Skip to main content

View Diary: Dems didn't cave, a "Professional Left" handed the GOP victory by not clapping loud enough part #678 (550 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Dear God do we have to go through this again. (33+ / 0-)

    There was a diary published on this site that mathematically proved that liberals and progressives did not "sit out" the 2010 election. Meteor Blades has declared the statement that liberals and progs lost us the 2010 election by "sitting out" and not voting a lie and a club to beat left-wing critics  with--and he's right.  It's been proven that self-identified liberals and progressives voted basically the way they always do. It was the independents, swing voters, and the young who stayed home.

    if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 09:48:15 AM PDT

    •  I would be interested to see this study (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Can you give me any more info so I can find it? Though it makes sense and I'm not surprised, the so-called progressives and liberals have nowhere to go so of course they're gonna vote Dem (and they're generally engaged enough not to become apathetic and not vote). But that group is relatively small anyway - it was the larger Dem base that stayed home. Many of them share progressive values but they're not what I'd call DK people.

      •  Here, it's only been posted 10,000 times. (21+ / 0-)

         2006 vs 2010 midterm exit polling

        You'll notice that, given that the number of voters increased 2006 to 2010, that the % of voters who were liberal stayed the same at 20% of the electorate.  In other words, liberals turned out in the same % of the total voter count, an increase in actual voter count of liberals from 2006 to 2010.

        Secondly, you'll notice that as a % of votes cast, a higher % of liberals voted for Democratic candidates in 2010 than voted for Democratic candidates in 2006.

        Of course, 2006 was the hailed Democratic takeover of the House that gave us Speaker Nancy Pelosi, thanks in large part, frankly, to the 57% of Independents who voted Democratic in 2006, mostly over outrage at the Bush Administration.

        In 2010 those same independents turned out only 37% for the Democrats.  Why?  Outrage over the failings of the Obama Administration.  That IS what tends to turn out Independents.

        But that's digressing.

        On the point of the discussion, MORE liberals voted in 2010 than 2006.  MORE liberals voted for Democrats in 2010 than in 2006.  And a higher % of liberals voted for Democrats in 2010 than in 2006.

        Independents breaking for the Republicans and the Republicans turning out a bigger chunk of their voting base in 2010 vs. 2006 are the critical elements of the loss of the House (and some of that is due to gerrymandering as well).  

        What IS NOT TRUE is the friggin' zombie lie that "liberals stayed  home in 2010 to send the President a message".  It's a fucking lie, and it's slander, because it is a lie that has a malicious motive behind it.  Namely, to blame the VERY people who were warning the Democrats and the Obama Administration through 2009 that if they kept playing bi-partisan footsie and selling out every important item that got them elected, the 2010 elections were going to kill us.

        And when we got clobbered in 2010, instead of blaming the party and the policies that are the reason for the loss, its "Beat Up On The Hippies" time, like friggin' always.

        *The administration has done virtually nothing designed to reward its partisans. - Kos 8/31/10*

        by Rick Aucoin on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 10:53:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Thanks for digging up the poll (some of us are not here every day).

          I think it's fairly known that indies and "moderates", in other words the larger Dem base, lost the Dems the election. Many of the Dem leaning independents and non-political junkies stayed home, allowing the GOP to win massively the independent vote. I think this is even "conventional wisdom" in the punditry class, so I don't really know who is beating up the hippies, but I'm sure it's been done.

          Although there is the argument of liberals and "hippies" voting for Obama while creating a negative image of his presidency at the same time, I don't think it's that solid at all (especially at explaining why Dems lost so massively).

      •  It's a diary and I hate searching for it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MJ via Chicago

        because I hate the Big Orange search function but I've done it before and yes, I'll do it again shortly.

        if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 12:01:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, Mark McKinnon ex?-republican & third way.. (9+ / 0-)

      ..founder of "no labels" sold that myth hard. He began by comparing the teabag theocratic faction of the republican party, resposible for some republican loses, to the more progressive/liberal side of the Dems in a ridiculous false equivalency effort to pin the 2010 losses on the progressives  

      Still, there were the Emos, provoking Democrats to “teach Obama a lesson” by sitting out the midterm elections and allow the most extreme group of idiots in history to waltz in and take control of the House of Representatives, and more tragically, seize power in several state governor’s races and legislatures.
      Didn't happen that way. The progressives were some of the Most engaged.
       I don't have a link but he invested a lot into pushing the blame on the core of the Dems base.
       High Broderism in action
    •  It's all they've got (4+ / 0-)

      Like wetting their pants in a dark suit, they get a nice warm feeling, but nobody notices.

      It's ineffective as well as inaccurate.

      It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them. FDR

      by Betty Pinson on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 11:08:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's deceptive (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The claim isn't that progressives failed to vote, it's that they failed to organize, and even got in the way of people who were trying to organize.

      You Hate Cuts To the Big Three? Do You Love Obamacare Also? It added $1 trillion to Medicaid.

      by CornSyrupAwareness on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 12:51:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nice swerve, given that it's going to be very (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW, happymisanthropy, cslewis

        hard indeed for anyone to prove how many doors they knocked on or how many hours they spent working for Dems. Much less how many thousands of liberal counterparts were doing the same.

        All I can say is that I ran a campaign in MD and then finished up doing some work in PA for the general. Supporting Dems both times, of course.

        if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 01:03:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  So how is chained CPI gonna fly (5+ / 0-)

      with independents, swing voters and young voters?  Does it encourage turnout among these groups, and towards what party?

      "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." -- JC, Matthew 6:24

      by Chi on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 12:52:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Either people won't notice b/c it's wonky (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW, Chi, Sarenth

        or they will notice and realize it's a cut.
        If they don't notice, they probably won't turn out.
        If they do notice, they will either not turn out or swerve to the pseudo-populist right, if the Teabaggers play their political cards right.

        if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Apr 09, 2013 at 01:04:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site