How the Lame Democrats Blew It (Goldie Taylor)

[Triana]

It’s not that the Republicans won the Senate. The Democrats lost it, by being afraid to have a strong message and motivate their voters.

Contrary to the musings of various pollsters and political pundits, Democrats never stood a chance. Many of the so-called “razor-close” races in key states were never truly competitive. In the aftermath, those same supposed experts and prognosticators (most of whom have never run a campaign of any stripe) will blame poor voter turnout and the president’s lackluster approval ratings.

And they will be partially right. However, it’s worth noting that this brand of thinking has deep implications for 2016—no matter who is at the top of the Democratic ticket—and beyond. As we move beyond November and into the next big contest, there are clear and hard lessons to be learned. Democrats’ winning the White House, regaining a majority in the Senate, or in their dreams the House, depends on it.

. . ..

While there is a lot of truth to the notion that midterm voter turnout is a challenging for a liberal coalition comprised of the country’s most “unlikely” voters, the real story is this. Candidates from Arkansas to Kentucky, from Iowa to Georgia, lacked message discipline and skipped one opportunity after another to effectively target voters with any notable precision. For all of the bellyaching, tooth gnashing, and public wailing, Democrats have no one to blame but themselves. Their collective failings come down to message discipline, candidate selection, and voter targeting.

. . .

Rather than stand on and fight for progressive principles, these candidates fed voters a diet of stump speeches, campaign literature, and television ads that sought to gussy themselves up as non-confrontational centrists who are less likely to wage war with conservatives than they are to brew them a cup of hot cocoa and tuck them into bed at night. Alas, such is the raison d’être for Blue Dogs.

THE REST:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/05/how-the-lame-democrats-blew-it.html

[Recursion]

1. OK, what was the Republicans' "strong message"?

Who articulated it? When? Where?

[JoePhilly]

2. "Obama Bad" was the GOP message.

Sadly, that was also the Democratic message.

But hey ... the two parties are exactly the same, so it doesn't really matter.

At least that's what I learned here on DU over the last few months.

[Recursion]

3. Who articulated/framed it? When? Where?

This is a pretty simple question nobody can seem to answer.

[Triana]

4. EVERY TIME I turned on radio or heard a TV, it was talking about Obama's "unpopularity"

I saw signs in NC that said "Hagan = Obamacare" (probably put there by GOP operatives). Corp media is corp and therefore conservative. GOP has complete control of our media.

That's where it came from. Repeatedly. All day. Every day.

[Recursion]

5. But by DU's argument, they were doing our job for us, then.

Candidates were supposed to run towards Obama rather than away from him, right? So how could those posters and signs possibly have hurt our candidates?

[marions ghost]

6. Yep

"GOP has complete control of our media." Absolutely.

We are dealing with a political entity that has no morals, will lie and cheat to win every time --and has constructed an amazing mouthpiece in corporate media. It is a pathological entity.

Democrats think of the whole, want to govern for the good of the whole--while Repugs answer to their corporate constituency ONLY. And lie to their so called "base."

BIG diff.

[JoePhilly]

7. It was in the media, EVERYWHERE, for the last 6 years.

I've been pointing this out for about 5 years.

The media pushes two totally opposite, "Obama bad" memes, with the goal of impacting turnout.

1) Obama is an evil socialist / weak appeaser. This meme and its variants are designed to anger the voters who lean right. The goal is to energize them to vote.

2) Obama is an evil corporatist / war monger. This meme and its variants are designed to discourage the voters who lean left. The goal is to sap the energy they need to go vote.

If you watch the panel shows, you will see these two totally opposite Obama Bad memes, SIDE BY SIDE on a regular basis. And the moderator will never point out the disconnect.

The media does not care which of these two memes, people internalize, just so long as they internalize one of them.

The goal is to impact turn out of the voters in the middle.

Get a 1% or 2% increase in voters from the middle right, and then get a 1% or 2% decrease in voters from the middle left.

The result has a multiplier effect. Get 1% in both directions, you move the needle 2%. Get 2% in each direction, you move the needle 4%. More than enough to win close elections in swing states.

Then, look around DU for the last few months ... meme #2 dominated General Discussion. But it on Huffpo, Dkos, so on.

Meanwhile, meme #1 is dominating RW radio, and RW web sites.

And what the candidates say ... well, that gets ignored. Its not loud enough to get past these 2 memes.

[Triana]

8. +1 - good analysis n/t

[greatlaurel]

9. Good post, thanks for the analysis.

I am at a complete loss as to why people cannot see what has been done and what is going to be inflicted on them very quickly. Anyone who thinks President Obama is going to veto anything in the next two years is wrong. He might veto the total repeal of the ACA, but he will sign off on bills that will essentially gut it the rest of the way without repeal. We are in big trouble. This election may be worse for the country than the Reagan election. I am very concerned for my own future and the future of my kids. The people who vote are completely unable to discern what the GOP has done and seem more than willing to blame the Democratic Party (flawed as it is) for the policies that are destroying the middle class. White people in particular seem especially susceptible to the class and race baiting propaganda. They love being told they pay too much in taxes and are terribly mistreated by the minorities and the poor, but then blame the Democratic politicians for the GOP policies that result in the terrible economic conditions that are destroying their own economic well being. Until white suburbanites are being shot by the police, I do not see this changing. The racism and ignorance shown by the voters this time is sickening.

The following blog post has some interesting observations as to what happened in Sweden and I think it may some very real applications to what has gone so horribly wrong with the Democratic Party here in the US. Unfortunately, with the susceptability of white Americans to be fooled by race and class propaganda even these suggestions may not be relevant here.

http://rethinkecon.org/

"1) While Swedish style Social Democracy did a lot of good, over time it also undermined the ability of grassroots folks to mobilize. It was remarkably good at building high-level consensus in cooperation between top-level folks in unions and corporations. But building a base that was fired up? Not so much. And so when economic circumstances changed, Swedish progressives weren't in a position to gear up and kick ass.

2) Swedish style Social Democracy encouraged Swedes to think globally – but as well meeting citizens of the world, not folks who were trying to build power and protect their flank. Leftie Swedes were very concerned about the plight of peasants in Nicaragua — and it's a good thing they were — but they didn't pay serious attention to the plight of Second and Third World manufacturing workers. Eventually that inattention came back to bite them as good paying manufacturing jobs in Sweden came under increasing pressure from globalization. Economists often talk about globalization as if was a force of nature, but it only appears that way to us because folks in a position of privilege and some power, like the Swedish left, hadn't tried to do anything about it."

Another quote that has some application.

"What Krugman doesn’t get is that when monetary officials tried to show how tough they are by inflicting pain on the middle class and the poor, that’s just another form of their instinctive identification with the 1%. What exactly is “tough-minded” about letting Finance make outrageous profits by running wild until they push the economy over the cliff, then sticking the rest of us with the bill? This is the very opposite of being a serious hard ass. How do you define what it means to be tough is all about who you identify with.

When most folks do evil things, they don’t think of themselves as being evil. Only in Bond movies do the bad guys sit in a chair stroking a cat while making plans to inflict pain. In the real world, human beings are exceptionally skilled at coming up with reasons why what they’re doing to burn other people while they rack up the cash is actually good for all of us, including the people who will get hurt the worst"

There are some in the GOP who really are villains and are just plain nasty people, John Kasich is one who is well known as a very nasty man personally, but is given a pass by the public because he is mean politically to the people the general voter thinks deserves it (until they are in a situation where they need help, of course).

[JoePhilly]

11. I generally agree ...

... except I think the Dems will fiabuster more than they have in the past and Obama will veto anything crazy that does get passed.

The GOP does not govern, they rule. And while Obama is a pragmatist, he's already achieved enough to cement what will be considered a great presidency.

Obama thinks long term. So I don't see him allowing the GOP to do anything terrible that has a lasting effect.

[RobertEarl]

15. You have taken the "It is all about Obama" bait

What some of us are trying to say is that it is about the party and what direction the party is going. It seems as if the party has deflated in the face of the Tea Party attacks.

Instead of standing up for what is right about America, and fighting against what is bad, the party has succumbed to being a reactionary party.

It isn't Obama's fault, but then Obama in 2016 is not the same Obama of 2008, either.

The Democrats were on a roll from 2006 on. Then when they took impeachment off the table and ran scared from the Tea Party, the populace lost faith in the leadership, and the leadership just rolled over and played dead.

Notice I do not make excuses for our losses. Just describing why we are failing. Excuses are like assholes, everybody has one. If we want to win, we need real leadership and courage like Grayson and Sanders have shown.

[Cha]

10. That's just sad.. not having good ground game.

"Rather than stand on and fight for progressive principles, these candidates fed voters a diet of stump speeches, campaign literature, and television ads that sought to gussy themselves up as non-confrontational centrists who are less likely to wage war with conservatives than they are to brew them a cup of hot cocoa and tuck them into bed at night."

Didn't Kay Hagan have a good campaign?

I know of two candidates who had ground game and had a strong message and still lost to the ugly repub lie machine.

Mark Begich and Rick Weiland.. those are two I know of for sure.

Thank Triana

[swilton]

12. How the Dems Allowed the Teaparty to Rebrand the GOP

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=5806


Paul Jay predicted this in 2010

[madfloridian]

13. Oops sorry about the duplicate. I usually do a careful search.

I almost didn't post it at all, but I was so upset I thought what the heck. I know last night I was in a sort of shock. Numb.

Sorry about that.

Note to self. Do a seach first.

[m-lekktor]

14. it was worth being posted twice, imo. nt