In the campaign between Obama and McCain, a good bit of Obama's electoral plurality .....

[Stinky The Clown]

...... was from new voters, first time voters, infrequent voters fired up by Obama the man, and disaffected reasonable repubicans battered and beaten by the man-child they supported and in whom they subsequently lost faith.

And those voters - none reliable as groups - contributed to the biggest plurality in presidential politics for quite some time.

We all recall the enormous crowd on the National Mall that bitterly cold January Day nearly a year ago. The joyful weeping. The hopeful faces.



Will any of that hold together? Will any of that be there in the upcoming 2010 contests? How about looking forward to 2012?

Was the 2008 cycle a unique, and more importantly, a singular phenomenon or the start of a real coalition that is simply and organically finding ways to transform itself into some sort of movement, some sort of generational transformation of the American political landscape?




edited to correct two thread title typos ..... no substantive change was made.

[Vincardog]

1. Rahm the DLC and blue cross dogs are doing everything they can to ensure there is no

sort of generational transformation of the American political landscape.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Things will be different in 2010 and 2012, especially if we sit on our asses arguing with ourselves.

Last year Democrats benefited from the collective disgust voters had with the powers that be.

Any voters who unrealistically expected more change than will be accomplished by election day are going to be disinterested.

If there's too much energy spent by the left arguing over how sorry democrats are, if we don't ALSO criticize the right, we are more likely to lose power.

Subtlety, strategy, open-mindedness, and the capacity to see issues from more than one POV are skills without which we will fail, and fail epically.

:patriot:

[Stinky The Clown]

3. That's a lecture, not an answer

It is essentially "stop asking for shit we never said you could have" ....... and it has turned off many people.


Those who type on a Democratic Party focused computer message board will, by an overwhelming percentage, vote for the party candidate. Some small number will defect or not vote.

The question asked in the OP is how much we will see continued enthusiasm and support from the people who only tune in to politics in the last few weeks leading up to the election. Or the ones who voted for Rock Star Obama,

[NYC_SKP]

4. It is both. As I wrote, many people who voted will have become disinterested.

Blue collar workers who may have gone either way in 2008, for example, may look at the still dismal economic situation, and say fuck it.

Others will have other reasons.

It's not a new phenomenon.

My lecture, and I capitalized the word "ALSO" is meant to remind people that when election time comes around it might be important to remind others that the alternative could be pretty fucked up.

We can be critical of and hold our Democrats responsible for stepping up AND still make sure we don't give away any seats or offices to the greater of two evils.

:donut:

[laughingliberal]

11. Exactly! It is turning people off.

And, you're right. Most of the people who type on here will go out, hold their noses, and vote for whoever the party anointed in our states and districts. Hopefully, between now and then, we are working to support more progressive candidates in the primaries.

But the young voters who felt, for the first time, they had a reason to go vote are not going to still have that kind of enthusiasm without seeing some results which matter to them. Those of us pointing this out are not responsible for the fact that our legislators and the current administration have not advocated strongly for issues which would improve the situation of working class people and young people who can't find jobs or get help for higher education. The new coalition they pulled together for 2008 is, likely, to fall apart.

Shooting the messenger is one way to, perhaps, suppress the vote among those of us on here who would, for the most part, go vote for whatever (D) makes it into the general election. The thought occurred to me, today, that some of this could be coming from the (R)'s and is meant to alienate us, make us feel there is no room for us in the party, and drive our numbers down in 2010. No way to know but it's starting to look suspicious.

In the interest of balance I will, also, state that I was on the receiving end of some rather rancorous communication from the left (of which I am a member) one day for saying "single payer" instead of "Medicare for all.' That's not helpful, either. But the rancor from the right has been much more inflammatory of late.

[NJmaverick]

5. You summed it up well. We need to focus on these important goals.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. Summed what up?

The second line of that post seems minor, but it describes a *potentially* huge number of people. And it is the *size* of that number that is the core question of the OP.

In other words, that post avoided answering the core question of the OP.

[Kermitt Gribble]

8. "Last year Democrats benefited from the collective disgust voters had with the powers that be."

Then, after sweeping victories in 2008 due to this disgust, Dems immediately start serving the same PTB that the repubs serve. Voters will still be disgusted in 2010 and 2012 because they are starting to wake up to the fact that they have no representation in DC.

[NYC_SKP]

15. This, too, is true.

Out of disgust, again, many will vote against the party in power.

Some, but not many, will look for the common threads between DINOs and Republicans and develop a more discerning strategy for participating.

But I fear a large number will sit it out.

[quaker bill]

7. plurality

is what Clinton got with 43 percent in 1992. Majority is what Obama got with 53 percent 2008.

Just a quibble.

The 2008 election was unique, but so are all of them, each in its own context.

In 2008, we saw composition of the electorate that presaged things to come. It was not expected demographically for at least another 10 years. However with each passing year, minority groups will be a larger and larger portion of the electorate.

yes, a good portion of it will be there in 2010 and more in 2012. You are just looking at things in the wrong "issues environment". Politically, you do the wrong "issues environment" stuff in an off election year, then you do the right "issues environment" stuff running up to an election.

Relax a bit, it will be just fine.

[branders seine]

9. Democcrats would not have needed to worry about any national election for 50 years,

if they had busted up the Wall Street monopolies, enacted real single-payer health care reform, passed an actual stimulus bill, and ended our disastrous and increasingly illegal occupations in the Middle East.

Pricetag of the above? Far less than the Wall Street bailout--and probably break-even in the medium term.

Instead, we are doomed to two more generations of the 15% far-right fascist wing being politically empowered if not actually in power.

[BeFree]

10. Heh

Look at the returns.

There was a bigger % increase in counted votes from 2000 to 2004 than there was from 2004 to 2008.

And bush won. How the fuck did that happen, you may ask yourself.

Go ahead, Ask.

[MineralMan]

12. As I said in another thread, there is an enormous risk that all of

those people will simply stay home, unless we create some sort of valid reason for them to turn out in 2010 and 2012. In 2008, there was Obama, and he brought so many people to the polls who had never been that that everyone who actually watched a polling place was amazed. In states like MN, which have election day registration at the polls, the lines were long with people filling out registration forms. Most needed help, since they had never done such a thing.

They're being ignored right now, in the process of the infighting that's going on amongst Democrats. They absolutely will NOT come back to the polls in 2010 or 2012 unless they see a reason to do so, and it's going to have to be a compelling reason.

Here in Minnesota, Obama won very handily, but Franken barely won. He did not attach himself to the Obama campaign, and the coattails simply weren't there for him. I watched in my polling place, where I was an observer, dozens and dozens of people register, take their ballot into the booth, stay in there long enough to only mark Obama, then leave. They voted for Obama and ignored the entire rest of the ballot. Had Franken's campaign worked hard to attach the Franken name to the Obama campaign, the results would have been much better. He did not, despite advice from many. He almost failed.

Franken's race is what's likely to be the state of things in 2010, if we cannot get those voters back to the polls again. 2012 is so far off that I have no idea what will happen with those voters then. President Obama will probably be able to pull many of them back to vote, if he isn't hounded into not running by his detractors in the Democratic Party. But I'm not sure.

We'd better start tomorrow figuring out how to GOTV in a serious way, or things will not go our way, especially in districts without a solid Democratic majority.

[crikkett]

13. "no substantive change was made"

1) we didn't bomb iran
2) unemployment benefits extended
3) COBRA benefits extended
4) anti-foreclosure programs instituted
5) You can't find an ignorant black person on tv anywhere, anymore.

You're like the kid in the backseat hollering, "are we there yet?"

[Stinky The Clown]

14. Ummmm ..... that referred to what I edited ..... a couple of typos

So maybe you wanna read shit WITH COMPREHENSION.

I yelled because you see me that way and I want to live up to your image of me even as you demonstrate your inability to comprehend the written word.