Outrageous-This is why we lose elections

[NewsCenter28]

Scenario A: Barack Obama elected in 2008 with a historic landslide, the majority of the popular vote, unprecedented goodwill and 68% approval. Party doesn't seize the opportunity of having total control of the legislative and executive branches to quickly pass a health care act with a public option that had massive public support within the first 100 days. Too busy trying to appease Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins who are just playing a Charlie with the football game for almost 16 months! To be fair, the W.H. did want a full house vote on the ACA by the August recess in 2009, but Congress could care less what their President wanted apparently. A quick ACA vote would have prevented the August recess town hall messes that gave rise to the Tea Party, btw.

Scenario B: Donald Trump becomes (not really elected in any sense) president in 2016 due to Russian interference with a massive scandal brewing, a 3 million popular vote loss and a 39% approval rating on his good days. Republicans, as they control all 3 branches, don't really care about their low approval and are going to ram through a budget eliminating meals on wheels and PBS funding along with a repeal of the ACA and, thus, insurance for 24 million unfortunate Americans what about 3 weeks after the very first committee vote. Ryan quickly found a solution that would appease the conservative and so-called "moderate" elements in his party to clean up the bill and get the votes. Judging by Ryan's ability to rapidly unify his caucus, now, McConnell will tweak it a bit more in the senate to please Collins, Portman, et al, and the ACA repeal will probably be on Donny's desk by April 20-30.

Now, we can filibuster the appropriations bills that eliminate PBS and meals on wheels, but will we even do that?

Check out the blaring ACA news today that Ryan has the votes and is ready for a full house vote to repeal the ACA next Wednesday or Thursday.

Oh yeah and if you read the early pre-game analysis, the Democrats are completely clueless and adrift on mounting an effective opposition to Gorusch who is about to steal the supreme court seat that was ours in every legitimate sense.

I can already tell you the headlines next week for his confirmation hearings "Democrats fail to land blows as Polished, Intelligent, Effective and God-Like Gorusch sails through confirmation hearings." Makes me sick thinking about it.

John King on CNN next week (throws up). "This is a homerun for Donald J. Trump, our young president. He picked a pick that unified the Republican party and now the supreme court has a conservative majority for the next 20 years. No doubt, Wolf, the Democrats are in disarray and dropped the ball on this one."

When, oh when, is the Democratic party going to WAKE UP and fight like hell when they have power for the things America desperately needs and fight tooth and nails against everything presented by the Republicans when they, god forbid, as now, hold power?

[leftstreet]

1. Give them time. They're not accustomed to fighting

They've been able to appear as the 'good cops' to the GOP's bad

They'll need a plan

[KPN]

3. Or genuine new leadership.

[bekkilyn]

23. +1 (nt)

[FiveGoodMen]

2. when is the Democratic party going to WAKE UP and fight like hell

I have never witnessed them doing that in my (57-year) lifetime.

Perhaps they did when I was young and I missed it. (Perhaps)

[KPN]

4. Ditto here -- 66. Oh wait, LBJ strong-armed some good stuff (50+ years).

[Kimchijeon]

26. +9000

ditto

[OilemFirchen]

5. Astounding.

All that argle bargle and you didn't even answer the question posed in your title.

Thanks for nothing.

[NurseJackie]

6. What are you trying to say?

[jodymarie aimee]

7. bravo

totally agree...and why oh why did we let them gerrymander, screw with election machines, crosscheck....on and on...WHY are we always late to the party?

[NurseJackie]

8. Huh? Can you elaborate?

[brer cat]

15. Instead of wringing your hands and crying "Oh why, oh why?"

How about telling us HOW we stop them from gerrymandering and screwing with election machines? Tell us about all the work you do at the State level where this occurs and how you have succeeded in stopping it. Maybe you could reprint some of the letters you have written to Congress telling them about your magic bullet to make this go away. That would actually be a constructive use of your time.

[NurseJackie]

18. It reminds me a little of this ...

[NurseJackie]

19. ... and a little of this ...

[NurseJackie]

20. ... and sometimes this ...

[FiveGoodMen]

22. Here's how:

The Democratic Party needs to have a mission; a conviction. Not just a platform, but something they'd be willing to fight for relentlessly.

The GOP has such a mission. It's just a terrible one (give the rich total control and screw everyone else). They've been lying, cheating, buying up the media, re-framing the debate, you name it, just to achieve their goal.

The Dems, on the other hand, have been reaching across the aisle, going high where they go low, compromising before the negotiations are even underway. Oh, and taking their campaign contributions from the same folks as the GOP.

How do you beat the GOP? You put up a serious opposition.

Now, how you do that...I don't know. It will certainly take some different players -- some that really want to win -- to get there.

[brer cat]

24. Thank you.

I think the Democratic Party does have a mission, but it is far more complex than the republican "screw you" which makes it much harder to implement. Yes, we compromise: most Democrats would rather save part of the safety net than have it all disappear. I also think it is abundantly clear that we have kinder, gentler people in our party. The contrasts between the behavior at the parties' convention was stark: we celebrated our diversity and people we treasure, while they screamed "Lock her up." Vastly different values. That doesn't mean that we don't have fighters, but I do think they are going to be more civil and try to govern without blowing up the country when they don't get their way.

Campaign contributions have nothing to do with this, but I acknowledge that many DUers simply must drag it into every conversation or feel that they are inadequate or something.

Fresh people are always needed, and we have a good crop coming up. I look forward to seeing what they accomplish, and they don't have to destroy the party to make it work.

[KPN]

43. Sorry, but you sound ... well, complacent.

I'm not trying to be rude or argumentative just to be argumentative. Just wanted to let you know how I perceived your reply above. I think as Democrats we all appreciate cordiality and respectfulness as standards; would that we all had/have that basic appreciation especially Republicans. But they don't and haven't now for going on decades. In the face of that, my perception is we Democrats have compromised far too easily and, quite often, unnecessarily in the past, frequently compromising in the framing of our proposals before we even engage the GOP in negotiations. That style has gotten us nowhere but backwards.

I agree that "Campaign contributions have nothing to do with this" if by "this" you mean interpersonal/interparty style. But I really have to wonder how and why any Democrat would not understand that untethered campaign contributions from corporations or the mega-wealthy does not build conflict of interest into governance. I just don't see how a person could not be concerned about the quid pro quo implications. I assume you are just making the point that campaign contributions is another topic, and not that you don't share the quid pro quo concern.

[Blue_true]

27. Ok, I'll take a shot. Why don't you define a Democratic mission

since you are making a big issue out of your claim that it doesn't have one?

A competent President will face numerous big challenges, most not from a common cause.

[FiveGoodMen]

41. Saving Social Security so there's retirement for all. (Not constantly offering to 'reform' it)

Healthcare for all. We had the House and Senate for two years and didn't even try. We got this (from 'our' side):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5786540

And how about keeping people out of unnecessary wars? Rather than accepting a Nobel Peace prize with a speech about escalating what is now the longest war in our history?

[jodymarie aimee]

25. I WRITE LETTERS EVERY DAY, PUBLISH TWICE OR THREE TIMES A MONTH SINCE 2009.

I AM ON OUR COUNTY DEM EXECUTIVE BOARD. I WORK EVERY DAY FOR DEMS. WITH MY REP AND SENATOR, PERSONAL FRIENDS. I HAVE PRINTED SOME OF MY RECENT LETTERS HERE. YOU GUYS ARE KIND OF ODD, WE LOST 1,000 SEATS SINCE 2010 TEA PEOPLE TAKE OVER. WE HAVE BEEN GOING THRU THIS FOR 7 YEARS NOW IN WISCONSIN. IT IS A FIGHT EVERY DARN DAY. SOMEBODY TELLS THE TRUTH AND YOU WHINE. I AM NOT WHINING, I AM TELLING THE TRUTH.

KEEP ON BLOGGING BRER CAT.....I NEED NO ADVICE ON MY TIME MANAGEMENT. p.s. YOU SEEM NICE !!

[brer cat]

28. Shouting doesn't facilitate communication.

You certainly didn't answer any of the questions, but it's nice that you stay busy.

[jodymarie aimee]

34. I also write a newsletter daily

and my caps was on...planning a rally tomorrow morning for the Hmoung....an 80 year old right wing crackpot shot at some....hope your ears are ok !!

[NastyRiffraff]

9. The only "outrageous" thing here is the OP

Good grief. If you despise Democrats so much why are you here in the Democratic Underground? The "Democratic" part stands for the Democratic Party, in case you're confused. Like just about anything else, the party isn't perfect and could use change, but yet another whine about how "clueless and adrift" the Democrats are doesn't help except of course giving you a chance to vent.

[brer cat]

13. Another OP bashing Democrats

and misreading history while contributing ZERO to any conversation. One does wonder why s/he is here.

[SFnomad]

10. Re: Party doesn't seize the opportunity of having total control ...

Party doesn't seize the opportunity of having total control of the legislative and executive branches to quickly pass a health care act with a public option that had massive public support within the first 100 days.

President Obama never would have been able to have passed a public option in the "first 100 days", if ever. President Obama didn't have a filibuster proof majority at the start of his term. He only technically had one for a couple of months that Congress was in session.

At the start of his term, he only had 58 votes. Arlen Specter wouldn't change from Republican to Democrat until April and Al Franken wouldn't be seated until July because Republicans kept his election tied up in the courts until then. That's when he finally had 60 votes. Scott Brown won his seat in Massachusetts the following Feb and President Obama never had a filibuster proof majority again. During the time he had 60 votes, there was only a couple of months that Congress was in session because of regular breaks and the long end of year holiday break.

Even after President Obama had 60 votes, he had none to spare and the Conservadems like Ben Nelson (D-Neb) meant that President Obama never functionally had one, being that Nelson and one or two others I can't remember right now far too frequently voted with Republicans.

[Elwood P Dowd]

11. Obama never had 60 Democratic votes in the Senate.

The most he was a very short few weeks in the summer of 2009 where he had 58 Dems and 2 Independents - Lieberman/Sanders. Two of the Dems, Kennedy/ Byrd were dying of cancer. By that fall, he was down to 57 Dems and 2 independents.

Edit to add: Al Franken was not seated until the summer because of all the recounts of the close race in Minnesota. After Byrd & Kennedy passed away, those seats were replaced by one Dem and one repuke that fall.

[SFnomad]

17. Yes, he had 60 votes from July 2009 until Feb 2010

Obama had 60 votes (58D +2I) starting in July 2009 after Franken was seated. He lost it in Feb 2010, when Brown won the special election. I mentioned all that in my post ... I just didn't say anything about the 2 Independents. Being that they Caucused with the Democrats, they were Democratic votes. Hell, they were more dependable than the likes of Nelson who was an elected Dem.

On Edit: During that early part it wasn't much of a functional 60 votes because of Kennedy's illness and ultimately his passing. Paul Kirk was appointed late in September, which is when they really had that 60 votes. Then they moved into the holiday break ... so actual time while they were in session was pretty small, if they could get the likes of Nelson and the other Conservadems to go along with anything.

[Blue_true]

32. The other conservative Dems were Mary Landruie

And Kent Conradt (sp?) of North Dakota. What the far left can't seem to understand is that red state Democrats have to face different realities than solid blue state Democrats. No liberal Democrat will get elected from those states.

[SFnomad]

40. Oh no, I understand the realities of Democrats in Red States ...

It's just there are people out there that just remember that President Obama had a filibuster proof majority in Congress and think he should have been able to do anything he wanted ... including forcing "Single Payer" or "Medicare for Anyone" through.

The thing they don't remember is that Obama only had that majority effectively for a short period of time, just a couple of months, not the entire 2 year session. And during that time several of the Democrats in the majority were those Conservadems that couldn't be counted on for a Cloture vote. And yes, you're right about Mary Landrieu being one that I thinking about and the other was Max Baucus of Montana.

[KittyWampus]

12. Trump is having a lousy week and some DU'ers seem intent on trashing Democrats.

[JHan]

31. +++++ it's mindless

[Blue_true]

33. Yep. When Trump seems to be drowning, some on DU

start lighting up Democrats. It is almost a Pavlov's dog like behavior, a bell rings when Trump is sucking air, they attack any Democrat in sight to cause division among Democrats.

[GWC58]

35. I try my very best

to not verbally attack members of the Democratic Party. Rethugs, on the other hand!!!😖😡

[KPN]

44. Trumps had a lousy week every week since he announced his candidacy. Where has that got

him/us.

We aren't going to turn the tables by simply objecting to his "deplorable" behavior and views. He's been confronted with that weekly for more than a year and a half now.

[kydo]

14. To answer your question. We are not nazis, russians, or repugs.

Most Dems I know are compassionate human beings, not monsters. So probably never.

[George II]

16. Usually when one discusses two scenarios (as in your A and B) they're....

...alternate outcomes of the same situation.

How are your scenario A and scenario B even remotely related other than they concern presidential elections (although they are two different elections 4 years apart)?

Why are you so bent on trashing the Demcratic Party?

[MattP]

29. Lieberman was a weak ally even if we had 60 for over a year

[JCinNYC]

30. wasnt there...

Wasnt there direct evidence of russian trolls infiltrating progressive sites for the purposeof division
Things gettting too hot in the kitchen?
Isnt Trump madness enough to coalesce
Hmmmm

[BainsBane]

36. The GOP holds the majority

How about focusing your blame on them rather than the party without the numbers to block legislation?

Do you know how congress works? You are comparing actions by the GOP when they had the majority under Obama to the Democrats who have the minority under Trump.

[still_one]

38. A small convient fact that some seem to forget. They also seem to forget that in 2008

the blue dogs would not go for a public option, and without the blue dogs we didn't have the votes.

Funny how that works isn't it

[still_one]

37. bullshit. Ignoring the fact that we are the minority party, and the fact that the

FBI interference did impact the election were significant factors. The media shared their part also with their FALSE equivalency. However, it was those self-identified progressives who refused to vote for Hillary by either voting third party or not voting made the difference, and they also bear the responsibility for the disaster that has occurred.

Hillary lost Michigan by .3%. Jill Stein received 1.1% of the vote. Similar results in Wisconsin, and the other critical swing states.

Every Democrat running for Senate in those swing states lost to the ESTABLISHMENT, incumbent, republican.

Noam Chomsky said it best. Progressives who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton made a ‘bad mistake’

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/noam-chomsky-progressives-who-refused-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-made-a-bad-mistake/

and for those who have no sense of history, the public option did NOT have the votes. The blue dogs wouldn't go for it. Nelson in Nebraska, Florida, Bayh, Liberman, and others made it very clear they would not go for a public option or Medicare for all, and without their votes there would have been NO ACA. 50 million people who didn't have insurance are now covered.

Because some purists decided it was all or nothing, a lot of people are now in trouble

[NewsCenter28]

39. Sorry for not replying right away

My frustration is simply this: Bush got everything he wanted. Reagan did. Clinton and Obama, 42 and 44, got half a loaf for 2 years and then zilch. When do we Dems get everything we want the way Bush had no trouble going to war against Iraq under fake pretenses? Except everything we want would be health care for all, tough as nails Wall Street Regulation, etc.

Oh and with a 4-4 Supreme Court and the mountain of evidence of Russian sabotage, President Obama could have prevented Trump from taking office by outlining the grave national security threat Trump poses and posed to us all.

[still_one]

42. A Democrat in a red state is not the same as a Democrat in a blue state

Dean's 50 state strategy recognized that, but it is still an uphill road for Democrats ever since Nixon's Southern Strategy, and the redistricting of those red states which gave a distinct advantage to the republicans.

Elections have consequences, and the stakes were never more clear in this election, yet 47% of the voting public didn't vote.

President Obama could NOT have prevented trump from taking office.

The only option we have is 2018, and focusing on local and state elections to try and undo the redistricting that has hurt us so badly