Why Have So Many of You Given Up?

[RobertEarl]

Thread after thread, post after post, so many words claiming to know that congress will be republican come 2009 2017. (duh!)

Why is it so many are thinking that the Democrats can't win back congress? What magic crystal are you gazing at that makes you post time and again with this idea that the Party can't win congress?

I have an idea of why some of you are giving up, and the first reply that is worthy of discussion may just get me to post my reasoning.

[Make7]

1. Time travel... alternate timeline... cool! ( n/t )

[zappaman]

15. Are you talking about

The time traveling radiation from Fukushima?

[RobertEarl]

17. It's here.

The radiation is here. It first came after the atomic testing in the Pacific, and now it is at least 7 times higher.

Make7's reply, as any smart person could see, was mere snark about the time mistake I made in the OP.

[99Forever]

2. For the same damn reason they think they have to vote for the...

...corporate chosen Democrat instead of the candidate who will actually work FOR THEM.


It baffles the mind.

[RobertEarl]

20. It is mind boggling

It is over a year to the election and yet so many have decided that our party can't win. Is it a Hillary mindset that makes them give up and claim defeat a year before the election? Whatever, it is disgusting to read.

[jeff47]

3. Gerrymandering.

The Republicans did an excellent job of it. As a result, winning back the House is extremely unlikely. We'd need to win by about 15% to overwhelm the gerrymandering.

The Senate, OTOH, is quite doable.

That's not to say trimming the House majority would not be helpful. It would empower the insane part of the Republicans, and a big Democratic win might spook enough moderate Republicans into cooperating.

But Democrats are unlikely to take the House until 2022, because we need a census in order to undo most of the gerrymandering.

[redstateblues]

6. There is no plan to retake Statehouses.

Gives Rs the ability to suppress the vote. We Democrats are terrible at getting organized and being disciplined. We are only good at voting in the GE every four years. That is not going to get much done no matter who our nominee is.

[jeff47]

8. Well, we'd have to have competence at the DNC for a a national plan

And we don't. So it's going to be up to each state's party to lay the groundwork.

[Le Taz Hot]

11. The state parties are very much in the control

of the DNC.

[ladjf]

4. I fear the evil power of the media because they have had their way for so many years.

Everything Bernie says is correct but everything the media says goes straight into the minds of most Americans. It's as though we have suffered a partial lobotomy.

[wyldwolf]

5. I'm 100% positive congress won't be Republican then... but it flips two years later.

[tularetom]

7. In a presidential election year, it's the top of the ticket that inspires voters to show up

If the Dems nominate a blah, middle of the road, make no waves, same ol shit, business as usual candidate, turnout will be depressed.

In most cases, a depressed turnout favors republicans because their rabid voters understand there is more at stake than the presidency.

The solution? The Dems should not nominate a boring, charisma challenged, middle of the road presidential candidate.

[WillyT]

9. Because We Are So Brow-Beaten Into Submission, We Cannot Envision Nor Promote This:

DULink: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026089468

[artislife]

10. Not me

This is why we need a lefty on the top, though. So that those down ticket can also be real dems and not dinos.

[thesquanderer]

21. Great video. And again indicates, we take the WH with EITHER Hillary or Bernie.

So "electability" is not the serious issue some in the HRC camp make it out to be. (In fact, I have argued elsehwre for why BS could easily do even better than HRC in the general... but either will do well enough to win.)

[artislife]

24. Yes...their argument

Is only about electability. Most of the posts are very spotty on why she is preferred just that she is.


You know, in their "reality based" bubble.

[Paka]

25. Thanksfor the video.

[longship]

12. Let's do the time warp again!

Obligatory response here.

[uponit7771]

13. I understand the effects of the 10 gerrymandering and know not to focus attention on something there

...is little answers to right now.

Hillary is focusing on EOs, that's a good thing.

[Motown_Johnny]

14. I think you mean 2017, not 2009... at least I hope you do.

The House districts are so horribly Gerrymandered that it is extremely unlikely that the (D)s can win a majority. We may pick up some seats, but it is pretty safe to assume that we will still be in the minority.

We have a better shot at the Senate, but it is so early in the process, any guesses either way mean little.

[brooklynite]

16. How about...because every Democratic House Candidate tells me the same thing?

I'm not "giving up", I'm focusing on winning the State Houses so we can manage redistricting in 2022.

[Agnosticsherbet]

18. Democrats would have to win 59 seats to take the House. They will probably take the Senate.

Republicans took 63 seats in 2010, so it could be done.

I am not giving up, but a massive change in seats is a very rare event in US History. Considering how heavily the Congress has been gerrymandered because Republicans got to rewrite the maps after 2010, it is unlikely. Waves do happen, and we will have to see if this will be one. By March, we should be able to intimate if the Congressional races are being affected by the anger against Washington and the Party elite.

It is quite possible that it will the 2020 election before we can fix what Democrats screwed up in 2010 when a Democratic majority decided not to vote. Elections have consequences.

As a matter of history, it will be a very rare event if Democrats hold onto the White House. Democrats have only done this twice in our history. We are fortunate that the Republican electorate is so far out of step with the mainstream of politics that a Republican Presidential Candidate can not pretend to move back to the center. We are also fortunate that, at the moment, Republicans are so fed up with Washington and their party that their more Mainstream Candidates are not even being considered.

But it is a bit early to wax ebullient over the chances of a Congressional sweep. Hell, in most cases we don't yet even know exactly who is going to run in the primaries, let alone be able to guess who has a chance to win.

Scott Peters is the only Democrat in my district that has declared. He has had two squeaker elections, and though he claims to be a progressive now, when he first ran he promised to work with Republicans. I'd rather see someone a bit to his left, but if no one steps up any other choice is unthinkable.

[Juicy_Bellows]

19. I think a lot never gave up to begin with.

They are perfectly happy with their place and the way things are going. Politics is a game to them, a sport if you will, and they cheer for the blue team. They really aren't interested in how they win just that team blue scores more points. They don't mind that the starting power forward for team blue used to be on team red, they just want to win. They don't care if the star player this year goes to play for the Rhode Island 'Cons next year, they just want to win. It doesn't matter that they are shown evidence that their favorite player cheated and got away with several no calls during the season, they just want to win. If they don't, they'll have a sad for a bit but their lives are alright, it's just a game anyway.

Cheers!

[wundermaus]

22. The game is rigged...

Citizens United makes bribery official and legal. It makes no difference if candidates be Republican or Democrat. The results are exactly the same. Only corporate interests will be served. All else is theater. So I could give a flying rip who wins... The game is already over... and fall out shelters will only make opulent graves.

Happy trails.

[thesquanderer]

23. Gerrymandering, as others have said. BUT...

while gerrymandering does stack the deck greatly against the Dems, I don't think it's entirely inconceivable that a Democratic presidential candidate with enough crossover appeal and who can truly increase turnout could flip it. Unlikely, but not impossble.

I think BS has more crossover vote potential than HRC, for reasons I explained in post #5 at http://www.democraticunderground.com/128060876

And if he also gets the excited youth out to vote even in some of these gerrymandered districts, who knows...

As I said here in post #21, I think either HRC or BS wins the general against any Republican. Neither is likely to flip the house, but I think BS has a slightly greater chance than HRC.

[RandySF]

26. Congressional districts were severely gerrymandered last time around.

A majority of voters chose Democrats for the House in 2012 but Republicans held on because of their tricks. All this because we didn't get our ponies before the end of 2009 and sat out of the 2010 elections. Republicans were able to sweep into the state legislatures and rig the game.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Got any form of support for any of your assertions? Of course not, it's just the narrative.

Those of you who say 'ponies' to voters are part of why we don't get enough voters. My State of Oregon broke mid-term turnout records in 2010, we elected a bunch of Democrats. Same in 2012, twice the turnout of the average State, we passed an ERA, legalized cannabis and elected a bunch of Democrats.

I get that you were pissed off and refused to vote, I just think that's a lousy choice to make.

[higherarkies]

27. 'kuz i'm old

and i'm tired. aging out. i've tried. the best i can hope for is that i set a reasonably good example. hope the young'uns band together and stand up for what's really right --- and don't get shot.

did ya ever see "Soylent Green"? all the way to the end?

good night.

good luck.

~xo~

[jfern]

28. Gerrymandering and incompetent Democratic leadership

[ibegurpard]

29. redistricting

Republicans controlled enough state governments after the 2010 cycle to game congressional districts to their sdvantage.

[TDale313]

30. We understand math and how gerrymandered the house is?

I absolutely think we can win back the Senate, but odds on the House are really not good. Which is annoying as hell considering millions more vote for a Dem for their Rep than Repub, but they've rigged it in many, many states so that all the Dems are concentrated in one district while Repubs are given multiple safe districts with low, reliably Republican populations. It sucks, but it's rigged and probably won't be fixed until after the 2020 census and redrawing of congressional maps, and that will require retaking State Legislatures so that we can get fair districts drawn.

[MADem]

31. Because no one here talks about Congressional races.

I tried to gin up a little enthusiasm in the state group to my north, for a seat we can win, and got zip. That was a good week ago.

Unless it's poop flinging, no one wants to play.