Not one of the 29 million 08 Obama voters who bailed on him in 10 are whining about TP rule, right?

[RiverStone]

Many are quick to blame Obama for being Dem-lite or capitulating too much of what we value in the budget. Much of that criticism would have never materialized if millions of Dems had not sat on their ass in 2010 with a protest (or flat out lazy) non-vote!

If we had maintained a majority in The House, or even if the Rethugs had a far slimmer majority - Obama would be in a position to mandate rather than negotiate. Now we are stuck having to deal with the Tea Party wingnuts.

Where I can fully appreciate the criticism leveled at Obama for not following much of the progressive agenda leading up to the 2010 vote, I hope non-voting progressives realize now that far worse than a Dem-lite President, is a country ruled by Fascists. More not-votes in 2012 will certainly lead to a Rethug Senate, and even a greater percentage of those flat-earth believing conservative fucks from the TP in The House.

Until we move beyond the 2-party system, even if President Obama is not "left" enough - Dems have to vote in far greater numbers in 2012. As much as some of us would like to see a Dem president in the mold of Howard Dean (myself included), there will be no viable challenge to President Obama from within our party next year.

So I hope that the 29 million Dems who did not vote for Obama in 2010 pay close attention to what's been happening in Wisconsin. If you sit on your ass in 2012, expect to lose more personal liberties including your right to reproductive freedom, collective bargaining, separation of church and state etc.

Obama on his worse day is still far better than having a knuckle-dragging Tea Party person trying to control who and what you are. I know how I voted in 08 and 10 --- and in 2012, President Obama will be getting my vote.

[MineralMan]

1. Prepare to be hammered.

rec.

[RiverStone]

12. Thanks for the rec, but what's the counter-point?

We all can "wish" Obama carried more weight on the progressive agenda, but I just can't fathom how NOT voting does anything to advance the progressive (or left) agenda. Kinda reminds me of the ol saying, Cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[MineralMan]

16. I agree with your point. The counterpoint can be found in this

and other threads. I don't think it washes, though.

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. Seriously, when you've been getting beat up on the playgroud

and along comes a guy who promises to stop the beating, who then JOINS in the beatings, are you going to say thank you or for fuck you both?

How can you not get that this, Obama's most blatant appeal to the left in the past two years, is a response to his LOSING so many people in 2010? He is smart enough to see - which some apparently cannot - that without the 'hope and change' voters he CANNOT succeed in getting re-elected.

I just hope that it is a real understanding that what the left advocates for is in support of the entire nation and the middle-class, and that there is not 'middle' between the conservadems and republicans to play to.

The "progressive agenda" is the American agenda. If you believe otherwise, you're in the wrong damned party.

[EFerrari]

27. According to the analysis you yourself provided

you really should be talking to swing voters and not berating progressives here at DU.

[Angry Dragon]

2. ..........

:popcorn:

[FormerDittoHead]

3. Funny thing - I thought "TP" meant "toilet paper". Wasn't that far off! HA! n/t

[dkf]

5. Yeah I can't get away from toilet papered either.

[Scuba]

4. You are correct that Dems stayed home in 2010 and cost us...

...a chance to have a plurality in all both chambers plus the XO.


You are correct that Obama, on his worst day, is better than the opposition.


But I think Obama and the national Dems have to take some responsibility for not energizing those 29 million to vote. Give them something to be excited about. Seemingly caving on every issue didn't cut it.

[RiverStone]

9. Agreed, but beyond making a difference locally...

I don't my 2 kids - now young adults, to have to live under TP rule and a SCOTUS that sets the country back 75 years.

Yes, lets hope that the TP fanatics remind BOTH Dem voters and our elected leaders just how much we have to lose in 2012.

National Dems helped let the enemy in the door - I'm assuming they will be a hell of a lot more energized next year as well!

[FredStembottom]

23. Thank you, Scuba!

Although, I would state it not as "not energizing those 29 M to vote" but "going out of their way to discourage and disparage those 29 million".

And yet, if I get only 1 point across in my years here at DU it would be: even as just place-holders, you want to get out and elect Democrats every time.

Then, when we finally get some actual Democrats up through the primaries they have somewhere to go.

I'm sorry it's that difficult and long-range - but that's how it is.

[Scuba]

28. Well said. Thanks.

[Shiver]

40. I would agree, but counter that with this.

If the Democratic candidate doesn't energize you, then the Republican should energize you to vote AGAINST him, just to keep them out of office. Tom Barret didn't excite me, but looking into Walker, I could see he was bad news (turned out even worse than I thought).

Yeah, that isn't far from lesser of two evils reasoning, but it's what energizes me during election season.

[Scuba]

48. It wasn't the lesser of two evils that generated all that enthusiasm in 2008.

[Shiver]

55. Not for the majority.

But there have been several people here who have said in 2008 they held their nose and voted for Obama. In their minds, they were voting for the lesser of two evils.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Maybe Obama should try appealing to the left to get our votes.

Rather than relying on the "not as bad" meme.

[AllTooEasy]

42. Basic Fact: Winning %100 of the Left + losing the Independents = Repuke President

Basic Fact #2: Winning %100 of the Right + losing the Independents = Obama's 2nd term

We, the Left, didn't put Obama in the White House. We simply gave him the Dem nomination. Independents gave him the White House. There is just not enough of Us (or Them) to overcome an Independent loss at the polls.

Fortunately, appealing unapologetically to the base is the Repuke's current strategy. I KNOW this will kill the Repukes in 2012. Carl Rove and all strategically sensible Republicans realize this.

Keep in mind that Obama's 2nd term will be his last. He can sway too far Left for Kucinich's liking and not give a $hit what anyone thinks at point.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

44. Oh, well. If he wants to pursue the Independents and ignore the left..

then he should squawk about the left not voting for him.

[AllTooEasy]

47. He's not ignoring, but he is running a political juggling act to satisfy...

...Independents and the Left

Plus how can you imply that he's ignoring the left with these accomplishment:

http://www.blueoregon.com/2010/12/obamas-accomplishments/

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. There's that pesky little lost war in Afghanistan.

Not to mention the ongoing occupation of Iraq and the FUBAR effort in Libya.

Afghanistan cost him my vote in '08 and will likely do so again in '12.

Plus a whole list of other centrist sell outs. My nose was severely damaged by Clinton and just won't stand any more "not as bad" BS.

[girl gone mad]

52. He's actually been losing independents, not gaining them.

If he had prosecuted Wall Street criminals, ended the wars, not sold out the popular public option and put job creation ahead of deficit reduction, he would have won over independent voters, since all of these policies are popular with the left and with independents. Instead, he caved to the right and looked weak and unprincipled so he lost them.

[AllTooEasy]

56. My response.

Wall Street criminals - unfortunately and surprisingly, most Indie's aren't making any noise about it. We need to stir things up!

Iraq is ending, slowly. 50K troops and dropping. US soldiers rarely engaging in battles. Indie's are definitlely against Afghanistan.

Indie's wanted the public options, but two many Repukes and Blue Dog Dems (spit) made that a non-starter.

I believe he put job creation before deficit reduction. TARP, the stimulous, and the auto ballout all created jobs and ALL increased the deficit. He didn't decrease the deficit with mortgage relief, the health care bill, or extending the bush tax cuts. Obama has been slow getting to the table on the deficit.

Don't underestimate how many Indie's he lost to Faux News lies and rising unemployment, foreclosures, etc. The Indie's care most about jobs than anything.

[Hawkowl]

7. If Obama's followers aren't following...

Maybe he's leading where they don't want to go: DOWN THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE AISLE.

It's his fault. Responsibility lies at the top. Let HIM own the failure.

[RiverStone]

10. So what are you going to do in 2012?

Not voting for him = more power to the Fascists and racists fucks on the Hill.

Even though you wish he was more left (me as well), better to hold your nose and vote than allow the alternative eh? :think:

[Hawkowl]

14. Not this time

He either moves left or I leave the top of the ticket blank, and vote Dem for every other office. I can't keep voting for what I don't want over what I really don't want. I simply will not be able to look at myself in the mirror.

[BzaDem]

38. Will you be able to look at yourself in the mirror after newly a newly appointed justice puts the

nail in Roe v. Wade's coffin, and overrules any future progressive reform so long as he is on the court?

[RiverStone]

46. Bingo! n/t

[RobinA]

19. Right Now

I am in danger of not voting for him in '12, although I will vote for any Congressional seats that are on the ballot. Comes a time when I just have to say enough is enough. If we aren't going to force the party to pay attention to "the base" there is no reason why they ever will. I've thought for awhile that the only way to drive a stake through the extremists once and for all is for them to start to get what they want (it may be working as we speak). I just don't think I can keep voting for moderate-right Obama types and expect to get Quantanomo closed.

[RiverStone]

32. While I share your sentiments...

I really think the ONLY way we will get away from a moderate-right Obama is for a 3rd party to become viable. And you know DU rules, no 3rd party advocacy allowed.

Sadly, the Dennis Kucinich types of the party - who are NOT beholden to the corporate culture --- will not ever get nominated until we see sweeping change --- maybe a generation away.

[onpatrol98]

21. I am still an Obama follower

I am still an Obama follower AND I agree. He's got the job he said he wanted during a time when so many are without jobs. If he wants more support, it's his job to work for it. I assume he's willing. I think democrats want to see him lead. So, I'm not sure he's lost any support arbitrarily. I think he still has plenty of support. But, for any support that he may have lost, he should spend some time and effort into discovering where the discontentment lies. I can tell him what won't work. If everytime he stands in front of a podium, he complains that people wanted him to do too much, too soon, that won't woo anyone who's frustrated back into his fold. People suffering like they are today, don't need academic lectures from millionaires, no matter how nice and well spoken they are...even if we voted for him. In addition, I doubt unemployed Americans will care that he felt rushed or misunderstood or that he had mean old uncooperative republicans giving him a hard time.

I think he's done a good job in office. But, I think we've yet to see him become the leader that he needs to be for the country. Perhaps, we'll see it during the next two years.

Regardless, he's the only democrat I'll consider voting for President of the United States in the next presidential election. So, when I like what he does, I'll support it. When I don't, I'll complain.

[Tony_FLADEM]

8. I agree with you...

Here in Florida Democrats outnumber Republicans by 500,000+. However, on election day thousands of Democrats stayed home. Spending 30 minutes to fill in a circle on a piece of paper was too difficult for them. Now we have a very far right government in Florida and our state is being ruined.

[earthside]

11. 'No whining.'

Or ...

If Pres. Obama had fulfilled his "change" promise and displayed himself to be a real fighter for the progressive agenda (win or lose), perhaps the liberal 'non-voters' of 2010 would have felt excited and motivated enough to go to the polls.

Pres. Obama is not some sort of 'savior' who we are all supposed to follow unquestioningly and keep 'believing' that he will bring political salvation if only we are loyal enough to him -- it's a two-way street in politics.

Obama got what he deserved at the polls in 2010 ... the less intensely involved base just didn't get the pitch from him that they had won enough or had enough to keep fighting for to get out and vote in sufficient numbers last November to beat the very highly motivated and fanatical Teabaggers.

No whining here ... and I don't think that still carping at the base for not being adequately self-motivated or loyal is going to help the cause in 2012.

[EFerrari]

15. Worked like a charm in 2010 -- oh, wait.

[RiverStone]

17. If Obama does not move left enough for you....?

What happens in 2012?

It is what it is --- and it comes down to do you want Dem-lite Obama, or Fascist rule.

I agree, Obama did not fulfill the CHANGE he campaigned on, but the enemy at the gate is far, far worse. Best hope for a true progressive?! 2016

[FredStembottom]

24. Thank you, Earthside

What you say so well is sooooo important.

As I state above - we need to act and vote Democratic even just to hold places for real Dems some day.

But, damn that's hard when those at the top disparage you.

[EFerrari]

13. What is your evidence that progressives stayed home in 2010?

Our caucus did much better than the blue dogs did.

[RiverStone]

18. One link

Which links to some stats

http://fromtheleft.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/29-million-obama-voters-from-2008-didn%E2%80%99t-show-up/

[EFerrari]

26. From the front page of the ABC link:

Swing-voting independents who, as usual, made the difference, favored Republicans for House by a thumping 16 points, 55-39 percent. Compare that to Obama's 8-point win among independents in 2008. It was the Republicans' biggest win among independents in exit polls dating to 1982 (by two points. The GOP won independents by 14 points in 1994, the last time they took control of the House.)

[Melinda]

30. Point, set, match.

Thank you. :)

[EFerrari]

31. I can see how Riverstone was misled, though, by the same ABC.

Because in a shorter blub from ABC at the link, one guy says 29 million Obama voters stayed home. He made it sound as though that's why we lost the election.

Then, in the longer ABC article, you find out that turnout among identified D & R voters was on par and independents swung the other way.

[RiverStone]

49. Granted, it's not correct to assume that all 29 mil were Dems

I stand corrected on that point, and simply by posting on DU I am talking to probably 95% of Dems exclusively.

Yet out of those 29,000,000 Obama voters, I'd wager a healthy percentage were Dems or progressives fed up with him not being the CHANGE agent he promised. The bummer is that protest NON-vote from a Dem, swing, Indie, or even Rethug voter did not a damn bit of good - in fact, it let lots more of the Tea Party sewage leak into our House of Representative.

If they grab any more power in 2012, the very principals of civil liberties our country was founded on will be challenged. And unlike one election, it will take a generation or longer to reverse the damage.

[Hawkowl]

20. +1

[beardown]

25. The next time for sure

"If we had maintained a majority in The House, or even if the Rethugs had a far slimmer majority - Obama would be in a position to mandate rather than negotiate. Now we are stuck having to deal with the Tea Party wingnuts."

In 2009 and 2010 he had a majority in both houses and did not mandate progressive measures on major issues. On some major progressive issues he had over 70 percent public support and he did not mandate and he didn't even take a strong negotiation stand. Why the hell would it have been different after 2010? Maybe the mandate is not the issue you should be most concerned about.

[Citizen Worker]

29. As long as we continue voting for democrats believing they are the lesser to two evils, or as I

prefer to think of the "choices," the eviler of two lessers, we will never have an alternative political party.

[onpatrol98]

33. good point

[BzaDem]

39. You won't regardless. The only question is when you figure that out. n/t

[walldude]

43. That's true...

Too many people too willing to vote for anyone with a "D" next to their name to make any significant changes. So we are stuck with what we have.

[walldude]

34. Again?

Obama will get my vote too. And then I will continue to bitch and moan and complain because I am stuck voting for him because "he's not them".

Yes On his worst day Obama is better than any of the Republican candidates. BUT HE"S NOT A GOOD CANDIDATE.

Of course that's at the moment. If he keeps up his current attitude and follows through on his rhetoric then he might just win me back. However I'm not holding my breath.


Just one time I'd like to see someone blame the loss on the actual politicians who fail to do what they were elected to do. You do realize that if the politicians actually did what they promised to do on the campaign trail they wouldn't lose voters.

To continue this blame the disgruntled voter thing is nothing short of saying Democrats can do whatever they want and we have to vote for them. That is hardly a Democracy.

[Bluenorthwest]

35. So you are addressing the 'moderates' and 'independents'

and 'swing voters' who went back to the GOP after having done a one off vote for Obama, right? Because those are the people who switched sides, the side switchers. The 'middle'. You should be out talking to them instead of raving about Kucinich and calling for silence and a lack of engagement from voters. And it is odd to hear this with your profile being WA, as you sure don't have 'Tea Party rule' there, and you did not lose the House, nor did Oregon or California, nor any of the liberal states that speak our minds. The States that elected Republicans always do that. The DNC was asleep at the wheel with Kaine, who was by the way, opposes any form of family rights for GLBT people. They lost the election. Obama was not on the ballot, so the 'youth' stayed home, as did other 'Obama only' voters. They are the problem, these sometimes voters, these 'independents'. Democrats vote for the Democratic nominee, or they hold nose and vote against the Republican. That is in a general election. It is the 'swing' moderates that vote GOP and the 'youth' that just does not show up.
We all know this. So just stop it. This is the sort of crap that did so well in 10, across the country, this divisive demand for passive voters. Blech.

[RiverStone]

41. Not passive, just realistic...

I have been an activist voter a long time, been in plenty of marches against the Bush war doctrine and long before then - environmental protests since I was a teenager.

Always voted DEM.

You want real engagement from voters? Real engagement (IMO) would mean we run someone like Howard Dean or Russ Feingold against Obama, but it WILL NOT HAPPEN, at least not in 2012.

I may be off by one, but I do not believe any sitting president as been beaten by a challenger from within his own party for a second term.

Where we can all rally around a true progressive is in 2016, giving any more power to the Fascist TP wingnuts could have far reaching consequences that transcend the presidency. The laws of the land which protect civil liberties and this one planet could be eroded to the point that it will take a generation or longer to recover.

Believe me, I wish there was a progressive VIABLE 3rd party NOT beholden to the corporations (by viable I mean that could really WIN a presidency in 2012) --- if there was, maybe you and I and much of DU would by posting there.

I just the the risks of NOT VOTING in protest or otherwise to be worse then holding your nose, and keeping the extreme right from any further power grabbing. On a local level, I think it is very possible to change the political animal - just look at Wisconsin.

[ddeclue]

36. No Obama IS worse because he rolls over and does their bidding while providing them political cover.

:eyes:

[RiverStone]

45. You really want worse? Go to a TP rally sometime...

From what I have seen they are not much different than angry skinheads or the KKK - they just have the determination to voice their stupidity in public. And the stupid follow them off the cliff.

There is not a viable alternative for Prez in 2012 --- maybe in 2016 things will be different. Fight for change locally - Wisconsin voters are the perfect example of this. Nationally, the dye has been cast for 2012.

And no matter how much people dislike Obama's move to the right or his capitulation(s), he does not do the bidding of the Tea Party. Shit, most of them don't even believe he is a legally born American.

[ddeclue]

51. HE DOES do the bidding of the corporatists and Republicans

and NO I'd rather get screwed over by an actual Republican so I can point out the R next to his name instead of having a pretend Democrat giving the Republicans cover so they can claim that it was a Democrat's idea as they do now.

Instead of public option or medicare for all we got Republican Romney-Care passed by a Democratic President.

:eyes:

[RiverStone]

53. Since you apparently won't be voting for our DEM nominee...

What will you do in next years election?

Come on...you know most of the politicians in Washington are doing the bidding of some corporation (or many).

There is no viable 3rd party that can win the Presidency in 2012, maybe down the road a decade or two....

Your OP about Obama is so harsh and yet he is a DEM afterall...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

37. How many McCain voters bailed?

Just need a reference point.

[girl gone mad]

54. "Centrists" still pretend they don't get it.

Neoliberalism is wildly unpopular, period. It isn't a moderate and pragmatic ideology, it's a radical political agenda that seeks to strip rights from the individual while empowering large and connected corporate enterprises. Neoliberalism encompasses a body of policies designed largely to prop up the parasitic investor/rentier class at the expense of workers and savers, via overt and covert wealth transfers. People have naturally recoiled from President Obama as he has further implemented such draconian "pragmatic" market reforms as the health care mandate, more free trade agreements, bank bailouts, domestic social spending cuts, expanding the warfare state, pushing school privatization, assembling a commission to focus on deficits in the midst of an unemployment crisis, etc.

People may not know how to verbalize what's going on, but they clearly understand they are getting screwed over.

[LWolf]

57. I didn't stay home. I helped replace a republican senator with a democrat.

I didn't do it for Obama, who is a disaster, imo, and has not earned anything from me.

Of course I'm playing close attention to Wisconsin. I'm a teacher. I haven't seen Obama's shoes, or anything else, in Wisconsin. Obama is no friend to teachers OR labor.

I know how I voted every damned time, and your rant has no effect on my vote whatsoever.