General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsUm, this has more to do with 20+ years of Third Way Dems appeasing real crazies,
Last edited Thu Oct 3, 2013, 05:11 PM - Edit history (2)
than it has to do with the fantasy that Liberals stayed home in 2010.
When you appease crazies, they just push it further next time. And after enough go-rounds... well, here we are.
Hey, ConservaDems, cut the BS. You played with fire, we all got burned. Own it.
The time grows near for FDR Liberals to crawl out from under the bus, dust ourselves off, and get FDR results.
Regards,
First-Way Manny
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Yes, it went over their head so high that it reached orbit. 
polichick
(37,152 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I wonder if any of you BOGers are ever going to come to the realization that the dude isn't seated for life. or perhaps that as important as the presidency is, it's far from the be-all end-all.
Obama's great. Not everything-he-could-be-great, but I'm mostly satisfied. But there's gotta be more than one good guy in Washington. it's imperative. And by definition, good guys who bend and spread for the bad guys... aren't really good guys, follow?
What the country needs are some liberal hardasses. Real liberals. Not just "I'm to the left of the extreme right"
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,339 posts)eight more years of "I'm to the left of the extreme right", mostly.
But to the right of FDR, HST, JFK, LBJ. Maybe even a little to the right of DDE.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I'm indifferent on that, though, and am thinking more along the lines of 2014.
There's more to politics than the president. I think a lot of Democrats seem to miss that fact, for whatever reason - we come out in huge hurds to vote for presidents, and ebb off something fierce in the midterms, and keep trying to yank our Senators and congressmen out of the legislature for other offices. Democrats. STAHP.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I'm not sure if I've ever even posted there before.
Am I supposed to post there?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)You are consistently in favor of every position policy and action of the Obama administration, no matter how depraved wrong or idiotic they might be. The non-critical "my team" approach to politics puts you in the bog.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)as well as the expansion of the war in Afghanistan. I'm also opposed to the drone strikes and was opposed to the bush tax cut extension. I also opposed much of the debt ceiling deal in 2011.
You would know that if you didn't try to label me as something and then assume I support all of his policies like you just did. It makes you look foolish and immature.
I've never even posted in that group and I don't intend to, but folks like you try to brand people as BOGers because they dare to disagree with any of your positions.
It's embarrassing and intellectually lazy.
It's pure STUPIDITY.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I try not to be bothered by it too much, though.....hell, I'd actually wear the "BOGer" label with pride myself: BHO's one of the best Presidents we've had over the past 100 years.....
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #1)
762ParallaxView Spam deleted by MIR Team
gopiscrap
(23,757 posts)Response to 762ParallaxView (Reply #12)
Post removed
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)inflammatory statement (Obama's got this) into a discussion. Just how does Obama "got this"? I notice the poster had no reply other than the go-to ridicule.
It's totally the REpublican's fault and I hope the President's got this, but as of right now it doesnt look like it.
Response to rhett o rick (Reply #65)
Post removed
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)pointy little head.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)LMAO
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)For your "Faux" Dems or your real Dems.
Crazies are not appeasable.
HOWEVER, if you have enough votes on your side you can drive them out of office.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Get thee to the Greatest Page.
KG
(28,751 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)Then it is called craven stupidity.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)It is craven stupidity; it's called bipartisanship.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)You shall know them by their words and by their actions.
High principles work. But you simply must adhere to them. You must speak them and act on them.
Polluting them with lower principles results in, well, lower results.
If Democrats could know convincingly that acting from higher principles, as witnessed in President Obama's speech in Maryland today, October 3, 2013, would resonate resoundingly with the electorate and get them electorate, then we'd really have something.
Till then, the electorate hears plenty of wrong ideas and principles. They are on Rush Limpballs and all other right-wing talk shows. They are largely prevalent in the money-stream media. This parade of crappy ideas that simply don't work was started under the regime of Ronald Raygun. Who sold it with his own measure of lies and country charm. But given a diet of pure drivel over and over again for decades, it is no wonder that average American begins to accept these false ideas as true.
The solution. The constant, solid repetition of commonsense ideas that bear a Progressive stamp and that simply have largely been proven to be true and successful.
Think of your own life. If you want to change a bad habit, it still takes a lot of work. If you were to use affirmations, you would have to repeat them every time a notion that you know is false (but that has been conditioned into you) even begins to appear.
First way. First cause. The higher principles win out, always in the end, because they are linked to intelligence, they are linked to survival. But it sure is easy and tempting sometimes to follow the less enlightened ways.
To me, this is just about the best speech I have ever heard President Obama give.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Into the fabric of society takes a series of cataclysms.
Many of those cataclysms can be directly attributed to repukes. But with so many symptoms of fascism actually entrenched in our society at this time, it's become the norm.....many people don't even realize.
DissidentVoice
(813 posts)The Republican Party has taken Ayn Rand Objectivism, wrapped it in God, Guns, Guts and the Flag, and sold it to an electorate that has heard it so much, they believe it's true. Josef Goebbels' "Big Lie" in action.
Others have referenced the "14 Points Of Fascism" many times so I won't do so here. It's readily available on the Internet.
My signature line references Benito Mussolini's definition of fascism. That has been the norm here for many, many decades.
There are other quotes which have been disturbingly prescient:
"If American democracy ceases to move forward as a living force, seeking day and night by peaceful means to better the lot of our citizens, fascism will grow in strength in our land." - Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Without exhaustive debate, even heated debate, of ideas and programs, free government would weaken and wither. But if we allow ourselves to be persuaded that every individual or party that takes issue with our own convictions is necessarily wicked or treasonous then, indeed, we are approaching the end of freedom's road." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary... does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal." - Benito Mussolini
"Why of course the people don't want war... That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Göring
Very, very chilling.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)It cannot also go without saying that there were indeed certain factions amongst our fellow liberals who did indeed stay home in 2010.....quite a few of them, in fact.
Guesss who they were? That's right: the "professional left" emoprogs.....at least many, if not most of them DID stay home.
If we want to do better in 2014, we need to look at ALL the factors, Manny, not just a half-ass sweep job.
eridani
(51,907 posts)No political activist ever skips voting. NOT EVER!! The people who stayed home were the occasional voters who were motivated to turn out in 2008, but reverted to their usual habits two years later.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Undoubtedly, there were also a fair number of "fair-weather" voters who stayed home in 2010 as well(never said otherwise, btw); but that wouldn't have been enough to give the Repubs the sweep they needed, or even the Teabaggers coming out in full force(even if they were mainly replacing some of the more moderate Republican and Rep-leaning Indie voters who decided they couldn't participate in the GOP's farce); what finally pushed us over the edge was the fact that truckloads of emoprogs(basically, the Greenwald/Hamsher types) stayed home, even as real progressives and other liberals tried to make up for lost time.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Never under any circumstance do politically active people avoid voting. Do you have any actual evidence that says otherwise?
In 2008 I went to a substantial amount of trouble to clear up registration problems for a woman whose last vote was cast in 1992. You can take it to the bank that, just as she didn't show up in 1994, she didn't show up in 2010. She was no progressive activist--just a lower income person whose life still sucked in 2010.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... from where it belongs. When folks found out that "change" was "more of the same", they said "aw fuck it" and stayed home.
Obama campaigned as a progressive regardless of all the revisionists bullshit you will read here. He basically ran against Bush and then filled his cabinet with people who bush might well have chosen himself.
Even if you were correct, which you are not, I'd rather the GOP just go ahead and sink the fucking country and get it over with so we can usher in real change than live with this idiotic "death by a thousand cuts" strategy that Obama seems to embrace, where slowing down the money train a couple miles an hour is good enough. It isn't.
Obama created the current situation FIRST AND FOREMOST by continually trying to compromise, appease and knuckle under to the Republicans. He's rolled over so many times seeking their elusive approval (which a moron can see he will NEVER get, because he is black) they expected him to roll again.
Everyone here is sure he won't but I'm not.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)
Phlem
(6,323 posts)for fucking nailing it!
zeemike
(18,998 posts)And I fear we will never wake up to this triangulation game that moves us further to the right...
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)the belief that some amongst certain sections of the progressives did not stay home in 2010 thanks to their disappointment with Obama(when that is sadly not true), sometimes propagated by some of the very purported spokespeople who helped divide our party in the first place(yes, I'm looking at YOU, Jane Hamsher and Glenn Greenwald!) hasn't been at all helpful.
reddread
(6,896 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,937 posts)"I'd rather the GOP just go ahead and sink the fucking country and get it over with so we can usher in real change"
That line was used by the Naderites in 2000. How did that work out?
Your argument is not far from the anarchist point of view that one has to destroy something to rebuild it. Sorry but I'd rather not go that direction because too many people get hurt along the way.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... don't tell me. As for how much lower it can sink? Until people are in enough pain to wake up and stop voting for Republicans and "conservative" Democrats.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,937 posts)You said, "I'd rather the GOP just go ahead and sink the fucking country and get it over with so we can usher in real change"
My response was, "How much further does it have to sink?" To which you rephrased, "As for how much lower it can sink?"
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)in 2010. Both Washington and California delivered tons of votes and got great results. If liberals stayed home why did the most liberal States have the highest turnouts? Can you explain that with made up slurs and the jargon of contempt? Of course not.
What State do YOU live in?
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And Oregon, as someone else pointed out here, allows you to vote by mail, which probably helped.
It may be true that there may have been outliers, but 2010 was still a rather poor year for Democratic turnout overall. Hell, even sendero seems to have gotten that part right(even if he/she still wrongly blamed Obama at the end).
(BTW, I live in Texas, though frankly, I don't see how it matters. The facts are the facts).
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)'Liberals didn't vote' you claim but the more liberal States actually voted MORE and the folks who did not vote were 'Moderates' and 'Independents'.
Your position is pure fantastia. It is also painfully simplistic thinking.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)'Liberals didn't vote' you claim but the more liberal States actually voted MORE and the folks who did not vote were 'Moderates' and 'Independents'.
Yeah, but those three states are also FULL of more moderate liberals, many of whom still voted. But many farther left, especially the Firebagger types, didn't, and that's what finally pushed us over the edge. Of course, the Independents argely staying home, with some right-leaners going back to the GOP, didn't help, that much is true. And the Democratic Party had a fair share of fuck-ups to own up to. Not denying ANY of that.
But again, the Firebagger types staying home and whining is what finally pushed us over the edge; they contributed a rather notable part to the record 30 million lost voters between elections...not the majority, certainly, but definitely enough to push us over.
The sooner people can get over this shit, the sooner the Firebaggers who whined constantly can own up to their own foul-ups, the sooner we can move on, the better; but people need to stop repeating the falsehood that Hamsherian progressives didn't stay home in 2010. They did, and in large numbers as well.
eridani
(51,907 posts)The left coast happens to be full of left-wing liberals. Check out the state party platform for the WA State Democratic Party. Apparently we have a whole state full of firebaggers, and more success than all those "moderate" folks have had in beating Republicans.
http://www.wa-democrats.org/content/platform
The liberal slant is there despite the fact that more conservative Dems east of the Cascades have disproportionally favorable representation on the central committee. Ferry County, which has 35,000 voters (mostly Republican) gets two representatives, the same as King County, the second most populous county in the entire country. This is somewhat balanced by each state legislative district having two representatives as well (in the east, legistative distrcts contain counties; in the west, counties contain legislative districts).
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)WA State has a pretty active party because we have caucuses which determine delegate votes for presidential nominees. This means that a candidate's operatives have to personally contact as many potential attendees as possible, and show up at county and legislative district organization meetings. The majority of caucusers generally don't stick with the organizations, but there is always a continuing influx of new members from the process--people who come to realize that political change is about much more than who is president. In 2004, there were a huge number of Dean and Kucinich supporters who stayed with the party, the percentage of people who did so being the highest in recent memory.
Big contrast in 2008--caucus attendance was several times higher than in 2004. Obama had self-directed organizers who build a large base; Clinton's people just called the organization chairs and told them to get behind the inevitable winner or else. Needless to say, Obama won the caucuses by a 2/1 margin. However, almost none of the first time 2008 attendees stuck around for ongoing organizing. It was the class of 2004 who did most of the 2010 GOTV.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)....yet some still try to catapult this falsehood.
Did liberals really stay home and cause the 2010 rout?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/06/1003805/-Did-liberals-really-stay-home-and-cause-the-2010-rout#
pscot
(21,024 posts)What gets you in trouble, Joe, is your eagerness to accept the conventional wisdom as though it were fact.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Oh, and aren't you one of those who hangs around the climate doomers, btw? Now THEY'RE a great collective case of "Often Wrong, Never In Doubt" if I ever saw one on this site(though emoprogs are a close second.).
frylock
(34,825 posts)oh do tell. what are "climate doomers?"
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Typically, though, they're usually the ones throwing out crazed nonsense about "inevitable human extinction NOW!" or how the IPCC is purposefully understating the true extent of climate change, etc. I won't name any names here, but they're not hard to spot if you know what to look for.
Change has come
(2,372 posts)Huh?
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)If you're disillusioned by the right wing narrative that the Democrats are trying to take away medicare or trying to make catfood commissions, well, you're not going to care so much to vote for those Democrats.
Especially if the "First-Way" is peddling the right wing narrative, too.
I helped keep Colorado blue, and it took a huge amount of effort. Most people were completely disillusioned with the Democrats, these are the same people who in 2008 took to the streets to celebrate.
It remains objective fact that Democratic turnout was almost 10% lower than the teabagger turnout (this takes into account it was an off year election). The people responsible for that are the activists, full stop.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)who claim that Obama started the Simpson-Bowles? And that Simpson and Bowles were enormous foes of Social Security? And that most on that commission had already announced that they wanted Social Security cuts before being named? And that they recommended a 22% cut in the average SS recipient's benefits? And that while the President rejected other Simpson-Bowles proposals, he did not disagree one bit with the proposed 22% cut?
How do we stop these Emoprogs from claiming this stuff? I mean, other than rewriting history, of course?
Frustrating!
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)Then you tell them that "Obama said that he wanted to cut the deficit."
Then you tell them that "Obama is keeping his campaign promises, and we should hold his feet to the fire and tell him that we don't like the specific approaches he's taking."
Then you say, "What Obama does is not pertinent to our willingness to elect other Democrats or realistic independents or third parties. We must get out the vote and not demoralize the vote by damaging the image of the party in power using right wing talking points."
It is a lie that the Democrats advocated Simpson-Bowles cuts, and that's why nothing came of Simpson-Bowles. The Chained-CPI proposal was legitimate, but it also came with a poverty exemption / threshold which is why it was never going to pass (which the rationalists on this site have been saying for years).
Simpson-Bowles was fucking theater and it didn't merit the Democrats losing 63 seats in the house, 6 Governorships, and 6 Senate seats. Except DUers cheered the loss of the blue dogs even as liberals like Grayson and Feingold were shrugged off as unfortunate collateral damage to rid the party of conservadems. It's shameful.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)And Democrats won in every district but one, made huge gains in the State house and elected Dr Kitzhaber specifically because of his expertise with health care, being Governor Doctor Kitz. California elected Jerry Brown, turned it's own State House deep Blue.
So the activists did a fine job out West it seems. High turn out and victory. This is because our elected Democrats did not spend two years praising the GOP in love poems about bipartisan bonds and desires.....we had actual Democrats to run.
cemaphonic
(4,138 posts)If ever look at polling data, there is a large gap in political preference between "likely voters" and registered voters, and an even bigger one between registered voters and eligible adults. The closer you get to the "eligible adults" side of the scale, the better Democratic candidates and progressive policies tend to do. And there is plenty of evidence that the vote-by-mail in WA and OR is a big component of the relatively high turnout in those states.
So instead of all this fighting over real liberals vs. Blue Dog vs DLC vs whatever, work to get vote-by-mail in your state. If all 50 states had this, it would force the Republicans to the center, and by extension, would push the Democrats to the left.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and that those places have bad candidates and preserve antique and often racist election methods that suppress rather than encourage voting. The better methods in this and some other States were not created by Mother Nature but by the people who live in those States. We are proud not to have long lines and barriers to voting. Other States should be motivated to make change.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)Which got the activists to actually get out the vote and fight.
Jerry Brown, likewise, was highly desired by liberal activists, to there's a place they had something to fight for.
But in states where it was more about keeping an incumbent Democrat more than anything else, imo, the activists stayed home. Feingold's state, in particular, had no ballot measures and the teabaggers had completely infiltrated the state at that point with the rise of Walker and his ilk. It's actually a scenario where the right wing base was more fired up.
Google "2010 enthusiasm gap." The articles are numerous. It is not a fabrication, it is not intended to lash out at "First-Wayers." It's simply to acknowledge that democralizing the base is going to have this effect. And I think there was considerable "ratfucking" (political dirty tricks) to demoralize the Democratic base. There was a poster here named Better Believe It who was always talking shit about Obama and Democrats, acting like they were doing stuff that they weren't actually doing (yes, putting stuff on the table is not the same as accepting offers that were never accepted). That poster got banned, not because they were a big troll always starting divisive threads, but because they had to increasingly resort to right wing sources to keep peddling the narrative that the Democrats were trying to fuck Americans over.
Let me be clear here. The sources were left wing but as the elections approached the left shut the fuck up and unified behind their leader (even though they dislike a lot of the policies) and the only sources then remaining were right wing sources. That proves that during that time and even the time leading up to 2012, the right wing was pushing their narrative into the left field of view. This is why generally if there's a negative thing out there against Democrats I look to see where it's coming from and who it benefits if it's true, and whether or not the Democrats are consistent on a given position.
For instance, when Obama said in his nomination speech he wanted to cut the deficit, and I voted for him even after he said that, I'm not going to throw him under the bus for doing what he said he was going to do. All I can do is call my representatives and say that a given proposal is bad, not that Obama is wrong for doing something he said he was going to do!
whathehell
(29,067 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)they were staying home?
Some said they would vote, but they would not donate or campaign, and their clear intent with those statements was that they believed only their efforts resulted in Dems being elected. So even if the effect was not really there, the intent was. Some of them were trolls but they were trying to influence others to believe Dems are no better than Rs. A perfect stance for Republicans to take.
Change has come
(2,372 posts)Got any links? 
Scuba
(53,475 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)One response was that: "Well, exit polls aren't reliable because what's your definition of liberal?"
frylock
(34,825 posts)Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)This place amazes me.
frylock
(34,825 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)And they couldn't have ALL been independents:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xHi84BYvQlE/Uku7p3-NfWI/AAAAAAAAKtU/bg6XSu4OShU/s1600/actual+votes+08+vs+12.PNG
Manny, as I said on the other thread, we need to face the WHOLE truth, not just parts of it. Not all progressives stayed home, btw. Some still did show up at the polls, along with many remaining liberals(and perhaps you were one of them). But many progressives DID stay home; that much CANNOT be denied no matter how much spin is put on by Hamsher, Greenwald and company.
QC
(26,371 posts)because their dream date wasn't on the ballot.
Looks like treating politics like American Idol isn't such a great idea after all.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)that you have enthusiastically spread from one end of this place to the other about liberals staying home.
The exit polling from the 2010 clearly shows that so-called independents moved in the GOP's direction that year. That swung the election.
The fact that you bear some weird grudge against liberals doesn't change that.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)The exit polling from the 2010 clearly shows that so-called independents moved in the GOP's direction that year.
True, but it wouldn't have been enough; what REALLY,truly, swung the election in the end was a SHITLOAD of people on our side stayed home in 2010, ESPECIALLY the Firebagger types(whatever few exceptions notwithstanding), aided by FireDogLake and all the other Obama-bashing outlets out there. If it hadn't been for that, the constant whining, etc. we would have been able to fare better than we did; our losses still would have been pretty notable, but it would very likely have been more along the lines of 20, maybe even 15-18 million.
The fact that you bear some weird grudge against liberals doesn't change that.
Got some proof for that, or are you just talking outta your ass?
neverforget
(9,436 posts)Elections are won with the people in the middle. Both parties need to win them over.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023763623
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010-midterms-political-price-economic-pain/story?id=12041739&singlePage=true
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)30 million lost votes is a rather huge number, man. And I'm afraid that JUST Indies switching just doesn't explain the whole thing. If it had been more like 15 or maybe 19-20 mil. at the very most, it might. But 30 million is a loss that could only have come with some nominally Democratic supporters coming home. And guess who largely did, on that side? The very same people who've been whining and bitching about Obama being a "sellout" or a "closet Repub", or a failure, etc., since day one.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)lower anyhow) to a Presidential election year and one that had one of the largest turnouts ever. That alone would explain a lower turnout. Then we were able to get huge numbers of Independents over to our side after the eight years of Bush.
2008 was an unusual election in terms of the numbers who went out to vote.
But the fact is that the numbers show, and this has been proven over and over again that the % of Dems who voted in both elections, 2010 and 2008 were virtually the same. Many were not happy but they voted anyhow.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)and I vote in every election. All of the people that I know that are Democrats voted in 2010. We lost the election because Independents decided to buy what the Republicans were selling. What was the Democrats message in 2010? I honestly don't remember. What I do remember is that the Republicans were hammering Democrats because the economy wasn't recovering fast enough and the rise of the angry Tea Party. A poor economy tends to hurt the party in power which was the Democratic Party in 2010.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Yes, it's been well-established that midterm elections always have a somewhat reduced turnout level; I took that into account when talking about this, btw. But 30 million definitely says there was something wrong with this picture.
Though I have no exact figures on who didn't vote(I don't think anyone does, really), it does stand to reason that the discrepancy is so unusually large that it could not have been just Indies who stayed home in 2010; and there was a LOT of talk from some of the more radical folks(namely the Hamsher/Greenwald types, mostly) on our side who openly claimed that they weren't going to vote for PBO because he wasn't progressive enough for them, that he wasn't working hard enough, etc.; therefore, it's only logical to conclude that some of them actually followed up on said threats.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)The 2008 Presidential election had a turnout rate of 61.6%
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2008G.html
The 2006 midterm election where the Democrats won had a turnout rate of 40.4%.
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2006G.html
The 2010 midterm election where the Democrats lost had a turnout rate of 41%.
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html
I don't know how you can complain about liberals not showing up because the evidence clearly shows liberals did and that independents went to the Republicans in 2010. Independents are to blame for the loss in 2010, not Liberals! The middle of the road types are who decide elections. You can't win an election with just your base as there aren't enough of us. The same goes for Republicans. The fight is over the independents who need to be swayed to your side.
You say you have "no exact figures on who didn't vote" but I showed you who did vote. The Democratic base showed up in 2010 and it wasn't enough to win the election because the independents are where the elections are won. For whatever reason, they voted for Republicans.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)But I and every other progressive Leftie I know worked our butts off in 2010, and I haven't missed an election in so long, I can't remember the last time. Independents maybe stayed home, but democrats definitely not ... at least in my experience.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)If you did go out, then good for you.
But as I pointed out elsewhere, only 39 million people voted for Dems in 2010. And the absentees couldn't have all been Indies.....there were indeed progressives who DID stay home in 2010, and most of them were likely the Greenwald/Hamsher types who constantly bashed Obama for not taking down Wall Street right away, not being able to implement his agenda, etc.....and this problem was made worse by media whiners just like Greenwald and Hamsher themselves, amongst others.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)but I am a fan of both Greenwald and Hamsher, and, as I said, I voted. But go on thinking like you do if it makes you happy.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)It doesn't make me happy at all, btw. Believe me, it SUCKS for me, as I used to like both of 'em myself. But sadly, it's true, and I'm just calling it out as I see it.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)And the fact that you call yourself a liberal (different post than the one I'm replying to) doesn't make it so.
Why do you keep blaming liberals then? Why do you agree with the OP that said the "emotarian left" was to blame for the shutdown? I've only been noticing you recently and from what I've seen you don't necessarily stand up for democratic values, so let me ask you, do you ever disagree with Obama's policies? Why do you loathe Greenwald and Hamsher and resort to using name calling such as emoprog? Not signs of a liberal. It's funny how a lot of the people who like to bash liberals will then claim they are one, presumably to make it okay for them to blame and call names. If that's not you then good, but if you are going to do it I would love to see evidence that you actually are a liberal.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)They are the left. I dont know who "the professional left" or "emoprogs" other than fragments of you imagination. We worked as hard in 2010 as we did in 2008. And even though many on the left were disappointed in the progress of the administration, we still manned the phones, helped candidates directly, went door to door, the same group that is always there and they sure as hell aint so-called centrists. We do it because that's what we do. Efforts to blame the left are attempts to spit the party and get the left to stay home.
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)Phlem
(6,323 posts)I know it's only 40 responses but there is a definite trend and it says otherwise.
-p
Vanje
(9,766 posts)Bullshit
Bullshit
This has been discussed, and found to be bullshit.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023774068
pretty much a boatload.
-p
quakerboy
(13,920 posts)Facts are that in the 2006 midterms, 20% of the electorate were liberals.
Facts are that in the 2010 midterms, 20% of the electorate were liberals.
Fact is it was the vaunted "moderates" that stayed home, as compared to the previous midterm.
In fact, the liberals, who showed up in EXACTLY THE SAME proportion, actually voted 2% more for democrats in 2010 as compared to 2006.
And those much touted and courted moderates who did bother to show up? They moved 5 points toward the republicans.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)"Guesss who they were? That's right: "
The Canadians.
Those fucking Canadians.
It is TOTALLY their fault.
They absolutely didnt turn out.
The bastards!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)did even in 2008 for Democrats. It was Independents who had come out for Obama in 2008 who stayed home in large numbers in 2010. There is not a shred of truth in that claim. Maybe you are just repeating what you have seen others say over and over again despite the number of times this false claim has been debunked. But it is false.
Left leaning Independents were disappointed by the many times Dems, who they elected to end Bush policies, continued to vote for them, as were many Progressives. But unlike Progressives, many of them simply didn't vote in 2010. THAT is the fault of the Dem Party who as Manny points out, 'compromised' and 'catered to', as Obama himself admitted he was doing, over and over again.
And since they got so used to Dems 'compromising' and believing in 'bi-partisanship' with one of the most reactionary Right Wing Congress' ever, they are doing it again.
It isn't enough now for the Dems to refuse to compromise on just the ACA. They MUST refuse to compromise on SS, and on Trade Agreements that harm the American people and on all the other demands they are making re the budget which people are forgetting right now.
No more Bi-Partisanship and Compromising with these crazies.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)to blame entirely on Indies.
And yes, a lot of Indies did stay home in 2010. I won't argue with that, because it happens to be true. Unfortunately, though, the one thing that absolutely destroys that theory was that the discrepancy was simply extreme: 30 million votes lost compared to 2010.....that couldn't have all been Indies.
There may have indeed been a slightly higher amount of moderate liberal turnout, perhaps, but the turnout was definitely lower overall than in 2008, and there were definitely quite a few million more hardcore lefties(including, and especially the Greenwald/Hamsher types) who said: "Ah, screw this. Obama's useless anyway". And those people were the ones who ended up tipping the scales.
But it is false.
I probably would have said that, too, back in 2010. But I wasn't seeing the whole picture then. Now I am. And hopefully, you will too.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)numerous times in this thread yet you can offer none. You know why? Because you are wrong and all the data shows you are wrong.
But your name calling blame-o-tantrum is very compelling.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Because you are wrong and all the data shows you are wrong.
Not really. The data says that 30 million fewer people turned out for 2008 than 2010, a far higher loss than what would normally be expected in an average midterm season. Something went wrong, and it couldn't all be pinned on Independents, either. C'mon, dude, anyone who insists otherwise has a serious problem with dealing with reality.
But your name calling blame-o-tantrum is very compelling.
What tantrum?
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)You've been shown to be wrong time and again in this thread with hard data. Your gut feeling that, "Hey, it can't all be independents" ignores the facts in favor of your bullshit "Greenwald/Hamsher emprogs" name called tantrums.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)blahblahblah 30 million. that's all you fucking have. I schooled on you this shit yesterday.
Independents Fueled G.O.P Gains
Democrats lost significant support Tuesday among nearly all demographic groups in a midterm election that was a referendum on President Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress in a stubbornly weak economy.
Independent voters, who in 2006 mostly voted for Democrats and helped end the Republicans’ 12-year majorities in the House and Senate, this time turned just as strongly against Democrats, according to surveys of voters who were leaving polling places. Two other groups who recently supported Democrats — suburban residents and college graduates — also gave Republican Congressional candidates more votes this year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us/03exit.html?_r=0
Young Voter Turnout Fell 60% from 2008 to 2010; Dems Won't Win in 2012 If the Trend Continues
Everyone knows that young voters were less enthused about the 2010 midterm elections than they were about the 2008 presidential election, when their votes powered Barack Obama to a landslide victory and gave Democrats big boosts in Congressional contests. But detailed studies of the election reveal that the decline in voting by Americans aged 18 to 29 was actually more serious than initially imagined. In 2008, polls showed that young people were overwhelmingly supportive of Obama and the Democrats. And they turned out in droves. According to the research group CIRCLE—The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement—which tracks civic engagement among young voters, 51 percent of 18- to-19-year-olds voted that year. In 2010, polls showed that young people were still supportive of Obama and the Democrats. But only 20.9 percent of them bothered to vote.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/156470/young-voter-turnout-fell-60-2008-2010-dems-wont-win-2012-if-trend-continues#
Independent Voters Favor GOP in 2010 Election Tracking
PRINCETON, NJ -- By an average 10 percentage-point margin since March, 45% to 35%, independent registered voters have consistently preferred the Republican to the Democrat when asked which congressional candidate they would vote for in their district. Independents' preference for Republicans has been generally consistent over this time, with the gap in favor of Republicans increasing slightly since March, from 8 to 12 points.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141086/independent-voters-favor-gop-2010-election-tracking.aspx
Women, Independent Voters Show Biggest Swing From 2008
Women and independents took the biggest turn away from Democrats since the 2008 election, a Fox News analysis of exit polling from Tuesday's midterm vote shows.
In both demographic groups, the percent of eligible voters remained constant from 2008 to 2010. Women turnout was 53 percent, while 28 percent of registered independents voted.
But their preferences had a big impact on the GOP win. Whereas the gender gap played a major role in 2008 with women voting for Democrats 56 percent of the time compared to Republicans 42 percent of the time, in 2010 the split was 49-48 percent for Democrats to Republicans.
Likewise, independent voters supported Democrats 51 percent of the time compared to 43 percent of the time for Republicans in 2008. But in 2010, the Democrats garnered only 39 percent of the independent vote compared to 55 percent for the GOP.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/03/women-independent-voters-biggest-swing/
Pew Poll: Independent Voters Swing Right, Oppose Party Supported in 08
ABC News’ Amy Walter reports: The Pew Center for People and the Press today released an extensive and exhaustive look at independent voters, finding that “political independents now favor Republican candidates by about as large a margin as they backed Barack Obama in 2008 and congressional Democratic candidates four years ago.” Even more problematic for Democrats is the fact that independents, “who typically are not engaged by midterm elections, are now more likely than Democrats to say they are giving a lot of thought to this one.” But, the gains for the GOP among this group may be fleeting. First, their allegiance to party is very fluid. “Many of today’s independents were themselves partisans not so long ago," the report notes. "More than half of independents say they have been a Democrat (23%), a Republican (22%), or both (9%), in the past five years.” Moreover, these voters “do not have a strong allegiance to the GOP. Rather, they are motivated by highly negative feelings about the government’s performance and harsh judgments about the political status quo.” In other words, if the GOP disappoints them next year, they’d be just as happy to throw them out on their ear too. The poll was conducted Aug. 25-Sept. 6 among 2,816 registered voters, including 2,053 considered the most likely to vote on Nov. 2.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2010/09/pew-poll-independent-voters-swing-right-oppose-party-supported-in-08/
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Thank you frylock
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I'm sorry, but again, this data, while indeed relevant(though I'm still wary of Pew, TBH, is, still does not fully account for all of the 30 million lost voters.
And not to mention that it can be said that at least a few of the young voters who stayed away from the polls, were themselves Hamsher/Greenwald type people(I partly speak from experience, btw, not to mention observation). Exactly how many? I can't say, I'm not omnipotent, after all. But there's no doubt that they were out there: a majority of youngsters? Probably not, but from all indications I've seen, enough to matter, though.
frylock
(34,825 posts)LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Oh well then, not only a gut feeling but also common sense? Why didn't you say so? Here I thought you were repeating a lie again and again even though you've been given proof it was a lie, but common sense too?
Troll
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Look around, you'll see several threads showing the actual statistics, and it was NOT left liberals that stayed home.
Then you managed to throw in: '"professional left" emoprogs'. Nice. perhaps The People's View is the blog you want to go to.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But some did. And guess what? They were largely the Greenwald/Hamsher types.
you'll see several threads showing the actual statistics,
Yeah, actual statistics, none of which actually prove the theory that only independents and disaffected youngsters stayed home in 2010; the data that IS out there only proves that those liberals who DID still vote tended to stay loyal to the Democratic Party(which was a good thing, of course).
xchrom
(108,903 posts)
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)They're wholly and solely to blame for what's going on right now, not anyone else...
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)The Democrats have been fighting these psycho Republicans for the past 3 years. Only now the "First-Wayers" are concerned about it.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)As long as we pretend we are pure and stick to our principles everything will work out just fine,,,,
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
treestar
(82,383 posts)in those red state districts, the conservatives majorities of those districts would have voted for them! 
Nobody is really a conservative, or if they are, it is the fault of Democratic politicians - the ones who at least bother to run for office.
And FDR didn't have a different climate or anything! He turned conservatives into liberals by force of his tough personality - he never compromised on a thing, he got everything! (And none of the social programs were ever improved upon after that, as FDR got them perfect on the first try).
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Although it must have been in a language other than English?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)run screaming from the room.
Skittles
(153,150 posts)I am SICK of these revisionists acting like Dems have been innocent bystanders - F*** THAT
tblue
(16,350 posts)We can only control us. So we obviously need a better strategy and do a preemptive strike, an end-round, or some kind of rope-a-dope and outwit them or, at the very least, pound them relentlessly. Stop treating them like they're some kind of respectable opposition. They are not.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)started complaining about the debt the bushes and Raygun created.
That's why we had to have a sequester because the RepubliCONS really wanted a shutdown. That's why Obama extended the uber rich tax give away because the CONS threatened a shutdown. That's why Obama offered the Grand Bargain (more like the Grand Betrayal) to destroy Social Security because of the threatened shutdown.
All that RepubliCON style legislation made liberals feel like they had voted in Raygun and NOT voted in a Democrat. So, why go for a cheap knock off of a RepubliCON? Some liberals felt just let the real RepubliCONS have it.
By giving in each time to the RepubliCONS the Democrats lost a lot of support from their base AND embolden the RepubliCONS to crazier and crazier stunts. So, it was just a matter of time before all the stars aligned to make it possible for RepubliCONS to shut it down.
Now if the Democrats had stood firm and said too bad, so sad, RepubliCONS lost the election by a huge margin we are not going to give away the farm so that RepubliCONS wont shut it down, then we would not be seeing this now. The CONS would have learned their lesson in the beginning of the Obama term.
Remember the Senate RepubliCONS are still obstructing everything and Reid still has NOT changed the filibuster rules. So, even when this shut down is over, Democrats will still be trying to appease the RepubliCONS.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)They had no choice to pass it because the Senate Republicans promised to filibuster endlessly and there were millions of people awaiting unemployment checks, and the alternate minimum tax was about to go up on 21 million working class individuals.
The fact of the matter is Obama had only one budget passed, every subsequent budget has been extorted in the form of a "continuing resolution."
Obama and the Democrats have had to deal with the filibustering:
This President and the Democratic Party is most obstructed in history.
And guess what? When this is not recognized, from the start, when this isn't appreciated, the Republican narrative gets pushed that the Democrats are no better, that they're big compromisers, and indeed, that they should compromise. Just look at the Republicans wanting the Democrats to come to the table over the current issue. There have been DUers who have seriously suggested that the Democrats go to conference, and laughably, push something like Single Payer. Except that would be negotiating, and there is no need to negotiate now. The country is doing better economically (not great, but nothing like before at the end of a recession).
The Democrats are falling on their sword here in order not to blink. WIC, Head Start, EEOC, DOL, it's all fucking going to shit. Thousands of federal workers, thousands of contractors and service sector people, they're all being hurt big time due to this shutdown. It is not a joke. The poorest are going to hurt the worst.
And guess what? The Republicans will blame the Democrats in the next election for it! They'll point fingers, they'll say the Democrats are the root of all the problems. And guess what? Some "First-Wayers" will peddle that narrative.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Deal with it. I'm a pragmatist. Actions count. Some poetry about inner narratives of conflict do not count.
frylock
(34,825 posts)and that's what really matters in the long run, right? you know what they say; it's the sentiment that counts.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)A lot of those Democrats kept their jobs for that.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)Smart. 
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)I'm with you, Manny.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)The Great Capitulators should have taken a REAL stand years ago.
ananda
(28,858 posts)... including racist, sexist, and crazy talk.
But one thing they're not is crazy. They're mean, bully sociopaths.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)The moderate right DLC/Third Way encouraged and enabled their republican extremist RW "political kinfolk" to move the country to the right by adopting some of their ideas and policies. It's not rocket science. It's just logic and common sense. Things that conservatives have very little capacity for.
Here it is, as plain as day, in bold black letters:
There you have it.
End of story.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(9,760 posts)apnu
(8,756 posts)But to be fair. Yes the Dems are complicit in the teabaggers running amok.
But equal blame lies with the Republican party leadership and establishment for this too.
First they threw out the intellectuals of their party, then they made the word "compromise" a dirty word and then tossed the moderates out.
Now they have a bunch of know-nothing, intelligence-hating, zealots running the show and they're wondering why their party is falling apart?
Well its their bed, they can lay in it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Always blaming the Democrats and using dead ones to try to make living current ones look bad. Go and join a third party then. Face it. You don't like the Democrats. We don't see you as helping us any.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Last edited Thu Oct 3, 2013, 12:12 PM - Edit history (2)
had 635.
One a year vs. one a week.
Ergo, Obama = FDR. Only in ThirdWayWorld, I suppose.
Certainly, we can agree that one of us doesn't like real Democrats.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)that one hit home.
K&R
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)Are you fucking kidding me? They're an embarrassing do-nothing congress. They didn't pass anything that could or would be vetoed. It's all been stupid ass bullshit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/113th_United_States_Congress
I suppose he could've vetoed the free trade bills, even though he campaigned on them... and they passed with supermajorities (and could've been overridden).
I suppose he could've vetoed the JOBs Act... easily overridden...
I suppose he could've vetoed the NDAA ... oops, easily overridden (oh lordy do I remember the people here complaining about that, saying Obama should've vetoed it on principle; even though an override would've probably included much worse MIC provisions).
I guess he could've vetoed the Budget Control Act even though it made Boehner look like a fool... even though Obama had originally offered much larger cuts ($6 trillion I believe) and most of the reduction in the deficit came from ... the ACA. A political win of epic proportions and it staved off the bullshit for years (in fact, what we're looking at now is a direct response to that ownage).
He could've vetoed the "payroll tax cut" (it could not have been overridden, not enough Senators) but it was an election year and I doubt he wanted to raise taxes on individuals, even though the people calling for it likely enjoy a higher tax bracket than the working poor.
You get the idea. But then, you're the guy who doubted that Obama wanted to put everything on the table. And think that vetoes prove someone is fighting. If the other side isn't fighting and their actual goal is to destroy the government and let it fail, then there's nothing much that can be done.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)I'm going over his vetoes now, and a shitload of them are just "relief" for certain persons (probably cronyism, some are legit like I see some Veterans wanting retirement monies but in other cases it's just random people with no historical context).
But there are some in here that are seriously fucked up. He was extremely racist against American Indians. Every time the Democratic Congress went to give them reparations, he denied it. I mean every time. I did not know this.
Searching further FDR was a serious civilizationist:
After he evicted the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Indians from their lands he considered it a humanitarian service.
He was also against certain bridge building projects which completely perplexed me. Possibly political recrimination, dunno, will look into this deeper. You could write a book on his vetoes.
The veteran benefit vetoes, which Huey Long derided, are perplexing.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
jsr
(7,712 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)2+2 and all that.
MH1
(17,600 posts)You're saying that the left only bothers to vote if they feel like it? Unlike a large portion of the right, who see voting as a civic duty that they have to do regardless. As the Rush song goes (something like) "if you refuse to decide you still have made a choice".
You seem to have a very low opinion of what you perceive as "the left".
Also, I learned on DU that in 2010 it was independents who didn't show up, not Democrats, so it appears there is no history for your assertion.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)If the Democrats want to vote for them, they should appeal to the left rather than the right.
I'm a Democrat but I don't owe the party my vote. If they want it they have to earn it. I always vote.
Rex
(65,616 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I don't know about the emoprogs, but I am honestly quite thankful that he introduced me to Spandan's blog, and I never saw him as a troll(trust me, I have been the victim of trolling myself.). Great fucking stuff, man......especially speaking from the perspective of a guy who used to be an emoprog himself(yes, I really was. Long story behind that). Now, I'm a much more rational progressive.
Regardless of what some of you guys may think about Spandan, you gotta admit that he DOES hit a lot of marks in the right places, at least much of the time.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)That guy was a liberal bashing divisive troll and it's great that he's gone.
There is no way you are a liberal if you buy into what he's selling.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But that's how it is. I'm a liberal rational progressive who happens to believe that Spandan makes some pretty darn good points and isn't afraid to tell the truth; and one of these truths just happens to be unpopular with a certain more out-there faction that I once considered myself a part of: that it wasn't just indies or youngsters who stayed home in 2010, so did some lefties, mainly the whiny-ass Hamsher/Greenwald types.
If you were registered, and voted in 2010, good for you. Because a LOT of the Hamsher/Greenwald types didn't; and that made an already bad situation even worse.....not something we want to repeat in '14, but unfortunately, some people STILL haven't gotten the memo much.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)And young voters who were swept up into the excitement of voting for president but lost their enthusiasm for mid-terms.
And you are lucky there are Hamsher/Greenwald types fighting for YOUR civil rights. You're certainly not convince me you are a liberal when you resort to name calling the people you consider the left. The left are liberals. Where did you get that info that 1-people who agree with a lot of what Hamsher/Greenwald are "whiny-ass" and 2-that they didn't vote.
Please provide documentation for both assertions.
frylock
(34,825 posts)especially when it isn't common and makes no sense at all.
frylock
(34,825 posts)the person that continues to use "common sense" to bash liberals, rather than admit they're wrong when presented with hard facts. i'll let you peruse the thread and determine who that poster is.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Not cool.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Don't bother answering. I already have the full picture.
cry baby
(6,682 posts) 
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)2010 was mainly about moderate folks in the middle ... and whether those who lean right, or lean left voted.
The attacks on Obama and the Dems (which came from the media) impact the moderate right and the moderate left in different ways.
The moderate right was told that Obama and the Dems were socialist commie terrorist appeasers. Those who moderates who lean right accepted this and it made them angry. And that anger provided a sufficient push for more of them to vote.
Meanwhile ...
The moderate left was told that Obama and the Dems were Corporatist warmongers. Those who lean left heard this message and it frustrated them. Frustration has the effect of draining one's energy. So more of these moderates stayed home.
The media understands how this works, and the GOP is always working every angle at manipulating turnout.
You should notice that while this approach worked in 2010, it failed in 2012. That's because with Obama actually running, his direct message to the moderate middle help re-engage them and reduce the impact of the other "Obama bad" messaging that was targeted to them.
That's how we lose 2010, and yet Obama still gets re-elected in a 2nd landslide.
Liberals voted, and they voted for Obama.
Sadly, and particularly around 2010, some of those liberals who voted for Obama also inadvertently helped amplify messages that had been specifically designed to demotivate the moderate left from voting.
The GOP trying to disenfranchise Democratic voters ... and if they can't do that, they look to the media to help them discourage the moderates on the left and keep them home too. Lower their turn out, and improve GOP chances more broadly.
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,937 posts)
RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)it's all the lefties' fault!
gopiscrap
(23,757 posts)ConservativeDemocrat
(2,720 posts)> Hey, ConservaDems, cut the BS. You played with fire, we all got burned. Own it.
Hey, counterproductive anti-Democratic wingnuts, please witness right now what happens when a political party end up doing what its fringe haters want. That's what's happening right now to the GOP. Not a pretty sight, is it?
The only "faux" Dems around here are the concern- and purity-troll haters who constantly pretend that they are the only "true" Democrats while constantly agitating to find new ways to tear apart the Democratic coalition.
And as far as "FDR Liberals" go, you always seem to conveniently ignore that FDR never raised a peep against the racist Southern Dixie-crats in his party, not to mention imprisoning boatloads of innocent U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry. Yet you hate on Obama for the NSA, largely for doing its job, under court oversight. Pure unadulterated rage. Purist lunacy.
Seriously, Manny, out of some perverse nod towards unity, I've been trying to cut back on telling people some obvious truths that they don't want to hear. But you keep poking at this, don't you?
- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)We also have organizations like moveon.org, DFA, PDA, and Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which have millions of members. We work together to register voters, get out the vote, monitor polls, fund candidates like Alan Grayson and Elizabeth Warren. When I stood in the rain outside a Bank of America for Move Your Money campaign or outside the local post office on tax day with a sign saying the 1% dont pay taxes, it was my progressive friends that stood with me not any so-called centrists.
The people that stayed home in 2010 were the wishy-washy centrists that cant make up their minds if they are liberals or conservatives.
The only thing in the middle of the road is a yellow line and dead roadkill.
rucky
(35,211 posts)why can't you be reasonable about this?
Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts)How about putting the blame squarely where it belongs - in the lap of the 'crazy GOP'? The way they have obstructed and operated over these last years since Obama was elected indicates that no matter what the Dems would have said or done, it would not have changed their behavior. Their mission was to see Obama fail.
Ironically, this latest stunt may well contribute to their undoing.
I know this post is in response to posts that are blaming the 'far left' for the results of the last midterm elections. I don't agree with those posts either. There is plenty of evidence that independents are far more responsible for those results.
I hate terms like 'Third Way', 'ConservaDems', 'Purests' etc. We are all on the same side even though there are differences in how we view and approach things. It's time this in-fighting stopped.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Grateful for Hope
(39,320 posts) 
oxymoron
(4,053 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I mean 'Green Eggs and Ham' Manny! AND he got the moral of the story wrong...THEN he decides to shutdown the government anyway and then walks away with no exit plan!
YOU MUST admit that is pure ignoramus. Can't find that in just any politician!
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)But the GOP's success was not part of it.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Maybe he thought exit strategy, was how to leave a room? A building?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Glad I could come to a Democratic website to find out it is the Democrats fault!
lobezen
(39 posts)A freakin Men F W Manny!
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)I almost always agree with you
hell many I even agree with this op
every word is true afaiac
but there is a time to leave a wound alone and a time to pull off the scab
we are experiencing a brief moment of time here on du when we are standing together
we have a common enemy and I sure wish we could drop that bastard before we start beating up on each other again
just a thought
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)I was responding to a few nitwitted posts.
One of the nitwit authors was banned.
I 2/3rds feel like shutting this post down myself.
SwampG8r
(10,287 posts)I read the threads
I caught the insults too and saw the bannings
find that other 1/3 if you can
thanks
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)The Democratic Party has had two main problems over the last 40 years. One, Democrats of all stripes became addicted to corporate campaign donations. There was always corporate money funding the Democratic Party, oil money at that, but not almost exclusively. These donations, bribes to be honest, influence votes. Two, the party became unmoored from its traditional anchor as a party dedicated to the economic advancement of the mass of Americans. The party often substituted social issues for traditional economic issues. There are informal litmus tests for social issues, but none on economic issues. It's inflammatory to say that, but it is true.
I don't think there's a sinister cabal of "Democrats" who seek to destroy the country anymore than I think the average Republican seeks the same. I think most of the leadership at the top are simply and demonstrably wrong when it comes to economic issues. I think too many of them seek consensus in a situation where it does not exist. They fail to recognize that the division of the spoils is a matter for conflict, not consensus.* If it were a matter of consensus, I doubt we would have ever increasing income inequality.
*I don't mean violent conflict, nor do I mean some mythical revolution. The current protests at fast-food chains are the type of thing I mean. I simply don't think the people who've bribed the government into redistributing wealth upwards are going to listen to anything but power at least the equal of theirs.
DissidentVoice
(813 posts)I am so bloody sick of Democrats falling all over themselves trying to be "GOP-lite" in the supposed cause of "electability."
I suppose my first disillusionment was when President Clinton rolled over and played dead after the GOP kiboshed his health care plan in 1994 and then jumped on there "the era of 'big government' is over" bandwagon.
The problem?
We have allowed ourselves to be redefined (falsely) by the likes of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, who have turned "liberal" into a dirty word. We have allowed that word to be tainted as "unpatriotic," "immoral," "Communist" and "un-American." Somewhere along the way "conservatism" got elevated as some sort of badge of distinction, to the point where "true American" began to falsely equal "conservative."
All the to'ing and fro'ing and hand-wringing after Walter Mondale got drubbed by Reagan's "Morning In America" BS and Mike Dukakis got slammed by Lee Atwater's relentless hate machine (that he at least repented of on his deathbed) led to all this "me-too-ism."
Think about it: if George H.W. Bush had got a second term, how different would it have been from what Bill Clinton's Presidency turned out to be? Granted, of course, Bill Clinton didn't have Dan Quayle a heartbeat away from the Presidency 
and thank God for that, but especially his second term was directed more by Newt Gingrich (government shutdown notwithstanding; I still like how Clinton made the GOP blink 
). Bush Senior was really a moderate, old-style Rockefeller Republican trying to convince a far-right base that he was Reagan Part II and he fell flat of his arse doing it.
I know it's not just the Democratic Party. Labour in the UK were ruined by Tony Blair, and the NDP in Canada and the ALP in Australia are nowhere near their social-democratic roots.
We need to take a hard look at just what this party stands for. Look at the ideas of the Greens and the Socialist Party USA. Some of their ideas could have been straight from the FDR playbook. It's time to reclaim them as DEMOCRATIC ideas.
liberalmuse
(18,672 posts)You know what? It could be that the liberals and conservatives who stayed home during the mid-terms would've cancelled each other out. We just do not know. I blame people who wake up on election day and go to the polls to vote FOR these heinous "representatives" and their heinous policies. That's who I blame. Shame on them.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)You shall know them by their words and by their actions.
High principles work. But you simply must adhere to them. You must speak them and act on them.
Polluting them with lower principles results in, well, lower results.
If Democrats could know convincingly that acting from higher principles, as witnessed in President Obama's speech in Maryland today, October 3, 2013, would resonate resoundingly with the electorate and get them electorate, then we'd really have something.
Till then, the electorate hears plenty of wrong ideas and principles. They are on Rush Limpballs and all other right-wing talk shows. They are largely prevalent in the money-stream media. This parade of crappy ideas that simply don't work was started under the regime of Ronald Raygun. Who sold it with his own measure of lies and country charm. But given a diet of pure drivel over and over again for decades, it is no wonder that average American begins to accept these false ideas as true.
The solution. The constant, solid repetition of commonsense ideas that bear a Progressive stamp and that simply have largely been proven to be true and successful.
Think of your own life. If you want to change a bad habit, it still takes a lot of work. If you were to use affirmations, you would have to repeat them every time a notion that you know is false (but that has been conditioned into you) even begins to appear.
First way. First cause. The higher principles win out, always in the end, because they are linked to intelligence, they are linked to survival. But it sure is easy and tempting sometimes to follow the less enlightened ways.
To me, this is just about the best speech I have ever heard President Obama give.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)dust ourselves off, and get FDR results." I love it. You are absolutely right.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)but it's the Democrats fault that the government shut down.
You're nothing if not consistent, Manny.
Sid
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)'Cos that's not what I wrote, afaik.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Democrats from further keeping the Democratic party from being the united leftist force it must be in order to to keep RW extremism in check.
I wish I could rec this OP a million times.
