Does anger at Dems REALLY translate into Repubs picking up more seats?

[LearnedHand]

Or are we buying into the media habit of deciding the outcomes way ahead of time? I'm just wondering if there might be other outcomes (and thus, other memes) that we could cite. Maybe there will be very vigorous opposition by truly Progressive challengers -- and voters will vote for them! I'm simply not believing that the electorate is suddenly re-enchanted with the Repubs, who did such incredible damage to the foundations of our society and economy while they were in control. I'm thinking that what most people really want is LESS corporatism and MORE progressivism. And I think the polls -- which are spun into unrecognizable "results" -- actualy bear this out.

What do you think?

On Edit: Where I think I'm going with this line of reasoning is that we should be telling a different story to ourselves. Maybe we should be telling our Congresscritters -- and each other -- that Dems will vigorously support truly progressive challengers.

[FreakinDJ]

1. No but TAXING Health Benefits sure does

[LearnedHand]

5. Not sure

If I'm furious at the proposal to tax my benefits, I'm not sure I'm going to run to the Republicans, who have proven to be disasterous. You see my thinking?

[FreakinDJ]

9. Stay Home or Vote against the Dems most likely

but it would gaurantee they would not turn out in force (like 08 election cycle) for the DEMs for many years to come. Perhaps decades

[LearnedHand]

14. True that, but I hope that's not what happens

I hope that Progressives become mad as hell and decide they're not going to take it any more.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Yes. When Dems get angry, they don't vote. When R's get angry, they vote. nt

[LearnedHand]

4. Good point nt

[Captain Hilts]

7. Eight years in polling really demonstrated that clearly. PLUS, R's get 'gay marriage' bills on the

ballot and all the crazies show up to vote regardless of how they feel about their candidates, and the candidates get votes on the coattails of these 'moral issue' propositions on the ballot. It's a trump card R's have in the turnout game.

[LearnedHand]

15. I argue that the polls are "interpreted" by the M$M into the old memes

But I definitely cannot argue about the "values voters" and their "morals issues."

[Captain Hilts]

21. The problem with polls is the folks that comission them and release info selectively.

Yes, you're right.

[LearnedHand]

26. EXACTLY!

So they tell us ahead of time what our behavior will be, and voila! It happens that way. How can we counteract that? I'm hoping that we can inject a different meme: We can refuse to give it over to the Repubs just because we're angry at the Dems who are wholly owned subsidiaries of ginormous corporations.

[Captain Hilts]

34. Yes, the purpose of most polling is not to find out opinions, but to pro-actively find out what

folks don't know and figure out how to sell messages.

[LearnedHand]

35. Word ...

:thumbsup:

[KittyWampus]

11. Most Dems aren't angry.

[LearnedHand]

16. Hmmm.

My feeling is they are, but then, my sample is fairly small :D

[NashVegas]

56. About Once a Year, Someone Posts an Article About How Republicans Are More Driven By Emotions

And 90% of the responders to the thread pat themselves on the head for being a "rational" liberal.

[Captain Hilts]

17. True, but some are pissed about the health insurance tax. But in VA they already showed

they'd stay home.

[LearnedHand]

22. Good evidence

Is there some way we can inject a different meme?

[Captain Hilts]

25. I think getting this healthcare bill passed - as much as I don't like it - is key to show

that Dems are capable of governing and overcome the chaos of the summer and spring over the bill.

It also shows us moving 'forward' on something. Admit it's not perfect, but a start. Have the DNC play ads about bankruptcy/healthcare costs in US vs. Canada, UK, etc.

Once some folks get access to health ins. or care that did not before it's like a pool break, people find out exponentially.

I HATE a lot of the bill, but the advantages to making Dems look concerned and competent is tied to the passage of this shitty bill.

[LearnedHand]

30. Excellent point

Two things: One, the Repubs are as furious about the bill as Dems (outside the House and Senate) are, and for the same reason: right now, it seems to be a corporate giveaway (NOT because it's "socialized" medicine). So I'm wondering if it actually will show we're capable of moving forward?

Two, and an entirely different conversation, why the HELL aren't Dems hitting the airwaves with graphic descriptions of what Repub governance and "healthcare" brings you versus what more progressive nations do? The republicans are extremely vulnerable on the whole shit-up-the-economy thing, and Dems are handwringing about how not to offend them.


:mad:

[Captain Hilts]

31. Your last point has had me pulling out my hair by the handfulls....

People are ignorant of the FACTS. Kind of like how folks think that violent crime and drunken driving are on the increase, when, in fact, they've seriously declined. Or that they'll have to pay the estate tax.

We need ads just giving information on healthcare's affect on national and personal GDP, as it were. We're paying nearly FOUR THOUSAND dollars MORE per person on healthcare than folks in Britain. And they spend a good chunk on defense spending also, so the comparison is apt.

By the way, I LOVE your Nom de 'Net. I need to read that bio of Hand that came out a few years - ten or so - back.

[LearnedHand]

32. Exactly

If, for example, President Obama would speak directly to the electorate about how Congress is caving to the special interests and that we should hold their feet to the fire, and KEEP HAMMERING on that, people might do it. Or if the Democratic Party would do a reverse Harry and Louise campaign. Or if the Dems hammered on the moral bankruptcy of the Pukes who brought us the backing/finance/automobile industry spectacle. On and on and on. THEY ARE VULNERABLE, AND WE ARE GIVING THEM GET-OUT-OF-JAIL-FREE PASSES BY THE BUSHELS FULL.

:mad: :grr: :mad: :grr:


Thx, BTW. I haven't read the bio either, but it's on my list for this year. I really admire his integrity!

[Captain Hilts]

37. Yes, and STOP the big bugaboo about 'choice' in health ins. Most have NO choice.

So, get rid of the anti-trust exemption the industry gets as an effort to introduce competition and choice. Start there.

You MUST see Bill Moyers' Journal from last night with David Corn and Drum.

Learned Hand, George C. Marshall and Eleanor Roosevelt had integrity. It's a pretty short line after that. I wonder if they were all ever in the same room together. Probably were at least once.

[LearnedHand]

40. About Hand's philosophy (fm. Wikipedia)

(Looking up the Moyers' Journal episode today, BTW!)

Hand's study of philosophy at Harvard left a lasting imprint on his thought. He lost his faith in God as a student, and from that point on, he became a skeptic.<154> Hand's view of the world has been identified as relativistic; in the words of scholar Kathryn Griffith, "t was his devotion to a concept of relative values that prompted him to question opinions of the Supreme Court which appeared to place one value absolutely above the others, whether the value was that of individual freedom or equality or the protection of young people from obscene literature."<155> Hand instead sought objective standards in constitutional law, most famously in obscenity and civil liberties cases.<156> He saw the Constitution and the law as compromises to resolve conflicting interests, possessing no moral force of their own.<157> This denial that any divine or natural rights are embodied in the Constitution led Hand to a positivistic view of the Bill of Rights.<158> In this approach, provisions of the Constitution, such as freedom of press, freedom of speech, and equal protection, should be interpreted through their wording and in the light of historical analysis rather than as "guides on concrete occasions".<159> For Hand, moral values were a product of their times and a matter of taste.<160>

[dkf]

33. Costs are still going to go up.

Most people will think they were taken for a ride.

[LearnedHand]

36. They (we) were, actually

Straight to the corporate altars. I'm just hoping that doesn't translate to, "Well, the REPUBLICANS never sacrificed us to the corporations."

[Captain Hilts]

38. Revoke the health ins. industry's anti-trust exemption to introduce competition and CHOICE.

Congress keeps talking about 'choice' in healthcare, but few outside govt. actually have it.

[Captain Hilts]

41. Look at what just happened in Maine. Blue Cross increased premiums 22%. nt

[LearnedHand]

42. FUCKED by the medical insurance companies

with the approval and aid of the US Congress. What gets me is the apparent reasoning behind the "new" approach:

(1) The cost of healthcare is breaking the backs of Americans.
(2) We need to do something to stop the insanity, and people are demanding change.
(3) Let the medical insurance orgs write the legislation. After all, who knows more about how to reform health insurance.

:wtf: :dunce:

[Captain Hilts]

43. The DNC should be playing ads in Maine right NOW and go after Snowe. nt

[LearnedHand]

45. How can they do that ...

while also trying to out-Republican the Republicans? There's just not enough time in the day!

:nuke:

[Captain Hilts]

48. Aren't we the busy party?

[LearnedHand]

51. LOL

Oh STOP! I just can't keep up.

[Lurks Often]

29. VA wasn't really a surprise

Most of Virginia is red, it is the heavily blue part of N. Virginia that threw the state to Obama in 2008, that and the fact that McCain really wasn't that strong of a candidate.

I find that NJ was a more interesting off year example. Granting that Corazine was very disliked, I was still surprised that a Republican won in November.

[Captain Hilts]

39. Turnout of black voters in the Hampton Roads area was another key. nt

[still_one]

18. republicans were angry in 2008, and a lot stayed home /nt

[Captain Hilts]

20. That's really the exception to the rule, but very true in '08. nt

[dkf]

3. Unions say they stopped their members from voting for McCain

Over the taxing of health care. Betraying union workers is not the road to getting support much less manpower or assistance.

[LearnedHand]

6. Another good point

But will the unions turn their support to Republicans instead, or will they find and vigorously support more progressive Dem challengers?

[dkf]

8. They will probably stay home

They are probably even more demoralized than we are. I'd feel personally back stabbed as the unions do more as a group for democrats than any other.

[LearnedHand]

10. I hope not

But it IS overwhelmingly discouraging. I'm tempted, but I'm NOT going to let the bastards win. (Well, at least they're not going to keep me from the polls.)

[FreakinDJ]

13. They did over "He is going to take your guns"

[LearnedHand]

23. LOL. The Repubs turn out over ANY fear-based meme, for sure

But can we convince Dems that we MUST NOT ROLL OVER (like the M$M are suggesting we'll do)?

[Captain Hilts]

44. I thought Bill Clinton already had our guns? Or is it Hillary? I forget....nt

[frazzled]

27. If union members are inclined to vote for a McCain ...

Then we are right back where we were with Reagan. It was blue collar "Reagan Democrats" who spurred the so-called Reagan revolution, the effects of which we are still trying to fend off.

If all that allies union members and Democrats is their own personal pocketbooks, then I don't consider them to be very good progressive allies. Me, my, mine. I thought we were done with this. Guess not.

P.S. It is total misleading propaganda to suggest that McCain's plan to tax health benefits and give everyone a $5000 check to "buy" insurance has one iota of relevance to the discussion of the excise tax on the very highest cost health plans. Different as night and day.

[OHdem10]

12. Less Corporatism--what are the Teabaggers screaming about??

Bailouts, helping Auto Cos. whether we want to believe it
or not--Democrats and Independents are joining them.

These people know they get the crumbs so they have become
so irrational--they are practically saying no one gets
anything.

We tend to focus on DC. what is happening in the country
is much more important. We permitted the Righties to
exploit these groups and the Republicans have turned
it into no government.

[LearnedHand]

19. You touch on one of the core issues I'm basing this discussion on

People from every part of the political spectrum are furious at the favoring of the corporate fucking of the little people, and using government-supplied KY to do it! I'm not sure, however, that voters actually are thinking, "Well, the Dems sure didn't protect us from this. I bet the Pubs can do a better job." The M$M would have us believe that people are thinking exactly that, but I'm not so sure.

[Lurks Often]

24. Maybe

There are a lot of variables and remember truth is a perception:
1. Is this a moderate/conservative leaning state? Using Dorgan as an example of a moderate/Conservative leaning state, it is very likely, as of now, of it becoming a Republican seat.
2. Outside of the coasts and around the major cities, most people fall within a moderate Democrat to conservative Republican range. (If you don't believe me look at the 2008 election map that shows red and blue votes by county) Again using Dorgan as an example a progressive stands virtually no chance of winning that seat.
3. Depends how angry the unions are come election time.
4. Depends on how the independents feel come election time.
5. How much of the farthest left base stays home because they don't feel that their Senator, Representative or the President lived up to their campaign promises or sold out their particular cause.

Here are my predictions:
1. The Democrats (to include Sanders and Lieberman) keep the majority in the Senate, but the Republicans pick up 3-8 seats
2. You see at least one or more high profile Democrats lose their seat: Reid and Lincoln come to mind.
3. The Democrats keep control of the House, but lose 15-25 seats.

Of course all of this based on what is happening NOW, we still have a long way to go and a lot can happen between now and the election. Also keep in mind historically that the party that holds the Presidency loses seats in both the House and Senate.

Some people are going to accuse me of being negative, but I prefer to see things as they are, not as I wish them to be.


Edited to widen the range on the Senate pick-up, regardless I don't think the Democrats keep the 60-40 majority that stands now

[LearnedHand]

28. Very well-reasoned points!

I make the mistake of forgetting that concerning federal elections, all politics is local! We can piss and moan on a national scale, but the local voters decide. You're absolutely right that some of the moderate-to-conservative-leaning states could go Repub. I hope that won't happen, but it very well may. I will be very interested to revisit your predictions after the mid-term elections to see how close to spot on they are!

BTW, Reid would be no great loss, IMHO. :scared:

On Edit: Welcome to DU, BTW, if you're actually new and not a long-time lurker. I love your reasoning and thoughtfulness. Hope you join many more discussions.

[HughMoran]

52. Fair enough analysis

I have no issues with your analysis or predictions.

[happy_liberal]

46. they own the media, they own the voting systems, they create reality

and this doesn't help matters much
Supreme Court to Remove Restrictions on Corporate Donations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7428698

If we don't do something fast- we are screwed!

[LearnedHand]

49. You're so right, unfortunately

What was the final decision on Corporate donations? Or has SCOTUS announced its decision yet?


Welcome to DU!

[happy_liberal]

53. thanks

:hi:

the ruling is expected within days...I wonder if public outcry would matter at all? I was hoping if it moved up the greatest page maybe Hartman,Olbermann,Rachel Maddow etc. would see it if they haven't already.

[anonymous171]

47. 1994. nt

[LearnedHand]

50. "War is peace"

Protesting in Free-Speech zones is freedom of assembly. Spending more is saving.

[patrice]

54. I think LABOR should lead. If "we" hurt Labor, we hurt Us.

[spanone]

55. no but it's a great headline for our ignorant media that chooses to do little research

[LearnedHand]

57. Exactly right

And my main point here!

[Goldstein1984]

58. Anger only equals Democratic losses if it is ignored.

If the Democratic Party:

Doesn't follow democratic principles;
Denies that the "Left" is a part of their constituency that they ignore and marginalize at their peril;
Recognizes that a growing number of people are tired of the lesser-of-two-evils voting scenario;
Stops labeling critics as "haters" and "whiners" ranting on their computers";
Sheds pro-war, pro-empire and pro-business policies and returns to progressive principles; and
IF people of principle demand and settle for nothing less than their elected representatives acting on those principles...

Then the Democrats have a chance.

Progressives are what Democrats were when they still made a difference.

[LearnedHand]

59. Agree with all your points ...

but I'm hoping to change the "obvious" conclusion that it all translates to people voting Republican instead.

[Goldstein1984]

60. I don't believe either party works anymore

Those of us who have lost faith in the Democratic Party, and believe that it is the party that abandoned us, are looking for an alternative to both parties. I no longer see the two-party system as capable of supporting democracy. I need only point to the progressive loss of democracy under the two-party system to support that view.

My political efforts, and all of my economic support for organizations, now promote working outside of the system to change the system. Thus, I support groups like Amnesty International, that operate on fundamental principles rather than political affiliation or pragmatism, and which will insure that when history is written the war criminals are properly identified. I have stopped my support for groups like Greenpeace, which have become merely a part of a self-sustaining and illusory struggle, and support groups like Sea Shepherd Conservation Society exactly because they do all of the things that system-loving status quo-perpetuating people condemn.

[LearnedHand]

61. Agree, but we should also focus on fixing the flawed electoral system

I wonder if there's a group supporting modification of the electoral system so it allows something more than the binary conclusions we have now? There must be a way to allow more parliamentary-looking results to force coalition building or runoff elections. Something besides winner-take-all.

[Goldstein1984]

62. I think the simplest fix is to make the system work like it should

The problem isn't the basic process by which we elect representatives. One problem is that the electoral process is driven by money, and that money buys candidate marketing that essentially gives the election to whomever was able to raise the most money. Even if that process sends a person of principle to Washington, money corrupts them after they arrive.

I also believe that, whether we like the label or not, we have an oligarchy pulling the strings of elected officials. There are people meeting in clubs that the little people don't even know exist, and the things that presidents and senators and congressmen are going to be saying to us are being decided there now.

We cannot work within the system to change it. We need to threaten the stability upon which the system relies to function. This isn't a revolutionary idea--Howard Zinn and Bill Moyers said as much during a recent Bill Moyer's Journal.

Personally, I think "We the People" are too pacified by fear and the entertainment we use to hide from reality. When I hear or read someone say, "If you do that things will only get worse," I often think that better may only be waiting on the other side of worse. The Founders of this nation had the same debates, and once they made the decision to revolt, things did get much worse before they got better.

"Where there is a will, there is a way." It's the will that we lack.

[applegrove]

63. When we fight amongst ourselves we have taken our eye off the ball. We should be

talking about re-regulating financial institutions and corporations.

Did you know that in Canada none of the banks (which are pretty huge) were affected by the bloodbath in the USA last year. Our banks all made a profit and required no government bailouts. Why was that? Regulations. The Liberal government of Jean Chretien and his finance minister Paul Martin refused to allow the banks to merge with one another. Plus they had to keep more money back.

Our economy is for sure in a recession because we are so dependant on the USA. But it wasn't our banks that were affected at all.

Why wouldn't the anticorporatists be focusing on that? I am.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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