General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGeorgia on My Mind
A farmer cannot think too much evil of a good farmer.
John Steinbeck; East of Eden
The recent election loss in Georgia reminded me of a staff meeting I attended at the county Mental Health Clinic on a sunny Monday afternoon years ago. One of my co-workers was presenting a case that involved a family that lived on a small farm. The family had requested appointments at a specific time of day, and that didn't fit conveniently in the therapist's busy schedule.
Now, because the case involved domestic violence, and treatment was mandatory, my friend was not feeling particularly flexible as far as scheduling sessions. They are farmers. They don't work that hard. Farmers only work twice a day mornings and evenings, my friend said. This opinion, as it turned out, was not based upon any familiarity with farming, beyond driving past a few farms on the way to and from work. Mornings and evenings.
I grew up on a small family farm. I do remember working before and after school. And weekends. When other kids from the neighborhood were out having fun, my brothers and I were building fence, cutting brush, moving large piles out rocks out of the pasture, avoiding angry Angus bulls, and cutting firewood off the mountain with our grandfather's two-man saw. We did our haying the old-fashion way loose which creates difficulties when the hay loft was on the barn's second story. And, of course, feeding all the animals daily.
Luckily, I inherited the same lack of basic social skills as my four older siblings, allowing me the ability to fit right in uncomfortably. My brothers like uncles and great uncles before them took a liking to the sport of boxing. Over fifty years ago, they matched me in my first amateur fight, and for the next 15 years, I fought hundreds of bouts on amateur and professional cards. A total of 329 fights, to be exact.
The sum total of those experiences on a farm and in the boxing ring has provided me with some insight into the election in Georgia. For one thing, loses are not fun. I lost a total of nine fights, to eight different opponents; one fellow beat me twice. Yet, loses aren't really loses, unless you don't learn from them. Any of the guys who beat me, that I fought again, I beat. So, for example, the fellow who beat me twice wasn't so lucky in the seven other times we met in the ring.
While I was able to score knockouts in the vast majority of my bouts, there were some opponents always bigger than me that I had to simply out-box, and settle for the decision. In those instances, I would generally set a pace that I knew would sap the opponent's resources. He might win a round, but he paid a price for it, even if that price was simply using too much energy. Now, usually if the opponent had shot his wad early, I could get inside, say, Damn, boy, you're in a lot of trouble now, and render him defenseless with body shots, setting up the end. But several guys were intent upon lasting to the decision.
As a farm kid from rural, upstate New York, I didn't enjoy a home town advantage. No, I was traveling from city to city, fighting the local golden boy in his back yard. So I knew that the judges were going to favor the golden boy. Thus, two of my loses were fights that I knew I won. But that's boxing. It's a corrupt sport, almost as corrupt as politics.
Now, the lose in Georgia was in the republican's home turf. But it's only a loss if we don't learn from it. To win a contest in what should have been a safe election, the republicans had to invest far more resources than usual. And the decision was still very close. Come 2018, their party isn't going to be able to defend safe seats without investing lots of resources. That makes other seats far more vulnerable to our body attack.
It isn't fun to lose an election, any more than it's pleasant to lose a round in a boxing match. But it's not the end of the fight. For constitutional democracy is an on-going struggle by its very nature.
Clearing fields of brush and stone is not fun. It's hard work, to quote my least-favorite chimp. Putting up a barbed-wire fence isn't a blast either, but it defines a territory. Training for a fight isn't fun either, but the work you do in preparation determines the outcome. In that sense, it's not all that different from organizing a neighborhood, going door-to-door, and staking out territory at the grass roots level. Voter registration plus voter education equals voter participation. And that determines the outcome of elections.
We need to start putting in that hard work now, in preparation for the fight card in 2018. We should be focused on clearing those fields, and staking out territory. It is, in my opinion, counter-productive to waste energy debating (or arguing) about if we need to run centrist or liberal candidates. We are not a one-size-fits-all party, when we function at our best in the political arena. With so many pastures to operate in, there will be plenty of room to run a good variety of candidates.
We don't have to agree on everything. People at the grass roots level frequently have a very different view than that of someone driving by on their way to and from the office. That's okay. We can deal successfully with that, so long as we all do our own jobs. This business about replacing Nancy Pelosi is a fair topic for discussion, but in my opinion, one that would make a heck of a lot more sense in 2019. We do not need more divisions in our party today. If we all work at our own level, changes will unfold as needed. Building upon on strengths insures that positive growth.
spanone
(135,636 posts)Thanks H2O Man!
H2O Man
(73,330 posts)Much appreciated!
Me.
(35,454 posts)"People at the grass roots level frequently have a very different view than that of someone driving by on their way to and from the office" I hope this post gets lots of reads
And without trying to hijack your thread let me just say about Leader Pelosi... blaming her for an electoral loss over which she had no control is scapegoating. And, everyone ages so let's not make that a disqualifier based on years alone.
H2O Man
(73,330 posts)Positive change is a process. I've been a registered member of the Democratic Party since I reached the age that allowed me to register to vote. And, while I'm not the smartest person on social-political issues (with little-to-no grasp of economics), I have learned a few things along the way. We need to be the process, to lead to the progress than will definitely result from a coordinated effort. I understand people being disappointed in "the system," and not having generous portions of trust in it. Even so, the ways to make change are open to us. Groups of us, and every individual.
Me.
(35,454 posts)"And, while I'm not the smartest person on social-political issues (with little-to-no grasp of economics)"
bobbieinok
(12,858 posts)She has commented frequently that locals have a much better
feel for the needs, concerns, attitudes of the people in
their area that do paid 'experts' sent in from outside
Me.
(35,454 posts)H2O Man
(73,330 posts)I agree with that. In elections in our area, I tend to have a good idea what the "numbers" usually are; hence, I can factor how many more votes than usual we'll need to win.
There needs to be coordination among the grass roots, the "old-time" folks (found from the grass roots to Bill Clinton) who generally have a feel for campaign dynamics, and the "younger" folks who can do well studying statistics on a computer. It's not an either-or today. We need everyone.
ms liberty
(8,479 posts)And thank you.
Useless in FL
(329 posts)H2O Man
(73,330 posts)There's a lot of hard work to be done. But together, we can have a lot of fun doing our shares.
hwmnbn
(4,278 posts)for these encouraging words. Now is no time for demoralization. It's time for mobilization!!!
H2O Man
(73,330 posts)I certainly had times when I felt demoralized when I was young, but I found the best thing was to refocus. Learn from both mistakes and the things done correctly. And seek that "re-match."
The loss in Georgia had aspects of both mistakes, and things done correctly. There were far more things done right. And the term doesn't last forever. Our team gets a re-match next year. We should start our training camps now.
"It's time for mobilization!"
kentuck
(110,950 posts)from a boxing fan.
Recently, I was talking to a Canadian friend. He and I were amateurs in the same time, and a Canadian promoter tried to set up a fight between us. It never happened.
I mentioned an old trainer to him,who I shared a friendship with, and he said the fellow had actually got his father into boxing in the 1950s. His father had gotten his my buddy and his brother into the sport, where they both won world titles. He competed on a much higher level than I ever reached, but we've found that a heck of a lot of our experiences were the same. And now we are the elders of the sport, trying to pass insights on to the young lions.
Life is strange, sometimes. I often get the feeling that there is a similar connection when I converse with you here. That we are "elders," trying to encourage people to think. It's always a pleasure.
kentuck
(110,950 posts)but have always been a fan of the sport since the days of Sugar Ray Robinson.
H2O Man
(73,330 posts)greatest welterweight champion ever. And arguably the greatest boxer ever.
My great uncle got a kid on an onion farm in upstate New York into boxing. It was Carmen Basilio. My g-uncle promoted his first fights. And Carmen brought him along for his two wars with Ray. For the rest of their lives, Ray and Carmen despised each other.
I always liked them both.
Every generation of my family, down to my sons, got to know Carmen. What a character!
VaBchTgerLily
(231 posts)H2O Man
(73,330 posts)annabanana
(52,791 posts)There is balm in Gilead.
H2O Man
(73,330 posts)And may we all learn a bit from Georg August Scheinfurth as we tend the Democratic Party's gardens.
Awsi Dooger
(14,565 posts)Voter participation does not decide most outcomes. Preference dictates outcomes. We are losing on popularity, not participation. That may not be as much fun or convenient as blaming turnout or rigged machines, but it's the reality.
It's actually quite remarkable how balanced turnout percentages are for each side, whether it's a presidential landscape or midterm or special election or whatever. I've studied it for two decades. It's as if a blanket of perceived significance covers each side and the voters act accordingly. Obviously there are variances that come and go. Right now the trends are not in our favor. The sharpest decline in midterm participation -- compared to presidential years -- is currently among minorities and single women. The bottom line is an electorate that is older, more white and more conservative than during presidential cycles.
Our punch rate goes down, if you will. It's like our electorate gains 20 pounds from 2 years earlier and the flurry rate is more like a welterweight or middleweight than lightweight.
It's the reason our upside is not as great as the GOP during midterms amidst favorable conditions nationwide.
Also, the number of safe seats for both sides will be vast. Truly safe seats. Ones that can overcome any political tilt and basically won't be challenged. It is misleading to pretend we can find magically vulnerable seats, ones susceptible to a "body attack." CNN in its 2014 midterm preview listed a combined 50 seats from both sides that weren't safe. But that was when Republicans were on the attack. More Democratic districts are at risk during tilt years due to gerrymandering and rural realities. And cash. Never forget cash. Via Citizens United the GOP won't have any trouble funding every race at risk. Meanwhile we won't be able to devote as much resources to a fringe race like Georgia 6. There are simply fewer Republican seats in play, regardless of environment. For reference, in 2010 Republicans won the national House popular vote by 6.8%. That equated to a net of +63 seats. In contrast, Democrats in 2006 carried the House popular vote by a robust 7.9% but it was good for "only" 31 seats pickup.
Independents largely dictate our 2018 fate. Back to preference again. Preference from outsiders. Independents in 2006 backed Democrats 57-39, according to the House exit poll. I keep all these exit polls for wagering purposes. Subjectivity is an absolute killer. Bias combined with subjectivity lend themselves to faulty memory and poor conclusions. In 2010 Independents flipped to virtually the same margin the other way, favoring Republicans 56-37.
The good news is that recent polling indicates that Independents have turned against Trump. When approval ratings rise or fall it's always Independents directing the move. Last I checked, only 40% of Independents now approve of Trump's job performance.
H2O Man
(73,330 posts)is flawed. I wrote it! And what makes perfect sense to me, is pretty unlikely to strike the next person as making much sense at all. For there are not enough rural farm youth participating in boxing that my views could possibly represent a majority.
Voter participation -- especially in the sense of non-participation -- actually decides virtually every election, with the exception of 2000's Gore v Bush. That was definitely an example of the results of a limited number of USSC justices deciding the outcome, based solely on their preferences. (And their bank accounts.)
While two decades strikes me as a brief time, I agree that a person can -- and should -- learn a lot about social-political movements. And elections involve movements -- some good, some bad -- generally on a given, predictable cycle. Two years, four years, and/or six years.
Hence, the way to win them is to identify those candidates with the best chance of success, who best represents the preferences of a well-informed public. The same type of candidate who will win a House seat in New York is not likely to be as successful in Texas. We might wish it to be different, but we still have to deal with the reality of the here and now. The preparation that the grass roots needs to do in those two states will be varied, but it can still be coordinated to the benefit of both.
To the exact degree we all do our part, we will succeed.It won't be easy, but continuing to do less than our best will be far more unpleasant. We should be attempting to get some, even many, of those who don't usually vote take part in the 2018 elections.
tblue37
(64,980 posts)H2O Man
(73,330 posts)Leith
(7,802 posts)We can also learn from the other election: South Carolina's 5th. That is a red district, too, and their election didn't have nearly the attention or money that Georgia's 6th did. Yet the rethug victory was just as narrow. What did Parnell do right and how can we learn from it?
I'm assuming you are speaking about Archie Parnell, who came the closest to winning. I think that this article sums up how he did so well (probably you've seen it):
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/21/archie-parnell-2017-campaign-215290
While I am far more familiar with Charles Stewart Parnell, I think it's interesting that Archie ran a relatively low-budget campaign. I would speculate that the campaign coordinated closely with grass roots groups and activists. And that is an important strength in this day and age.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)H2O Man
(73,330 posts)Hekate
(90,196 posts)Yesterday and today I have been reduced to cussing at people here. The swarm has been awful at DU. I'll try to do better.
After one of my fights, my opponent came over afterwards and told me that he had found the expression on my face intimidating. I know from photos that, difficult as it was to believe, my mug was uglier than usual when I fought.
There are times, when I read some things on DU:GD, that I make that same face. And I've cussed at more than my fair share of people here. My goal is to not be so snarly as I am by nature. I accept that I am stuck with my face, though!
kick
When I was a youngster, I read an early John Lennon poem in English class. A bunch of parents called my house that evening to complain. There were "cuss words" in the poem.
coeur_de_lion
(3,666 posts)who could cheer me up after Ossof.
Thanks H.
Please help us all stay positive.
H2O Man
(73,330 posts)I'm positive that we now have a unique opportunity to institute meaningful change. As I've said, it will be hard .....but not as hard as it will be if we don't try our bests. Plus, approached properly, politics can be fun. Not always, of course. But this will all result in positive growth in social justice. I am sure of that.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)I agree that the GOP had to invest much $ in this most expensive EVER House race, but what else did we learn besides that?
You closed with this:: "This business about replacing Nancy Pelosi is a fair topic for discussion, but in my opinion, one that would make a heck of a lot more sense in 2019. We do not need more divisions in our party today."
I'm not convinced either way that a new Minority Leader would pull the "divisions" back to together, but Dems experienced loss after loss during and after her four years as Speaker, so that is something that I've observed and "learned". But will House Dems act on that?
Patting ourselves on the back for 'doing our best' and 'we'll get them next time' sure feels good, but it isn't getting us anywhere for the benefit of the U.S., mankind, or the earth for that matter.
I like your writing but please, tell me what we should have learned beyond pointing at the ridiculous amount of money spent on that Georgia race.
Thank you.
H2O Man
(73,330 posts)I think that posts 21 and 27 provide an answer. In this instance, it isn't a matter of reflecting on one election loss in isolation. It is in comparing it to another that we might learn the most important lessons.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)If grass-roots efforts isn't improving voter turnout enough, there must be something else.
Perhaps we need new faces at the top and a better messaging from our reps.
Or
A strictly Democratic owned cable channel that broadcast only factual and verifiable news would help.
The channel would clarify with subtext on the screen when an "opinion piece" was being presented.
The GOP has Fox, Dems need their own HONEST left wing channel.
GOP'sters might call it propaganda but they'd be putting their words at risk when trying to prove that the Dem channel lied.
TRUTH LEANS LEFT
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,306 posts)Your words bring comfort and calm to these noisy waters.
Thank you!
H2O Man
(73,330 posts)Much appreciated.
malthaussen
(17,066 posts)I'll admit, that impresses me.
As to the rest -- well, that impresses me, too, but since I think the same way about it, not as much. I could never win 320 boxing matches.
-- Mal
H2O Man
(73,330 posts)before I read your response here, I was looking through an old box of photographs and family records, to find some things for my older son. He's doing "family tree" stuff, after he and his brother took DNA tests. (I'm waiting for the results of my own, to see if I am part human.) I came across two boxing magazines, one with an article on me when I was 13, the other at 21. A long, long time ago. Funny I located them shortly after writing this OP.
I was reminded of a couple years back, when a friend said, "I wish I had boxed. I've actually never been in any type of fight." I told him that he was much better off having never fought. His childhood and youth were such that he didn't need to fight to become a good adult. Mine, not so much; hence, that struggle continues.
malthaussen
(17,066 posts)Aliens are so much more fun.
That said, I just saw an article on the 'Net (so it must be true), that says red hair is due to Neanderthal genes. So I guess Og and I go 'way back.
My Penobscot brother was also a professional fighter (mixed martial arts, not boxing), and his record was like 39-2. And both those losses were DQs because he got frustrated with the way the judges were scoring the fight.
Come to think of it, I lost a fencing bout back when I was 20 for much the same reason. Very annoying to look over your shoulder and see the judge smoking and joking with his friends rather than scoring the bout.
-- Mal
localroger
(3,605 posts)The comparison of boxing to politics is apt and a thing I'd never considered before. Thank you for the insight.
eppur_se_muova
(36,227 posts)I quit reading after farmers "don't work hard". Had to take a break -- a couple of days as it turned out -- before reading the rest of the article.
How in Hell does anyone grow up in this country without knowing that farmers often have chores before sunup ? Or not knowing that at latest, they got out of bed when the rooster crows at the newly risen Sun ? And when the crops come in, you keep harvesting as long as you can see what you're doing (possibly with the aid of a bright "harvest moon" -- where did they think that name came from ?). Pick anyone in this country and say to them "even if your grandfather wasn't a farmer, your great-grandfather probably was", and you'll be right most of the time. For about the first half of this country's history, the majority of all labor was farm labor. How can anyone grow up that pig-ignorant of his own society's roots ? I despair for the future of our country in the hands of ignoramuses such as that.
iamateacher
(1,088 posts)Thanks!