It's a curious argument to point to the election results as a progressive referendum on the WH

[bigtree]

Most of what drove republicans to the polls was their reaction to our President and our party's political and legislative progress. The 'anger' these republicans expressed was not due to any desire for this WH to act on any of the initiatives and concerns that progressive critics point to in their own discontent. The majority of independents also expressed dissatisfaction with our Democratic agenda.

Conversely, Democrats who voted expressed overwhelming support for the President and our party.

More to the point, I don't understand all of the sympathy and understanding granted to those Democratic voters who sat home and allowed the republicans to take charge of the House. That was a smart move. :eyes: We're in MUCH better shape to advance their concerns into action or law, now, with republicans controlling the House . . . right?

What'll they do for an encore? Sit out in 2012 and allow Palin to win? That'll show us!

[SidDithers]

1. K&R...nt

Sid

[Andy823]

2. K&R nt.

[cyr330]

3. As much as I hate it. . .

I understand the actions of those who didn't feel the need to vote. Just take a peek at Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas. She was a disaster, although her replacement will be much, much worse. What's the real problem is that Dems like B. Lincoln just DEMORALIZE the base, and they get sick of holding their noses and voting. People want candidates they can trust who will represent them accurately and NOT sit back and allow these disasters to happen. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah. . . I get it. I understand that the Repigs are worse. I understand what a fucking disaster this is going to be. Nonetheless, it's important to realize that we need to replace these fuckers with REAL Democratic candidates, and perhaps the base will be more inclined to vote next time.

[kctim]

17. So what happens when

the 'base' you speak of is basically non-existent in red districts that elect moderate Democrats?

[nofurylike]

4. K&R very well said, bigtree. thank you for posting this. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. You really do NOT get us politics

You have a biennial exercise to excite 51 bases in 51 parties every two years.

Until you either create a civic culture where people will vote as a mater if civic pride, or make it mandatory. live with it, or not.

Jesus this is like poli sci 101 material!

[bigtree]

24. one element that's roundly ignored or discounted by partisans

. . . is the opposite reaction, the backlash, against more strident moves by our party and President. These midterm voters are more motivated to vote against something or someone, than they are to vote for some policy or individual. There was an enormous well of voters who wanted to square their loss in the last election. There is also an unusual amount of animus toward this particular President from the majority of white male voters who showed up.

More relevant, the President wasn't running in these races, individual Democrats were - with all of their own baggage to defend. It's difficult to get a national result (majority control) from state and local contests.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Even NATIONAL PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS

are 51 different elections, and I am not even adding territories here.

As to partisans, I ain't one. I just get this. If you do not excite your base... your LOCAL CADRE... each POTENTIAL voter goes to the polls, or stays home for very LOCAL reasons.

Hell I only went to the polls because I got that CIVIL CULTURE ingrained in ANOTHER COUNTRY... where that culture is ever-present. NOT VOTING is shunned.

Here that don't exist.

And people need to get this. Either create the same fucking culture, or make it mandatory if you really want to change the dynamic.

Neither will happen in my opinion...

[bigtree]

52. Democratic folks were sure 'excited' in my state.

These were individual contests and the individuals running should be held to account for their performance before blaming our party for not having some overriding message that would appeal to voters.

It wasn't really a shock that republicans were 'excited' to vote against our party after we trounced them two years ago. I don't see any evidence that voters were voting 'for' them as much as they rejected Democratic candidates in some key races. Most of the criticism of our party's performance is based on the results of House races. Very little is more localized and subjective to local politics than House races.

Besides, midterms favor the 'anti-voter' more than it favors support for some policy or individual.

[nadinbrzezinski]

54. There you go they were excited about a LOCAL race

the cadre was mobilized. And this has to happen every fucking district.

And yes this was a classic midterm...

As to overriding message, IT HELPS... when you punch the base, whether that is the professional left, labor or teachers, well that tends to be unhelpful.

Here I went NOT because of that, but IN SPITE of that. Keeping two crazees off any power was far more important than getting punched again... and I expect it. In fact, the CENTRISTS will blame the left, and the left will blame the centrists. and I blame both... for different reasons

Oh and there is more, THIS WAS A PROTEST election, they really, that box of rocks, didn't vote FOR the Republicans but they voted AGAINST the Democrats. It was a classic protest vote.

And I expect the punching to fucking continue.

By the way you want to win elections? Hate to point this out, FEAR works... stop the namby panbly and really message AGAINST republicans

Republcians love Banks

Republicans hate social security...

But NOOOO

This is all that the President did... that dog ain't gonna hunt with the box of rocks that is the US Electorate. They should start by actually READYING LAKOFF, and secondly , INTERNALIZING IT, instead of blowing it off.

At this pont I hate to say it, we really do not want the power.Or we would have re-remembered those lessons. We knew that during oh Truman's years... even LBJ's years. SInce Reagan though...

[jaxx]

6. I don't have any sympathy for those who stayed home.

We each get one vote, and if you don't care enough to use it don't come around with demands for how it ought to be. I already went through this with a guy at work, he stayed home. When he started in I told him he had a chance and blew it.

K&R

[treestar]

12. Me neither, they are just acting above it all

If the Democrats aren't good enough for them, they could at least vote for the Greens or somebody like that.

[apocalypsehow]

7. Kick, Rec. n/t.

[sabrina 1]

8. Do you have any statistics that show Democrats sat out the election?

I have not found anything to substantiate that claim. I have found information on Independents who went with Democrats in 2008, not doing so in this election. I would be interested in a link to that information. It certainly wasn't the case where I am fyi.

[BzaDem]

28. The electorate in 2008 was D+8, as opposed to D+0 in 2010. That's a huge difference -- if all House

races had a D-R of 8 above what they did, we would have kept the House.

That's not the whole story, since the difference would be distributed non-uniformly across the 435 districts. But even taking that into account, we would have won tens of seats we didn't win on election day (even with Independents breaking against us).

[sabrina 1]

34. Okay, but since most progressive Democrats did hold on to their

seats, the problem seems to be those Democrats who were blamed over and over by the WH for blocking progressive issues. Maybe Democrats took that seriously and decided to let Blue Dogs go which was probably not a difficult decision anyhow, since holding your nose to vote for people who support war and big business has not been a very satisfying way to use your vote.

I would like to see a breakdown of the dists where Dems were the least enthusiastic about the candidates. I have a feeling that where there were real progressives available, the turnout was far more enthusiastic. CA eg.

And if it turns out that in Blue Dog areas Dems did sit out the election, then that needs to be addressed in the next election. Since rightwing Dems lost in large numbers, then what is there to lose by running strong progressives and getting out those who sat out his election? Airc, some of those races were close enough that a real effort on behalf of a candidate that democrats CAN get excited about, has as much if not more of a chance of doing better.

I think the days of voting for the lesser evil, especially when the Party itself has blamed them being responsible for, eg, no PO, are over. So, we may as well start now finding good progressive candidates to make sure EVERYONE votes in the next election.

[BzaDem]

37. What kinds of districts are progressives from? What about for blue dogs?

Progressives won because they are from much more progressive districts (most of which are gerrymandered to the point where it would be impossible for anyone else to win).

Even in progressive districts, the margins of victory were much lower than in past elections for the most part. The margins of victory went down everywhere -- and this resulted us losing seats in divided districts.

"So, we may as well start now finding good progressive candidates to make sure EVERYONE votes in the next election."

That's crap. The enthusiastic gap killed the chances of many Democrats winning, but the elections were still close. We lost many seats by 3 points or less. In a better economy, we would have won some of them. But with progressives candidates in Republican districts, we would lose them by 20 even in a better economy. You act like centrist voters will happily embrace progressive policies, and that is bull.

[sabrina 1]

49. We won in Republican districts before.

The Blue Dogs won in Republican districts even with a D after their names. That means that Democrats went out and voted for them, even though they were not enthusiastic about them. But they wanted a majority thinking that would get progressive issues on the table and passed.

This time half the Blue Dogs lost. Which seems to indicate that Democrats no longer believed it was worth voting for people they were not crazy about in the first place.

There ARE moderate Republicans and Independents also. A moderate Republican may as well vote for a real Repubican if some of the issues they were moderate on, didn't get done anyhow.

We don't know that a real Democrat would not win in some of those districts because it has rarely been tried. The Rahm crowd worked against primary candidates this time and last time, so we never found out. Now there is nothing to lose by trying is there? Because having Blue Dogs did not get a progressive agenda passed and the WH and Congressional Leadership have said it was not so much Repubs a lot of the time since we had a majority, it was the Blue Dogs. So, they are no loss then.

[EFerrari]

9. Maybe I don't understand what you're saying.

Progressives did well this election, Blue Dogs didn't. It looks like progressives turned out in their districts while conservadems and indies went elsewhere.

:shrug:

[bigtree]

13. well, yeah

So, where is the notion coming from (from quite a few folks) that it was some lack of attention to progressive issues that lost us the House? The mantra from critics is that the WH needs to address the litany of concerns from the left that have been neglected, ignored, or thwarted in order to keep from losing again.

But the evidence shows that it was our Democratic political and legislative progress that drew republicans to the polls in greater numbers than Democrats. There's really little evidence, as you point out, that progressive discontent is what lost us the House, outside of speaking for whoever sat on the sidelines.

Democrats who voted didn't express the level of discontent that progressive critics are claiming lost us the election, and, non-voting Democrat can't convince me that their protest did anything more than derail the things they claim to care about.

[EFerrari]

18. Ah. Now I see. Well, who said that the public will go for the real Republican every time?

With respect, bigtree, you seem to be conflating progressives who won almost all their contests with their criticism. The evidence is that progressives turned out for their contests.

Eta: My experience is only anecdotal but as much as I've been accused here of having a "deep personal hatred" of the president, I don't hate the president and worked a precinct for Boxer, Brown and Harris. Ditto for my friends. :shrug:

[bigtree]

21. maybe you're right. I'm blaming republicans first, though.

However, progressive critics (the only ones I care to consider) can't credibly point to the results of the election as proof of the consequences of the reasons behind their own discontent. The only thing they can reasonably point as sympathetic to their discontent is the action of the non-voter.

[EFerrari]

23. Our turnout this year was about 2% points lower than 2006 last time

I checked the stats.

And if we can speculate that the economy was the governing predictor, what reason did we give people to support Democrats at the polls? Richard Wolff says 1 in 3 Americans are involved in either unemployment or foreclosure. What reason did we give people to keep us in with respect to those two situations?

[bigtree]

32. plenty

Most economists are convinced that there's no quick fix to the economic concerns that bedevil Americans. This administration acted more on the behalf of Americans than the previous administration bothered; more than republicans had in the time they've been in the minority.

There just may not have been anything that government could do at this point to excite them into the support needed in these traditionally low-turnout elections. The evidence is, though, that this administration acted forcefully and responsibly. They have record legislative accomplishments to prove it. Unfortunately, the results and benefits of those efforts have been swallowed up by the state of affairs.

There is a bit that could make the results seem to our advantage. When voters get a look at republicans again in the majority of the House, they may well remember why they put them out in the first place. I'm jut not a fan of that kind of political strategy. Who knows what will happen down the road in the next election? We may well have just gotten a good look at the results of voter apathy. It would make sense to remind folks that there is no good in allowing republicans to win. None. I'm not sure some folks get that.

[EFerrari]

35. When I read your post, I don't see anything concrete

that can be pointed to. People are losing their jobs and their homes -- and losing their homes to illegal foreclosure that Obama won't stop.

So, no jobs program, no foreclosure moratorium (both progressive suggestions) and this is the result we get.

I don't understand how anyone can be surprised. And I really don't understand how, after ignoring the obvious suggestions made by the professional left, progressives are now to blame for that result when the evidence is that they did turn out.

[bigtree]

47. well, you just made an argument that the administration wasn't progressive enough

That's what I'm disagreeing with here. Progressives didn't lose this election (although non-voting Democrats could have made a winning difference), republicans showed up (motivated by Democratic political and legislative success) and took it.

The foreclosure moratorium is a good idea, but it wouldn't solve the foreclosure crisis by itself and might impose its own financial pressure on the faltering economy.

The 'jobs' program is contained in this year's proposals from the WH as part of an infrastructure bill. Those ideas won't have any more success in the legislature right now than they did when the president proposed them as part of this stimulus bill (and subsequently pulled the initiatives for lack of support).

I just don't think there's a silver bullet, from the right-center-left, that would shape up the economy enough to mollify voters in the last election. Maybe there will be more opportunity next time behind some of the (slow) recovery expected.

[EFerrari]

51. We need to do something for working people.

And fast. Unfortunately, what seems to be happening is something else, another bailout for Wall Street while the most of us are left twisting in the wind.

New $600B Fed Stimulus Fuels Fears of US Currency War

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/5/new_600b_fed_stimulus_fuels_fears

I'd love to be wrong about this. Can't swing a cat around here without hitting a family in crisis, including mine.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. So let me get this straight, since I am in the coast

and we REELECTED our rep, progressive in case you wonder....

My posts somehow depressed the vote in Alabama? Or perhaps the Blue Dog in Alabama did not excite his or her base most likely?

Never mind, all I see is an excuse to continue doing the same, since insanity and all that... I also see a very poor understanding of HOW US Politics really works.

I sugest you read Tip O'Neil for that, or not, he was a liberal after all.

[LoZoccolo]

58. If that were true, and you also think that blue dogs are phony Republicans,

then there wouldn't have been any in office to vote out to begin with.

[Better Today]

14. I think it may be accurate to say that progressives in ConservaDem districts

stayed home. Thereby taking out a bunch of Blue Dogs with our refusal to vote. IF the seat is going to vote with republicans with any regularity, it should have an R after it.

[bigtree]

19. many of those bds had voted with our party over 90% of the time

You'll find the republicans who replaced them voting in lock-step with their own party now.

[EFerrari]

20. Is there any evidence of that? This progressive "refusal to vote"

is so elusive. :)

[Better Today]

22. I'm evidence.

[EFerrari]

26. Wait -- are you contaminating a crime scene?

:)

[JackRiddler]

15. Shhh! It's not supposed to make any sense.

[Fumesucker]

10. The floggings will continue until morale improves..

Was it really disappointed Democrats who sat out the election that lead to the loss of the House, or was it those ever fickle "swing voters" who voted in greater numbers for Republicans in 2010 than in 2008 combined with an energized and enthused Republican base?

I think it's far more the latter than the former and the constant emotional flogging of anyone to the left of Holy Joe Lieberman is counterproductive in the extreme.

Berating and browbeating people seldom gets them to do what you want and a significant percentage are going to do the exact opposite just because some people are wired that way.

[leftstreet]

11. YOU JUST WANTED TODD PALIN TO BE THE FIRST GENTLEMAN!!!11

:cry:

Your OP makes no sense.

Blue Dogs got booted, progressives didn't.
What's that got to do with Democratic turnout?

[bigtree]

16. the mantra from the left that lack of attention to progressive issues lost us the House

. . . is unsupported by the results of the election. The loss was a reaction to the progress of our Democrats; both legislatively and politically. Yet, progressive critics are working overtime to convince that it's Democratic discontent that lost us the election. It may well be Democratic ignorance if we're talking about the voters who sat out, but we certainly can't make a credible argument that voters who allowed republicans to take back the House were acting in the best interest of any Democratic agenda.

[BzaDem]

25. Exactly. I don't know why people don't put the blame squarely where it belongs -- on those who

decided they weren't "enthusiastic" enough to vote in 2010.

Since when does someone who doesn't come out to vote (who is able to) deserve respect or consideration for their views? If one isn't going to take half an hour out of their day to articulate their views at the ballot box, I'm not sure why they would expect to be taken seriously at other times.

[EFerrari]

27. When the public doesn't buy your product, the solution isn't beating up on the public

unless you don't really care about sales.

[BzaDem]

29. Why are you equating voting to sales? Voting is a citizen's responsibilty. Buying a car is not. n/t

[EFerrari]

38. Right. That's why politicians spend millions of dollars on branding,

because voting has nothing to do with selling.

[BzaDem]

39. So? Again, voting is a citizen's responsibility. Buying a car is not. The millions of dollars spent

is to try to get them to vote for the Republican or Democratic candidate (over the other), but that has nothing to do with voting or not voting.

[EFerrari]

43. LOL

[BzaDem]

44. ... says the person who equates product sales with voting.

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

46. Pseudo-logic is one of my hobbies. This is what you wrote:

"The millions of dollars spent is to try to get them to vote for the Republican or Democratic candidate (over the other), but that has nothing to do with voting or not voting."

So, spending millions of dollars to sway votes has nothing to do with voting, according to you.

That's cool. Carry on. :)

[BzaDem]

48. It has nothing to do with the distinction between voting or not voting. It just has to do with WHO

you vote for.

Product sales, on the other hand, has EVERYTHING to do with buying or not buying. If you don't see a cheap car, you don't have a responsibility as a citizen to buy a car at all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. If this was Mexico, where NOT voting is socially shunned,

you'd have a point.

But US Politics don't work that way. And you'd better learn how they REALLY work.

Here is a free clue. EVERY RACE is an effort by two salesmen to get their base to the polls. Yes, it is that simple, and there is no social shunning for staying home. In fact, it is called a protest. Nor is there any shunning for a protest vote, which this election had a large component off.

This is like poli sci 101 and shit.

You want to change that dynamic, I sugest mandatory voting.

[treestar]

30. Bad metaphor

You can buy a product that's not very popular and you'll still have the product. With your vote, you're competing with other voters. A vote is not currency and the politician is not a product. Metaphor does not work, because if you save money you can use it on something else. You can't save up votes.

[EFerrari]

41. Metaphor works just fine and is common as corn in politics. n/t

[treestar]

31. I heard it from right wingers in 06 and 08

Never made sense then, either - not to mention how appalling it is to talk to someone who thinks McCain is "liberal."

[Bluenorthwest]

33. Do you have support for your assertion that Democrats sat

home, as you put it, or is that just an improvisation on your part? In my State, we had the highest midterm turnout in the last 20 years, we returned all our Democrats to DC, put a Democrat in the Gov's office to replace the exiting Democrat, brought national attention to our modest district as we kicked the ass of Tea Baggers with sacks of Mystery Cash, all in all, a great midterm election.
So from what I see, none of what you claim is true at all. Perhaps it is true in your State, perhaps with reason. Now, our neighbor States also elected Democrats, had high turn out, all of that as well. So our region is doing pretty well.
I'd love to read any articles you have about how your local Democrats failed to get to the polls, or any other links you have to back up what you claim to be true.
The more liberal and Progressive candidates won. Blue Dogs and centrists, they lost in droves. Perhaps the Blue Dog Base 'sat home'? The centrists ran to the center, where there were no ballots? That would seem to be the case.

[BzaDem]

36. Yes. See post 28. n/t

[bigtree]

42. that point is the only thread progressive critics have

. . . to claim that a more progressive agenda and direction from the President and party would have allowed Democrats to hold the House.

The evidence, as you point out, is that Democratic voters were outmatched at the polls by voters who chose republicans. If critics are not talking about the folks who sat out the election as proof of some Democratic discontent that lost us the election, we're then left blaming 'independent' voters who voted for republicans.

At any rate, it's the progressive complaints that puzzle me. I really don't think we need to start talking about what blue-dog voters wanted, even though I do believe there is sometimes a counterproductive reaction to partisan politics practiced by our President and party. Our party's success motivates the opposition. I think that's mostly what we saw in the election, rather than some backlash against the lack of attention or hostility to planks of a progressive agenda.

[Bluenorthwest]

55. Why not talk about what the Blue Dogs did? Their candidates

lost. I mean, all you do is whine about progressives, yet they are not the ones who lost their elections. The Blue Dogs and conservative types lost theirs. Some claim that they are from districts that can not be won, except they had been won. Then lost. Just odd that you have this one note deal about progressive critics, but mention the actual seat losing Blue Dogs, and it is 'I really don't think we need to talk about that...' as if, dear heart, you were the decider.
The Blue Dogs and right leaners, the GOP simulacrums, failed to deliver. Their constituent Democrats did not vote for them.
Every Democrat on my ballot won. Not a Blue Dog or conservadem among them. No wonder you don't want to talk about winners and losers and the fact that each column has not just elected officials, but a voting block, and one of those voting blocks did far better in supporting the Democratic agenda and President in the only way that really matters, by sending strong unwavering Democratic liberals to both Chambers. The votes matter. The reast of the 'support' is nothing but chatter in the lobby.

[bigtree]

59. I'm whining about progressive *critics* and rejecting their criticism

. . . that the reason we lost the election was because the WH and our party wasn't progressive enough.

I really couldn't care less what a blue dog has to complain about. I imagine they'd say that we need to give more attention to conservative issues. I think this President has been balanced, progressive, and successful. I'm in agreement with the majority of their agenda and actions (not saying that I don't want to see more progress). That success is what I believe motivated republicans and 'independents' to the polls in opposition to our Democratic candidates.

Btw, the failure to vote for those blue dogs in those key districts is what lost us the House. I'm not getting the logic behind that decision or choice to sit out the election or vote for someone other than the Democratic candidate, whoever made it. I really don't get the logic behind folks who say they refused to support blue dogs and still complain about the result.

[grantcart]

53. k and r

[LoZoccolo]

56. That's because they'll say whatever they think will manipulate people into their agenda.

It's easy to do on the Internet, and costs them little.

[LoZoccolo]

57. P.S.: K&R n/t