The REAL pity in all this is that it is so obvious that everyone here at DU agrees that

[world wide wally]

Dems blew it by running as R Lites and away from the President. But, do you think anyone in a leadership position at Dem HQ is paying one bit of attention to it or even reading it?

The only thing we can really count on is that tomorrow is going to look a lot like today.

(Pass the rum and set sail)

[shenmue]

1. Not true.

We do not all agree on that.

[jberryhill]

4. And that's what makes us Democrats!

There isn't shit we "all agree" on.

[world wide wally]

2. OK then... Were the voting machines all rigged?

[Cal33]

30. Probably most of them. I still think it likely that the Republicans never ever voted honestly.

I also think it possible that Democrats have begun to rig their machines in retaliation, too. But
Repub. states outnumber Dem. ones. Put together all the different ways Repubs. practice
massive fraud, and they can't help but win - except when they make errors in calculation in
how much to cheat by. This time the fraud must have been enormous. And it will be enormous
from now on. Just an opinion.

[jberryhill]

3. The assumption there is...

"everyone here at DU agrees" = "correct diagnosis"


As far as whether tomorrow is going to look a lot like today, the fact of the matter is that without 60 votes, the Senate couldn't pass gas. I'm trying to figure out the scope of tangible impacts.

[sharp_stick]

7. The major tangible impacts

that I can see would be in judicial appointments and that was mitigated when the Dems stopped the filibuster for these. When the Senate Dems blew up the filibuster for judicial appointments I said that they were probably concerned with their ability to get these done in Obama's final two years because they were in a bad spot electorally.

The pukes were filibustering everyone in an all out effort to stop judicial appointment and that move wound up biting them in that ass. If they had of allowed even a few, completely non-offensive, picks to go through I don't think the Dems would have nuked them.

[jberryhill]

9. Judicial appointments is one I had thought of

Not that they were easy anyway.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. 60 votes will be found.

A handful of dems will come forth to join in the "compromising".

[silvershadow]

29. Yeah, and after what we have been through for the duration of the Obama Presidency

what they deserve is nothing. Nada. Zip. The Democrats that would join should be swiftly marginalized for not sticking together. Although, I'm not sure who those Democrats might be. We lost everyone in the south...

[world wide wally]

10. What you haven't considered is that the first order of business for McConnell will be to

eliminate the filibuster. That leaves the only option as the veto. They know that if Obama uses the veto often they can paint him and Dems as the "obstructionists" in Washington. Then the Dems will fall back on their favorite play and cave time after time.

I'm as sorry as you to be posting this, but we see where denying the truth has gotten us.

[jberryhill]

13. Here's the thing

It required a veto proof majority to pass any legislation before, and it will require a veto proof majority now.

I'm going to have to reopen the ticket booth.....

[MADem]

5. Who's "we all" doing that agreeing?

You got a squirrel in your pocket or something?

"We" don't all agree with your assessment, and "we" are not amused by it, either.

[jberryhill]

11. Oui oui, MADem

[world wide wally]

14. OK. Let's look at the Dems that flaunted Obama's accomplishments and see what happened wit them:

Hmm... Al Franken won big.
Hmm... Gary Peters in Michigan won.
Hmm.. Malloy in CT won his Governor's race.
Hmm.. I can't think of anyone else that didn't campaign against Obama.... Can you?

[MADem]

17. Well, yes, I can. No one in the MA delegation campaigned against Obama.

Everyone save Martha on the D team pulled through.

Cough http://www.whdh.com/story/26628533/coakley-set-to-campaign-with-michelle-obama cough.

Obama campaigned with Tom Wolf, too: http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/11/02/president-obama-visits-philadelphia-to-campaign-for-tom-wolf/

Pssst. He won.

He also campaigned with Mark Schauer (lost) and Gary Peters (won). They didn't "run away" from him. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/01/obama-senate-campaign-gary-peters/18330717/

Not sure what point you're trying to make, there. Surely you're not trying to say that if only they went with Obama The Big Liberal (who can't really win, because here on DU is called a stooge, a conservative, a TPP enabler, and all sorts of other names) that all would have been well? Alison Grimes would be packing her bags for DC?

Look, I was never a champion of the "Avoid Obama" strategy. I'm one of those DUers who LIKES Obama. I like Hillary, too--so go figure. I tend to find more things to like then dislike when it comes to Democrats.

Obama was ready to help, but some people didn't want--or need--his assistance. That's on THEM, not him. They're adults--they picked their strategy, and they picked wrong, IMO.

[world wide wally]

19. See what I mean?

All of your Ma. Candidates pulled through.
Out here in Colorado, and what I've seen across the country (grimes in Ky, Udall in co, Pryor in Ark...etc) made sure they sided with Republicans on Obama and they all fell flat on their faces.

I am far from the only one here that saw this as an absolutely catastrophic strategy, so why can't the Dem leadership see this?
The Republican Lite strategy for Democrats is as bad as the Republican's own trickle down economics strategy. Neither one of them works, but they keep pushing the BS down our throats.

[MADem]

20. MA is a safely liberal state. And Martha, who brought an Obama in, lost.

You can't force candidates to campaign with the President. And if any of those fools were reading DU, why would they want to campaign with him?

Hell, the only place Obama could find any love here is in the BOG.

I don't know what Obama is supposed to do. He's an evil PTB toady in bed with the GOP on one hand, and on the other hand he's "too liberal."

I swear, I think a lot of people will not admit it, but they just have a problem with his melanin; it wouldn't matter if the poor bastard found the cure for cancer and ALS while legalizing pot and cutting the prison population in half and reducing the unemployment rate to .0001--they'd still find a reason to play the "Thanks a LOT Obama" card. Because, you know, like Rick Santorum says...he's ... "Blaaaaah."

It's just stupid. And he can't win, because people can't have that.

[Recursion]

22. So explain Domina's loss in Nebraska

He's sent bankers and corrupt Republican pols to jail, taken on Tyson's in court, opposes Keystone, and didn't shy away from Obama.

What's your explanation for his loss?

[world wide wally]

26. Have you ever been to Nebraska?

It's right next door to Kansas. if it wasn't for a road sign, you'd never know the difference.

I never said they would have won them "all", but their chances in Colorado, for one, would have been MUCH better.

[Recursion]

27. I have, in fact. And I support a 50-state strategy, which involves running candidates who can win

in Nebraska, Kansas, or Texas. Which means nominating conservative Democrats because they are conservative areas.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. our leadership will take this as a cue to move further right,

to snuggle right up to their friends across the aisle who have been so mean and nasty to them for the last six years, to renew old friendships, to raise lots of corporate buckaroos, and to "reform" social security, medicare, taxes on the rich, and all those other things that really need to get done.

[Awsi Dooger]

12. Every time either side loses, that's the rationalization

We weren't true to ourselves, blah blah blah. I remember watching the CSPAN aftermath of the 2012 election and that's what Republicans were shouting.

Invariably it's nonsense. The situational trends dictate results, months if not years in advance. Naturally the cable shows can't emphasize that as opposed to fixating on the trivia of the day, the debate gaffe or whatever.

Midterms are unfavorable to the party in charge, particularly the 6th year. Democrats are especially vulnerable because single women don't participate in midterms. The only way to salvage an unfavorable cycle was high approval rating by Obama but he blew it in the past six months or so due to poor reviews of his reaction to high profile concerns.

The next cycle is as close to 50/50 situational terrain as anything we've seen since 2000. It will be an open race after one party has been in charge for 8 years. That's normally an extremely tight race. Our dependable voting blocks like single women will show up. The only important swing variable is where Obama's approval rating will be 2 years from now. We need it to boost back toward 50% range.

[world wide wally]

31. And "who" was giving him these "poor reviews" but never mentioning anything "poor"

about what Republicans have done for the past 6 tears?

[timesup]

15. Just MO

Gerrymandering districts really paid off for the Reps.

Until that is returned to a reasonable status, expect more of the same.

Now we wait for them to push their actual agendas, I suspect a ton of in fighting inside that party.

The citizenry will probably suffer, again when nothing worthy gets through, and how many more times will they try to repeal that one law and waste years of not producing anything substantive on what we the people actually care about.

I just expect more corruption, lies, and angling for big business, I wish they hadn't made me so pessimistic.

President elect in 2016 will be a democrat again, though.

[Bill USA]

16. this started in 2009 when Democrats wanted to respond agressively calling out the GOPers

their nihilist politics and their doubling down on policies based on RW mythologies, Obama came down on THEM - while treating GOPers with kid gloves - preaching a "Can't we all get along" political posture of appeasement.

After a while, after being squelched by Obama, Democrats who were prepared to 'take it to' the GOP gave up. I believe that is how the Democrats were 'shut down' as to vigorously criticizing GOPer Insurgents for their Attack Politics of fighting everything the President and Democrats tried to do to get SOMETHING accomplished. Had they been allowed to do that the conversation on M$M would have been forced to include specifics on how the GOP has been sabotaging (e.g. filibuster everything) Obama and government in general. Then when the GOP tried the "See, Obama lacks 'leadership' - that's why were not getting anything done here in D.C." .... more people would have seen through the charade.

[world wide wally]

18. No question that Obama laid the groundwork with his "kid gloves - work with Republican" foolishness,

But.... He was elected twice and did accomplish a lot. This is NOT something for Dem candidates to run away from.

[Recursion]

21. Umm... I don't think "everyone" here agrees with that

Not by a long shot.

[world wide wally]

24. So, you think we ran our campaigns the right way?

I stand corrected. I guess the DNC is reading this.

[Recursion]

25. I certainly don't think people lost for being "insufficiently liberal"

Again, why did Domina lose? Or Davis? Or Coakley? Or Brown in MD? None of them ran as "D Lite".

[world wide wally]

28. Look at the referendums around the country. Raising minimum wage, paid leave, marijuana...etc

Yes, America is more liberal than you think.
And what makes you think that Obama personifies "liberalism" anyway?

[Thrill]

23. Democrats not sticking together? Whats new?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

32. It is NOT obvious because DU continues to shit on this president, day in and day out.

[JoePhilly]

33. No no ... that motivates people to GOTV!!!

Just ask around here.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

34. Oh, yes. Silly me. I should know better. Congrats to you in PA, by the way! :)

[JoePhilly]

35. Sadly, I live in NC now.

Doing my best to turn part of Dumbfuckistan into a more reliable blue state.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

36. Well, we Marylanders are still in shock!

[JoePhilly]

37. I hear ya.

[brooklynite]

38. I don't agree...

Lok at what happened:

We had candidates who rejected Obama who lost, and candidates who welcomed Obama who lost.

We had candidates lose in red states and candidate lose in blue states.

We had liberals who lost and moderates who lost.

Try to find a one-size fits all campaign policy that will solve all problems is silly.