Skip to main content

View Diary: Why I Vote For Democrats: To Win Elections (212 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No. Please re-read the diary. (24+ / 0-)

    The diarist was referring to this paragraph:

    I live in Wisconsin and I saw the results of voter apathy first hand. We lost a U.S. Senator, two House Representatives, the governorship and both houses of the state legislature. It was more than a shellacking, it was an unmitigated disaster and it will take years for those harmed by that to become whole again ... if they ever do. How do you undo losing a home or an education or your good health?
    •  No... (6+ / 0-)

      I was responding to a comment made by the diarist; not the diary.  This is an important distinction.

      The diarist left a comment that alluded to the debunked meme that low Liberal turnout caused the 2010 Midterm losses.  This is objectively false and needs to be called out whenever it is repeated.

      But she also said something similar in her diary:

      The strangely popular attitude that sitting out an election "will show the Democrats a thing or two" is foolhardy at best and malicious at its worst. The overwhelming evidence is that a low turnout 2010 showed "the Democrats" nothing of the sort and showed only how awful Republicans are ... something we really did not need proof of after 8 years of George W. Bush.

      What could that quote possibly mean other than that Liberals stayed home during the 2010 election to teach Democrats a lesson and caused the defeat?

      •  Lots of people I talked with while phone banking (15+ / 0-)

        prior to the 2010 election voiced comments very close to this:

        The strangely popular attitude that sitting out an election "will show the Democrats a thing or two" is foolhardy at best and malicious at its worst.

        I know that's anecdotal, but having heard it multiple times from local disappointed progressive activists as well as new voters, including college students, who had worked enthusiastically during his first election, it can actually be characterized as rather plausibly as a "popular attitude".

        Even getting these kinds of comments phone banking this year. At least some of them will engage in a conversation and I can move them to action. Didn't happen during the mid-terms.

        "There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." - President Obama

        by fhcec on Sat Jan 28, 2012 at 08:18:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's the problem though... (3+ / 0-)

          Your experience is purely anecdotal and completely contradicted by the actual demographic data from the 2010 election.

          I thought that our side was the rational one that bases our thoughts and actions on facts.  That this myth is still repeated in 2012 astounds me.

          There will always be a few assholes who, although they normally do, aren't voting to make a point.  But they are incredibly small in number and don't affect elections in any significant way.  

          A much more important aspect of the 2010 Midterms was the +15 advantage for Republicans in self-identified Independents.  No one has a verifiable reason why they tacked so hard Right.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site