Lessons
By John Amato Wednesday Nov 04, 2009 11:00amI was writing something pretty close to this and decided to link to the Great Orange Satan.
KOS:
There will be much number-crunching tomorrow, but preliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:
- If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary "bipartisanship", you will lose votes.
- If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.
- If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.
Tonight proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.
The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren't going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they're voting for, and it ain't you.
Health care should have been passed by the August recess, but to have it go on and on has been a huge mistake. And waiting until next year only makes it worse.
Login or Register to post comments.
The Democrats are their own worst enemies.
I would suggest the time is long overdue to find a party worth believing in.
John Pilger here
There is no party worth believing in.
... that definitely includes the democrats.
*
And while I really want to have a thriving system with third, fourth and fifth parties participating, I'm not seeing a lot of work by those parties to establish themselves.
That's why the Conservative Party candidate "success" in NY23 was so surprising. Usually you don't see that.
And for the record, I did vote Green in the primary, but Democrat in the special election we just had in CA-10.
up. Local level first, and then move on up.
At least I think that would be the best strategy. Obviously that is a very subjective opinion. But I believe that is the most direct line from 3rd parties to start effecting reform: by providing success stories at the local level that can be used to justify voting for them at higher levels (state, national, etc).
I think that if people see their local green assemblyperson/mayor/etc do a kickass job. Then it becomes easier for people to overcome (when going to the voting booth) the inertia of the large parties, and the fear and uncertainty that Dems and Repugs use to derail 3rd party candidatures.
Exatly. That's exactly how the Greens grew to be a force in Europe.
It should be noted that in most of the countries where the Green Party has become a force to be reckoned with, they do not use a pure, single-member, winner-takes-all electoral system.
hurdles to overcome.
I suggest we do the same. And we figure out how to overcome ours.
would be nice.
Landmass doesn't vote and it's fundamentally unfair that my vote is worth less than someone in rural Iowa.
this most basic of truths.
Nader does not have a party.
...and he hasn't done a damned thing to support the candidates down-ticket. On more than one occasion, with more than one party.
and regardless of having a party or not, running for President with no back up in the House or Senate is just idiotic.
the point remains: build from the ground up, or be an ineffectual 'individual' on the national stage.
...a unitary executive theory.
Nader built a whole career on one issue.
He's a lightweight who's read too many of his own press releases.
That anyone still takes him seriously amazes me.
Who did you vote for, the Advertising Media Creation Wünder Kind, the great hypnotist Pope of Hope?
I don't know that it's that third parties don't do a lot to establish themselves. It's that they're operating in an electoral system in which they aren't seen as viable. Tactical voting and fear of the spoiler effect, especially in politically gerrymandered districts, make it next to impossible for third parties to win on a large scale.
We need to work in our localities and states to change the electoral system from the bottom up. We need to abandon the single-member, winner-takes-all system.
doesn't matter, except for the Presidential election.
since no third party has focused on building from the ground up, yes, these third party ego candidates are seen as being nonviable on the national level because they are nonviable.
Oh, I firmly agree that third parties must start from the ground up. Absolutely. When third party candidates try to gain publicity for themselves by running presidential candidates, it only hurts their cause.
But the electoral system's inherent problems for third parties must be addressed at the local level as well. In New Mexico, the Green Party has actually been very influential by working from the ground up in local elections. Unfortunately, they often spoil the elections by splitting the progressives between the Democratic choice and the Green choice. The end result is that a Republican wins the election with a plurality of the vote, and writes laws on behalf of people he does not really represent.
We have a fundamental problem with the way we elect people and apportion power in this country. Until we deal with it, the change we voted for in 08 will always run into these very predictable roadblocks -- politicians desperate to keep their 50%+ majorities with their thumbs in the wind; fear of taking strong stands because "the other guy" will win votes; etc.
Unless they have personal wealth like Ross Perot.
There were essentially three Republicans running in '92.
Perot got 19 million votes. That was after leading in the polls, dropping out and then coming back.
Third parties are frozen out by the BIG 2. Ever wonder why the Commission on Presidential Debates hosts the presidential debates? Because the League of Women Voters declined to put up with the party bullshit. That's why there is no independent or third party candidate in the presidential debates. AND why there is no debating.
But remember Dick Morris did wonders for Clinton…
He did nothing for the country, but that wasn't his job.
Obama is a marketer's dream come true.
Change you can believe in…
and the crowd chanted: Yes, we can…
Next time it will be New and Improved change you can believe in…
(that gets the suckers every time, says one ad man to another…)
And the crowd will chant: Yes, we can…
Only there aren't nigh as many as before…
Geez liberals can spin their caca into gold just like the right.
It's the Great Orange Stupid on this one.
Outcomes were split and I don't think there was a "referendum" attached to any of them. NPR reported that exit polls indicated that a majority of voters in Virgina approve of Obama's performance to-date even as they voted in a GOP governor. So exactly what does that mean? Only that Virginia is mostly still red with purple undertones.
Why don't you actually read the article.
*
Tritty....c'mon! LOL!
I read both KOS and Amato's lovely spin. Which election was lost by the Democratic candidate in NJ and Va because they watered down reform, abandoned Democratic principles, or forgot their state government platforms on immigration reform, energy policy, financial services, or health care?
Wait, I get it. Just like the MSM we are making this a referendum on whatever is most important top us at the national level. Damn.
I thought state elections turned on state issues. Especially when neither candidate is an incumbent.
By the way, I heard the Democrat who won in NY 23 where the election was to a national office won as a moderate against a candidate backed by those on the right trying to make it a national referendum on their issues.
... but how do you interpret the collapse of the Democratic voting turn out then?
It is a strong signal to the Democratic Party that Democrats, real progressive Democrats...want real change. They want issues addressed that are important to them. Healthcare, civil rights, the environment. ALL of these are also local issues.
non Presidential elections. I imagine the white bread moderate conservative Mr. Deeds furthered that usual trend. Add to that the deliberate strategy of the oligarchs who ran Virginia to set their state elections in odd years away from any national election issues, and you further that trend even more.
Having Deeds run on the issues KOS mentioned, however, would probably have turned him into a bigger joke. KOS might as well have mentioned the war as well.
in Virginia since 02. So I take those were fluke elections that put a Dem in office twice over there? Maybe they were held in leap years?
But I do not think the Democrats who have won statewide in Viginia have been regarded as particularly progressive. Clearly their two U.S. Senators are not. I will be happy to take a little while to look at historical Virginia numbers and get back to you.
If you want my off hand guess about what I will find, I am willing to bet that the voter turnout in Democratic areas fell most noticeably among blacks who were energized by Obama's candidacy because of its historic nature.
that you are disregarding evidence when it does not fit your point of view, and instead chose to come up with alternative scenarios even if there is little evidence to support them.
If blacks were the difference making voting block, and they only vote when energized by an African American candidate. Then it follows that Virginia would not have been able to elect 2 democratic governors who were white like the driven snow.
I think that you put so much stock in deriding people who were critical of Obama by using the perennial "wait and see how wrong you are, you little know nothing bitching peon" than when reality starts to provide a few tangible metrics to the contrary, then denial gets cranked up to 11. If any such criticism as the one stated by Mr. Amato (regardless of how constructive it may be) is taken as being so threatening. It is time for some people to re-evaluate the strength of their platform, I think.
This is not a referendum on Obama, it is however the perennial canary for the Dems to at least realize that plenty of people are paying attention.
I am not disregarding any evidence. You asked me why there was a fall off in Virginia voting. There has not been a fall off in their gubernatorial races.
In 2001 there were 1.88 million votes cast.
In 2005 there were 1.9 million votes cast.
In 2009 there were 1.87 million votes cast when I accessed the Virgina State Board of Elections and the returns were not complete.
There is no evidence to support the KOS theory of disaffected Dems not turning out. The Democrat this year got his ass handed to him.
In 2000 there were 2.74 million votes cast for President.
In 2004 there were 3.22 million votes cast.
In 2008 there were 3.7 million votes cast.
Between the 2007 and 2008 election an additional 500,000 people registered to vote in Virginia, a one year increase of over 11%.
So the drop off in Virginia was over a million voters, many of whom were new. Want to hazard a guess why they registered and voted in 2008 but not 2009?
You asked me why there was a vote drop off.
I refered to the drop off between 2008 and 2009.
And I really would not talk about deriding people. I make jokes. You belittle.
Their elections are all off-year, and for the past couple decades VA has voted in a Governor who is of the party that the President doesn't belong.
On edit: That goes back to the 1985 election.
the opinions of those that didn't turn up..... what's your expert opinion af the reason for the LOW DEM TURNOUT ricky? I'd say the lack of health care reform is as good a guess as any although personally I'd guess lack of ending the illegal wars and throwing those responsible for launching wars of aggression and authorizing torture into prison might be the reason.
But all that proves is that if that is what motivates Democratic turnout, then Democrats should not run for state and local office, because the people who win them cannot do jack about those issues in a meaningful way.
Creigh Deeds ran against the public option, pro-life and away from Obama. He basically ran as far to the right as he could.
That's not going to get out your base. Why elect someone who might as well be a Republican?
In contrast, John Garamendi in CA-10 ran as a progressive, unapologetic Democrat. He embraced a robust public option (actually said he'd prefer single payer), embraced working with Obama and Pelosi and he won handily, even though the RNC threw a ton of money to his GOP challenger. And this is a district that elected a Blue Dog (Tauscher) and 30 years of Repubs before that.
If the Democrats in Virginia had run a candidate to the left of President Obama (ie, something like Candidate Obama!) they might well have won.
primary and win it. The Democrats did not "run a candidate."
Candidates ran themselves. Deeds won the primary. Then he was the Democratic nominee. Where were the progressives at primary time?
.. but that's a good question ..
... there are few instances of a party primary derailing the candidature of an incumbent.
No incumbent ever gets re-elected there. Deeds was a State Senator. He beat Terry McAuliffe and one other major candidate in the primary.
versus Joementum. Bad example if you subscribe to the argument of KOS-Amato in this post, however.
?
will not be voting to bring cloture on health care because his motivated progressive base turned out to elect him in November of 06.
I think they would have won.
In my opinion, health care was the deciding factor in NY. Like I said before, I'm just outside the district, but have had the pleasure of being bombarded with Hoffman (and Owens) ads on TV for the last month.
In my opinion, Hoffman lost because he was against "government takeover of healthcare." About two weeks ago, when the barrage of ads really became unbearable, Hoffman had an ad that stated what a great guy he was, including being a family man and NAVY VET, blah, blah, blah, and then he said he was the ONLY CANDIDATE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTHCARE. Now I know, that the first thing I thought was "gee, I hope you don't partake in the VA, then, because that would make you a hypocrite." I know other voters thought the same way. In fact, his campaign must have got the message, because this commercial ran only twice more before it was ditched permanently. This commercial was nowhere to be seen in the last week running up to the election.
Here's something for all POLITICIANS to understand: Upstate NY (and the country) wants single payer healthcare. There are no more manufacturing, high-paying, high-benefit, employer-sponsored healthcare, pension, jobs left here. We're being murdered with high property taxes, state taxes, and no employment opportunities. The least we could have is some help in getting healthcare. Sheesh.
And another thing the DEMOCRATS should understand: it's time to stand up and rally for single payer Medicare for all. You see, with all the Owens ads that we up here were bombarded with over the past month, NOT ONE mentioned the health care debate. That man was afraid to talk about the one thing the WE NEED, because he thought he would lose. I have no respect for that. He just wanted to get elected, that's it. Like all politicians. Well, if he had a brain in his head, he would have got elected by a larger margin if he cared to actually find out what the people in his district really wanted instead of listening to FOX news and Rahm.
Bah.
He better start showing some spine...and soon. As of right now, my husband and I wont support him in 2011.
Going Indie?
It's painfully obvious that the base is "not amused" but will it be seen that way or will those annoyingly timid moderate Dems see it as an excuse to run away from "big government"?
I was delighted that Kos wrote this and that you thought it important enough to re-post. I would just add one thing to the list in #3 -- war overseas. The Iraq withdrawal is still a little fuzzy, and by now most of the base have moved on to wanting out of Afghanistan also.
As a non-American foreign policy is my concern.
You are still warring in three countries, and the issue of torture seems forgotten yet again. Until the issue of torture is dealt with, I can never respect America again.
I can't imagine anyone expected the dems to turn out for this election the way they did for Obama last year. First of all, last year was a presidential election and he appealed to the young voters of all races plus a lot of us old farts as well. Except for maybe a bit of a surprise in NY23, I didn't see anything telling about this election. Of course that hasn't kept it from being analyzed to hell and back. Some times an election is just an election.
And sometimes voters actually vote for local candidates based on local issues (e.g. Virginia's fiscal problems). I can't see how this off-year election means much of anything for any party.
Although I did enjoy the shooting of the GOP foot up in NY23!
Exactly. The people in those states have problems that all states share but it depends on their own problems and the candidates they have to chose from. The media is trying to create a big mystery where there isn't any. Then they chase that mystery around for 48 to 72 hours. Of course this weekend on the Sunday talk shows they will beat that dead horse around again as they ask what does this mean for dems in 2010 and Obama in 2012. Hopefully the smart people will answer, not much of anything unless Palin pokes her poison finger into the pie.
if it is about local issues the blogosphere cannot put their spin on it and act like the well paid MSM children.
"Of course that hasn't kept it from being analyzed to hell and back."
Reading through the proverbial "tea leaves" as it were...
Kos is pretty good at analysis on the elections. He's not saying the turnout didn't match the presidential election. He's saying turnout actually collapsed - that's different.
*
Locally incumbents were ousted regardless of party. Winners are taking this as validation of their party / platform when really it is just an expression of dissatisfaction with how things are.
That being said the idea that a majority of voters a) use their brains b) don't vote emotionally or c) have any real information on which to make a choice is clearly not the case.
I must admit I'm really tired of party politics. These are not sports teams vying for a pennant.
There's a video of Ventura up at DU (and youtube) on Larry King, where he says all politicians should be mandated to wear Nascar jumpsuits - then at least we'd know who they were working for.
*
What I Find Most Interesting Is The Lemming Mentality Of Americans! Jesse Ventura pt.1
What I Find Most Interesting Is The Lemming Mentality Of Americans! Jesse Ventura pt.2
A reply to a comment of yours here
I found the book and am reading it, it is well worthwhile.
Michael Zweig
A review by Paul Buhle here
Has no one realized that Corzine was associated with corruption? It's a big deal to everyone in NJ. The NJ race was not repub vs democrat. It was a referendum against corzine's history of corruption. This race is not indicative of the rest of the country, in any way.
the guy they've hired, Christie, is no angel. I'll be surprised if he makes it through his whole term. His buds Dubya and more importantly, KKKarl Rove may have to come bail him out.... we'll see.
... yet Chicago wears the corruption crown forever - no matter how many bad boys pop up elsewhere.
*
Christie is the king of corruption! LOL!
NJ had the choice between two bags of shit.
Christie won't last more than one term.
I called Melissa Bean about two weeks ago to let her know I wouldn't be voting for her again. Looks like I'm not the only person that feels that way.
She's been a holdout on the PO since the beginning and has been DLC all the way since she got in. We won't get a better dem in this district for some time, but I'm beginning to really feel that it doesn't make a difference if we have a dem or a re=thug.
If they don't vote on your issues - they're worthless.
*
All of these lessons could have been learned when Clinton made his NAFTA/deregulation moves and the Dems got pounded in '94.
Of course the DLC slime simply called the losses a failure to become conservative enough.
They know the lessons; they just don't care.
And it's so hard to break through that Beltway Bubble.
I know Rahm sees it exactly that way.
The Clintons - "Rahm, be sure to spin this to ensure that the Democratic Party remains GOP-lite".
Emanuel - "Rufffff! *pant pant pant*"
The Clintons - "Good boy."
during his time, which some like Rahm, bought into, but I don't think the paradigm works any more:
Running as a centrist allowed you to pick up voters in the meaty part of the bell curve. You calculate that as long as you stay just to the left of your opponent, those on the left extreme will stay with you out of the horror of aligning themselves with someone on the right.
It makes sense on paper.
But the reality is that the bell curve doesn't apply any more. What Clinton's centrism did was push the GOP further right in response and complete striate the bell curve into two.
Collectively, I think what we want to see is our candidate running in his half of the spectrum, not towards the center.
How ... same as Kos? or other?
*
But if current trends hold true, the lesson that they'll carry away is that they weren't conservative enough.
I think the Great Orange Satan nailed this one, personally. It's why I sat this election out.
I intend to sit my next congressional election out.
*
Is it because neither party has produced a candidate you can support or for some other reason?
Melissa Bean is completely DLC. She's pretty worthless - a complete corporatist.
She's still holding out on the Public Option. I don't see how a re=thug would be any different, but I'm tired of supporting her BS. I've always voted for her before - but she'd have to start to look like a real democrat for me to support her again.
*
I see and understand. Thanks for the additional information.
I would implore you to vote. Vote for a third party candidate or write someone in. But don't not vote. The people in charge love it when you're too discouraged to stand up and be counted at all.
Vote Progressive Party or Green.
I'm usually the one that tells people that, but I wasn't being counted no matter what I did in the state Election.
You are right though, I should have participated.
Just means the Dems will have to suck corporate dick harder. The GOP is now emboldened.
The johns of big business love having whores fight one another for the privilege of blowing the high priced john.
You may want to cut back on the amount of porno you're watching...
yeah...I need to disconnect C-Span.
That's hard core pal.
I think the biggest lesson the Democrats should take form this is we are not the Republicans. We won't turn out just because you tell us to. We DO care about what gets done by you. We have a brain to think for ourselves and don't like what we see from you. And, if you continue to let the minority party dictate the action, you will contiue to lose support.
Slightly OT but not quite...
I just got an email from Ned Lamont saying he will be filing papers to establish a committee to explore a potential candidacy for Governor of Connecticut.
I think this is great, but aren't we better served by him trying to run against Holy Joe again?
Am I wrong?
Anyone care to chime in on this?
I'll chime in on one thing. How many cupcakes did you eat? :)
PoP...what KIND of cupcakes were they?
And is there enough to share with the rest of the class?
reformed immigrant.
I dunno. I was just asking about his/her name, i8cupcakes. If they are devil's food cake with chocolate fudge icing, I'm taking them all. If they are red velvet cake with cream cheese icing, I'm taking them all and guarding them with my life.
with he as a senator. Somehow, it's difficult for me to believe the the voters of Conn. will be willing to give Lieberquisling another go.
Ned could run for governor, get elected and still be able to go for the senate spot in 2014.
and win easy in November. Oops.
Holy Joe Lie-to-Dems isn't up for reelection until 2012. Who knows what the landscape will look like at that point? Obama will be up for reelection, and whatever issues de jour are plaguing him by that point will largely encompass everything in the media.
Whether we need Lamont to face down Lie-to-Dems is really impossible to say at this point. Of course, if he's the governor of Connecticut at the time, his voice will be a powerful one in helping whoever is running against Holy Joe.
.
As long as they're falling all over each other to see who can be the most conservative - they've lost me.
*
Confirmed exactly what Amato was saying.
But suggests if he had campaigned for the issues KOS had mentioned,
he might have been won pledging to do things the Governor of Virginia can do little about.
It is a s fake an indicator as the rethug's "take" on the election.
None of it was a "message" to Obama.
Just an opportunity to try to make a point.
how can we spin it to be about the issues "we" want it to be about.
My point is this effort to spin from the left is no different from the spin of Redstate that Hoffman's candidacy is a lesson to Republicans to run to the right. Spin is spin.
I don't think Obama gives a shit.
Obama, do you hear us now?
Or is Rahm Emanuel still the only voice you trust?
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
I love this guy.
*
funny as hell!
That they'll actually insert a public option in there. That's the one positive non-story out of all this.
To craft a more palatable bill but the flip side is what?More delays?
Argh?
Sounds like the NJ voters had a choice between poop and doo-doo.
The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home.
So why is it that if those same non-voters had voted for a third party - the Greens, whoever - to show their support for more left-leaning policies, they would be condemned as everything from "naive fools" to "tools of the right wing" to "traitors" who are only "helping the right?"
Been saying it for years. The Democrats do NOT own my vote. I will simply never vote for any Republican under any circumstances. Beyond that, you have to earn my vote.
And I sleep pretty good at night knowing I never cast a vote for Joe Lieberman and I never will.
It's said only because of the spoiler effect in our winner-takes-all system. I agree with the sentiment (not so much the "you're a traitorous tool part, but the idea that spoiled elections can be worse than settling for Democrats) in important national elections. For instance, while I am utterly disenchanted with the Democratic Party, and while Obama was hardly my choice among the slate of presidential candidates in 2008, I think it would have been a complete disaster for the country had Gone InSane taken up residence in the White House. Might I have preferred someone else to Obama? Perhaps, but I voted for Obama to keep the Republicans from killing the country.
All that said, we absolutely should be working for third party causes locally and at the state level. But we have to do it intelligently. We have to work to reform the electoral system itself. Until we do that, third parties are not going to be viable.
And smell the coffee, D's!
in this site, I take that they are not morning people (or maybe they haven't had their coffee yet).
In an overview - breaking it down - is that Dems are letting the re=Thugs and blue dogs be obstructionist. They're letting this happen.
If they expect people to come out and vote next year - they'd better find more democrats in DC with REAL BALLS -- we need more dems like Alan Grayson - but we especially need them in leadership positions.
Right now? "They got nothin'"
*
.
If you escalate unnecessary occupations and ignore accountability of war crimes - you will lose votes.
Kodos: I am looking forward to an orderly election tomorrow, which will eliminate the need for a violent blood bath.
Joe Scarborough asked Tim Pawlenty yesterday if Snow was welcomed in their party now. Tim danced all around the question and never answered it. It was interesting when he said republicans expected their party candidates to follow certain ideas and certain behaviors. In other words the tent is large as long as you qualify to get past the tent monitor. If you force your party candidates to follow only your line, you are losing lots of potential votes. I can see a party having principles, but when they limit each candidate by requirements, that's missing the whole point.
If down here a republican candidate was running on promises to protect our coast, beaches and wildlife and the democratic candidate was not making those promises, I would be inclined to vote for the republican. However, I doubt the GOP would allow such a person to be run as a republican.
I agree that these are the lessons Democratic politicians should learn from last night (to the extent that such local elections really have national implications at all).
Though, I do have to wonder whether this isn't exactly the result Rahm Emmanuel was hoping for. I mean, now the administration, with the help of the conservative media, can officially transform from "Change You Can Believe In" to "Change Is Hard, So We Must Slow Down."
Yes, these are the lessons Democrats should learn -- if they actually want the progressive change on which they campaigned. That's a big if.
... as the saying goes. There are 3 types of people:
1. Those who make things happen.
2. Those who watch what happens.
3. And those that wonder what happened.
From the healtcare reform issue Obama is a 2 maybe a 2A. He is letting a couple of bluedogs and one repug set the stage and agenda for a nation that clearly wants a strong public option. He is willing to trade off a public option for a bullshit "trigger" option to get one repug vote "bipartisan" plan. At that point he will be a full fledged type 3.
in the US Senate and what he needs. You proved you can count to three. He has to count to 51 and/or 60.
I can't help but think this is a big indicator of what is awaiting the Democrats in '10 and '12. That a Republican won in New Jersey, I believe, is not because the GOP candidate was such a strong one, but rather the voters hated Jon Corzine - another garden variety Establishment Democrat. Oh yes, Democratic voters (especially we progressives) have learned our lesson after the Candidate of Hope turned into the Candidate of Nope. But it's not just Obama's apparent weakness - the Democratic Party as a whole deserves a lions share of the blame. The Healthcare issue wasn't a complicated one: Expand Medicare (aka Single Payer) to cover all Americans or nothing. Instead the Democrats let the issue get bogged down in talk about "public options", "triggers", "opting out" etc. I'll never understand how the likes of Max Baucus, Chuck Grassley, or Olympia Snowe became such central figures in the debate. Progressive Americans (ie true Democrats) want real change, but instead we get the usual bullshit half measures. And I see that gay marriage went down to defeat in Maine. Goddamnit, when are people going to fucking get it; Civil rights for any group cannot be created at the ballot box; Americans will always vote according to their prejudices - always!. It's pretty apparent that if gays want equal rights in this country, their going to have to force the issue, step up, and demand them. If people want national healthcare, or a sane foreign policy not geared solely to lining the pockets of the defense contractors, then they're going to have to demand them. Forget "democracy"; it doesn't exist in this country anylonger. Those that have the money, make the rules, and it's not gonna change until people stop being helpless fucking serfs. Sorry for the rant, but I'm just so pissed off at what happened yesterday.
Politics is about reelection. Politics is about serving your benefactors.
Healthcare reform was NEVER going to be what progressives wanted it to be. Those days are OVER.
To pass Single Payer, you need big balls, honor and integrity to go up against the special interests and MAKE IT HAPPEN.
There is NONE of that in this Congress nor the White House. EVERYONE, on both sides of the aisle, are only interested in sucking corporate dick long enuf and hard enuf to make it through the election cycle.
Does ANYONE in here really believe that if Medicare or Social Security or even unemployment insurance were being debated and potentially created TODAY, that it would actually happen.
If you do...then you really haven't been paying attention for the last 30 years.
Things devolving to the point that it is going tohave to get confrontational to get better.
Unless there is radical change this is where this will all wind up.
1) 10% turnout for local and state elections.
2) 25% turnout for national elections.
3) 50% tax rate for individuals at the middle income levels.
4) literally 0% corporate interest rates (almost there already)
"Mr President, turn this plane (AF One) around!"
Anything that proto-Republican says should be taken with the largest bag of salt. He endorsed the GOP candidate on his site that exists to only elect Democrats according to the FAQS that were thrown at poor Cindy Sheehan. Then when Kos is called out on his nonsense he actually claims he was only "rooting" for Scozzafava despite the fact he wrote an entire post dedicated to his wisdom of electing Republicans or Teabaggers to set the Democrats straight. Then Scozzafava drops out, leaving Kos with egg on his smug face. There's little reality-based about that community and it should be clear to most left-thinkers that Kos -- like Arianna Huffington (both former Republicans natch) -- are only interested in shit-stirring and childish declarations.
It's great to hear Kos and co scream about lobbyists influencing politicians but when it comes to their sites pimping Google-ads for Republican anti-Healthcare ads etc, they suddenly exclaim to have no power and that they're only "taking money from the right-wing." Kos fought for the Blue Dogs to begin with and now look. He is the single worst political pundit on the left and it's time to call him out on his contradictory lack of insight.
Well said. I quit Kos during the FIRST GW Bush term, and for all the same reasons.
He's a panderer and quasi-insider who will play either side of the street, so long as it fulfills his ends.
Let's not circle the wagons and fire inwards just yet.
The previous administration made such a big mess in 8 years that it's going to take a while to fix things. The things that are broken, the economy, the environment, foreign policy, will take a while to fix.
The current admin has clearly made many mistakes -- among them, it underestimating the extent to which the conservative movement has defected from the principles of democracy into radical, uncivil authoritarianism.
It's good for the progressive side to play squeeky wheel. But defecting from Obama this early shows a lack of understanding of the challenges this country faces, and will be a fatal mistake.
You don't have to be a Republican to note that, aside from a slight minimum wage increase and bringing back stem-cell research, the Dems have basically been coasting on anti-Bush sentiment for the last three years, rather than having anything to show for themselves. [Not dissimilar to the behavior of the Repugs from '02-'06, when they coasted on the "patriot" vote.] So while I do agree that the Dems need to play it a little safe, to avoid a '94-style loss, I still feel they also need to start focusing on areas of immediate urgency, such as the loss of manufacturing jobs, these costly and pointless wars, and a shoddy educational system which does not guarantee shit for passing it, besides debt, even if you are the next Einstein.
Virginia and NJ were not lost because Dems and Independents voted for GOP, they lost because 20% of Dems from Presidential election stayed home. (this is roughly the same percent the base is considered)
In Virginia, the Dem said he didn't want the public option.
In NJ, the Dem was running on his record and evidently his record had the appearance of being weak.
Regardless, Dems need a fired up base to show up at the mid-terms.
DO YOU HEAR ME, RAHM!
do you think obama cares if the dems lose. he is already out. i bet he has already had his life threatened by his corporate masters and is in way over his head.
america needs more than any one person has in order to be fixed.
america needs more than any one person has in order to be fixed
Sadly, that is likely true.
A staggering chimpy went to DC to clean up DC and was corrupted by the city and its power, so goes the story.
Now O'bama is being lulled to inaction by the very same forces.
Sux to care for this country, like pissing in the ocean
He just tried to pretend to be "compassionate" to win over the moderate voters.
I don't have time to read all the comments so I will just say this:
The main reason the Dems lost in New Jersey and Virginia was because they ran shitty candidates. I would probably not vote for Corzine. He is outrageously corrupt. The whole state hates him. I probably would not show up because I could never vote for a Republican. Why the hell did the Democrats run him. Don't get me wrong, Chris Christie is a turd. And he will fail. Bad for Jersey, good for the Democrats.
In Virginia there are two reasons the Dems lost. Their candidate sucked. Another idiot. Why the hell did the Democrats vote for this joker in the primary? At least Terry McAuliff (Is that that guy's name?) would have been smarter and run a better campaign I think but who knows for sure. The main reason the Republidick won though is that Virginia ALWAYS changes Parties. If there is a Republican in the White House then a Democrat wins the Governorship. It is the other way around when there is a Democrat in the White House. Also it is probably better that a Republican is governor now because he will fail and get blamed. Mark my words.
The big race was NY-23. Republicans held that seat since U.S. Grant was
sippingguzzling whiskey in the White House. They could not win it with Sarah Palin behind the idiotRepublicanIndependent. This is HUGE!!!! Bring it on Sarah.Login or Register to post comments.