Reply #13: It's basic demographics, though, we get out the vote, we win.

[joshcryer]

And while some will argue that Obama's centrist policies were the reason we didn't get out the vote, even if true, it doesn't change that fact. I argue that mostly the reason we didn't do it is purely as a result of a misleading narrative in the media, trumpeting the Tea Party as a response to Obama's "left wing socialism" (which all of us know wasn't real, Obama is a moderate, he campaigned as a moderate).

How we know this is true is that 2010 had a voter turnout similar to 2006. In 2006 we sent a strong message to the country that we aren't a force to be toyed with. The only way 2010 is different is that we didn't send that message, otherwise the voter turnout would've been much higher.

Cities helped us maintain the Senate without losing too many people, because large population centers and minorities got the vote. Meanwhile in areas that historically require more get out the vote efforts (such as deeper red areas), we were shellacked. And then, mystifyingly, we decided this was even more proof that Obama was too centrist and that it was a referendum on blue dogs. We neglect the progressives like Grayson and Feingold and can't seem to figure that one out; hint, they were both in areas where Republicans got elected. The last time a Democrat held Grayson's seat before him was in the early 80s, by Andy Ireland, who changed to a freaking Republican. Feingold is the real bellweather, as he was in a state that had only 3 out of 8 districts that were Democratic, one of which (the 3rd district) had small margins. Feingold lost by almost 5 percent. In 2010 Feingold won by 10 percent. Given that the Tea Baggers got out 9% more votes than we did (overall) and given that vote averages were the same as in 2006, the 8.5 point swing against Feingold is completely reflected in our inability to get out the vote.