188 D vs 247 R: Third-Way 'Pragmatic' Democrats are leading us to permanent minority status!

[reformist2]

Last edited Tue Oct 20, 2015, 06:47 PM - Edit history (1)

I knew we were in the minority in the House, but somewhere along the way I had lost track of how lopsided it's gotten. My God, the Repugs have almost 60 more members than our side! And the Senate isn't much better, with 46 D to 54 R, basically.

How did we get down to such low numbers??? Maybe we can blame some of it on Republican gerrymandering, but I have to wonder if a good part of it is that our message has been watered down by all these pragmatic dems trying to be clever, and voting the way big business wants them to. No wonder the public has soured on the Democrats.

Whatever our strategy is, it's not working. In fact, the results have been disastrous. Now is not the time for the status quo. It's time for big changes.

[Agschmid]

1. Clearly you weren't paying attention.

[sabrina 1]

12. I was paying attention. Would like me to EXPLAIN?

[jfern]

2. Midterms under Democratic Presidents have become epic disasters

1994, 2010, and 2014 were all epic disasters. 1998 wasn't a disaster, but that may have just been backlash from Clinton being impeached.

[sabrina 1]

17. Because the Third Way doesn't listen to Democratic VOTERS. And the Voters will no longer vote

against their own interests.

[LonePirate]

21. Except we had several solidly progressive Dems who lost all sorts of elections in 2014

Blaming Third Way Dems does not explain numerous losses by progressive Dems all across the country.

[Juicy_Bellows]

25. It makes it tough to win anywhere even locally when you wear a Packers hat and a Bears sweater. nt.

[Maedhros]

3. The Party may end up going the way of the Whigs.

Maybe we'll end up with something better to replace them?

[in_cog_ni_to]

31. That's my hope. A Progressive Party and keep the Third Way/DLC/Blue Dogs OUT OF IT!

They have destroyed what was once a great party of the people.

[JI7]

4. When we had the majority it was because of third way conservative leaning types

[JRLeft]

5. Yep, and refused to be progressive and lost anyway.

[cascadiance]

9. Even when progressive referendums like minimum wage increase PASSED in four states...

... that arguably were RED states and voted against a number of Korporate demokrats too, just in the last midterm election!

[JI7]

11. lol. that makes absolutely no sense at all

They voted for the much more conservative candidate because the opponent was not liberal enough

[JRLeft]

14. I'm talking about governing, why vote like a republican when you were you

going to lose anyway?

[JI7]

15. which member are you referring to ?

[JRLeft]

26. I responded to you.

[JI7]

28. you don't seem to know

[Jim Lane]

22. It makes sense if you think about turnout.

The conservatives turned out to vote for the conservative candidate. There being no liberal candidate on the ballot, many of the people who would have voted for one felt that they had no reason to vote, and stayed home.

I'm not condoning this behavior. I always vote, even when I'm unenthusiastic about the candidate I plan to support. The hard fact is, though, that there are a lot of people, of many different ideological types, who might or might not vote, depending.

So, yes, there are elections in which the centrist Democrat lost to the conservative Republican but in which the progressive Democrat would have won.

[JI7]

27. and what other candidates have that voted for ?

These are not the only elections which happen. Is there evidence of them having voted for more liberal candidates in the past and other races ?

[Jim Lane]

36. Well, Obama, for one

He came across as a liberal, or at least a change agent, and he did to some extent expand the electorate.

I always considered him a fairly mainstream Democrat; I never bought Limbaugh's "the most liberal Senator" line. (My reaction was: "If only.&quot In politics, though, what counts is the perception, and he was widely perceived that way. My guess -- which I certainly can't prove -- is that he received a significant number of votes from people who, with Clinton or Edwards topping the ticket, wouldn't have voted at all.

[JI7]

37. no he didn't. there is a lot of revisionism about how Obama was treated/viewed

[Hydra]

47. They absolutely HATED those 2 years

Having to come up with so many excuses as to why they couldn't get Dem stuff done. It was with a great sigh of relief that 2010 came and put them back in non-majority status.

The rest of us were outraged.

[Robbins]

6. it won't be changing anytime soon

The Clinton party is fine on permeant minority status In congress as long as a Clinton Is in white house to be bi-partisan and
get along with tea party.

Bengzri and emails are distraction just like fight over "Obamacare"

[reformist2]

10. As long as the Clintons are in power, the rest of the party be damned!

People like to crow about how great the Clintons have been for America, but I'm just not seeing it. The great economy of the 90s was mostly due to the (first) internet bubble, which would be pretty absurd to credit to either party.

[JRLeft]

33. The Tech boom made his presidency, unfortunately the bubble busted and was

one of the reasons for the major economic downfall. Bush got all of the blame, but this was caused by Reagan, HW, Clinton, and Dubya.

[LoveIsNow]

7. Independents see us as the party of cowardice.

And who can blame them when we won't stand for anything?

[WhiteTara]

8. The ADP is miserable

they are completely done for here in Arkansas. We don't even have a central committee meeting here in Carroll County...supposedly the liberal stronghold in nw AR The club disbanded after the president chased away everyone but her 3 friends.

[elehhhhna]

19. MAke a new club. Democracy is cool.

[WhiteTara]

34. I'll probably work for the nominee

in the general.

[HassleCat]

13. Ralph Nader was right

He said there wasn't "a dime's worth of difference" between the two major parties. With a few exceptions, Democrats make little effort to distinguish themselves from Republicans. About all they do is consult the polls and pick a few issues where the differ from the GOP candidate. When we ask why we should voter for them instead of a Republican, they trot out the one or two issues they rely on to make us afraid of the opponent. It might be gun control, or abortion, or domestic violence, but it's usually two or three issues, sometimes only one issue. And, although they speak passionately about one or two issues, you get the feeling they "believe in" and "stand for" these things because it's to their advantage, and their passion and commitment would evaporate quickly if they saw it costing them votes. Indeed, there are Democrats famous for switching sides on issues to conform to the Zeitgeist.

The interesting part of all this? Our party and its candidates adopted this methodology in response to the Reagan landslide, and we've been pursuing it ever since, hoping it will help Democratic candidates hold onto their offices. But it's not working. We are the minority party in so many ways, in so many places, I wonder if we will cease to exist in another 30 years or so.

[JaneyVee]

16. Every 2 term President since Eisenhower had lost their majority in 6th year.

The pendulum always swings back and forth.

[book_worm]

18. partially the fault of redistricting and our own "base" not turning out in sufficient numbers in

midterms.

[Adrahil]

20. Gerrymandering.

The Dems in the Congress actually rceived mor votes than the R's, but they are concentrated into Gerry,andered districts.

[Jim Lane]

23. Not entirely.

In 2012, Democratic House candidates received more total votes than did Republicans, but Republicans held the House majority.

In 2014, however, the Republican candidates actually did receive more total votes than the Democrats. That's part of the reason they increased their majority that year.

[MohRokTah]

24. No, extremist leftists who sat out the 2010 midterms put us here

This is the result of redistricting. I lay it all at the feet of the extreme left.

[Robbins]

29. Oh Boo hoo

many you bash as extreme left around here voted for dems in 2010.I know i did.

[MohRokTah]

30. Based upon everything you have posted today prior to this...

I do not believe you.

[MohRokTah]

35. Again.

I don't believe you.

[Persondem]

38. It's called gerrymandering. It got a lot worse after 2010.

The strategy to reverse it is ...

2016 Clinton wins WH
2016 Dems take control of Senate
2016-2018 POTUS nominates 2-3 left leaning SCOTUS judges. Senate confirms them.
2019-2020 SCOTUS zaps CU and reverses 200 years of gerrymandering
2020 Texas goes Blue
2022 Dems get House back with elections in newly drawn, fair districts

[Zorra]

39. If Clinton is nominated, those numbers will not change significantly for the better

after the 2016 GE.

Clinton cannot possibly draw anything remotely near the hordes of enthusiastic young voters and independent left voters that Obama did in 2016. We may pick up a few seats in 2016, but unfortunately, republicans will maintain their huge majority in both Houses if Clinton is the Dem candidate. The disaffected, desperate for real change progressive Dem base will not turn out in near the numbers that turned out in 2016 due to the populist rhetoric spouted by Obama, a type of rhetoric that Clinton cannot pull off believably or effectively due to her relatively right center past record.

Even if Clinton managed to win the GE, she would not carry with her the number of Dem votes necessary to take away any more than a few of the seats currently held by republicans.

Yes, we need big changes, and a Clinton candidacy/presidency would be just more of the same, other than the fact that she would be the first woman POTUS.

[onenote]

44. If every 18-29 year old had stayed home in 2008

Obama still would have won. In 2004, with Kerry running, the 18-29 group represented 17 percent of the vote. Four years later, in Obama's first run, they represented 18 percent.

[Luminous Animal]

40. Yep. Unwilling to fight and give resources to red states has led us to this.

Howard Dean had the right idea.

[tritsofme]

41. Rahm Emanuel and Howard Dean built the only Dem House majority in the last 20 years

largely by recruiting moderate "third way pragmatists" who could win in their districts.

If Democrats have an opportunity to seriously contend for majority status in the next few cycles, this would likely be the strategy again.

[brooklynite]

42. How do you think we got the majority in 2006?

Do you imagine they were all Alan Grayson liberals?

[Todays_Illusion]

43. Yes,it is these freaks calling themselves progressive who moved the Democratic to the right,Liars nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

45. Democrats did not vote in 2010 allowing Republicans

To gain control of the House snd a majotity of states and they gerrymandering districts.

People who did not vote screwed us.

This was not the fault o third way. People didn't vote because they didn't care and this is the government we got.

[WillyT]

46. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[mythology]

48. Actually the House you can blame on gerrymandering

We won more than a million more votes in House campaigns in 2012, but only won a handful of seats. In Pennsylvania in 2014 Democrats won 44 percent of the House vote. And yet only hold 5 of the 18 House seats. That is some fucked up gerrymandering. Instead of having 8 seats, which equals 44% of 18 seats, we have 5 which is 27%.

In North Carolina Democrats also won 44% of the vote, but hold only 23% of the House seats.

In 2012, we won over 50% of the House votes and yet held 33 fewer seats in the House.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/11/05/gerrymandering-rigged-2014-elections-republican-advantage/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/gop-gerrymandering-creates-uphill-fight-dems-house/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/11/07/how_ridiculous_gerrymanders_saved_the_house_republican_majority.html

In the Senate, in the 2014 election, the vast majority of the seats up for election were held by Democrats. Yes, we lost, but in 2016 24 of the 34 seats up for election are held by Republicans. That includes states like Wisconsin where Russ Feingold has a good chance of retaking the Senate seat, Florida and Kentucky where seats are held by current Republican presidential candidates and Illinois in a seat that figures to go back to Democrats.

Yes Democrats need to do a better job at getting candidates and getting the message out that we are the party in favor of popular policies like higher minimum wage and same sex marriage and so forth, but the fundamental problem in the house is gerrymandering and in the Senate it was that there were a lot of Democrats up in a year where we weren't popular.