GOP Psy-Ops - When Upset, The Right Wing Wins Elections, The Left Boycotts Them

[TomCADem]

In 2008, Democrats won the Presidency, the House and the Senate. Over the next two years, they passed some of the most progressive legislation in decades, reversing years of deregulation, over strident Republican opposition. The $800 billion stimulus, health care reform, financial reform, the Nuclear Arms Treaty, the repeal of DADT, and the bailout of the auto industry.

In other words, a decade long trend of deregulation was reversed, so what did the right wing and corporate America do? Did they boycott the 2010 elections? Did they just blame their Republican leaders and threaten to stay home in 2010? Did they flee the Republican party for some third party? The answer is no. With heavy assistance and direction from astroturf groups like Freedom Works and right wing media lead by News Corp, and the financial backing of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the right mobilized and took back the House by a landslide. Conversely, the idea that Democrats had not gone far enough to please the left was repeatedly advanced by the corporate media with subtle direction that the left should stay home in 2010. As a result, we are in the crisis we are in today as the GOP House holds our Nation's economy hostage unless Democrats agree to the Grover Norquist Anti-Tax Constitutional Amendment.

So, where do we go in 2012? On the right, you don't see the Chamber of Commerce/Freedom Works/News Corp selling the notion that right wingers who don't think the GOP is facist enough should stay in 2012. Instead, the message is to defeat Democrats, and take back the Senate and the Presidency, as well as the House. In other words, just win baby.

In sharp contrast, even on this board, you see the argument and narrative that the left should either stay home, make a protest vote for a third party, or at best, grudgingly vote Democratic, but not lift a finger otherwise.

Why do you think the right is encouraged to win elections while the left is subtly, but constantly, encouraged to boycott them? Which is more effective?

[AlinPA]

1. Why, indeed? Good post.

[elocs]

2. Here in Wisconsin last year the Republicans turned out at 90% of the total votes that went to McCain

and that went a long way to electing Walker and defeating Feingold. Democrats seemed to boycott the election because they were mad at Obama or Congress or whatever.

So the Republicans here could not be doing what they are doing without the Democrats not showing up to vote last November.

[EFerrari]

3. Evidence that Democrats stayed home in 2010?

[dsc]

5. are you kidding?

Our turnout dropped like a stone and the electorate was the most conservative in the living memory of most people. Yes, Democrats stayed home, in droves.

[EFerrari]

16. No, I'm not kidding.

Do you have a link?

Because the polls I've seen say Democrats did turn out and Independents swung Republican because the lying scumbags ran on jobs and that was their issue in 2010.

[dsc]

26. To use just one example

In 2008 the electorate was 13% African American while in 2010 it was 11% African American. The splits were 95-5 in our favor in 08 vs 89-11 in our favor in 2010.

http://www.cbsnews.com/election2010/exit.shtml?state=US&jurisdiction=0&race=H

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/ExitPolls/

To use another example

In 08, Democrats were 39% of the electorate while in 10 they were 35% of the electorate.

[EFerrari]

27. But you're comparing 2010 to 08. ABC use that same data

to show our turnout was okay and that independents broke for the lying ass Republicans.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2010-elections-results-midterm-exit-poll-analysis/story?id=12003775

[dsc]

28. why wouldn't I use 08 and 10?

My theory is that fewer of our side voted in 2010 than in 2008. It would have been pretty stupid to use any other years. On edit, I surely admit we lost indepentent voters too but the major reason for our loss was the fact that our base stayed home at a much higher level than their base did.

[EFerrari]

29. Mid term elections don't have the same turn out as presidential elections.

But the exit polls say our base did not stay home. And it makes sense when you realize that it was the Blue Dogs that were decimated and not the Progressive Caucus which did very well.

[dsc]

30. not really

our progressives in marginal districts also lost. The main reason blue dogs lost way more seats is that they had way tougher seats in the first place. Grayson and Perrello both lost as progressives in seats that were very tough just like the blue dogs. In the Senate, it came down to mostly who the opponents were. With the exception of Murray and Boxer, who were running in the one region where we did well, the rest won if they ran against teabaggers who couldn't self fund and lost if they ran against either a normal republican or a self financing teabagger.

[Ninga]

6. The election was off by huge numbers here in Ohio. There were over 100,000 fewer

Votes in 2010 than in 2006, which was the last off year election. Dems were swept out of office all over the state.

[Marr]

15. 2006 and 2010 were very different years. One saw extremist Republicans in control of the government,

and they'd been running roughshod over it for years at that point, while the other had a... let's just say "moderate", obsessed with compromise.

It's hardly surprising that one scene would energize voters more than the other.

[Ninga]

4. I care about the political processes and outcomes, and for me it is stressful and nerve

wracking, because i have been around since Roosevelt and seen so much I find the merit in your OP.

Also, at the top of my mind is the Supreme Court, and will be the reason i vote DEM in 2012.

[jwirr]

17. Me also. So easy to lose - so hard to win. Just one vote.

[lonestarlib]

7. Taking back the House & strengthening the Senate are most

important. We need Dems who aren't afraid to actually represent their constituents.

[WillyT]

8. Because... The GOP Excites, Encourages, And Inspires Its Right-Wing... While The Democratic Party...

ignores, disparages, and threatens its left-wing?

:shrug:

What do I win?

[CakeGrrl]

9. It's all over the place here: People are too "discouraged", "demoralized" to vote

You can't tell them the GOP likes it that way because they dismiss it as a "scare tactic".

Call it whatever makes you warm and fuzzy, but people who have too much of a stick up their butt to vote ("I MAY vote if I have nothing better to do that day"), who are too "dispirited" to vote, are doing the lifting for the GOP. Period.

[readmoreoften]

11. The GOP listens to their voters. The Dems listen to the GOP.

[sabrina 1]

12. Really? So how is it that most Progressive Democrats

held their seats in 2010? Who voted for them? Republicans?

This nonsense is getting old. Independents stayed home, because Politicians failed to do what they said they would do.

Politicians are to blame when voters stay home, or change sides.

We need some real Democrats fighting for the people to get back those lost since the 2008 election, and this kind of nonsense is doing nothing to accomplish that and will be directly responsible, once again, if Republicans win the next election.

At least stand up and take responsibility for the actions of the leadership of this party, or lose again.

Republicans don't try to drive away their base. These kinds of substanceless OPS appear to be designed to do just that. Especially since it is totally wrong.

[CakeGrrl]

24. Lose what? I voted. I voted Dem. By the way, why did Feingold and Grayson lose their seats?

I didn't spin the words of Robert Gibbs and Rahm Emanuel so I could go around crying that I've been slapped in the face by this administration, thereby making it really iffy that I cast my vote next time around.

I know who the real enemy is.

I got off my ass and cast my vote in 2010. And I'll be there in 2012.

I did my part to keep the GOP/Teabaggers away from the levers of power.

Save the admonishments for the people around here who have said exactly what I've said in my previous post.

[sabrina 1]

25. Wrong question, why did so many Blue Dogs lose their seats?

Only 2 progressives, and if you have to ask why, you weren't paying attention. Both will be back but it was not because Democrats did not work hard to get them elected.

Again, you are failing to grasp the reality, which is not unusual and the reason why we lost in 2010. INDEPENDENTS, NOT Democrats who despite their disappointment in this Adminstration DID go out, in fact they worked very hard for Progressive Dems, and succeeded in helping them hold their seats except for two of them where they were outspent by the Koch gang.

I know who the enemy is too. And I know who is dragging this party down and who will be responsible, as they were in 2010, if Republicans win again.

Rahm et al drove away a very important voting block from the party and that was left-leaning Independents. And the whole HC debacle, Romneycare, was not why they supported the Democrats in 2008.

You are demonstrating clearly why Dems lose. Refusing to take responsibility for what was done wrong, blaming the voters, who no one their votes. Wanting to take everyone's votes for granted, that is living in a fantasy world.

Good luck using the same tactics again. I hope those of us who actually succeeded in keeping Progressive Dems in Congress, can overcome your tactics of condescension and insults. I had a hard time convincing people last time, that those tactics only reflect the DLC wing of the party who need to become a small minority and we can't do that by not voting. Please stop making our job getting Democrats elected harder. Rahm did enough damage before he left.

[readmoreoften]

10. That's because the right has a party that supports their interests and we don't.

We have a party that supports THEIR interests. Pretty clear. Stop blaming the people and start blaming the corrupt and bankrupt Democratic Party for refusing to actually advocate for their base.

[Rex]

13. Yes the M$M came all over itself when Obama and Biden

mentioned their view on liberal wants right before the 2010 election. It helped the Repukes by a landslide, but that is what the M$M does...promote the brand their paymaster demand. They saw a weakness and turned it into a strength for their side. Know that the paymasters have a plan after we default - buy everything up for pennies on the dollar that gets put on the market out of desperation. Economy collapses, settles, the paymasters will then own an even larger percentage of America. After all is said and done, they will profit from the common persons misery.

[NNN0LHI]

14. Here at DU it is because we are on an anonymous website

We have LaRouchies, NaderCrazies and an assortment of other nuts who post here under the guise that they are looking out for our best interests. Nothing could be further from the truth. These people are heavily invested in seeing President Obama and us fail. That is what they live for.

And we have a whole lot of other people who do most of their thinking from below the waist who actually fall for their shit.

Don

[Armstead]

38. You disappoint me....I had you pegged as more reasonable than that

You are correct that there are those trolls you mentioned here. And maybe some dumb-asses. (Not me, of course, heh.)

But there are a lot of people here who are legitimately frustrated and angry for legitimate reasons, most of whom desperately want to be supportive of Obama and the Democratic Party but keep finding their basic principles and values being undermines.

Threatening to not vote or whatever is not the answer. But It gets real tiresome year after year to be told by the Democrats to shut up and passively accept things people legitimately believe is wrong and counterproductive,

[Ohio Joe]

18. K&R - nt

[BumRushDaShow]

19. You hit the nail on the head!!!! K&R

:applause:

[Waiting For Everyman]

20. And that's why the GOPers keep everybody angry at government.

They have all the easy tools to use - unfortunately. Changing behavior patterns and talking sense to propagandized people is much harder.

[JackRiddler]

23. Yeah, they really have to try hard to achieve that because the one we have is so damn good!

[Indykatie]

21. Excellent Post k/r n/t

[JackRiddler]

22. Bullshit!

The GOP responds to its base on many issues, long as it's pro-corporate and pro-military. It responds to the right wing, no matter how crazy. A GOP initiation ritual for candidates is to demonstrate one's right-wing credentials.

The Democrats distance themselves from the left, no matter what. Also, increasingly, from unions, women and blacks. A Democratic initiation ritual for candidates is to suddenly choose a target on the left and attack it, to demonstrate one's right-wing ("moderate") credentials. (The "Sister Souljah moment.") The message: "Don't worry, 'Americans' (media). We're not too 'liberal' for you!"

The country's ambient politics are right wing, even if the people themselves are not. Both parties look to the same polestar and chase the same fictional "center."

If they want the most votes, the Democrats cater to the wrong base: the corporate money.

If the Democrats want to mobilize the left and especially the disenfranchised, it would be easy: unapologetically provide an alternative.

Right now, they could defend Social Security and Medicare for all (programs that aren't responsible for the fiscal crisis). Instead, they're accepting the false narrative as propagated from the right and in the media.

[TomCADem]

31. Two words: Bob Bennett

Bob Bennett was is no way, shape or form a moderate. He was a right winger. Of course, he consponsored some legislation with a Democrat, which was an unforgiveable sin for the right wing, so they did not boycott the Utah elections because they believed that the establishment candidate was not fascist enough for them. They won the Republican primary, then won the general election.

When mad, the right wing wins elections. The left, boycotts them.

Both sides have been trained by the corporate media. Tea party rallies are magnified. Left wing rallies are ignored. The left is taught to stay home and stew. Apathy replaces empowerment while the right wing is told to join some corporate sponsored rally featuring some right wing talk show host. If Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz were featured at such a rally, then Comcast would probably fire them.

Why do you think Roger Ailes Has Been Pushing Mitt Romney, and throwing the right wing darlings of 2010 under the bus? Mitt Romney is the new establishment candidate whose greatest claim to fame is that he was once Governor of a Blue State. Perhaps you are too young to remember George W.Bush selling himself as a "compassionate conservative" back in 2000 to assure voters that he was not a crazy conservative like Newt Gingrich. In this election, Sarah Palin is a side show, and the corporate media has been trying to sell the idea that Mitt Romney has the primaries clinched even though many in the right wing are not that crazy about him. He is a re-tread, but at least he is inoffensive. He is so inoffensive, that he quietly signs right wing pledges like Cut, Cap & Balance, but then ducks any questions about the debt ceiling.

Mitt Romney is this year's supposed non-scary conservative who is being given a free pass by News Corp. Do right wingers necessarily like him? Of course not. But, he is being pushed as the in-offensive face for the conservative movement. He is non-scary.

Under your logic, the right wing should be abandoning the Republican party. Perhaps they should form a third party. The Tea Party. But, they did not, perhaps due in no small part to the corporate media and astro turf groups that organized them into the Republican's brownshirt wing.

In sharp contrast, the left are encouraged to be discouraged. Stay home. Nurse your anger on a message board in which you blame Democrats, and give Republicans a free pass. And, if you have to vote, vote grudgingly. Indeed, look at this Board, and you will see a lot of folks proudly proclaiming that they will not vote.

If we don't like our current situation, then we need to win an election. If you don't like the candidates, run for Congress yourself. The bottom line, is that to change the status quo, then we need to win elections. It is that simple.

[Armstead]

33. Bingo. In a nutshell.

[TomCADem]

37. So, You Are Saying You Are Going To Work To Beat Republicans In 2012?

Glad to hear it.

[Armstead]

32. Perhaps because the GOP agrees with its conservative base, while the Democratic Party....

tells their liberal base to sit down and shut up, and then proceeds to undermine liberalism.

Not a very inspiring way to enthuse your voters.

The difference is very evident at the moment. The GOP leadership is bending over backwards to placate the Teas Party and taking ther battle to the Democrats. meanwhile, the democratic leadership is selling out its base and telling it to shut up and eat your peas.

[TomCADem]

36. False. Also, Why Doesn't The Left Go Out and Win Elections? Look at 2010...

...Even long time, right wing incumbents like Bob Bennett were primaried. Rand Paul challenged and beat the Kentucky GOP establishment candidate. Finally, have you forgotten the Delaware Senate race where the right wing stole defeat from the jaws of victory by handing a primary victory to the witch lady, O'Donnell?

The left has been trained to simply scape goat the Democratic party, rather than to win elections. The right has been trained, sometimes too well, to go out and win elections even if it means picking someone who is unelectable like O'Donnell or crazy like Rand Paul.

The 2010 elections illustrate the fallacy of your premise, since many long time Republican incumbents were threatened with pressure from the right, thus they catered to the right. Ultimately, the right then rallied to which ever Republican candidate emerged from the primaries.

If the left stays home, and boycotts elections, then Democrats will need to find votes from somewhere. This is a Democracy. Those who don't vote, don't count politically.

Heck, look at John McCain. He was primaried, so he ended up pandering to the right by supporting Arizona's anti-immigration laws when he previously supported immigration reform!

This is the basic difference between the right and the left. It is not inherent. The left has been trained to stay home, and curse under its breath. While the right is trained to go out and win elections even if it means challenging establishment candidates.

[Armstead]

41. You are missing (or ignoring) the point

The basic agendas of the Teabaggers is the same as the GOP moderates. The Teabaggers may be more impatient and crazier and a little more extreme, and the GOP establishment may be quietly embarrassed by them.

However they are all pushing for the same basic agenda. And the GOP was opportunistic enough to allow them into the tent, and they are now bending over backward to placate them....That's because they are on the same page in terms of ideology and goals.

Liberal/progressive Democrats, however, are either shunned or actively insulted or opposed by the Democratic establishment. Rather than differing on speed or extent, there is often a fundamental difference in goals between liberals/progressive populists and the Democratic establishment. So, if one is a liberal,it often feels like a two front battle -- one against the GOP and the other against the Corporate Conservative Democrats....and/or the Democrats who don't actually push for liberal goals and policies.


As a result, even when they are in a comparative minority, the GOP gets its way, while liberal and progressive goals often lose when the Democrats are in charge.

The current situation is a classic example. Obama and the leadership are bending over backwards to give the GOP everything it is demanding, and pushing the entire agenda in their direction. Whether that is by cowardice, lack of strategic sense or by intent, I'm not sure. But the fact that people like me have to even wonder why is an example of what kills enthusiasm.

Yes, most of us who piss and moan will end up supporting the Democrats.....But it gets ever-more difficult to do it with the enthusiasm we should be able to have...And that "you have no other choice" dog won't hunt forever, unless the party changes and starts giving people reasons to be enthusiastic.

[TomCADem]

42. McCain Calling Tea Partiers Hobbits? Tea Partiers Calling For The Ouster Of Boehner?

I think it is funny how we presume to tell Tea Partiers that they should be so happy with their Republican party when they actively challenged the establishment types back in 2010. From our perspective, it is hard to tell the difference between a Boehner and a Cantor. From a Tea Partier's perspective, they probably don't see much difference between Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders.

Nonetheless, despite your analysis that the Tea Party should be just so happy with their faithful Republican party, they weren't in 2010. They upended Castle in Delaware, and chose O'Donnell, the crazy witch. They threw out Bennett in Utah. They elected Angle in Nevada over the chicken lady.

The right wing did not just "piss and moan" as you say you will do. They actively tried to win, both at the primary level, and in the general election. Pissing and moaning is not going to really accomplish much. The party is made up of people. If the left wants to change the world, then the left needs to win. Not just piss and moan.

And, even if you do not win, if the left actively tries to win, then the so-called establishment types will then go where the votes are. That is politics. This is why John McCain suddenly abandoned immigration reform. This is why Lindsey Graham suddenly abandoned Cap and Trade. So, your idea of a monolithic Republican party that is never changing and is always supportive of its members' views is not true. Those views have evolved, and will continue to evolve in response to people and their votes.

[Armstead]

43. You are still missing the point

The only real difference between the Tea Party and the moderate GOP is in speed and possibly style in their goals. yea the tea Partiers went after some of what they considered RINOS. But they are all conservative and share conservative goals....You could excerpt many of Mitt Romney's speeches and compare them to a teabagger, and there's very little difference in the message and goals.

But on too many issues, the Corporate Democratic Conservatives have conservative goals that are in direct opposition to the goals of liberalism and progressives. And they are more beholden to big business than they are to the liberal base.

This is not a matter of moderation versus impatience or pragmatism versus ideological purity. It is a matter of not sharing the same goals. Liberal and progressive Democrats who worked butts off for Obama were not working for someone who would basically totally TRASH the liberal agenda by working with the GOP to impose a basically right-wing budget plan on the nation. They knew Obama was a moderate -- but they did not know that he would be co-opt them and undermine them on a regular basis.

When Obama brought in the same Wall St. insiders to his economic team, that sent a signal. When Obama and the conservative Congressional Democrats refused to even let single-payer advocates into the room when health care "reform" was first being planned, that sent a signal. It goes on and on.

There are some great progressive/liberal Democrats in Washington. But too often Obama ignores them and does the opposite of what they have been working for. One of the saddest episodes of the last two years was during the healthcare debate, when Sen. Tom Harkin -- a good liberal -- was on the news shows every night defending how Obama and the Democratic leaders was handling the who thing. "Trust me, there WILL be a public option when this is done. They are committed to it. I know." And he was left with egg on his face after being betrayed by Obama and the conservaDems.

It is not the Republicans who are dampening enthusiasm for Democrats. They don't have to because conservative centrist Democrats like Obama are doing that on their own.

[TomCADem]

44. The Point Of My OP Is How Do The Left Versus The Right React

You paint a picture of the left being unhappy with Democrats and feeling like Democrats are not adequately serving their needs. I described a similar situation with respect to some folks on the right who challenged incumbent Republicans who they did not feel adequately represented their needs.

Even if your point that Democrats are so horrible were correct, which I don't think it is, the question is how is the left going to react? Win elections or boycott them?

I think your post answers this question: Boycott elections, which of course, will cause Democratic politicians to look for votes from people who actually do vote. Conversely, the right has been trained to win elections when they aren't happy, which causes politicians to seek their votes, and drift rightward.

Ultimately, this is a democracy. It may be flawed and it may not be fair that corporate money and the corporate media operate to turn out the vote with vast astroturf PR campaigns, but that's life. Politicians are reflection of who votes, and the only people voting are folks on the right, then our policies will move to the right.

If the American people did not want to cut spending deep in the middle of a recession, then why did they elect Tea Party Republicans who said that they would not raise taxes, and would cut unemployment by cutting the deficit?

As for President Obama, from 2009-2010, we had the most progressive series of legislative proposals in decades. But, with a heavily right wing House, the results have been expected.

Democracy. We get what we vote for. If the Left does not like what they are dealth with, then they need to win elections, not boycott them.

[LoZoccolo]

34. There is what I'll call the "Internet possibility".

This is that left-wingers make the threats because it's an easy way to try to provoke change. I disagree with the notion, but people who are trying to expend the least effort while still engaging in activism might see the act of making boycott threats as attractive.

[Armstead]

35. You are assuming that people who poston the Internet don't do anything else

What one's ideology or level of satisfaction or dissatisfaction expressed by them on the Internet has no relationship to what people do in their "real" lives. Some do just post, others post and are also activists to one degree or another.

It's apples and oranges.

[LoZoccolo]

39. I feel I almost know that to be true.

The more pragmatic types are usually happy to talk about what's to be done to win elections; the people who aren't involved are so disengaged from the process that they start to talk about things like how they think that they aren't given candidates to vote for, forgetting that it was party members who voted to nominate the candidate. It comes out in many small ways that they probably don't participate.

[mzmolly]

40. Happy to K

and R. :toast: for the thoughtful post, amidst the often times cynical madness. :hi: