Did anyone consider that bluedogs lost in the midterm because they caved on HCR, and gave us no

[still_one]

Public option?

[emulatorloo]

1. No. They lost because they represented Republican Districts and the teabaggers were worked into a

Frenzy by the right wing media. Those voters thought Obama had engineered a "government takeover of medicine"

[demosincebirth]

31. True.

[sudopod]

34. Are you saying that the majority of districts in the country are Republican by nature? nt

[drpepper67]

63. Well, this map looks pretty red to me...

http://www.politico.com/2010/maps/#/House/2010

[WCGreen]

48. Well yea, that's pretty much what happened...

[Uncle Joe]

53. And those blue-dogs were left with no defense because the government did require the mandate, while

not giving either universal single payer or at the very least, a strong national public option.

Naturally the corporate media played toward Republicans fears of government takeover but the blue-dogs shot themselves in the foot by not aggressively fighting for the people over the for profit "health" insurance corporations.

Had they done so, they would've been in a much stronger position to defend them selves as looking out for the peoples' best interests.

The corporate media demonizes the government in most everything and sings the praises of all things privatized and when the blue dogs roll over on their backs and don't take the populist road, they become toast.

[gateley]

2. I'd like to think so, but I honestly think they lost because

of the Koch Brothers buying the people and the message. And hammering it home. :(

[OHdem10]

30. Give the people a choice between a Real Republican and a fake

Republican and the will choose the real thing.

They depend on the Republicans in their districts.
Many did nothing to bring out their Democratic Base.
Of course, if you come to Washington and act like
a Republican, what self-respecting Democrat is going
to come out to vote for you even if you are listed
as a Democrat.

[leveymg]

3. Yes, that was mentioned here.

#
leveymg's Journal - Roll Heads, Kick Ass, Split and Pass a Decent ...
http://journals.democraticunderground.com › Discuss › Journals › leveymg - Cached
1 post - Last post: Jan 20, 2010
Now, add to that, Democrats have lost elections in MA, VA, and NJ. ... Put Obama and Biden up front of a new HCR Bill and do the thing ...
Get more discussion results
#

[Bluerthanblue]

4. they lost because not enough people got out and voted for them.

and if people don't get out and vote we'll lose alot more.

But some would say that's ok.

It won't be ok for the most vulnerable in this society. We've already seen what the people elected instead intend for this country.


:shrug:

[rhett o rick]

7. And the reason no one voted for them is that they acted like Republicans. nm

[Bluerthanblue]

11. and that made things better how?

cutting off your nose to spite your face leaves you worse off than before.

[xphile]

18. Assuming that it made things worse. A Democrat who votes like a Republican isn't better than a

Republican.

The damage they do is the same.

[Bluerthanblue]

23. you aren't looking at this

in reality.

If you honestly think that there is NO difference between what the Republican/tea-party/libertarians intend to do to this country and what even worst of the Democratic party intends, then we must live in different worlds.

Since the mid terms our state has fallen backward greatly. We kept our Dem. gov (who is pretty tepid) but we lost our two congress people and were unable to take over the senate seat that was up for grabs when Judd Gregg finally stepped down.

We lost the majority in the state house and senate and are at the mercy of a bunch of tea-party idiots. The damage done is far greater than no public option being considered. The damage done means that those in most need of a public option now won't even be able to get help from community health centers- and cuts to chap, schools, shelters, and training programs.

:shrug:

No assumptions necessary- it's happening.

[xphile]

56. The reality is that if a Democrat puts into place policies that are traditionally Republican

to the people it hurts it doesn't matter what party the idiot who screwed them is in. They care that they were screwed.

When Democrats vote against labor how is that different from when a Republican does it?

When Democrats put Social Security and Medicare on the table how is that different from when a Republican does it?

When Democrats fail to do anything about rampant unemployment, how is that different than when a Republican doesn't do a damn thing about it.

If practice it makes no difference.

But it actually pisses off a Democrat worse when a Democrat screws them. One expects one's enemies to fuck you over. When a so-called ally does it it's doubly enraging.

The Democratic party held all three houses of government and we saw Democrats join up with Republicans to screw over labor, to continue corporate subsidies, to toss out the public option, and we saw a Democratic president go after the activists who were attempting to get the wayward Demcorats in line rather than the wayward Democrats.

People remember this and if you think that kind of shit can continue to go on and still have people enthusiastically come out to vote, well then I seriously hope that you're not being paid for your opinion on the matter because you'll continue to allow the party to go along with a false sense of security that won't serve it well in the future.

"Vote for me I'm not nearly as big a bastard as the other guy" is not a winning campaign slogan.

"Vote for me or else" doesn't inspire people to come out to vote either.

People need something to come out and vote for and politicians who screw over the base, won't get people to the polls. So if the Democratic party cares one whit about keeping any semblance of power, it had best to stop screwing over members of its base. When the Republicans get more of what they want than Democrats when Democrats hold the Senate and the White House (and the House before 2010) it doesn't take much for people to realize there's something really fucking rotten going on in Washington.

People stay home when they don't see a difference between the two parties. Democrats need to do a better job of being different from Republicans. Going to the right at a slightly slower speed than the Republicans doesn't cut it.

[mythology]

25. The problem is that your theory isn't supported by the facts

I can't think of a single member of the Democratic caucus who lost their election in 2010 who had a voting record that matched the Republican caucus. You can point to individual votes, but as an overall record the claim that the candidates who lost in 2010 were just like Republicans isn't based on evidence it's based on emotion and limited anecdotes.

[xphile]

55. Blanche Lincoln.

Unless you think her votes are indicative of a strong Democratic record.

I don't think you're as in touch with reality as you think you are.

[Vincardog]

22. How do you thing the radical right keeps their candidates in line? If they don't represent you DONT

vote for them. If you have a choice between a rethug and a democrat who will vote like a rethug Don't vote for either of them.

[Bluerthanblue]

26. the republicans have a much stronger herd mentality-

And they don't really care about the suffering of the vunerable. We supposedly do.

[Vincardog]

60. Abiding the rightward shift of our "leaders" helps abrogate the suffering of the vulnerable HOW?

The better of two BAD choices is still a bad choice

[rhett o rick]

45. The policy of voting for the lesser of evils is ratcheting us deeper and deeper into

an oligarchy. It's past time to stand up and fight and stop giving in to terrorists.

[Vincardog]

61. What ror said

[KittyWampus]

39. Totally fucking WRONG! They lost because of voting for Health Care Reform, a progressive move

no matter how many times a few cranks try to portray it otherwise. They lost because they were too far left for Republican leaning districts.

It's sickening the amount of historical revisionism that goes on with supposedly liberal people.

[rhett o rick]

46. I am tired of voting for people pretending to be Democrats.

It's time to stand and fight. If you want to concede your principles, go ahead.

[still_one]

8. and maybe they didn't vote because of hcr. /nt

[Bluerthanblue]

14. and that has helped us how exactly?

we can't control others, but we do control what we ourselves do.

Not voting has concequences for people that may not be able to wait out or last until the day when the more perfect candidate might be elected.

Not voting because of no public option on hcr, has only hurt those of us who desperatly need a public option.

But maybe principals matter more than people in the end.

:shrug:

[noiretextatique]

20. they vote like republicons...so how exactly would electing them

be any different than electing republicons? blue dogs did not support a public option.

[still_one]

51. The argument would be it would give us majority control, and that we would control the agenda, but

unless we have the executive branch lead a progressive agenda, I do not know if it would really change anything

[xphile]

57. And when Democrats had majority control what did they do with it?

I don't think people are going to fall for that line unless they see some serious attitude adjustment among Democrats in Washington.

What do you think?

[still_one]

59. That was my point. /nt

[bemildred]

5. Among other things. nt

[Ozymanithrax]

6. I think a bigger influnece was that many of them were from...

conservative districts, and the majority in those districts prefered real Republicans to Democrats who vote like Republicans. They replaced a Democrat that rejected a public option for Republicans that reject the whole idea of Health Care.

I am sure that voters sitting out the election may have had some influence. Older votrs turned out in bigger numbers than younger voters in 2010 and they tended to support Republicans. I suppose if you could look at voter turn out over several congressional elections and see who voted you could find out how big a factor Democrats/liberals/progressives sitting out had on the outcome.

[still_one]

9. I was referring to those Democrats who sat it out

[Ozymanithrax]

15. I also refered to those Democrats, but short of looking at voter turnout...

I don't see how you can judge how much of an affect. I pointed out the other half of the equation, people who voted because blue dogs weren't conservative enough.

The reports of voter turnout I have seen show that an older, whiter Demographic turned out in heavier percentages in 2010. That older, whiter, more conservative Demographic carried many of the elections.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[RC]

10. Don't forget the touch screen vote fraud machines the enemy uses.

The ones with no or fraudulent "paper trails".

[dbonds]

12. This was a major factor.

Blue Dogs will fade into history as more people wake up.

[xchrom]

13. If there had been a strong public option in place,

Dems would still have majorities.

[Bluerthanblue]

17. maybe, maybe not-

there are many other issues that people have called their 'line in the sand'.

And if the public option had passed, the right would have been able to mobilize even more angry people.

[xchrom]

24. Oh please - the 'anger' on the right is phony & they've mobilized all the 'angry'

People they can.

Dems acting like repukes demoralizes people & they stay home.
Even 'indies' can see that.

[Bluerthanblue]

29. it's thinking like this that gives the

republicans power.

:shrug:

[xchrom]

50. It's thinking like yours that the repukes in control of the house now

& 'running' the senate as a minority.

[uponit7771]

16. No, adults were convinced that PO was a non starter and best to spend energy on what could be done

[kenny blankenship]

36. You're not describing "adults" You're describing bought-off, corporate lackey assholes.

The Public Option had 76% approval from the public.

The only reason that would be a "non-starter" is the existence of the bought off, corporate ass lickers whom you praise as "adults".

[CrazyBob]

42. You stole the words...

right out of my mouth.

[Bluerthanblue]

47. yeah, well the publics opinion isn't what decides everything.

like the 2000, 2004 elections for example.

the republicans are working hard to destroy HCR without the public option- calling it socialized medicine, don't fool yourself into thinking that the reality that the republicans convince people to vote for them and are seeking to end SS completely, along with many other programs that their followers would never want destroyed.

Adults usually understand that sometimes you can't get what you want or need, and sometimes you have to accept less than ideal, and work toward your goal. That doesn't mean you've been "bought-off" or that you are a "corporate ass licker". It often means that you've found out the hard way and lived to do it differently this time.

:shrug:

[Edweird]

52. Right you are Ken. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Kahuna]

19. That's only part of why the lost. The other part is because they represented

conservative districts, so they were damned either way. Obviously, in hindsight it would have been better if they had voted their true conscience since they were going to be defeated any way.

[yurbud]

21. In conservative areas, people wouldn't have appreciated single payer or the public option until

it was in place, and then they would conveniently forget who put it in place and pretend it isn't a government program at all but something that has existed since the beginning of time like oxygen and Medicare.

[Rex]

27. Maybe part of it, but mostly it was the stupid words escaping our

POTUS and VPs lips right before the election that lost us the House imo. Loose lips, sink ships.

[Bluerthanblue]

32. sounds like when my kids

were little-

"he made me do it"

or "if you had __________ then I wouldn't have messed up."

[Rex]

41. Actually it was more like hurt feelings right before a crucial election.

Words have repercussions. People stayed home, out of spite and yes that is WRONG...but reality doesn't care about wrong or right, it happened and hopefully they will keep their yappers shut toward the 'professional left' before another crucial vote.

Even kids know how it works.

[Bluerthanblue]

43. kids often act on impulse, without thought for

what the long term effects might be. If people chose not to vote because they felt insulted by what they took as a personal slight, then they didn't act very maturely imo.

We can't control what others do- we only have a chance at controling our responses to what others do. That's not often easy or comfortable, and the ability to master that hopefully comes with maturity. When it doesn't, we tend to blame others for our poor choices in my experience.

I've made some pretty terrible choices in my life. But I'm trying to learn.

peace~

[Rex]

44. Oh so have I! But you and I don't control the fate of the Nation.

Yeah, it was very childish to not vote...and childish to tell your base to 'stfu'. Two wrongs don't make a right as we saw in 2010.

:hi:

[Kaleva]

28. Repubs came out in big numbers in my district.

[kenny blankenship]

33. In general, the Dems responded to a 1929 style crisis by partying like it was 1999.

Yes, they clearly underperformed and underdelivered on healthcare; and reps in fickle districts paid for that, and also for their general failure as a party to hold Wall St Players (some of their biggest donors) accountable for the hell they unleashed on our economy. It was not just that things did not get better quickly enough. The President and the party did not level with the people or itself about how bad things really were. Meanwhile people were feeling the pain, and the disconnect between the people and the new masters of Washington DC began to grow. People watched in disgust as the Health Care "Reform" travesty drag out like a gang rape ending in dismemberment of the victim, and concluded the corruption they voted against in 2006 and 2008 was endemic within the Democratic Party as well. They then either switched in 2010, because they were swing voters by habit, or found themselves unmotivated to get out and vote for "more of the same" shit that got us into the mess we were in by 2008. Circle D ranch hands can like it or not, they can whine and complain and bully, but the reality is that POLLS right the way through the health "care" debacle showed plummeting support for Congress. They had PLENTY of warning. But complacent ranchers no doubt preferred to believe that this disgust would manifest in bad midterm results for Republicans, as the main party of obstruction. But people saw more than enough obstruction and watercarrying for the insurance mafia by Democrats at all levels to blame the party in power as well. It certainly didn't help that leading Democrats like Baucus and the President transparently used a few Republicans, who were never going to vote for the legislation, as an excuse to water it down -over and over- to Big Insurance's liking. The People were not deceived and they were very pissed off. Back on the Circle D Ranch, November 2010 arrived and the bill came due. It all went so much better in their fantasies.

Democrats in 2009 had a STARK choice: to govern like Democrats, break with the Reaganite past, and do the hard work of unfucking the economy and health care, or else to get "shellacked" by Republicans later on. They chose to party it up on the lobbyists' expense accounts instead. And the SHELLACKING is now history. Will they finally learn? As their persistent scapegoating of their own voting base continues, it looks like they probably cannot learn.

[EFerrari]

35. They lost because Independents voted for Republicans. n/t

[LiberalAndProud]

37. Moderate Republicans lost too.

I don't think it was the public option. People with liberal views were fatigued and demoralized by the trend of Obama's administration. As a group, we couldn't summon the enthusiasm to fund raise or canvas for more liberal candidates. The reward wasn't that great from the enormous effort two years earlier. The tea party was well funded and supporters were enthusiastic about shackling Obama's "socialist" agenda.

And from here, 2012 isn't looking a whole lot better. Maybe those states under the thumb of the tea party right now will have more success, but as for trying to change trends in historically red states, not a chance.


Edit: And I also point out that Dr. Dean was no longer chair of the DNC. Our leadership there has been -- unhelpful, to be charitable about it.

[Mimosa]

38. Youth, Hispanics and blacks did not turn out at polls

I was a poll watcher in 2008 and 1010. Same polling places, several days each time.

The enthused youth, hispanics and blacks didn't show up for congress midterms. That's typical. I don't know if more would have come out if they had something to shout about.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. West Coast elected tons of Democrats, sent no new Repubicans

to DC and had record turnout. We also have no Blue Dogs to speak of. We just have regular Republicans, and they lost.

[PeaceNikki]

54. In WI we lost some good Dems due to the teabagger anger wave coupled with Dems staying home.

But we're working our asses off to fix that shit.

Vote, Democrats. Every fucking time. It matters. We can't afford the drama.

[blkmusclmachine]

58. They're ALL "blue dogs" now.

[Quantess]

62. Yes. The base stayed home on election day.

Absolutely. I do believe this has been discussed before.