I think by going against 60% of Democratic voters wishes on HCR

[mmonk]

in regards to their wish of something public instead of all private, the party has a chance to get its butt kicked in 2010. I do not understand why many elected will ultimately yield to the DLC with that prospect. Conservative or "middle" voters will not save the party this time and there is no George Bush to hide behind.

[WeDidIt]

1. If the party gets its but kicked it's because the average party members have no clue

The Senate is everything when it comes to legislation and you have a right of center Senate right now. Flip that over to left of center and everything changes.

[mmonk]

8. The Senate was no problem for the Bush agenda.

I don't remember the 60 vote meme either except in terms if they went against him.

[cali]

15. yes it was. granted, 9/11 gave him a period of time where he was able

to push through a lot of crap, but bush ran up against the filibuster. Social Security "reform" and appointments come to mind.

[mmonk]

18. I believe you are correct on the social security issue.

I guess the outrages of the MCA and telecom immunity and such battered my brain too much I couldn't see beyond it.

[WeDidIt]

22. The filibuster was used at approximately the same frequency it was used against Clinton

Your problem is, you think the Senate is not a right leaning body.

It is.

Right now, the Senate definitely leans conservative. The very nature of the body makes it conservative if you have a fifty-fifty split liberals vs. conservative. You have at least nine right leaning members of the Dem caucus right now, so a conservative bent in the body is a given.

So for any progressive legislation to move forward, the sixty vote margin is an absolute necessity. That Obama got what is the current Senate bill through this right leaning Senate is a testament to his incredible leadership.

People choose to ignore those simple facts, though.

[bfarq]

28. The 60th vote is right of center

The problem is that Obama was willing to play this the wrong way. Maybe he honestly believe he could get some Republican support. If so, he's an idiot because that patters was already well established with the stimulus.

If he wanted to pass legislation remotely similar to what he campaigned on, he had to go through reconciliation. That could have produced a fairly progressive result. True, even the 50th Senator is much more conservative than the public at large, but it would have been a lot closer.

I don't understand Obama not using at least the threat of reconciliation.

I do understand the idea of taking the best bill he can get and declaring victory.

However, for that to work, the bill has to do at least provide some real benefits that the voters will see before the next election. This bill really doesn't do that. There are some early change, but they are technical and will not be seen by the average voter. I believe Obama really screwed up, not by caving in on the most progressive ideas, but by not getting the good stuff until 2014. That seems like a monumental political blunder.

[polpilot]

2. I think the term is 'political suicide.'

[liberal_at_heart]

4. +1

[Nikki Stone1]

9. + 1

.

[liberalmuse]

3. Actually, what we need is a larger majority...

of REAL Democrats, or we wouldn't have to compromise with the likes of Independent Lieberman and Blue Dog Nelson. but unfortunately, many Democrats can't see this so they will stay home in 2010 and pout, and we'll have a slimmer margin and get jack shit done in the next 2 years. I am so sick of liberals shooting themselves in the balls every fucking mid-term.

[WeDidIt]

5. With 60 members in a right of center Senate

You'll never get anything more progressive passed than Nelson of Lieberman are willing to agree with.

Sad, but true.

[liberal_at_heart]

6. actually I think the one good thing Obama has done for the democratic party

is bring people out to vote. I think more democrats are more energized to get out and vote than ever before. We won't see as many people vote in the mid-term as we see in the general election but I do think we will see more vote during this next mid-term election than we use to see during a mid-term election.

[Hekate]

7. The average voter needs to be educated and motivated to GOTV. That means activists...

... need to actually know what they are talking about when it comes to:

• the many accomplishments of President Obama against very tough opposition by the Repubs (we have them on file here at DU)
• the extent to which Congress is responsible for legislation -- i.e., Congress IS the LEGISLATURE, the POTUS is the EXECUTIVE
• the fact that the Repubs have made up their minds to vote no in a unified bloc on everything we would like to have done, and if we let them have more seats because we either don't vote or we throw away our vote by "making a statement" then we will get nothing at all accomplished
• GOTV is essential because midterm elections are often won by those with an axe to grind -- i.e. the fundies and wingnuts doing their Astroturfing corporate masters' bidding -- while Democrats, new voters, and voters who thought this was going to be easy, decide to sit it out.

And finally, our activists (if they truly want to be effective for Democratic causes) need to stop spewing Right Wing talking points.

Hekate

[verdalaven]

11. I wish I could recommend a post.

+1

[clear eye]

17. Would you mind listing "Democratic causes"? n/t

[PassingFair]

10. There are "Blue Dogs" to hide behind now....

Blue Dogs are the new Republicans.

Haven't you heard?

The "New Dems" want everything you do...

If it wasn't for those darned Blue Dogs....

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mmonk]

14. I should alert you but I won't.

[mmonk]

21. And to let you know I do put up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=7309135

I was also an Obama delegate and currently am a precinct treasurer of the Democratic party.

[JoeyT]

32. Never!

No one that criticizes anything our team does has ever done anything but sit on their ass and gripe! It isn't possible that the people that worked the hardest are the angriest.

Let them have it, it's the only excuse they have.

[hfojvt]

13. another hopeful prophecy of doom

"the party didn't do what I want, so I hope the country goes to hell."

[mmonk]

16. Are you saying the polling data is false?

[quaker bill]

19. 80+ percent support the President

and the numbers will improve with the economy and as HCR is viewed from the rear window. HCR will not be a major issue in the 2010 election. That is the whole point of doing it now. It might still be a sore point for you, but the vast majority of the public will move on to other things. My prediction would be immigration reform, and done right, we will get the repugs to go all "Lou Dobbs" for us. This will drive turnout by minorities strongly in our direction and secure us even more seats.

While "60" percent are against "the bill", vast majorities are for all the elements of "the bill" when clearly and accurately explained individually. HCR was always a bad issue to campaign on, even if posed as a "public option". The whole thing is too nuanced, technical, and so close to peoples lives that it is easy to demagog. Anything that takes more than 30 seconds to explain is a poor campaign issue. Immigration is also difficult, but far easier for folks to wrap their heads around. It is also great bait for republican hatred of minorities and will expose the Palinites for who they really are.

My dollar says immigration reform will be the issue-de-jour.

[mmonk]

20. I am speaking about the 2010 elections and our prospects.

Too many people are taking this as an anti-Obama thread and not a thread about concerns for the congressional prospects.

[Nikki Stone1]

23. Actually his poll numbers are down. Can you provide a link to the "80%" figure please?

Thank you.

[Kaleva]

26. Obama has lost all support from Republicans and has taken a hit from the Independents

but his support from Dems in general remains high. The poll was posted in another thread which I'll try and find.

[varelse]

24. The Republicans will milk this for all it is worth

the federal mandate to buy insurance from privately held companies, plus the taxation of employer-funded health benefits will be used against the Democrats in 2010. I don't believe they will lack for money to fund attacks on this bill or its proponents. If the health care and health insurance industries could afford to spend 1.4 million a day to fight this reform, I don't doubt they have more money ready to attack those who helped to pass it.

Because the mandate primarily impacts young people who choose not to buy health insurance, I forsee some erosion of support from younger voters, who were an important constituency in the 2008 elections.

Because the tax on "cadillac" employer-based health benefits will have a negative effect on middle class union members, who traditionally favor Democrats, and on unions, which typically are large donors to Democratic candidates, it could affect campaign funding as well as endorsements.

Another key constituency for Democrats is women voters. If our reproductive rights and our right to privacy are slighted in the final version of the bill, that will also harm Democrats in 2010, although I doubt it would get much air time in Republican-funded campaign ads. Still, if the administration continues to permit taunting and contempt to be openly shown toward "the left" then it's possible that the "blogosphere" could be motivated to raise some hell about it, drawing off support from progressive women voters and activists.

My guess is that as much as the Democrats will probably want the 2010 elections to be about ANY other issue, unless there is another incident equivalent to the 911 attacks, the HRC bill with its federal mandate to buy privately produced services, will get plently of prime time media attention in 2010.

Ironically, voting for either the House or the Senate bill could be construed as courageous and principled - particularly for the "blue dogs", this bill may well be their political downfall.

[mmonk]

25. I think the union vote and the youth vote were really key in the last

election. This is a big area of concern for me because I think if there is erosion in Democratic support, this is where it is going to come from.

[varelse]

27. Yes, and I do not doubt the Republicans know this

if they cannot find a way to win those votes, they can still use all of the ammunition that is currently being compiled by the Democratic party itself, to discourage volunteerism and turnout among the younger voters. This, more than anything, would have a lasting impact on Democratic political ambitions for years to come. The political clout of unions looks to be on the way out (look at what is being done to undermine teacher's unions, for example) but the young voters who came out and worked for and voted for Obama in 08 are a resource that it would be downright criminally stupid to alienate.

I think the successful public slandering of ACORN has also done untold damage to the Democratic GOTV effort, and I fear that we will not fully understand the extent of such damage until the 2010 election results are in.

Something should be done to pull the liberal/progressive wing closer into the party - it's also the activist wing, and without it, fund raising and GOTV efforts will be much weaker. Berating the liberal activist and covering them in scorn on national television is counterproductive. I can't help but wonder why it is being done.

[AdHocSolver]

30. It is easy to explain why the Democratic PARTY is abandoning liberals and moving to the right.

The Democratic Party leadership is abandonimg progressives, liberals, and labor unions in order to convince the wealthy and the corporations to switch their support from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party.

The Republican Party is splintering and is being taken over by goofballs like Sarah Palin and religious crazies. A majority of conservatives and moderates are becoming disillusioned with the Republican Party.

Since the Republicans have already made the winning of elections based primarily on how much money you have to spend, which candidates the corporate-controlled media promotes, and which candidates are favored by the corporations who control the voting machines, the Democratic Party is working hard to prove to the corporate powers-that-be that it is in their interest to switch support and campaign donations from Republicans to Democrats.

The Democrat Party will deliver what the corporations want. Progressive Democrats like Howard Dean, who want what is best for the American people, have to be muzzled, or they will ruin the sales pitch to big business and the right-wing religious fanatics.

The Democratic Party leadership is telling big business and religious right-wingers "The Democratic Party will deliver whatever you want, less a few crumbs to our moderate and liberal constituents, so give us your support and your millions, instead of the Republicans, and we will do your bidding."

[varelse]

31. I hate to say it, but that does make sense

I still think the Republicans are a better bet for the ultra-wealthy - in the long term, anyway. Could the Democratic party be falling into a trap of its own making?

[doc03]

29. Taxing Union negotiated benefits is not going to

motivate any Union members to work for a Democrat in 2010.

[JoeyT]

34. But but but

President Palin and ponies and you're not a real liberal.

Apparently the right wing of our party now defines "democrat" as "hates unions and the middle class".

[gopwacker_455]

33. Sad but true

[amborin]

35. agree k&r

[inna]

36. I really, REALLY would like to know what the hell he is thinking. nt