Reality check: the loss of Democratic support between 2008 and 2010 was from moderates

[muriel_volestrangler]

not from liberals, as that piece-of-shit 'The People's View' blog claims without evidence.

And here's my evidence - the Gallup presidential approval ratings, divided up by 'Democrat', 'Liberal' etc. We have them for every week since President Obama's term started. You can download the complete weekly trends from here. So, approval ratings for the 1st week, Jan 19th-25th, 2009:

Democrat: 88%
Liberal: 83%
Moderate: 74%
Conservative: 51%
Liberal Democrat: 90%
Moderate Democrat: 87%
Conservative Democrat: 80%

The week of the 2010 midterm elections - Nov 1st-7th:

Democrat: 81% -7%
Liberal: 78% -5%
Moderate: 52% -22%
Conservative: 21% -30%
Liberal Democrat: 86% -4%
Moderate Democrat: 77% -10%
Conservative Democrat: 70% -10%

The last 3 figures are the most relevant - the overall 'moderate' and 'conservative' figures may include a lot of non-democrats who were nevertheless saying they'd give Obama a chance at the start of his term. But when we look at the pattern inside Democratic supporters, we see the losses were mainly in 'moderates' and 'conservatives'.

The troll who writes The People's View (hah - there's its first lie - the title ...) probably knows this, but thinks that he can divide the Democratic party with bullshit and name calling. And some DUers are falling for this, and recommending any thread brought from there, no matter the lies in it - as long as it calls the left names. They need to step back, take a look at their own behaviour, and remember they are meant to be for the Democratic party, not spending their time trying to tear it apart. And they shouldn't recommend troll threads.

[pipoman]

1. Moderates decide every Presidential election..

the difference between a win and loss is where the middle is migrating to. The solid left votes left, the solid right votes right, the center shifts left and right of center, this shifting is what calls elections. Always has been, always will be..

[JoePhilly]

7. Yup ... which ties directly to my post below.

[JoePhilly]

2. Moderates stayed home because they couldn't hear anything

but negatives through all the bickering. They got frustrated, gave up, and stayed home.

They had the RW telling them that Obama and the Dems sucked. (Socialists, appeasers, etc.)
They had the LW telling them that Obama and the Dems sucked. (Corporatists, warmongers, etc)

The media ran with these 2 core messages constantly, even putting these two totally opposite views of why Obama and the Dems suck, side by side, on the same panel discussions.

Moderates who lean to the right, heard this message "Obama and the Dems suck", got mad, and they VOTED. Moderates who lean left, heard the same message "Obama and the Dems suck", got frustrated, and stayed home.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. OK, we'll put you down as "both sides do it"

despite the figures in front of your face. You think that the left attacked Obama, but somehow this message affected not the left vote for Obama, but the moderates? How can you see that as reality?

[JoePhilly]

5. Not what I said.

I said it impacts the moderate left.

And not only did I say this, I predicted it BEFORE the 2010 elections.

The media pushed 2 totally opposite narratives as to why Obama and the Dems sucked.

The one, targeted the right, and was designed to make them angry, so they would have the energy to vote.

The other, targeted to the left, was designed to make them frustrated, so they would give up and stay home.

Its a method of manipulating turnout. Generate energy for one side, decrease it on the other ... and hope you get just enough movement overall to make a difference.

And it worked in 2010.

The part of the left that complains endlessly, still votes Dem the vast majority of the time. They follow politics. They are generally reliable voters.

[bahrbearian]

4. and yet the Liberals held the line and the centrist ran.

[JoePhilly]

6. Obama connects better to the moderate left.

So if he's on the ticket, they come out.

He's not running, the moderate left is more likely to stay home.

[bahrbearian]

9. I see, ODS

[JoePhilly]

10. Sure, because that's what I said.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. There's a reason the base is referred to as the base. n/t

[leftstreet]

11. So 'moderates' are too stupid to think for themselves?

They don't look at the conditions around them and decide whether or not there's been improvement? They can't determine whether or not voting for a particular candidate and/or issue will make a difference?

[JoePhilly]

14. Why do you hate moderates?

Generally speaking, the moderate middle are folks aren't stupid (as you suggest), they just don't follow politics very closely.

For some, they don't really care all that much. They may think it doesn't really effect them much. For some, they might care, but don't have the time, or the inclination, to wade through it all.

I'm not sure why you assume that they must be too stupid.

And you respond as if you've never met one of these moderate people. They are everywhere.

Their decisions on how to vote, or whether to even vote at all, are based on a more general perception of the overall political landscape. Their attachment to a particular party, or a particular ideology, is softer, more fluid.

You and I, and folks on DU, marinate in this stuff. We can go issue by issue and go into deep details on what is happening, and what's happened prior.

For most moderates, they can't do that, not because they are stupid (as you assumed), but for the reasons I mention above.

And so, if you want to influence how those people will vote, or even influence whether they will vote at all, you have to impact their general perception of how things are going. Badgering them with details won't help. You need a simple core message that targets their general perception.

That's why the GOP speaks in bumper stickers. Short, emotional messages targeted at ones general impression. Dems tend to SUCK at this form of messaging, but its actually very effective at impacting one's general impressions, particularly if the target of the message is not spending much time tracking the details.

There is a wealth of psychological research on what has to happen for an ATTITUDE one holds to become an ACTION that they perform (or don't perform). Importantly factors here include, the strength of the attitude, and its valiance (whether the attitude is positive or negative). Its also important to examine the ability of one to perform the behavior and interactions with other attitudes one might hold. A stronger attitude is more likely to lead to action than a weak attitude.

In this case, the ACTION is voting. Moderates are generally less likely to vote.

So, the general attitude we want people to adopt is a negative one, "Obama and the Dems suck". And, the prediction is that moderates who lean right will be more likely to vote if they adopt this negative attitude, while moderates who lean left will be less likely to vote, if they adopt this same negative attitude.

This particular negative attitude (Obama and Dems suck) ADDS itself to the generally negative view the moderate right holds already, which strengthens their overall potential for voting.

The opposite occurs for the moderate left. As a moderate they are already less inclined to vote. If they adopt the negative attitude "Obama and Dems suck" this WEAKENS their overall views of Democrats, and causes them to become even more likely to not vote than they were before adopting this attitude.

Importantly, this persuasion technique has less effect on those farther to the left and right because our existing attitude towards voting is strong enough to start with. It basically wipes out the effect of this persuasion technique.

So a person on the far right did not need to adopt this specific attitude to vote for the GOP, they were already going to do it. This message reinforces their attitude, but its not needed.

Same for the far left. Even if they are pissed at Obama and Dems, their pre-exiting attitude to vote and to not vote GOP, remains strong enough for them to still vote, and for the most part, for Obama and the Dems.

The impact is in the middle.

This model for how attitudes turn into behavior (or cause one to become less likely to act at all) is a very well understood aspect of Psychology.

[leftstreet]

15. blah, blah. You're mislabeling independents as moderates n/t

[JoePhilly]

17. No, independents hold strong attitudes to start with.

Their attitudes about voting, or whether to vote at all, are not effected for the same reasons the far right and far left are not effected.

Independents already hold strong attitudes that are less impacted by this technique.

[leftstreet]

20. I can see why you don't like independents

The, uh, 'techniques' don't work on them

[JoePhilly]

22. Are you this dense in real life?

There is a ton of research on the Psychology of Persuasion. That large research body exists within the even larger Psychological research domain generally referred to as Attitude Development and Behavior.

There are decades of research on these topics. The phenomenon I described is very well known and understood.

To simplify, in deference to you, if a person holds a strong attitude, it is very hard to change that attitude such that it will change one's behavior. Conversely, if a person holds a weaker attitude, it is much easier to change or influence their subsequent behavior.

Moderates who lean left or right, tend to hold a weaker attitude regarding who to vote for, and whether to vote at all, than other groups like the far right, the far left, and true Independents.

As a result, one can (and the media did) craft a message that would increase the voting likelihood of moderates on the right, while simultaneously using that same message to decrease the voting likelihood of the moderates on the left.

Either you can follow that very simple description, or you can't.

[leftstreet]

23. Yep

I just don't understand how you can waste so much energy and bandwidth trying to say that leftists suck

Your theories are unprovable, downright bizarre, and far too clever for me

Moderates who lean to the right, heard this message "Obama and the Dems suck", got mad, and they VOTED. Moderates who lean left, heard the same message "Obama and the Dems suck", got frustrated, and stayed home.

So...angry 'right-leaning moderates' go vote, but angry 'left-leaning moderates' stay home

Your proof? Because, well, results!

[JoePhilly]

32. I'm surprised ... you are SO close to understanding this ...

What you call "my theories" aren't my theories. The phenomenon I described is (again) well known and well understood. The Psychological literature has numerous studies of it, going back decades. Its not a "theory" I just invented.

Past that ... the first part of what you said above is correct, right up until this ...

So...angry 'right-leaning moderates' go vote, but angry 'left-leaning moderates' stay home

No, that's not quite what I said. Yes, right leaning moderates got angry and they became more likely to vote in response. However, the left-leaning moderates did not get angry. They got frustrated.

The "Obama and the Dems sucks" message reinforces the view of those leaning right, and that same message runs counter to the view of those leaning left, so the one on the right experiences anger, the one on the left, frustration.

Let's imagine you have a right leaning moderate and a left leaning moderate and they hold attitudes of equal strength about voting. The person on the right "might" vote. The person on the left "might vote. If they were to vote, the one on the right will vote GOP, the one on the left will vote Dem. But they both said "might", so its not for sure yet for either of them.

If you get the one on the right to adopt the view that "Obama and the Dems suck", you have just strengthened their reason for voting. You got them angry. You got them to want to get rid of Obama and the Dems. You have ADDED some strength to their intent to vote.

Now let's take that person leaning left who "might" vote. If they adopt the "Obama and the Dems suck" view, the same message has the exact opposite effect on this person. They feel frustration, not anger. You've given this person who leans left a reason to not vote. You have SUBTRACTED some strength from their intent to vote.

As for why I would spend so much "bandwidth" on describing this (I'll ignore your false claim that I said leftists suck) ...

see ... I predicted this exact outcome way before the 2010 elections. I'm sure if we tried we could find the multiple times on DU that I described what I called the "Obama bad" meme and its intended impact on the 2010 and potentially the 2012 elections. How it was being used to anger the right, and frustrate the left, with the intent of manipulating turn out.

I suspect you would agree that the GOP will do almost anything to block or suppress democratic votes. We know they'll change laws to try to make it harder to vote. Disenfranchise folks. So on. Ever hear of Frank Lutz? He helps the GOP craft their messages. Figures out the exact words they should use. Words that will have the desired effect in terms of persuading the folks who aren't really following all of this. And we know the media feeds into it. They love to take those words and use them to frame everything.

This is simply a part of that effort to manipulate the vote in any manner possible. And the media is happy to play along. They regularly brought on one person to explain why Obama was a Socialist, and followed that up with one from the left claiming he was a Corporatist. Weak Appeaser, and warmonger. The media doesn't care which version of the "Obama and the Dems suck" meme you adopt, just so long as you internalize one of them. After that, its all basic persuasion psychology.

So, as for why I'm willing to spend this time describing all of this for you because I've actually been meaning to write all of this out for a while, and this thread happened at a opportune time for me to do exactly that.

[leftstreet]

40. Oh I get what you're trying to insin..say n/t

[riqster]

33. Fascinating stuff!

Could you provide some links? I'd like to know more about the psychological aspects of this topic.

[JoePhilly]

36. Sure ... there are entire BOOKs on the relationship between atitudes and behavior ...

The guys I'd name as the experts are: Martin Fishbein and Icek Ajzen

Those 2 have been examining all of the studies in this space, and then writing books that describe a framework for understanding all of that research, including studies where the results seem to run counter what you might have initially expected about the connection between attitudes and behavior.

As an aside, they started to review all of the existing research back in the 80s because research was finding a very low correlation between attitudes and behavior. When they did studies of the studies (a meta analysis) they started to identify factors which would impact that relationship, push it one direction or another.

Imagine you are doing a study to see if kids of equal intelligence learn better under one of two different approaches. You create the groups, provide the different approaches, but there are no differences. Then, you learn that all of the kids in both groups were going to tutoring outside school. The attitudinal research was often missing some other factor ... FishBein and Ajzen basically created a model for making sure such research included or at least considered all of the necessary "other factors".

Anyway ... anything you read by either of them should be pretty good.

You might want to punch their names into Google and Amazon on your own because they've written a lot, and they are cited very widely, and you might see some other articles or books.

A few specific things ...

This is their Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_reasoned_action

The text book they wrote in the 80s is still one of the best texts on this subject. Its is called: Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , I first read this as a Psych graduate student in the late 80s and so much of it still applies.

Fishbein's latest book is: Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach

Ajzen's latest is: Attitudes, Personality and Behavior

When you examine their model, and compare with what I wrote, you'll see that I gave a rather simplistic view of the relationship between attitude and behavior. In addition to examining the strength of attitude, and valence, they also go into the effect of ones perceived social norms, and one's ability to actually perform a given behavior (if you can't perform the action, me trying to get you to hold the attitude of wanting to perform it won't work).

The other great thing about their books is that they cite research papers throughout, so if you wanted to, you could actually go find specific studies.

Also be aware that while they discuss attitudes about politics somewhat, their focus is more the larger relationship between Attitudes and behavior, so not really politics per se. From there, you can branch out into any number of specific application areas.

Hope this is helpful.

[riqster]

39. Thanks! nt

[Bluenorthwest]

50. You were asked a question to clarify your own statement and in response you ask

'Why do you hate?'
That's the entire problem. This is the malignancy that is harming DU.

[Whisp]

13. +++

The Jane Hamshers served the purpose of suppressing votes along with all who jumped on her wagon of moaning about how horrid the Dems and President were.

You are absolutely correct in saying that the actual left and the right were not swayed, but the mods & indies were and they listened to the loudest yellers of gloom and doom against the admin. - and the media obliged, as always.

I guess some people have amnesia and don't remember the tripe that was dragged into DU from FDL.

[JoePhilly]

16. See my post #14 ... I go into deeper detail on the psychological mechanisms

at work. The model is a very specific persuasion technique.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. "the actual left and the right were not swayed" - then why rec a thread that said the opposite?

You know the one - the one that was calling the left names, and blaming them for the Democratic losses in 2010?

You're calling the moderates and indies weak-willed - JoePhilly says they don't follow politics closely, but you're saying that they are the people swayed by the "yellers of gloom and doom".

"the tripe that was dragged into DU from FDL" - DU and FDL are read not by people who don't pay attention to politics, but by those who do. Your argument is hopelessly inconsistent. Perhaps that's because you recommended that thread as a form of revenge on a group who hurt your feelings? That's what your reply to me seems to say:

We and the admin have been under attack and assault ever since 2008 and before. The most vile, toxic names are hurled at us and at the President. Years of it. Years of having to bear the superiority of all the super progressive leftists that know every fucking thing there is to know about everything and thing number 1 is that Obama is a loser and we are mindless bots if we happen to disagree. Because I am a host of the Barack Obama Group does not give you the right to decide for me how I speak and what I speak about and in which forum or group. And here we, the Obama supporters, are called the authoritarians. That's rich, all around rich and snobbish.

So you clearly say this is about you, not about the president, or policies. And it continues in that "they called me names, now it's my turn" self-pity party tone.

Oh, that thread you recommended, and proceeded to whine in? The thread starter just got banned as a troll by admin:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=292212&sub=trans

Excuse me while I grave-dance.

[Whisp]

25. lots here have pretended to be 'the actual left', like Safetykitten

and she mewed the blues here for a long long time - one of the worst I have seen but there others still alive and kicking.

she was a rw troll, the poster you are referring to? if you consider him/her on the same scale of trollery as Safetykitten was, well then there is only one of these for you:

[bahrbearian]

31. Or centrist like michigandem58

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. Safetykitten? That's a desperate red herring. SK's threads didn't get regular recs by a clique

It's you who is standing up for a banned troll. And all you can do is say "but DU has other trolls too!"

[rhett o rick]

45. Well put. nm

[Warren Stupidity]

46. yup

they have no shame. And some of them are quite open about it on their awful DFP forum.

[ProSense]

52. I have no sympathy for trolls, not a single one of them. Still

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023766940#post105

[Bluenorthwest]

68. That one had 4 wee rec's while the other ppr'd troll got massive, regular rec's from folks who

praised his rhetoric, some are still doing so in this thread, 'TPV' was right' they say and they call liberals 'purity trolls' for disliking that creep.
So sure. 'Both sides do it'. Uh huh.

[ecstatic]

8. Going forward, we should urge our friends & fam to vote in the off years

and explain what's at stake. Whether they are moderate or far left. Especially if they live in swing districts!

[JoePhilly]

12. +1

The way to talk to them is using simple messages that cut throw all of the noise. Part of the reason they are "moderates" is because they don't follow this stuff closely, so most of what they know is only the most basic messages that come out of the media.

Figure out which messages have made it through, determine which ones are accurate and reinforce them ... figure out which are nonsense, and counter them quickly, replacing them with alternative simple messages.

[Bobbie Jo]

18. /hide thread.

Enough already. Why perpetuate the divisive nonsense?

Move. On.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. Why counter divisive bullshit with facts? Yeah, why do that?

[Bobbie Jo]

48. Just another "gotcha" thread

Last edited Fri Oct 4, 2013, 10:08 AM - Edit history (1)

that devolves into a DU snipefest.

Carry on.....

/hide thread.

[LondonReign2]

61. "Gotcha" because it proves the liberal bashing wrong

re 2010 elections. Yeah, I can see why you need to hide that thread

[Bobbie Jo]

67. Right.

"Yeah, I can see why you need to hide that thread."

Thanks for demonstrating the point.

btw...I hid the "other one" for the same reason.

Carry on, happy sniping.

[hootinholler]

19. Thank you for this!

Seriously, I've been looking for numbers like this.

The moderate and conservative numbers are informative.

[blm]

24. Moderates are those most easily swayed by Mainstream Media. MSM dug in with TeaParty early on.

They treated TeaParty's craziest lies and voices with kid gloves and legitimacy because their corporate masters wanted the chaos - it was good to gain the corporate control of government they wanted.

[FiveGoodMen]

43. Right now, moderates are people who still can't see that the GOP is evil.

In that context, 'moderate' should be a term of derision, like 'fucking idiot'.

[cyberswede]

26. Happily, that troll is no longer here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=292212&sub=trans

[stupidicus]

29. shucks

I thoroughly enjoyed beating up on that guy/gal

[joeybee12]

34. Very good news...thanks! nt

[stupidicus]

28. that makes sense

I've always thought and argued that the fear of rightwingnuttery is the best motivator that the modern dems have.

That is far more acute with us lefties that are the most critical of BHO on this and that. As much as we detest the rightward drift so much, we're very much aware that nose-holding is needed to avoid the alternative.

Those closer to the modern "middle" are much less effected by it, and much more likely to buy into the "both sides do it" etc garbage our "liberal" media spews.

[SaveAmerica]

30. In my area they* not only didn't vote but worked against Progressives

I don't know if that's just a southern thing (NC) but it was pitiful to watch. Very much like the in-fighting you see now between the R's and Tea Party.

They meaning Mod and Conservative Dems, they seemed afraid of what was done in '08 in NC and wanted to stop the progress.

[treestar]

37. Well then to get them back

We would have to be more moderate then, no?

So TPV is correct and the purity left is driving them away. THOSE are the ones who seek to divide and discourage us. The Rs and Ds are the same, and so on. Even if they are not successful, it is their intent. If they aren't a large enough group to have caused 2010, then fine, but then why do they get so much attention? Why do they demand so much?

[Bluenorthwest]

51. So you are defending the now ppr'd troll and continuing with the name calling routine?

We all make choices.

[TBF]

54. It's not a case of "getting them back" -

the moderates who swing the presidential vote are not that into it - these folks are going to pay attention to politics but they are not posting on DU daily and they sure aren't the advocates who are going to turn out for every single primary etc. You'll see them again in 4 years.

[treestar]

57. they aren't inspired to vote in off year elections

But there is zero to prove that they stayed home because the Democrats were not liberal enough. That's what we are told.

[TBF]

59. I don't think they care about labels at all -

they care about the very practical things - whether they are working, can afford gas and car insurance, able to pay their rent/mortgage etc.

[Demo_Chris]

38. It takes work to get moderates to the polls...

Work and enthusiasm. Someone has to man the phones, knock on doors, check names off lists, and drive people to the polls. Lots of work. More, it takes someone or something to vote FOR. That's where the worker and voter enthusiasm comes from. It's hard to win elections by telling people that we might suck but the other guy is probably worse. That's not inspiring.

Some here are inspired by the party. That's how they measure success. Others, and I am one of them, are motivated by ideas and policies. For me, the police survelliance state, the endless wars, BP and the Gulf, insurance mandates, handouts to the rich, and all the rest, did not become acceptable simply because we were suddenly the party doing it. It remained, for me, just as obsene as when it was done by the GOP -- and I suspect many liberals AND moderates share my opinion. Party loyalists don't really care about the details, they just want to be the ones in charge.

Moderates, promised change, were inspired to turn out in 2008. By 2010 they knew better. Not only would this administration not deliver change, they wouldn't even ask (let alone fight) for it. The only change they were seeing was Democrats suddenly adopting and defending the very policies they had once opposed. So why bother?

Even this nonsense today, as crazy as it is, has more to do with the collapse of the GOP cognitive dissonance bubble than with any significant policy differences. These nutcases don't even know what they are fighting for. They just know that they are old and christian and scared and increasingly irrelevant and furious. They've been fed a non-stop diet of fear and hate from their propoganda machine. There's a black muslim gun-grabbing marxist in the White House, homosexuals are getting married and serving openly and corrupting their kids. An ever growing swath of the population is openly mocking their stone age religion and pseudo morailty. And they're old; they're dying as losers in the culture war.

They've been waiting for the collapse of the country, it hasn't come, and they're tired of waiting. They want to burn it to the ground. They see themselves crawling triumphant from the ashes, a Bible in one hand and an AR15 in the other.

They want their armageddon and they are very fucking dangerous.

[TBF]

55. Agree somewhat -

but I got confused by the end of your comment.

Moderates are not carrying bibles/guns. That is the repug army and they are voting - whether it's repug or libertarian.

The moderates are the folks that don't turn up except for every 4 years. They are focused on whether they are doing better or worse, price of gas, whether they are employed, etc... But you are right about it being hard to get them to the polls and you'll only see them every 4 years. We are just getting started now with our gubernatorial race in Texas. It will be databases, phone calls, door to door, calling to see if folks need rides, registering them etc ... it is hard work to get the turn-out.

[laundry_queen]

71. That is correct

and that some here think that it's not the lack of inspiration but a small group of leftists posting on DU that caused the lack of turnout is delusional. It wasn't the left criticizing this new administration that caused a lack of turnout, it was the administration itself not showing it would fight for its principles. People are generally forgiving about the results as long as they know the person they voted for is fighting for them (regardless of how they feel about WHAT is being fought about). This is why the tea party wins. People just see them fighting like crazy. They don't even know what the tea party is trying to accomplish, they just see politicians that pretend to care about them. It's the optics, and the Dems suck hard at it.

[Daniel537]

41. Unless those "moderates" are happy with the shit the GOP is pulling right now

they better get their asses to the polls next year and vote more wisely this time. There are no excuses for voting for these far-right radicals.

[Starry Messenger]

42. k&r

[Vanje]

44. This OP was alerted on

by a person so fucking insane, that she thought this OP was a call-out post.
A call out against whom?
A PPR'd troll?

Crazy shit.

[morningfog]

56. Lol. I guess it is a call out to reference rec lists, which

are already public. Lol. You are the company you keep, as they say.

[LondonReign2]

64. Do tell who made the alert please

[Warren Stupidity]

76. This OP was alerted on as outside the SOP of GD and the GD hosts agreed to leave it.

Who did that is not something I care to share. The OP was probably also alerted on as CS violation, but I don't have any information on that. You can be sure that the demise of m*58 was a bit unsettling to his small group of regular wreckers.

[Vanje]

79. ~~~~~~~~

[ProSense]

49. Wait,

you mean liberals didn't abandon the President?

Who knew?

[Warren Stupidity]

58. But that was the claim made, and supported by the 22 wreckers

hell bent on pursuing some idiotic team loyalty vendetta against their sworn enemy "the left".

[TBF]

53. Not any big surprise -

most of the moderates who swing the elections are not going to bother to vote in the off years (they just hit the main election every 4 years - that is why it is so tenuous to get those votes). I know the centrists may get very tired of the pushing from advocates on the left, but we are involved and show up.

[Capt. Obvious]

60. Facts, schmacts

You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3760812

[Union Scribe]

62. Excellent post

Between that and the exit polling there is literally not a shred of data that they can point to for the continued "blame the liberals" schtick. And yet they will continue against all logic and all evidence. (E.g. in this thread: the moderates failed us, but it's because of the mean old libs.)

[gulliver]

63. Unfortunately, those statistics don't really make your case.

I recommended the OP because it at least tries to invoke statistics. I also recommended the post you and some others seem to regard as a smoking gun insult (incorrectly). That post was a little juvenile but the point it made is not weak. In 2010 Dems suffered badly from disgruntled insiders. You can call them what you will. They call themselves "the base" or "the left" or "liberals" or "progressives" or whatever, but other people who weren't disgruntled and abusive in the years 2009-2010 also call themselves those things.

It is common sense that one Debbie Downer in a group can spoil everyone's good time. Everyone knows this, yet some Democratic insiders think they can be almost limitlessly negative about our party and leaders and yet not take any responsibility for negative results. That shows an extreme lack of introspection and borders on insanity, at least in political terms.

I have argued in the past (and will continue to argue while I still can) that the disgruntled left should simply be kicked out of the party or should have the character consistency to take their energies and votes to the Greens. If everyone who can't appreciate the many obvious successes of the Dems took off, I think it would be a tiny hit in the voting department at first but a major win shortly thereafter. We would pick up voters in the Democrats, because the mood would be better.

The Democrats don't need people calling themselves insiders and Democrats and yet destroying the very real foundations of Democratic influence. Weighing down our spirit, attacking our leaders, raising a never-ending litany of fears and complaints...a party can't withstand that sort of thing. This is Democratic Underground. It should be about building the Democratic Party.

[Bluenorthwest]

65. The entire liberal West Coast did just fine in 2010, Oregon broke turnout records

The 'low turnout' crap happened in specific districts mostly facing 'moderate centrist' Democrats who failed to draw voters. Those districts were in specific States and regions. 6 of your Democratic Senators came from States that also did not elect any new Republicans and sent Democrats to their State Houses.
The more liberal States had great turnout and victory for Democrats. The more conservative States, well they elected conservatives.
The 'Reagan Democrats', the 'moderate centrists' are the ones that lost and the voters who did not vote. They still miss Dutch, just like Republicans do!

[LondonReign2]

66. Well, that's one brilliant option

"I have argued in the past (and will continue to argue while I still can) that the disgruntled left should simply be kicked out of the party"

Great idea. We should definitley kick out anyone that complains, for being a Democrat means following the party dictates no matter what, at all costs. There's probably a real good reason the party has moved There's probably a pretty good reason the party has drifted so far rightward, but who am I to question that? I do what any good Democrat does, nod my head and agree silently.

Bruce Barlett has it right: “The final line for me to cross in complete alienation from the right was my recognition that Obama is not a leftist. In fact, he’s barely a liberal — and only because the political spectrum has moved so far to the right that moderate Republicans from the past are now considered hardcore leftists by right-wing standards today. Viewed in historical context, I see Obama as actually being on the center-right.”

And that's good enough for me!

http://www.nationalmemo.com/bruce-bartlett-my-life-on-the-republican-right-and-how-i-saw-it-all-go-wrong/2/

<hopes tag isn't necessary>

[muriel_volestrangler]

70. I don't think your "it's common sense that ..." argument is common sense

"spoil everyone's good time" - the kind of party we're talking about is a political one, not an entertainment. To boil voting down to "are you having a good time" is ridiculously over-simplistic. It paints the moderates and conservatives as people who don't have political views, but 'feelings' that are extremely influenced by someone else's mood in the party.

And the post and blog I'm slagging off did not try to put it the way you are - it blames disgruntled liberals directly:

However much of the drop in the Democratic total can be attributed to an off-year election, there is no way the entirety of it could be. Had Democratic turnout dropped by the same percentage as the Republican turnout in 2010, Democrats would have thumped Republicans by 8 million votes, and Democratic totals could have fallen more than a third (36%) and still equaled the GOP totals that year. The disaster we faced - not just with the Republican takeover of the House but perhaps even more importantly, their newfound control of state governments in charge of drawing new Congressional districts after the new census - lies in that last few percentage point drop - from 36 to 44.

That 8 point drop cost us everything. And do the emotarian ideologues influence 8% Democratic voters? Actually, that's about the exact number they do influence - reflected in poll after poll in the percentage of liberals who disapprove of the president

Whereas, in reality, we see that liberal Democrats have always had a higher level of approval than moderates and conservatives, and that level of approval held up better for liberals up to 2010 than for the others. So the blog was completely wrong. But your hypothesis - that grumbling by liberals affects the moderate/conservative vote more than the liberal one - is not 'common sense'. I'd say it's counter-intuitive, and you'd need some evidence for it. Common sense says that messages are put out by people who care about those subjects, and people who have similar priorities will be most influenced by them.

I think kicking anyone out of the party, or encouraging them to leave, would be political suicide in a 'first-past-the-post' system like the USA.

[QC]

69. DU has become a place where conservatives feel comfortable.

That's why our friend from Michigan was able to be so loud and hateful for so long and gather up such an enthusiastic collection of fans.

Wingnuts used to be banned a soon as they showed their faces here. Now they are allowed to do pretty much anything they like, so long as they claim--convincingly or not--to be Democrats.

[TBF]

72. Good - I welcome them to come read in Socialist Progressives.

I may not let them talk back (especially if they start right off with red-baiting), but maybe if they come read they will learn something.

[laundry_queen]

77. Not all wingnuts

some managed to stick around and the current crop took lessons from the likes of trolls like OMC, which is why there are more of them. That and the whole jury thing.

[QC]

80. Yes, the jury thing certainly hasn't helped.

DU is a dumber and meaner place thanks to it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. And, yet, they keep moving right to appeal to the "moderates". And, lose.

And, then blame the left and move further to the right.

[laundry_queen]

78. That's pretty much it. nt

[Zorra]

74. We need a genuine left united in solidarity against the RW, right now. Those who seek to move

our party to the center are seeking to move it to the right at the same time. Anyone throwing around terms like emoprog, emotarian, and firebagger in an attempt to diminish the left should have their motives questioned. The Democratic party is traditionally the party of the left, and this is exactly what it must be in order for it to be an effective deterrent to the extremism of RW conservatives.

Those who have deliberately moved our party to the right have weakened the Democratic party as a leftist front, to the point where we are powerless to prevent the right from shutting down the government.

Democrats should not need to be fighting conservatism and the right in our leftist party. Right now, president Obama and Democratic leaders are taking a firm and unyielding stance, a hard left stance, against RW extremists who have maliciously shut down our government, in a clear attempt to damage our nation. As a lifetime Democrat, a pragmatic hard core leftist, this is what I want the Democratic leaders I helped elect to do, and I stand with them 100% in solidarity as they refuse to negotiate with the conservative RW republican domestic terrorists who have shut down our government.

Makes me proud to be a Democrat again. It feels good. We stand for something again.

No capitulation, no quarter, and

[SwampG8r]

75. i was sure enjoying the sense of unity this week

I know some trolls have been sent back under the bridge but I really was enjoying having a du unified in taking down the gop
the author of the post you link to would be proud that his disruptions continue even after his removal
he would be glad that his hate filled screed was still keeping duers from working to defeat our common enemy
I understand the emotions this kind of turdfest (at the link) brings on and I had a post hidden yesterday for what I said about the same post
I allowed myself to be baited and then the "jury" spoke and that makes me stupid for falling for it
just for a while I beg let us be united don't let "nameremoved58" continue to disrupt from his granitey grave
everyone here knows we on the left voted
its what we do
those saying otherwise out themselves as the disruptive trolls they are