If the "left" had not been so vocal against Obama, do you think

[apples and oranges]

our chances next week would be a lot better? Why or why not?

To me, it seems like the tide turned when the left began complaining about Obama, and the media picked up on it.

[trayfoot]

1. It certainly did NOT help!

[ClassWarrior]

69. It certainly did help. Because it brought the people the Prez needs to GOTV this week...

...back into the conversation after having been left out.

NGU.

[MineralMan]

2. Frankly, I doubt it had all that much to do with any of it.

I think it is the economic situation that has discouraged people, and that many just don't know what the heck to do to make it better. Discouragement, in general, suppresses the vote, I believe. I strongly suspect that the percentage of the voting population who has paid any attention to the voices of the left is vanishingly small and is smart enough to make their own decisions.

This is a depressing environment, politically and economically. I think that's the main factor.

[Lisa D]

+1

[tabatha]

3. Yep, definitely.

That is why I don't listen to Malloy.

We're only hurting ourselves and the country.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

76. Honey, going through life --

with your fingers in your ears going "Lalalalalalalla" is no way deal with politicals. That's what BushBots did. Democrats are supposed to be better than that. Don't make the same mistake.

[One_Life_To_Give]

4. 1) Jobs, 2) Jobs and 3) Jobs

The average person doesn't hear nor care that much about the arguments. What they really care about is their own personal lives. Knowing that should they lose their current job they can find another before the kids starve. Getting the Lawn mowed, the kids to/from band practice etc.

[grahamhgreen]

101. But we still don't hear we need to end outsourcing, which is the ONLY way to get jobs back!

[Riley133]

112. Because it can't happen

GM is hiring in line workers in Kokomo for $14.00 an hour, half of the normal wage. This is the new reality and there is no point arguing about it or demanding jobs to come back. Between technology and globalism, they are not coming back. For those of us not highly skilled in something brainiac, we're screwed.

[grahamhgreen]

115. It can, and will happen. All it takes is an act of congress! Given enough time

the entire country will be screaming for it.

There is no other way out of this mess.

[Bucky]

5. No. The left has only been vocal against Obama's decisions that run against their views.

Damn few progressives, if any, are anti-Obama, in the ad hoc, ad hominem, add-broth-and-stir way Republicans are.

[NoPasaran]

87. Unfortunately, that seems to have been just about everything

[gulliver]

6. Good, positive, winning emotions recruit people.

The Dems were winning big in all aspects of government, but a few of them put on sourpuss, loser attitudes anyway. They probably convinced a lot of independents that the team was losing and inept, neither of which were true. We on the left need to know when we are winning, conduct ourselves as winners, and celebrate. Attitude is trajectory.

[KittyWampus]

24. I love this post. And what a quote "Attitude is trajectory". It really does set the course

along with intent.

[jgraz]

92. “We create our own reality"

-- Karl Rove, 2004

[Enrique]

7. it helped our chances, no question

if there was no one giving voice to my frustrations and grievances, I would have dropped out long ago. If every voice out there sounded like Robert Gibbs, giving the White House line on everything, it would be depressing beyond imagination.

I early voted the second day it was open, and I went there mad at the dems and I voted dem all down the line.

PLUS, it weakens the conservative liar propaganda about Obama being a leftist. There are a few thoughtful conservative or independent voters out there who will see the complaints from the left, see that they make sense, and see that the RW is lying in their faces.

[still_one]

8. It has nothing to do with the left, and everything to do with the Democrats for not moving toward

change that would bring real regulation back to the financial mess, and real HCR to America

Instead of fighting for those issues, even if they lost during the fight, it would unified the populous against the republican agenda

Now that repuke agenda which most polls indicate most Americans do not agree with, those same Americans will most likely vote repuke, what does that say?

[Selatius]

13. That's sort of the problem. Democrats could never agree because there are right wing Democrats.

Simply because right wing Democrats acted as obstructionists to progressive legislation. Only whitewashed or muddled bills could get through. This is why Mitt Romney's proposition for health care overhaul became the basic template for national health care "reform." The rightists would never let anything to the left of that pass, and they had the votes to guarantee that outcome.

[still_one]

19. I agree that the right wing Democrats would not accept it, but the populous would have, and that

would have changed the whole spectrum, in my view

Even the polls indicate that the problem with HCR is it didn't go far enough

Instead of worrying about appeasing the blue dogs and conservatives, they should have worried about the American public, and what would help them

If the repukes actually ended up with both houses, it could put the whole HCR packages at risk

[Selatius]

37. But the thing is the American population doesn't vote on the bills, Congress critters do.

At the end of the day, it is the people inside Congress that determine the final outcome of a bill, regardless if the people in general accept it or not. I wonder what the American population's stance on NAFTA is relative to the people in Congress is. So what if a Congressman votes against his constituents' interests? Quite a lot of the time the person is already a millionaire and has a pretty high-paying job lined up in the private sector already if he gets voted out of office. In light of that, many of them think, "Who the fuck gives a shit what the poor people think?"

This isn't Switzerland where people can invoke a referendum on a controversial bill or a major bill, after all.

[treestar]

44. The right wing Democrats were there in the Senate, voting

There is no way to divorce that from "the populace" which elected them.

If the "populace" is so liberal, they need to elect 60 Kuciniches.

[still_one]

48. and we will pay the consequence this in a week, I hope not, but I don't think the polls are that off

at least in regard to the house

[Greyhound]

118. That problem only exists because the Party "Leadership" refuses to lead.

The purpose of a political party is to make an alliance of individuals into a cohesive force to push an agenda. The republiks don't seem to have any problem understanding this and they used the power of their alliance of individuals to force compliance.

The Party decides on action and any members that will not go along are punished. Dissenting members are not granted chairmanships, they are denied endorsements from more powerful/popular party members, their amendments are killed in committee or their bills are prevented from even being considered. You certainly don't give some asshole that jumped from the party a chairmanship in the forlorn hope that he might, occasionally support some minor legislation. You also have the power to remove the Chair if the occupant decides he's going to hold up the entire agenda to get his pork through.

As I said, the republiks have used all of these techniques and more to form their party, establish their agenda, and make it happen. The fact that the Democrats have not done this leaves two possible conclusions; they are stupid or they have a hidden agenda. They are not stupid.

[apples and oranges]

29. In my opinion, all the whining on our side RUINED his mandate

We are our own worst enemies. Our whining, which began not even days after Obama was inaugurated, ruined the mandate that Obama came into office with.

[Selatius]

41. Hardly any on the left ruined any mandate. The right had more to do with that.

A prime example is the Public Option with health care reform. Right wingers whined about its presence, and it was deleted from the final bill, despite the fact that the left whined about it being deleted. The national polls showed the majority of the American people supported a public alternative, yet that counted for nothing. Most people did agree with the left's position on such a public alternative. People got pissed off because their views weren't represented, not because the left called out Congress and Obama on their mistaken moves.

[still_one]

45. That didn't help, but it sure wasn't the reason independents are mixed. What was the mandate? Even

before HCR was brought to Congress, they were excluding those in favor of the public option from being part of the preliminary talks

What has healthcare reform done? Its full effects won't even take place until 2014, and even though it is helping a few people with uninsured kids less than 27, those with pre-existing conditions, and trying to utilize the COOPs has NOT been stealer

Flexible spending accounts will no longer allow over the counter prescriptions, and the maximum amount of those FSA is reduced from 5000 to 2500 dollars

Is it better than nothing, it remains to be seen, but by the time it takes effect in 2014, it may have gotten overturned

[Hell Hath No Fury]

52. What a steaming pile of horse poop.

O had a mandate to create change -- concrete, dramatic change from the past 8 years and the longer term problem of trickle-down Reaganomics.

Obama surrendered that mandate from the get-go.

Those of us who saw it spoke out, as should've every single American who had voted for him.

MAKE ME DO IT.

How many times did O say that during his campaign?

MAKE ME DO IT.

And that's exactly what we have been trying to do -- force him to live up to his campaign rhetoric.

Sadly for him, he has chosen to listen to other interests on many issues, moving further away from the change our country needed. And we have seen the resulting voter disillusionment.

Obama's own worst enemy is HIMSELF.

[treestar]

57. Exactly, that is what a friggin' mandate IS

Support of the voters. They let the media get wind of Obama not having his own side's support!

Stupid move, shooting themselves in foot.

[girl gone mad]

65. Obama sabotaged his own mandate.

That's what happens when you hold up bipartisanship and political compromise as loftier goals than genuine progress and measurable improvement.

[PA Democrat]

96. There was a mandate for a public option . It wasn't the fault of the left

that it wasn't included in HCR.

[ClassWarrior]

137. +100000000000000000000

NGU.

[bluethruandthru]

145. +100000 n/t

[jgraz]

98. So your position is that Obama's agenda was so fragile...

that bloggers like Jane Hamsher and David Sirota could destroy it? Do you realize how pathetic that sounds?

[ClassWarrior]

138. That's EXACTLY the OP's position. That's the position of all who scold...

...others for daring to question the President. Even though the President himself demanded that we challenge him, time and time again.



I'd like to think that my President - MY President - is strong enough to withstand everything that that wuss Bush** couldn't and more.

NGU.

[Selatius]

9. The media sabotaged it all by blowing up the Tea Party Movement into what it never was.

If the news media were airing complaints against the government, it seems to me they were giving disproportionate time to Tea Party activists and ultra-right wing elements more than anybody on the left.

People like to mistake the "left" in the US as a force to be reckoned with. It isn't. It is emasculated, weak, disorganized, and out of power. Rightists who are supported with money from corporations have hitting power far beyond what they would normally have.

[butterfly77]

23. The teabaggers are..

not as large as the media has blown them up into its the money behind the movement..

[myrna minx]

10. Or the economy or obstructionist republicans and unprecedented anonymous money

sloshing through the process due to the Supreme Court's decision of Citizen's United. Nah - It's always the 'leftists' and the dirty fucking hippies. :woohoo: (Does the 'left' mean 'teh gay'?) Nice try though.

[Karmadillo]

11. LOL. I hope the Onion is up for some serious competition.

nt

[Gold Metal Flake]

12. Where do you hear the "left"?

The left is not allowed on network TV. The few hours that the left can be seen, on MSNBC only, who sees it? The ratings for Sponge Bob crushes Olbermann. The editorial boards of the major newspapers are staffed by corporate conservatives. The nations radio stations are owned and staffed by corporate conservatives. The news magazines are owned and staffed by corporate conservatives.

If the "corporate conservative gigantic wall of disinformation and hate propaganda" had not been so vocal against Obama, do you think our chances next week would be a lot better?

Yes. yes I do.

Nice try, though. :eyes:

[ThomCat]

129. Yup. You got it right.

Everyone, and I do mean everyone, who whines constantly about complaints from the left is just trying to shut up any possible criticism from within the party.

They want absolute unity by stifling all talk about issues. But that means everyone who depends on their issue getting support has to accept that the party will cease to support them. All support becomes one-directional.

In politics, one-directional relationship are unsupportable. They collapse. But that is exactly the relationship that poor people have always had with the Democratic party. That is the relationship that the LGBT community has mostly had with the Democratic party. And that is the relationship that loyalists want EVERYONE to have with the democratic party. You support the party, give money and your vote, but get nothing in return.

[laundry_queen]

146. +1 nt

[Hawkowl]

14. The media focused on the Tea Party

The MSM has ginned up the attack from the right. Very little shrift is given to dissatisfaction by the left. For example, how much criticism do you hear broadcast that health care reform didn't go far enough towards a Canadian like system?

Those of us on the left criticized the President precisely because we saw what would happen with the right criticizing him regardless of how far he tacked to the right. At least if he would have supported his base with he'd have a base to support the party. Nonetheless, I don't picture hard core progressives staying home this election. For one, Obama isn't running, and I will vote against the rethuglicans like I always do.

[ixion]

15. I see. So expecting accountability is now called "complaining" got it

:eyes:

[tkmorris]

116. Actually, "whining" is the word I see most often

[lame54]

16. I have a question...

What if Obama listened?

[Winterblues]

17. So you want to blame the messenger..

It wasn't us complaining about Obama and the Democrats that made us unhappy, it was their actions or lack there of....

[jgraz]

36. They desperately, desperately want to blame the messenger

The eleventy-dimensional chess match is about to end with John Boehner holding the Speaker's gavel. Their biggest fear is people noticing who's been cheering on this disastrous political strategy from the beginning.

[treestar]

40. So you've informed the world that the Democrats aren't good enough

You've certainly got that message out.

So what'll the result be? Doesn't look like it's going to be "a more progressive congress."

[jgraz]

61. If you lose politically, you employed a losing political strategy.

What you're really saying is that the President's plan for the 2010 elections was so weak that my posts were able to undermine it. How ridiculous does that sound?

[frylock]

103. you should use your amazing powers for good, and not evil..

for shame.

[jgraz]

122. I'd be happy if Obama used his amazing powers at all.

[QC]

133. He's not a king with a magic wand! n/t

[Riley133]

114. Thank you!

Finally, a realist.

[T Wolf]

18. Let's play what if with a different IF -- IF the Democrats had been able to pass real

progressive legislation on issues like health CARE, financial regulation, job creation, peace, etc.,

do you think there would be a chance in hell that the pukes would gain any seats in either house of Congress?

[treestar]

46. Sure. Why not?

The media would still be frothing at how socialistic that is.

The average voter is not likely to see anything more than more health care involvement from government.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

20. You know what?

You folks' irrational hatred for all things even slightly left is going to come back and bite you in the ass, hard.

On second thought, it already has.

[deutsey]

26. Indeed it has.

:evilfrown:

[treestar]

47. Um, it bites you harder

What advantage is there to this upcoming Republican house with boner as speaker, to the left?

:rofl:

I guess you showed those moderate Democrats, didn't you!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

73. Not me. I'm Brazilian. We elect leftists here. -nt

[jgraz]

99. Brazilian? How much is that?

:hide:

[Catherina]

59. +1 n/t

[jgraz]

21. If you lose politically, you employed a losing political strategy.

It's that simple. Really.

The "left" spent their time criticizing Obama's losing political strategy, others spent their time enabling it. You want to start assigning blame? Get a mirror.

[walldude]

33. Thank you... If one looks at the candidates the Dems are up

against, the loonies, the birthers, the non-witches, one has to wonder how pathetic their election strategy has to be in order to lose to candidates released from the fucking loony bin.

Yet there are still people who believe that those poor Democrats are the victims of horrible liberals who won't sit there and put up with being pissed on and told it's raining.

[OHdem10]

22. The Left does not get that much TV coverage. and besides

The Media sets the Narrative. They were going to push
the Republican Agenda anyway.

[Mimosa]

141. ^ Definitely! ^

The media and the pundits have some influence.

[donco6]

25. STFU No. 98456

Ho hum

[pgodbold]

27. If the Gays had not been so vocal against Obama, do you think

our chances next week would be a lot better? Why or why not?

To me, it seems like the tide turned when the gays began complaining about Obama, and the media picked up on it.

ROFL ... There is PLENTY more where that came from. Queers just don't seem to know their place anymore.
.
.
.
.
.

[apples and oranges]

31. What are you talking about?

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[donco6]

43. You caught that dog-whistle too. Eh? N/t

[treestar]

49. OP did no such thing

LBGT are not the only ones on the left trashing the Democrats.

[donco6]

51. Hey, it called to you, didn't it?

Case closed.

[racaulk]

93. Snap!

:thumbsup:

[QC]

100. Double snap in Z formation! n/t

[racaulk]

108. An around the world and back snap!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Funny how the "irrelevant" left gets blamed for the failures of politicians to win elections.

I suppose it's like the parable of the butterfly flapping it's wings in Brazil causing a hurricane in Indonesia.

[treestar]

39. Which way is it?

You are irrelevant and so don't get any blame or credit.

You are relevant - if so, how do you defend helping Republicans?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

42. Why not ask the Blue Dogs who vote with the Republicans? They're relevant.

How does one "help" Republicans by voting against them as the left has consistently done?

[treestar]

55. The OP is about the cold water you've thrown on the Democrats

Then you don't want to take responsibility for that, allowing Republicans to win.

Blue Dogs were elected by their constituents. It should prove to you that the battle is uphill. Instead of helping, you try to bring everyone down.

Or, you're irrelevant.

All I see here is set up to be victims - oh they are blaming us because the Republicans took the House. Cry me a river if you think you are relevant and punished the Democrats with that.

Just shooting yourselves in the foot.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. I find it hiliarious that they ignore the left as "irrelevant" then blame it for their failures.

If they want the votes of the left they have to appeal to leftist voters instead of dismissing them as irrelevant and offering moderate pablum and "not as bad" excuses for their collaboration with the Republicans.

[jgraz]

75. Sorry, Democrats are now vulnerable to "cold water" from the left?

I'm melting! I'm melting!!! :rofl:

It was sad enough when they couldn't stand up to Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. But now you're saying that folks like me and Tierra have brought the mighty Democratic Party to the brink of defeat? Please tell me you're kidding. Please.

[Ignis]

91. "Insufficient water temperature, inadequate clapping, etc."

So now Leftists are so terribly relevant that our dreamy idealism is "allowing Republicans to win."

:rofl:

You can't make this shit up.

[AlabamaLibrul]

144. "Blue Dogs were elected by their constituents" Progressives are constituents too and it is not their

job to vote for a candidate if the feel that candidate is inadequate when compared to their standards.

What those standards are, what constitutes inadequate (legislation fought for and passed, intentions and words, thoughts, positions etc.) and whether it's better to take one for the team into eternity is another matter.

[frylock]

104. that's your narrative..

why don't YOU break it down for us?

[The Philosopher]

30. If it didn't help

Then President Obama telling us to push him to do his job would essentially be a lie. Don't want the President lying to us, do we?

Even the President would agree he isn't a deity. Last night on the Daily Show he recognized that when faced with a problem, there's no black or white answer. The idea that being vocal with criticism, not speaking up when you think he's not doing an appropriate job, or doing what needs to be done, does not help or get things done is ludicrous.

We voted for the President because we recognized a problem, we believed in a certain type of solution, and the President best represented the chance for that solution to be enacted. Even before he's voted in we've begun to be vocal about his job. We can't stop just because we're worried about a Republican idiot getting material to attack the President with in order to gain support for their side. We can't be afraid to do our job in this election, in this government. Otherwise we admit the death of democracy.

[HughMoran]

32. Knocking down the leader of the party never helps.

Period.

[jgraz]

79. Wait... our party has a leader?

:wow:

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kentuck]

34. Just a difference of opinion...

...but I think the President and the Party would be in a stronger position right now if they had taken more progressive stands on some issues. They were ambivalent at best.

[treestar]

38. Of course we would

Letting the M$M get hold of that - well, knowing they would, too - people have just shot themselves in the foot.

If the Republicans win, they will deserve it. And will get :nopity: when it comes to the things that happen.

[superduperfarleft]

54. You are just a treasure trove of quotable material. It's so precious. n/t

[treestar]

56. Does this mean anything?

You will deserve it, and believe me, you will get no pity when you cry about what the Republican House does. That is, if it was your incredible "power" that caused it.

How's that for quotable material?

[boston bean]

62. Who died and left you boss over who can discuss how bad right wing policy is for the country.

Most people are doing that right here on this board, just so happens to be that some of the right wing policy is emanating from DEMS.

[superduperfarleft]

74. I thought we were irrelevant? n/t

[girl gone mad]

50. What if Obama had listened to critics on the left?

As long as we're doing hypotheticals..

What if, instead of the corrupt and antagonistic Rahm Emanuel, he had taken a COS who would go to the mat to for progressive change rather than advising the President to cave to the right at every opportunity?

What if, instead of Summers, Rubin, Bernanke and Geithner, Obama had picked Stiglitz, Volcker (and listened to him this time), Bill Black, Brooksley Born, or any team of rivals that was willing to take on the banks and root out the systemic fraud rather than contribute to and profit from it?

What if, instead of working to undermine real reform, the White House had sent it's COS to Barney Frank's office to push hard for language that would end derivatives or hold speculators accountable for their losses?

What if, instead of trading away the public option before the real negotiations even started, the White House had stood firm for single payer and used that as a bargaining chip to get at least a public option?

What if the White House hadn't let the drug companies off the hook on price negotiation?

What if the stimulus had been structured as the left wanted, with less emphasis on ineffective tax cuts and more funds for job creating programs?

etc.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

84. STOP IT STOP IT!

You're depressing the shit out of me. :( :cry:

Ah, what we could have had....

[jgraz]

95. In other words...

What if we had elected someone completely different as president?

Well, maybe we can find that someone for 2012. I doubt it, though.

[QC]

109. At last...the truth!

[TheKentuckian]

53. The President ought to have been listening to and acting on the points of the left

as not to plant his and our asses in a fucking sling.

Instead he was all ears for the failure Lar-Dawg, the criminal facilitator Timmeh, the snake Grassly, the industry peon Baucus, the conservative Conrad, the duplicitous Snowe, and any and every "stakeholder" he could find.

Stupid and irrational hippie punching isn't the fix and neither is silence in support of our guy.

[apples and oranges]

60. Let's be honest. It still would not have been enough

We have so many different opinions on our side that some group will always have a reason to be outraged.

[TheKentuckian]

66. Let's be honest, it would be a lot fucking better because closer to the good of the people

would pay and be felt on the ground.

Pissing off some (though to a lesser likely degree) liberals and just settling into Reagan's eighth term are very different things.

[Selatius]

68. I dunno. If you do something most people want, you get votes.

Most people wanted the Public Option, and they didn't get it.

[jgraz]

81. Amazing how many people seem to not understand that.

[Mimosa]

142. "Most people wanted the Public Option, and they didn't get it."

Those who wanted major change, including at least the Public Option, actually included people who identify as conservatives.

Last Friday I was talking with some people who are conservatives. One mentioned 'when people in Canada, the UK, Germany, France and lots of developed countries get sick they don't live in fear of bankruptcy.'

[EOTE]

58. If Obama hadn't been so vocal against the left...

I think our chances next week would be a lot better. And we'd have a lot more to show from the past 20 months.

[muffin1]

64. Funny.

Your crowd is always telling us how Obama enjoys HUGE approval ratings among Dems. That those who are, let's say, not all that impressed, are minuscule in number and not all that relevant to the discussion. Very interesting that the meme has already started that it's our fault if we lose seats next month.

Unrec.

[frylock]

106. this preemptive scapegoating was predicted weeks ago..

and if the dems don't lose the seats as predicted by the media, guess who will take the credit?

[damntexdem]

67. anything would be different? NO!

The left has been basically ignored by both Dems and GOPs, other than as a target for name calling.

[ClassWarrior]

70. Ah, yes, progressives are to blame for the Corporate Media's bias.

Damn those all-powerful lefties!!

:rofl:

NGU.

[Jakes Progress]

71. You don't get it, do you?

The tide turned when we realized that the campaign rhetoric was just words.

Or are you just the beginning of the "blame the liberals because we lost" trend here? Sorry, but Obama is the president. This election is a referendum on his performance. He sided with the conservatives who laughed at him and shunned the progressives that put him in office. It was a mistake.

Sure we'll vote for him, but don't you ever get tired of holding your nose when you vote?

[Catherina]

72. If Obama had stopped the wars, do you think our chances next week would be a lot better? n/t

[jgraz]

78. Of course not. The only proper strategy would be for all of his critics to remain silent.

Seriously, who devises a political strategy dependent on getting ZERO criticism from your own party? Even worse, what DEMOCRAT devises a political strategy dependent on getting ZERO criticism from their own party?

[JVS]

77. If Obama had done a better job, the electoral outlook would be better.

[riderinthestorm]

80. The blame-the-progressives meme is already starting and it's not even election day yet! nt

[jgraz]

82. The hippie-punching is strong with this one

:eyes:

[Touchdown]

83. Asking about who to blame next week is so last week.

How about just waiting until Wednesday, then blame everybody but you for it. That will be fresh!:hi:

[kctim]

86. No

because the far-left is ALWAYS "vocal" when the majority rejects their policy.
The tide turned when the people rejected another govt mandate being forced upon them.

[mmonk]

88. No. Progressives have little voice in current political discourse

except among themselves.

[GOTV]

89. For over 100 years when the left gets vocal the country moves forward. It always helps. n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

90. Isn't it weird how that works?

:D

[Stinky The Clown]

94. No

All it does is piss off the "I say I'm left"

[Vinca]

97. Lefties are the convenient punching bag.

People, in general, are rightfully pissed off about the job situation, foreclosure mess and Wall Street getting more jumbo bonuses. Lefties are pissed because a public option wasn't put through by reconciliation, that DADT is still in place and that 2 years were wasted making nice with Republicans who didn't have the slightest urge to get anything done for this country. Everyone blames the "ins," whoever they might be. Fortunately for Democrats, lefties also tend to be sane and educated and will still turn up to vote in order to keep the wingnuts out of power. Even after we've been treated like kids having a temper tantrum.

[grahamhgreen]

102. If Obama had listened to the left (Out of Iraqistan, Single-Payer, etc) we would sweep the elections

[Individualist]

105. Unrec for starting the blame the left meme before the election has even taken place.

[avaistheone1]

107. If Obama had not been so vocal against the "left" do you think our chances next week would be a lot

better?

[Radical Activist]

110. Focusing on the 10% we didn't get instead of the 90% we did get.

Obama put it well on the daily show. There's nothing wrong with pushing to get more. That's what progressives do. The problem is we forgot that it's OK to celebrate getting that 90% of what we wanted, and it's OK to recognize that a President did something progressive. The media isn't going to do that for us, so it's a shame that most left pundits didn't have Obama's back.

I don't think the media picked up on anger from the left. I think many left bloggers and pundits followed the corporate media's lead. They're always going to attack Obama and ignore progressive accomplishments no matter what he does.

[jgraz]

124. Someone needs to work on their fractions

90% :rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. Since the left is so damn powerful

:sarcasm:

[mstinamotorcity]

113. Let me hip you up to some SHIT

You are worried about something that is really null and void. We are members of the Democratic Party and we support our President in full. We may not all agree on all issues but we respect the rights of others to have different opinions with open minds for education to those who lack in knowledge. The right somewhere down the line has made education a bad thing. But the numbers don't lie. You can not exclude whole segments of population and expect to win. Doesn't add up. Now Voter suppression is another thing.

We(Dems) may get into some heated discussions but it does not mean we don't support the party. Most of the time when we truly argue it about things we agree on but different means of getting there or the job done.So Apples and oranges don't worry you will see what the Democratic Party is made of on November 2,2010 despite the polls.

Besides most of what you see on TV is commercial and full of props. Money can buy that. It also buys polls to reflect what it wants you to believe.Do you believe????? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-081104-obama-rally-grant-park-photogallery,0,647742.photogallery

[enuegii]

117. The election has not even taken place yet...

and you're already complaining about how the left has ruined everything?
Not your exact words, to be fair, but the implication is clear.
Tell you what-- let's just see what happens next week. Then, if necessary, we can assemble the circular firing squads.

[BlueCheese]

119. Let's take the stimulus as an example.

Obama and his advisors put forward a plan for an $800 billion stimulus, much of which is tax cuts. They say it will keep unemployment under 8%.

A number of liberal economists, such as Paul Krugman, argue that this isn't enough--that the situation is bad enough to need a stimulus twice that.

Nobody listens to them. Obama claims the $800 billion is exactly what he wants.

Unemployment zooms past 8% and is now hovering just below 10%. A lot of people are unhappy about that--they worry about their houses, their kids, etc. Some of them decide to vote for the other party, figuring that the current one hasn't fixed the problem.

Who is at fault for this? (1) The administration, for pushing an inadequate stimulus and disregarding well-intentioned critics who wanted a better plan? or (2) Paul Krugman, for using his column to argue for a larger stimulus?

[donco6]

120. (3) Gays. n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

121. No.

The subject of Obama has barely come up in Alaska's senate race.

[ibegurpard]

123. nope

the "left" wouldn't have been so vocal against Obama had he championed populist policy and rhetoric instead of leaving it to the teabaggers.

[depakid]

125. "interesting" framing

:eyes:

[unkachuck]

126. oh, I get it....

....if the election goes good on Tuesday, it's because the corporate Dems are geniuses....if the election goes poorly on Tuesday, it's the fault of the Progressives....

....either way, Wednesday the gloves are off and shit will hit the fan....

[otohara]

127. Most Definately

because even the left can be persuaded too - especially the young voters. They already are apathetic - all this bitching gives them permission to walk away.

[tnlefty]

128. I consider myself to be part of the 'left' who has had some

strong disagreement with the president. He pissed me off when he was on The Daily Show with his basic, 'it's someone else's fault, don't look at me or my administration', however he wasn't on my local ballot and I voted...in other words, I voted for the Dem for TN's 3rd congressional district regardless of how I feel about the president's performance or lack thereof.

I refuse to be a shill or propagandist for anyone. Although the groundwork has been being laid for quite sometime to blame teh left and/or teh gays for quite some time now.

[donco6]

130. This flamebait POS is still up? n/t

[QC]

131. It is a bit divisive, isn't it? n/t

[fishwax]

132. I don't think criticism from the left has done any more harm than the overreaction to criticism

[JoseGaspar]

134. The OP does not go far enough...

Before the "Left", it was the "Right". If the "Right" had not been "complaining about Obama, and the media picked up on it", then the OP would have even better "chances" next week.

In fact, if all people would simply let their political party decide their position, instead of maintaining the delusion that their position decides their political loyalty, then there would be no problems at all.

If the OP will simply complain stridently enough that he/she understands people's interests and political responsibilities far better than they themselves do, I'm sure that they will all eventually come around.

[nemo137]

135. No. There's enough anger and money on the right. It would be iffy regardless.

I am worried that we'll lose easy races, or that our elected types will learn the wrong message, but it's not the left's fault.

[Kurovski]

136. Criticizing is not "being against"

How about " If Obama had not spent two years trying to get Repubs on board, do you think chances next week would be a lot better?"

Yes, Kurovski, yes I do think so.

The abandonment of the Public option alone was a big boo-boo.

[Mimosa]

139. The economy influences peoples votes for a party in power

It's always been about the economy, whether voters understand exactly what's going on or not.

[Unvanguard]

140. Not really. I think the Left is going to vote Democratic anyway.

And that the Obama Administration has been fairly confident in that assumption (indeed, perhaps a bit too confident).

[MadHound]

143. Gee, funny thing

A few weeks ago I posted that a lot of people would be blaming the left after the election. Guess I was wrong, the "blame the left" beatings have started early this year.

Like I said then, and will say again, the Democratic party has only themselves to blame. They have shown that they have no fight, no spine, are far to compromising, and are willing to throw the left under the bus in pursuit of "bipartisanship" and other such shit. The Democratic party brought this on themselves by ignoring the left, its issues, and worse yet, belittling and berating the left over the past few months. Not the way to win friends and influence people.