Daily Kos

Poll: Why is DKos readership declining?

Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:29:54 AM PDT

I was fascinated by onemadson's provocative thread yesterday noting the steady decline of site visits at DailyKos since August, at a time when the Democratic primary races have reached a fever pitch.

Onemadson's premise seemed counterintuitive to me.  Since Billo decided that Daily Kos was the liberal devil come to life, I have assumed our site numbers were growing exponentially -- at least as fast as America's disgust with George W. Bush was growing.

The discussion that followed was lively - 845 comments when I last checked. Sprinkled through all those comments were some good ideas on why this might be happening.

I have attempted to distill the most common reasons given to the questions in this poll.  

I apologize in advance if your particular reason is not reflected in one of the poll choices.  I tried to select those that seemed to recur most often in the thread.

The biggest problem with this sample, as some will surely point out, is that those people who have left are not represented in the group of respondents.  It is left to those of us who are left to guess why those folks departed.

But I think the first step toward reversing the trend may be this reaching toward a common understanding of what, in fact, is happening.

If you answer "none of the above," please explain in a comment.  And if you think this poll is valuable, please recommend the diary in order to help get a larger sample.  Thanks.

Poll

What is the MAIN REASON DKos readership declining?

32%121 votes
3%13 votes
9%35 votes
9%36 votes
11%44 votes
7%27 votes
18%71 votes
7%28 votes

| 375 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: Meta, Daily Kos, site visits (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 147 comments

    •  it is obvious (6+ / 0-)

      everyone is at each other throats with daggers

      this will last until feb 6

      John W. McCain, Bush's third term.

      by aaraujo on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:35:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nope - not enough ponies (5+ / 0-)

        when Kos failed to give buhdydharma a paying gig, the site entered terminal phase...

        Ponies made this place.

        Ponies are the future.

        Ponies.

        Do it for the Children.

        Spoon or no spoon, you still have to fight Agent Smith.

        by indeterminate cutlery on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:40:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  no ponies for you! (0+ / 0-)

          John W. McCain, Bush's third term.

          by aaraujo on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:55:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  this is subtle snark, yes? (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          PaintyKat

          i mean, you are being snarky, yes?

          _______________

          it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

          -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

          by dadanation on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 12:18:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I snarketh not (0+ / 0-)

            Ponies: the secret of DKos Ascendance.
            The Key to Its Decline...

            Spoon or no spoon, you still have to fight Agent Smith.

            by indeterminate cutlery on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 04:33:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  if ponies could read (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              PaintyKat

              even they'd point out that the data do not corroborate the diary's underlying assumption.

              _______________

              it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

              -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

              by dadanation on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:08:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And this is the poster who put up the diary (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                dadanation, vcmvo2

                to collect funds for the operation of another site.

                Wouldn't seem like anyone with an UID of 111,000+ would have much knowledge about this site at all, most especially about paid gigs or anything concerning admin decisions.

                His judgement was so poor in placing a diary to beg money for docudharma that it was summarily removed.

                Guess we can all weigh that into any of the opinions he/she offers.  Nothing could have been better for this site than to have lost that whole element.  Took far too much cleanup to deal with.

                PaintyKat

                WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

                by PaintyKat on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:18:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  lost that whole element? (0+ / 0-)

                  UID Elitist. As when I reset from my older UID of more than two years ago. If you and other UID Ancient Wise Ones think that the morale or the content around here is better now than before, or the content any better, I feel sorry for you. And if electing Democrats with policies identical to Republicans is the goal of this site, better to be castigated by the UID Snobs than continue to watch the self-destruction of the Democratic Party as it parrots the Republicans in fear of the same corporate masters.

                  Spoon or no spoon, you still have to fight Agent Smith.

                  by indeterminate cutlery on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 05:26:34 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  And there is nothing in the diary guidelines (0+ / 0-)

                  About asking to send a contribution to a major diarist who was starting another blog...or about prohibiting asking for money for that or any other cause, as many do here, like Pretty Bird Woman House, or for a cause or a candidate.

                  If it was "summarily removed", pray tell by whom and for what reason?

                  Spoon or no spoon, you still have to fight Agent Smith.

                  by indeterminate cutlery on Sun Dec 30, 2007 at 05:36:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Ponies didn't arrive until way post 79,000+ (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                dadanation, vcmvo2

                and this site was well established and growing rapidly.

                Just meant that hip wadders became essential to get through that excrement.

                PaintyKat

                WWYTR? Voting, contributing, supporting, and electing Democrats

                by PaintyKat on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:22:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  we would be old timers... (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  vcmvo2

                  you and i...

                  18K, 19K...

                  september 2004 -- that's when i started posting.  long before ponies came to town.  you were right around the corner from me in posting thereabout too.

                  strikes me that revisionism requires either a gullible audience or a lazy one. either way, revisionists thrive with an audience that won't bother to fact check...

                  if ponies were so critical to the growth of the site, why did they take so long to show up here?  nope, i'm not buying the decline of dKos any more than i am buying into the ponies make the power principle either.

                  and i hate hip-waders -- so hard to match my belt and waders and my shoes.  

                  _______________

                  it's their screen name because they couldn't figure out how to spell "moran."

                  -9.75 (e), -7.18 (s)

                  by dadanation on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:36:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Could go beyond then. (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        aaraujo

        It's not out of the question that the primary race won't be settled until some time after 2/6/08. Certainly, some polls suggest things are that tight.

        I'm not asking you to take the country back, I'm asking you to take it forward-Van Jones.

        by Judge Moonbox on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:58:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I wholly disagree (12+ / 0-)

        I have been following the site traffic for over a year. I believe the decline is directly related to the disempowerment so many feel as a result of Democratic capitulations, and our apparent inability to affect the party.

        I base this not just on the numbers, but also on numerous threads and outside communications with those disaffected. The Democratic victory in 2006, hollow as it was, gave a great deal of hope to many in the so-called people power movement. The refunding of the war, and many other capitulations were solid body blows to this hopefulness.

        To the extent that Daily Kos became a hub of Democratic activism, it has suffered from the sense that that activism is futile. Many also blame, fairly or unfairly, Kos and the front page crowd for not keeping the troops together. They believe that, with rare exception, the front page has not stood with the majority of diarist, commenters, and diary recommenders in calling out the party leadership, taking positions on important issues, and, most important, cultivating a common purpose driven people powered movement like we had during the Dean candidacy. Instead, and again,  there are exceptions, the front page has been impervious to the rising sentiments in the diary section, and at times, hostile to it. This may be just a difference of opinion, for example, on impeachment etc. But there is a clear sense that a divide exists between the diary section and the front page among many contributors, and many more former contributors.

        I got an email a couple of months ago from a former diarist who was extremely popular here on why he doesn't come around much anymore. He echoed the sentiments I have heard from others that the fronpagers are more aligned with the Dem establishment than with the people powered movement and that the only solution is to start a new blog. I don't entirely agree with this argument, but I understand it.

        I think more than anything, the Democrats have just knocked the wind out of the sails of their base. And many have just packed up and gone home. I also think the primary season is masking this effect. Where some see hopelessness in our congressional leaders, they are channeling that hope to their preferred presidential candidate, mostly Obama or Edwards.

        Some of my analysis here is speculative. Not on the sentiments expressed - they are quite real, but on just how they effect the site's traffic, and to what degree versus other factors like disgust with the primary wars.

        •  Very insightful (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Kevvboy, Piggy Podges

          I came here because of one man, President George W. Bush.  He is now is his final year and people are looking toward the future.

          What future will that be?

          A President Hillary Clinton (Rush, Fox News and Drudge are praying for that because the anti-Clinton movement is a moneymaker).

          A President John Edwards (highly unlikely but if he does, I fear that he will be a huge let down because his rhetoric does not match his actual record while in office).

          A President Barack Obama (I can only hope to God because he will be our generation's John Kennedy).

          But it is also possible that our future may be that of a President John McCain (in my opinion, the only Republican that could win a general election).

          Depending on those outcomes will have a profound affect on this community.

          John W. McCain, Bush's third term.

          by aaraujo on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 10:22:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I completely agree . . . well said. (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          TocqueDeville, Piggy Podges

          Like the rest of the country, I think there's a growing split here about exactly how serious our problems actually are. Politically, that creates a pretty significant chasm, which pretty much comes down to 1) "I support Democrats because we need [fill in the blank: liberalism, the Supreme Court, SCHIP, whatever]," and 2) "I can't fucking believe how [fill in the blank: inept, neutered, corporatist, whatever] the party is right now."

          The #1 group will stick it out at a site that's ostensibly about getting Democrats elected. The #2 group will stick it out only as long as the site seems to be receptive to talking about change and making change happen. "Better Democrats" is really the only bone group #2 is getting right now.

          It may be that the issues of both groups will have to be conflated when we win in 2008, since the realities of governing are going to demand it. But I don't know. So many people have predicted the jumping of the shark for dKos that it's probably yet again to early to announce its demise. But, who knows?

        •  it's certaily been frustrating (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          TocqueDeville

          the decline corresponds to the "magical September" moment -- when we realized that the Dems weren't going to be able to do anything because the republicans that had said they would reconsider in September didn't.  Turning this mess around is going to take years, hopefully we have that long.  The number of people that we help elect and don't get co-opted into the system is going to be smaller than those that turn against us.  That's why it's important to start at the bottom and work up.

          I thought the reason for the decline was because all the new users came back from vacation and realized they were no longer TU's.

        •  Please post this as a standalone diary (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          TocqueDeville

          Your analysis is excellent. I've been reading this blog since just before the 2006 elections and everything you say rings really true.

  •  My comment yesterday is the same as today (5+ / 0-)

    I dont think sitemeter is all that accurate anymore.

  •  Other - (7+ / 0-)

    The losing of the "crash the gate" mentality that would be dogging Hillary to rebuke her DLC past at every turn, instead of saying:

    I guess she's OK.

    She is not okay.

    She is not "Crashing the gate."

    She is the gatekeeper.

    This "Any candidate is OK stuff" needs a harsh reality check.  Sort of like "Anyone can beat Bush" in 2004.

    Perhaps if this site fought for the beliefs it once did, the traffic would not be going down.

    Yes, I will vote for her.  But I think she will lose, and demotivate our side, and highly motivate their side.  

    Rick
    08 Preference - Obama
    -9.63 -6.92
    Fox News - We Distort, You Deride

    by rick on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:35:43 AM PDT

    •  I don't know if participation is up or down, but (3+ / 0-)

      I agree with your other.  It was fine in 04 as an election strategy.  What the hell did we have to lose.  Now, its a farce.  If this site is full of activist, they must be busy advocating for easy off caps for Geritol bottles because I don't see the fire that use to be here.  "We are blessed that all our Dems are good, ok, just hunky dory and better than any Republican" is hardly a rallying cry for taking our country or our party back.   You got my vote.

      ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

      by dkmich on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:56:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Too many diaries? (3+ / 0-)

    Wasn't the limit 2/day a while back? Now it's 1/day. I think that should be changed again. There could be exceptions for some users, but my opinion is that in campaign season a great many people are determined to get in one partisan hit  or fluff diary per day---not matter what.

    •  The problem with trying to solve this problem (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      phoenixdreamz, Judge Moonbox

      is that all of the solutions smack of censorship...

      I mean, one man's fluff diary is another man's hard-earned wisdom.

    •  Re: Too many diaries? (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Kevvboy, BoringDem, phoenixdreamz

      I agree that this is a contributing factor. I think the limit should be three diaries a week... and you can write them anytime you want. So if you want to write three in one day, go ahead! But you don't get to write another three for a whole week.

      I think if you make it three diaries a week, people will reconsider posting what you called a "hit or fluff diary." I don't like to see those hit pieces or worthless diaries either. Even if you lowered to one or two diaries a week, I think people would REALLY think twice about posting stuff like that. I also think the quality of the diaries would increase because people don't get to write many, so they will use them to their advantage.

      Support our troops... not the war.

      by robert harding on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 09:37:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You know what? (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        phoenixdreamz

        I think your cogent argument just changed my mind on that.

      •  don't know if that will work (0+ / 0-)

        although it might cut down on the Edwards diaries a little.

        There are well over 100k registered users here, if they all wrote three diaries a week, we'd be flooded.  I've managed to put out one my entire time here, and my main motivation to write another is so I don't have to look at that one when I go to my page to answer any replies to my comments.

        To some degree, the size of the user base probably causes some of the damage.  When there were 60k users, and about 2k of them regularly commented, a person had a reasonable chance of being familiar with people that responded to their comments.  Now, I don't see that as being true any more.

        And the fact that many big name contributors have started their own blogs is going to dilute the user base some.  I used to read 30 blogs regularly.  "Refresh all tabs" in Firefox a couple times a day.  Not any more, I have other things I want to do.

  •  The candidate wars have reduced content (13+ / 0-)

    There's much less content on the site and much less of the wide spread news overview the site used to have. There's some reappearace of news and content in the last few days.  There is a conscious effort by a few to get something other than the candidate diaries on the diary list.

    Then there are other blogs around.  

  •  I love how no one (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    musing85, trashablanca

    has bothered to mention that many people have children going back to school or have gone back to school themselves.  Then you have the Holidays.

    Have you looked back in years past to see if their is a trend down from the summer months to the fall and winter months?

    Mr. Ellinorianne for California State Senate!

    by Ellinorianne on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:39:59 AM PDT

  •  I chose because Hillary supporters (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Alvord, cpresley, lily15

    are being driven away. It makes sense when you stop to consider that the majority of Democrats nationally say they would "support her candidacy enthusiastically" while Kos declared her "unacceptable as a candidate" a week or two ago, and considering the hit parade of truly venomous anti-Hillary diaries and comments that have come to dominate the political landscape here.

    •  And a lot of them (us)... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      phoenixdreamz

      ...are no longer around to take this poll.

    •  You know (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      cpresley, phoenixdreamz

      I don't think it's just Hillary's supporters who are driven away by some of this stuff. I'm not a supporter, but I get really PO'ed by some of the vitriol that's thrown at her here. I'm fine with criticisms of any of the candidates, and I'm waaaay too far left to support Clinton in the primary, but I also don't think she's a step off from satan.

      Frankly, I think what tends to push me away is the flat out self-righteousness of many people here, combined with an utter unwillingness to listen to other points of view, all of which has reached a sort of crescendo IMO. To a degree I live with it in some of my real life super lefty friends, where it also gets a bit tiresome, but it's gotten far worse here than anywhere in even my real life.

      Candidate diaries don't bug me. Arguments don't bug me. Criticisms of candidates don't bug me. But rather than discussion (even angry discussion), this place has been mostly people shouting meaningless soundbites at each other from across the room, and that bugs me.

  •  "Generalized meta-disgust with the site" (12+ / 0-)

    I used to frequent this site more often than I do now, and I also recommended it to a lot of Republican and Independent friends of mine.  I don't do that much any more, because a large proportion of the content on any given day seems to be "Democrats suck/are cowards/cave/have no spine, etc."  

    I'm a Democrat, and my unscientific calculation of increased anti-Democrat sentiment on this site is my definition of "generalized meta-disgust".

    "'Shit' is the tofu of cursing" --David Sedaris

    by LiberalVirginian on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:42:25 AM PDT

    •  Maybe. (14+ / 0-)

      On the other hand, if Reid and Pelosi would actually slam the door on Bush from time to time instead of giving him what he wants on everything from the Mukasey nomination to war funding to FISA (thanks, Chris Dodd), maybe there wouldn't be so much bitching.

      People have a right to be disappointed and express their disappointment in a forum where their voices will be heard by leadership.

    •  i also (8+ / 0-)

      have recommended this site to some of my independent and Republican friends who flirted with Democrats in the last election.

      They're back to voting Republican again, or, as they put it, whatever Democrat "Daily Kos crazies hate." I won't send any other moderate or conservative friends here. I'll try to change their minds myself.

      The mistake we make here is that we think DKos speaks for a vast majority of Americans on ever issue. It doesn't. We're anti-war, but our ideas on how to end it are not popular. We don't hit home on much else. Congress knows that and that's why they foresake us. They have to face a hostile unprogressive electorate in 10 months. We need to change THEIR minds before changing our leaders. I sent my friends here hoping it would change their minds. It didn't...worse...it sent them back into the arms of the GOP.

      •  Thank you... (0+ / 0-)

        As a Democratic and progressive site, it is nice to know that we don't appeal to Republicans. Dumping on the base and courting Republicans is the DLC's job.

        ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

        by dkmich on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 09:02:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Republicans (0+ / 0-)

          make up half the country. If we want a mandate for change, we need to win them over.

          when progressives make up 60%-70% of the country, then we can ignore them.

          •  Wrong. Republicans don't top ~30% . . . (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            dkmich

            and never really have. [Couldn't find a more current list---maybe someone else can.]

            Year   R D Oth/DK
            1987 29 34 37=100
            1989 33 33 34=100
            1990 31 33 36=100
            1991 31 32 37=100
            1992 28 33 39=100
            1993 27 34 39=100
            1994 30 32 38=100
            1995 32 30 38=100
            1996 29 33 38=100
            1997 28 33 39=100
            1998 28 33 39=100
            1999 27 33 40=100
            2000 28 33 39=100
            2001 29 34 37=100
            2002 30 31 39=100
            2003 30 31 39=100
            2004* 29 33 38=10

            If Democrats want a mandate for change, it's going to have to be from independents, as it always has.

            •  Republican voters (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              jxg

              Independent is just a chic way of saying "I'm not partisan"

              half the country are Republican voters. Stop pretending like those numbers mean something. Democrats are only 4 points higher. In 2000, we were about the same and still lost.

              •  So WTF does "Republican voters" mean? (0+ / 0-)

                "Half the country are Republican voters." If you mean half of the country "votes Republican," or as you said upthread "Republicans make up half the country" there's no data to support that. It's bullshit.

                If you mean that, in the past, half of the country has voted Republican, you're right. But so what? Outside of people who self-identify as Republicans [assuming they vote R 100%], the rest of your "50%"  could just as easily vote Democratic, which the data supports---look at the Independents and "don't know" numbers.

                I'd suggest you stop pretending that we're up against half the country. We're not.

                •  I suggest (0+ / 0-)

                  you stop pretending we're not, because we are.

                  Democrats have only won a majority in congressional races twice since 1992. In 1992 and in 2006. In 2006, they only won 52%. No Presidential candidate has won a majority of the popular vote since 1976, and even then only barely. There's a good chance the GOP candidate for President will get at least 45%-50% of the vote next year. That's what we're up against.

                  50%, 51%, 52% is not a mandate, it's a narrow victory that means crap.

                  Most independents are not independents because everyone else is too conservative. They're independents because the two parties are too partisan. You don't win over independents by pandering to the left, you win them over by going to the center. The GOP lost them because they pandered to the right. They won narrow elections and lost the center on issues like Iraq. They had previously won the center by appealing to them on issues like terrorism, law and order, and gay marriage and they're trying again with immigration. On all of those issues, the general public did not agree with us or does not agree with us.

                  We won the center last year, mainly on Iraq, and we did it by running people like Jim Webb, Bob Casey, Brad Ellsworth, Heath Shuler, and Jon Tester. Sometimes that center is leftist on issues, sometimes not. To think that they want a generally left-wing agenda is to lose them.

                  •  Assuming voting is a result of issues . . . (0+ / 0-)

                    Democrats will win. How many of these issues do Republicans have better ideas about? Look where the independents are:

                     title=

                    That we're not winning is not because the country is Republican. It's because Democrats are doing a crappy job of communicating and legislating. People are on our side of the issues.

                    •  This (0+ / 0-)

                      doesn't show how people are on our side on issues. Show me numbers that 60%-70% of Independents back Democrats on all these top issues. This doesn't mean they back us. A good number of Independents may back Republicans on economic issues. I don't think they do, but it's possible.

                      Also, you want to know why Democrats are doing a crappy job communicating, it's because we're part of their communication tool and all we're doing is slamming them because THEY'RE not changing the country FOR us.

                      People don't vote Republican because the Democrats don't communicate their issues. Many people vote Republican against their better judgement because they're convinced to by some other forces we cannot control.

                      Take into consideration someone like my grandmother. A lifelong Republican who wants all guns off the streets, everyone to have universal healthcare, the war to end, and gays to get married, but no matter how hard I try, I cannot get her to vote for a Democrat. She will vote for whoever the Republican candidate is no matter how hard I convice her. She hates anything Democratic even though they stand for everything she believes in. I have an aunt with the same problem. She thinks Russ Feingold is a terrorist sympathizer. She's anti-war but thinks Democrats will use that as a reason to shut down the Pentagon because that's what they've always wanted to do. Tried to convince them otherwise, they don't listen. Tried to explain, they don't listen. They don't want to hear anyone else's opinions.

                      What do you do about them? There are a lot of Americans out there who are probably quite liberal, but have been convinced not to vote for Democrats no matter who they are. They won't listen to reason, they won't take advice. They won't listen to anything Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd or Feingold say. They will vote Republican anyway. We have been so demoralized for decades, there is nothing our leadership can do to change that right now. A lot of Americans don't trust them and never did and there's no amount of standing up and being a leader that'll change that.

          •  Wrong, most people won't claim either party (0+ / 0-)

            cause one sucks almost as bad as the other depending on the year.

            ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

            by dkmich on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 11:26:58 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I'm totally with you there (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Jim J, Kevvboy, cpresley, lily15

      The rhetoric here regarding Democrats in general is often times a mirror image of what you might expect to find on the most extreme Republican blogs. At least once a day I find myself thinking 'if the party is that bad, why not get the hell out and form your own party?'

      Of course, that would take alot of 'spine' too...

      •  if we don't push, they will not move (0+ / 0-)

        you have to have someone pulling towards the progressive side, or our politicians will be pulled to the right by the media.

        •  they will not move (0+ / 0-)

          because their constiuencies will throw them out of office. We're blaming the media, for what, the center-right voting public? It's not the media, it's the constiuents. We don't live in a progressive country and our politicians can't fix that, they have to face their constiuents. It's up to us to win people over and we're not doing it because we think they automatically agree with us and if they don't, well then they should, and if they still don't, well screw them.

          •  I disagree with your premise (0+ / 0-)

            all we have is polling that shows that the public is farther to the left than our dem politicians.  The country would support a total withdrawal from Iraq because they aren't stupid, they know there is no reason to be there.  The list of similar issues that the dems will not fight about because they are worried about getting re-elected is fairly long.  

            •  yeah one problem (0+ / 0-)

              the country isn't farther to the left than our politicians. Withdrawing from Iraq doesn't make someone left-wing. There are plenty, plenty of right wingers who support withdrawal. Why do you think Ron Paul is so popular, even though he's a Republican? Our mistake is that we take opposition to the war in Iraq and turn those numbers into progressive numbers. If only the progressive Americans support withdrawal, the number would drop substaintially.

              The country wants a total withdrawal from Iraq, but realistically one isn't possible and would take months, maybe a year, and the only way to do it would be witholding funds, something they won't support and the GOP will turn into a campaign issue. (I'm a military brat, I have a lot of friends in Iraq who would rather wait it out than have Congress withold funds).

              I used to work for a state assemblyman. He had to vote on a tax issue that was VERY unpopular with his constiuents even though it wasn't necessarily bad. He chose to vote no because that's what his constiuents wanted. We had one little group of people who kept calling the office in support and they figured if they kept calling over and over again it would influence him to vote aye. We got over 100 calls against and about 5 people calling to ask for his support over and over and over again. He voted no and those five people said they wouldn't vote for him. He won reelection with over 70% of the vote. Perhaps if those five people got another hundred people to call instead of just calling themselves, they would've changed his mind.

              Our politicians will do what their constiuents tell them. If they outnumber US, we lose, no matter what. In many, many issues, we are far outnumbered. We need more numbers. Iraq is not the end all be all for Democrats. Without it, we wouldn't even have a majority. There is no progressive, left wing majority in this country and our politicians know that.

    •  If you want Dear Leader mentality, (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      jfdunphy

      Red State would be a surer bet.   This site was suppose to be about reform.  Winning and deserving to win.  You know - taking the country and the party back.  Now, its full of people who call themselves liberal but don't have an ounce of rebellion in them. Kumbayah!

      ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

      by dkmich on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 09:00:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually the far right is like the far left (0+ / 0-)

        Both are dear Leader types.  And that is another reason people are leaving. Rational thought does not seem as important here as it once was. And a political correctness has set in that is suffocating.

        •  There isn't a far left person left in America! (0+ / 0-)

          The Communist Party hasn't made a dent in 50 years.  I am a 62 year old suburban grandmother of three.  The last time I burnt a bra must have been at least 40 years ago.  You are using Bill O'Reilly talking points against posters at this site.  Some of us just want the Democratic wing of this alledged Democratic Party to lead.  The pretend Democrats, kumbayah, need to go join the Joe Lieberman Party.  Or maybe they can just go support the Nelson twins.

          ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

          by dkmich on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 11:16:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you'll never (0+ / 0-)

            see it. Even if they do lead, nothing will get done. Far left leaders will not win power in this country. The far left has been demoralized for decades and have been withered down to nothing. People have been brainwashed not to trust the far left. It's going to take generations to get them back on their feet.

            Paul Wellstone and Russ Feingold are good admirable men and great Americans, but a party that follows their ideology would not hold more than 150 seats in the House and 30 seats in Senate. They will never be able to implement one iota. Even Wellstone and Feingold have had a hard time holding their seats in blue states.

            Change minds before you change politicians. You can run 535 good left wing progressives and I will tell you, no more than 200 will win.

            •  You think Wellstone and Feingold are the (0+ / 0-)

              "far" left?  OMG, that is so ridiculous.  They are no more far left than my right foot.  You want far left?  Lets talk about the Black Panthers, Stokely Carmichael, or Students for a Democratic Society.   The wingnuts with the help of the DLC and the Clintons have moved this country so far to the right that you guys would classify Mother Theresa as a far left radical.  YOUR far left is simply main stream America and that include me.

              ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

              by dkmich on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 12:21:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                if you're hoping for an America run by people like Stokely Carmichael, then you're in for an upset. There is no way a majority of this country is going to support people who support them, no way, no how, not ever. You're barking up the wrong tree. You'll never see that kind of politics in American mainstream, you're certaintly not going to see it out of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton or even Barack Obama

                •  Did I say I wanted Stokely Carmichael? (0+ / 0-)

                  Show me where?   YOU are the one who said Feingold and Wellstone were the far left.  Pick a side, any side.

                  ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

                  by dkmich on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 12:37:19 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  In the grand scheme (0+ / 0-)

                    of American politics, Wellstone and Feingold are far left. The country is farther to the right than most but that's not Bush's fault, Pelosi's fault, or even the media's fault. That's the way our nation has been for a generation. Electing politicians isn't going to change that, because we're going to elect politicians who sit exactly where their constiuents do, and if they don't, they lose. If you're expecting a grand progressive government, I assure you that you will not get it until it is elected by a grand progressive people.

                    We don't have it, sorry, the best you're going to get is center-left until the country as a whole shifts back to the left, and Pelosi or Reid can't do that for us. You need someone or some persons who don't face voters to do that.

                    •  Pfft! right wing talking points. (0+ / 0-)

                      The Progressive Majority:
                      Why a Conservative America is a Myth

                      or this from

                      The American Prospect

                      Why are we losing to these guys? On nearly every major issue, public-opinion polls show that the Bush administration and the Republican Congress are well to the right of the country. Yet George W. Bush got himself re-elected, with an enlarged majority in both chambers of Congress.

                      We're losing because Democrats keep buy all of those right wing talking points you keep throwing around.

                      ...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean

                      by dkmich on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 02:06:46 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Don't buy it (0+ / 0-)

                        that makes absolutely no sense. I don't buy that argument at all. We're not losing to conservatives because liberals are voting conservative. We've losing to conservatives because the voting population of this country have been brainwashed into voting against "liberals" for the past twenty years. "What's the Matter with Kansas?"

                        Too many good progressive liberal Democrats have lost over the years. Too many good progressive liberal Democrats lost last year. Where's John Cranley, John Courage, Jill Derby, Darcy Burner, Linda Stender, Paul Aronshon, Dan Seals, Larry Grant, Tom Hayhurst, Barry Welsh, Judy Feder, Gary Trauner, Charlie Brown, Jim Esch? What aren't any of them in Congress? Why did they all come close, but end up losing? 46%, 47% is wonderful, but it's not a mandate at all. Why did Brad Ellsworth, Joe Donnelly, Heath Shuler, Baron Hill, Gabrielle Giffords, Kirsten Gillibrand, Tim Walz, Nancy Boyda all win?

                        We are not a progressive nation, not yet, maybe if some of the aformentioned people win in rematches next year, we will have become one, but we're not yet.

                        Reminds me of something I saw before next year's election about the man who was pro-life, anti-gay, anti-stem cell research and also anti-war and he ended up voting Republican because he thought opposition to abortion was more important than the war. Wedge issues is where we lose. Issues like immigration where the public is against us. Here in very progressive New York State, Governor Spitzer survived the troopgate scandal last winter because many Democrats are sour on Joe Bruno. What killed him was the immigrant driver's license plan. He stuck to his guns and his approval rating plummented and the state legislature fought him on it. A loss was imminent, he backed down. He fought for a good progressive idea and lost in a blue state.

                        We lose not because we're not progressive enough, we lose because the country isn't yet progressive enough.

    •  I wish they wouldn't give me reason (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Janet Strange

      to be disgusted so often.  I understand the fact that we are going to lose most of the time.  The democratic coalition has way too many politicians that think they have to pander to republican leaning voters to have it any other way.  But that was the case back when dems ruled the Congress back in the '60s, only to a much stronger degree.  But we still got some very progressive legislation through.

      I'm not the kind of person that is ever going to give up on the democratic party.  But it would be nice if they would pull off the occasional win, or even put up a good fight.

  •  I think a further examination of the facts (7+ / 0-)

    ... proved that, in fact, readership is not declining:

    Dkos Traffic Trending Up- Thoughts?

  •  The futility of talking about politics (7+ / 0-)

    when our political system only listens to money causes many to become disillusioned with political talk.

    Real and effective reform of special interests is the 900 pound gorilla in the room.  Until then, we are just chasing our tails.

    In a democracy, the most important office is the office of citizen.- Louis Brandeis

    by crystal eyes on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:46:21 AM PDT

  •  Is it just me, or does anyone else want to ask (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    pasadena beggar, 1864 House

    why the diarist is polling the people who are still here about what motivates those who aren't?

    Ferengi Rules of Acquisition: #34 "War is good for business...but only from a distance, the closer to the front lines, the less profitable it gets"-8.25, -6.21

    by Jacques on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:49:35 AM PDT

  •  after lurking here for yrs, people come and go (7+ / 0-)

    over the last couple yrs we have lost some great writers for many reason. Dkos ebbs and flows with the issues, time of year, and even the scandals of the week. With many more choices to read, more local blogs, and people branching out, I see this all as a natural happening. Once we pick a Candidate, things will grow busy again. I do really miss the more issue oriented diarys, and hope they return with a gusto soon.

    President Theodore Roosevelt,"No man can take part in the torture of a human being without having his own moral nature permanently lowered."

    by SmileySam on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 08:49:42 AM PDT

  •  Not enough pootie diaries! (