I assume we can all at least agree on this:

[GOTV]

What Obama and the Dems did for the last two years does not win elections. Can we say that's been proven now?

[Larkspur]

1. You haven't heard that they claim that Obama veered too far to the left

and must go back to the center.

In my opinion, he needs to veer left to get back to the center.

[GOTV]

2. "He needs to veer left just to get back to center" :) that's good.

He's certainly got to change something. Maybe he's not so good at 7 dimensional chess?

Checkers anyone?

[treestar]

3. Very broad statement

Did not win a majority in the House would be more accurate. And it would suggest that the electorate that votes in midterms doesn't want more progressive changes.

[GOTV]

6. That's less accurate. They lost across the board - less reps, less senators, less govs, less ...

... legislatures

[treestar]

14. I'm reluctant to make conclusions about state governments

Since those are state elections.

Or basking in the glory of my state, where the Democrats kept both the state house and senate, and made gains in the state house. And we have a Democratic governor, two Democratic Senators and a Democratic U.S. Representative.

[GOTV]

23. Still, we lost the house and lost numbers in the Senate - a federal sweep then.

My state was not so lucky as your state unfortunately.

[flamingdem]

4. Keep you eye on the bouncing ball CITIZENS UNITED CAMPAIGN SPENDING nt

[GOTV]

9. I hope that's only a small contributor because otherwise we're doomed aren't we?

Because that's not changing in two years.

[elleng]

20. Yes, we are doomed, and the $ is in rover's hands.

[GOTV]

33. I hope (and suspect) that you are wrong.

[BootinUp]

5. Is it ok

if we include the greatest financial collapse since the 1930's?

as a contributing factor?

[GOTV]

It's a contributing factor but it's not like we didn't know it was there ...

... it happened more than 2 years ago and what we did during these two years did not serve us well at the polls. Thank god it wasn't bigger but it was big.

[BootinUp]

21. I was being sarcastic because of your oversimplification

If you had said that Obama pushed a progressive policy that was as much as he could get through the Senate, then failed to defend it successfully to a lot of worried Americans that were bombarded by a shitstorm of lies from the right. I might have been able to agree with you.

[GOTV]

30. I think it was a necessary and appropriate simplification ...

... I was hoping we could all agree that we were not doomed from the start. I don't think we could have won this in the 4th quarter but I think it was possible we could have won this.

If the Obama and the Dems are fatalists about it and don't change their behavior we will lose big again in two years.

The GOP won and so they are going to give more of the same. It's all laid out for us, we know what's coming, if we don't adapt, if we insist it wasn't the fault of Obama and the Dems, it's going to happen again.

[timkainemustgo]

7. BENNET JUST WON COLORADO

He voted for health care.

[jaxx]

10. That is great news!!!

[totodeinhere]

16. Not true. The race is too close to call. His chances look good at this point

based upon where in the state votes have yet to be counted, but he definitely has not won it yet.

[jaxx]

8. I don't agree with it.

The repukes had it out for Obama when he won the primary, and full throttle when he won the presidency. He could have done anything and they would say it was wrong. What we can agree on is that the rightwing lied and scared people into thinking Obama is all wrong. Those gun toting teabaggers scared them more, and this election has nothing to do with policy....it has to do with a Black man in the old white men's White House. When the fringes meet, it spells disaster.

[GOTV]

11. So what you saying is what we did DOES win elections except when Republicans are involved?

Well, I don't know if that's helpful because our elections will be against Republicans for many years and they will behave as they behave. If our behavior only wins when Republicans don't act like Republicans I think it's fair to say our behavior loses elections.

[jaxx]

12. I'm saying in normal times with a white president....yes it does.

Don't twist what I said.

[GOTV]

15. Well maybe I should rephrase then ...

... We can agree that the behavior we exhibited over the last two years does not win elections with a black president and bad economic times. The implication is we can agree that we cannot continue to act in the coming two years the way we acted in the last two years because:

We still have a black president
The GOP still doesn't like him (but I don't think it's because he is black)
The economy is still going to be bad for some time.

[jaxx]

18. Hmmmm suddenly the economy is going to be bad for some time.

And a few days ago it should have been fixed Jan. 2009. The inconsistency isn't in the WH, it's out here in the everyday pundit land.

[GOTV]

24. I don't know who you're listening to but you should stop listening to them

It's absurd to think the economy should have been fixed by jan 2009.

[jaxx]

29. I got that from DUers.

Part of the Obama did nothing chorus.

[GOTV]

32. Well put them on ignore they are filling your head with nonsense.

It couldn't be fixed right away and I don't know if we can expect anything but slow improvements for a couple more years. So - in two years we will be right where we are now if not worse.

What should Obama and the Dems do for the next two years? Certainly NOT what they did for the last two or you can expect the same results.

[jaxx]

34. It wouldn't matter.

This is premeditated.

[GOTV]

38. So we were doomed from the start and we're doomed for 2012?

I don't agree but I can't prove it.

[jaxx]

40. We don't have to be, but it means sticking together.

We stuck together in 2008 and not in 2010. We have one more chance....it's worth it to me.

[GOTV]

41. Who has to stick together? I voted Dem, you voted Dem ...

... I have to believe 99% of this board voted Dem regardless of what was said.

I say there is little we can do to flip an election without changes in behavior from the top. Obama could do what 100 DUs could not.

[ProSense]

19. What to look forward to:

more and endless spin that this is Obama's fault, and one month before the next election accusations that the President and WH didn't sell their message.

Makes you wonder which message they're supposed to sell: We're making progress or we suck.

[GOTV]

25. You shouldn't be wondering what the message should be. It's very simple:

Consider what you want: More democrats and less Republicans.

The message has to be "We are great and could fix this but the Republicans won't let us"

> Makes you wonder...

You are wondering either because you don't understand what the Dems did over the last two years or you don't understand what just happened. Straighten that out and you will stop wondering.

[ProSense]

27. Hmmmm?

"The message has to be 'We are great and could fix this but the Republicans won't let us""

That was the message. Unfortunately, some people (not Republicans) were saying that's bullshit.

[GOTV]

37. That might have been what they've been saying in the 11th hour but ...

... it certainly was NOT the message of the last two years.

So it's clear now. The reason you're suffering such confusion today is that you don't have an accurate picture of the last two years. The message over the last two years has been: "Everything's been going great, the GOP has been very helpful and we got 90% of what we wanted and we're seeing slow but steady improvement!"

In fact Obama was still saying in the last couple of weeks that we got 90% of what we wanted. That is not anything like 'We are great and could fix this but the Republicans won't let us'. I'm not even saying he's wrong I'm just saying that's asking to be fired.

Anyone who is hurting or knows people who are and hears that the Dems got 90% of what they wanted can easily conclude that they've had their chance.

Consider it from another angle - you hire me because your company is losing a lot of money. I work for two years and you're losing a little less money. You come to me and say "I'm still losing money. Should I keep you as an employee?". If I want to keep working for you, which is a better message: "I could save you much more money but we need to do X and we can't do X because we need better equipment and I need to hire more people" or should I say "I did just about everything I wanted to do. There's an additional 10% I might be able to get if you keep me but I think I've done a good job"

Putting aside that one of those statements are probably more true than the other, if the only concern is keeping my job what should the message be?

[ProSense]

13. Please read this:

Health Reform And The Midterm Elections — A Historical Perspective

[GOTV]

22. I don't think HCR lost us the election. But I do think we were not doomed to lose ....

... I think we could have won had the last two years been played better.

[Fire1]

28. I think if at least we could've gotten single payer the progressive

dems would have been more satisfied, even if all else had not yet been addressed.

[GOTV]

31. Yes, that would've helped but I don't believe that would have been a possibility ...

... no matter what we did.

But the loss of popular measures like a public option or medicare for all could have been used to help us in the election had they been played right. But they weren't

[elleng]

17. No. Campaign spending, and lies, win elections.

[Fire1]

26. A class divide doesn't hurt, either. n/t

[savalez]

35. I can not agree. Your statment is not specific enough.

Narrow it down a bit.

[grace0418]

36. Yes and no. They sure didn't help matters but my opinion is that whoever won the majority in 2008

was pretty much fucked. When the Dems won in 2008 the economy was in free fall and everyone with 2 brain cells to rub together knows that was Bush and Co's fault. However the low information voters only have attention spans about as long as an average political commercial. If they are currently unemployed, or currently in foreclosure, or currently buried in bills they can't pay, they're going to blame whoever is currently in power. They don't understand the cause and effect of Bush's disastrous 8 years. They don't understand that things would actually be much, much worse if McCain had won. All they know is that life sucks right now and somebody's got to pay. And it sure is easy to blame those tree-hugging, communist liberals.

[dbmk]

39. It has been proven

..that running as incumbents in a shitty economy (not by your doing) that you have been trying to fix - is bad for winning elections.
Because by and large people are morons.

First midterm elections for a new president has always been tough. And given the conditions, this one was always destined to be among the worst of them.

So, I would say no, we can't say that your statement has been proven.

[Bad Thoughts]

42. Policy doesn't explain it

It could be argued effectively that Democrats lost more than Republicans won, but Democrats lost many opportunities to weaken the Republican message. If the Republicans did anything right, it was convincing Americans that the economy was the same thing as instant gratification. However, many Democrats took their disagreements with Obama to the most public arenas, giving Republicans a lot of material to work with. Indeed, the most disagreeable Democrats are now gone.