Skip to main content

Make no mistake: the essay you are about to read is not one that is awash in optimism.

There are no shortage of signs that 2010 could be a deeply perilous year for the Democratic Party:

  1. The ghosts of cycles past is certainly going to visit the Democrats with no small amount of woe to follow. It is, in the recent political past, decidedly rare for a political party to have two "wave elections" in a row. Yet that is exactly what the Democrats have enjoyed in both 2006 and 2008, when they gained over a dozen Senate seats and over 50 House seats. This creates two dangerous dynamics for the Democrats: (a) there is precious little low-hanging fruit left for the Democrats to harvest and (b) there are plenty of potentially imperiled Democrats who owe their seats to the favorable electoral climates to which they were elected.
  1. Whereas Democrats benefitted politically from voter discontent in both 2006 and 2008, any lingering voter anger (and recent right track/wrong track polling data confirms it is still very much out there) is likely to get directed disproportionately to the party-in-power. Of course, this is a fluid statistic, and voter malaise in January could become relative contentedness by November, depending on the state of the economy and any legislative accomplishments that can be touted between then and now.
  1. Perhaps the biggest concern for Democrats has to be the sizeable gap between the two parties in terms of voter motivation as we head into 2010. It should give the Democratic Party tremendous pause that, according to the final Daily Kos "State of the Nation" tracking poll, 45% of Democrats identify themselves as either unlikely to vote or certain not to vote. For the Democrats to avoid a major defeat in 2010, this above all other things needs to be rectified.

Democrats, all that having been said, do have a unique weapon at their disposal which might limit their losses in 2010. And it is not the traditional advantages of money, or superior recruits, or even an advantage in open seats (although, despite the hype over Democrats "fleeing" from Congress, the two parties are both defending roughly an equal number of open seats).

Their unique weapon? The Republican Party.

It has gone largely underreported in the traditional press, but the ascendancy of the "tea party" movement brings with it enormous electoral peril for the Republican Party, and carries with it the potential to blunt potential gains for the GOP in what otherwise might have been a very lucrative 2010 election cycle.

The typical trad-med coverage of the "tea party" goings-on have reflected on the ascendancy of the movement and the implications for the Obama administration and their political initiatives. Lost in the coverage was the implications for the Republican Party, save for a brief moment of reflection on that subject in the wake of the electoral outcome in New York's 23rd district (although even that got buried underneath the tortured attempts to pin the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial results on the Obama administration).

It is mystifying that a simple Google News search of the term "Democrats Divided" yields significantly more results than the term "Republicans Divided" (1060 to 794, for those scoring at home). After all, while it was given scant coverage in the larger narrative of the 2009 election cycle, the odyssey that was the New York 23rd special election might have been the most instructive in understanding the political dynamics of the 2010 electoral cycle.

In retrospect, there were several aspects of the Owens-Scozzafava-Hoffman contest that were extraordinary. It was not just the discontent of the activist Right over the decision to nominate Scozzafava, who like many Northeastern Republicans was not doctrinal on social issues. That, to some extent, was to be expected.

What made the betrayal of DeDe Scozzafava so extraordinary was the reaction of the "official" GOP to the events as they transpired. In short, the reaction was so scattershot that it bordered on the comical.

In one hand, the Republican party funded the Scozzafava candidacy with independent expenditures that may well have topped a million dollars. In the other hand was the steadily increasing number of Republican "regulars" eager to embrace the third-party insurgent conservative, Doug Hoffman. It culminated in the campaign's final week, when no less a Republican figure than national party chairman Michael Steele essentially abandoned his own nominee, saying that a Hoffman victory would be just fine by him, since Hoffman, too, was a registered Republican.

This is a microcosm of the problem confronting the GOP. They want to harness the potential political energy and power of the "tea party" movement. But they are very wary of ceding their party to that movement. Thus, the often absurd dance of the Republican Party, which in one breath embraces the teabaggers while in the next breath endeavoring hard to keep them at arms length.

Nowhere has this dance been more evident than in one Newt Gingrich. Back in October, he endorsed DeDe Scozzafava, and then pushed back hard when the usual suspects on the right criticized him for embracing a "RINO":

My number one interest is to build a Republican majority. If your interest is taking power back from the Left, and your interest is winning the necessary elections, then there are times when you have to put together a coalition that has disagreement within it.

We have to decide which business we are in. If we are in the business about feeling good about ourselves while our country gets crushed then I probably made the wrong decision.

Of course, that was then. This is now, in the form of a Newt Gingrich tweet from Saturday:

Every American who is not corrupted by the secular-socialist left should join the Tea Party movement.

Another dilemma for the GOP is that this schism is, in no small part, an inside job. Some of the most vocal proponents of the Republican Party have elected to make themselves leaders of the insurgency.

In some cases, this has come from the realm of the conservative media, where voices like Laura Ingraham are using their fairly vast platform to extol insurgent candidates against candidates that were recruited, in no small part by the GOP. In just the past month, Ingraham has used her show to tout insurgent primary challenges to party-anointed 2010 candidates like Senate candidate Kelly Ayotte and VA-05 House frontrunner Rob Hurt.

In other cases, the push for insurgency has come from within their elected ranks. No one has pushed that envelope further than right-wing U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, who has made it his quest to dramatically reshape the Senate by endorsing and fundraising for insurgent right-wing candidates from coast-to-coast. As James Rosen at McClatchy News Service wrote last month:

South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint is using his rising national profile among conservative activists to support and bankroll Republican Senate candidates around the country, some of them underdogs challenging GOP establishment favorites.

DeMint's endorsements of former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio over Gov. Charlie Crist and California state Rep. Chuck DeVore over former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina put him at odds with other prominent Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and fellow South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham.

This movement by DeMint has to rankle Republicans eager to make gains in the Senate. If a sitting Senator like DeMint says that people like Carly Fiorina and Charlie Crist are insufficently conservative to become U.S. Senators, then what can be said about some of the NRSC's top recruits? Certainly Mike Castle in Delaware, and Rob Simmons in Connecticut (try as he might to embarrassingly he tries  to ingratiate himself to the teabaggers) would not meet the Jim DeMint purity test.

And therein lies a monstrous dilemma for the GOP, one which could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Do they risk dimming the fire of the insurgents by sticking with their anointed "mainstream" candidates? Or do they embrace the insurgents, and wind up anointing unelectable candidates in winnable races (see: Hoffman, Doug)?

Worse yet, does their dithering on the issue actually inspire a spate of conservative third-party challengers, as has already happened in several races?

Any political analyst who does not factor the GOP/teabagger relationship into their electoral calculus may well be missing a potentially pivotal piece of the campaign puzzle.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:07 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

    •  anyone who voted in 08 but doesn't in 10 (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sebastianguy99, Matt Z, HerculePeroit

      is a mother fucking asshat

      simple as that

      zero excuse not to vote

      vote democrat

      vote independant

      vote republican

      vote tea bag conservative

      but vote

      or you can shut the fuck up until the next time you vote

      especially if you are a blogging on politics

      or have your own MSNBC show

      •  It's as simple as that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sebastianguy99, Matt Z

        Donating, yard signs, phone banking, organizing, etc--all that is optional.

        Voting is a civic duty. The benefits of living under self-government entail obligations. Voting should not be regarded as optional.

        We outnumber them. The people who bothered to vote in 2008 and think they can send a message by not voting in 2010 need to be brought to their senses.

      •  shorter version: grab your ankles (0+ / 0-)

        ...and take whatever our Dear Leaders give us, because the alternative is worse.  You are only EMPOWERING ashats like Nelson and Lieberman, because they KNOW you'll take it and only respond with a "thank you sir, may I have another?"

        No thanks.  I prefer competitive democracy, where candidates have to EARN our vote.  All my donations will go to progressive candidates only.  Dorgan will be getting my vote next year.  Conrad in 2012?  Not bloody likely.

        Republicans fear their base, and it's about time Democrats had the same fear.  Because nothing motivates a politician like the fear of losing his job.

        I'm a part of the reality-based community, not the personality-based community.

        by Uberbah on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 11:26:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Our best weapon is teabaggery (43+ / 0-)

    Democrats, all that having been said, do have a unique weapon at their disposal which might limit their losses in 2010. And it is not the traditional advantages of money, or superior recruits, or even an advantage in open seats (although, despite the hype over Democrats "fleeing" from Congress, the two parties are both defending roughly an equal number of open seats).

    Their unique weapon? The Republican Party

    And the trick is to be sure as many voters as possible see the hatred, intolerance, right wing nuttery of the tea party.

    •  As long as the Teabaggers scare the Indys (19+ / 0-)

      And the Democratic base gets out and votes we should be fine.

      Afghanistan:Graveyard to empires-It's not just a bumpersticker

      by JML9999 on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:26:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  My bet is... (6+ / 0-)

        that we're going to shy away from hanging them with their own nuttery.

        For some reason, we're always afraid to pull the trigger on using there own crazy words in our campaign efforts.

        "Self-respect is the keystone of democracy"

        by neverontheright on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:40:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Is There Any Evidence Yet.... (6+ / 0-)

        ....that the teabaggers scare the independents that much?  Unless that happens, independents and teabaggers will be a fearsome GOP coalition.

      •  So, what leads you to believe that tea party (9+ / 0-)

        folks are scaring anybody at all?

        Democratic faithful, maybe, but speaking from an independent point of view, you guys have your own collection of head cases.  I would bet that most independents pay about as much attention to the head cases as I do: none -- unless I encounter one face to face, and then only until I can exist the encounter.

        The bottom line is "What have you done for me lately", and the Democrats have steadfastly ignored the single biggest issue in my family's life:  "Papa ain't got a job, baby, and we're going to lose the house, but we'll try to hold on til the end of the school year."

        Some things are more important than loudmouths with stupid signs.

        Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

        by dinotrac on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:30:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You have a good point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Morague

          and for the masses of people who don't pay attention it is even more so.  Didn't they have a big deal a while back(A year or two) where they were saying how most people get their news from late night comedians?  Aren't they even more likely to ignore teabaggers and lefty's?  
          Actually that might work in our favor as fewer people are listening to the right wing noise machine.  Is this a factor?  
          I do have to say though if you are worried about your living situation and are an independent just remember all the times you hear republicans say 'the american worker has to learn to compete on a global scale' and look at your child and think of all the parents in china who work seven days a week and 14 hours a day and only see their kids for a few days per year because they live in a factory dorm.  Look at your child and remember that and vote for the party that does not want that for you.

          That passed by; this can, too. - Deor

          by stevie avebury on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 07:57:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree that most people don't pay much attention (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Morague

            to the crazies.

            Life is short and there's a lot to do.

            As to the party that doesn't want me in the factoy dorm, tht's a mighty tough call.

            The current crop of Democrats seem to find pretty much everything more urgent and more important than employment.

            There is some logic to that: our economy is cyclical and what does down tends to come back up but...

            there's laissez faire and let's say unfair, so to speak.

            If things are substantially better come November, I will be voting for "someone else", wherever I might be at the time.  We can't allow multimillionaire politicians to believe they can ignore us because we don't run in their circles.

            Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

            by dinotrac on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 09:25:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Oops!! Make that NOT better come November nt (0+ / 0-)

              Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

              by dinotrac on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 08:34:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  You are right there are far too many conservadems (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dinotrac

              people who are willing to sell out to corporate interests.  Dems do not on the other hand spend a lot of time telling us to we need to live like that.  What we need is better representatives.  That is the goal that I work towards.  You will never catch me voting for someone like say DeMint who thinks that way over someone like Obama, who if he does not do enough to fix the problems, is not aiming us in that direction.
               But you do have the choice as a free person to vote for whoever you choose.  Given the choice between an ineffectual democrat and an effective republican who wants us to live like slaves, I am going to still pick the ineffectual democrat as they will do less harm.

              That passed by; this can, too. - Deor

              by stevie avebury on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 08:50:52 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Who is "we"? (0+ / 0-)

        This is what is the matter with Kansas.  Delusions.

        They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich

        by dkmich on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:08:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's really sad (21+ / 0-)

      in my opinion, that the Democratic party can only appeal to voters by comparing itself to people who are slightly to the right of Attila the Hun. As I've commented in other threads, the dems are setting the bar extremely low. They could (and should) be doing a much better job of appealing to average Americans by passing legislation that will really make a difference to people.  

    •  well, we'd better start on that tomorrow (6+ / 0-)

      from what i've seen, for every conservative reinvigorated by the teabagger movement, there are three to five formerly rock-ribbed republicans who no longer admit to it.

      the problem is that tribalism kicks in strong as election day gets closer.  those voters seem to have an almost unlimited capacity to turn around and vote for candidates they thought were an embarrassment two weeks before and can't stand two weeks later.  and unlike disaffected democrats, they absolutely will not stay home on election day.

      so if we want to get the drifting indie crowd away from the GOP, we have to break them away hard, which means we've got to hit them with the teabaggery early and often.

      l'homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers

      by zeke L on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:13:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's called "wedge issues" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zeke L

        issues that will divorce the independents from the GOP, or the GOP from the teabaggers.

        For example, would it have been such a material sacrifice to have canned Ben Bernanke or Geithner? Or audited the Fed? Those are merely symbolic acts, but it could have been used as a wedge between country club Republicans and the populist right.

        America: our highest paid profession is thief.

        by Paul Goodman on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 07:19:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Democrats should be more concerned with not (8+ / 0-)

      appearing like cheap whores and  ineffective legislators in an attempt to placate special interests or their republicans counterparts who think that government is the enemy and do everything they can to disrupt and destroy it. Rather than depend on the lunacy of the right to help implode the republican party, democrats should work for real change, reform of health care, reform of the finance industry, climate change legislation, sane foreign policy, sane domestic policy, the provision of an improved education/health care delivery/labor/manufacturing etc bases for a better future, etc. If they are acting responsibly and as good legislators, that's the best thing they can do get themselves elected or reelected. If they are not working on behalf of their constituents, they should not be occupying a public office, no matter what their political affiliation.

    •  Our best weapon is positivity (0+ / 0-)

      I don't believe constant negativity wins elections, and that's all that seems to be coming from ANY corner of the right, whether it be the GOP establishment, the baggers or whatever bizarre hybrid of the two is slowly developing.

      The Democrats have a very powerful message in 2010, if we can muster the ability to make it, and that's the reality that we're the only party that's making any kind of active effort to make life better for Americans, rather than just standing on the sidelines complaining about how awful everything is.

      We're doing a lousy job of selling that message right now, but I'm hopeful that the passage of health care reform (in whatever version) this month will be the start of a turnaround on that front, at which point I think we may start seeing the poll numbers start to shift our way.

      Paying taxes is like going to the zoo. Admission is 20 bucks. You can't walk in and say, "Here's $18.50. I don't like zebras." - h/t Jon Stewart

      by ipsos on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 07:14:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  say what? (0+ / 0-)

        I don't believe constant negativity wins elections

        Then why don't the Republicans have 5 seats in the Senate then?  How do you explain the elections of...every Republican president since Ike?  Jesse Helms?

        I'm a part of the reality-based community, not the personality-based community.

        by Uberbah on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 11:28:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Teabaggers are are irrelevant. (0+ / 0-)

      The middle/working class, right, left and independent, are totally pissed.  They've been screwed and screwed royal.  Obama and the Democrats promised change and delivered the same old Bush bull shit.  No health care reform, no jobs, eternal and unlimited money for wars and bank bailouts, while the working/middle class dies and Obama and Bernanke threaten to cut Social Security and entitlements to pay for their corporate welfare and war profiteering.  We have witnessed the largest redistribution of wealth up and out in this nation's history, and both parties did it.  There needs to be a non-violent revolution in this country, and a third party candidate will do it.  Until then, I'm voting anti-incumbent.  Screw them all.

      They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich

      by dkmich on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:06:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The "unlikely to vote" numbers... (32+ / 0-)

    don't greatly concern me at this point, 11 months ahead of the elections.

    Remember how many Hillary supporters said they wouldn't vote for Obama/would sit out the election right up until the convention? Remember how few of those people actually did?

    I think that saying you're unlikely to vote is just another way of expressing disapproval of the admin/Congress, but when the prospect of Republicans potentially winning control of the House and/or Senate becomes a more real possibility (as the election draws closer), those numbers will improve to the point that they approach parity with the GOP numbers.

    •  I think they'll improve somewhat (14+ / 0-)

      but I would guess you are greatly underestimating the enthusiasm gap and it will come back to bite us.

      •  The "unlikely to vote" numbers will get worse (9+ / 0-)

        once the Lieberman-Nelson "health insurance reform" bill passes and the Administration starts to consider "entitlement reform."  "Vote or else you're a traitor to the party" isn't a winning appeal for everyone.

        ""It is hardly a moral act to encourage others patiently to accept injustice which he himself does not endure." -- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

        by Cassiodorus on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:33:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  just wait till the Dems cave in on (13+ / 0-)

          immigration, cap and trade, card check . . . .

          Let's see what THAT will do for their "enthusiasm".

          Naturally most of us here will continue to make excuses for them (because "the Repugs are EVEN WORSE !!!!")

          But "we suck less than the other party" remains . . . well . . . not a very good way to get people to vote for you, and not a very consistent election-winning strategy.

          And it doesn't do much for the enthusiasm level, either.

          Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

          by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:43:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  My thoughts precisely. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Morague, gmb, Heartcutter, farbuska

            I'm extremely short of enthusiasm myself. I'm weary of voting for the lesser of two evils since 1972.

            •  I fear for your remark (10+ / 0-)

              I do not blame you.  But that's what I said myself--in the Presidential election of 1980.  I did not vote, nor did many progressives.  We were going to teach Carter and the Dems a lesson.

              Instead we got twelve years of Reagan-Bush and a realignment that we're just beginning to correct.  My sitting out 1980 helped cause incalculable damage to the progressive cause.

              We are a movement, not a party.

              Please don't give up.  Work harder.  And vote.

              •  well, gee, if we're THAT powerful (0+ / 0-)

                that we can, all by our little selves, decide the sweeping fate of the entire nation, if the whole fate of western civilization depends solely on us, and if civilization will collapse if we don't vote your way, then perhaps you should be kissing our asses, very very hard (and telling us how good it smells), if you want us to vote for your guys.

                I'm pretty sure that ranting "you're a retard if you don't vote for my guy and you'll destroy the country and it will be ALL YOUR FAULT (drool) !!!!!!!!!!!!!!" is, uh, not gonna accomplish that.

                Yes?

                But hey, if you think it will work . . . (shrug)

                Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

                by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:54:46 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Maybe the Democrats (0+ / 0-)

                Maybe the Democrats should have thought about that before they caved in and gave the medical insurance lobby that Christmas gift of a health care no reform bill. Since the Democratic party gave up all cost controls, it sold out the American people to the insurance companies and gave the insurance companies a blank check for government insurance subsidies without any form of cost controls (insurance monopoly maintained, no public option, no Medicare buy-in, no single payer). This alienated anyone who was going to finance, work for, or vote for Democrats in 2010 and 2012.

          •  Don't Suck (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sayitaintso, gmb, Cassiodorus

            But "we suck less than the other party" remains . . . well . . . not a very good way to get people to vote for you, and not a very consistent election-winning strategy.

            Taking steering wheel away from these guys would reduce the suckitude dramatically, no?

            •  we already took the steering wheel away (6+ / 0-)

              The Repugs are irrelevant.  They stand on the sidelines chattering impotently while the real policy debates go on without them.

              It's the Dems making all the decisions, and the Dems doing all the caving in -- and they are caving in to OTHER DEMS, not to Repugs.

              This trainwreck is ours.  Solely.  We are the only one at the wheel.

              Blaming the Repugs for our own internal dysfunction and inability to effectively govern, is not a terribly good idea. Especially when it's so transparently bullshit.

              Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

              by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:03:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Exactly, what is the point of delivering (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Kestrel, Morague, Cassiodorus

                solid majorities in Congress and the White House if the Democratic Party won't even push for their own platform?

                Why waste our time getting these guys jobs?

                We are worried about our own jobs these days.

                "One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity nothing beats teamwork." - Mark Twain

                by greendem on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:27:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  DLC still has the wheel (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Morague, Greg in TN, Cassiodorus

                Rahm, Hillary, Vilsack, Napalitano and Sebelius in the Cabinet.

                The Presidents 'go to' guys in the Senate, Baucus, Conrad and Lieberman.  And go to woman, Landrieu.

                All DLC Dems.  Change we can believe in.

                •  but the Dems aren't running against the DLC (0+ / 0-)

                  Nor are they planning on running ads to blame everything on the DLC.

                  Although they SHOULD.

                  THAT might motivate me to get out and vote.

                  But alas, that would require the Dems to grow a spine.  And they seem genetically incapable of that.

                  Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

                  by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 07:15:56 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Awareness (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Morague

                    You need to know you have a boil before you lance it.

                    IMHO, Democrats in general just don't know anything about the DLC and what they
                    stand for.

                    I just want to see the shades go up and hopefully let sunlight do the rest.

                  •  The DLC must be destroyed (0+ / 0-)

                    It has caused nothing but problems for Democrats.  

                    •  I was hoping Obama could do it (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Morague

                      After all, in any successful insurrection (and remember that Obama's campaign was an insurrection -- none of the party hack-dom wanted him -- they all wanted Hillary), one of two things inevitably happens.  Either the insurgent breaks the power of the establishment, or the establishment coopts the insurgent and turns him into a part of the establishment.

                      Alas, it seems pretty clear which one happened. But that's not really surprising.  As I noted right after the election, the only Dems around with any governing experience were all former Clintonistas, so it was inevitable that Obama would be surrounded by Dem hacks.

                      That's no way to win an insurgency.

                      Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

                      by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 09:21:52 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Don't understand that (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            EricS, jaysunb, Greg in TN, ipsos, Matt Z

            And it doesn't do much for the enthusiasm level, either.

            Really? You don't find the thought of saving the country from the catastrophic, possibly terminal damage the tebaggers will do if we are foolish enough to let them regain power enough to muster up some enthusiasm?

            Hmm. Saving the country fills me with ALL sorts of enthusiasm, personally.

            I wonder why the difference...

            Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie without consequence; unless, apparently if you're a right wing talk-radio host.

            by Whimsical on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:15:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  nope (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cassiodorus, farbuska

              Really? You don't find the thought of saving the country from the catastrophic, possibly terminal damage the tebaggers will do if we are foolish enough to let them regain power enough to muster up some enthusiasm?

              I've heard that silly scare story in every election since Goldwater.

              It doesn't scare me any more. And in case you haven't noticed, it doesn't work very well as a rallying cry, either.

              Time for Plan B.

              Got one?

              Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

              by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:21:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  As fasr as I'm concerned (0+ / 0-)

                I shouldn't need one.

                Dunno why the thought of saving the country isn't enough to motivate you, and frankly, I don't really want to become enough like you so that it makes any sort of sense to me.

                Don't come crying to me when they tear the country down around you though, cause you could've stopped it and chose not to.

                Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie without consequence; unless, apparently if you're a right wing talk-radio host.

                by Whimsical on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:39:58 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  The teabaggers! The teabaggers! (0+ / 0-)

              Never mind that every government we've ever had has represented the rich elites from branch to branch to branch -- it's the teabaggers we should be afraid of!

              ""It is hardly a moral act to encourage others patiently to accept injustice which he himself does not endure." -- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

              by Cassiodorus on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 09:21:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Who said anything about fear? (0+ / 0-)

                Fear implies uncertainty, and one only needs to pay attention to be certain that the teabaggers, if we are dumb enough to let them back into power, will screw the place up worse than anybody else.

                Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie without consequence; unless, apparently if you're a right wing talk-radio host.

                by Whimsical on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 07:56:52 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  If we are dumb enough... (0+ / 0-)

                  if we are dumb enough to let them back into power,

                  If we are dumb enough to THINK THEY WERE EVER IN POWER IN THE FIRST PLACE.  W. was a REPRESENTATIVE OF OIL INTERESTS, not a "teabagger."

                  ""It is hardly a moral act to encourage others patiently to accept injustice which he himself does not endure." -- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

                  by Cassiodorus on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 08:05:52 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Way to completely miss the point. (0+ / 0-)

                    Sure, W was on the 50 yard line and teabaggers are still in the locker room, but they're both still on the same side of the field- it's only a matter of degree.

                    Point is that if we let that side of the field have power again, we are so far beyond fucked that we'll long for the days where the current crop of sorry jackasses were in charge.

                    Now I don't know why whining about the Democrats is more important to you than saving the country from raving maniacs, and frankly, I don't really care.

                    I just want you to understand what the consequences of your actions in abandoning the Dems is likely to be.

                    Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to lie without consequence; unless, apparently if you're a right wing talk-radio host.

                    by Whimsical on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 09:14:49 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Democrats can do more to commit harikari (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Blutodog, Morague, Cassiodorus

            by caving in on any number of important issues like immigration, cap and trade, card check, etc. If they stand up and are leaders, they have nothing to fear or worry about. The nation wants change. To squander that would be a direct betrayal and the sooner the last rights are given, the better. So, hopefully, democrats will stand up and do the right things. If they are actively involved in coming up with some kind of workable solutions to these problems, people will probably perceive that they are trying to do their jobs and give them the benefit of the doubt. And they can claim that they have been actively involved in making such changes to improve the lives of americans. That would be looked upon favorably by many people who might then be motivated for such representatives.

          •  Yet the GOP (0+ / 0-)

            is even worse.

            It's not an empty claim.

            America: our highest paid profession is thief.

            by Paul Goodman on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 07:20:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  We may have to ping pong the Senate bill (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Cassiodorus

          If we lose the Massachussets Senate special election in two weeks.  I dont believe we will lose that race, but all of the energy seems to be on the Republican side.  

      •  Even the most enthused voters... (8+ / 0-)

        only get to cast one vote apiece.

        ;-)

      •  teabaggers definitely have a lot of enthusiastic, (0+ / 0-)

        albeit misguided, uninformed, illiterate, insecure, often blindly bigoted racist and paranoid followers. But don't forget that a lot of them are imposters in that they are rank and file members of the status quo and don't want change any change to occur because they may think that any change might compromise whatever perceived advantages they currently enjoy in the system the way it currently is.

    •  I agree with this. (6+ / 0-)

      It's way too early to worry about this now. We should use our time now to frame why people should vote for Dems in November. Once we start putting those talking points out there, people will start to come around quickly. I was just saying yesterday, most people don't pay attention until August.

      And I finished this letter with unshakable faith that the dream will be fulfilled for this generation, and preserved and enlarged for generations to come.

      by Elise on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:29:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sure hope you are right. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kestrel, Trix, Matt Z, MikePhoenix

      When I imagine the prospect of more people who think like Dick Cheney being given positions of power, I get truly frightened.

      If I'm not an activist, would that make me a pacifist?

      by pensivelady on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:00:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  it's one of the pitfalls of placing such (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Trix

      importance on polls, especially if they are this far in advance of the elections.

  •  Our only real advantage: (13+ / 0-)

    Our purists are about par for the course, while their are so fed up they can't take it anymore.  Roe's still the law of the land.  The debt's bigger than ever.  The wars are unwinnable.

    And their guys did it!  And they know it.

    Meanwhile, establishment 'Pubs don't know which way to jump.  Only full-bore teabag purity will satisfy the angry mob, but most can't bring themselves to go there, for sound political reasons.  And the baggers don't want weak tea.

    Now, time for our side to swallow some bitter medicine and freaking vote!

    Finally, some new songs up at da web site!

    by Crashing Vor on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:16:06 PM PST

    •  One other advantage may - just may be (5+ / 0-)

      if what happened in NY-23 happens elsewhere.  That is, the ultra-conservative teabagger doesn't accept the results of a primary loss, and runs on a third-party ticket.  I think that's likely to happen in several places, which has the wonderful bonus of splitting the Republican vote.  

      I think that I have had enough of you telling me how things will be. Today I choose a new way to go ... and it goes through you!

      by Norbrook on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:39:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  There are several important things that'll decide (15+ / 0-)

    the political environment later this year in time for mid-term elections.

    The economy, first and foremost. We can't expect everything to be better by November, but real progress will help change the current political environment.

    Health-care.  Proving that Democrats can govern, both in terms of passing legislation and through generally-competent governance, can go a long way.  The failure of health-care reform indisputably played some role in 1994.

    Bin Laden.  Getting him, or perhaps Zawahiri, would go a long way for Democrats.  Speaking of which, there are rumors floating around that the drone strike earlier today described in my diary might have killed as many as 3 "foreigners"(usually meaning Al Qaeda), and at least one of them has been described as an Arab.  According to AFP, a security official in Mirmashah says a high-value target might have been present.

    Give me a break, to hell with Firedoglake.

    by Setrak on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:16:42 PM PST

  •  So far, I've looked at 5 states (11+ / 0-)

    (alphabetically through California) and BENAWU has looked at New England and California.

    I think we GAIN seats in CA, as does BENAWU, and I agree with him that we may gain in New England.

    Some other states don't look so good though

    We all differ in ways that matter. But we're all the same in the ways that matter most.

    by plf515 on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:17:17 PM PST

  •  Racist DeMint for President. Please tell your GOP (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JekyllnHyde

    friends (if you have any!) to give their tax money (gift from Bush) to his campaign. Would be nice to denounce him for the hack that he is.

  •  Democrats best "weapon" is production. (19+ / 0-)

    Passing the health care bill will boost them considerably which is why the GOP was so opposed to ANY health care bill passing.  GOP understands the perceptions.

    Economy will improve and that will also give Democrats a boost...especially if they blame the Great Recession on Reaganomics and GOP.

    Health care bill passed, economy recovering, Democrats will probably have a normal off seasons losses, maybe a few more than normal since they are defending some very marginal seats that Obama helped them win.

  •  Is the Democratic party fractured? (7+ / 0-)

    That was what the MSM was asking in June of '08. The answer turned out to be "No!".

    Flox News - The American Sheeple's #1 Source For Right-Wing Disinformation

    by kitebro on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:18:50 PM PST

    •  I do not see the Democratic party as fractured (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JekyllnHyde, Elise, JanL, Matt Z

      despite what the mainstream MSM says. I think some are disappointed and feel unmotivated to vote and there is those who are hit with complacency. But if some discover the danger of the teabaggers, that could make a difference too. And if they see a reason to vote to keep things moving along in a positive direction. But there has to be some improvement in the economy, jobs, and to begin to see troops coming home from Iraq. Of course, many of these troops are being redeployed to Afghanistan so that may not be obvious in less than a year.

    •  That's the funny thing about the Democrats. (0+ / 0-)

      It's a herd of cats - they'll scream and yell and throw rocks at each other one minute, then they'll come together and whoop ass the next minute, IF something comes along to entice them to stand together...

      I agree with you. I want to do it. Now make me do it! - Franklin Delano Roosevelt http://meldroc.com/

      by meldroc on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:53:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's kind of crazy to think about this now. (6+ / 0-)

    If the economy improves and HC reform looks at least plausible, we'll do OK.

    If not, all bets are off.

  •  and thats why I think the Dem party continues to (5+ / 0-)

    grow. Not because of anything they are doing, but that the Repuke party is not done imploding.

  •  discouraged democrat (15+ / 0-)

    I too was a discouraged Democrat during the HealthCare debate.  The sausage making was ugly and made me feel like corporate america is running the show.  And I really need help trying to finish raising 4 kids WITH child support and 401 moneys to make up the deficits.
    My annual healthcare costs have exceeded 12K AFTER taxed earnings.

    When I went to the Senate bill calculator, I found that my maximum spend will be about 6K.  With this help, I can at least stop cashing retirement.  It is too bad that I will wait 3 years to get the help.

    I now am much more satisfied and will support (maybe even Evan Bayh)the party.  I will NOT however give to the national organization but rather to Act Blue.

    The Dems need to sell this plan to the people like me.  Obama needs to give a speach and advertise a website for Americans to use such a calculator.

    I do not think 2010 is going to be be bad on domestic issues.  If Obama keeps to his Afghanistan withdrawal, he will not have any problems in 2012.

  •  Dems have more $$ than Repubs right now (7+ / 0-)

    I was just reading a news article on Yahoo about the Republicans lack of funding for the seats they are trying to either keep or take.

    It appears the Dems have more money at the moment.

    http://news.yahoo.com/...

    My question is when are the Republicans going to wake up and realize it is THEM that the country wants to run from.  Look at their favorables.  HELLO?  No is a negative term and people tend to not like negativeness in the long term.

    But if we don't energize the Middle and Progressive base, then the party of teabaggers will get the votes.  

    -6.13 -4.4 Where are you? Take the Test!!!

    by MarciaJ720 on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:25:05 PM PST

  •  There's one weapon the Dems have that is stronger (6+ / 0-)

    than any other.  It is one that the Republicans cannot come close to equaling.
    And that is Obama and the power of his presence, the power of his words.
    And yet, Obama seems disturbingly reluctant to use his bully pulpit.

    The Dems are selling us a shit sandwich, and asking us to be happy that we'll get fries with it. Oh wait, Lieberman says no fries.

    by jazzmaniac on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:26:14 PM PST

    •  "his presence, the power of his words" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JanL, Matt Z

      It IS one of his greatest strengths. It will be attacked. It gives the other party something to grab onto to try to make something of. This is an unnecessary distraction. I think the timing of his speaking is quite important.

      -- We are just regular people informed on issues

      by mike101 on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:41:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And he needs to come out, smash their (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jazzmaniac, Matt Z

        mouths, like with Cheney, and then have every Democrat appearing in public on the same page, smashing the Republicans for their PROVEN incompetence, lack of vision, lack of understanding, and obstructionism.

        He's a brilliant speaker and presence, so just looking real strong, and throwing Republicans on the defensive will go a long way.

        He also needs to come out strong for something the Democratic base (ordinary people) wants, and without reservation or qualification to get them eager to come out in Nov, rather than sit home. The Health Care Reform [sic] isn't going to do it this year because a) most of it won't affect anyone's life this year, b) the weaknesses in it will be getting more play as the year goes on..

        Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

        by Jim P on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 06:19:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It already has been (0+ / 0-)

        The "Obama as messiah" meme never died, it simply went into hibernation. I still hear it from a few of my wingnuttier acquantainces, how we worship Obama and he's got the media in his back pocket. They will relentlessly parrot it this year.

    •  I am not so sure I would call it reluccance (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sebastianguy99, majcmb1, Matt Z

      instead I have to wonder if perhaps it's about timing and not over using his talent.

      Then again maybe I am wrong.

      The one thing I do know is I do not want Obama to strong arm really anyone and I for one would like to see a full return of the balance of power.

    •  and the halo around his head (0+ / 0-)

      and the wings on his back.

      (sigh)

      So now the Dems are a cult of personality? Kind of like Mao?

      What if Obama gets kidnapped by space aliens tomorrow.  The Dem Party disappears with him?

      Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

      by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:24:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Rethugs tried it before. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sebastianguy99, Matt Z

        Remember "He's the biggest celebrity in the world?"  Remember how they likened him to Britney Spears?  Remember how they tried to turn his eloquence and intelligence into a negative?
        Remember how it didn't work?
        People like Obama.  They need to be reminded why they like Obama.
        He needs to realize that as much as he may want to just settle down and govern, the campaign never stops.

        The Dems are selling us a shit sandwich, and asking us to be happy that we'll get fries with it. Oh wait, Lieberman says no fries.

        by jazzmaniac on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 07:43:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The wingnuts will come home....... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JekyllnHyde, irmaly, huckleberry, JanL

    After the primaries, the wingnuts will do what they always do - come home and vote for whomever has a (R) next to their name.

    Also keep in mind that rethugs are hypocrites so shifting to the right or left to suit their needs is par for the course.

    The local media covering these races are too clueless or ball-less to call them out.

  •  Here in FL I went from hoping Rubio would win (6+ / 0-)

    the primary, to hoping Crist wins it. If Crist wins, the teabaggers will be a whole lot less excited for the Senate race and they'll likely sit on their asses at home. At this point, I don't think Crist can pull enough Independents to make up for that teabagger dismissal.

    And I finished this letter with unshakable faith that the dream will be fulfilled for this generation, and preserved and enlarged for generations to come.

    by Elise on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:28:06 PM PST

    •  Independents can't vote in the FL primary. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JekyllnHyde

      Give me a break, to hell with Firedoglake.

      by Setrak on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:31:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know...I mean in the general. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JanL, Matt Z, Setrak, lighttheway

        I think if Crist wins the primary, Meek will be more competitive in the general even though Crist previously had pull with the independents. People here are angry about a lot of the increases in fees and about the off shore drilling that he signed last year.

        And I finished this letter with unshakable faith that the dream will be fulfilled for this generation, and preserved and enlarged for generations to come.

        by Elise on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:33:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I kind of worry about Rubio. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Elise, Matt Z

          He seems to be getting accepted by a lot of folks that I usually wouldn't expect to support a Latino, which is why I think he'll win the primary.  I don't know if Meeks can handle Rubio in the general- that guys got a lot of momentum.

          Give me a break, to hell with Firedoglake.

          by Setrak on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:37:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly my thoughts. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Matt Z

            He's young and fairly good looking - and when he talks he doesn't always sound as crazy as we know he is. I think if he wins the primary he'll be unstoppable. I've actually pondered switching my registration to vote for Crist in the primary, but the thought of that makes me feel so dirty I immediately want a shower.

            And I finished this letter with unshakable faith that the dream will be fulfilled for this generation, and preserved and enlarged for generations to come.

            by Elise on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:46:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Plus Crist would likely be a swing vote (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      He'd join the Maine ladies as a persuadable republican, most likely.  He's really pretty moderate, which is what they hate about him.  I've considered donating to his campaign.  I don't think the D in the race against him has a shot.

      ---
      Fight the stupid! Boycott BREAKING diaries!

      by VelvetElvis on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:14:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We'll see about Meek. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        He's starting slowly, but I think he can go places.

        And I finished this letter with unshakable faith that the dream will be fulfilled for this generation, and preserved and enlarged for generations to come.

        by Elise on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:29:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I tend to think (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JekyllnHyde, Elise, Matt Z, Egalitare

    the "enthusiasm gap" will narrow somewhat and that the expanded electorate from 2008 may remain marginally expanded.  While I share their discontent on many things, I don't think the take-my-marbles-and-go-home crowd on our side will have a measurable impact on the election.  I'm not all that bleak about November, unless HCR doesn't go through in some form and the economy takes steps backwards rather than forward.

    Our judgments judge us, and nothing reveals us, exposes our weaknesses, more ingeniously than the attitude of pronouncing upon our fellows, ---- Paul Valery

    by huckleberry on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:28:54 PM PST

  •  Meh and double meh (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JekyllnHyde, gmb
  •  From your Politico link earlier: (7+ / 0-)

    Van Hollen estimated that, if the NRCC spent money in just 40 House races, it would only have about $100,000 to spend in each one — chump change given the cost of modern campaigns, particularly in major-market districts.

    The GOP has serious money problems. They may not be able to raise enough money to be competitive. The DNC, DCCC and DSCC are all doing pretty good with fundraising so far this year.

  •  The GOP is still connected to Bank Bailouts (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JekyllnHyde, gmb, Elise, Matt Z, Crider

    There are a lot of people who are still pissed off with the Wall Street bailouts, and the GOP is still connected with that.  The Teabaggers are more closely aligned with small business, and people who got foreclosed on and didn't get a bailout.

    •  the Dems will then have to explain why (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gmb, farbuska

      THEY not only bailed out the banks (and the car companies), but why they put the same Wall Streeters in charge of the bailout who fucked things up in the first place . . . .

      Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

      by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:52:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I wish we had driven home the point . . . (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      majcmb1, Matt Z, lighttheway

      that conservatism has failed. The GOP goes even further into conservative fairyland, but our party mouthpieces treat them like they're some sort of alternative that we just not happen to agree with.

      Frankly, from Reagan until the end of 2008, conservatism has been a disaster -- its kept none of its BS promises.

      •  because the Dems have been just as conservative (0+ / 0-)

        "Third Way", "New Democrat", and all that. Everything the Repugs did for 30 years, we followed along behind shouting "Me too! Me too!"

        Do you seriously believe that the Dem Party has been LIBERAL for the past 30 years . . . ?  Hell, any time some Rethug even yelled the WORD "liberal!!!" at one of us, we pee'd our pants and ran away in terror.

        For 30 years, the Dem Party folded like an accordion.

        And NOW we want to pretend that we had balls . . . ?

        Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

        by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:28:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Democrats need to go on the offensive (0+ / 0-)

      about Reagan's VooDoo.

      It's Reaganomics that brought us to where we are today, and there's scant few voices on the Democratic side getting to the point.

      'The work goes on, the cause endures.'

      by shpilk on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 06:02:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Call me Dr. Pangloss, but... (17+ / 0-)

    ...I don't see it. There are some retirements that are worrisome, but this is not the cycle for a Republican re-takeover. The White House seems to me to be much more politically savvy than the predecessor first-term Democratic institutions, and Obama has focussed on governing the first year, to brilliant effect, and the organizing for the 2010 elections, while not being benefitted by Obama at the top of the ticket, will be much better than in previous years.

    I am not suggesting we not work hard and proceed without great motivation to avoid losses, but if we start buying into this "bad year for the Democrats" story line the Foxites are spearheading based on the actions of their infighting extremists, aka the teabaggers, then we're already fighting the battle on the opponents' terms, not the actual record.

    Democrats saved this country yet again in 2009. The economy would be in deep depression were it not for the actions of the Congress and the Obama administration. We'd be at war with Iran and possibly Russia if John McCain were in charge. We'd be looking at record numbers of people without health insurance and catastrophe across the board if the Republicans were in charge of Congress. We have our problems, we admit that, but that's the difference between the reality-based community and the Party of No.

    Those are the messages to take to the streets and the phonebanks this year.

    PS - On the Senate side, there looks like even more opportunity than potential for loss, just based on the open seats. And there are areas for pick-up on the House side, too.

    Some people are intolerant, and I CAN'T STAND people like that. -- Tom Lehrer

    by TheCrank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:30:44 PM PST

  •  Or they could just behave like democrats and win (4+ / 0-)

    , no more mister niceguy democrats, 2010 should be a pivot
    to get shit done democrats.

  •  I honestly believe that the American public (7+ / 0-)

    simply needs to be reminded of what this country looked like after Republicans got through with it:  two UNFUNDED wars, astronomical unemployment numbers, foreclosures, homelessness, failing banks, companies going out of business, economy on the brink of THE SECOND Republican Great Depression.

    Let's place the blame squarely on the shoulders of those who gave us 8 years of Bush and Cheney.  8 years of the destruction of the middle class in America.  8 years of division and hatred.

    Want some more of the same already, folks?  I doubt it.  Americans simply aren't that STOOPID.

    MORE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS = MORE PAIN AND SUFFERING FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS.  If you've had enough, VOTE MORE DEMOCRATS INTO THE SENATE to stop the obstructionists once and for all!!!

  •  Any word on DeMint's 2012 intentions? (5+ / 0-)

    Sounds like a guy trying to build a base for a presidential primary run.

    •  Here's Hoping You're Right... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, Matt Z

      http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

      Republican Sen. George Voinovich, who is not running for re-election next year, told a newspaper in his home state of Ohio yesterday that Southerners bore a good share of the blame for his party's lagging popularity.

      "We got too many Jim DeMints and Tom Coburns," Voinovich told the Columbus Dispatch Monday. "It's the Southerners....

      "They get on TV and go 'errrr, errrrr,'" he said, according to the paper. "People hear them and say, 'These people, they're Southerners. The party's being taken over by Southerners. What they hell they got to do with Ohio?'"

      DeMint? Palin? Barbour? Jindal?  Any of them vs. Obama looks good for the democrats.  

  •  Media Analysts Are Hired to Steer Not Illuminate (9+ / 0-)

    Of course there will be more stories on Dem divided. That's the media's job.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:33:45 PM PST

  •  I think most of the Blue Dogs are history (0+ / 0-)

    so we have to count or losses there. ( Maybe a blessing in disguise) The Teabaggers would be out with a vengeance to  make sure this is a reality.

    Rebuplicans are now trying to align themselves with the Teabaggers so the conflict seen in NY23 may not be much of a factor.

    The Economy HAS to show substantial growth, JOBS, JOBS , JOBS. It was the Economy that was one of the main defining factors in the 2008 elections and to the American people it still is.

    Voter turnout is also key. Even if the Repubs had some good candidates the sheer volume of the Democratic voters would cancel out any strong prospects.

    So, the question is, how do we get the Democrats out to vote?

    Should there be some resources used to go and physically bus them in so the only concern they would have is to actually vote?

    If we have to treat the voters with kids gloves well that's just what we need to do.

  •  Just got back from vakay in Florida (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk, blueyedace2, JanL, Matt Z, lighttheway

    I notice bumper stickers and saw plenty of Marco stickers.  I never saw one Crist or Meek sticker.  Saw plenty of Obama stickers, so all is not lost for us.  

    One other tidbit, when the weather was bad we watched the Martin County Commission on television (sort of a mini-CSpan) and saw former Rep. Mark Foley lobbying for a big, bad waste management company.  He lost for his client by a 3-2 vote.  Bwahhh! Loved it and laughed all night.

    Let the Repubs primary get hijacked by the teabagging nuts.  Then, Obama needs to come out with popular policies that directly impact the state in which we need to win, such as for Florida, it would be relaxing the laws so that everyone can go to Cuba.  This would be favorable and doom Rubio.  Obama needs to do other things to help Dems win:  declare victory in Afghanistan and leave, health care to start in 2011 not 2014, put Wall Street on a short leash, and create jobs now.

  •  I find it pretty hard to be enthused about a (5+ / 0-)

    party whose primary defense against the charge of being ineffectual is that the other party is even MORE ineffectual . . . . . .  .

    Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

    by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:39:09 PM PST

  •  asdf (9+ / 0-)

    It's called peaking too early.

    The GOP hit the afterglow-wearing off peak in August. Obama's numbers have been back up. And the Dems will starting putting feathers in their cap and showing the grownups are back in charge.

    The rumors of the Dems' demise has been greatly exaggerated. November is a long time away.

    I'm not saying the GOP won't pick up seats, but I see no "wave" here.

    I support Bernie Sanders.

    by Attorney at Arms on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:39:21 PM PST

  •  I got a fairly... (5+ / 0-)

    handwringingish email from some official from the Minnesota Republican Party about "the schism". It's at my work addy so I can't get to it now, but I'll post a diary about it next week. It seemed to imply that they should side with the teabaggers.

    The lesson of that history is that you must not despair, that if you are right, and you persist, things will change. -Howard Zinn

    by blueyedace2 on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:42:14 PM PST

  •  And, what of the "Palin Effect"? Solid? Nothing? (5+ / 0-)

    She will be out there---whether she ties in with the teabaggers will prove interesting.

    She's pitting hereself against Darth Cheney in the Perry/Kay race in Tx.

    She'll be fun to watch.

  •  While You Might Be Right..... (0+ / 0-)

    ...certainly the unhinged nature of the opposition and their complete lack of an affirmative agenda is the best shot Democrats have at avoiding calamity in November, I'm still doubtful it will be enough.  In 2006, Democratic leadership was not exactly burning up public opinion polls with their agenda.  Granted, the left of 2006 didn't have a group in its ranks as out of the mainstream as the teabaggers, but the Democrats nonetheless were able to take over Congress that year because of voter discontent with those in power.  As meek and unhelpful and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were in bringing voters to them, voters nonetheless went along for the ride simply because they didn't like the status quo.  To an extent the same thing happened in 2008.  Conservative voters aligned with Democrats because they were the other party than Bush.

    The shoe's on the other foot in 2010.  Early indications are that voters readily acknowledge the Republicans are terrible, but they still plan to vote for them because they're not the incumbent party.  Unless something unforeseen changes for the benefit of incumbents in the next 10 months, 1994 will seem like the good old days compared to what's in store for us.

    •  Another 1994 would end the Democratic party (0+ / 0-)

      If Republicans regain the House and Senate, Obama is likely to be impeached and will control redistricting to redraw Congressional districts in their favor for the next decade.  

    •  you seem to be at the wrong website (0+ / 0-)

      Look at this guys past diaries, seems quite trollish to me. All I can tell you is for many reasons 2010 will not be like 1994.
      Reason number 1 at this time there are  to few open seats. If you like bashing democrats and Obama go to redstate or free republic.

      •  I'm Not a Pollyanna. Guilty As Charged! (0+ / 0-)

        Rather than attack the character of someone who makes an on-topic point on a diary about the Democratic Party's 2010 prospects, perhaps you could impart your infinite wisdom on the rest of us on why the Democrats have no worries beyond the "many reasons" for which you suggest 2010 will not be another 1994.

        And as for open seats, four brutally tough open seats became open in a couple weeks last month?  Why is it a given that there won't be more opening up?

        •  In 1994 there were 22 brutally tough open seats (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z

          And they provided almost half of the Democratic losses.  

        •  In the summer of 1994 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z

          the polling for generic vote for Congress topped at about 60% Republican, 30% Democratic.  The split narrowed during the fall.  Actual outcome: 38% Republican, 34% Democratic.

          That in a year in which a lot of reliable Democratic voters stayed home.

          Current polling for whether people would like to see a Democratic-run or a Republican-run Congress polls about the usual, a 5% Democratic advantage with 10-15% undecideds (who aren't going to vote).  That's about the same as the margin in the '06 and '08 elections (in which Democrats got about 53-54% of the total votes for House candidates).

  •  the simplest way of all for Dems to win . . . . (7+ / 0-)

    Do what people elected you to do.

    Try it out.

    Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

    by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:45:10 PM PST

  •  So here's what I'm wondering: (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gmb, joedemocrat, cybrestrike, farbuska

    I read a week or so ago that Democrats intend to return to the "Bush fucked it up first" meme that worked pretty well in 2006 and 2008.  But I have serious doubts about whether this is still going to be an effective campaign strategy.  

    Just how long can Democrats win elections by running against Bush?  I know I blame him for the mess our country is in, but even I kind of roll my eyes at the thought of Democrats trying to return to the "it's Bush's fault" line two years after he's left office.

    Any thoughts on this?  

    I don't want the liberal elite communists socializing my Nazism.

    by Kaili Joy Gray on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:47:15 PM PST

    •  Sure, Angry Mouse, it's not about how long it's (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jaysunb, Matt Z

      been since the shit was left on the floor, it WHO LEFT IT.  And that would be and always will be GEORGE W. BUSH.  Dems inherited that shit and they've been working their asses off cleaning as much up as they possibly can in the past 11 months, with REPUBLICANS throwing as much shit back on the floor as they possibly can, so they can blame that on the Dems as a failure to clean it up.

      Again, Americans simply aren't that stoopid!!  They can see who's throwing the shit and who's trying to clean it up and no amount of saying "oh, that's old news!" is going to make it any better for the REPUBLICANS.  This country is SICK OF THEIR SHIT.

      •  it's not who left the shit there . . . (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        farbuska

        . . . it's who is gonna clean it up.

        The Dems told voters in 2006 and again in 2008 that THEY would clean the shit up.

        And if they DON'T clean the shit up, then wailing "but, mommy, I'm not the one who put the shit there !!!!" is not going to help them.

        At all.

        Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

        by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:58:27 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  The Dems should be running on their (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, joedemocrat, Angry Mouse, LeanneB

      accomplishments in the past year. I'd air a series of ads that have average people talking about how the stimulus saved their jobs; how the increase in funds helped millions of Veterans; etc.  Then, I'd have a series of ads just listing everything that the Democrats passed this year with a tagline that the Republicans voted no on all of it.

    •  I would agree this won't be very effective. (0+ / 0-)

      We ran against Bush in 2006 and in 2008. There's a point where the public will get tired of that. They will say yes Bush was terrible but we have been in power and we need to run on our accomplishments and our vision..

      Deoliver47 was right and deserves some apologies

      by joedemocrat on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:18:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It Will Still Be The Economy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JanL, DKinUT

    If voters are feeling the country is on the right track the tea baggers will be a handicap for repugs. Tea baggers are no populist in the traditional mold.  True populist as myself are for labor unions, the middle class and the poor, and we don't care if government is used to help these groups.  The tea baggers are traditional libertarians and repugs who are out for themselves, don't want to pay taxes, and do not want any poor person to get any benefits from the government.

  •  "We're still in the Super Bowl!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gmb

    It's entirely possible that the other guys will just not show up, and forfeit the game!

    Yay Team!"

  •  Didn't you miss something? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    EricS, Paul Goodman, Brian Compiani

    How could you write an analysis about the Tea Party movement that failed to mention that like Athena springing from the brow of Zeus, the Tea Party movement spring from the - pick your anatomical metaphor - of Dick Armey (FreedomWorks and DLAPiper[retired]) and Roger Ailes (Fox News Network).

    There is a populist rebellion brewing. At the moment it is inchoate and up for grabs.

    The Tea Party movement has tried and failed to capture it, as shown by the numbers they can command.  The Republican Party nonetheless is trying to mainstream it and fuse it with the Republican brand.

    Once again.  The populist rebellion that is brewing is up for grabs.  Hint. Hint. Democratic Party.

    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

    by TarheelDem on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:55:00 PM PST

    •  no offense but there always (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, jaysunb, Onomastic

      seems to be a 'populist movement brewing' in the last 50 plus years I do not think it has ever amounted to much.

      Sorry not swayed but this idea that the democrats just need to be more 'populist'.

      •  So you think (0+ / 0-)

        That folks out here in the boonies are going to be jumping with joy about the bank bailouts?  Or the large subsidies to the insurance industry?

        And it has amounted to something.  It was a fundamentally outside the Beltway populist movement that put Democrats back in power.

        50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

        by TarheelDem on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:56:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  people do not have to like it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew, Onomastic

          frankly I do not like it. But being an adult means sometimes having to admit that no matter how much you personally may dislike something, it is necessary.

          And frankly I think the idea that a 'populist' movement put the Democrats back in charge is at best an incomplete analysis. There are a host of facts and yes in some places populism was one of them. But a national movement implies an issue that appeals on a national level and I do not think populism is one of them.

          If it were, Edwards would have won the nomination.

          •  Edwards wasn't a populist (0+ / 0-)

            Folks saw through him.

            50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

            by TarheelDem on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 06:14:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  okay then (0+ / 0-)

              name me a 'populist' by your definition that's gotten within spitting distance of winning the presidency in the last 60 years.

              •  We are not having (0+ / 0-)

                ...a presidential election this year.

                In the Congress, I would say that Alan Grayson has positioned himself as a populist; Bernie Sanders has always positioned himself as a populist.  On the other hand, Chris Dodd has not and is paying for it.  And unlike Edwards, those are authentic positions that they have consistently run on.

                50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

                by TarheelDem on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 06:23:02 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  the house due to it's size (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Onomastic

                  has always had some populists in it because as I have already conceded populist rhetoric works at the level a house district is composed of.

                  But is there a sizable bloc of populists? Do they wield even the power of the CPC or the blue dogs?

                  You see that's the point, not whether or not in some isolated circumstances populists get elected.

                  •  Sizeable doesn't matter (0+ / 0-)

                    The results of the election will probably not put more populists in the Congress, but those who capture the populist mood are more likely to win, whether they be incumbent or challenger.

                    And the Republican Party is trying to make sure that it is them.  But as best I can tell from the folks who are motivated to vote, the Republicans aren't making any headway with their Tea Parties in gaining populist votes, and conceiveably lose a number of seats to more populist challengers on the right (likely) or the left (if some folks get smart).

                    The biggest vulnerability that Republicans have is that they have voted in lockstep on major issues and voted "No", thinking that is the populist position because of succumbing to their own propaganda.  Now they are being seduced by the very minority Tea Parties they created.

                    In Southern states, Democrats who campaigned like the farmer populists of traditional Southern progressivism are likely to upset some Republicans.  Only if there are candidates of that position.

                    It's an opportunity and the party establishment is likely to completely miss it.

                    50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

                    by TarheelDem on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 06:37:41 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  so you are defaulting to Demint's argument? (0+ / 0-)

                      It does not matter how many really just so long as some are elected because that some how proves that there really is some deep populist movement?

                      Or maybe you'd rather have 2 populists that agree with you then a majority?

                      Either way this is short sighted and rash.

                      Further I think you misunderstand where the mass of the outrage really is. It's not so much populist as aimed solely at the excesses of corporate american and the excesses of wall street.

          •  I don't think that populism appeals (0+ / 0-)

            ...to folks in Greenwich, CT; Grosse Pointe Shores, MI; Prestonwood, Cary, NC; Lake Forest, IL;  Buckhead, Atlanta, GA; The Woodlands, TX -- just to name a few.

            50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

            by TarheelDem on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 06:17:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Howard Dean tried it. (0+ / 0-)

      It's always there, and there's always a segment that can be energized by the good ideas.

      Populism is not the insanity of the tea baggers and Sarah Palin fans, though.

      'The work goes on, the cause endures.'

      by shpilk on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:58:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's eay to embrace the populists (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Onomastic

    when you are not in power.  I imagine that the GOP will go all full tea-baggy this year because they need to motivate their base, and if the Democratic voters are really planning to stay home, then they have nothing to lose.  They will say things that will attempt to appeal to the wingnuttiest of the wingnuts. It's a game that to a certain extent, both parties play.  Appeal to the people during elections and then ignore them when in power.

    If I'm not an activist, would that make me a pacifist?

    by pensivelady on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:55:35 PM PST

    •  Isn't that what Obama did? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      farbuska

      Didn't Obama say things to appeal to populist sentiment?

      Putting his campaign slogans aside, this is from his inaugural address on Jan 20, 2009:

      "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works — whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government."

      He spoke to the need to undo the corporate-government collusion that has done so much harm over the last 30 years.

      But not only has he not tried to fix it, he's fully embraced it and is even increasing it.

      The problem isn't rhetoric. The problem is that Dems can't get away with saying one thing to get elected and doing another in office.

      The base of the Democratic Party expects them to act in the best interests of the American people and will accept nothing less.

      •  Uh... (8+ / 0-)

        Our actual base loves Obama and will vote for the party.  Even more so next month when a few dozen million either get health insurance for the first time ever, or find themselves better able to afford the insurance they already have.

        The crackpot fringe left of the Netroots that once flirted with the Greens and Nader, and who are convinced that Kucinnich will not only primary Obama in 2012, but win, may stomp their feet and promise to stay home though.  In fact, many are doing so in this very thread.  Insisting that they are our base, or represent anything more than a tiny sliver of it though is ridiculous.  

        •  I came to the net because of my concern... (0+ / 0-)

          not the other way around. I've never supported Nader. The closest I ever came to a protest vote before was to vote for Dean in the 2004 primary after he had already withdrawn. I went on to vote, unhappily, for Kerry (who lost, as have most of the Dems I've voted for).

          I've voted the Dem Party line for 20 years, my friend. I have been one of the actual base.

          Our actual base loves Obama and will vote for the party.

          Have you bothered to read the post, or are you just writing random and delusional comments to it?

          Allow me to highlight:

          According to the final Daily Kos "State of the Nation" tracking poll, 45% of Democrats identify themselves as either unlikely to vote or certain not to vote.

          I am quoting this post. The Democratic Party has a serious problem.

          •  I Responded To That Crap... (8+ / 0-)

            Below.  

            Maybe you're unfamiliar with this polling over the long term, but Democrats have far higher proportions of voters who don't participate than the Republicans, and that number only goes up during off year elections.

            We've had registration leads in most areas of the country for decades, and yet still lost in those areas.  Why?  Because our voters historically just haven't shown up in as large of number as the Republicans.  

            Our demographics are simply not that great in terms of steady, engaged voters.  Young people, Hispanics, Blacks, low income folks, all are extremely spotty, and don't participate in huge numbers for a variety of reasons.  Who does participate steadily?  Old people, White people, affluent people.  Guess which party that describes?

            Bottom line- these numbers aren't anything out of the ordinary.

        •  But, notice that they are all still here. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          brillo

          They are going through their screaming girl phase, and try to get you to feel their hysteria, but in the end, most of them will vote.  They are like the PUMA's.  No, I'm not too worried about them, but I am worried about the Independent voter.  For them, we need jobs and the economy to turn.

          Expose the lies. Fight for the truth. Push progressive politics. Save our planet. Health care is a right, not a privilege.

          by lighttheway on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 06:35:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  um what in the hell are you talking about? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, Onomastic

        because I do not think you know half of what you think you do.

        •  I know that (0+ / 0-)

          the legislation that Obama touted as being all but the end of the tobacco industry, in fact, had the fingerprints of Philip Morris’s lobbyists all over it, as Greg Allen of National Public Radio reported. Allen points out that Philip Morris pushed for passage of the bill, while Reynolds and Lorillard (Philip Morris’s smaller competitors) opposed it "because they believe it will prevent them from ever challenging the dominance of Philip Morris and its Marlboro brand."

          That's enabling regulatory robbery to the benefit of a particular corporation and to the detriment of other corporations and of the American people. Corporatism.

          I know that Obama struck a deal last summer with the pharmaceutical industry that was so good that PhRMA forked over $150 million in August 2009 to advertise in favor of passing what is still sometimes called health care "reform," though it is not.

          And I know that the private insurers wanted millions and millions of new customers without any real competition so that we'll have to accept their junk products. And, as it turns out, they're getting exactly what they wanted because the Obama administration and Senate Democrats not only handed us over to them, they're mandating that we buy the private insurers' junk products.

          •  you know what I know? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            askew, Ivan, Onomastic

            that every great progressive victory and advancement started small. It started with lobbyist finger prints 'all over it'.

            I know that you and those like you are seriously lacking in historical knowledge if you think that just because a bill has lobbyist finger prints 'all over it' that it is a bad bill.

            Seriously educate yourself because I am running out of patience with the cherry picking and ignorance.

            That's what I know.

            Oh and I know that some 30,0000,000 people will be able to have health insurance now. I know that it is now almost  almost a fact that losing your job will not mean losing your health care.

            But please attack the progress because it is not 'pure' enough.

            Dear fucking gods it's a good thing the blogs didn't exist during FDR's time because you would not have been happy with him or LBJ either.

            •  30,000,000 million get crappy coverage from (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DKinUT

              private insurers, who have a record of abusing their customers to increase profits.

              There are subsidies - i.e. taxpayers (you) will help reduce the costs of health care for families (you), as little-to-nothing is done to bring down costs for the American people (you).

              Obama can’t even claim that he’s all that sure that this bad joke will accomplish "the oft-stated goal of health reform: reducing the growth rate in health care costs and expenditures – often referred to as ‘bending the cost curve,’" as Jeanne Sahadi at CNN has put it. "That growth rate is what drives federal spending on Medicare and other federal health programs," in case you’re wondering why anyone should care about ‘bending the cost curve.’

              There is nothing about the current bad joke of a health care bill that is progessive. Without a public option, there's no real competition. There's nothing in it to build on. Just enrichment for the bad actors in the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

              Seriously, educate yourself. I am running out of patience with the ignorance.

              •  you know let's just concede the point (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ivan, brillo, kat68

                for a second that the coverage is 'crappy', what really is your point?

                That no coverage is better? Seriously?

                See this is I assert that for some people this is largely academic because if you seriously think people would rather having nothing instead of something you are deluded.

                And I do not mean that as an attack but a simple statement of fact.

                That of course if putting aside the excellent analysis showing that the coverage is hardly 'crappy' (I would not call it excellent either but well see my original post on how we have to start some where).

                You want to think me ignorant? Fine but at least I can quote both history and an actual analysis of the facts of the proposed bills.

                What do you got? You claim to think for yourself but are parroting Jane's beliefs and style quite nicely here.

                So come put your cards on the table, show me studies and analysis backing up your assertions or concede. But I am tired of people like you making rampant accusations with nothing to back them up but their own inflated sense of self worth.

                •  (raises hand) (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DKinUT, Brian Compiani

                  I'm one of those uninsured people, and from everything I've heard, I'd prefer nothing, rather than this plan.

                  Right now, as it stands, I have no coverage whatever, and if I want to see a doctor, I can't unless I have enough savings to pay for it.

                  From what I've seen, the subsidy I can expect from the Senate plan is $300/month.  If I eat only twice a day, I can put in maybe another $100/month.

                  Looking at insurance premiums, I find that the "best" plan I can get with $400 month has either a $1500 deductible, or a $1000 deductible with a 20% copay after that.

                  So . . since I can't afford the deductible, I still can't see a doctor unless I have enough in savings to pay for it.  Plus, I'm paying $100/month for the privilege of "coverage" that doesn't let me see a doctor.

                  Gee, thanks.

                  Of course, I could NOT pay the $100/month and just use the $300 subsidy -- which gets me a nice policy with a deductible of only $15,000.

                  Gee, thanks again.

                  There are the much-vaunted but as-yet-nonexistent vaporware "exchanges" and "nonprofit plans". Alas, given the way the Dems caved on everything else, I'm not paranoid for assuming they will cave in on all of those too, and that all of the "nonprofit plans" will look pretty much like the existing for-profit plans.  But until they, ya know, actually EXIST, we have no way of knowing (and I will leave aside for now the problem of passing a law forcing people to buy a product that doesn't even exist yet, sight unseen). And who knows, the insurance companies themselves, out of the goodness of their dear hearts, may even start offering us super-duper high-coverage low-cost policy that gives me everything I've ever needed for $300/month. But alas, I prefer my health insurance to be reality-based rather than faith-based.  

                  So your much-vaunted plan doesn't help me.  It hurts me.  I'm better off without it.

                  Oh, and there's a further issue that nobody ever seems to want to talk about with me . . .

                  From what I understand, the subsidy is not actually a direct payment to either me or the insurance company -- it's just a tax break that gets deducted when I file.

                  If so, I can only assume that I will be the one responsible for paying the monthly premiums, in full, myself, and will then get reimbursed at the end of the year when I get my tax refund.  

                  Alas, paying the whole monthly bill upfront, myself, is an utter absolute complete impossibility for me.

                  It'd be far far better for me to simply ignore your mandate and not buy anything at all.  Arrest me if you want.  At least in jail I can get free health care.

                  You could of course fix the bill for me, simply by dropping the mandate.  You can pass whatever shitty bill you like so you can brag about it at the State of the Union address, so long as you don't require me to pay for it whether I like it or not.

                  Deal?

                  Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

                  by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 08:23:49 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  the mandate is not going any where (0+ / 0-)

                    and if you really are as poor as you seem to imply you should qualify for medicaid under the plan as I understand it.

                    Of course you might be one of the few that the plan doesn't help and if so I feel for you but what's your plan? To hell with 30 million people and finally advancing health care reform after damn near a hundred years just because you do not get yours?

                    That is at best recklessly short sighted, you know I do not really get much out of the plan either and while I think I am slightly better off then you; it is not by much.

                    But please keep the typical American attitude that so long as you have yours screw everyone else.

                    •  155% of poverty (0+ / 0-)

                      No Medicaid for me.

                      Already checked.

                      And if you think I am the only person in the entire country who this bill does nothing for, you are quite deluded.

                      But please keep the typical American attitude that so long as you have yours screw everyone else.

                      I won't even dignify that with a response, other than to note simply that I didn't ask for anyone to be screwed by this shitty bill. Quite the opposite.

                      Why the fuck are you so angry at ME? I'm the one you keep claiming to want to HELP, remember?

                      Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

                      by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 10:02:49 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I do not believe I ever claimed the bill (0+ / 0-)

                        helped everyone or even everyone that needs help what I have claimed is it will help provide coverage to 30 million Americans and you can slice and dice that however  you want.

                        It's still huge and passing health care reform is historic.

                        Now as the bill is not set in stone we'll see what the final % of poverty is, I would certainly like to see the 'bar' as it were raised on that.

                        And why am I angry? Well first I have not even began to get anrgy, I am upset. And I am upset because we are letting perfect be the enemy of good for the upteen time. I would think that by now we would have learned.

                        But no once again liberals and progressives are ready and willing to learn up for the old fashioned circular firing squad.

                        If only the GOP was as short sighted as some here, they never would have wrecked as much damage and havoc.

                        PS Let's be clear here, my goal is single payer, preferably the British version. I think it is superior in just about every fashion. And while I want to help everyone I can if it is an imperfect but historic bill or nothing then I take  the historic bill.

                        Because I know the history of every major progressive piece of legislature and you know what? They all started out as flawed and as imperfect as this one is.

                        As the saying goes, a journey of a thousands miles begins with 1 step.

                •  The point wasn't crappy vs. not crappy coverage (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DKinUT

                  The point was that Obama and the sellout congressional Democrats failed to change our health care system - the one that's broken - in any significant way.

                  The point was that all they've done is thrown 30,000,000 more people to the wolves.

                  You can say, crappy insurance is better than no insurance, but there were other choices, like real reform that would have provided quality coverage at a lower cost and benefitted millions of Americans for generations to come.

                  Instead, we're going to have to crawl along for a few more decades at the mercy of corporations that have already proven that they can't do what's in Americans' best interests.

                  Btw, you wanted more detail.

                  How about Obama's cozy relationship with Wall Street banks?

                  How about Goldman Sachs and the bubbles of the 90's and 00's? If you think Obama is changing that bs, take a look at Matt Taibbi's The Great American Bubble Machine: From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression – and they’re about to do it again (July 13, 2009).

                  Taibbi describes the "great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity" that is Goldman Sachs and describes an Obama administration that is perfectly ready and willing to enable it into the next profitable bubble.

                  We can keep going. The Obama administration's relationship with the auto industry is next.

                  Meanwhile, the American people are getting screwed by this bs corporate-government collusion.

                  •  now you are getting boring (0+ / 0-)

                    and frankly predictable.

                    Your over the top emotionally driven rethoric might scare some people but as I have actually bothered to read both sides of the issue I know you are mostly just cherry picking at this point.

                    Which is why I have come to dislike debating people like you because there is no consistency.

                    I ask you to lay your cards on the table and your spout off about CTs and topics not even related.

                    Whatever really you want to think Obama is the spawn of Satan? Fine Don Quixote have fun with your wind mills me I got better things to do and frankly I think you are a perfect example of why FDL has really gone down hill.

                    You know one of these days you and those like you that consider yourselves 'the true' left will wake up. And when you do perhaps you will be able to do some good right now though I am done wasting my time.

                    Maybe next time you can actually discuss the topic at hand with some actual evidence and claims that are not a little crazy.

    •  Playing the wing nuts motivates the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pensivelady

      Democrats base.  So if thats the route they want to take, I would welcome it.

      Expose the lies. Fight for the truth. Push progressive politics. Save our planet. Health care is a right, not a privilege.

      by lighttheway on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 06:32:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Squash newts as they lie on their swamp rocks (0+ / 0-)

    Every American who is not corrupted by the secular-socialist left should join the Tea Party movement.

    That seems OK since the non-secular socialist left has already joined the baggers with their Godwin mustache posters and the media continues to expose the corruption of the kleptocratic right which the Newt knows all too well with his PAC.

    I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person - Pogo

    Polk Gulch

    by annieli on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:57:54 PM PST

  •  So our grand strategy to win in 2010... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mark27, farbuska

    ...is printing off bumper stickers proclaiming "Democrats: Not as bad as the Teabaggers!" Really? If this is the best that Democrats can do, I might as well just toss my vote to the Green Party this next election. After all, it'll produce the same chance of any progressive change in this presidential term that I'd get for voting Democrat.

  •  Since We Won Both Years With Unusual Energy (0+ / 0-)

    in normally lower turnout voters, even maintaining normal enthusiasm will probably result in losses.

    Neither Obama's emotional appeal nor the fierce urgency of getting rid of Republicans will be factors to maintain higher than normal turnout for a 3rd race.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:59:22 PM PST

  •  Wow, excellent post! And we do have one other (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DKinUT, Matt Z

    weapon I think, and that would be to remind people that the next Presdient who chooses a Supreme court Justice decides whether we live in a world with no science, no birth control of any kind, and a set of religious beliefs forced on us, increasingly by the Senate. We have to get this word out. I think we should start a "bond" or group here at Kos, that agrees to write about it and to influence the media as much as possible.

    I'm doing a piece on CNN soon. They are worse than Fox. The problem is that lots of people know fox is nuts. They think CNN is news. They are not. Last week they did a piece on the terrorist attack on the airplane. I kept waiting for them to say that Bush people twice gave this guy a visa. Twice. Not a word. If Rachel Maddow knows it, why not the "most trusted name in news".

    Vote in 2010 or you might as well reelect Bush and his Congress. A 2012 Repugnant President would be disaster.

    by Crispian Day on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 04:59:27 PM PST

  •  45% of Democrats say they won't vote in 2010. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Blutodog, Mark27, Cassiodorus, farbuska

    There must be a reason for this startling statistic.

    I wrote a diary earlier stating the underlying reason for my disappointment with Obama and congressional Democrats since I last voted in Nov 2008.

    I wrote that I am disappointed because, rather than break the corporate-government collusion that has worked against the American people and has done so much to harm the trust between us and our government, President Obama has in fact enhanced corporate-government collusion time and again during his first year in office.

    In over 300 comments, very few people bothered to address this point at all. It's like everyone here wants to shout our discontent in the base of the Democratic Party and pretend it doesn't exist. The vast majority of comments just mocked me.

    But I'm one of the 45% of Democrats who is either unlikely to vote or certain not to vote at all.

    I really don't understand why so few around here seem to get the problem that the Democrats have created or get that there is a very real need for Democrats in office to change their course before they lose power again.

    •  For Many On This Site.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Paul Goodman, Brian Compiani

      ....any deviation from mindless partisan cheerleading in discussions of the political landscape illicits accusations of "trolling" or the mocking "oh noes! We're doomed!" idiocy you alluded to.  The party needs some Eeyores to point out danger spots on the horizon even as the conventional wisdom purveyors parrot November 2008 talking points of the Republican party going the way of the Whigs.  Do yourself a favor and take note of the names and quotes of the smug and heckling commenters....and then throw it back in their faces when time proves their Pollyannaism wrong.

    •  I'm one of them (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      weaubleau, farbuska

      I'm tired of being fucked over.  I'm tired of the Dems caving in, time after time after time after time after time.  I'm tired of having Dems piss in progressive's faces and tell us it's raining -- and then ask for money to buy umbrellas.

      In 2005, the Dems told us they couldn't do anything because they didn't have a majority in Congress.  So we gave it to them.  

      THEN, they told us in 2007 they couldn't do anything because they needed a BIGGER majority -- and the White House.  Se we gave it to them, the biggest majorities they have had in recent memory.

      And they fucked us over anyway.

      And NOW they are wondering why progressives aren't enthusiastic about voting for them ????????

      They can't POSSIBLY be that fucking stupid, can they?

      When the Dems grow a damn spine, let me know.

      Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

      by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:16:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's complete nonsense. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brillo

      As such, it's a fine complement to your nonsense diary earlier today.  

      Enrich your life with adverbs!

      by Rich in PA on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:25:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Honestly, I'm starting to think I care more about (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Blutodog

        the Democratic Party than do any of you who enjoyed themselves mocking my diary earlier today.

        You can keep saying "that's complete nonsense" over and over again, but you're not helping the Democrats keep power by pretending real problems don't exist.

        •  I don't care a rat'ss ass about the Dem party (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Blutodog

          I care about a progressive agenda.  I don't really care what party delivers it.  If the Dems can deliver it, great, they have my vote.  If the Dems can't or won't deliver it, then I'll vote for someone else who is at least willing to try.

          I see no point in electing Dems who act like Repugs, just because they wave a blue pennant instead of a red one.

          Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

          by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 06:00:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  There Is... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, Matt Z

      Our base doesn't vote in large numbers during off year elections.  

      That number has stayed relatively high since it was asked in the first polls after Obama's election.  But of course, people like to haul it out and use it club the party over the head as they try to get whatever their pet issue is more attention.  We're constantly treated to illogical arguments claiming that the only way to 'fix' that number is if the party does X.  

      •  so nothing to worry about then, eh? (0+ / 0-)

        All's well in the state of Dem-mark?

        Really?

        Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

        by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:47:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lots To Worry About. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew, Matt Z

          I just think we should be honest about the causes of our issues, rather than use those issues (dishonestly) to push various things on our agenda.  

          Those numbers, the voters not planning to vote in 2010 (and 2009 before that) have been high since Obama was elected.  And yet, they get drug up every single week when we encounter another progressive outrage snit.

          Bad news on DADT?  Drag the number up and claim DADT is the reason.  Bad news on the HCR front?  Drag it up and claim HCR if the reason.  Bad news on Afghanistan?  Same bullshit move, time and time again.

          I have no problem with discussing the problems we're going to have next fall, but I think an honest, reality based approach to it is best.  Not the self propagandizing method where we attribute the numbers to whatever last pissed us off.

          •  well, offhand, I'd say that (0+ / 0-)

            I just think we should be honest about the causes of our issues,

            listening to our base, the cause of their issues seems to be that the Dems keep selling them out, fucking them over, caving like wet paper, and pissing in their faces.  And our base is wondering why in hell they should keep voting for people who do that to them.

            Or, to put it in more genteel terms; the base is skeptical that the Democratic Party can ever actually deliver the progressive agenda it keeps promising us, and is wondering why it should continue to give its support to a party that never delivers.

            Yes?

            Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

            by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 06:05:31 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Our Base... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Matt Z

              Isn't particularly progressive.  And they're generally quite happy with Obama and the party.  

              Most of our base is young, Black, Hispanic, and low income.  All groups which generally don't show up with the same regularity as old, white, affluent (ie. Republican) voters.  

              Again, this isn't a new or particularly surprising number to anyone familiar with the historical polling data.  People want to see it though the lens of whatever is happening politically (especially legislatively) right now, and they fail to understand the longer term picture.  

              •  yeah, they sure SOUND happy (0+ / 0-)

                Well, no need to worry then.  Carry on.  Cheerio.

                I am, though, a little curious about your fellow Dems who are drooling at the mouth to tell me that my failure to vote will cause the sudden collapse of all of western civilization or something, and it will be ALL MY FAULT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                Seems a tad, ya know, in conflict with your view that there's nothing at all to worry about.

                Could you maybe have a word with them to explain how they don't need to keep drooling all over me . . . ?

                Thanks.

                Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

                by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 06:21:32 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Same here (0+ / 0-)

      The Dems. ran on hope and change and have delivered damn little of both. What they've done is raise people's expectations to the roof and then basically handed themselves over to the same BIG Corps. that are putting the screws to us. The list is long and its nasty. If the leadership thinks it can use Progressive and populist themes to wrap its obviously Pro-BIG Corp. agenda in it better think again. After 8 yrs. of the same BS from BV$H and the Gopers were not buying a slightly softer version of Corporatism from Obama et al.. No more $$, time and maybe not even a vote for Tweedle dee.

      "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

      by Blutodog on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 07:26:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  2010 is hard to handicap. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, Matt Z

    A swing to the right is very likely with so many new and vulnerable Democrats and without Barack Obama on the ticket. However, if HCR finally passes, Democrats will have that major accomplishment, along with having very deftly saved the financial system and passing a very large, badly needed fiscal stimulus package. A significant financial regulatory package is also likely to pass. Even if nothing else gets through, this is an impressive list of accomplishments, all really quite centrist and uncontroversial to most Americans.

    So, Democratic candidates have a real record of accomplishments to run on. The Republicans will have nothing. It's pretty hard to successfully attack Superman for THE WAY he saved Gotham. And, although polls don't look particularly good for Democrats in Congress, they look absolutely awful for Republicans. Americans may decide to punish them for their mindless obstruction of things that most people think needed to be done.

  •  Money is going to be another issue... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, blueyedace2, Matt Z

    And call me what you will, but I think a lot of the backroom deals the White House has cut will keep industry money out of the game or in the very least equal on both sides.  

    The GOP has relied on industry money for the most part and are probably two cycles behind the Dems in grass roots fundraising.  The Dems will lose some grass roots funding, but the vast majority will still be there, along with new streams from the lobbyists.  

    Not to mention Obama is a great weapon for the Dems.  A lot of folks who voted for him in 2008 will have a vested interest in seeing him succeed, meaning they'll be more likely to vote for somebody who thinks will work with President Obama.  I think the blatant obstructionism will really come back to bite the GOP in the ass.  

    Politics is like playing Asteroids - You go far enough to the left and you end up on the right. Or vice-versa.

    by Jonze on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:01:49 PM PST

    •  I don't see the tea baggers ever giving the kind (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, Noamjunior

      of net roots financial support that we do.  The ones I know are all hot air.  They are cheap.  Don't bring food to work pot lucks.  Don't want to pay any taxes.  I don't see them ever matching us.  JMO.

      Expose the lies. Fight for the truth. Push progressive politics. Save our planet. Health care is a right, not a privilege.

      by lighttheway on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 06:46:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sir or ma'am (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lighttheway

        they don't need to give any money, the GOP is the party of the rich.

        All the teabaggers need to do is get excited and provide the mass movement that money cannot buy. Remember the evangelicals? They are going to show up no matter what.

        The GOP doesn't worry about money. The worry about votes.

        America: our highest paid profession is thief.

        by Paul Goodman on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 07:29:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  This Friday (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, Matt Z, lighttheway

    Friday morning at 8:30am, the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases the December jobs report.  This may be the first report since December 2007.

    If it indeed does show a positive number, that is going to go a long way in changing the mood of things.  Yes, it doesn't mean that the three million jobs lost the last year or so have magically reappeared, but it would be the first tangible sign of improvement for the average person that doesn't follow politics like people here or the economy like views of CNBC, Bloomberg, etc.

    All of these prognostications 11 months before an election really aren't worth much.

    Just what will happen on November 2, if on that date, we've captured or killed Bin Laden?; the unemployment rate is down to 7.8% (where it was on Inauguration Day)?; There is a noticeable drop in American troops in Iraq, like down to 50,000 or so?; If some GOP/Teabagger says something so incredibly horrendous, like referring to the President as a N*****r?

    Eleven months out, the variables are just too risky to make any sort of predictions.

    (I have to admit, I'd love it if that last one came true.  Imagine Jim DeMint or some other right wing asshole getting caught using that term...and then they'd refuse to resign...cue the circular firing squad.)

    ======

    "Sick Around the World"

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

    Watch it, send it along to all you know.

    by oxfdblue on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:04:29 PM PST

    •  A mike left on while they talk sure (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, oxfdblue

      would be nice, huh?

      Expose the lies. Fight for the truth. Push progressive politics. Save our planet. Health care is a right, not a privilege.

      by lighttheway on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 06:48:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        I would love to be a fly on the wall in some of their private conversations.

        ======

        "Sick Around the World"

        http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

        Watch it, send it along to all you know.

        by oxfdblue on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 07:41:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It would definitely shift the public opinion. (0+ / 0-)

          But it's a safe bet that not all the right are secret racists. The tea party people have actually included a lot of libertarian types, who are mostly one issue voters, and for them, the one issue is seldom a neat left-right issue, let alone a racial issue. (For crying out loud, there are people in the movement whose big issue is the Gold standard, or the Estate tax, and what are the ones who claim 9-11 was all faked going to say or do if this administration captures or kills OBL?).
             These people just aren't likely to make any slip the general public will react to - not if the public isn't already reacting to half hour long tirades about the flat tax being the only fair tax.

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

            The fact that most of the right are not secret racists is why it would be so great.

            It would move that group right out of the tent.

            The tea party people are a different breed...I think they honestly hate all politicians and actually don't vote all that often.

            ======

            "Sick Around the World"

            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

            Watch it, send it along to all you know.

            by oxfdblue on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 03:36:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  OFA is a great GOTV machine (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, missLotus, blueyedace2, Matt Z

    if we'd quit boycotting it

    ---
    Fight the stupid! Boycott BREAKING diaries!

    by VelvetElvis on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:11:20 PM PST

  •  Dead Cat Bounce (6+ / 0-)

    Either Obama didn't realize he won a majority or he is simply too timid to govern without the consent of Republicans. In either case, he blew it with the Independents. The Pelosi and Reid claim that Americans love timid, indecisive and ineffective leaders is simply false.

    And the people who didn't turn out for Palin and McCain have now been whipped into a raving fever by Beck and the tea bagger movement. They will turn out in force and hence some of the more nutty red states will be sending new reps to Congress.

    So at this point the Republicans are guaranteed a least a small bounce. But even a small bounce will make Republicans more aggressive and the Democrats even more fearful and timid.

    And so the down spiral will continue. And the real disaster will come in 2012. And when Republicans do get control, they will make sure that Democrats never rise again. Dirty redistricting and campaign rules will be put in place to lock out Democrats for a lifetime. Democrats simply don't understand that Republicans hate them and want them destroyed - but they will. And 2012 will graphically highlight the differences between the Republican tactic of playing to win and the Democratic tactic of playing to be "nice".

    •  You dont play nice with Republicans (0+ / 0-)

      The sooner Democrats learn this, the better.  You simply do not negotiate with them.  

      •  the Repugs are irrelevant (0+ / 0-)

        They are not the ones in charge.  We are. By a huge majority.

        The sooner Dems learn THIS, the better.  You simply cannot blame the other side for your own ineffectual failures.

        Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

        by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:33:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Democrats act like they lost. (0+ / 0-)

          I can only assume that Democrats in Congress are as tied into corporate and banking interests as the Republicans have been. I also believe---and disagree with me---that Democrats prior to the 2006 elections were playing a game of 'the worse it gets, the more we will win' with their supporters.  So they got elected, and still acted like they didn't win.  I think this little game has to stop---of Democrats, DLC or otherwise, using the (medieval) fear of the 'rack' to get us to be so fearful of tomorrow (and a GOP win) that we re-elect them, including the incumbents like Dodd, and all the others who have undermined the country for decades now.

          Democrats are too similar in philosophy to the GOP, so it's like do you want to buy a jellybean styled Toyota or a jellybean styled Nissan?  Hardly any difference.  

          I want 'difference,' and ideology, and a Democrat that will be principled, not bought or seduced, or afraid to act.  So far, I only see a few.

          The corporatist Democrats truly strike me as dangerous to the country's interests.  My worry is that most Democrats are corporate.  

          Flipping from one party to the other is not the answer, nor is supporting Democrats who care more about the Bank of America than about America.  

    •  You are talking about a few million (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      people when you talk about people who and believe Beck. You will never, ever change that fact that there are probably 30 to 40 million people in this country who are bigots, who will vote against their best interests because of their racism.

      This is what makes up most of the tea bagger / Palinista movement.

      Making summary judgments about them, and implying the center of the country is even paying attention to them is counterproductive.

      'The work goes on, the cause endures.'

      by shpilk on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:55:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  People will vote if you ask them to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ivan, Matt Z

    One of the things we have found is that your neighbors will vote if you ask them to. Our precinct has 80% D turnout because we always ask them to vote on the doorstep in person. This needs to be done across the board. 50% voting by Democrats is the norm, unfortunately.

    Wrench the voter list from your local party and do just your block. You will be so happy afterwards that you will do the rest of your precinct. We did, and still do. It helps to have a slate of candidates to promote, but just a "Hi, we are Democratic neighbors making sure everyone gets the opportunity to vote. Is everyone in your house registered to vote? Please come out and vote this Fall. If you sign up for absentee voting you can be sure to vote, and if you decide to still go to the polls you can turn in your absentee ballot and vote there. Would you like help signing up for absentee voting?"

    A handout to that effect and a simple script to tell people on your trip around the block will work wonders.

    •  Think about it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      How many people can you effectively convince to vote between now and November? It is not that far from now. A few hundred people could make a world of difference in an otherwise tight local race.

      Democratic indifference is an opportunity for YOU to make a difference. Bumper stickers don't do it, phone calls don't do it, buy you can. Boots on the ground make a difference. Most people are not scouring Dkos for whether we will win, but if you ask them to vote they will listen.

      Besides you could use the walk.

    •  "Wrench the voter list?" (0+ / 0-)

      Become a PCO, then you won't have to "wrench" it, they'll give it to you, with their thanks and their encouragement.

      Do you think your local party somehow doesn't want its precincts canvassed?

      If your precinct has a PCO, offer to help that person.

      "Lash those traitors and conservatives with the pen of gall and wormwood. Let them feel -- no temporising!" - Andrew Jackson to Francis Preston Blair, 1835

      by Ivan on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 08:15:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not much comfort from NY-23 if you'll (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lighttheway

    be honest about it.  Let's see,

    No matter how you slice it, a retired cop running on a third party ticket came within 2.3 percentage points of beating the Democrat, even after the Republican dropped out and endorsed the Democrat.

    And -- that in a district that wasn't supposed to be especially right-wing.

    On the other hand, it was a special election, so who knows how the electorate compared to that which would show up for a general election?

    Third parties might make headway here and there, but I would bet that 2010 is like most American elections -- a Republican v. Democrat affair.

    Democrats should hope for an economic rebound that starts putting people back on the job.  They've already damaged themselves incredibly by not understanding the importance of seeming like they care, but there's still time.

    The clock doth tick, however...

    Free speech? Yeah, I've heard of that. Have you?

    by dinotrac on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:24:09 PM PST

  •  I think there's way too much pessimism (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, Matt Z

    I think Dems will do fine in 2010, maybe not in the state houses but for the House and Senate.  I think it will take a strategic decision to sacrifice some conservadems in purple-to-red states, not explicitly but by railing against enemies of reform generally...which will damage those Democrats who are enemies of reform.  But I'm assuming that Obama is unsentimental enough to do that.

    Enrich your life with adverbs!

    by Rich in PA on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:24:52 PM PST

  •  On our side, I think apathy may be (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, lighttheway

    a bigger factor than tea-baggers and their ilk. If you ask 5 different tea-baggers why they're tea-baggers, you'll get 5 different (mostly incoherent) answers.

    Yes, I know - we underestimate teh stoopid at our peril. But the last few "bag gatherings" were miserable, epic FAILs.

    I think many of us on the left are feeling a bit "left out" when it comes to the promised "change we can believe in" slogan and I suspect that's not going to help our candidates, down-ticket, from the presidency.

    Then there's the economy. If it's totally in the crapper, then our party may be as well in the next election.

    And this is where I usually end up: The MSM. They could actually educate people, showing all of the horrendous financial stats, charts and graphs from those 8 long, Bush years - the jobs lost... hell, the money lost, everywhere. But I suspect they won't. So much still rides on the picture(s) the MSM chooses to paint of what they allege is "reality".

    This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around!

    by Snud on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:27:03 PM PST

  •  That's What They're Counting On (0+ / 0-)

    For years Democrats have sent me fundraising letters blaming all the failures of Congress on Republicans. Except that since January 2007 Democrats have held majorities in the House and Senate. Since January 2009 they've been larger than Republicans ever had under Bush (or most of the time under Clinton), and Democrats have also held the White House.

    Yes, Republicans have worked mercilessly against legislation put forward by Democratic Congresses, especially that requested by Obama. But that hasn't been enough to stop Congress. Stopping Congress has required Democrats to work against the "Democratic" Congress. Democrats who the Democratic Party can influence. Like not continuing to send Democratic Party donors' money through the DNC to those Democrats who join Republicans to vote down the Democrats. Especially when voting against the Democratic Party's actual platform.

    But Democrats have maintained, increased, their majorities. Because blaming Republicans is true enough for most people. It's just not true enough to be actually true.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:28:24 PM PST

  •  Re the Owens-Scozzafava-Hoffman contest (0+ / 0-)

    What I'm about to write will not be popular around here. I also would like to say that I would not have voted for Scozzafava or Hoffman.

    With that...

    In light of 2008 election results, the local Republican leadership showed far more courage in nominating Scozzafava for NY-23 than did the Democratic Party, which went far out of its way to find a non-Democrat like Owens to put on the ticket.

    In August 2009, nearly three months before the election, Jimmy Vielkind pointed out in "Meet Bill Owens, a DCCC-Approved Non-Democrat for the House" (New York Observer, August 11, 2009) that Bill Owens was not a Democrat. According to Vielkind, Owens wasn’t a registered Democrat as of August 11, 2009. Not a crime. But, as Owens revealed to Vielkind, he "does not support a public option available to anyone."

    By Nov, Owens changed his mind and voted in favor of H R 3962.

    But where did the DCCC find this character? And, more importantly, why did they go looking for someone like him in the first place?

    •  I'll bite (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      But where did the DCCC find this character? And, more importantly, why did they go looking for someone like him in the first place?

      Gee, I dunno. To win the election?

      "Lash those traitors and conservatives with the pen of gall and wormwood. Let them feel -- no temporising!" - Andrew Jackson to Francis Preston Blair, 1835

      by Ivan on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 08:17:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  That was talked about here (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      and the story we got from some North Country Democrats is this: local party chairs interviewed a bunch of candidates for the nomination.  Supposedly they came to an easy and unanimous conclusion that Owens was the one to back.

      We don't know what the 'job interview' was like, but it's easy to guess.  They of course asked about his partisan past, views, and candid opinions on a bunch of issues.  The answers must have been satisfactory and realistic.  Both sides also knew that the district is trending Democratic, though slowly, and that Democrats there have to run a bit right of where they ideally would to keep a safety margin for bad years.  But with that Democratic trend, a successful nominee has to have capability of shifting left along with the district electorate in the longer run (4-6 years or more).  I would guess that they checked for that.

      The reality of the district was that was voting for national Democrats (Obama for President, Clinton as Senator) in the mid-high forties.  That's a very familiar place politically for upstate New York Democrats, so Owens and the local Party, and the DCCC consultants, knew where to position on issues and tone and all that.

      Republicans worked off the reputation of the district.  That was the same mistake they made in the Murphy/Tedisco election in NY-20 in the spring, a bit farther south, where they ignored the election data that said NY-20 was already a 50/50 district.

  •  Jobs and Immigration (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brillo

    are the two issues that will energize folks.
    If the economy starts to turn around and we s significant reduction in unemployment, all bets are off. The GOP will have nothing to run on. Its over.

    Immigration. show some balls and start talking about amnesty. The Hispanic Caucus is pushing it, The Latino Community is pushing it. Even the Catholic Church promotes it. if the GOP starts immigrant bashing, they will anger the Latino Asian voters
    (who already have a low opinion of them) and goodbye GOP for the next several generations . In spite of the Teabagger Hype there are actually less all white districts that the GOP can count on. The 2010 Census is going to reveal some interesting and perhaps exciting developments.
    Does anyone remember those articles 6-8 months ago about "The Vanishing Republican" Things change and no doubt they will change again.
    Excite the base and they will come.

    a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.

    by Jamesleo on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:30:03 PM PST

  •  People will get back to the polls, once the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, destiny1

    stark differences are outlined. There's more than enough time to get this right, and while I don't see huge gains taking place, I don't see huge losses.

    Even CQ only shows a net loss of one Senate seat right now, and they always seem to be skewed towards Republicans.

    The House, yeah, we may lose some Blue Dogs, but we could also pick up some progressives.

    'The work goes on, the cause endures.'

    by shpilk on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:47:38 PM PST

  •  This is why I've disregarded 2010 doom sayers. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Noamjunior

    It has gone largely underreported in the traditional press, but the ascendancy of the "tea party" movement brings with it enormous electoral peril for the Republican Party, and carries with it the potential to blunt potential gains for the GOP in what otherwise might have been a very lucrative 2010 election cycle.

    By Election Day, eleven months from now, voter abhorance of Republican extremism as reflected in the Tea Party people will trump everything.

    It will address and overcome each of the three areas of supposed Democratic risk.

    1. By nominating whack jobs the Republicans will create the low hanging fruit that could help produce the otherwise unlikely 3rd consecutive wave election for the Democrats.  
    1. Voter anger isn't in favor of anything, and if it doesn't suppress turnout, the Republicans won't much be offering anywhere for the angry voters to go because R's have no ideas on how to fix most things the angry voters are mad about.
    1. Voter fear of Republican nutcase candidates can generate a lot of fervor on our side while suppressing support for the R's from independent and less conservative voters.  

    All the hyperventilating about the allegedly dismal chances for the D's this year is just the media looking for conflict in the process. That's what most political reporting is about because actual policy is too difficult to learn and discuss. But a meaningful conversation about all of this probably can't really happen until the primaries are over and the general election campaigns are well underway.

    "If you are going to tell people the truth, be funny or they will kill you." Billy Wilder 1906 - 2002

    by LeftOfYou on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:48:49 PM PST

    •  last election shows this 2b true (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LeftOfYou

      "most political reporting is about because actual policy is too difficult to learn and discuss. But a meaningful conversation about all of this probably can't really happen until the primaries are over and the general election campaigns are well underway."

      I doubt progs disillusioned with dems wont vote when they see the opposition

  •  An Interesting Theory, But.. (2+ / 6-)

    It has gone largely underreported in the traditional press, but the ascendancy of the "tea party" movement brings with it enormous electoral peril for the Republican Party, and carries with it the potential to blunt potential gains for the GOP in what otherwise might have been a very lucrative 2010 election cycle.

    .. at the end of the day your argument hinges on perspective and its commonality with mainstreet. There is little that is surprising in the progressive left viewing the tea party movement - if there is such a thing - as extreme from its seat on the far left. The problem with your analysis is that the majority of the country - mainstreet - is far more aligned with the center or leans right. From that perspective the tea party movement is generally populist - the populism being a strong (and growing by the day) suspicion of and aversion to government largess. Most of this country simply does not trust Uncle Sam with any more authority over its lives and liberties and is therefore growingly skeptical of Dem governance (which is currently re-writing the rules on unabashed statism) and growingly sympathetic to the tea party establishment. Republicans' embrace of such a populism seems anything but a libility.

  •  Certainly, DeMint's an unlikely unity figure. (0+ / 0-)
    He's even stated he'd be happy to have just 30 Reublicans in the Senate, provided they were all true-believers.

    The GOP's in a bad place relative to where they were going into the 1994 midterms, when they were able to craft a sober center-right agenda that steered clear of the hottest cultural issues--the Contract with America.  Now, thanks to the much-more-developed Internet, the right-wing assroots have a greatly enhanced ability to join together and press their mad demands on a party that needs to appeal to the middle, and at the same time today's congressional GOP lacks leaders like the (Phil) Gramms, Armeys, DeLays, and Gingriches of old, who had enough true-believer cred with the assroots to be able to convince them to rally around a unity agenda that wouldn't sink GOP candidates in swing districts and states.  By contrast, today's assroots despise the gray, juiceless McConnell, Boehner, and Cantor.

    My hope, though, is that Democrats and lefties will stop chortling so much over Republican discomfiture with the teabaggers, and get on the stick in the New Year.  The anemic legislation coming out of the Senate, and the shameful backlog there relative to the House, are disillusioning Democrats and lefties, while the Republican base is enthused with hatred of Obama, Pelosi, and congressional Democrats in general.  We can't rely on our foes to fall of their own weight, as even some very smart progressives like Rachel Maddow seem to think they will.

    Much voter apathy and cynicism issue from congressional inaction, and the Senate is chiefly at fault.  Cynicism, meanwhile, mostly redounds to the benefit of the right, as it reinforces their claim that government can't do anything for us.

    The US Senate: where change goes to die. Let's strengthen democracy by changing the cloture rule from 60 to 51.

    by burning rain on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:52:17 PM PST

    •  GOP congress approval much lower than Dems (0+ / 0-)

      people dont want more reflexive "no"s in congres

      •  I hope you're right. (0+ / 0-)

        But heavy obstructionism helped Republicans going into the '94 midterms, and this piece by Tom Schaller at fivethirtyeight.com suggests a similar strategy might pay off for the GOP in 2010, although of course, Democrats do appear ready to pass a health care bill this time around.

        The US Senate: where change goes to die. Let's strengthen democracy by changing the cloture rule from 60 to 51.

        by burning rain on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 08:24:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Well there's no point in being a pessimist. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, quantumspin, Matt Z

    It probably wouldn't work anyway.

    Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

    by lockewasright on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 05:54:08 PM PST

  •  It's a VERY long time between now and November. (0+ / 0-)

    It's pretty early to apply the current conditions to the election.  If the economy is improved and CW is that it is heading in the right direction and a bunch of people have insurance that they didn't used to have, it will be an entirely different world from this one.

    Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

    by lockewasright on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 06:01:24 PM PST

    •  About that insurance... (0+ / 0-)

      I don't know the timetables, but are any of the 30 Million uninsured people going to have insurance 11 months from now?

      As I understand it, this bill doesn't become fully implemented until 2014.  I know that some things will happen sooner than others, but I don't think all 30 Million uninsured people are going to be insured by this November.

      A big problem with the bill is that even if it gets passed and signed tomorrow, much of it won't kick in for a few years.

      Anybody know the timetable for when uninsureds will become insured?

      Granted, as the conference committee hasn't yet convened to produce a final bill, any current timetables may be rendered moot in a few weeks, but like I said, I don't think the issue of the 30 Million uninsured people is going to be immediately addressed this year by either of the two bills passed by Congress so far.

      Perhaps someone can clarify this issue?

      •  I guess that we'll have to see what comes out of (0+ / 0-)

        conference, but if the pre-existing condition nonsense goes away on day one then a significant number of people will see immediate help.  Also, the no rescission rule could have a pretty big impact by then possibly.

        Picture a bright blue ball just spinnin' spinnin' free. It's dizzy with possibility.

        by lockewasright on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 09:01:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Most of this is MSM/corporate media injecting (0+ / 0-)

    the narrative of the 'schism' within the Democratic Party.

    They'll pound out this malarkey every chance they can, and yet the clear problems the Republicans are having? Shhhh~! Don't say anything about that!

    'The work goes on, the cause endures.'

    by shpilk on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 06:07:22 PM PST

  •  Historical trends and precedents or polls aside, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, DTG in STL

    shouldn't democrats focus on governing effectively and on behalf of their voting constituents rather than giving preference to their paying (lobbyist/special interest) constituents? That might help to restore a little bit of faith by the electorate in their representative democracy. It seems like effective governing of, for and by the people who elected them, rather than depending upon the implosion of their lunatic opposition, would put democrats into a more solid position than counting on such a gamble.

    To appeal to democrats, and maybe even to some republicans and to certain independents, if democrat representatives and senators were to make a transformation of politics into a reality, they might be able to get the votes they need to keep them in power. But, honestly, as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter who does it, when elected officials work honestly and on behalf of their voting constituents, they deserve to be elected, no matter what their stated party is. But this system needs reform. When will the american political system get its makeover? When are we going to get true campaign finance reform? Maybe term limits can be negotiated for those legislators who are doing a passing grade of adequately legislating. When will the money and power and influence of corporate lobbyists be a less powerful force than the power and influence and consideration of the voting public?

    When democrats, or republicans or independents, (it doesn't really matter because they are all capable of it,) remove the corrupting influences from politics by restricting or banning or, at least severely limiting lobbying and influence by money by making all public elections publicly funded to take the pressure off of politicians to raise money, politics could possibly have the opportunity to be a government of, by and for the people. Guarantee x number of publicly funded hours of air time on tv and radio by political campaigns. Prevent private money and its influence on that process. And take away the ability of large monied special interests to control politics which disenfranchises everyone else, ie, the voting public. This would help to make our representatives more available to do what they are supposed to be doing,  that is, working on legislative matters and being responsible to their electorate, rather than having to spend so much time and energy in fund raising activities, (the more whorish activities of politics).

    But if we ever were to have a reformed political system that was geared to being what our representative democracy has always been billed as being, a government of, for and by the people, would we have a political system left? Would politicians, like rats, jump off the ship in droves? What kind of politicians would we be left with? I have a feeling that the politicians who step up under those circumstances would probably be more willing to work for the people than those who are motivated by the possibility of profiting as much as they possibly can by the system which is the type of politicians we have now. It would be well worth the chance to try such an experiment to see if we can restore some kind of representational democracy. Until we get back to something like it, our nation is going to suffer being a government of the highest bidder and appear very much like a whore in a suit. Americans have lost interest in their government because it is so much like a cheap whore. Democrats should be less concerned about the lunacy of their opposition than about how they appear as whores to the people they are supposed to be representing.

    •  Very simplistic, also wrong (0+ / 0-)

      Sorry,  but most of what you're complaining about isn't really how things are, and your proposals would pretty much shut down free political debate in this country.

      It's all good and well to spout of the slogans about "special interests" and the influence of "private money," but there really isn't much there. Candidates need money to campaign and communicate their message to voters in all the myriad ways in which the public receives information about candidates and politics.

      Free airtime on t.v. and radio? What about those of us that do not depend on those means of communication for information? What about those Americans unwilling to sit through - what - 2 hour debates, 1/2 hour infomercials, or whatever else you have planned?

      And when you talk about eliminating lobbying, who exactly do you plan to ban? All lobbyists? Those from the AFL-CIO, Human Rights Campaign, ACLU, NARAL, and the Sierra Club? Or are you just thinking you will ban lobbyists from people you don't like, while those that share your perspective are allowed to operate in the "public interest" or whatever justification you come up with?

      Sorry, but the First Amendment really doesn't tolerate stifling political speech, or putting the government in charge of deciding who gets how much influence and ability to communicate their political message. "Congress shall make no law..." and all that, you know.

      Besides, lobbying and fundraising aren't nearly the corrupting influences you seem to think they are. Just because YOUR agenda isn't seeing the success you think it should doesn't mean the system is "broken" or "corrupt." This is how representative democracy works, sometimes the other side is able to make a more persuasive case to the voters than you are. Deal with it, and work harder next time. But don't try to limit the ability of your opponents to communicate their message, because then you do have a "broken" system that tramples minority and unpopular views, or even popular views, because someone somewhere is concerned that somebody has too much influence and needs to be restrained. It doesn't work that way in our system.

      Sean Parnell
      President
      Center for Competitive Politics
      http://twitter.com/...

      Congress shall make no law...

      by Sean Parnell on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 07:25:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bet that the 3rd Party will win real majorities (0+ / 0-)

    for as far into the future as the eye can see.

    The Legal Bribers Party only needs, what?, 270 or so committed followers in Congress to get pretty much everything they want.

    Until we break the corporate virtual monopoly on what we hear and see, we keep losing, don't matter what we do.

    by Jim P on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 06:09:12 PM PST

    •  if there ever is gonna be a third party, now is (0+ / 0-)

      the time for it to start.

      The Dems and the Repugs have both demonstrated that they are equally owned by the lobbyists and equally incapable of effectively governing.

      Essentially, we have a two-party system with two dysfunctional parties.

      Either we get a party (one way or another) that IS functional, or we get used to having no effective government at all.

      Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

      by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 06:25:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  do the math (0+ / 0-)

        if 50+ dems in the senate support progressive health care reform and ALL the GOpers oppose it- how can you argue both parties are the same?

        •  I didn't argue they were the same (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jim P

          I argued that they were both beholden to the same lobbyists, both ineffectual, and both incapable of governing.

          Or didn't you notice that even with 50+ Dem Senators supporting progressive health care, we still didn't actually GET any progressive health care . . . . . ?

          Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

          by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 07:00:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  GOP not ineffectual (0+ / 0-)
            they do a great job of getting their millionaire donors paid with govt cash, starting wars to enrich their energy and defence donrs, they also do a great job of putting ultra right aholes on the bench- or were you in a coma the last 8 years?

            If I am often deiappointed with what the dems fail to achieve - I am often scared shitless of when the gopers achieve their goals

            •  and so do we (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jim P

              We just gave our insurance lobbyist pals a wonderful Christmas present, we gave our Pentagon pals a bigger sandbox to play in, and we might even let them try out some of their new toys on Yemen. Heck, we even gave a couple of poor down and out Wall Streeters a nice cushy job, protecting the rest of their no-longer-quite-so-rich pals.

              BTW, when YOU awake from your coma, you might recall how many times the Dems folded to those big bad mean Repugs for 8 years.

              If you need a reminder, just do a search here at DKos for the phrase "Democrats capitulate again".

              Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

              by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 07:36:34 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Sometime earlier I commented that 2010 (0+ / 0-)

    would ideally consist of NY-23 - across the country.

    I'm heartened to see this aspect of the upcoming November contests explored so fully in this FP article.

    The cautionary notes about improving Democratic enthusiasm are practical and instructive counter-weights keeping the audiences feet firmly on the ground.

    All in all, an excellent analysis.

    no remuneration was received by anyone for the writing of this message

    by ItsSimpleSimon on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 06:19:19 PM PST

  •  Tea Party Hatred will Fuel Dem Victories (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paul Goodman, Matt Z

    as the Tea Partiers become exposed for the Racist, hateful, ignoramuses and corporate Shills  that comprise their vast majority- Dems will become motivated to go out and defeat them  
    Note- I know the original Tea party movement was Ron Paul Followers during the Bush years- but the current group is completely removed from that

  •  What if McCain had won? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    scorpiorising, HerculePeroit

    I campaigned hard for Obama and we carried our part of Applachia/Pennsylvania for the first time in a long time.  And yes, I will vote and vote a straight Democratic ticket in 2010.

    But what if McCain had won?

    1. Well we would have had a surge instead of a withdrawal in Afganistan. Oh wait..
    1. Don't ask, don't tell would still be the policy in the armed forces.  But..
    1. Wall Street's greedy CEO's would be getting big bonuses, bailouts and appointments of Goldman Sachs employees to Treasury and Finance.  And Obama appointed whom?
    1. Unions would still be dreaming about passing the "Employee Free Choice Act"  Dream on..
    1. Drugs would NOT be allowed importation from Canada.  Big Pharma would see to that.  Oh yeah...
    1. Single payer DOA.  Public Option dying.  Insurance companies getting millions of new customers with no price controls.  But Hey, we are getting a Health Care Reform bill -- sort of, maybe.
    1. Defense of Marriage? - Alive and well.
    1. Immigration reform?  Climate Change Legislation? Renewal energy program?  Maybe someday...

    If only the Democrats had the Presidency, a big majority in Congress and a filibuster proof Senate, why we could do....very little.

    Yup.  Good thing we defeated McCain and got the change we can believe in.  Right?

    •  if McCain had won (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ivan, Paul Goodman, Matt Z
      1. forget Afghanistan- we would have likely gone to war with Iran by now
      1. A president using his bully pulpit to further persecute homosexuals

      3)the stock market would be at about 430 while McCain has suspended his presidency to fix the ecconomic crisis

      1. a wave of new anti- union legislation

      5 & 6) no conversation about improving  health care whatsoever

      1. see # 2
      1. Immigration reform?  Climate Change Legislation? Renewal energy program?  all would be used as phony excuse in order to remove corporate regulation of big business
      •  um . . . (0+ / 0-)

        forget Afghanistan

        Forgetting it would indeed have been better than expanding the war in it. Sure is nice though that the troops will be leaving Iraq.  Shame they're going to Afghanistan instead of home, though . . .

        - we would have likely gone to war with Iran by now

        We still might.  Unless we bomb Yemen first.

        A president using his bully pulpit to further persecute homosexuals

        Remind me again what's Obama's stance on gay marriage and dont ask dont tell . . .

        3)the stock market would be at about 430 while McCain has suspended his presidency to fix the ecconomic crisis

        Well of course McCain could have just appointed the Wall Streeters to oversee their own bailout . . . .

        a wave of new anti- union legislation

        Hmm, I'm not aware of any Republican proposals about that.  Can you cite some, please?

        By the way, which President is the AFL-CIO pissed at right now . . . ?

        5 & 6) no conversation about improving  health care whatsoever

        Well, that certainly is an improvement over. . .  uh . . . no improvement in health care whatsoever. No point wasting time talking about something that won't get done anyway.

        see # 2
        Immigration reform?  Climate Change Legislation? Renewal energy program?  all would be used as phony excuse in order to remove corporate regulation of big business

        And they still will be, once the Dems cave in on all of them.  Just like "Health Care Reform" was used as a phony excuse to give a massive welfare payment to the insurance industry.

        Gee, you're right.  Good thing we elected all those Blue Dogs.

        I'm curious -- do you plan on voting for all those Blue Dogs again in this election?  Or did you plan on staying home, instead?

        Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

        by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 07:10:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  unless there is some law I dont know about (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z

          I cant go to other states and vote for their congress people. If a strong helath care law is passed- I would vote for Specter- if not- i will vigorously support his primary opponent. seems like most people here bitching about the dems have an extremely short memory, or no graspe of the reality of the political process.

          the fact that you basically ignore the positive OBama has accomplished re- the ecconomy and foriegn policy makes me question your sincereity as a "concerned lefty"

          but the lengths you went to "refute" my points - rather than concede that gee- maybe McCain Palin might have f-ed things up a little more- and gee, maybe even though obama didn't magically change everything you think is wrong with the world in 11 months,he has done a good job given the circumstance, suggest there likely is no constructive reason to continue talking to you
          god bless and good luck

    •  I agree that there is not much difference (0+ / 0-)

      But if we get a healthcare bill, that will be enough for me.  

  •  To motivate voters in 2010 election (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Noamjunior

    Billboards showing pictures of hatefilled teabaggers, with the caption:

    Vote defensively!  You don't want these people in power!

    Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity. -- Alvy Ray Smith

    by John Q on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 06:50:24 PM PST

  •  How foolish you are. (0+ / 0-)

    The best weapon is the teabaggers?

    Someone probably said the same thing in Weimar.

    All it would take is for mild voter discontentment to undo Obama as it did Carter in 1980.

    What then?

    The GOP wins the presidency and sometime in the next 12 months a "mysterious" nuke goes off in an American city, perhaps Washington D.C. leaving only the military behind.

    The atrocity gets blamed on Iran or "terrorists" and it's all she wrote for Western Civilization.

    This isn't about the political "pendulum". This is about the surgence of fascism in the death throes of an empire.

    Iran etc. shows that you only need 25% of the people to rule a modern country through terror.

    So instead of being saved by the opposition, Obama needs to govern as if all life depended on it. He has been far to cozy consider the peril civilization is in. If you have to burn a few multinational banks or Fed Chairman, or directly hire 10 million unemployed people in order to assuage the populace,

    you do it!

    America: our highest paid profession is thief.

    by Paul Goodman on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 07:16:14 PM PST

    •  so the campaign slogan is . . . (0+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:
      brillo

      "Vote Dem or the Pentagon will nuke DC !!!!" ?

      Dude, if we fall into flatout fascism (and I agree that we are heading straight for it), then it won't matter who wins the election.  The fascists don't need to be elected. They can take over no matter whose butt is sitting in the Oval Office.

      Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

      by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 07:22:18 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  NJ should be a RED flag for everyone here. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paul Goodman, HerculePeroit

    Don't count on the GOpers saving us next fall because they're so bad. They put up a real turd as a candidate this fall for Gov. and he beat Corzine easily. NJ is a solid Blue state. The Dems. and Obama didn't deliver the goods as promised in many people's minds. I expect were going to have a real hard time of it next fall if things continue to trend the way they are. You got BIG chunks of the Dems. out here that feel they've been punked.

    "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

    by Blutodog on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 07:21:12 PM PST

    •  New Jersey was a BIG red flag (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Blutodog, Paul Goodman

      If a corrupt Republican like Christie can win in a deep blue state like New Jersey, we are all in HUGE trouble.  

    •  Then they should grow up . . . (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      brillo, Matt Z
      and realize that being adults means you don't get everything you want and sometimes you have to choose between bad and horrific. If they're feeling "punked" it's because no-nothings filled their empty heads with unrealistic expectations. The ship of state doesn't turn on a dime and electing Dem majorities doesn't magically obviate the pervasive influence of the monied elites. Try living in the real fucking world.

      The slow learners who want to support another Nader can shove a  Quixote windmill up their collective asses.

      •  curious (1+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Massman
        Hidden by:
        brillo

        So you think we should vote Dem and re-elect Lieberman and Nelson, because the Repugs are EVEN WORSE !!!!!!!!!!! ?

        Oh, one more thing -- if the Dems couldn't deliver now with 60-vote majority, how do they plan on delivering later without it? Or do they share the Repug hubris that they will be a, uh, permanent majority . . .?

        Just curious.

        I mean, the Dems told us years ago that they couldn't do anything because they didn't have a majority in Congress.  So we gave it to them.

        Then they told us they couldn't do anything because they didn't have the White House.  So we gave it to them.

        THEN they told us that they couldn't do anything because they needed a BIGGER majority, so we gave it to them.

        NOW they are telling us that they can't do anything because their 60-vote majority still isn't big enough.

        Can you give us a hint as to, ya know, what you might think you'll REALLY need before we start seeing the advertised "change we can believe in"?  Would a 70-vote majority maybe do it?  85?  All 100?  All 400-odd Congressional seats? Think the Dems could maybe accomplish something with that?  

        Or are we gonna hear yet another excuse about why they can't actually do anything?

        I mean, I know the ship of state can't turn on a dime.  But I thought maybe it MIGHT be able to turn on a hundred million dollars . . . . . just a little . . . .

        Or is it just unrealistic on our part to think that a Congress with its biggest majority in decades might, ya know, be able to actually PASS things . . . ?

        Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

        by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 08:04:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Lordy (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          trashablanca, Matt Z
          How is it that you don't seem to know or care about the Senate rules regarding cloture? Obviously 60 isn't  a strong hand when any dick like Lieberman can hold the process hostage. Given the influence of money, it's hard to say whether larger majorities would result in better legislation, although that's probably the way to bet.  

          What is obvious is that whining about not getting the results you wanted won't get you the results you wanted.

          •  you didn't answer my questions (0+ / 0-)

            So I'll ask again.

            (ahem)

            Do you think we should vote Dem and re-elect Lieberman and Nelson, because the Repugs are EVEN WORSE !!!!!!!!!!! ?  If a Repug and Lieberman, or some other Blue Dog,are running, do I (1) vote for the Blue Dog (lesser of two evils and all that), or (2) vote for the Repug (at least I know that he will fuck me over) or (3) stay home and not vote for anybody.

            Those are my choices.

            Which one meets with your approval?

            Oh, one more thing -- if the Dems couldn't deliver now with 60-vote majority, how do they plan on delivering later without it? Or do they share the Repug hubris that they will be a, uh, permanent majority . . .? When do the Dems plan on having a bigger majority (made up, presumably, entirely of good reliable progressives so the Blue Dog that you wanted me to vote for because the Repugs are EVEN WORSE!!!!, won't fuck us all over again) so they will be able to, ya know, fix all the crappy stuff they are passing now?

            And you're right -- voting out the people who didn't get what I wanted, won't get me what I wanted.  Neither of course will voting them back in.

            But voting them out may later get someone in who WILL get me what I wanted.

            So I'll take the chance of future success, over the certainty of current failure.

            Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

            by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 08:38:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What part of choosing between . . . (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              trashablanca
              bad (Lieberman) and horrific (Repub) don't  you get? Staying home is a vote for the latter, given that Repubs turn out their base.

              Kos probably has it right when he says we need more and better Dems. We should work to elect whatever qualified Dem runs against Lieberman so we don't have to choose between bad and worse.

              Voting out the Dems will in the short term get you the Repubs and if the preceding years of Repub rule haven't impressed upon you why that's the horrific choice, you aren't a slow learner, you're a non-learner.

              Future failure, certain failure - you're talking like a moron. Wise up.

              •  just so we're clear about this . . . . (0+ / 0-)

                The next time some Blue Dog fucks us over and everybody starts all the bitching and moaning and griping and complaining about being screwed by them yet again for the umpteenth time, YOU will immediately pipe up, tell everyone that YOU want everyone to vote for the Blue Dogs even if they don't want to, and YOU think we should all just shut up, quit complaining, and vote for the Blue Dogs again because the Republicans are EVEN WORSE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                The next time someone refers to "Joe the Traitor", you will immediately pipe up and defend him and tell everyone they should vote for him, because the Repugs are EVEN WORSE !!!!!!!!!.

                The next time someone bitches about Nelson, you will immediately pipe up and defend him, and tell everyone they should vote for him anyway, because the Repugs are EVEN WORSE !!!!!!!.

                The next time anyone anywhere gripes about any Blue Dog, you will pipe up and tell everyone to vote for him anyway, because the Repugs are EVEN WORSE !!!!!.

                Deal?

                Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

                by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 10:11:00 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Let me make one thing perfectly clear . . . (0+ / 0-)
                  as Nixon used to say - Joe Lieberman aint no Blue Dog Democrat. In fact, he isn't any kind of Dem. He was elected as an Independent. (IIRC, so was Bernie Sanders.)  Perhaps we  should elect 60 or more Senate Dems and see what happens before giving up on them.

                  As for the rest, if the choice in the general  election is between a Blue Dog Dem and a Repub, all other things being equal, I'd advocate voting for the Dem every time.

        •  can someone explain why this deserved a donut ? (0+ / 0-)

          Or is someone just being petty.

          Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

          by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 09:07:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Uprated. Abusive HR. (0+ / 0-)

          Absolutely nothing hide worthy in this post.

      •  Hey get a grip ! (0+ / 0-)

        Don't fucking lecture me on what life is about. Your arrogance and the arrogance of the crowd around Obama are the part of the problem. I'm just trying to tell u what I think is happening out here. You don't like it then screw u go ahead with your attitude. But, cut the condescending BS buddy. Hey, we didn't raise everyone's expectation levels into the Stratosphere! Obama and the Dems. did and they're not delivering even a tiny part of what they PROMISED! Yes, its only been a yr. But based upon what many of us see its not going ever happen with their present direction and policies. Were not Naderites I have never voted for the man and never would. However as a 45 yr. party member  who has donated $$ lots of it, time and effort to this party I'm sick and tired of the friggin bait and switched by the Corporatists who seem to think its ok to endlessy run on Progressive themes and frames , with NO INTENTION of ever implementing any of these ideas. Instead, they're primarily interested in just getting elected to feather their own nests first and foremost and let the public have as they say the Devils hindpost! We need pols that pledge NOT to not take Corp. $$ to get elected and that pledge to follow through on their own campaign promises, Instead of endlessly allowing the most reactionary and Corp. elements of the party to basically run the show. Thats why their is a HUGE enthusiasm gap out here and if you don't understand that, to bad for you and the party, because you and they are going to get a walloping this fall and not get it!

        "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

        by Blutodog on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 07:58:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Say What? (0+ / 0-)

        Take the lecture on what being a adult is all about somwewhere else man. I've been a member of the Dem. Party for 40+ yrs.  I've worked for many a campaign and contributed more then a few dollars over the course of these decades and I'm tired of the bait and switch tactics of the party elites. For some reason they think its just fine to run on Progressive and Populists platforms and give endless speeches framed in Progressive ideas and then once elected, nice and cozy in their powerful jobs they immediately ditch the Progressive sheeps clothing and appear as the Corporatist wolves so many of them have become.
         "If they're feeling "punked" it's because no-nothings filled their empty heads with unrealistic expectations."   Oh, you mean no - nothings like maybe Obama? LOL! "Change we can believe in!" Oh really? Your right about the fact that it appears that simply having Dem. majorites doesn't "magically obviate" piles of $$. We agree there, but maybe thats because we continually elect politicans that can't get elected without the piles of Corp. cash in the 1st place. So maybe we need to STOP giving such creatures our money as a starter and stop working and voting for them as well and start electing ones that do the opposite. ( as in not taking piles of Corp. cash and then lying about who and what they represent once in office).
          As for the arrogant angry statement about living in the FUCKING REAL WORLD. Maybe being a little less condescending and a bit more respectful of others opinions here would be more befitting of someone that considers them self a Democrat?

        "It's better to die on your feet then live on your knees" E. Zapata

        by Blutodog on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 11:43:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  just like a dem in NJ in 2002 (0+ / 0-)

      was a sign of a big kerry victory in 2004

    •  er, no (0+ / 0-)

      Christie was elected to do a job no elected Democrat could do as well: attack Democratic corruption and 'machines'/'bosses' in local government in the state.  He'll fly out of office when he's done with that, and it will have been a service to NJ Democrats overall.

      Christie had no coattails in state legislature races: there's no voter mandate for a partisan Republican agenda.

  •  I thought this for a while. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paul Goodman

    But history seems to show that this is not the advantage that we would like to think.

    Big example: 1980, Pres. Jimmy Carter vs. former B-movie actor and many-times attempted recalled ex-CA Gov. Ronald Reagan.

    The Republicans have shown us how easily it is to make somebody who is incompetent or lazy or insane or radically out of the mainstream into a loveable homespun guy (or gal) during the homestretch.  

    Don't ASSUME that this is such a big winning advantage.  We have seen this happen too many times in too many races.  Crazy Michelle Bachmann types can and do win races even when their lunacy is amply proven.

    What I am more worried about: the Democratic brand name.  I think it's been damaged this past year.  Reasons are abundant, and not worth going into for reasons of comity.  Will people feel like, if they vote for a Democrat, they are getting the sane, sensible brand of politician that stands for them and the other little guys, or is it just a choice of shills for corporations that don't really care for them?  If we can't win that compassion gap running away, we're running on empty.

    Step outside your partisan Democratic identify for a moment and look at things from the point of view of somebody who doesn't really usually care about political things, and do this in the context of a fucked-up economy: Who would you trust more, the loonies that are fired up and believe that they are all getting screwed by mysterious outside forces, or the steady-as-it-goes sane people that are still running things and don't like upsetting the apple cart?

  •  The problem is that the "D" means nothing (0+ / 0-)

    Do people with liberal, social democratic principles have the power? That's the actual question that people should be asking themselves.

    In reality, Republicans are still in charge. Add the "R"s to the Blue Dogs. Now, who really still has the power? Would all of these failures have occured if we had 60+ Feingolds, Kuciniches, and Starks in Congress? No.

    Palpably Extant: the death of the 4th estate.

    by spencerh on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 07:39:33 PM PST

  •  HATE to Say I Told You So... (0+ / 0-)

    but I told you so within days after Obama's election.

    according to the final Daily Kos "State of the Nation" tracking poll, 45% of Democrats identify themselves as either unlikely to vote or certain not to vote. For the Democrats to avoid a major defeat in 2010, this above all other things needs to be rectified.

    RECTIFIED.

    how? what's the plan?

    I'll save you the effort; there is no serious plan.. in fact what I am hearing is Obama talking like Herbert Hoover, not Franlin D. Roosevelt.

    and apparently Obama is being informed by his Three Stooges of Finance: Larry, Timmy and Benny, that job growth is going to pick up in the second quarter.

    sorry, but I'll take the word of Mark Zandi over Larry Fine Summers any day:

    Many private economists, like Moody’s Mark Zandi, predict unemployment will climb through the third quarter of next year to 10.6 percent.

     

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/...

    "Essentially, Obama is irrelevant". Paul Craig Roberts

    by Superpole on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 07:58:39 PM PST

    •  yea- go with the McCain advisor (0+ / 0-)

      Mark Zandi-was an economic adviser to Senator John McCain's campaign for president
      http://www.economy.com/...

      predicts doom and gloom when the dem is prez but everything was great under Bush

      •  "That 1937 Feeling" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Flaming Liberal for Jesus

        thanks for your total Load.

        The Obama fiscal stimulus plan is expected to have its peak effect on G.D.P. and jobs around the middle of this year, then start fading out. That’s far too early: why withdraw support in the face of continuing mass unemployment? Congress should have enacted a second round of stimulus months ago, when it became clear that the slump was going to be deeper and longer than originally expected. But nothing was done — and the illusory good numbers we’re about to see will probably head off any further possibility of action.

        Paul Krugman

        as I stated months ago; when Stiglitz, Krugman, etc., were criticizing the piss poor economic policies of bu$hco, everyone here clapped, cheered, hooted and hollered for joy. Stiglitz and Krugman were hailed as the best and brightest in the economic cosmos.

        but as soon as they criticized Obama, they were "nuts" and "out to get Obama".

        what a Load of crap.

        you want a repeat of 1937? Stay tuned!!

        http://www.nytimes.com/...

        "Essentially, Obama is irrelevant". Paul Craig Roberts

        by Superpole on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 06:35:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  seems the plan is just to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Superpole

      yell "traitor!!!!" at anyone who doesn't vote.

      Along with some sermons about the collapse of western civilization or something.

      Dem Party Motto: "Hey, at least we're better than nothing!"

      by Lenny Flank on Sun Jan 03, 2010 at 08:47:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If they run as independents... (0+ / 0-)

    then a lot of the Progressives I know believe the Dems could actually pick up a few battleground states. If they run as republicans, well then their impact is muted.

    If a Tea Party candidate runs in Pennsylvania, or if any of the independents in Nevada gets serious play it could affect those races. Be careful what you wish for though, there's a Green Party candidate on the ballot in Illinois and several democratic independents as well.

    As it stands right now I see the Democrats losing  Illinois to Kirk; Mike Castle beating Ben Biden in Delaware; I have hard time seeing Kendrick Meek beating Charlie Crist in Florida, but it could happen, and Blanche Lincoln lost a lot of her support by opposing the Stupak amendment, and Arkansas is a red state anyway, so that's three Democratic losses in the Senate providing they win the other toss ups, all of which gets a lot easier with strong right-wing independents.

  •  I am honestly ashamed of a lot of Democrats now.. (0+ / 0-)

    Last January, I stood for hours in the freezing cold on the Capital Mall to watch Obama take the oath of office.  We all had so much hope and good will.  AND I STILL DO despite the seemingly unending whining from so many Democrats about how Obama has sold us down the river.  "It should give the Democratic Party tremendous pause that, according to the final Daily Kos "State of the Nation" tracking poll, 45% of Democrats identify themselves as either unlikely to vote or certain not to vote." the article says and that truly angers me.  

    Am I happy with 100% of what Obama has done?  
    HELL NO!!  
    Am I infuriated by congress and how so many Democrats seem to be on the dole for the Health Insurance industry?  HELL YES!!
    Am I ready to basically cry, take my ball and go home??
    DOUBLE HELL NO!  
    For all the complaining and proclamations that "I'm not voting for that guy ever again"...and "he's a one term president for sure" where were all these people when the right wing nut jobs took over the public meetings or the "tea baggers" marched on DC to protest the health bill.  They were home typing away on their computers and posting to HuffPo, which has come to look more like Politico.  
    Remember, you get the government you deserve and should all those Demos sit out the 2010 election and the 2012 election in protest, or vote for a candidate who can't win...I honestly hope Sarah Palin runs with Glenn Beck...AND SHE WINS!  IT WILL SERVE US ALL RIGHT!
    Remember, Obama said "Yes, WE can" and so far all I've seen is a lot of WE whining about why Obama hasen't turned us into Sweden.  

    •  Dudervision, you are right on! (0+ / 0-)

      Why is it that we seem more intent on scapegoating Obama (or the Dems in general) than forming a cohesive movement?

      I'm not happy with everything Obama's done either (particularly on Afghanistan, and he could be a whole lot tougher on the Wall Street crowd), but Obama's inherited a big-ass mess from Dubya Bush and his GOP cronies in the Congress who spent like drunken sailors (but in their case it was OK because a) it was good for the economy and b) Jesus would come before the bill was due.

      I wasn't happy with the "tea party" crowd descending on DC either (I live in that city!), but at least they were all out there instead of screaming at the TVs and/or computers like most of us are.

      I don't have much to vote for this November (except for my Congressional delgate and Mayor), but I will be hoping and praying that the Indies and Dems will be out there voting and (hopefully) electing more progressive Dems to Congress.  But if Palin/Beck wins in 2012, well, Canada would look pretty damn good!

  •  Failure of HCR (0+ / 0-)

    This is the biggest problem--pushing up HC costs & dragging economy down.

  •  I thought you said this was bad news? nt (0+ / 0-)

    FDR: "Yes, I'm for it. Now make me do it."

    by arubyan on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 04:44:30 AM PST

  •  Republican apathy could help Dems (0+ / 0-)

    The angry energy is with the teabagger. But, I doubt one of them voted Democratic ever. However, moderate republicans and independents might be disgusted enough to sit 2010 out or go Dem. IMHO.

    I ask him if he was warm enough? "Warm," he growled, "I haven't been warm since Bastogne."

    by Unrepentant Liberal on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 05:28:24 AM PST

  •  It is obvious (0+ / 0-)

    the Republican party is fractured within. And while their opportunity to win an enormous amount of seats locally and nationally, the unity to do so is not present. Dems have been fairly successful in strengthening the liberal wing of the party when out of power. Reps are not having that success in shoring up their conservative wing. Some want power back and will vote strictly party line favorite while some want different far right replacements. The latter is what stayed home in the last election. The Clinton/Bush 1 election saw Perot making the difference as a third party and the Republicans have this same situation brewing within their own party. It only weakens their prospects for election turnovers in 2010.

  •  Everytime democrats get into power (0+ / 0-)

    they predict the total and utter demise of the republican pary and become complacent. then they get their wake-up call and go back to trying to redfine themselves out in the wildernress. same story. different year.

  •  Every American who is not corrupted by the..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Flaming Liberal for Jesus

    "Every American who is not corrupted by the secular-socialist left should join the Tea Party movement."

    So....using some simple logic then, anyone left of fascist has been 'corrupted', and that 'secular', or insert 'godless' is synonomous with 'socialist'.

    What would be the opposite, then?  "Pure fundamentalist corportism right?"

    What a joke, but I'm sure it plays well with the 'Joe Sixpack' crowd, and the lowest common denominator of society.

    "Strength over weakness, Pride over humility, Knowledge over faith."

    by Fuzzy5150 on Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 02:55:46 PM PST

  •  This is a different world, Repugs are melting (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Flaming Liberal for Jesus

    The problem with these arguments about cycles is that sometimes things occur to disrupt the usual cycles. Like, an entire political party melting down after three continuouss decades of their ideas dominating, and fucking up the whole country.

    We're in a different world. Repugs are melting down. They've got their teabaggers, and that's who's driving the bus. Or, rather, shouting insanely and not holding the wheel at all, letting it run itself into a ditch.

    Repugs are done. Which isn't to say that Democrats can't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, as we've done for 30 years now. But it's a different ballgame. Obama's Democrats are the party of the Center, and the Repugs are the party of the old and tired shit-that-does-not-work, and the batshit insane.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site