Someone didn't get the lesson in 2010

[Tom Rinaldo]

Someone was riding high in 2008, surfing a popular wave of support into the White House on promises that included repealing the Bush Tax Cuts and delivering health care reform that contained a robust Public Option. Volunteers worked overtime to move both heaven and earth during that 2008 electoral campaign. Democrats gained large majorities in both houses. By early 2010 enthusiasm had drained from large sectors of the Democratic activist base. The Bush tax cuts remained in place and the Public Option vanished. Many progressive activists were demoralized. Democrats across the board got killed in the 2010 mid term elections.

All of the above is simple factual truth. Is it fair what happened, was it inevitable, did our President have other options? All of that can be argued, and has been argued, and no doubt will continue to be argued. But those are the facts regardless of who deserves to be blamed for what happened in 2010.

Someone was also riding high in 2012, surfing another wave of support into the White House on promises that included repealing the Bush tax cuts on earnings over $250,000 a year, and a pledge to protect Social Security and Medicare. Democratic activists fully engaged in the fight to return our sitting Democratic President, putting aside any prior disappointments for the most part. The Democratic turn out was extraordinary, and Democrats gained seats in both Houses of Congress. Not long after the election, the top 2% of Americans managed to permanently keep their Bush tax cuts on earnings below $400,000 (or $450,000 for couples) instead of the $250,000 cut off that our President had campaigned and won on.

The amount of revenues lost to the federal treasury over the next decade because of that upward tax cut revision is over three times greater than the amount of savings the treasury would pocket over that period through cutting Social Security benefits by shifting to the Chained CPI. The man who now proposes doing just that is the same man we elected in both 2008 and 2012, our Democratic President. Look around this Democratic Board at what's going on here. Anything look familiar? How well do you figure our party is positioned now to mobilize for the next mid term elections?

[haikugal]

1. There you have it...

Thanks for posting.

[limpyhobbler]

2. Maybe he got the wrong lesson.

"I need to work harder to convince Democrats they have to accept entitlement cuts"

And about mobilizing for the midterm elections - let's mobilize for the primary elections and run the corporate cronies out. Let's get serious about pinning down people on how they will vote, before we nominate them. If a candidate can't make specific commitments to protect social security, they really don't deserve to be nominated from the Democratic party. Too often people run unopposed and so there is no incentive for them to do the right thing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. A lot of Democratic members of Congress have some tough decisions to make

And those decisions will have consequences, for them as well as for us.

[madfloridian]

21. Yes, Tom, they do.

Really tough decisions.

[xtraxritical]

13. Holder better get busy on voting restrictions that the RepubliCONs are

ramming thru state legislatures.

[gateley]

27. Yes!

[graham4anything]

38. Aided and abetted 100% by any criticism of the President. The old Nader strategy to divide

The protesters threats are the same as voting restriction worries
A vote not for a democratic candidate(or one that caucus with the Dems) is a direct vote for the republican, no matter how they hide it is not true.

Of course, one has the right to do it, but

How dense are the faux protesters?

Any disent is a vote for the republicans.
So, hope those who do so will be happy with Jeb Bush.
Please though, sign a pledge when that happens that you won't be whining afterward.

Much like those in NH who did not vote for Al Gore in some foolish mock protest, or stayed home, should never again have been allowed to whine without admitting how foolish that protest was
(Being that the 4 electoral votes won by W in NH, meant Al Gore only got 267 and the four would have meant 271 and victory regardless of Florida.)

They stay at home and seemingly want to elect the repubs so they can bottle the whine and market it like the alt-media heroes they love do, time and again.

Nader of course doesn't need SS at all, he got so rich off his whine, he can live to 100 or more without ever needing to make another penny(but of course he will not work for free, as he don't work for free)

[Flying Squirrel]

40. Jesus

The fact that nobody has responded to this just goes to show that half of DU must have you on ignore.

Perhaps I'll join them, as I have yet to see you post anything worth the time it takes to read.

[Bluenorthwest]

54. Like roadside litter, an eyesore that adds nothing to the landscape

nt

[CrispyQ]

95. ~lol

I knew I could relate to someone named Flying Squirrel.

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. This OP was an observation about how things tend to play out...

...when major elements of a party's base are demoralized. Do you know what seldom works when people are demoralized? Lecturing them on why they are the problem. Have you ever heard the expression "red meat for the base"? It's a political truism, and it is so for a reason. Politics, it can be argued, "should" always be logical but much of it boils down to emotional. Like others here have posted Democrats didn't lose in 2010 because Progressives didn't vote for Democrats. Progressives were and always are the most reliable "non ethnic" demographic base for Democrats. We almost always vote, and when an election is on the line we almost always vote for Democrats.

But when enthusiasm is sapped energy is sapped also. Psychology has a term to describe that state; depression. Lectures aren't so effective with depression, ask anyone who works in mental health or anyone who has ever been really depressed. Chances are you can ask yourself and you already know the answer It's not progressive votes that are most at jeopardy when Democratic leaders turn away from core Democratic beliefs, it is passion. And passion fuels the hard work, education and outreach efforts needed to mobilize less committed Democratic voters to show up at the polls on election day. The progressives were there in 2010, Democratic leaning people less deeply committed to politics were the ones who failed to show.

There is a cause and effect scenario that predictably plays out when your hardest workers feel slapped in the face. You can argue that people shouldn't let that get to them, you can also argue that dogs should be able to fly. It won't make it so. Meanwhile actions like a Democratic President taking the lead on cutting Social Security benefits understandably blurs the ideological distinctions between the two main parties in the general public's mind. And when the average citizen starts to conclude that "politicians are essentially all the same" they are more likely to blow off voting. The Democrats are in the process of setting themselves up for a hit in 2014 now whether or not you fear the consequences of that and argue that we can't afford it.

[graham4anything]

48. Cause and Effect-person NOT for the democratic candidate EFFECT-votes the repub.in

The protest motif' is a faux choice.

Everytime there has been a fracture- the republicans have won
Since Adlai Stevenson lost.
EVERY SINGLE TIME

Put a close pin on and vote for the democratic candidate or whine
Those that didn't vote for Jon Corzine got what they deserved in Chris Christie.
I voted for Corzine.I personally don't give a crap about any scandal, because well, I know Chris Christie.
Don't care if he had problems
I don't care if on Andrew Cuomo's watch, NY State has one corruption scandal after another and Andrew isn't doing squat. (Now, I don't want him anywhere near the presidency, but I will support him for Governor even with this Albany scandal.

Would rather someone like Bill Bradley the whiner who dribbled the ball out of the arena had stepped to the plate,(double different sport metophor), but he was too busy doing who knows what? (Autograph signings perhaps of his whiny book???)

There is NO protest worthy of electing
Ike
Nixon
Reagan
41
43
Jeb,Rubio,Christie,Condie,Hucklebee,or anyone else.
and any of draconian repub/teaparty

vote A or B
a vote for C is a vote for A or B
there is NO C that is NOT a vote for A or B


The democratic party would indeed be best with 100% pure democratic voters and no libertarian/teaparty/naderites/3rdpartyites all of whom have a hidden agenda that is
anti-democratic party.
So screw them. No one needs their vote.
Could have had 80 straight years.

Someone like Jerry Brown, he finished as Governor and continued public service in smaller jobs. There is no shame in that.

I am sure some district Russ Feingold could have won for the house or assembly, instead of forming a lobby group.
Like that Cindy Sheehan who overstayed her welcome.
She couldn't find a small district to run for instead of a silly run against Pelosi?
Didn't she actually want to serve?
Or just keep 15 more minutes than out?

Why don't the alt media guru superstars run for office in some district they might be welcome in, instead of profiting from the whine?

[Tom Rinaldo]

53. I am not talking about protests, why are you?

OK, on second thought I am taking about protests. I am talking about protesting policies that one strongly opposes. Is there something inherently undemocratic about that? I have, as an adult, under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, BushI and BushII, seen plenty of Democrats protest against policies they opposed. Or are you saying that we should only protest policies supported by Republican Presidents? In other words, if a Democratic President supports it, it must be OK? I guess all of those anti Viet Nam War protestors should have simply supported LBJ's massive escalation of that war then because a Democrat was behind it.

We are talking about what happens when the leaders of the political party that one is aligned with adapt policies that strongly run counter to ones' core political and ethical values. Just shut up and take it because the other party is as bad or worse? Do you figure that is an effective theory for social change, heck not even change exactly, is that an effective way to protect hard fought and critical victories already won? Even so, I can't remember an election I've missed or a non totally corrupt Democrat that I have ever failed to vote for when the chips were down and there was no other viable alternative. When I was young in New York sometimes there actually were viable alternatives, Republicans who also ran on the Liberal Party line such as Sen. Jacob Javits, but I still voted Democratic. But you can't manufacture enthusiasm, it simply can't be done. One can appeal to "duty" and that can make some difference, but it just isn't the same, and anyone who is honest about it knows it.

I support President Obama on plenty of issues; guns, immigration, voting rights, the environment etc. I am not shy about that. I oppose him on Social Security, and I am not shy about that either. I receive Social Security - should I be silent about what happens to a program that in many concrete ways my life literally depends on? I wouldn't be if this was President Romney proposing shifting to a Chained CPI, but you think I should be because it is President Obama? I am not some alt media superstar, I am talking about my own life, not trying to score imaginary brownie points in some alternative talking heads universe by trashing a Democratic President.

[graham4anything]

55. In hindsight, every fracture put the republicans in office. INCLUDING 1968

Why should it be about you and not the collective everything as a whole being better than anything the other side offers?

You of course have a 100% right to protest.
But the effect of those that follow you not voting when the time comes for A makes B the winner. (or one less vote if its a stay at home).
The collective positives far outnumber the few negatives

(Same as LBJ, noone was further left/liberal/progressive on 100% of all social issues, yet
the protesters of the war seemed not realize that any president would have done the same on the war. NO other president did what LBJ did on the social issues.
And Nixon begot the Bush's and look how not getting LBJ led to the Bush's.

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. Do you think I am advocating not fighting for Democrats in elections?

That is a shallow and mistaken read of what I wrote. I am advocating for Democrats fighting for us between elections, and pointing out what tends to happen when they don't. Don't blame me for reality.

By the way, were it not for an assassin, RFK would have been elected President in 1968, and this world would now be a much better place had he been. And RFK would not have run for President were it not for the Anti Viet Nam War protests.

[graham4anything]

57. The way the primaries were done then most likely HHH would have been the nominee, not Bobby

It would still have been a big long shot in the system to get Bobby the nomination.
McCarthy didn't give up easily himself and there was bitterness all around. Had LBJ stayed in, most likely Bobby wouldn't have challenged.
In hindsight LBJ in 1968, Bobby in 1972 and 1976, then Teddy
and later on JFK Jr.
Remember, without Bobby dying, Teddy most likely would not have had that one event that hurt him.

LBJ in a head to head with Nixon would have beaten Nixon IMHO
never got the chance to get to the general

[Tom Rinaldo]

58. I will agree to disagree with you on this one, respectfully

We are engaged now in important speculation, but speculation none the less. I think Bobby would have gotten the nomination and won in 1968. He was a primal force in American politics back then, gathering what I think would have been unstoppable momentum. He was the right man for that time, 1968. We are disagreeing on what might have beens and I grant that there is a cogent argument for your view on this also. Peace.

[graham4anything]

61. Smoked filled rooms taught a lesson. Those days are gone in the Democratic party

though the super delegates (now basically powerless) were an attempt to bring it back.

[AtheistCrusader]

90. But the Republicans suffer their own fractures. They are fracturing right now.

We don't even know who is driving the bus right now. No one does. They don't.

Did you not see what happened in Alaska yesterday? The Paulites took over, so the RNC is burning books, bridges, money, everything they can to shut them down. Their own people. They would (metaphorically I hope) rather torch everything than let that group take over.


Rubio? Jeb? None of these pinheads are any more unifying than Romney was. Which is to say: not.

[graham4anything]

91. If Mary Landrieu were running in 2016, it would be easy for her. 2014 it will be very hard.

The irony is-
sit at home protest in 2014 that leads to a republican takeover of the senate will lead
to MORE to the right democratic senators in 2016, not less of them.

2016 will be easy
2014 will not
and it will be hard on the democratic party anyhow

Whereas voting for any democratic candidate now, could lead to a major to the left vote
in 2016.

Four major teaparty governors can lose in 2014, if the democratic party don't fracture.

[AtheistCrusader]

92. Ok, but if we take the threat of, for instance, staying home in droves off the table

what leverage do we have to ensure XYZ candidate is listening to, beholden to, etc?

If we get decent candidates, and current office holders upholding their promises, then that threat never becomes a reality.

[graham4anything]

102. Getting rid of the 4 Draconian governors is reward enough, don't you think?

Any democratic governor is better than those 4. You might not like, and there is no guarantee they will be someone you like, but they are still better than those 4.

You may not like Charlie Crist in Florida. You may say who is he? (Well, he was the only republican in Florida to twice, no make it three times now, spit in Jeb Bush's face.)
Gov. Scott in Florida is what he is.
Jeb Bush is running in 2016.

Do you want Jeb to have the Governor of choice to do what he did in 2000?
Or the one person, now a democratic candidate who spit in Jeb's face and can beat Scott?
(the Rubio/Meek/Crist race was one of the very rare examples of voting for the one who could have won who would have caucused with the Dems over a candidate that had no way of winning.)
So this time it will be head to head choice, either or.

Walker can be beaten.
The other 2 can be beaten.
About the only one who can't would be Christie, but you can bet I will vote for the democratic candidate and any other democratic candidate for any other office straight down the NJ ballot.

(because you never know-
Bill Bradley years back almost blew a shore thing a came within 1% of losing to a then unknown Ms. Christie Todd Whitman, who later became Bush's EPA director and who told people days after 9-11, the air was safe in lower Manhattan.

Sometimes winning is just staying still to allow for future movement ahead.

[awoke_in_2003]

97. Put a clothes pin on and vote for the democratic candidate...

yeah, don't do anything like expect democratic politicians to act in democratic ways, and hold their feet to the fire when they don't. The important thing is winning elections and political battles.

[AverageJoe90]

78. Sadly, I think there may be some real truth to this.

I'm not against all criticism, please mind; some, at the right time, is always a good thing.

But often, some people take things way too damn far, and that ends up dividing us more instead of uniting us; this same problem happened in 2010 and it's liable to happen again. These same people need to realize that progress takes time and can't be achieved instantaneously, especially when the leaders of one of the two major parties in this country have dedicated their efforts to obstructing the President at every turn.

[Tom Rinaldo]

83. I am pretty tolerant of the slow pace forward progress sometimes takes

I am much less tolerant when "progress" comes in the form of a tangible retreat - a whittling away of hard won benefits that Democrats of many generations fought to secure and hopefully expand on. I am least tolerant of a tangible retreat on a foundation legacy program of the Democratic Party, one that sustains tens of millions of Americans who are at or near the poverty line, when that retreat comes in the form of a budget proposal from a Democratic President. I have no tolerance for a fundamental retreat by a Democratic President on such a core economic safety net program, that protects the most vulnerable in our nation, right after Bush's temporary tax cuts that Democrats opposed in the first place were just made permanent on incomes of up to $400,000 a year for an individual. Our current crisis is far less economic than it is moral.

[sulphurdunn]

84. "Any dissent is a vote for the republicans".

Now, that's a totalitarian statement if ever there was one. By this logic, you should vote for a Democrat no matter what, and keep your mouth shut, eyes closed and head bowed while doing it even though you know it won't make much difference in how the country is governed. Representative government doesn't work like that.

[graham4anything]

85. Use Mr. Spock logic and raw statistical analysis. Any way you look at it, my statement is true.

as for individual office holders in the senate and house, vote them out in the primaries, but vote for the primary winner in the general.

Don't NOT vote.
(example-I would like all to be anti-NRA, anti-gun, however if they are not, it won't stop me from voting for the democratic candidate in the general.)

It is in 2013, the only way it works.

Gone are the days in NYC where there were 4 equal parties(and in NYC there isn't electoral votes that cannot be split 4 ways)

[AtheistCrusader]

89. Mr. Spock would probably say 'That statement is not mathematically sound'.

[Jakes Progress]

103. With that attitude

under bush (you do realize that dick cheney would agree with you 100%) the republican party became the tea party.

Under your "logic" the Democratic party will become the party of reagan.

That is the way it is. You can use any form of high-school boosterism you want. But there is no coming back from the dlc leading us into neocon heaven if you are not allowed to tell your candidates what you think they should do. You don't have the money to silently buy elected officials.

Your method leads only to right wing superiority.

[graham4anything]

110. President Obama forever. The other stuff is just soundbytes.

As said in another thread
Operation Neptune was won the day it was thought of.

Took many wave on wave on wave on wave til the war was over

but it was won from day one.

Nothing is by chance, and there are no mistakes.

[Jakes Progress]

114. You forgot the sarcasm tag.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. I've heard this browbeating speech before.

Ask the losers that supported Romney how well this sort of browbeating worked out on the libertarians, paulites, hard core anti-Mormon evangelicals (santorum supporters) and such in the last election.

Then again, they probably haven't learned their lesson anyway, so who knows what sort of data you'll get out of it.

[FiveGoodMen]

76. "I need to work harder to convince Democrats they have to accept entitlement cuts"

That's on a plaque on his Oval Office desk.

We have so been taken by this trojan horse.

[Armstead]

3. THoise who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it

[AnotherMcIntosh]

4. Of course, some people are slower than others. Some are really slow to catch on.

But sooner or later, even they will get it.

How does that saying go? Something like, "Fool me 50 times, shame on you. Fool me 51 times, shame on me."

[Skittles]

6. THEY KNOW

they can't be THAT stupid - they know but they are twisting themselves into pretzels defending this bullshit - why just today I was told it's BIG BOY POLITICS, NOT GIN RUMMY........it boggles the mind

[slipslidingaway]

10. You just need to inform yourself ...

or so I've read tonight on DU, sorry you are misguided in your opinion.

[Skittles]

18. one guy got upset because I used CAPS!!!!

THAT is more offensive than a Dem prez fucking with SS and Medicare

[slipslidingaway]

25. I see that other thread got locked for whining ....

No caps and yes I still want a pony, or at least do not want to concede defeat before the battle has begun.

When Obama took a national HC system off the table I knew "entitlements" were on the table

[Denver Progressive]

15. +1

[840high]

17. Some will never catch

on. They'll continue ro put the blame on everything but not where it belongs.

[forestpath]

5. I think he's doing exactly what he's always wanted to do. He just no longer has to pretend

to be a Democrat.

[Demo_Chris]

9. I think there is a lot of truth to this

[bvar22]

8. He also promised to:

*Raise the Cap

*Protect Social Security

*Protect American Jobs

*"Renegotiate NAFTA"

*"Make EFCA the Law-of-the-Land"

*Walk-the-Line with Strikers

I supported him because of the above promises.


[font size=5]Obama's Army, Jan. 21, 2009[/font]

[font size=4]"Oh, What could have been."[/font]

[cantbeserious]

11. Promises Made - Promises Not Kept - The Legacy Of Barack Obama

eom

[nakocal]

12. The mid term elections are NOT referendums on the President

The mid term elections are NOT referendums on the President, they are a chance for you to make the house and senate more progressive so that they can get the legislation passed that you want. None of the discussions about chained CPI would even be taking place if progressives did not stay home pouting because the President was not able to get all of their agenda done immediately. If you losers (yes you, the ones that stayed at home in 2010 are losers) and came out to vote and put a couple more democratic senators in office and kept your states blue, the agenda you want would be further along.

So in 2014, get off your high horse and vote out every fucking republican that you can.

[Fuddnik]

14. Bury that false meme.

Progressives did not sit out the 2010 elections.

I'm as progressive as they get, and haven't missed an election since '72 when I voted for McGovern.

And I've got a "Democratic" Senator, who's as big an asshole as they get. Conservative to the core, even though he did come out for gay marriage last week, he's still a member of the C-Street "Family" that's pushing the kill the gays agenda in Uganda.

But, a shot across their bow, if they don't start representing working class interests, the next vote I cast will be for Nader, whether he's alive or not.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

23. Absolutely, Progressives did NOT sit out the election

The ones who sat out the election were the apolitical types who got all enthused about Obama (some for the first time in their lives) because of who they THOUGHT he was.

When he turned out to be just another centrist politician who acted as if his job was to please the Republicans, they lost interest.

I LIKE my Congressman (Keith Ellison), and neither of my Senators was up for reelection.

I was sorry to see no progressive challenger to Amy "I never met a position I couldn't waffle and weasel on" Klobuchar in 2012.

[eridani]

41. + 1 million. It was the casual voters who thought their lives might improve who stayed home

And in 2010, lots of the seniors who worked full time on his campaign in 2008 had to divide their activist efforts due to his fucking deficit commission.

[AverageJoe90]

80. Partly, but it was disenchanted progressives to a larger extent. n/t

[eridani]

108. That is pure garbage

No political activist skips voting, ever. And they always vote strategically. Progressive disillusionment was, however, responsible for much less doorbelling, phonebanking and making small donations.

[AverageJoe90]

117. Some truth to that, but that goes for my statement as well.

I, myself, am a progressive, by the way, just so you know.

[suffragette]

59. another + a million from me

That's exactly what happened.

[AverageJoe90]

79. No, unfortunately, that's not entirely true.

Even though there were surely plenty of dirty tricks flying about in 2010, there also were quite a few progressives who DID sit out the election because they thought Obama wasn't going fast enough, or pushing hard enough, never mind that he had to deal with a party that consistently tried to make him a one-termer.

If we don't want a repeat of 2010 next year, and I hate to say this, but hardcore idealism is going to have to be chucked out the window for now.....or else, there WILL be a problem. Bank on it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

86. All kinds of people sit out elections for all kinds of reasons.

Without looking it up, I'm pretty sure that even in national elections less than 60% of registered voters actually show up to vote. I said it before and I'll repeat it; liberals and especially liberal/progressive activists are the most loyal "non ethnic" voting block that the Democratic Party has. But even if one assumes like you do that progressive defections hurt the Democrats deeply in 2010, it doesn't take a proverbial rocket scientist to figure out what demoralized some of that base.

It should have been predictable then, and it sure as hell is predictable now. A Democratic President is now proposing cutting Social Security benefits, when private pensions for most have been vanishing and the actual cost of living for Senior Citizens is rising faster than the current method of calculating it. Savings for tens of millions are depleted because people in the 50's and 60's can't hold onto good paying jobs in the current corporate economy. People are hurting and barely holding on as they enter their so called retirement years.

If progressives, or any other Democrats for that matter, get demoralized by this historic retreat for the Democratic Party, it's not like anyone can honestly claim to be surprised by that. Whatever fallout there may be should these cuts go through, it will be a self inflicted wound by a Democratic Administration and Democrats in Congress who know damn well that the American people (not just Democrats) are opposed to these moves and who just let that be known in the last national elections.

[AverageJoe90]

100. Tom, this is definitely true to a point, but my problem is.....

Not enough people realize that we may be setting ourselves up for another 2010 with all this hardcore disillusionment. There are some valid concerns to be made, yes, and I myself worry that Obama's chess move could backfire badly on us. And yes, there were a LOT of progressives who did show up in 2012, and helped us win Ohio & Florida, and a sincere thanks from myself for doing so.

But now we need to try to keep our chins up and try to have a 2012 state of mind. The Rethugs won't stop until they are halted in their tracks, and the last thing we need is infighting.....

[Tom Rinaldo]

113. I understand, but now is not the moment for worring about winning future elections

Now is the moment for caring about what our elected government does or does not do. In other words, now is the time when the reason for elections comes into focus. One major reason why I chose writing about the potential impact of cutting Social Security on the midterm elections now is because we haven't cut Social Security yet - so that impact still may not materialize. Important decisions are still pending. The record that Democrats will run on in 2014 has not yet been written. Now is the time to care about these things. And I think it can still be helpful to remind Congressional Democrats and would be Congressional Democrats that their own electoral fates are largely in their own hands with the decisions they will shortly be asked to make. The President does not have to run again.

I will work for Democrats in 2014, which ones is yet unclear. But the effectiveness of all of our actions will be tempered by the mood of the country. Independent of the debate taking place on an activist hang out like DU, polling shows that the vast majority of the American people do not support cutting Social Security benefits. Polling shows that a strong majority of the American people would support increasing taxes if that is what it ultimately took to preserve Social Security benefits that currently exist If our party leaders insist on flying in the face of public opinion they are cutting their own base out from under them.

[AverageJoe90]

116. I certainly hope so. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

96. No, really we lost the independents all the song and dance is supposed to appeal to

and lost them hard.

Add the wave voters doing what they always do, sit out until the next Presidential or drop out altogether and you get a loss.

It is so stupid to lose the voters you strategize around in a failed effort, over count on sporadic and new voters, and then try to hang it on the very people who always show up, work campaigns, and scrape up donations because they have expectations and don't lap up shit and call it ice cream.

Now here we are and rather than own bad politics all around, silly buggers want to double down on failure and at the same time line up the usual fall guy.

YOUR POLITICS DIDN'T SELL!!! THE MIDDLE YOU KEEP PITCHING TO DOESN'T EXIST. DAVID BROOKS AND GEORGE WILL ARE NOT THE SWEET SPOT TO ATTRACT ANY MAJOR DEMOGRAPHIC THAT IS NOT LOCK, STOCK, AND BARREL TEAPUBLIKLAN!

Now here these fuckwits are again thinking that offering to cut Social Security is going to attract a fucking soul.

I don't know if some folks are intentionally trying to throw the game, are absurdly tone deaf, really dense, are hard core ideological corporatist that think everyone thinks like you, or what.

Keep up this tact and whatever it is that the Turd Way thinks they can't get from Democrats but can't get from TeaPubliKlans is going bye bye forever and you are going to destroy the party because eventually your accusations will come true and there won't be a fucking prayer of winning because "centrists" will be sitting there by themselves trying to bullshit minorities as they are thrown under the bus.

[AverageJoe90]

99. Personally, I always thought cutting SS was a bad idea.

And I do worry about Obama falling into a GOP set trap over a failed chess move.
And frankly, there were plenty of progressives who did do the right thing and came out in droves, including even some who'd been disillusioned by the BO administration.

But we also need to learn from the mistakes that we did make in 2010, that made our defeat worse, and unfortunately, there are some who haven't realized this yet.

If we can put aside some of our idealism for a minute, we can try to band back together as we did in 2012 and kick the TeaPubliKlaners where it really hurts next year. But if we can't, then it will take substantially longer to defeat the Rethugs and it puts us back in danger.

I'll be honest and admit that I too, was highly critical of Obama for not being progressive enough once. But we need to keep in mind that the GOP is STILL hell-bent on fucking us all over........and fucking us GOOD.

[joshcryer]

45. Incorrect, the turnout is pretty unambigious.

The teabaggers got more voters. The Democratic base was completely demoralized. Who holds the base? The progressives and activists. You may have voted, a demoralized base that votes, however, isn't as powerful as that same base, energized, and getting out the vote, then voting.

[graham4anything]

50. 100% fake meme

NO, the teaparty got the normal votes

the CORE voters didn't realize that taking a total day of work was as important in the off year than the presidential

Minority voters by far in 2012 waited many many hours (15 to 20 in some places) to vote

In the off year, they did not know the importance.

That is why early voting for all office is important, not just the presidential(assuming those votes get counted.)

Oh what horror Ralph Nader caused.

[joshcryer]

112. Wrong, the turnout was not much different from any other "off years."

In 2010 the base did not get out the vote. The math holds up. You blame it on minorities "not knowing the difference." I blame it on the progressive / activist base not getting out the vote and not caring. Instead of spending valuable time campaigning, they slept in, they didn't give a fuck. How I know this is I lived in Colorado at the time and we managed to still win. I myself was personally responsible for a good 10% of the vote that kept our Democrats in power, and we can see that Colorado is doing quite well, Democratically speaking, as opposed to other states. In retrospect I feel my GOTV effort was even larger than it was then, since it led to a continuation of power. Now, more than ever, I believe we can effect change through GOTV efforts. The demographics of the US are changing, it's only a matter of time.

[juajen]

34. Amazing! Three and a half (almost) months after second term begins

And the naysayers are bitching. I wish him well, and am cognizant of the difficulties he has had getting anything done. What is amazing is that this wasn't expected even before he became the nominee instead of Hillary Clinton.

The truth is, most of our candidates have no idea what awaits them. In this, Hillary has an advantage. She lived in that White House for eight years and formerly lived in the Arkansas equivalent for eight or more years (can't remember exactly). She would have governed differently, but that doesn't mean he has governed badly considering the forces against him. She will have a lot of those same old forces pulling against her every step of the way should she get the nod and the presidency; but, she knows what is in front of her and what her chances are of getting even 1/3 of the items on her list accomplished.

Holding our elected officials feet to the proverbial fire does not mean tearing them down every chance you get. As democrats we should, at the minimum, support them in every way that we can. We should know the forces against them and try our best to help them past it. No wonder their hair turns gray. They must feel as if the weight of the world is on their shoulders, as indeed it is.

I am not convinced that Obama is actually planning to do anything to SS and Medicare. Guess it could happen, but it will be surprising to me; for, I do not believe he has a black heart, as so many on here think he has. I still have faith in this man. I feel in my heart that he is good and trying his best. Until I know differently, you will not hear words of disgust or despair coming from me, and I wish good folks on here would guard their words and not give fodder to the enemies who attack us at every turn, including on here. They just love to come here and stir up mischief. Be aware of how they operate and use some caution.

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. Do you think this OP boils down to "tearing Obama down every chance I get"?

To the extent that your post is personal (and I realize it may not be - we all use our posts to make larger points) here is my own statement regarding that concern:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022508527

But I specifically beg to differ with you here in one important specific regard. We are not merely talking about another mundane opportunity to be critical of Obama right now. First of all, we are debating a crucial policy that he has now endorsed. The debate at its heart is about a policy change - the Chained CPI, not about the man who is suggesting it. And that policy change just so happens to touch on the heart and soul of the Democratic Party legacy over the last 75 years. If we don't debate this one, what is the point of having a Democratic discussion board? And if the President happens to be the leading Democrat who is supporting that change in policy, it is hard to totally separate out opposition to that policy change from criticism of the man who is proposing it.

[graham4anything]

49. Hillary as 45 instead of 44 makes Hillary able to achieve more of what was started

If Hillary was 44 and Obama45(as almost certainly Hillary would have picked Obama for VP and he would as certain as Hillary will be would have been 45)

This order is better.
Because of President Obama's voters, she will get 90% of all democratic voters, and every single minority group is part of that.

The only group not supporting Obama is older white males.

Hillary will get some of that group.
Meaning a much bigger landslide.

And everything Obama gets from the repubs, would have been the same with HIllary.
So Hillary would have had 100% of the same problems as President Obama.

None of the people who put Obama down 24/7/365 ever blame the repubs.
Same as they blamed Bill Clinton and not the repubs like Newt Gingrich.

This time though, it is going to last for decades now-and Hillay is a sure shot for 8 years
the sooner she wraps it up officially, the better.
None of the others should even apply, and no person currently in office should even be considered for the VP with Hillary if they are Senate/House/Governor.
They are more important in those current positions from 2016-on.

Enough of the mi mi mi mi mi.
Everyone needs to work as strict Democratic party loyalists.

and Hillary will reap the reward of actually being the President in office when alot of the change physically occurs

(assuming the damn protesters don't again ruin it.)

It reminds me so much of Russia/USSR
Gorby made it free.
Instant gratification wanters made Putin the Powerful and took away the freedom because they wanted it now/now/now and were disappointed they didn't instantly get it

[AnotherMcIntosh]

35. When you are lecturing us that "The mid term elections ... are a chance for you to make the house

and senate more progressive," you seem to misunderstand how our system of government works.

Basically, each of us only get to vote for one Represetative and only 2/3rds of us will be able to vote for a single Senator. That's it.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

16. People that didn't show up to vote in 2010 are getting what they deserve.

They are the ones that never learn any lessons.

It's always: "My way, now!" or they kick and scream in the floor like a small child that wasn't allowed to get more than one toy at Walmart.

[Skittles]

19. still on the pony meme?

you really need to evolve

[tblue]

24. I voted.

But I don't think I deserve this.

[gateley]

28. Me, too.

[Union Scribe]

32. I was hoping you didn't mean the evil shit you said over the weekend

about hoping that nonvoters and the elderly becoming poor and homeless, but it looks like you're just doubling down on it. Why exactly are you a Democrat if you hate all these groups of people.

[graham4anything]

52. I personally am more concerned about why any democrat would want ANY guns/bullets

that is the mystery to me

Democratic people think with their heads not their guns/bullets

[JHB]

47. Good on that! Haha! Stick it to'em! Ohhhhhh, wait....

...the rest of us are getting it too. Yay team?

You can call them every name in the book if that gives you the jollies, but if they are a part of your coalition needed to win then the electoral math says you spend some time and effort shoring up support there. Something that was expressly not done in 2009-2010.

[ReRe]

20. Yeah, it's history repeating itself, already....

... but this time, we can't blame the kick in the gut on Rahm or Robert Gibbs. I think we now know who was responsible for doing the kicking back in 2010. It's the damnedest kind of politics I've ever seen in my life. It just darn sure looks like someone in the Democratic Party wants us to loose the House again in 2014. Fuck that! Hey, I was disillusioned as Hell in 2010, but I came out and voted, for all the good it did me in this psychologically challenged red state I live in. We can not be disillusioned by this round of kick-boxing. We need to primary out all the dead-wood DLCers, and then work ourselves to death again, this time to get a vast veto-proof majority in Congress. We the People absolutely must rise up. We must prove that Democracy is a verb!

[treestar]

22. Well, you are not going to get an even more Republican House/Senate in 2014.

We've seen these posts before in 2010. Not going to work again. We are not going to let Republicans win even more.

I'm beginning to see that must be the goal of this type of "philosophy." Makes no sense otherwise.

We are not going to give up, and you are not going to punish us with more Republicans.

[slipslidingaway]

30. Sorry but you have a misguided fight IMHO, this is not about R vs D ...

but a fight against anyone who proposes a cut to the safety net that many have fought for over the years.

Remember when Bush was in the WH and the Dems said there was no problem with SS and they fought Bush and won? They were on the right side then so what makes people who voice their opinion now be on the "other side."

The only problem is that the general budget has Borrowed Trillions from the SS Trust Fund and now are trying to figure out a way to repay that debt.

Suddenly these same voices now want Repubs to win?

The issue has not changed, only the people at the top have, so are we now supposed to put on a new team shirt???

I honestly do not understand your "philosophy" unless it changes constantly with whatever team is in the lead at the moment.

[octoberlib]

39. The 1% just doesn't want to keep their end of the deal.

Starting in 1983, the payroll tax was deliberately set higher than it needed to be to cover payments to retirees. For the next 30 years, this extra money was sent to the Treasury, and this windfall allowed income tax rates to be lower than they otherwise would have been. During this period, people who paid payroll taxes suffered from this arrangement, while people who paid income taxes benefited.

Now things have turned around. As the baby boomers have started to retire, payroll taxes are less than they need to be to cover payments to retirees. To make up this shortfall, the Treasury is paying back the money it got over the past 30 years, and this means that income taxes need to be higher than they otherwise would be. For the next few decades, people who pay payroll taxes will benefit from this arrangement, while people who pay income taxes will suffer.

If payroll taxpayers and income taxpayers were the same people, none of this would matter. The trust fund really would be a fiction. But they aren't. Payroll taxpayers tend to be the poor and the middle class. Income taxpayers tend to be the upper middle class and the rich. Long story short, for the past 30 years, the poor and the middle class overpaid and the rich benefited. For the next 30 years or so, the rich will overpay and the poor and the middle class will benefit.

The trust fund is the physical embodiment of that deal. It's no surprise that the rich, who didn't object to this arrangement when it was first made, are now having second thoughts. But make no mistake. When wealthy pundits like Krauthammer claim that the trust fund is a fiction, they're trying to renege on a deal halfway through because they don't want to pay back the loans they got.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/11/no-social-security-trust-fund-isnt-fiction

[treestar]

68. The problem with your philosophy is you pretend the Republicans don' t have the house

If they did not, these cuts would not even be on the table. Plus any other cuts proposed would be similarly treated - is there anything else that can be cut that Boner would agree to? don't give me cut the military, Boner won't agree to that.

[Union Scribe]

33. Still blaming 2010 on DU liberals

without a shred of proof I see.

[treestar]

69. They wanted that credit

They kept threatening to stay home and not work for Democrats. The intent was to do that. So there's no martyring now, take responsibility for it. All of these threads are for the purpose of convincing people the Democrats are not different and to stay home and not vote or vote for Socialists or Greens or whatever. Result: even more Republicans.

[tavalon]

26. It's not nearly as jarring as it was last time around

I bring out the lube any time our President has a backroom deal he makes.

Man, you can take the guy out of Chicago, but you can't take Chicago politics out of the guy.

[99Forever]

29. Triangulators and true believers have learned nothing.

Democrats will get a beating in 2014 that will make 2010 look like a buff job. Problem is, they believe their own bullshit.

[Phlem]

36. And doesn't really give a sh!t in 2013.

He's on coast baby and he's got nothing to lose!



-p

[MotherPetrie]

37. k&R Great post

[eridani]

42. And don't forget how the Repukes posed as defenders of Medicare in 2010

Just like they are going to pose as defenders of Social Security in 2014.

In 2010, Dems absolutely refused to counter the Repubs' message that the ACA was an attack on Medicare. In reality, all ACA did was cut subsidies to private Medicare plans, and Dems were too gutless to defend public Medicare (or public anything) with the values-based message that public goods are GOOD! Pissy little lists of microconstituencies benefitting from ACA did nothing to counter the values-based Repub attack.

In 2010, Repukes are already lining up against the chained CPI, avoiding mention of all their previous attacks on seniors. And if the centrists persist in their silliness about how giving the lowest beneficiary quintile a pittance which will do nothing to pull them out of REAL (as opposed to highly inaccurate Census Bureau) poverty while blowing off the fact that the chained CPI will be forcing quintiles 2, 3 and 4 INTO real poverty, we are going to get creamed again. (Quintile 5 will be fine no matter what happens.)

[joshcryer]

46. It helps them that the left credits them for not taking Obama's deal.

etc.

[eridani]

104. Utterly trivial. What Repubs are really saying to Dems supporting chained CPI is

"We're ever so happy that you are doing our work for us. We'll express our gratitude for this by using it against you next year so you'll be semi-permanently cut out of Congress."

[joshcryer]

105. You and I both know they wouldn't have accepted Obama's offer as presented.

And Obama knew it was unlikely, too.

Yes, Obama would've taken it if they accepted.

He wasn't stupid enough to think that was a chance in hell of happening, as presented.

The question is whether Obama will adopt it to be "more presentable" to them, such as removing poverty protections or removing tax loophole closures. Given the public option and the tax cuts it's entirely possible he does that.

For Obama it's more about getting legislation passed than it is winning, imo.

[eridani]

106. Irrelevant. What is relevant is that Obama has handed them a club to beat Dems over the head with

The Repubs had no shame in 2010 posing as defenders of Medicare, just as they will have no shame in posing as defenders of Social Security next year.

[joshcryer]

107. I don't disagree.

The question is whether we let them beat us over the head with it and allow it to demoralize us as a group. Instead it should empower us to get rid of shitty bipartisan politicians more than anything.

[eridani]

109. When I remember what happened to Santorum in 2006, I'm far from demoralized

A huge public outcry could beat this back. Santorum lost by the biggest margin ever for an incombent because Bush picked him out to go around the country shilling for Social Security privatization.

Yes, we need politicians who will work for the 99%. Congress is mainly working for the 1% in a bipartisan way, and the rage of teh 99% is also bipartisan.

[joshcryer]

111. Absolutely.

I agree perfectly with that framing. What we need are politicians who support the 99% who actually are bipartisan, but simply elucidating the necessary conditions. Most Americans are not the 99% and therefore should agree with it. Sadly our politicians are 1%ers, or at least, live in a mindset where bipartisanship that acquiesces to the 1% is necessary (Obama is the perfect example given his upbringing, his life was in the bottom 5% at most, yet here we are with a politician that is giving in to the top 5% at minimum! How did this happen?!?).

We need to primary politicians who are against the 99% and we need to make it abundantly clear that they don't represent the American population as a whole. If we can't do that a third party is the only way to break out of this cycle. I hope one day to be posting in not-democratic-underground if that ever happens. Either way the Democratic part must absolutely evolve and stop pandering to the elites if it's ever going to save the country. As it stands now my vote for the Democratic Party is to slow the ultimate decline of the United States.

From my point of view, then, the only way for the Democratic Party to move forward is to end the bipartisanship. A simple metric. Don't vote for those in the Democratic Party who are bipartisan or who use that as their platform. Fuck it. 'Unity' candidates "for the lose." That's how I'm voting next go around in the primaries. If our next candidate is for unity, they can suck it, as the GOP as proven itself, especially as our President has compromised after compromised over stupid shit, allowing the people, to lose, in the end.

I mean, seriously, had the President let the tax cuts expire he'd have had glorious powers to demand whatever he wanted. Even a 1% tax break would've been glorious. But no, he allowed the GOP to own it and frame it and get what they wanted.

[xchrom]

51. du rec. nt

[suffragette]

60. K&R

[FlyByNight]

62. The optics and politics look awful

The policy is even worse.

[BrotherIvan]

63. The administration obviously wanted to lose the majority

How could a campaign juggernaut that was so effective in 2008 become a complete shambles, almost non-existent in 2010? Because they knew that with the majority THE PEOPLE VOTED TO GIVE THEM they would be expected to govern. They couldn't pull the same crap like they did with say the Bush tax cuts, the public option, and so forth. They lost the House in fantastic style and can now bring the ongoing meme of "he can't do anything because of mean Republicans!!!!!!!!!!!" "Bipartisan!!!!!!!" "Chess!!!!!!!!!!!" It's all Trojan horse bullshit and it's so tiring to see progressives and liberals being blamed for it.

[Flying Squirrel]

64. ++++++++++

A-fucking-men! Quit blaming us.

[AverageJoe90]

82. *facepalm*.

Who's blaming liberals? WHO?

[BrotherIvan]

93. See post 78

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2643590

[AverageJoe90]

98. May I ask what your point is? n/t

[99Forever]

65. Or perhaps...

... they learned that it worked just fine for their actual agenda, sticking it to working people and most vulnerable and powerless in America, for the 1%ers and their Corporate Masters, under the cover of the same "Oh those mean old Republicans made us do it" Good Cop/Bad Cop scam, that they keep rerunning like a Jerry Springer episode.

[BrotherIvan]

66. Lieberman made him do it!

[L0oniX]

67. "health care reform" hrmm am I the only one who remembers "universal health care"?

Stupid me ...going to an Obama rally in Tampa.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

72. That was projection....

You know,...from Liberals who said Kucinich was unelectable.

[fried eggs]

70. Call me crazy, but staying home in 2014 won't hurt the president

or anyone in congress. Letting the right wing get a new burst of energy so that they can carry out Ryan's plan will only hurt us, the people. But it looks like "WE" still haven't received that memo and we're making this about frustration with one guy rather than our future. :doh:

[Tom Rinaldo]

71. I sure as hell am not urging anyone to stay home and not vote in 2014, but...

...there is a reason why politicos keep referencing "The enthusiasm gap" when one exists between Democrats and Republicans.It is common knowledge that turn out is always more difficult for the side at the short end of the enthusiasm stick. Progressive activists will turn out, just like we did in 2010. Unfortunately we do not fit the profile of the average Democratic voter.

[AverageJoe90]

81. Crazy? Not just crazy, but downright foolish.

Letting the right wing get a new burst of energy so that they can carry out Ryan's plan will only hurt us, the people.

And staying home when you could have voted will only make this that much more likely.

[datasuspect]

119. we need to get past the whole two party charade

the only "Us" is the diminishing middle class, the working class, the working poor, the destitute, and the homeless.

"we're" all in the same boat.

the only "Them" are those who are profiting financially from the decimation of the middle class and the further alienation of the working class, the poor, and the hopeless.

until people understand this, there will be no change, there will be no hope and the Great United States Fire Sale will continue unchecked.

the two party political system is manufactured and edited for our entertainment and to pit us against each other.

[pam4water]

73. K&R

[WillyT]

74. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[Jakes Progress]

75. But, but . . the only

alternative is to vote for a tea-party member. The can't possibly be any other way to see things. Either you support the dlc and the slide to the right or you want to elect a nazi. Nope. No other choices.

(Please say the sarcasm thingie isn't needed.)

[Tom Rinaldo]

77. I didn't need it :) n/t

[CrispyQ]

94. How do your senators fair on the liberal scale?

http://thatsmycongress.com/senate/

~more at individual links

The Liberal Action Score is calculated by compiling a series of measured liberal actions (both roll call voting and bill cosponsorship) in the 113th Congress and comparing Barbara Boxer's behavior against a liberal standard:

> Respect for constitutional protections of American civil liberty
> Transparency and public access in government
> Equal treatment of people under law
> The respect and pursuit of empirical knowledge through support for science and education
> Protection of the Earth's environmental richness
> Strengthening of economic opportunity for all
> Pursuit of peaceful solutions and opposition to militarism in policy

THE TOP TWO

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Sen. Boxer's Liberal Action Score: 100
A score of 100 means that Senator Boxer has participated in 100% of our slate of liberal actions in the 113th Congress.


Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Sen. Sanders's Liberal Action Score: 100
A score of 100 means that Senator Sanders has participated in 100% of our slate of liberal actions in the 113th Congress.


MINE

Mark Udall (D-CO)
Sen. Udall's Liberal Action Score: 25
A score of 25 means that Senator Udall has participated in 25% of our slate of liberal actions in the 113th Congress.

Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Sen. Bennet's Liberal Action Score: 25
A score of 25 means that Senator Bennet has participated in 25% of our slate of liberal actions in the 113th Congress.

[Nite Owl]

101. As I recall

in 2010 it was mostly blue dogs that lost seats, their numbers dwindled. They ran away from healthcare, the stimulus package etc. and wanted nothing to do with Obama, they got scared of the tea party(who were peaking at that time) and came across as hypocrites.

[Zorra]

115. Oh, they definitely got the lesson. They succeeded mightily, by creating an obstructionist Congress,

providing them with an excuse for not having to act in the People's interest.

The system worked. The power and control of the 1% was maintained and vastly increased.

Lose more seats in 2014 and the Warren/Grayson administration will be effectively neutralized, making it impossible for them to take any power and control away from wealthy private interests.

[avaistheone1]

118. So many lessons unlearned.

I think this is a huge opening for the Green Party. This may be our time.

k&r