Skip to main content

It's 2003 all over again.

In recent months, a number of polls released on the state of the 2009 and 2010 campaigns have made banner headlines for substantial Republican leads. In the fine print around paragraph five, however, it was revealed that among registered voters, the margin was considerably closer.

For polling junkies of a progressive persuasion, this was a neverending source of aggravation back in the day. That said, it was based on some fairly sound logic. Simple math teaches us that a proportion of registered voters rarely, if ever, vote. To the end, we also know that a couple of the most loyal voting blocs for the Democrats (young voters and African-Americans) are two of the voting blocs whose voter behavior are the most spotty.

That said, however, the likely voter screen has not always tilted reflexively Republican. In 2006, for example, the five CNN polls on the generic ballot test for Congress showed a slightly wider Democratic margin among likely voters (17.0%) than among registered voters (16.4%). The same was true with the four polls by Newsweek, where Democrats fared slightly better among likely voters (15.0%) than they did among registered voters (13.5%). In the interests of full disclosure, other pollsters maintained the traditional GOP advantage, even in a great Democratic year like 2006. Gallup, whose likely voter model has taken some criticism over the years, had the GOP faring about four points better with likely voters than they were among registered voters. In the most notable example of this effect, a mid-September Gallup poll had the Democrats leading by nine points among registered voters, but dead-even among likely voters.

This year, however, there have been some likely voter screens that have raised eyebrows. Take, for example, SurveyUSA's late July poll on the Virginia Governor's race. Cited by many as a sign of the ascendancy of the Republican Party (all three GOP statewide candidates had solid leads, ranging from 11-15 points), SurveyUSA gave away a critical hint about their 2009 likely voter screen. Amid the mountain of data (SurveyUSA has always been great about laying out all the stats), we see that the likely voters selected by SurveyUSA supported John McCain by a nine-point margin over Barack Obama in 2008. Of course, that's not close to what actually occurred in 2008--Barack Obama carried Virginia by a 53-46 margin.

Tom Jensen of PPP, whose likely voter screen was even more heavily tilted to the Republicans, offered an interesting explanation:

Let's say that 2 million people vote this fall, a slight uptick from 2005. Using the data from the poll that would mean 1,040,000 McCain voters and 820,000 Obama voters.

Now let's compare that to last fall. McCain received 1,725,005 votes. If 1,040,000 of those turn out this year that's equal to 60% of his voters. Obama received 1,959,532 votes. If 820,000 of those turn out this fall that's equal to 42% of his voters.

So there's basically an 18 point enthusiasm gap for turning out this fall between McCain voters and Obama voters at this point. Deeds probably needs to bring that down to about five by bringing out 55% of Obama's voters to win. The bad news is he's not there right now, the good news is he's got three months to get there.

What PPP and SurveyUSA are expecting is that the GOP, in the 2009 (and possibly, the 2010) cycles are going to be far more motivated to vote than Democrats.

On what basis do pollsters make that determination? We can make some assumptions based on what was already pointed out earlier--that some of the most inconsistent voting blocs tend to lean heavily to the left. As for other tea leaves, they are hard to come by: as Mark Blumenthal recently pointed out, pollsters are traditionally loath to open up about how they determine who is a likely voter and who is not.

And while there is certainly no shortage of anecdotal evidence to support the notions of a fired-up GOP base and a complacent/depressed Democratic base, polling evidence is less conclusive.

As addressed here on Daily Kos last Sunday, there does not seem to be any appreciable recovery in the Republican brand name this year (save for a slight bump in our own tracking poll over the last couple of weeks). It is hard to imagine a wholesale reversal of electoral fortunes in a climate where the minority party is viewed with such disregard.

Perhaps, as some pollsters seem to be implying, the GOP margin of victory is going to come from dramatically different voter behavior on the part of the respective bases of each party. The problem, there, is that there is at least some evidence that the base opinion of each party is still relatively even. Despite recent frustrations for Democrats vis-a-vis health care reform, our most recent tracking poll shows that the Democratic Party retains a slightly higher favorability rating among their own partisans (73%) than the Republican Party does with their own (68%).

To be certain, that gap has been wider in the recent past: an early June incarnation of the tracking poll had the gap at Democrats (84%) to Republicans (61%). So, in roughly three months, the gap between the support level from the party bases has gone from a Democratic advantage of 23 points down to a Democratic advantage of just five points.

The total elimination of that gap, or worse yet, a wholesale reversal of base support, could bring about the kind of dramatic shifts in voter behavior that the pollsters appear to be anticipating.

And therein might be the lesson for Democrats. It is apparent that pollsters and pundits are growing convinced that part of the rapidly hardening conventional wisdom regarding Democratic woes in 2009/10 is based upon a lack of enthusiasm among the Democratic base.

That ought to be something that Democrats consider as they contemplate negotiating away a vast array of progressive initiatives. If pollsters are already presuming that the GOP base is significantly more likely to turn out than the Democratic base, any such concessions should be approached with extreme caution.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:01 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  How likely can they be (5+ / 0-)

    if they keep threatening to

    "Stay at home"
    "sit this one out"

  •  geographical differences also matter (10+ / 0-)

    especially with Obama in office, you can't neglect the fact that a huge portion of anti-Democratic sentiment is concentrated in the south.

  •  The Republican brand still sits on the shelf (3+ / 0-)

    as the dog food nobody wants.  You'd think Washington Dems would quit trying to sell America on the value of the Repug Party Brand.

  •  Way too early to use "likely voter" models (5+ / 0-)

    for 2010.  It is more of a year away and MANY things can happen from now until then including whether or not a good health care bill is passed, what the economy looks like, what's happening with national security, etc.

    Obama 7/09: "Don't bet against us" (unless the Dems screw it up).

    by Drdemocrat on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:07:51 PM PDT

  •  NJ Governor's race (4+ / 0-)

    It is the only race that will give Demcrats a real hint into next year. Virginia is only a sign for  Blue Dogs to hold onto their conservative dominated power in DC.

    NJ would be a sign of where Demcrats are with real middle voters. Right now, I am banking on the Democratic governor of NJ winning due to the troubles that the GOP opponent will face going into the fall.

    I am also expecting the "mixed" outcomes to be spun no matter what as Democrats need to move right rather than looking at the real politics of each state.

    •  Are you from NJ? (1+ / 0-)

      No one should base anything future predictions  of what will happen based on what happens in New Jersey.
      We are in a league of our own.

      "Oh changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

      by Christin on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:37:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This is the race to gleen some future knowledge (0+ / 0-)

      NJ is a good "base" state for democrats. If there is a growing concern for democratic voter turnout in 2010, it will show up in this race. Corzine has been behind in the polls and will need the base to come out for him to win. The repub has been having difficulties (Rove just keeps giving us more)which is going to help bring him down a bit but really, it's up to Corzine to energize the base there. And you are right, we will get a better fix on what the middle is leaning towards with the outcome of this race.

    •  Virginia rather predictable (0+ / 0-)

      Virginia almost always goes the opposite way of the last Presidential election.  No incumbent, no national races, and one party who is really unhappy that they lost the White House.

      New Jersey shows a similar pattern.

      "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers

      by wayward on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:52:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Super unscientific comment but (5+ / 0-)

    I feel in my gut that most Americans just aren't going to vote Republican. Most people just seem to know that despite all their noise and nonsense and handwaving, the Republicans are a disaster for this country.

    I guess I'm cautiously optimistic. People are scared and they know deep down the Republicans will drag us to ruin.

    •  Drag us to ruin vs. making decisions to fix stuff (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If Democrats can't patch up the brand to be seen as the party doing things pragmatically AND ideologically smart, Americans will take their chances with Republicans.

      It's been this way for basically 30 years.

      •  I agree, but we gotta face some reality here... (0+ / 0-)

        Bush left us in a cosmically effed up position. It is a 10 year project just to dig out from his utter cataclysm.

        •  No argument there . . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          but seeing an election decided by voters "facing reality" is probably a bit beyond hopeful (at least in this country).

          I think the economy is still going to be in the shitter for most people in 2010; tensions and emotions will be running high, and ObamaHaters will be force to be reckoned with in an off-year election.

      •  democratic base enthusiasm (0+ / 0-)

        If the Democrats in the Senate cannot pass major health care reform, then it is obvious it makes no differenc at this time if we have 57 seats instead of 60.  In that case, I believe the netroots should urge voters in certain states that have the typical traitor or super weak Democratic Senators to not support the incumbent and let the Republican win.  This would send a message to the other weak Dems that they should listen to their base rather than the Beltway pundits.

        I suggest picking out certain Senators, no more than three for this treatment.  Further, I believe this effort should be publicized so that there is no misinterpreting such Democratic losses.  Still further, the netroots should at the same time support the rest of the Senators and urge a strong turnout for the rest of the Democratic Senators up for election.

        Right now, I believe the netroots should hold Harry Reid responsible for the health care legislation.  If it fails in the Senate or because of the Senate, then I submit Harry Reid should be on the do not support and let the Republican win list.

    •  If we lose big in 2010... (5+ / 0-)

      it won't be because of some great movement towards the GOP, it will be because those that voted Democratic in 2008 don't bother to show up to the polls for whatever reason.

      Part of it is naivete.  We saw HUGE involvement on college campuses.  I can attest to what happened at UCLA, with dozens roadtripping each weekend to Nevada to GOTV for Obama.  After the election, we couldn't even get some of the people that made those roadtrips to show up to the weekly Bruin Democrats meetings.  Some simply "checked out" once Obama won, and they won't bother voting again until he's on the ballot in 2012.  Unless there's an intense push to get them, they will not vote in 2010, not because they don't like Obama or the Democrats, but simply because they're not habitual voters, and they have an "Obama's president, what more do you want from me?" attitude.

      Also, just look at some of the diaries written here on DailyKos.  The enthusiasm gap the pollsters are measuring is not imaginary.  I mean, we just had one yesterday where the person wanted to leave the U.S., and that of a volunteer who will not heed calls from Obama himself to help on health care reform.

      And of course, it's a midterm election, and several groups that tend to vote Democratic are also the least reliable when it comes to voting in midterm elections.  Our goal now should be working on countering these factors.  And yes, I do believe that passing real health care reform will go a long way in narrowing that enthusiasm gap.

      •  If we lose in 2010 (3+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        cdreid, ek hornbeck, Xerxes
        Hidden by:
        Miss Blue

        You sound like a dam Democratic ditto head. All of us who worked for Obama thought we were electing a REAL Democrat and somebody who would bring "change you could believe in". Well the reality, if you'd get your dam head out of the sand, is that this is a slightly more center clone of the last Administration. It isn't quite as unbelievable, but given the campaign promises, transparency, take on greedy corporations and wall street, change terrorism policies, uphold the rule of law, fight for universal health care, etc., ad nauseum, there's not a single aspect of this Administration that could be classified as being to the left of the Blue Dogs. I wouldn't vote for this fraud again if he was running against Palin. I withdraw. I quit. If and when I vote again it will be for either a Green Party or a Progressive Party or maybe someone gets smart and starts a Social Democratic Party and runs Bernie Sanders for President and Weiner for VP.

        •  Obama is a "more center clone"? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wolf Of Aquarius

          You are too stupid to be posting.

          Silence is the enemy - Green Day 4330+ dead - Bring them home

          by Miss Blue on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 04:03:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  One more thing.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Wolf Of Aquarius

          This is a Democratic blog.  

          You want to tout third Party, go elsewhere.

          Now you get the egg.

          Silence is the enemy - Green Day 4330+ dead - Bring them home

          by Miss Blue on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 04:04:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  n/t (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cdreid, pHunbalanced, MixedContent

            Geeze, talk about abusing the negative rating system. It annoys me to see people do that to other posters just because they disagree with them, strikes me as very Republican-esque.

          •  Sorry, sorry (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cdreid, pHunbalanced, MixedContent

            Didn't know this was a DLC-only blog.  I got it all backwards!  Silly silly me.  It's PARTY before COUNTRY... did I get it right this time?

            Competitive sport has made America stupid.

          •  Semi-OT: from The Exegesis of Troll-Rating (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cdreid, pHunbalanced, MixedContent

            (emphasis mine)

            To Troll Rate something has exactly one meaning. When you Troll Rate something, as a trusted user, you are stating that the comment should be made invisible to all site users. You're saying that the comment is so bad -- so disruptive or damaging to the community -- that it isn't worth even a debate, but should be deleted from the discussion as being simply inflammatory, simply off-topic, or simply a lie. Remember that, because that is the only use of the troll rating. It is an editorial vote to delete a comment from the conversation. Conversely, there is one particular reason troll ratings should never be used: to express disagreement with a poster's opinion.

            Oh, and I couldn't find any place in the FAQ or About dKos where any party support was laid down.

            Clearly you are on the side of the corporatists.  Enjoy your football game.

            •  Whoops, my mistake (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              It sure is a Democratic blog.  Still I don't see that as a justification for troll-rating.  Back to your football game.

            •  Actually... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              it is pretty clear from the FAQ section, referencing a diary Markos wrote back in 2004.

              This is a Democratic blog, a partisan blog. One that recognizes that Democrats run from left to right on the ideological spectrum, and yet we're all still in this fight together.

              We happily embrace centrists like NDN's Simon Rosenberg and Howard Dean, conservatives like Martin Frost and Brad Carson, and liberals like John Kerry and Barack Obama.

              Liberal? Yeah, we're around here and we're proud. But it's not a liberal blog. It's a Democratic blog with one goal in mind: electoral victory.

              And since we haven't gotten any of that from the current crew, we're one more thing: a reform blog.

              The battle for the party is not an ideological battle. It's one between establishment and anti-establishment factions. And as I've said a million times, the status quo is untenable.

              But it has nothing to do with ideology, and those who continue painting the battle in those colors is nothing more than a dishonest shill in the best tradition of Karl Rove and gang.

              •  More Democrats (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                then better Democrats. One of Markos' favorite sayings. Everyone knows what that's shorthand for. More freaking liberal Democrats! I remember the aforementioned statement from Markos very clearly. It came off as well, quite political of him. But does anyone really believe that bullshit? How long are we going to carry on with this fiction? The big tent doesn't work. It never has worked, and if more people knew their Democratic Party history they would recognize this salient fact-the entire legacy of the Democratic Party is not the byproduct of the Big Tent, it was done in spite of the Big Tent!

                Minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, collective bargaining, TVA, rural electrification, water reclamation, financial regulation, Fannie and Freddie (pre-deregulation), FHA, Pell Grants and student loans, Food Stamps, Aid to Dependent Children, federalization of primary and secondary education funding, fuel efficiency standards, truth-in-lending, Civil Rights, Voting Rights, Open Housing, highway safety regs, Clean Water, NEPA, Wilderness Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers, G.I. Bill, almost the entire infrastructure of our parks and national forests, HUD, etc. What do they all have in common? They became a reality ONLY because there were enough progressives and liberals in Congress for about 9-short years (first 5 years of the New Deal and 4-years of the Great Society) to defeat the Big Tent paralysis that has been the status quo in the Democratic Party since Carter's term.  

                Instead of focusing on pollster speak, trying to find statistical reasons why the polls might not be accurate, why don't we acknowledge the very real fact that there are some very displeased Democratic partisans who are fed up with what's going on. These polls reflect a growing disenchantment with the president and his minions in Congress. And please don't tell us that health care is fraught with difficulty and it takes time. That is nonsense. The Johnson administration managed to get through Congress not one or two controversial measures, but a whole litany of them in quick succession. Of course the party isn't anywhere near as coherent know as it was then, and everyone knows it's a problem that needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, singing that we're the party of John Kerry AND Brad Carson isn't the solution, it is the problem.

              •  If we lose in 2010 (0+ / 0-)

                Wow, I should post more like the above(unfortunately I don't check my old posts very often). It seems to have caused fireworks. Here's something to chew on, Green Party, Green Party, Green Party, etc. Though I've never before voted for the Green Party nor paid all that much attention to it, given the vitriolic response from the Party loyalists, who obviously put party before policy, (sort of like the Repugs)I wonder how far that would go. Party before country? If the Democratic Party supports continued presence in Iraq and supports increasing presence in Afghanistan,(though they may or may not) and I believe that is as bad as continuing the war in Afghanistan/Iraq, then according to idiot party first posters(and the mission statement) I must support these Democrats regardless? I think not. Listen to the Presidents speech on Wed. There's a good chance it will be an eloquent waffle with little or no reference to the Public Option as we've now switched our grovelling from Grassley to Snowe. And all us actual progressives(as opposed to Democrats) can go to hell under the theory we have no other place to go.

      •  That's half the story (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BruinKid, Wolf Of Aquarius

        The other half is that the 47% who voted for McCain are mad as hell.

        I know that fewer people will be voting Republican than did in 2008. The GOP hasn't done anything to win anyone over and are as unpopular as ever.  However, I think a LOT fewer Democrats will be at the polls. Part of the problem is that while President Obama remains personally popular, I don't think his coattails are that long or that strong.

        Organizing Democrats is like herding cats, while the right wing noise machine keeps the other side in line.  That could hurt us in a midterm election, just like in 1994.

        "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers

        by wayward on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:56:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Good point. (0+ / 0-)

          That was another point I had forgotten to make, that we need to remember that despite Obama's massive electoral victory, 47% of those that voted still voted for McCain.  And save for those that will have passed away by November 2010, they're still around, and angry.  We can't discount that.

          And the best case for lack of coattails is how Dan Seals still lost to Mark Kirk in IL-10, even when TWO polls had shown Seals winning the race.  (I originally had included Darcy Burner in this, but after talking to a few people at NN'09, I think the main reason was that hit piece by the Seattle Times that flat out lied about her degree from Harvard.)

          But OTOH, having campaigned there, I think Obama's coattails were in part responsible for Dina Titus winning in NV-03, but that's only because of a concerted effort there to tie the two together.  The door-hangers we left on the doors specifically said to vote for Obama AND Titus.  :-)

          •  About those coattails (0+ / 0-)

            People will come out to vote for Obama and many will vote for down ballot Democrats while they are in the booth. However, I don't think his coattails are strong enough to get people into the booth if he isn't on the ballot.

            "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers

            by wayward on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 03:31:50 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Most Americans don't vote at all (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      musing85, drumwolf

      in most elections. The question is not whether most Americans will vote Republican, but whether enough Dems and indies will bother to vote at all. If the elected Dems start listening to their base instead of "reaching out" to their sworn enemies, all will be well. If not they'll get a chance to learn yet another agonizing lesson. The strategy of just counting on massive GOP screwups isn't going to work forever -- at some point they're going to have to actually DO stuff that gets us to the polls.

      Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't goin' there -- Mahalia Jackson

      by DaveW on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:33:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  There are legitimate concerns, indeed. (4+ / 0-)

    Thankfully, it seems the pollsters have made some bizarre leaps, but these leaps are based in exaggerations of some pretty real assumptions.

    I may not exactly be the 'Democratic Base' personified, as I am a bit less energized by the culture war stuff than most of the party base and pretty far left of many in my lack of faith in markets. As for me, I am unenthused. I really feel screwed by the Democratic Party and most of it's leaders and adherents. I feel like we are seeing Clinton II in the oval office and it's worse because of the huge congressional majorities that Clinton didn't have. 2010 is gonna be 1994 all over again if the leaders of the party can't do something to energize the base. Actually, the one who will lose the most power will be the one I am least pissed at: Nancy Pelosi. She will pay the price for the lack of leadership from Obama and Reid. I doubt she'll lose the majority, but it will be very slim, with little room to maneuver.

    Man. The handling of health insurance reform will be in textbooks down the road as an example of how to fritter away momentum and public goodwill. I hope I am wrong, but it's looking grim. Not 'total reversal in party identification' grim, but 'pissed away mandate' grim.

  •  "a lack of enthusiasm among the Democratic base" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cdreid, pHunbalanced, marykk, dotalbon

    Maybe, maybe not. But who among us is going to vote Republican just because the Democrats seem to lack spines?

    •  I Don't Think That Is The Concern... (4+ / 0-)

      The concern, as Jensen of PPP pointed out in his comment, is that they simply won't vote. If the GOP gets 50-60% of their base to vote, and the Democrats can only convince 40-50% of theirs to turn out, then the Dems are in a real bind.

      "You share your young with the wolves of the nation...
      Theres nothing left til you pray for salvation"
      Black Rebel Motorcycle Club "American X"

      by Steve Singiser on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:22:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Could they even get *that* much? (0+ / 0-)

        What is the historical average for turn-out in VA gubernatorial elections?

        I'm guessing that 40% is pretty high, based on not very much.

        "If another country builds a better car, we buy it. If they make a better wine, we drink it. If they have better healthcare . . . what's our problem? "

        by mbayrob on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:25:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Good essay (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I read the whole thing cause I'm a polling nut, and didn't really realize where you were going with it till the end.

        Nothing wrong with that, but the editor in me wishes you'd teased your conclusion in the title-- "Why Dems Ignore the Base at Their Peril."

        The base loves to read articles about how they shouldn't be ignored!

        A pain in the ass wrapped in a headache surrounded by a nightmare

        by Blank Frank on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:22:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Do you honestly think.... (0+ / 0-)

        60% of Republicans in any given area are going to vote in the midterms?

        That seems incredibly high to me.

        Silence is the enemy - Green Day 4330+ dead - Bring them home

        by Miss Blue on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 04:05:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think (0+ / 0-)

        its more that the "center" wont show up. The non-hardcore democrats. Most specifically the leftists who believed Obama and are in shellshock now.

    •  It's not really the base. (10+ / 0-)

      It's the people just to the left of the true base who were pulled in by the fact that Obama knew how to blow progressive dog whistles without actually being a true progressive. It's people who are very ideologically similar to me, but usually don't vote because they are dismayed by the stacked system.

      I have friends who done with major party politics forever after having busted ass for Obama if the health care reform veers right. I mean done. I mean forever.
      I am a compulsive voter and except in rare cases, I'll always vote D. It's not the voting with me, it's the sending money to support people like Tester just to get a D vote from an unexpected place.

      As for me, I'll go back to just supporting my junior senator (Feingold) and my congressperson (Moore), but I am pretty uninterested in helping Dems who haven't got a solid progressive track record, just to get 'more Dems' in office. It looks right now that party ID doesn't matter on the issues that matter most. It's real progressives vs the others.

      •  Depends on how you define "base" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Ideologically, I think the folks (and I include myself in that category) who are pissed at how little Obama has done thus far that can be called truly progressive are much more representative of the ideals the Democratic Party has stood for throughout its (at least recent) history. Numerically speaking, you may be more correct.

      •  Pity Party for your friends. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Miss Blue, dmh44, sillycilla

        So they busted their asses.
        And now they give up if something does not go the way they want and need it to go.
        Instead of vowing to keep fighting, and to fight harder, they just give up.
        As  if battles, war, and the fight for what is right ?
        Should go the way you want it to go the first time.

        Thank god Martin Luther King did not feel this way when he was beaten and thrown in a jail cell.
        Thank god any civil rights leader did not just cry and go "wah. I'm done. it's over." when the dogs and the sticks reigned down on them.

        God this  non stop "I'm done!" bullshit is whining and self defeatism at its worst.

        I'm not talking to you, or meaning to just single out your friends.
        But my god, people had to die for what they believed in, and they were willing to do that.
        And a large swath of people in this country give up and crawl back under their apathetic rocks when they find out they need to keep working.
        And by busting ass - if you mean knocking on doors, donating, making phone calls?
        Wow. And? I did it. Many of us did it.
        As if that means once you did that it's all over?
        I guess so.

        "Oh changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

        by Christin on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:53:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And fuck you, too (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DaveW, Xerxes

          I have been involved in knocking doors, giving money, working phones, etc for 27 years. I have seen cycles come and go. I am becoming more and more convinced that making those decisions based on the party label is really a scam. In the '80s and agin since the Dean run in late '03 and early '04, I've been a loyal party guy. That may be done soon.

          You are naive if you think every person has the constitution to get out there and work hard for no real payoff election after election. People have right to expect an obvious payoff. That's why patronage and constituent service is so important at the local level. At the Presidential level, one actually has to show movement in quality of life and policies that really effect people. I'm not gonna try to tell someone who bypassed a part time job to wor phones for 4 months to do it again when nothing really changes as far as they can see.

          As for me, I'm candidate by candidate, like I was from '93 to '03 if the Democratic party can't deliver with the President + 60 + 256.

          •  My bad. Apology for the language. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
          •  what part of this did not sink in? (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Miss Blue, BruinKid, dmh44, sillycilla

            I'm not talking to you, or meaning to just single out your friends.

            You don't need to explain yourself to me.
            And my comment stands.
            People in 2009 have no idea what it means to really fight for something and to bleed for it.
            Working phones for a few months - does not equal giving it eveything you've got - sorry. It doesn't.
            I spent every weekend from September to November to knocking on doors in two states until I could not longer take getting handed another canvassing packet.
            My cell phone bill was outrageous when i make calls from home.
            And with your reasoning, it's okay for me to go "that's it. i'm done. never again will i fight for what's right now and for the future. i'll just sit out and do nothing."

            If everyone who fought for justice in this country took that attitude?
            That after it doesn't go the way it should, you just give up?
            We'd be in a bigger craphole then we already are.

            When you lose, you stand up, and you keep going.
            And you keep fighting.
            And you never give up.

            I don't care how trite that sounds, that's how victories are won.

            "Oh changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

            by Christin on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:11:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It IS okay if you stop and sit out. Really. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musing85, BruinKid, Xerxes

              My goodness. You really believe that if people quit a part time job, get behind in their bills and then see little for it that's not enough. God knows I wouldn't do that. You'll never see me tell someone who sacrifices their personal security that it's not enough.

              Me, I'm a citizen, not a professional activist. I was paid to work in politics, from '90 through '94 and that was enough for me. I have a different life now.

              I don't begrudge people the right to do nothing but get out and vote. It's a small portion who go beyond that. Obama inspired a lot more than usual to do so. I fear many of them have been led on. The worked for change and get more of the same.

              •  No PH - I'm not just saying "it's not enough" (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pHunbalanced, Miss Blue, sillycilla

                I commend them, of course I should, for what they did.
                What I keep saying is that sometimes,  you don't win the battle when you fight one time.
                You have to keep going, you have to.
                And if you, or I should say - they? Chose not too because the loss was too heartbreaking?
                What does sitting it out the next time do?
                Further the cause?
                No. You know it doesn't.
                It will hurt them even more in the long term.

                So they can say I gave enough.
                I don't agree.
                Again - I'm not saying they didn't give a hell of a lot.
                I'm saying I use MLK as my role model - he kept going.
                He kept fighting.
                He never wavered it  trying to achieve equal rights for AA's.
                And come on - if anyone should have given up - it was him.
                And if he did? Give up?
                That's what I'm talking about- he and everyone else would have suffered even more.

                You fear that they were led on.
                You heard dog whistles.
                I don't think I was led on. I didn't hear the whistles.
                I knew he was a centrist from day one , and knew what I was working for.
                Who I supported. And knew what I would get.
                I guess that is where we differ.

                "Oh changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                by Christin on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:40:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  To be clear (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Christin, musing85, Xerxes

                  I was never sure if Obama was a centrist or a progressive. I suspect he is somewhere in between, but has governed as a centrist president. He is a huge improvement over Bush of course, but I suspect not so different from Clinton and not so different form Hillary Clinton.

                  Many of the young, new voters and non-white (not just African American) voters I volunteered with in both the primary and the general, really expected him to be a transformational president who would empower people like them and take on the big entrenched interests. There was a lot of enthusiasm for Obama from people who I perceived as being ideologically similar to me or even on my left. People who didn't give a tinker's damn about John Kerry or Hillary Clinton or even John Edwards, but got out and fought for Obama.

                  Now here, this is just a supposition, because my life is a bit more cloistered now with a new baby as of last October (my only volunteering after 10.13.09 was GOTV the last 2 days) and a more inward focus, I suspect a lot of these folks are starting to ask "where's the beef"? I only know a coule of these new voters or sporadic voters these days, but they both are disappointed. I suspect they are not alone.

                  If you wanted a centrist president and can get excited by centrism, bully for you. I suspect a lot of people who worked for change wanted something they could see in year one.

                  •  i'm an October baby too. (0+ / 0-)

                    one thousand years ago.
                    but congrats. :-)

                    but no - i didn't want a centrist preznit.

                    If you wanted a centrist president and can get excited by centrism, bully for you. I suspect a lot of people who worked for change wanted something they could see in year one.

                    I'm just sayin' I knew what i was getting.
                    That's why I'm not taking some of his positions now as hard as others who thought they were getting a non -centrist.

                    "Oh changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                    by Christin on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 10:06:07 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  True, but... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Christin, pHunbalanced, Xerxes

              there's a reason that...

              When the going gets tough, the tough get going.

              ... only applies to a small number of people.

              I think we're all preaching to the choir here a bit.  For those of us that post on DailyKos, we're already part of that activist base.  It's about reaching those who are not.  I'm sure you encountered quite a few people like that while door-knocking, right?  I don't think telling them to have a pity party would get them off their asses to help out.  It probably would have the reverse effect.

              So the question becomes, how do we get those less motivated than us to stay engaged?

              •  Actually Bruin - I'm seeing way way too much of (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Miss Blue, BruinKid

                that "i'm done" here on DK.
                Who doesn't want to say it and just crawl under that rock?
                It's so easy - so damn easy.
                I just hate seeing it here all too often.

                But your quote was never ever ever more appropriate.

                "Oh changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                by Christin on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:34:36 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's the problem... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  it's the easy way out.  It's so easy to let the other things in our life take priority (not that that's a bad thing, either).  And sometimes, it really is burnout, and the best course is to say "I'm done" for a while for that person's own sanity.  I left DailyKos after Kerry lost for a good 8 months, came back a week before Katrina hit, and wondered for two more months what a "pie fight" was.

                  OK, modified question: How do we make sure those that take some time off will at least return when we need them?

                  •  Modified answer BK - (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    those that will return  - just will.
                    like you did.
                    like i did.
                    i took breaks too.
                    those that are ready to throw it in after a few months and after making phone calls and knocking on doors?
                    those that say "O sucks - he's like Bush. I give up."?
                    they ain't coming back.
                    they are not willing to keep doing the dirty, bullshit, grinding hard work.
                    they're just not.

                    the instant gratification generation must get their rewards now or it's nothing for them.
                    that's how i feel anyway.

                    god i'm late for dinner.

                    "Oh changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

                    by Christin on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:44:01 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Actually, I suspect (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      those who bailed out on the D party will come back to fighting for the left when the left is actually represented, whether by the D party or by another party.

                      If a social democratic party arose with good enough marketing to guarantee a decent level of success, I'd be canvassing for them and writing no few checks of my own.  As it is I see no reason to support a center-right party but will support left-of-center candidates.

            •  Victories for who? (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musing85, pHunbalanced, Xerxes, marxmarv

              If all you care about is seeing purty D after somebody's name, then by all means fight for it. Aside from the mindless cheerleading, though, the question is, is the Democratic Party still worth the fight, or is it time to turn one's attention to other things?

              Your rants sound exactly like what a woman with an abusive or asinine husband heard in the 50s when she talked about divorce. When you're betrayed you don't necessarily "keep going" with the jerk who did it. That would make you a fool.

              Politics isn't some kind of fanboy fest. If you're not getting what you want out of those you support there's no reason on earth to stick with them. Personally I'm not there yet, but if the Dems keep selling out and wimping out I can foresee that it could come to that. There are a lot more ways of working for justice than party politics. You might notice that if you weren't so consumed with your own self-righteousness.

              Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't goin' there -- Mahalia Jackson

              by DaveW on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 04:18:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  My apologies for the language in the other reply. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85, BruinKid

          I hit post too fast, it's been a rough afternoon.

          The comment stands, but the subject line was inappopriate.

          •  I've been told worse. So that does not bother me. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            The subject line was a general subject line, directed at everyone who gives up when the first battle is lost.

            "Oh changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

            by Christin on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:12:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You assume this journey (0+ / 0-)

          just started for many on here. Some have been doing heavy lifting probably since you were in diapers, or before you were born. The Democratic Party has been an ineffective rabble since about 1972. Nixon was a very liberal president, so much of the legislation that was percolating during the Johnson administration but never made it out of Congress before he left office, was eventually signed into law by Nixon. Since then, the party has been in a death spiral. There have been repeated, I say REPEATED, attempts to reform the party, starting with McGovern and recently terminating with Howard Dean. Party's in power do not reform themselves. They hold onto power by whatever means necessary.

          Try walking the path of reform for 30-years without reward and see if you don't say "to hell with it" too. People blathering about staying in the fight are usually people who just got in the fight. The fighters and reformers have absolutely nothing, I mean nothing to show for their votes, their time, their money and you're not going to see it with this president either. Don't tell other people to buck up without acknowledging the very human behavior that effort will not be forthcoming without some reward.

          The heart's been cut out of the global warming bill already. The EFCA will not include card check unionization, which makes the whole damn enterprise useless. Financial re-regulation is not even on a radar screen when it should have been passed already. We just elected large Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress and a president that rang all the populist bells, and nothing has changed. They have no excuses.

          And before I hear someone preach patience. Stuff patience. Liberal legislation is passed quickly after an administration takes office, they have a short window of opportunity to get things done. You think Barack Obama is going to be pushing controversial measures later in his term? You think a Senate facing irate voters in 2010 is going to piss off either the right or left by taking a vote six months before the election? Barack Obama and the Democrats are either going to pass the whole kit and kaboodle in the next six to eight-months, or it's not going to happen period.

  •  Figuring out likely voters in 2008 (8+ / 0-)

    wasn't rocket science.  You had, on the one hand, a grumpy, alienating old guy with a loony VP choice, brought aboard to energize the base.  She did that, but frightened the heck out of large numbers of independents.

    On the other hand, you had a candidate who gave enormous hope to disenfranchised voters (minorities mainly) and ran a brilliant campaign attacking eight years of Bush incompetence.

    But 2010?   Totally different game,much too early to calibrate.  A lot of people think it all hinges on healthcare; I think what's more likely is that some form of bill will pass, it won't make anyone very happy, and some other issue will pop up between now and next November that will grab the buzz and define turnout.   That's just the way these cycles work.

    It is scarcely possible to conceive of the laws of motion if one looks at them from a tennis ball's point of view. (Brecht)

    by dotalbon on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:17:31 PM PDT

    •  It seems pretty simple: (0+ / 0-)

      Obama and the congressional Dems made it on the promise of real change. Either they'll deliver and all will be well or they won't and get yet another surprise when a bunch of people turn out to be no longer interested.

      Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't goin' there -- Mahalia Jackson

      by DaveW on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 04:24:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Oh, God, every time I wrote about this (7+ / 0-)

    people told me I was crazy. Do you mean to say that someone thinks that Republicans will take the Senate in 2010?
    If so, we are really in trouble. Republicans are not really republicans anymore. They are, for the most part, truly Rush Followers, as in Rush "FemiNazi" Limbaugh. They are convinced that they can take over the US and turn it into a theocracy. Read Jeff Sharlet's "The Family" which Rachel Maddow covers on her MSNBC show. Some of these nut jobs would have women as  property and some would bring back slavery and genocide. These are old crazy white men and I'd like to know exactly what the hell their problem is. Young men don't seem to be growing up like this.

    Write CNN today and tell them that the truth is not theirs to decide. Ask when they plan to do the news.

    by Plain Speaking on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:17:32 PM PDT

    •  I think not... (0+ / 0-)

      The point is that Democrats will lose the 60 vote majority, but to go under 50 senators, it seems too much.

      Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate... leads to suffering...

      by JackLord on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:16:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If there was a lack of enthusiasm... (4+ / 0-)

    ...among Democrats, would we be the first to know about it, or the last?

    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

    by Jay Elias on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:17:50 PM PDT

  •  Bill Clinton (10+ / 0-)

    spoke last night in Nashville, and discussed the 1994 midterm elections.  Now I confess to not having studied the polling data, but I'll take it from the Big Dog that the difference there was not a big national shift to the right, but a problem with discouraged Dems who didn't bother to come out.  He mentioned it as part of a clear message to teh Blue Dogs that they'd better get health care passed, or discourage their base and lose their seats anyway.

    If you think you're too small to be effective, you've never been in the dark with a mosquito.

    by marykk on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:19:32 PM PDT

    •  I wonder (4+ / 0-)

      I wonder the extent to which he recognizes his own partial culpability for '94 in the way that he played to the center and distanced himself from the left. Of course after '94 he had no choice.

      I am glad he is hitting the hustings now to whip the piddle sippers into line.  It seems that old former presidents often gain wisdom later that I'd wished they'd had while in office.

      The Democratic Party has squandered so much good will and the media has abetted the far right with so little countering from Dem party spokesmen, it's just appalling. Good to see Clinton getting it right. Perhaps Hillary wants him to work to save the Democratic brand so she still has a job in 2013.

    •  He's right (5+ / 0-)

      That election had one of the lowest turnouts for a mid-term election.

      Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

      by Micheline on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:36:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was there and it sucked (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BruinKid, marykk, Wolf Of Aquarius

        First, just trying to round up enough volunteers to make phone calls was an uphill campaign all in and of itself.  Once we had enough vols, they called Dems and got yelled at and phones slammed down on them.  The best we could hope for was someone who was at least willing to hear out why we needed them to go vote that year.  They weren't interested, but at least they didn't hang up on us. No one brought by cookies either. Election day was truthfully one of my worst nightmares.  Lines and lines of R's at the polls and hardly a Dem in sight.

        They don't win until we give up.

        by irmaly on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:31:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  As a then-Republican (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BruinKid, marykk, Wolf Of Aquarius

      Clinton was a real lightning rod by Nov '94, which was one factor. Also, bear in mind the Dems were seen as entrenched hacks - house bank scandal, etc. I'm not sure parallels to now are all that apt.
      As a long time political junkie what boggles me about those gloom n doom predictions are that the Republican numbers are still in the tank! At worst, the R's could hold seats like NC, FL, etc., leaving D's with a gain of 0 - 2 Senate seats. Similarly, a  worst case scenario in the House would be roughly status quo. I'd wanna see consistent numbers showing R's pulling even among ind's as to which party should control Congress, before talking about "losses".

      P S: I'm not so sure Bill Clinton is one to give "unbiased" quarterbacking on the 1994 situation.

      •  I find them apt enough (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        "Clinton was a real lightning rod by Nov '94, which was one factor." -- It sure could be a factor again.  The question is how well the R party can play the "fear of a black planet" card.

        "Also, bear in mind the Dems were seen as entrenched hacks - house bank scandal, etc." -- That was abstract.  Foreclosures, interest rates on credit cards, and the like are things the average person can hold in their hand.

        Maybe there is a strategy behind the D party's retreat from the left.  Feed the right lines to the 10%-20% of voters on the left and keep close enough to them that you can call them to action if need be, but veer to the right to pick up corporate donations and right-wing "moderates"?  It's sickeningly cynical, but everyone should be cynical wherever six-figure sums are involved.

    •  Why is it so damn hard (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pHunbalanced, marykk

      for Dem pols to figure out that people who supported them, who were excited by their promises, aren't going to be excited any more when the promises are betrayed? The Dems still have time to make good, and I still think they will in the end, but it really shouldn't be this difficult.

      Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't goin' there -- Mahalia Jackson

      by DaveW on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 04:28:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're assuming they care, which is dangerous (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        My post above, titled "I find them apt enough", actually had an idea in it that was more apt here.  Basically, I think the D party has no intention of supporting progressives with action and is staying just left enough, against the pull of "moderates" and big donations, to prevent serious electoral challenges from a proper leftist party.

        A big-tent party is not a fix for a broken two-party system.

        •  ...and yet they're perpetually surprised (0+ / 0-)

          when they lose because they didn't get the base and the indies out to vote for them. Under our bullshit electoral/party system, "fuggedaboutit" is as close to a viable third party as we can get.

          Everybody talkin' 'bout Heaven ain't goin' there -- Mahalia Jackson

          by DaveW on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 09:39:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  It wouldn't surprise me... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Given the number of I'll-never-vote-for-Obama-again-I'll-stay-at-home whiners I see.

    I guess they'll show us real good.

    •  You mean given the lack of shit sandwich eaters. (2+ / 2-)
      Recommended by:
      Xerxes, MixedContent
      Hidden by:
      Karl Rover, ypsiCPA

      Democrats have no excuse not to deliver on investigations, ending the war and affordable health care. If they aren't going to use their 60-seat Senate majority, they deserve to lose it.

      But enjoy the shit sandwich that Rahmbama is serving up. A a matter of fact, you can have mine.

      Obama got $42,268,366 from Wall Street, more than any other member of Congress, and $20,064,596 from the Medical-Industrial Complex, also tops.

      by expatjourno on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:03:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep. You'll show us, next election. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        •  Enjoy your shit sandwich. Wash it down with... (4+ / 3-)
          Recommended by:
          musing85, Xerxes, MixedContent, marxmarv
          Hidden by:
          Miss Blue, kefauver, blueness

          ...some of that refreshing Kool-Aid.

          Obama got $42,268,366 from Wall Street, more than any other member of Congress, and $20,064,596 from the Medical-Industrial Complex, also tops.

          by expatjourno on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:33:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  kool-aid drinking (0+ / 0-)

            is a winger epithet, first employed on a large scale during the Clinton administration. It references mass, coerced suicide. Democrats who find it necessary to insult other Democrats can find some other means than employing a term that indicates the targeted person will kill him- or herself while penned in by armed men, which is what happened in Jonestown.


            •  It's been quite common on this site (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              for at least the last couple of years. I see no basis for troll-rating the parent comment.

              •  so what (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                if it's been "quite common"? Nazi comparisons and saying "fuck you" to people have also been "quite common," and they're on their way out, too.

                •  Sorry, but no (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  "Fuck you" has never been considered acceptable discourse on this site to my knowledge. Nor have Nazi comparisons.

                  •  they may not (0+ / 0-)

                    have been acceptable to you, but that doesn't mean they weren't uprated by those who did consider them acceptable.

                    And you know they were uprated, because you yourself expended a number of comments on formulating a law here diffentiating, in your mind, a distinction between "fuck you" and "fuck off." And here is you in conversation with your old running buddy MajorFlaw, in which he certainly seems to assert that "fuck you" is "considered acceptable discourse on this site," as he opines that "fuck you" may "get[] a pass if the context is right."

                    If you want to plead ignorance to the hundreds of arguments on this site as to whether it is permissible to compare Israel, Jews, Hamas, Palestinians, Bush, Bush minions, or whatever Democrat or Democratic policy the commentator happens to be upset with at the moment to Nazis . . . uh, feel free.

                    I recently HRed a Kool Aid comment on this site on the same grounds as I HRed this one, and received a rec for my comment explaining my HR from Meteor Blades, who now oversees community moderation on this site, and who has been endeavoring to encourage people to cut back on the more noxious forms of name-calling. I assume that rec meant he did not think I was out of line.

                    You are of course perfectly free to continue to HR and uprate as you, musing, personally believe is best, as you have always done.

                    •  Nice try, but again, no (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      As I have repeatedly and consistently said, over the nearly six years now that I've been a registered member of this site, "Fuck you" always rates a bagel from me if I see it in time. The fact that there are others who disagree with that opinion is irrelevant. They are a decided minority--and many of them no longer have posting privileges on this site.

                      Nor is the existence of--again--a small minority of folks who consider it OK to label their opponents Nazis any kind of argument for calling it acceptable. That requires whole leaps of logic that you won't find in any textbook on the subject.

                      Nor have you offered anything remotely like evidence for any kind of community consensus that "Kool-Aid" references are out-of-bounds. Until I hear otherwise from an authoritative source, I will consider it within bounds, and will rate (and uprate) accordingly.

            •  "Waaahhh!!!!! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              "Mama, he said 'kool-aid!!' Waaaaaahhh!!"

          •  Uprating to counter unjustified (IMO) (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            expatjourno, MixedContent

            troll-ratings. The commenter's opinion was perhaps not expressed as civilly as one might have liked. It is not, however, out of bounds on this site if what I've seen since the presidential campaign got underway three years ago is any indication.

      •  As you may have noticed (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sillycilla, Micheline, littlebird33

        Democratic congresspeople do not take orders from the President, as much as we wish they would in this case. Obama can't fire them. It's in the Constitution.

        I'm getting pretty sick of people who think that the reason BHO hasn't swept away the moneyed interests entrenched in this country over decades-if-not-centuries is because he just doesn't feel like it; because he'd rather serve up a shit sandwich to folks like you.

        Follow the money. Obama's a people-powered politician. His re-election depends on delivering for the people who put him in the White House. Yay for us.

        But a lot of Congress is not people-powered, it's still special-interest powered. Those people are dragging their feet because they think it's more important to deliver for the PACs and corporations that bought their seats in the first place.

        Solving this problem is not that easy, and I wish people would stop pretending it is.

        A pain in the ass wrapped in a headache surrounded by a nightmare

        by Blank Frank on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:43:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  and the other side seems energized (0+ / 0-)
  •  Likely voter screen for VA might not be wrong (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irmaly, Micheline

    IIRC, gubernatorial votes in VA aren't big turn out affairs most years.  So the GOP slant of the panel might reflect some history in VA.

    The real question is whether Deeds can pull in a different demographic than usual.  I'm not from VA, but if I understand how Deeds is running, this doesn't sound that likely to me.

    We may not like the sound of their likely voter screen, but that doesn't mean it can't be right.

    Any Virginians disagree on that?

    "If another country builds a better car, we buy it. If they make a better wine, we drink it. If they have better healthcare . . . what's our problem? "

    by mbayrob on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:23:15 PM PDT

  •  I think AA voters will show if BO asks. Thus, a (7+ / 0-)

    big chunk of CW on this goes boom.  I also think Latinos will show up in larger numbers, especially as rabid racists win Rethug primaries.  The real question is the young and progressive voters.  

    And the economy.  Which seem sto be picking up on track to blunt the worst of the 'squishy' middle backlash.

    In all, I rather doubt we will see the 15 point swing from 2008 that your quote from PPP posits. Doesn't mean we don't have our work cut out, of that Dems could screw this up royally by flushing their own agenda in a futile attempt of get Rethugs to love em.  

    But, I feel these LV screens are a rather transparent effort to push an anti-D political agenda: convince Rethugs they will win and more will turn out, convince Ds they will lose and fewer will turn out-- and hey, magically, its a self-fulfilling prophecy!

  •  The media is framing the race as another 1994 (4+ / 0-)

    The media is fond of constructing a narrative to frame election cycles.  It seeks to dumb down every race into a theme such as Bill Clinton as the Comeback Kid in 1992.  But it is never that simple.

    I am proud to admit that I come from one of the districts that had the least votes for George W. Bush in the entire country.

    by ThePrometheusMan on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:31:05 PM PDT

  •  Republicans will win in 2010 but it will because (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    expatjourno, Xerxes, Voodoo king

    Democrats stayed home. The Republicans have nothing to run on except old failed social and economic policies. However, Democrats have a corrupt, do-nothing Congress with a wimpy, do-nothing President that is squandering the best opportunity for change since the 60's. So, the Democrats will face the ire of disaffected and disillusioned base.

    There is no Health Care, C&P in a legislative black hole, Employee Free Choice Act is in a legislative black hole, DOTD is still in place, DOMA is still in place, bailouts have continued, the IRAQ war continues, the Afghanistan war is escalating, Obama still employs Black Water, and many Bush policies are still active - Nothing has changed. Next year is an election year and I guarantee you nothing will get done. Oh, I'm sorry, we were able to use the C.A.R.S program for the few weeks that it was available. Wow! Change I can believe it. Pfft!

    The first year of a presidency is crucial to a new administration and all we've witnessed is this touchy, feely, kumbaya bullshit.

    I'm over the POTUS' newness or that he's the first black Commander-in-Chief.

    I'm over the fact that he can string together a sentence.

    I'm over the coolness factor, his family, his daughters, his dog - ENOUGH!


    We have seen nothing but F A I L U R E!

    •  Chill out (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

      by Micheline on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:40:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, then think of it this way. (5+ / 0-)

      You have heard about the greatest job in your field in the world. You would give anything to have it but you know that you never could. I mean it's just not possible. Then, all of a sudden someone calls you and asks you if you want the job. Two days later you move in. As soon as you get in the big room with all the people you'll be working with they tell  you that they hate that you got the job, they will do anything they can, not only to stop you but make you look helpless and like you don't care. I guess you could go to the big boss and complain (TV in this case) but then you just look like you didn't know what you were doing in the first place. Plus this is happening
      with the WORLD watching and you are the first person of your race ever to do the job. What would you do?

      2010, that is the year we have to give this President a real Democratic Congress or it was all for nothing.

      Write CNN today and tell them that the truth is not theirs to decide. Ask when they plan to do the news.

      by Plain Speaking on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:49:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exacty! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JC from IA

        Obama should be supported with a real Democratic Congress in a ALL IN move. If he fails, he won't be reelected and the next President (a Republican) will not have a Republican Congress to pass crazy laws like Bush did.

        Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate... leads to suffering...

        by JackLord on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:37:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Gee, it's been all of 8 months, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miss Blue, dmh44, bushondrugs

      and half his staff isn't in place do to foot-dragging from a variety of sources.

      Better start the impeachment proceedings; a WATB says so.

      •  It's been 2 1/2 YEARS since Democrats gained... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Xerxes, bushondrugs

        ...control of Congress.

        Obama got $42,268,366 from Wall Street, more than any other member of Congress, and $20,064,596 from the Medical-Industrial Complex, also tops.

        by expatjourno on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:07:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who was president at the time? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          virginwoolf, JC from IA

          Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

          by Micheline on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:08:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How is that relevant? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Democrats made all kinds of excuses when Bush was president, whether it was about letting the executive branch ignore subpoenas or continuing to fund the war. The Democrats had two years to prepare for a Democratic presidency. There were plenty of things that could have and should have been ready to move with on the first day back in session after Obama's inauguration, like:

            --War funding.
            --The U.S. Attorneys scandal.
            --War profiteering.
            --Health care.

            Yes, yes, we got Lily Ledbetter and children's health care. I'm so impressed.

            Obama got $42,268,366 from Wall Street, more than any other member of Congress, and $20,064,596 from the Medical-Industrial Complex, also tops.

            by expatjourno on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:31:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Have you ever heard of the term (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JC from IA

              separation of powers?

              Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

              by Micheline on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:41:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Have you ever heard of the term "bully pulpit"? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                expatjourno, Xerxes
                •  I am referring to when Bush was president. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  JC from IA

                  Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

                  by Micheline on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 04:03:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And, as throughout this diary, missing (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    pHunbalanced, Xerxes

                    the freaking point.

                    •  No that would be you (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      kefauver, JC from IA

                      The person said that for the last two years  and a half the Dems were in control of congress. Well that happen under Bush. Whenever a bill passed, it was vetoed. You need a 3/4 vote to get an override which was impossible. Because Obama has only been president for 8 months, the person's argument is rather silly especially since a lot of the bills vetoed by Bush have been signed into law by Obama. I don't like with what is going on right with the Dems, but at least know what you are talking about before making ignorant staements.

                      Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

                      by Micheline on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 04:11:57 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  2/3 vote (Art. I, Sec. 7) (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        Speaking of knowing what's going on.... ;)

                        •  my mistake but point still stands, the argument (0+ / 0-)

                          that Dems were in control of Congress 2 years and half without taking into account of who was president for the most of the time is absurd.

                          Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

                          by Micheline on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 06:53:15 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  They could have started passing those bills... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...on January 20. A few of which they actually have passed, like children's health (which still took until February to get signed into law) and Lily Ledbetter.

                        They could also have intensified investigations into Bush Administration misconduct with regard to firing the U.S. attorneys, war profiteering, war crimes by Blackwater, torture, etc. Which they haven't.

                        They have had half a century to write a health care bill that a Democratic president would sign. Ted Kennedy actually wrote several of them.

                        It's preposterous to imply that the clock somehow started ticking on January 20, 2009. If it wasn't clear in the summer of 2008, it was certainly clear after election day that there would be a Democratic Congress with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and Democratic president.

                        It's a do-nothing Congress with a do-nothing president. So much for "the fierce urgency of now."

                        Obama got $42,268,366 from Wall Street, more than any other member of Congress, and $20,064,596 from the Medical-Industrial Complex, also tops.

                        by expatjourno on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 11:23:43 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Do not HR posters with whom you are ... (0+ / 0-)

         a direct dispute.

                  Some people would be better off not reading diaries they comment on, since they already have all the answers.

                  by Meteor Blades on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 10:37:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, so it must be time to change the topic. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          pathetic, WATB.

      •  Then perhaps, instead of wasting so much time (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pHunbalanced, verso2, bushondrugs

        courting Republicans who have made it abundantly clear from the beginning that they weren't interested in playing ball with him, he should have been doing something about filling those positions and getting on with the issues he campaigned on. Because he's only got about another eight months before he gets his first report card, in the form of the 2010 midterm elections. At the rate things are presently going, he's likely to be looking at a significantly reduced majority in Congress for the second half of his first term, which would make it considerably harder for him to get the rest of his base re-energized to the point that he can beat off a highly motivated Republican bloc in 2012.

        •  I repeat, it's been 8 fucking months. (1+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Hidden by:

          If Obama had come to town ignoring the NoNos like GWB did the Dems, the cries of "Uppity Nigger" would be even louder than they are today.

          You don't even want to give the guy a chance to fail before getting your panties in a knot.  You want to start your crying in advance.  Is there some 'rush' you're trying to avoid, WATB?

      •  If you campaign on change (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musing85, pHunbalanced, Xerxes

        you had better produce some change.

        Now you may try to enact meaningful reforms and be defeated. Then you'll get credit for trying, and your voters will still come out.

        If, however, the most that many people can see is that "things didn't get any worse," a lot of people will decide that you just can't beat city hall and stay at home at the next election. That reaction produced the Republican successes of 1994: it was not that the Repugs increased their vote, it was that several percent of Democratic voters stayed home in the wake of NAFTA and the failed healthcare proposal, among other things. You may indeed argue that they were wrong to do so, but it is predictable under such circumstances that a certain proportion of disappointed voters will feel betrayed or discouraged and have that reaction.

        In the case of Barack and the Democrats, if in 2010 we have mostly bailouts for the banks, stimulus that disproportionately went to those in the upper income brackets, and a healthcare insurance reform that mandates health insurance purchase but requires middle class families making $70,000 or $80,000 to pay the full freight of a 15,000 a year policy, then I think that the Democrats' lack of will/imagination/ambition (and ties of many leading Democratic figures to the business elites they should be taking on) will undercut the voter enthusiasm that gave the Democrats their majorities.

        •  I agree with you about healthcare reform (0+ / 0-)

          The so called negotiations is a way the GOP is a way to make the bill less effective. The Dems need to figure that out.

          Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

          by Micheline on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:26:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  First off, where are the defeats? (0+ / 0-)

          Do you mean the ones you are projecting are going to happen in the future?

          Second, the POTUS is not 'Dictator for Life', as much as the last guy wanted that to be so.  Leaders still have to deal with the political realities of the day.

          When you can show me that Obama is doing a bad job of that, get back to me.

          •  You have to be seen to lead the fight for change (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            musing85, Xerxes, JC from IA, marxmarv

            I think that Obama has not yet shown that aspect of presidential leadership to the degree necessary to retain the Democrat's political initiative.

            We are clear where the Republicans are at. And we understand why: should Obama and the Democrats produce healthcare reform and other reforms that clearly benefit the great majority of Americans--the substance of their 2008 campaign--then the Republicans rightly fear that the Democrats will consolidate their dominance for a generation. So at all costs the Republicans have to stymie all efforts to produce meaningful change.

            So where is Obama? His supporters are reduced to speculating about what he really wants (does he really support the public option? will he bargain it away?)--or to take another issue, why are the guys who helped produce the economic crisis calling the shots on how to deal with it? Where are the reforms that will deal not only with the crisis, but with the financialization of the economy that produced it?

            We understand that Obama is not dictator, so he cannot simply decree the program that he wants. But he has to be seen as clearly putting forward a program of change and fighting for it. Clintonian leading with what you think should be the final compromise position, then backing off that, and then getting little or nothing is not going to cut it in the perception of many of the Democratic voters who were motivated by the desire for change.

            The Republicans of course would like nothing more than to chill these voters into apathy--and, I suspect, a good many DLC Democrats would agree: they thrive on business as usual. (There's strong reason to believe that many a DLC Democrat would rather lose to the Republicans that fight for a progressive program.)

            •  Obama's supporters are reduced to speculating (0+ / 0-)

              because they want to speculate, rather than pay attention to what he says.  This phenomenon has been repeated every week since he was sworn in.

              But, then, I guess that makes them something other than supporters, doesn't it?

              Which, after all, is the point.  Fair weather supporters are a dime a dozen.  And, worth every penny.

              •   ... because Obama has wobbled and weaved (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                rather too much. See, for example, his public option dance of a few weeks ago (was the public option an essential part of healthcare reform? was it just a "sliver"). Moreover, the fact that there is not a single administration proposal but rather a small flotilla of plans being discussed means that it's hard for supporters to know what, exactly, Obama wants. That's not exactly the sort of leadership necessary to win a measure that would seem to be a defining achievement of his presidency. A couple of town halls, while well done and welcome, don't cut it.

    •  I would be soon for Democrats to... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JC from IA

      ... lose hope on Obama and the whole Democratic Party.

      Although you pointed out a lot of policies that we agree Obame should put in place, you mentioned some half truths:
      a) Heath Care reform is not over yet;
      b) Cap and Trade will pass;
      c) DOMA will be addressed after the main issues;
      d) Wars: Obama cannot just take the troops out like that;
      e) Black Water is a concern, but how can we know his administration is not working on that?

      By the time of elections, we will have the notion about what Obama can/wants to do.

      How can an intelligent person expect results over night? It has been only eight months and a good chunk was spend with heath care debate.

      Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate... leads to suffering...

      by JackLord on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:32:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Assuming their conclusions. (0+ / 0-)

    Clearly, certain pollsters have clients that want things to turn out a certain way.

    By pounding their meme early and often, they intend to see that they do.

    Just like they predicted.  Sheer genius.

  •  Latinos will show up if Obama pursues... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    real immigration reform.  If he doesn't then they won't be nearly as motivated.

    I am proud to admit that I come from one of the districts that had the least votes for George W. Bush in the entire country.

    by ThePrometheusMan on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:32:03 PM PDT

  •  The difference in 2090/10 will be the TEA BAGGERS (5+ / 0-)

    The Repubs are embracing and embedding themselves into the anti-tax, anti-govt, birther conspiracy crowd. The kind that eat-up far too much Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

    Mainstreaming this fringe constiuentcy will take over the GOP focus in the next 2 years away from the Christian fundamentalists that served them well from 1980 to 2004.

    Although most of these are the same demographics (southern & white), it makes for a nice easy message transition for the GOP.

    The strategy does not play well at the national level such as for President in 2012.

    But it will mean a number of localized wins over Dems because the liberal base is tapped out right now and not very motivated.

    •  Could it be because of the mixed messages (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      from the White House and Congress regarding the public option that the Democratic base isn't motivated? If that happens President Obama and the Dems have no one to blame but THEMSELVES.

    •  The '94 parallel breaks down because (0+ / 0-)

      back then there were outraged Republican moderates, along with conservatives. Since then, non-knuckledragging R's have (effectively) left the party. Whipped up teabaggers aren't enough for a '94 re-run in themselves.

    •  Frankly, I doubt there are enough of them (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      to make a significant difference. The people going to those events are the same ones who have been reliably turning out for Republican candidates since the Reagan years. The key question, as I see it, is whether the president and the Democratic Party can recapture the voters they have thus far alienated by tacking a little too close to the right of center on way too many issues, and by sucking up way too much to Republicans who have made it abundantly clear their only interest in the president and the Democratic Party is in defeating them. If the president and the party finally get that message, they've got three full years to woo us back--in which case, a lot of the doom and gloom predictions we're seeing now are likely to look really silly. However, if they don't start working on that course correction right fucking now, they're likely to find out that the doom and gloom predictions about the 2010 midterms were far more accurate than they would have liked.

  •  Survey USA is actually not secretive (3+ / 0-)

    about its likely voter screen.

    See here:

    [W]e . . .  ask on a scale of 1 to 10 how likely they are to vote this Saturday. The “9’s” and “10’s” are judged by SurveyUSA to be likely and are permitted to hear the “who will you vote for question.” Those who answer “8″ or lower, on the 1-to-10 scale, are treated differently.

    Ok, so I read the polls.

    by andgarden on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:37:25 PM PDT

  •  why is GOP on strike against America? (0+ / 0-)

    they just won't cooperate unless and until they can be in power....

    simplicity is the most difficult of all things

    by RichardWoodcockII on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:38:31 PM PDT

  •  Is there such a thing in polling (0+ / 0-)

    as open source in software? That is, are there any polls where all the details are made openly available?

    Economic Left/Right: -4.00 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.82

    I rebuke myself when under stress - The Lord/King Crimson

    by AaronInSanDiego on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:38:32 PM PDT

  •  Apparently they didn't notice the huge (0+ / 0-)
    numbers of democratic voters that wiped the floor with McCain and Moosalina.

    What fools. But what can be done? There isn't an American 'mainstream media' outlet that's on our side.

    •  You're fooling yourself (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      That huge number of "democratic [sic] voters" is exactly the same Democratic base that has been dissed and dismayed by the guy they helped to get elected last year and who has been, for the most part, running away from them quite regularly for the last eight months. It should come as no surprise that more likely voters are self-identifying as Republicans at this stage of the game. The question is, can the president turn it around in time for 2012?

      •  No we're not. I can see not voting next (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        election (it would be the first presidential election in my life that I didn't vote). But I am still a dem. I think I'm more of a dem than the hero worshippers and the just go along to get along crowd.

        If polled, I would answer any questions as a dem.

        (And I don't worry about capitalizing dem or democrat anymore. I would have to have some respect for the party, and I don't.)

        •  Seems to me that your second comment (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          directly contradicts the position you took in your first, Which is it? There's this huge number of voters that can be counted on to vote Democratic in 2012, or there's a lot of folks who voted Democratic in 2008 who are a lot less likely to do so (or to vote at all) in 2012? Big difference between the two claims!

          •  why do you keep talking about 2012? (0+ / 0-)

            Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

            by Micheline on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 04:01:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Not necessarily. It all depends on what happens (0+ / 0-)
            in the next few months for me. That is ME. I don't speak for anyone else.

            The original discussion was about polls and 'are all likely voters republicans'. I pointed out the stupidity of that question by saying look how many voted for Obama. These people have not changed their minds about anything. They hold the same opinions and have the same desires for our country. They are just either not being asked or their answers are being totally ignored at 'press' time. As for this administration, it has done an absolute 180 on the promises made to get their votes. Their ideals are still the same. My are still the same.

            Another thing, millions are repulsed by the circus that has become the republicann party. Michael Steele, Sarah Palin, Orly Taitz, What's His Bucket Sanford, Glen Beck, Rush Limpwhatever,  those are the faces of the 'right'. And the MAJORITY of the people in this country, left and right, are appalled by them and their insanity. The repubs didn't gain a lot of new voters. The lost a bunch of republicans that were ashamed and afraid of the ticket, Five Planes McCain and Moosalina.

            I don't think that anyone will be swayed into changing sides and voting for a republican. I think that the voters Obama loses will just stay home. It happened before you know. With a different president, but it happened none the less. Some argue that is a backhanded vote for a republican, and I can see that point. But I hate being snowed. And that's exactly what happened, we got snowed. I have no intention of going back to the polls and rewarding the corporatists in our own party.

            •  Can't agree with this (0+ / 0-)

              I pointed out the stupidity of that question by saying look how many voted for Obama. These people have not changed their minds about anything. They hold the same opinions and have the same desires for our country. They are just either not being asked or their answers are being totally ignored at 'press' time.

              Many people who voted for Obama have changed their minds about him--precisely because of the things you mention in the final two sentences of that paragraph. And I don't believe it's that we're not being asked (I personally get asked questions on a regular basis, since I'm on at least three different survey panels), it's really that many of the people who voted for Obama believed that he really meant what he was saying about "change you can believe in," and are disappointed that he has thus far not seemed to believe in it himself. That disappointment has been reflected in his declining poll numbers, and those of the Democrats in Congress as well. The ultimate question is whether or not the president and the congressional Democratic caucus can pull their chestnuts out of the fire in time to prevent the next couple of election cycles from biting them in the ass. Staying home in 2010 or 2012 is just as bad as voting for the Republicans, as far as they're concerned.

              •  Yes, they've changed their minds about (0+ / 0-)
                Obama. But not about why they voted for him. The reasons are the same, but they see that they were lied to by this guy and his campaign.

                Doesn't mean that they would give different answers to any questions they were asked if they were polled. Except maybe 'who will you vote for' in the next elections.

            •  Don't stay home (0+ / 0-)

              There are a variety of non-corporatist parties and independent Congressional candidates that could use your support.  There is no shame in supporting an underdog even if their loss in the race is inevitable.

  •  Who, and what's, on the ballot? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    In Califorbnia, there'll be a marijuana legalization initiative, and perhaps repeal of Prop 8, advantage D turnout.

    Here in WI, Sen. Feingold's up for re-election, again pulling more young voters to the polls than Herb Kohl's re-election in 2006. russ, even tho his only declared opponent is a very lightweight, has already opened an office in Green Bay. I have to think he's pushing for coattails on the Gov. and Legislative races, rather than worrying about his own prospects.

    Medical Marijuana is Healthcare. does YOUR bill cover it?

    by ben masel on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:43:15 PM PDT

  •  At this point, I'm not sure that's an invalid (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irmaly, pHunbalanced, Xerxes

    hypothesis. There has been, as evidenced by the president's declining favorability numbers in most of the polls (including those taken for R2K and published on this site every week), a growing discontent about his policies among the Democratic base. Given that the next presidential contest is three-plus years in the future, it doesn't surprise me to see that one way that dissatisfaction with the way President Obama has been running the country these past eight months has been voiced has been in a disinclination to commit to voting for him again in 2012.

    Whereas for the Republicans, even given that they have a hugely disappointing slate of mediocre candidates, 2012 represents their first chance at revenge. Of course their base is mobilized for that fight. Whether the Democrats will counter that mobilization with such force as we saw in 2008 again remains very much up to the president. If he keeps alienating his base the way he has been thus far, then yes, I tend to think we will see far more likely voters self-identifying as Republicans for the 2012 presidential race.

    •  Obama still has support of the base. (0+ / 0-)

      Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

      by Micheline on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:48:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A lot less of it than he did eight months ago (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        irmaly, pHunbalanced, andgarden, Xerxes

        Look at the trend lines.

      •  Yes, tepid support. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        musing85, Xerxes, marxmarv

        And many who were pulled to the Dems to vote fro their very first time and those who were pulled back from the Green Party, may not bother next time.

        Remember, many of Obama's most fervent support came from folks who had not voted before. Many of his consistent donors and door knockers were tentative Dems with marginal identification with the party. Most of these folks are not centrists but people who wold be potential members of the Dem base if the party could lost it's ties to the corporate lobbyists instead fo just talking a good game.

        •  Not necessarily true. (0+ / 0-)

          Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

          by Micheline on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 02:58:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And your data in support of that hypothesis (0+ / 0-)

            come from where?

            •  Obama initially did not get the support of the (0+ / 0-)

              left. His support was among center-left moderates.

              Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

              by Micheline on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:11:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nice, but irrelevant to the OP's point (n/t) (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                •  how so (0+ / 0-)

                  Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

                  by Micheline on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:15:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  In that it completely fails to address (0+ / 0-)

                    the OP's point.

                    •  well i'm anecdotal evidence (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:

                      Many of his consistent donors and door knockers were tentative Dems with marginal identification with the party. Most of these folks are not centrists but people who wold be potential members of the Dem base if the party could lost it's ties to the corporate lobbyists instead fo just talking a good game

                      im not a tentative dem. i'm a lifelong indie who happens to mostly be progressive. and this quote describes me perfectly.

                      •  well then presumably you always vote (0+ / 0-)

                        irrespective of a partyline for the person (s) who best fit your personal philosophy of life?  regardless or not whether if they do get elected they can actually achieve anything in the two party system Ametrica works under, in your own district anyway.

                        Or doesn't that aspect, actually governing or having the ability to change anything, enter into your equation and it is all personal issues driven?  Interesting.

                        Maybe there is something in the Repubs toe the party line meme after all and Dems just all go their individual ways?

                        •  not sure i understand what youre asking (0+ / 0-)

                          i'm not sure what you mean "personal issues driven".

                          generally i dont pay attention to the letter after the name.  i listen to what the candidate is saying and decide whether it makes sense and could achieve what i believe needs to get done politically, socially, nationally. i take into account a lot of other things too including external conditions that do in fact change and can demand different approaches from time to time.

                          mostly i want to see things getting accomplished. it all i ever wanted and failure to get things done was my initial reason for checking out of the political process years ago. It seemed that the GOP was stuck in its philosophy and wouldnt budge. And the Democrats were also stuck in theirs and wouldnt budge and nothing ever got done. it was stagnation and decay.  So i cam to the conclusion that the way it was se up actually was antithetical to progress and i decided i didnt need the headaches.  That was then. Obama re-introduced me to a belief that it DID matter and that things COULD get done.

                          but sadly, it seems we've reached the ugly gridlock again. and this time its worst than I initially thought: the democrats are gridlocking themselves!   obviously, this makes me feel even worse.

                          in all, right now, i am still hopeful about Obama believe it or not. I try to keep level headed and try to be patient. I have committed to giving it my all, at least for now.  I remind myself that its only been a few months really and that we have yet a long way to go. But i'll be honest to tell you that I wont do this forever. And if i decide its hopeless, i'll likely check out again, only for good.

                          •  I guess what I mean by 'personal issues (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:

                            driven' is what personal issues you personally believe in, and how you arrive at decisions who to support.

                            And try and keep that in mind and remember it is only six months and read Jed's FP story about Kennedy's position on the Medicare/drug prescription bill the first time around.

                            I know how hard it is to be patient and we shouldn't be, but allowing Repugs to get elected doesn't answer anything.

                            This was and is not a personal attack. I am interested in what makes political activists tick.  It's so easy to be apathetic and believe none of it matters anyway.

                            Don't take offense, none intended.  I tend to be an evolutionary person at this end of my life, at the other end i was strictly revolutionary.

                          •  thanks for responding (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            pHunbalanced, soccergrandmom

                            well health care is a pretty serious issue for me. Not on;ly personally (although i'm healthy i pay my own premiums b/c i own a business. rates increase every year for no reason)

                            so one personal issue for me is health care.

                            another is education. i'm sick about the fact that our population is becoming less educated. this country wont be able to compete.

                            Oh, I am plenty patient. As a matter of fact I'm usually called a sycophant around here b/c i feel like i have a long view of what Obama's doing and i think he's done a pretty damn good job in such a short period of time. I dont blame his for this health care mess. Its the idiots in congress. And god lve him, he actually respects the roles outlined in the constitution although i wish sometimes he'd be a bit more [ahem] assertive with congress.

                            as far as allowing republicans to get elected not being the answer: I am convinced that this country cannot survive another GOP administration, particularly if combined with a GOP congress.  And I cannot see myself ever voting GOP again in my life.  However, i'm not sure the dems are doing the right thing either.  I;m willing to give it some time, but i'll be honest, this health care thing is pretty much the litmus test for me. If they cannot pass it, i'm done. I realize the implications of that. Its a tough place to come to but empires rise and they fall. The fact is that without some serious health reform, without some serious education reform, this country is on its way out of the TOP tier anyway regardless of who is in congress or the white house. This is what i believe.  The dynamics today are tenuous as it is. China and India are rising. South America s rising. Africa is forming alliances with Russia, China.  These are facts. If we dont get our shit togeher by passing real health reform and educating our populace to compete, it wont really matter if i dont vote. The US will be the next portugal - a fallen once great empire (except of course portugal at least has a govt health plan). It's a nice place but really not all that consequential from a world stage perspective.

                            That may sound harsh but Bush and his GOP congress have driven this country to the point where if we dont act decisively over the next 8 years to set up a foundation for growth and competitiveness, we're done. There are no do overs. Its just done.

                      •  That's the OP's position (and mine) (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        Micheline, however, seems to feel that it's the "center-left moderates" who make up most of the president's base and who worked the hardest for him. I'm skeptical of that position, and have yet to see any evidence in support of it.

                        •  maybe she'd describe me as (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:

                          a center-left moderate and that's why you and she seem to be disagreeing when perhaps you arent.

                          plenty of folks might describe me as center-left or even moderate. i wasnt in favor of nationalizing the banks (although I want string regulation) and I agreed with Obama's decision not to release the torture photos (although i would like to see an investigator assigned).

                          How would you classify me?

  •  well this indie would say (5+ / 0-)

    And therein might be the lesson for Democrats. It is apparent that pollsters and pundits are growing convinced that part of the rapidly hardening conventional wisdom regarding Democratic woes in 2009/10 is based upon a lack of enthusiasm among the Democratic base.

    That ought to be something that Democrats consider as they contemplate negotiating away a vast array of progressive initiatives.

    not just the democratic base.

    as an indie, i'm sure I'll never again vote for a republican for the rest of my life. But that only gets Dems 1/2 way there.  The GOP has did-earned my vote, likely for life. Now, the Dems need to earn mine at least for more than a couple cycles. If they do, hell, I might even switch parties!

  •  Coal in China (0+ / 0-)

    China now burns twice as much coal as the United States,and by 2030, will emit more CO2 than all the rest of the world's countries combined.
    Is Obama going to fix this?

  •  You can't (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    prolong / expand Bush's wars (AfPak) and domestic Security State, while enacting the culmination of Reaganomics (not it's negation), while blowing the only (non-plussing) initiative (HC"R") you're attempting, while maintaining a "hope" and "change" base.

    Sorry Dems.  People aren't that clueless.

    Way to take one for the team though.

    Please don't feed the Security State.

  •  I think that anonymous WH spokesperson (8+ / 0-)

    should think twice before he speaks once.  Maybe alienating your left of left supporters isn't the right way to win friends and influence people, especially if those friends raised tens of millions of dollars for the man who now sits in the WH.  I also think this same anonymous spokesperson is largely responsible for complete snub of the greatest chairman the Democrats ever had.

    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:05:35 PM PDT

  •  NO, But All neoCon Candidates Will Likely Be From (0+ / 0-)

    plasmodia, the original womb of neoCons.

  •  Doing so little.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Xerxes, MetallicaFan34

    ...with so much.

    ...and Reid couldn't lead the way to the Washington Monument from Capitol Hill.

    Don't argue with 'publicans... Don't reason with 'publicans.. Just dominate 'publicans.

    by dehrha02 on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:10:09 PM PDT

    •  So ending the f-22 and others don't count. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skywalker, charliehall

      One thing I do know the left needs to stop exaggerating about Obama's supposed failure when they haven't been none. Health care reform is still in play. Anybody who thought that was going to be easy needs to wake up and smell the coffee.

      Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

      by Micheline on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:14:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It is indeed about who votes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Consider the past four Virginia gubernatorial elections compared to the presidential election held the year before:

    Kerry 1,454,742 Kaine 1,025,942
    Bush  1,716,959 Kilgore 912,327

    Gore 1,217,290 Warner 984,177
    Bush 1,437,490 Earley 887,234

    Dole    1,138,350 Gilmore 969,062
    Clinton 1,091,060 Beyer   738,971

    Bush    1,150,517 Allen 1,045,319
    Clinton 1,038,650 Terry   733,527

    In each election, the candidate who got the largest fraction of the presidential voters to the polls was the winner -- and none of these were nail-biters.

    McDonnell, however, is just the type who can fire up his base, especially if they read this article which was nicely diaried here.

    Deeds is a good candidate but will progessives bother to vote for a blue dog? If not, we have only ourselves to blame for sending Virginia back to the 19th century. The Democratic votes are there -- Obama defeated McCain by 1,959,532 to 1,725,005. That's right -- McCain got more Presidential votes than anyone in Virginia history, except for Barack Obama. This is not an Ohio or Indiana situation where McCain underperformed compared to Bush. Virginia is turning Democratic if we just show up!

    All my IP addresses have been banned from

    by charliehall on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:12:28 PM PDT

  •  The Republicans win elections because (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Micheline, charliehall

    their "base" sticks with them, no matter what.  If there's an (R) next to a candidate's name, they vote for him/her.

    I'm not thrilled with how the Dems are doing, either, but I can't believe that everyone who's threatening to withhold their support would prefer to be governed by the new, unimproved, less rational, reactionary wing of the Republican party.

  •  Pollster like Rasmussen and Mason Dixon shouldn't (0+ / 0-)

    Be counted on for accurate polling for next years election, they've shown themselves to be nothing but hack pollsters for the GOP.

  •  Voter Alienation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Maybe they're right. I for one will wait for a cold day in hell before I'd vote for these frauds again. I worked, I contributed and thought I was voting to put a "progressive" open Administration into office that would take on the scum of Wall Street and who would be transparent, who would change all the revolting Bush terrorism policies, e.g., rendition, indefinite detention, etc., who would fight for universal health care, and on and on and on. Instead we've elected a somewhat kinder and gentler, but no smarter Republican Administration in the guise of a Democratic Administration. I have come to the conclusion that all the supporters of COMPROMISE, and their inability to see what the actual policies of this Administration are, and how little they differ from Bush's, are Democratic analogues of ditto heads or they are simply closet Republicans as is Obama and his whole fucking Administration.

  •  The series of questions are really easy::: (0+ / 0-)
    1. Did you vote in the 2008 election?
    1. For McCain, for Obama, for someone else
    1. Do you consider yourself a Democrat or a REpublican?
    1. Strong Democrat? or Strong Republican?

    That should fix it.

    First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. -Mohandas K. Gandhi

    by ezdidit on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:41:37 PM PDT

  •  An honest fight (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...for progressive goals would have won Obama the love and undying support of everyone who stood up for him in 2008.  Even if he lost some of those fights. But he isn't fighting. Now when he looks around to see who has his back, there won't be anybody there.

    We carried you in our arms on Independence day, and now you cast us all aside and send us on our way  B. Dylan.

    This one really hurts.

  •  It's the base, baby, it's the base! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DEMonrat ankle biter

    Obama's drop in the polls are progressives who are getting very tired of non-action.  Despite realizing that we eviscerated Bush for contaminating his DOJ and Congress as a Unitary Executive, we are impatient and actually prompting Obama now to become the same.

    Obama cannot and should not become involved in the machinations of Congress until an actual "bill" is out there for him to dissect and support or threaten to veto.

    We said we wanted change from Bush - we're getting it and it's making us nervous.

    The 'nervous, impatient base' are the ones who are taking Obama's numbers down right now.

    Once he gets a strong bill of reform and public option passed (single payer would be much better but imagine the hissyfit and tantrums of grown people then??), his numbers will go back up.

    Once his new healthcare bill grows the feet and people see the "real change", his numbers will be back stronger than ever.

  •  As for the polls... (0+ / 0-)

    The polls during the campaign, as we know, discredited themselves totally.  They'be become slick con-artists in the way they frame the question and what they leave out....and then draw the conclusions they wanted in the first place by the responses.

    It's no different than what the Bush White House did - they created fiction out of whole cloth and sent it to their paid "propaganda tools" (Murdoch) to publish.  Once published, they then quoted directly from that which they fictionalized in the first place and credited it to the newspaper.

    It's a game as old as time.  Now the pollsters are playing it, too.

    Don't put much stock in any poll.  Forewarned is forearmed.

  •  Don't bank on brand (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    differences either.

    Q: How was Dem popularity tracking at the end of the Bush clusterfuck Administration?

    A: IIRC, Dems weren't exactly flying high (rightly so).

    Explanation: The populace recognized Dem fecklessness, when not active complicity, as key to any "success" Bush enjoyed during his reign of idiocy.

    Barak Obama offered a break from this muddled, sorry state of fecklessness.  Not more of the same.

    More of the same is what we're getting.  You do the math.

    Please don't feed the Security State.

    •  Let's see: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Dems have taken up Bushco's corrupt "terror" "war" meme, and run with it (a trend that goes back through the worst Bushco depredations).  Instead of a clean break now, they've excused / normalized the worst aspects of said program, expanding war and looking the otherway on all that matters.

      Strike One.

      Dems have offered, not a negation of Reaganomics, or even a change in course, but the perverse culmination of Reaganomics, in a blatant, massive transfer of wealth (now public wealth looted openly and directly) from the masses to the few.

      Strike Two.

      Piddling, insipid healthcare "reform" (re-trenchment more than reform) while leaving central problem unaddressed and people fucked as usual.

      Strike Three.

      Nine months into the thing.  Strike Three.  

      People might be forgiving, if these were errors of omission.  They're not.  These are active, political choices Dems are making.  Not only are they not trying anything new, they're still working for the other side.

      The shallow Obama effect won't overcome the massive nonpluss that is Big-Boy Pants(tm) politics in the moribund Reagan era.

      Ya gotta throw the people a bone sometime.

      Please don't feed the Security State.

      •  To put it another way (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Dems have succeeded in making Bushco's wars (and ya know, the whole fascism thing), AND stinking, failed Reaganomics into non-issues.

        Quite a feat.

        Brand difference on the biggest, most real political issues that effect peoples lives in our time: nil.  Move on, folks, nothing to see here.

        Except Dems bring a little less vigor and certainty to the idiocy.

        No difference.  Quite an accomplishment, after 2 terms of Bushco, for the ostensible opposition, and party of "hope" and "change".

        Prospective voters aren't stupid.  When the choice is between idiocracy's A-team and idiocracy's B-team, they will stay home, in droves.

        Please don't feed the Security State.

  •  Until the elections, so much time left... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bushondrugs, Wolf Of Aquarius

    A lot of people here is commenting about it looking for the situation we have right now.

    Elections to the United States Senate will be held on November 2, 2010. A LOT will happen from now to then:
    a) Heath care reform bill will be passed;
    b) Cap & Trade bill will be passed;
    c) Financial crisis may be almost over;
    d) Because of c) employment rates will go up;
    e) Obama will be tackling Education reform...

    I think Obama will wait for 2011 to leave Iraq for his re-election, so we cannot count on that to help Democratic Senators to be (re-)elected.

    There is a lot to be done to save the majority and make it stronger and more progressive until election. Stay tuned!

    Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate... leads to suffering...

    by JackLord on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 03:56:37 PM PDT

    •  Cap n Trade (0+ / 0-)

      Cap n Trade will be the next major wingnut rallying  issue. In fact, the consultants and think tanks have already plotted out their strategy. And it looks a lot like what's happening with health care.

      There's also two other possibilities for 2010 - or perhaps alternatives to cap n trade - both of which will be contentious, but where we will start with the high ground with most voters...

      Immigration Reform

      Both of which are Obama promises for the first term. EFCA being the pay back to the unions...
      Immigration Reform is what the Republicans are deathly afraid of, because it will solidify Dem support with hispanics, AND give them a lever for GOTV. Failure to pass it will have, perhaps, a dampening effect on turnout.

      The only caveat I see is that something like immigration reform will require the same kind of legislative activity as health care, whereas the EFCA Bill is much simpler and largely already written.

      •  Immigration reform won't take that much (0+ / 0-)

        Observe that HR3200 is huge precisely because it has to preserve the existing employer-based scheme, support and work within it, buy the support of interests who might otherwise take a loss on it, AND carry the usual amount of pork.

        Observe further that HR676 is 27 pages long.

        Unless there are some serious riders on an immigration bill, the likelihood of quite this much legislative friction is probably low.

      •  Cap & Trade will be easier! (0+ / 0-)

        Because Barack Obama is a supporter of clean coal (what a joke!) and corn ethanol...

        If Democrats make a deal with the clean coal lobby to have their support, they will guarantee some of support in coal-producer states. They sure have support from corn-producer states for ethanol. In states like Texas and Arizona, where solar energy has a great potential, they can also gather more supporters... Since they bailed-out the auto industry, those guys won't be lobbying against it.

        I agree with you about EFCA and Immigration Reform, although every bill will be a fight, the toughest fight is health care.

        Fear is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate... leads to suffering...

        by JackLord on Mon Aug 31, 2009 at 06:49:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obama's base is constipated right now (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Call it the Summer blues or constipation, O's base is getting very edgy right now.  Of course, this August hiaitus hasn't helped us at all.  It's been a month of lunatics at large, screaming lies and acting out like juvenile delinquents.

    Meanwhile, Obama is doing what he should be doing right now which, other than the townhalls he did, is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING POLITICAL.

    Recall how we blamed Clinton for meddling in Congress with their healthcare reform effort?  

    Or better yet, remember how we screamed that Bush had knocked off all the other two legs of the stool?

    If Obama would have shown his cards before the recess, the right would be comparing him directly to Bush and we'd be eating our own words right now.

    Obama is a very intelligent, wise leader who is doing precisely what he needs to be doing right now and that is presenting a 'hands off" approach to it all.

    He's also giving everyone a voice to call for more leadership by their President - again, a good position from him to emerge when the time is right.

    I'd say he's quite masterful at doing precisely what he should be doing right now....while the GOP is outing itself as sponors of domestic terrorism and rightwing lunacy.....the Blue Dogs are being "outed" for their ties to the insurance industry and have become irrelevant as a result of these payoffs.....

    Yessiree....It'll be time for our Obama to ride into Washington soon and take back the reins of this country....and tell Congress what he intends to do and not the other way around.

  •  It's not easy being edgy.... (0+ / 0-)

    albeit a very challenging spot for progressives to be in right now, I believe it will all pay off in the long run.

    Our President will not be besmerched by accusations that he was meddling.  He's gotten the lunatics to show themselves as domestic terrorists (and to Dep. Homeland Security as well so they're now "outed totally") and he's got middle america crying out and pleading for him to take control of this debate....which he will do at the appropriate time.

    Unfortunately, before a bill is crafted is NOT the appropriate time if he is playing for the rules (Bush never did this).

    So....edgy is not easy....but who ever said that being a progressive is EVER easy???

    •  Progressives versus Dems (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      It's good to remember we are progressives. But it's good to remember that by ourselves we can't do much at all. We still are, hopefully, Democrats. And for better or for worse, we need to work for the success of the party or we'll just be shooting ourselves in the foot.

  •  Public Option, Public Option, Public Option (3+ / 0-)

    If a strong public option is passed in the final Health Care bill, all will be forgiven.

    The base is infuriated that so many of our Democratic leaders are very eager to surrender on the public option. And for what? Not a single a Republican is going to vote for HCR anyway.

  •  Our base = gays pissed and progressives dishearte (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:


    gays = (uhm you forgot to mention them as most loyal voting block.....86% of registered gay voters vote DEM with a larger % of gay population actually registered to vote as vs other groups) who also have larger disposable incomes and more time for voluntere work GOTV

    Totaly turned off right now over Obama and it isn't DADT and DOMA (don't help) its pathetic mistakes like arguing before the supreme court that gayness is equal to pedophilia etc!  Visti any number of gay blogs and or gay rights group boards.....almost 100% no money or voluntering this time around and lucky if they go out and vote

    progressives totaly disheartened on the bank bail out of the rich bankers and little populist progressive stuff and especialyy the whole fight over the public option.  Now if the public option (non co-ops) comes through then everything changes with progressive base

  •  Three Words: "No Public Option" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MixedContent, LysergicAsset

    It's the recipe for a GOP resurgence in 2010 and it opens the door for a serious run at the WH in 2012.

    If the Democrats fail to deliver meaningful reform, then they will deflate the disaffected constituencies who usually stay home, but turned out in 2008 for a "change".

    The Republicans know what they are doing. Turning back meaningful health care reform will return the political dynamic to one that is dragged down by hatred and fear, instead of one that is buoyed by hope and determination.

    This Space For Rent

    by xynz on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 04:47:41 PM PDT

    •  It still comes down to us (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Micheline, LysergicAsset

      Republicans can't win unless we, collectively, bail. The average person who voted for Obama in 2008 is not a political junkie. Is still susceptible to viewing Obama positively.

      We need to make the case for the importance of allowing Obama to maintain a healthy congressional majority, because there are other things to be done. Including, a strategy for reducing deficits.

      Our lethargy, or petulance, or whatever, if it keeps us on the sidelines means that a greater number of those average voters who don't make it a habit to vote
      in mid-term elections, won't be getting a push to vote. That plays directly into the Republicans hands.

      •  I've done my part. (0+ / 0-)

        I've made phone calls to the Democratic Congressional leadership and to my Congressional delegation. I've also contributed $100 to the progressive candidates who've claimed to stand for the public option.

        I don't see the White House or the House Leadership doing their part. I don't see them aggressively attacking the lies and the lying liars who have been telling the lies. I don't see WH or the Democratic Leadership pursuing the public option with the same vim and vigor that they used to pursue their elected offices.

        If the Republicans were making a better case for  their program, then that would be one thing. But we're not fighting against a different viewpoint of the facts, we're fighting against pure, unadulterated bullshit.

        I'm tired of a Democratic leadership that is either too timid (or corrupt) to forcefully say: "Their Emperor has No Clothes." Especially when winning this battle would effectively win the war for generations to come. Getting a public option for the American people is not only good policy, it's good politics. If the Democrats were to deliver affordable, quality health care to the American people, then it would produce an enduring Democratic majority similar to the 50 year majority delivered by the New Deal.

        The only reason that I can see why the Democrats are not pushing this, is because they are too corrupted by corporate interests in general and by health care money in particular.

        This Space For Rent

        by xynz on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 08:25:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Take this very seriously... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kefauver, Micheline, LysergicAsset

    If anyone doubts there's a double-barreled problem for Nov. 2010, let's start with ourselves. On basically every site I read comment after comment of people
    venting over how they will not be voting in 2010 if they don't get the health care Bill they want. I don't think everyone is serious, of course, or will still be thinking that way in 14 months, but it doesn't take all that many to have an impact, especially in CRITICAL DISTRICTS.

    And since I read comments like that here, I implore everyone to remember what is at stake....

    And, then we have the Republicans. They're throwing every rotten hook line and sinker they can to energize their base. And will continue to do so....

    And if we have any doubts as to who the REAL ENEMY is, and why we can't let them win in 2010, check out this latest upcoming gathering of the wingnuts....
    and ask yourself if you think this will all blow over....or is it worth the risk?

  •  Oh yeah? (0+ / 0-)

    What PPP and SurveyUSA are expecting is that the GOP, in the 2009 (and possibly, the 2010) cycles are going to be far more motivated to vote than Democrats.

    Just watch me!

    Barack Obama is my president!

    by RevJoe on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 06:39:11 PM PDT

  •  Anectodally, I have to agree (0+ / 0-)

    with the sentiment that GOPosaurs are more motivated than Democrats. The poll numbers and fund raising totals seem to bear it out as well.

    In my opinion, it is largely up to the President to turn it around. As the 2010 cycle approaches, we'll see more motivational speeches from all sides, but we need action on several fronts from Congress and we desperately need President Obama to take the reins and define the issues in terms that the least-likely voters can understand.

    As much as I detest the strategy, the politics of fear do work depressingly well.

  •  You know.... (0+ / 0-)

    ....I hope we get it together here.  Though, it will depend on the Health Care Bill.  And the big thing that will turn me off (and I have been doing this for over 5 years) is if we get a Health Care bill that has mandates and none of the following: Subsidies at least for people who are poor (though at least many have Medicaid) AND for the lower-middle class (those that make less than $50,000 a year), a Public Option, and/or serious Regulations on the private insurers.  Otherwise, this bill may be the "Everybody Bend over and Grab Your Ankles, because you're going to be Somebody's Bitch" Act of 2009.  And it's bad enough the Republicans did it.  I hope the Democrats don't do that.  

    If you listen to fools, the Mob Rules

    by CO Democrat on Sun Aug 30, 2009 at 09:21:40 PM PDT

  •  Vote of no confidence in Congress (0+ / 0-)

    The recent ABC News/Washington Post survey appears to indicate a disapproval of the way both parties have handled our nation's problems and could be considered a vote of "No Confidence" in either party.

    According to a article, CNN Polling Director Keating Holland stated "This summer has been the season of discontent with all politicians...The ABC/Washington Post poll indicates that Americans don't have confidence in the president or in Congress, and aren't confident about Democrats or Republicans."

    The article goes on to state, just 20 percent of people questioned say they have a great deal or good amount of faith in Congressional Republicans to make the right decisions. Surprising considering all the fuss they made over the bank bailout and health care bills.

    So, I find that 2010 could be an interesting year. Could 2010 be the year the electorate writes in on their ballot "No Confidence in Either Party" for Congress? I certainly hope so.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site