanship and to reach across the aisle. I think that is just his personality, which really hurts us when a line in the sand needs to be drawn. I'm hoping the whitehousecleaning that is going on will improve the advise the President receives and hopefully he will understand that standing his ground (for instance, on tax cuts for the wealthy) is in the best interest of the country, not compromise.

[bigtree]

5. you realize, of course

. . . the Midwest isn't contentious for Democrats because our party's politics wasn't liberal enough.

Much of Dean's successful 50-state strategy was about paying heed to the issues and attitude of red states and districts where Democrats had traditionally fared poorly in order to round out a legislative majority. That effort isn't going to be served well by candidates offering up a heaping dose of liberalism, no matter when or how you attempt it. Compromise is going to be the watchword for independents and moderate voters in those areas inclined to support Democrats. The President doesn't just want compromise for compromising sake. He anticipates a political payoff.

As the President responded in an interview with progressive bloggers:

"There has not been, I think, any issue that we've worked in which I have been willing to sign on to a compromise that I didn't feel was a strong improvement over the status quo and was not the best that we could do, given the political alignments that we've got."

I agree with that.

[Tatiana]

6. We lost the midwest due to poor politics.

It takes good politics and policy to win elections. We were MIA on the politics side which is where Dean would have been particularly helpful (especially in coordinating a national message, which was a mistake as Bill Clinton had urged).

As the leader of the party, Obama should ask for Dean to come back to the DNC. Period. Rahm is gone, that tension won't be there.

What are people looking for? I think they are looking for a fighter (again, looking at the politics). We have to use the language, such as Dean did in 2006 and 2008.

Also, if the President is anticipating a political payoff for compromise, he's going to be waiting for a long time. The Republicants have no intentions of giving the President anything. Their hatred of the man has no basis in logic, but in something much more sinister.

[bigtree]

7. the political payoff

. . . is to be sought from moderate and independent voters; not so much from republican legislators. Most of the rhetoric from the President about compromising is for political effect. He's well aware of the gamesmanship that's upcoming. He's positioning his presidency and our party as reasonable and responsible in the face of the open declarations of confrontation and obstruction from the republican leadership. That's going to play well among the independent voters the President may well need in close contests; especially in the red-dominated districts in the Midwest.

The 'message' in the regions in which republicans dominated in the last election needs to be balanced in the presidential election if Democrats are going to regain their votes. The 'consensus' Obama is what motivated many of those voters to cast their ballot for the Democratic nominee.

[SidDithers]

8. K&R...nt

Sid

[bigtree]

9. .

[Scurrilous]

10. K & R

:thumbsup: