Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

global1

(25,272 posts)
Wed May 21, 2014, 07:53 AM May 2014

Do The Dems Want To Lose In Nov?.....

I'm in D.C. on business. I was up on the Hill yesterday with a group of health professionals. I picked up a copy of the newspaper 'The Hill' & the headline was "Drifting White House Frustrates Dem Donors". The lead line was "Funds still flow but 2014 seen as a bad investment.". The story went on to say "Top Dem donors say they are exasperated by a lack of leadership from the WH on policy and are questioning whether they should throw money into the midterm elections they believe won't change Washington."

I personally feel we are in striking distance of maintaining the Senate & taking the House as the American People are fed up with the stonewalling by the Repubs. If the Dems can do this - things will begin to move again in this country because we give this President an opportunity to do all he wants to do.

For Pete's sake the Repubs are on the wrong side of most every issue. This should be easy.

I can't help but think that the Dems are giving up instead of digging in & it's almost like they don't want to win or govern. The Repubs on the other hand are willing to do all it takes to take back the power.

Does anyone else out there feel abandon by our Party?

I'm just soooo disappointed. Please help convince me otherwise.

18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

seveneyes

(4,631 posts)
2. I doubt it
Wed May 21, 2014, 08:02 AM
May 2014

The allure and privilege of landing a political job is too great. Too bad most people don't get the chance to hold such jobs.

winter is coming

(11,785 posts)
4. Do you know why it said "Drifting White House Frustrates Dem Donors"?
Wed May 21, 2014, 08:08 AM
May 2014

Because the editor of The Hill turned down the other story, "How Will We Fill Column-Inches Today?"

IMO, the worst place to gauge how an election's going is inside the Beltway.

IronLionZion

(45,534 posts)
7. Who benefits from demoralized democratic voters?
Wed May 21, 2014, 09:58 AM
May 2014

and then you'll maybe notice who's behind the defeatist headlines. Team GOP does not exist without their massive propaganda machine.

Elections are won in the streets, knocking on doors, and getting the voters to turn out.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
8. A two-party corporate oligarchy *requires* closely divided government
Wed May 21, 2014, 10:18 AM
May 2014

in order to keep pushing through policies that are opposed by the majority of Americans. Faux gridlock (even though the parties actually agree on virtually all policies important to the One Percent) is the necessary excuse to keep "compromising" with the supposedly opposing party.

A party with strong majorities cannot continue to claim to be unable to respond to the will of the People.

We have seen this con game played out in many ways, for a long time now:

http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass

By Glenn Greenwald

Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it’s played:

.... Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing...But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option — Rockefeller is suddenly “inclined to oppose it” because he doesn’t “think the timing of it is very good” and it’s “too partisan.” What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn’t pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he “would not relent” in ensuring its enactment.

The Obama White House did the same thing. As I wrote back in August, the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama — while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary — finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don’t have 60 votes for it; what can I do?. As I documented in my contribution to the NYT forum yesterday, now that there’s a 50-vote mechanism to pass it, his own proposed bill suddenly excludes it.

This is what the Democratic Party does...They’re willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there’s no chance that they can pass it. They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bush’s eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bush’s habeas and interrogation abuses (“Gosh, what can we do? We just don’t have 60 votes).

The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General; then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.


You aren't crazy. We certainly are seeing a lot of ostentatious, well-publicized betrayals of the people by Democrats: handing over the internet to corporations, toll roads, loopholes to Obamacare that will bankrupt Americans...

It's not fair to say that all Democrats want to lose. It is probably very accurate to say that the corporatists among them (who now essentially control the Party and its decision-making) have a strong vested interest in making sure that they don't win "too much."


.

JHB

(37,162 posts)
10. On top of the "consider the source" comments above, also consider...
Wed May 21, 2014, 10:28 AM
May 2014

...that if the story is accurate, the "frustration" discussed is on the part of "top Dem donors". Ones who view the 2014 elections as an "investment" that they can take a pass on.

So exactly who do they mean by that, and what would those persons consider "change" in Washington?

Le Taz Hot

(22,271 posts)
11. If you understand that
Wed May 21, 2014, 10:36 AM
May 2014

both Democrats and Republicans are all now working for the 1% it all makes sense. Doesn't really matter which side is in the majority in the House and Senate.

iandhr

(6,852 posts)
12. If you have been paying attention
Wed May 21, 2014, 11:53 AM
May 2014

Mark Pryor and Mark Begich are running on protecting medicare and social security and Kay Hagen is going all in on medicare expansion. Three Dems running of Democratic Party principles in RED states.


People who have been saying that haven't be paying attention.


Were fighting history here. Since 1870 the President's party and lost seats in all but four midterm elections.

brooklynite

(94,740 posts)
14. Maintaining the Senate has a fair shot. Taking the House? Not a prayer...
Wed May 21, 2014, 12:24 PM
May 2014

...and that's based on my discussion with actual Democratic House candidates.

Donald Ian Rankin

(13,598 posts)
15. If I were a Democratic strategist, I'd be focussing heavily on the Senate rather than the House.
Wed May 21, 2014, 12:29 PM
May 2014

For two reasons.

1) Holding the Senate looks less unlikely to succeed.

2) A near miss at holding the Senate would put the dems in a better place to retake it in 2016 than a whitewash; there's very little difference between the Republicans getting a small majority and a large on in Congress.

I would also be working hard to shut out the siren song of the optimists. There are a lot of Democrats doing precisely what we mocked the Republicans for in 2012, and refusing to listen to the numbers because they don't like what they say.

Romulox

(25,960 posts)
17. It's hard to campaign on the strength of the status quo right now. That's the problem.
Wed May 21, 2014, 12:37 PM
May 2014

So what change are we proposing in November? Or is "staying the course" really what is on offer?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Do The Dems Want To Lose ...