America: Our* electoral apathy from 2010 has just come home to roost.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

Last edited Tue Oct 1, 2013, 11:05 AM - Edit history (1)

People wondered what would happen if the Tea Party got control of things.

And now we see it first hand.

Remember this the next mid-term election.

*On edit, when I use the word "our," it's more in the sense of the Royal We in terms of all Americans, not just the active left. I understood that many on the left did turn out at the polls in 2010. Unfortunately, many moderate Democrats and independents who did not agree with the Tea Party did not.

[dkf]

1. We had elections in 2012.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

3. Which minimized the problems caused in 2010 but did not eliminate them.

Thankfully, Allen West and Joe Walsh are gone, soon to be followed by Michelle Bachmann.

But there are still too many Tea Partiers left remaining in Congress for our own good.

[DonViejo]

5. Which were impacted by the elections of 2010...

GOP state legislatures, Governors and gerrymandered districts; an entire GOP/Teabagger propaganda machine or, have you forgotten that?

[Liberalynn]

19. This is what Rachel Maddow was saying brought us to this moment.

Gerrymandering. I was upset in 2010 with the leadership but I still voted and I still voted Democrat.

[Phlem]

88. Same here.

I'm thinking any numbskull should know that by now. You shoot yourself in the face when voting Republican, period!

-p

[Ikonoklast]

49. Guess you don't understand how this government works.

Or are being deliberately obtuse.


The congressional districts were already gerrymandered by the time the 2012 elections were held, but nice try at obfuscating.

[MannyGoldstein]

2. The apathy generated by elected Democrats mooning their base

has come home to roost.

"Vote for us, the Republicans suck more" is therir rallying cry.

If they actually fought for the 99% instead of suckling at Wall Street's teat, they'd win.

[Paulie]

4. Preach it brother 1st way Manny!

[stillwaiting]

16. I have no idea how some don't AT LEAST share the responsibility with those elected to serve

us in the Democratic Party.

Elected Democrats have steadfastly refused to fight for the economic interests of those who voted them in to office consistently over the past few decades (with very few exceptions).

Please know I'm talking about building momentum, awareness, and belief amongst the people of America that they truly want to pass legislation that their voters want them to pass. If they would do that (and most of us know why they won't), they would hold a majority in Congress for decades (again).

[Phlem]

91. you mean like for the TPP

and the 2 FTA's prior?

-p

[CrispyQ]

18. This. ^^^

They'd not only win, they wouldn't need all that fucking corporate cash. The grassroots would have them covered. I've always wondered why the dems don't go after the unregistered voters, instead of the undecided voters. The undecideds, IMO, are a lot about attention. The unregistered's often don't feel anyone represents them. Oh, I know the problem - it's that too many dems are on the corporate gravy train & they don't want to represent the people if it means they have to give up a cushy lobbyist position after their time in office.

Love of money & all that shit.

[tblue37]

34. Since the offices managing the ACA exchanges can also

register unregistered voters, there could be a lot of grateful, newly insured Dem voters for next year's election.

[GreenPartyVoter]

54. I didn't know that. That's something I hope is getting out there.

[mountain grammy]

61. A stroke of genius and another reason Republicans hate the ACA.

Besides the fact that it might work, until we finally have single payer.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

79. Because they don't think unregistered voters have any money,....

....and they've been suckered by the DC Villagers into believing money is more important than votes.

[treestar]

20. Are you enjoying it?

[Fumesucker]

27. Manny sounds angry to me

[MannyGoldstein]

39. No. nt

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

24. "suckling at Wall Street's teat" You have it wrong, Manny.

Sure, They were sucking something at Wall Street, but it wasn't a teat.

[lastlib]

63. he was just being polite......

...in case children were present....

[tridim]

26. Typically, Manny blames the Democrats for a Republican problem/issue.

Like most Democrats, I vote for Democrats because I like Democrats, and unlike you I don't think our party "sucks".

Heckuva job Manny.

[treestar]

28. It's amazing how both sides of the issue get played

They claim they stayed home to punish the "centrists" or whatever. Who are they really punishing if that were true and effective? Themselves.

[MannyGoldstein]

38. Did you purposely change topic to bash me?

The OP was about voter apathy. I was addressing that.

The shutdown's on the Republicans.

[tridim]

40. Nope I just noticed you were bashing Democrats again.

Just another day for you I know.

[MannyGoldstein]

46. No, you clearly stated that I was blaming Democrats for a Republican issue

And I clearly was not.

The Republicans are responsible for this insane shutdown.

[Ikonoklast]

50. You blamed Democrats for the campaign waged against them from the Left

which caused voters to stay home..



Where many of those bleating "They're all the same!" weren't on the Left at all, they were astroturfers fooling people, just like you.

Any one I know that says or believes that "They're all the same!" votes Republican, every god damn time.

[MannyGoldstein]

53. I've never said "they're all the same"

But I've certainly said that most elected Democrats are not trying to do the job they've pledged to do.

[Ikonoklast]

71. Water carrying for the right-wing "They're all the same!" team,

but not actually a player on the team.


Gotcha.

[MannyGoldstein]

78. And how am I carrying water?

A specific example or two would help.

[noiretextatique]

82. false...DINOs waged a campaign against democrats

liberals and progressives and it did not work out too well.

[Ikonoklast]

84. "Liberals" and "Progressives" used the exact same language as the Teabagging Right.

Quislings.

[Capt. Obvious]

95. LOL!!!

[sabrina 1]

86. Democrats did not stay home in 2010. There is that false claim once

again. Independents stayed home because they were disappointed in the Dem Party and did not want to vote for Republicans.

Sad how often this has to be corrected. If Dems had stayed home most of the Progressive Dems who held their seats would have lost.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

77. I will never understand your logic. You want to punish Democrats because they don't enact

legislation that is ideologically pure enough for you. So, here's what happens:

The base is demoralized and stays at home.
Because they stay at home, more right-wingers get elected to office.
When right-wingers get elected to office...surprise! They enact a right-wing agenda.
We complain when the president or the Democrats are then forced to compromise further because in order to get anything done we have to.

My question: What do you expect? When we don't support Democrats, we don't get remotely progressive outcomes. When we sit on our laurels, thus allowing more wingnuts to influence the policy process, we're going to get policy outcomes that reflect wingnut ideals...like the government shutdown.

I'd rather get centrist policies now, then work to improve those policies by electing more progressives in subsequent elections than throwing a tantrum because I didn't get my way when I wanted it, thus allowing for extreme right wing nuts to give me extremist right wing policies that I may never get rid of.

Do you see the point?

No, Obamacare isn't single payer. No, we didn't get the public option.

However, we may be able to improve the law if we can elect more progressives in 2014.

But, if you're going to always have this attitude that Obama sucks because he's not progressive enough for me, and therefore, I'm going to take my ball and go home, then nothing will ever change.

Change is a slow process. It doesn't occur overnight. It takes time.

Look, I work for the federal government. I am a researcher. A policy analyst. I know how the policy process works. It's deliberately slow. That occurs for a reason. And believe me, it's fucking frustrating having to deal with Congress. We have just completed working on a budget for fiscal year 2015. That's right! Fiscal year 2015! Congress has not passed a clean, standing budget--not a CR--in nearly 3 years!! You must know how frustrating that is. And to have people, even those here on DU, blaming the president when it is his federal government agencies that have been working our collective asses off on these budget recommendations, all to have them rejected for CRs. It's ridiculous!!

You have to come to this place with a more rational attitude. We all want more progressive outcomes but that's going to take some time.

[Ikonoklast]

85. I rec this post.

Teabaggers want Purity, too.

See what it gets?

[treestar]

87. +8 million

It is not even logic. It's letting emotions take over.

[MannyGoldstein]

93. "Ideologically pure" = Being against bank deregulation, free trade agreements, cutting social

security, unlimited banker bailouts, a White House staffed with bankers and Republicans, ...

Wow.

[SaveAmerica]

30. Those same Democrats didn't keep me from the polls

Your logic sucks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. But it kept many from the polls

Sorry, it might not apply to you, but it does with others.

[SaveAmerica]

43. My point is that it's a personal decision and no thought of

any elected official not performing up to my standards would keep me from going to vote. How do you get rid of officials who aren't performing the way you think they should if you don't go vote (if that's your beef)?

This poster is saying that the performance of Dems in office is why we have the situation we have now and I counter that no, the people who voted (or didn't in this case) are the reason we have this situation. Also that pesky Campaign Reform issue hasn't been resolved, and other issues that created the perfect ****storm.

I think it comes down to how you respond to a bad situation, lay down and act like an infant (very similar to the Tea Party now cause they didn't get their way) or are you going to keep working to make a difference? I saw it personally; people who had stuck together and made waves in '08 couldn't be bothered in '10. 1/4 of the effort of '08 in that non-presidential year would have made quite the difference.

In other news, I'm glad they took care of Servicemembers pay before last night, now concerned of news that the VA might night have disability benefits to pay at the end of this month if the Shutdown lasts longer than a couple weeks. Have you heard anything different?

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. Two points, I think you are middle class

To upper income, with a solid civics education. Mobilizing you is not the issue, to use classic political analysis.

Most voters are not where you are, and for starters most of the electorate shows up in presidential elections. Activating voters for a midterm is hard. Activating disillusioned voters is twice as hard. Some of those become non voters for life.

So when the party delivers in a few promises, whether that is reality or not, combined with a midterm, is a perfect storm.

It is complicated, but not that complicated. It's not just the voter you should blame. And for the record, Republicans are indeed better at activating voters in midterms and special elections. Why is that?

[SaveAmerica]

70. Nope, po ass chick living paycheck to paycheck, mixture of DoD

and regular high school education. I thought my DoD days were superior to the rest until I saw how little I knew as I grew older. I became active in '04 because I envisioned a country I'd despise if I did nothing. That is where my civics education began.

What I lack in education I have an overabundance of attitude that is the opposite of defeatist.

Republicans are better at activating voters in midterms and special elections because they stay focused on the task at hand which is getting out to vote. They are messed up, dunderheaded, and many times bad for everything political, but they stay determined to get their job done.

My experience was that we got distracted by many pet projects and forgot the big picture.

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. And my experience and political analysis

Tells me you are highly unusual, and I congratulate you by the way. Most folks in your position, even republicans, don't vote. The base that remains engaged is not the lower to mid strata.

[Progressive dog]

65. I agree, if you don't vote,

your side can't win.
The non voters in 2010 allowed the Rethugs to gerrymander and now it will require a landslide victory to just barely win the house back.

[leftynyc]

31. Awww - you didn't get

exactly what you wanted exactly when you wanted it and you expect me to give a shit when you stay home and don't vote? Everyone who stayed home in 2010 in just as guilty as Cruz and his pals.

[MannyGoldstein]

48. Yes, I didn't get an end to plummeting incomes for the 99%

It continues to this day. While the 1% grow wealthier by the day.

I guess that was too much to ask for. I suck.

[leftynyc]

56. I'm not of the 1%

and I don't have a plummeting income. Occupy was a good idea with horrendous messengers (if you don't want to admit that, I don't blame you). Income inequality is an important issue - perhaps Democrats can learn to discuss it without demonizing the rich.

[Fumesucker]

64. Even the plural of anecdote does not mean data

Your anecdote aside, income for the 99% is indeed plummeting while that of the 1% continues to soar.

[leftynyc]

74. Like I said

Income inequality is an important issue. Do you think demonizing the rich is the way to go?

[Hydra]

80. The 1% are not "The Rich"

And if you want to defend them, go ahead.

The 1% are thieves. Minimum buy in is 100 Million in assets, and they absorbed almost all of the gains from the "recovery."

And what do the want now? No taxes for them. They're just too important to pay for the services they use.

[leftynyc]

99. Oh brother

Do you really think there are no 1%ers that are Democrats? Are you really that foolishly naive? And no, they are not all thieves but great job with the broad brush there. I'm sure Warren Buffet really appreciates your thoughts.

[Hydra]

102. Warren Buffet isn't squeaky clean, or a Democrat

Unless you count him as a "New" Democrat.

He simply realizes that he can steal more when conditions are stable. He understands it's in his interest to invest in his world. The Bushco 1% want to kill the goose.

Like I said, continue to defend them, but don't make the mistake of thinking they care about us or are supporting equality. The 1%er I know loved Clinton because he was able to offshore his manufacturing. That sort of "support" we don't need.

[leftynyc]

103. So sorry Mr. Buffet

doesn't pass your purity test. I doubt I do either. Toodles.

[Hydra]

107. You don't have to pass my purity test

But you floated a weak argument in defense of people who are basically untouchable.

In an interview that aired Sunday on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," the show host cited a recent study from the University of California, Berkeley, that found 95% of income gains from 2009 to 2012 went to the top 1% of the earning population.

The president agreed with Stephanopoulos.

"The folks in the middle and at the bottom haven't seen wage or income growth, not just over the last three, four years, but over the last 15 years," the president said.

In fact, other data also show that America's median household income has dropped by more than $4,000 since 2000, after adjusting for inflation.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/15/news/economy/income-inequality-obama/index.html

Congratulations if you got some of that 5% leftovers. Or are you by chance working for one of those 1% 95%ers?

[leftynyc]

109. Wow - that was weird

I answered the same post (must have duplicated) and it told me you had self deleted the other one. Anyway - I work for a mid-size manufacturer of soft home goods (bedding, window treatments, bath accessories). But I do know people in the 1% - hardworking, decent people who vote Democratic IN EVERY SINGLE ELECTION. They are raising amazing kids who are told just about daily how incredibly lucky they are. These kids don't spend their spring break in Europe or on an island (although they could well afford it) - they have spent that time building houses in New Orleans and Joplin. They've traveled to Tanzania to help build hospital and before that trip spent months raising money and athletic equipment for the kids there. These are some of my best friends and they're the reason I wont tolerate a broad brush about the 1%.

[Fumesucker]

100. Where did I "demonize" the rich?

Please be specific.

[leftynyc]

101. We have the person

just above you calling them all thieves. The occupy folks did the same. That you are sane is to your credit.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

41. Ooh, what a methaphor.

Now, how to get that sight out of my mind? It's too early to get a drink.

[Enthusiast]

52. Plus one, Manny.

[ctsnowman]

58. Nailed it.

[beerandjesus]

59. It cracks me up how people bash you for stating the obvious!

The Democrats have been doing this for decades now, and Obama's own sins in this department are well known--beginning with how he sent all his supporters home as soon as he got elected in 2008. (Personally, I'd start with Rick Warren at his inauguration, but I don't want to be overly pedantic.)

We may be catching a break because the Republicans have so grossly overplayed their hand; I'm also happy about Obama finally standing up to the right-wing extremists.

But man, the Democrats have practically begged their base to stay home!

[Demo_Chris]

73. Yep. nt

[Hydra]

81. Ya, the lesser of 2 evils crap is getting old

Why would we want that as a rallying cry for our party anyway?

[bigwillq]

83. Good post.

[struggle4progress]

106. "Vote for us, the Republicans suck more" wasn't the campaign slogan of anybody I remember

Who, exactly, do you remember using that slogan?

[ananda]

6. Well..

.. I will never understand how so much extreme gerrymandering
is at all legal.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

10. Tell me about it.

I live in Florida, which we all know is as purple as a state you can find, and yet we are saddled with an uber Red super majority State Legislature that never ceases to embarrass us.

[GreenStormCloud]

14. It is the LAWMAKERS that do the gerrymandering. N/T

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. It's a state issue, not a federal issue.

The state of California know does it by an initiative driven citizen commission. It's less extreme, still Susan Davis (D) district is (from memory mind you) +15 D, and Darryl Issa's (R) is +17. Peters ((D) was the compromise, ergo +1 D, therefore a swing district

[tblue37]

35. Exactly the same way that the current system of legalized bribery is. nt

[SoCalDem]

7. It started in 2k when the SCOTUS placed Bush in the WH

and millions of people did NOT take to the streets..

The GOP saw that they could pretty much get away with ANYTHING..and they have been perfecting their methods ever since..

[hobbit709]

11. They learned that they could get away with it when Ford pardoned Nixon.

[SoCalDem]

12. Yes, but Ford paid the price a few years later

Today's GOP gets REWARDED for their nonsense

[hobbit709]

13. Ford did, but none of the ones who should have paid a price did.

[SoCalDem]

17. *IOIARDI

*It's ok if a republican does it

[tblue37]

37. The MSM refused to show the furious crowds egging W's inagural parade,

just as it failed to show the millions in the street in the US and around the world protesting against the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq.

There were protests, but like the tree that falls in the forest with no one to hear, they went unnoticed, unremarked.

[benld74]

8. GOP Gerrymandering precludes making it to polls in some areas,,,,,

[Pab Sungenis]

9. Remember this the next time

the "third way" crowd says the liberals have nowhere to go.

If Rahm and the rest of Obama's first term team hadn't decided to govern like Republicans for their first two years we wouldn't be in this mess.

[SoCalDem]

15. AMEN.. you never get a chance to re-do what you did not do in the first place

Obama's first 100 days should have included :

Immediate end to the Bush tax cuts
A national grid-set up for redistricting
A uniform national-office elections ballot & voter rules (for DC-bound office winners)
Single payer health insurance (Medicare for all)

His popularity was sky-high then and the GOP was flat on their backs..

The administration wasted too much time "reaching out" for the cooperation that would never come..no matter what..

[CrispyQ]

45. Agreed.

A squandered opportunity. So much positive energy directed his way, from the entire world (!) & he squandered it on bipartisanship with the repubs.

[beerandjesus]

62. And getting rid of that insane pre-funding thing killing the USPS.

Let's not forget that one.

[Dash87]

21. Tea Partiers are Capitalistic Anarchists. They just won't admit it.

They have no problem shutting the government down because they hate it anyways.

If corporations try to control their lives, though, they're totally fine with that.

[Bluenorthwest]

22. Hey Tommy! In 2010 we Oregonians set midterm turnout records and elected Democrats

So when you address 'America' like that I have to point out the low turn out was regional and associated with regions that insist on running 'Blue Dog Moderate Centrists' and that sort of thing, nearly Republican candidates who lose to the actual Republican.
California did not have the problems you ascribe to America as a whole, nor did the NE nor did Washington State.
It would behoove the States that fail to elect Democrats to look to those who do and as 'why'.

[Laelth]

57. +1. n/t

-Laelth

[hootinholler]

23. How many more are going to buy into that RW talking point?

It wasn't Democrats that stayed home in 2010. The tea baggers weren't entrenched until the gerrymandering before the 2012 elections took place.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

42. No. The right wing talking point was that the whole country was swept up in Tea Party mania in 2010.

That the Teabaggers elected into Congress somehow represented a mandate of conservative policies by American voters.

And that's just not true.

You can attribute it to apathy or you can attribute it to gerrymandering, but either way, the jokers elected to Congress in 2010 was not a sign of mass movement of the people to the far right. It was a fringe that found an opportunity to weasel its way into power.

And now we're feeling the effects of it.

[hootinholler]

44. They did not get elected because Democrats stayed home

That is the RW talking point I was referring to. The nationwide one is also a RW talking point.

I agree we are feeling the effects of it.

[Pab Sungenis]

66. The LGBT vote, for one thing

swung 15 points from the Democrats to the Republicans in 2010.

If Obama hadn't alienated LGBT voters in his first two years, we might not have lost the House.

[hootinholler]

72. That is astounding if it carrys in the teabaggery districts

I have a hard time getting my head around the idea of anyone in the community voting for a teabagger.

[Bluenorthwest]

55. And I note that when presente with actual facts you just ignore them in your quest to

blame all of us for what some States did, does and will no doubt continue to do.....

[jeff47]

68. Not quite.

1) Democrats stayed at home in 2010 - exit polling shows much lower turnout among Democrats. Caused by a combination of disillusionment and poor organizing. We had just won big, so some expected large changes and were disappointed when they didn't happen. And we had just won big, so the votes will just fall into place, no need for massive organization.

2) Republicans, especially teabaggers, voted at a rate similar to a presidential year - they were motivated by fighting the Kenyan usurper who was, you know, (whispered) black.

That won state legislative majorities in many purple states, allowing them to gerrymander, which allowed them to hold the House in 2012 despite the "normal" Democratic turnout.

Now, the real problem is the collision of #1 and #2. But neither one by itself is the cause of the problem.

[CrispyQ]

25. It started 30 years ago,

when democrats backed away from the word liberal when a two bit actor poked fun at it. Soon they backed away from liberal policies, as well. Now, a good share of the party are on the corporate gravy train, playing good cop against the repubs bad cop.

[gopiscrap]

29. Exactly!!!

[BlueStreak]

36. Dem defeatinsm continues to today. The Maddow Show last night, for example

was all about whining about the unfair Congressional seats.

Look. It is not complicated. Yes, the GOP has been very successful at manipulating districts. And how did they do that? Because we didn't challenge them in the Governorships and state legislatures. Blaming this ion Republican tricks is lame. it is defeatism.

And the math isn't complicated either. It is mathematically impossible to create enough "safe" GOP districts if Democrats would get off their complaining asses and go out to vote in the mid-term elections.

Every time somebody bitches about "Woe is us. Those Republicans are big meanies." I want to throw a brick through the screen.

17 seats. That is all we are talking. 17 seats in the whole damn country. That is all we have to pick up to end all this teabagging nonsense.

[jeff47]

69. 17 seats requires roughly 7% overall margin-of-victory

Due to that gerrymandering.

It's a problem. It's not insurmountable, but it's going to be hard to get that margin of victory.

[BlueStreak]

94. No it doesn't. It means putting up good candidates in 17 districts

It means getting people off their keyboards and into their checkbooks. It means not conceding the damned thing.

Look, the arithmetic is simple. We have a structural majority. The GOP tries to offset that by creating districts that are 75% Dem. It is pretty hard to get districts that are much more lopsided than that.

That means, if they are going to win a MAJORITY of districts while still having 1.5 MILLION FEWER VOTES, the GOP's so-called "safe seats" can only be about a 55-45% spread. If they try to load them up any more than that, the arithmetic just doesn't work.

So the bottom line is that the GOP's so-called "safe seats" aren't all that. There are at least 50 districts out there where we have a good shot if we will just not concede it.

We need to stop whining and get to work.

[jeff47]

96. That 1.5M fewer votes is where the 7% figure comes from.

The 7% national benchmark is a way to illustrate the scale of the overall problem.

Before yesterday's activities, that was looking insurmountable. They'd lose seats, but not enough to lose the majority.

Today? Looking far easier.

If this goes on 3 weeks like last time? Going to be very easy.

[BlueStreak]

112. National means nothing. You have to win 14 seats.

Has absolutely nothing to do with some arbitrary national 7% number. All politics is local.

When you throw out numbers like that, it makes it sound impossible, but it is perfectly doable. We just have to stop with the defeatism.

And we have to remind the demographic segments that only seem to vote when Obama is on the ballot that they need to vote EVERY TIME.

[jeff47]

115. The national number is a way of summarizing those 14 seats.

Like all summaries it covers over important details. But it's still helpful when discussing the issue.

[treestar]

89. Amen.

When you put it that way, it does not even sound hard

[Iggo]

51. You got a hamster in your pocket?

[lastlib]

60. ...and every day thereafter!

NEVER FORGET what these Pukes have done to the American people!

And it's only the beginning! They won't stop until we're all in a bare-knuckles fight for mere survival. I am convinced of it.

[ffr]

67. It wasn't due to me. I voted and helped the GOTV

2010 & 2012.

It's all those middle-of-the-road voters & undecideds we can be thanking.

[Bobbie Jo]

75. Elections have consequences. nt

[KittyWampus]

76. good thing you put in the asterisk- I used the term 'we' in an OP title and got hammered for it.

People couldn't just say "speak for yourself" or whatever.

[Zorra]

90. I voted straight D in 2010 but I was pissed off at Democratic legislators for appeasing republicans

when they should have been shutting them down and shutting them off, and making them nothing but history.

Republicans had lost and the game and it would have been over, but Democrats handed the ball in gestures of bipartisan love to republicans on their own 5 yd line and let them run for touchdowns 10 times in the 4th quarter, allowing republicans to win the 2010 Stupid Bowl.

If you don't do what people elected you to do, a lot of them won't show up at the next elections. If you suck, nobody is going to come to your show.

Simply being better than republicans won't cut it. You gotta be a star and put on a great performance, like FDR did.

Democrats blew it between 2008 and 2011; if they had crushed republicans when they had large majorities in both Houses and a Dem Prez, the republican party would already be dead and buried, instead of being able to shut down the government today.

An Opportunity Not Taken Is An Opportunity Wasted. No Second Chances.

[Safetykitten]

97. Ok, our President that never stood up to the republicans...this is what you get...

See? It's easy?

[LadyHawkAZ]

98. But but but...

Both parties are exactly the same! Earn my vote! Tools of the 1%! Not falling for the "lesser of the evils"! Independent thinker! No lockstep! Third party! etc etc etc whaargarble...



I am one unrepentant Democrat who will remember this at the midterms, at any rate. I wish I were more hopeful about the common sense of the rest of the party.

[liberal_at_heart]

104. I have voted straight democratic ticket for 19 years. Not doing it anymore.

[LondonReign2]

108. Gosh, yet another liberal bashing thread today?

And using a meme that has been disproven?

It's almost like its, oh I don't know, coordinated or something...

[Tommy_Carcetti]

110. Did you bother to read my footnote?

A Cliffnotes of my footnote:

I'm not blaming liberals for 2010.

[LondonReign2]

111. Did you bother to read the thread?

Blaming liberals for 2010 is exactly what is going on here

[Rex]

113. Wow do you guys tag team these liberal bashing threads?

All this self-righteous crap and I bet none of you even voted. Sooo predictable by a handful of people here...do you guys do anything but stir the shit?

NOBODY on DU stayed home that night or any other night...well maybe your group did.

Shit stirring makes DU suck.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

114. Again, please refer to my clarification in my OP.

I'm. Not. Bashing. Liberals.