Skip to main content

Sen. Sherrod Brown talks with supporter
Populist Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown was relatively unknown, running in an evenly matched battleground state, facing tens of millions in GOP attacks, all the while being unapologetically liberal. And won easily.
I actually don't have determinate proof for this headline, but the last three elections certainly suggest it—Democrats win when they aggressively court their base (2008 and 2012), and lose when they get mushy (2010).

Tammy Baldwin in crowd of constituents
Wisconsin Senator-elect Tammy Baldwin, too.
Our base groups aren't just larger than theirs, but are growing at a torrid pace like Latinos (obviously), Asians, African Americans, and creative-class regions (Research Triangle in North Carolina, Northern Virginia, Austin, Atlanta, Seattle, etc). Meanwhile, women have remained steadfastly Democratic while outnumbering men at the polls by a crazy six-point margin, 53-47.

The partisan ID in 2012 was 38D-32R-29I, not much different than 2008's 39D-32R-29I.

Compare that to 2010, when it was 35D-35R-29I, and the gap between women was just four points, while Latino and African-American turnout dropped two points from their presidential-year turnout. Our people didn't turn out, and we got bombed.

Indeed, the Democratic Party's Third Way/DLC-driven obsession with independent voters is unambiguously obsolete: Obama lost independents 50-45 and it didn't mean shit. He still won comfortably on the basis of strong base support.

Part of that was because there really is no such thing as an "independent" voter. The bulk of self-styled independents are actually disaffected partisans.

Fully 87% of [independents] voted for the candidate of the party they leaned toward: 91% of independent Democrats voted for Barack Obama while 82% of independent Republicans voted for John McCain. That 87% rate of loyalty was identical to the 87% loyalty rate of weak party identifiers and exceeded only by the 96% loyalty rate of strong party identifiers.
So why did Democrats lose independents 56-37 in 2010? Because liberal voters pretending to be independent because "Democrats are spineless" didn't show up, while teabagger voters pretending to be independent because "the Republican Party is full of RINOs" did. Pew quantified this:
The 2010 midterms revealed the fragility of this electoral base. While both Solid Liberals and Hard-Pressed Democrats remained solidly behind Democratic congressional candidates in 2010, support slipped substantially among New Coalition Democrats [mostly brown voters] and Post-Moderns [highly educated affluent whites who fancy themselves independents] – not because Republicans made overwhelming gains in these groups, but because their turnout dropped so substantially. Where two-thirds of New Coalition Democrats came out to vote for Obama in 2008, just 50% came out to back Democrats in 2010. The drop-off in the Democratic vote was even more severe among Post-Moderns, 65% of whom backed Obama, but just 43% of whom came to the polls for Democrats in 2010.

Thus, it's quite simple. As brooklynbadboy wrote last year:

To win independents, motivate your base.
Well, Obama didn't win independents this year. Romney ran 11 points stronger among whites than John McCain did, and a big chunk of those were likely 2008 Obama independent voters. But you know what? It didn't matter. He turned out Democratic-leaning independents (including those stupidly labelled "post-modern" above), and he really turned out core Democrats. That's all Democrats needed this year.

And with the ongoing "demographic apocalypse" as conservatives call it, or the "demographic winter," as white supremacists do, it's going to be easier and easier for Democrats to shrug off the supposed independent vote by focusing on base mobilization instead.

That's why Joe Lieberman-style Democrats like New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo must be persona non grata in the 2016 Democratic presidential sweepstakes. We don't need that "appeal to independents" bullshit. That's not where national elections are won. Appeal to the center? Yup. That's where Democrats already live. Those are the "moderates" Obama won 56-41, and Democrats won 55-42 while getting blown out in 2010.

Be a good Democrat, and the moderate center will tag along with the growing percentage of liberal voters (from 22 percent of the electorate in 2008, to 25 percent this year). It's a good place for Democrats to be, as long as they don't piss off those advantages like they did in 2010—wasting their time trying to find "bipartisan consensus" at a time when none was needed.

This is a center-left country. Democrats can act that way and win.

In fact, they must.

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

    •  The key to recapturing Congress is letting our (18+ / 0-)

      base know who their Congressman/Woman is and letting them know what the Republican stands for and what the Democrat stands for.

      To find who your Congressman is just click below and put your Zip Code in. If you put 5 numbers in you may get more than 1 name. If you put all 9 numbers in you will get your Congressman with a map. Just remember, your Congressman/Congresswoman may change after the January 21, 2013 Inauguration.

      Find Your Congressman

      Of course finding who your Senator is and what he/she stands for is important as well. To find your US Senators just click below and find you State in alphabetical order and call both US Senators. Remember that one of your US Senators may change after the January 21, 2013 Inauguration.

      Find Your US Senators

      Especially immigrants that are citizens don't seem to know who their congressperson is. With all the gerrymandering it's not surprising.  Since immigrants, Latinos/Hispanics, African Americans, women, Asians, gays, lesbians, liberals, progressives, etc. are our base, we have to target and educate them for 2014 and beyond.

      Then we have to educate voters and GOTV (especially if they're our base).

    •  kos, in all three major battleground Senate races, (11+ / 0-)

      the Senate candidate outperformed the president in those states. What this suggests is that the democratic coalition is actually larger than it looks. If there is a progressive white man on the ticket, we do even better.

      This fact interests me greatly.

      •  so why didn't Al Gore & John Kerry, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Odysseus, Deep Texan, IM

        Both white men do better than Pres Obama? you have repeatedly harped on "white male Dem" presidential candidate doing better and there is no recent evidence to support your argument.

        You do realize how EXCEPTIONAL President Obama's campaign apparatus was in registering, motivating, & creating his OWN winning coalition that did not exist before? You also realize there are many voters who are "Obama voters" &  therefore not easily-transferable to a white male Dem candidate, right? Same thing the Sherrod Browns had their own home-state created voters who were not necessarily also Obama voters.

        So don't assume that a white male Dem Presidential candidate will simply add to the Obama coalition just because he's white.

        Let's get that clear, and give Pres Obama kudos for what has done.

        "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them." -- Pres. Obama (1/20/2009)

        by zizi on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 11:14:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ??? (0+ / 0-)

          I have no idea what you're talking about.

          Perhaps you misunderstood the point of the above comment, which is that the Obama Coalition is one big thing and that the potential Democratic Coalition is an even bigger thing.

          That takes nothing away from Obama. It just means the DEMOCRATIC PARTY which will outlive Barack Obama's presidency has healthy prospects going forward.

          The North Carolina results are instructive I think. We waged a strong campaign there and got our clocks cleaned across the board.

        •  I think you make a very good point. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan

          The Obama team has made and extraordinary campaign apparatus, and been monumentally successful in getting out voters who never felt represented before.  The really big question before us is: can Democrats count on those same voters to turn out for a non-Obama candidate in 2016?  The party had better figure out the answer to that question in a hurry, and begin devising a coherent, practical strategy to bring those voters out for the 2014 elections.

      •  If there is a progressive in the ticket. Period. (0+ / 0-)

        If you want to make the point that it's the male part, or the white part, more than the progressive part, you need some numbers to back it up.

    •  Markos Moulitsas, you're right (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dallasdoc, brooklynbadboy, docmidwest

      As a former member of the DLC, and someone who originally signed on to this site as a Kerry supporter in 2004 very much in support of the "win the middle" strategy and deeply skeptical about the Dean phenomenon, I am forced to admit that I've been won over.

      You've been on such a roll during this election, articulating the way that a new majority center-left coalition has been created in American politics.  And you're right about people like Cuomo and Lieberman.  I still don't support going DINO hunting in Nebraska or North Carolina--that's too much like a Democratic Tea Party--but the emphasis has to be on the construction of a liberal-moderate policy and political coalition.  

      I support Obama's commitment to being president of the entire country, but I think he (and I) have learned a lesson about trying to bring members of the present Republican Party on board.  They'll only be forcibly dragged into reluctant compromise by the power of events.

      "A very popular error: having the courage of one's convictions; rather it is a matter of having the courage for an attack on one's convictions." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

      by John R on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:16:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nice diary, Kos (0+ / 0-)

      But I don't buy the part about Sherrod Brown being "relatively unknown." The guy has been in statewide office off and on for 30 years, ever since he was elected Secretary of State in 1982.

  •  This reflects a local race we had. (22+ / 0-)

    Our county commissioner candidates, including a long time environmentalist, came out swinging for progressive values in a county that went quite red in 2010. Calling out the Republicans for believing in / giving in to the Agenda 21 crowd, calling for clean air, clean water, etc.

    We won, damn it.

    "I can't do it by myself. No president can. Remember: Change doesn't happen from the top. It happens because of you." B Obama, 2008

    by nzanne on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:03:46 AM PST

  •  Well, the "base" is 2/3 of the country (25+ / 0-)

    50-state strategy, every race contested, leave no voter left behind. That's the way elections are won. 2/3 of the country agrees with the Democratic party, position by position, consistently.

    The GOP strategy is lower turnout, suppress the vote, and get their base whipped into a frenzy, which is all they can get to vote for them anyway.

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

    by TheCrank on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:05:39 AM PST

    •  If the left voted in off years (11+ / 0-)

      like they do in presidential years, we'd be a far left country.

      95% of all life forms that once existed on earth are now extinct. It is only a matter of time until the Republicans follow suit.

      by PRRedlin on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:36:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No. We'd be a regular left country (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rlochow, Odysseus, Deep Texan, bluemeanies

        We've let the right drag this country so far to the right that Nixon and Eisenhower seem radically liberal.

        Since when is taxing the rich a far left idea? The EPA and the Clean Air/Water Acts were Nixon. The interstate highway system was a nice Republican idea when Eisenhower proposed; high speed rail is socialism.

        Nixon froze wages and prices, slapped a surtax on imports, and took us off the gold standard. Without getting anyone's permission, didn't even tell anyone until it was done. Think Obama could do that, without South Carolina firing on Fort Sumter?

        Right-to-work and other anti-labor laws in Michigan? In Wisconsin? In Ohio? Voter suppression laws? These are not moderate bills. These are not conservative bills. These are radical right wing bills.

        We are a center-left country that has allowed itself to be run by right-right fanatics.

        We're just trying to drag the country back to the middle so we can start over, recoup what we've lost, protect what we have left, and prepare to move the country further to the left.

        A society is judged by how well it cares for those in the dawn of life, the children. By how well it cares for those in the twilight of life, the elderly. And, by how well it cares for those on the edge of life; the poor, the sick, and the disabled.

        by BobBlueMass on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:21:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Many voters, especially in this election, (6+ / 0-)

      split their votes:  Obama for president; Republicans for their governor and state legislators.  It's very frustrating.  It gives Republicans a very deep bench and keeps Democrats dependent on what we can get done at the federal level.  We Dem's need to work much harder on mid-term elections and down-ballot races.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:38:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Time to whip the Democratic base (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Odysseus

      Into a frenzy.  You can do that by pissing them off, in which case they may spend their frenzy primarying from the left.  Or you can choose the more sure fire way of governing solidly to the left, please your base, and make them HAPPY to go to the polls.  GOTV by pointing out the strides made and reminding them of what fascists the right wingers are.

  •  Was there a reason you quoted material (7+ / 0-)

    contradicting yourself?

    You -

    Because liberal voters pretending to be independent because "Democrats are spineless" didn't show up
    Pew, in your words, quantifying this -
    While both Solid Liberals and Hard-Pressed Democrats remained solidly behind Democratic congressional candidates in 2010
    ?!?!

    "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

    by JesseCW on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:06:54 AM PST

    •  You should quote the full sentence (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Smoh, Odysseus
      The 2010 midterms revealed the fragility of this electoral base. While both Solid Liberals and Hard-Pressed Democrats remained solidly behind Democratic congressional candidates in 2010, support slipped substantially among New Coalition Democrats [mostly brown voters] and Post-Moderns [highly educated affluent whites who fancy themselves independents] – not because Republicans made overwhelming gains in these groups, but because their turnout dropped so substantially.
      •  Kos claims it was *liberals* who stayed home. (8+ / 0-)

        Liberals turned out.

        Highly educated affluent whites who are not Liberals stayed home, according to the poll he's citing.

        "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

        by JesseCW on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:29:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly! The zombie meme lives on (9+ / 0-)

          Pew exactly pushes back against the notion that liberals got pissed and stayed home and shows that it was the key Obama coalition folks who proved more fickle.

          But I guess since it is so convenient for certain parties to pretend that liberals are the problem, we'll have this meme with us for some time to come, sadly.

          Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

          by Mindful Nature on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:42:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Meteor Blades was brushing this one back for (6+ / 0-)

            months 2 years ago.

            "the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared material at these facilities and LOFs."

            by JesseCW on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:43:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Bullshit (0+ / 0-)

            Maybe now you can pretend that Obama is going to cave, since that's the narrative that gives you the most comfort. That your comforting narrative isn't the slightest bit true has no effect on you - Adam Green told to believe that it's always the other guy's fault.

            I can't stand fakes like Adam Green. He's useless. He did absolutely nothing during this campaign, yet he takes credit for Elizabeth Warren and Tammy Baldwin. He disgusts me.

            •  Just the facts, maam. (8+ / 0-)

              I have no clue who Adam Green is, but Pew's data is very clear:  Solid liberals showed up.  

              You see, a lot of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.  SO, yes, we can campaign against bad policies between elections AND turn up (and volunteer and contribute) as well.  

              Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

              by Mindful Nature on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 11:02:25 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not every Democrat is reality-based. (6+ / 0-)

                This 'militant disgruntled leftist' meme has taken on a life of its own and has proved utterly resistant to empirical push-back. It has a very truthy quality to those eager to marginalize all leftists as flaky, domineering and ethnocentric.

                •  Which is disappointing (4+ / 0-)

                  Because at the end of the day, pushing that image makes liberal ideas less credible in the eyes of the public, leaving only conservative and semi-conservative ideas on the menu.

                  Our job is to advance these ideas but this doesn't make it easier

                  Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                  by Mindful Nature on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:21:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It' is neither Dick Durbin's job, (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Dallasdoc

                    nor the New Democrat Coalition job to advance liberal ideas. It is their collective job to advance the interests of the wealthy, which includes austerity.

                    •  There is a massive difference (0+ / 0-)

                      between people who are not natural liberals, but are persuadable either through discussion or armtwisting (e.g. Durbin) and those who are not (republicans).

                      I'm a little confused about the New Democratic Coalition (remember the "ic" part.  We had an interesting diary get HRd to oblivion for that here recently.).  In Pew's parlance, I think this refers to the minority voters and "post-moderns" who don't believe in parties who only come out for Presidential elections (or come out when Obama is on the ticket?  I guess we'll find out in 2016).  They don't seem naturally aligned with the oligarchy.

                      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

                      by Mindful Nature on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:49:42 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  To clarify, I'm referring to this entity: (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Mindful Nature

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/....

                        The NDC has worked to craft and pass legislation, including Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for the People's Republic of China, fast track Trade Promotion Authority, digital signatures, and H-1B visa reform and continues to work on matters such as privacy, broadband, expanding e-learning opportunities and making government more accessible and efficient through the use of technology. Many in the Democratic Party's left-wing criticize the group, however, accusing it of ignoring social justice and the poor.
                        Many NDC alumni are influential senior Democrats.

                        This has nothing to do with the subjects of either the article or the diary.

        •  I don't think anyone is saying (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Kresnik

          the "post-moderns" (what a moniker!) are not philosophically liberals. I think the term 'solid liberal' refers to a constituency that solidly supports Democratic candidates--'solid Democrat' might have been better. The term 'liberal' is being used in a couple of different ways here. IMHO anyway.

          Force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one. Marx

          by Marihilda on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:44:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  We all have a responsibility to GOTV, no one is (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite, Odysseus

          ...escapes blame for 2010.

          "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

          by sebastianguy99 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:52:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Some of us worked hard to get out the ... (0+ / 0-)

            ...vote in 2010. Indeed, some of us were those who started warning that we were going to run into trouble at the polls BECAUSE we were working to get out the vote early in the summer of 2010 and were hearing that there was a lack of enthusiasm among people whose usual political interest is to yell at the television several times a week and vote if they are encouraged enough to do so. We were ridiculed well into September as nay-sayers and vote-suppressors.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 05:30:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I think the Pew poll backs up his point (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dr Squid, James Kresnik

          The groups in the center-left coalition that stayed home more were the ones with the lower ratio of Democrats to independents/Democratic leaners.

          Arguably, kos is working off a broader definition of "liberal" than you are.  There would be some merit to the notion that liberals who are masquerading as independents do so for reasons other than Democrats being spineless, but the basic thrust of a claim that liberal-leaning independents are part of the Democratic base and are more worth appealing to than "moderate" independents is generally correct.

        •  So what you're saying (0+ / 0-)

          is that independents are not liberals.

          Is that a fair assessment?

          Please proceed.

        •  Well, what happened in Ohio (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          verso2

          was that liberals did not get engaged in the campaign — and it was worse than just trying to run to the middle, although the party did admit afterward that they spent too much energy trying to persuade tepid independents and not enough to their base. But it was worse than that. They alienated the base by running an anti-choice, anti-gay radical and then trying to tell hardcore women and LGBT volunteers it didn't matter all that much and we needed to be a "big tent." By the time they bailed on this candidate, the activists were already outta there.

          Predictable result: disaster.

          Jon Husted is a dick.

          by anastasia p on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:05:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Kos is kinda correct but is missing the obvious (11+ / 0-)

      in my humble opinion.  It is true, when Dems base show up, dems win.  But, what did 2008 and 2012 have in common?  Presidential election years! They naturally draw out our base along with the ground game effort put in place by the Pres candidate.  The question is how do we get young voters and more casual dem voters to give a shit about the mid-term elections.  Solve that problem and we won't have anymore 2010's.  Rethugs know this, so they play the game of wait, delay, obstruct, demoralize for a two years until the next mid-term.  Let's be honest, I don't see any scenerio where dems don't lose house seats in 2014.  Turn-out will drop from 2012, the old farts who vote republican will still show up....  We lose seats, media claims rethug resurgance, and have even a more difficult time moving a liberal agenda forward.  We have to solve the registration, turnout, enthusiasm problem in the mid-term years to really get anywhere over the long run.

    •  Not contradictory... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Kresnik, Odysseus, IM

      Pew breaks the population down, politically, into nine groups.  Three---"Solid Liberals", "Hard-Pressed Democrats" and "New Coalition Democrats"---are solid Democrats.  Another group---"Post-Moderns"---are generally liberal but identify as independent; if/when they vote, they back Democrats.  These four groups, as defined by Pew, together represent 54% of registered voters and are the Democrats' winning coalition.

      Solid Liberals (predominately white, educated, well-to-do) represent about 16% of registered voters, are highly politically engaged and always show up to vote.  Hard-Pressed Democrats (lower income, more religious Dems) also turn out consistently year to year.  Turn-out among New-Coalition Democrats (mostly minority voters who Pew identifies as socially conservative) is more variable.  Finally, there are the Post-Moderns (younger voters, who are socially liberal but more fiscally conservative), who vote Democratic when they show up but don't always show up; their votes are the extra push needed to push Dems over the top.

  •  Don't forget 2006 (19+ / 0-)

    Full-throated opposition to the Iraq War worked.

    "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning." —Warren Buffett

    by Joan McCarter on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:08:02 AM PST

  •  Would Hillary Clinton dampen turnout? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Nose, blue aardvark

    She has genuine progressive intentions, but she would probably pull to the right to defuse the narrative the right-wing and corporate media have created against her.  Would this strip away the base?

    •  Mark Penn will discourage me (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dallasdoc

      but I'd still vote for HRC  

      Now with their party out of power, the GOP is flailing more then Mitch McConnell's jowls on a playground swing. S. Colbert

      by christomento on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:15:42 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  HRC is nobody's fool (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark, Check077

      The cash that was there for her husband and POTUS will be there for her.

      But to win both the nomination and the General, she needs our confidence that she will fight for the less than well heeled, our energy and our votes and she knows that.

      IF she decides to run, she will not run as a "raging moderate."

      When you are right you cannot be too radical; when you are wrong, you cannot be too conservative. --Martin Luther King Jr.

      by Egalitare on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:19:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Clinton/Castro 2016! n/t (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan

      95% of all life forms that once existed on earth are now extinct. It is only a matter of time until the Republicans follow suit.

      by PRRedlin on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:37:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's plausible (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        scott5js

        I don't think Americans get all jumpy about the name "Castro" the way they did in the 60's.

        •  we elected a black man with a (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          James Kresnik, JBraden, Deep Texan

          muslim name similar to a muslim man who bombed us with a similar name.

          if we can do that, clearly we can elect someone with the last name of castro.

          There is no connotation that all hispanics are communists as there are that all muslims are terrorists, at least none that i'm aware of (though i don't put it past fox news to create it).

          95% of all life forms that once existed on earth are now extinct. It is only a matter of time until the Republicans follow suit.

          by PRRedlin on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 11:12:06 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'd suggest the opposite (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      James Kresnik, Odysseus, IM

      I think the base will be even more excited, and Obama's already impressive coalition may be expanded to make a run at white working class voters.

      I have a diary about this fermenting in my head.

      The nadir for Democrats nationwide was 1984, but 1988 wasn't much better.   But the Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the years since, and both Democratic presidents have altered the playing field.

      States that Bill Clinton turned blue in 1992 and have stayed blue for good:

      California, Connecticut, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Vermont.

      States that Barack Obama turned blue in 2008 and stayed blue in 2012:

      Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Virginia

      (Honorable mention:  Gore lost New Hampshire in 2000 but Kerry picked it up in 2004 and it's stayed blue since.)

      The 2016 nominee will have some room for error, much like Obama did this year, even though he didn't need it.  If it's Hillary (and God, I hope it is), the women's vote will be even more pronounced and I think she could make a couple states competitive, perhaps accelerating shifts that demographics are already foreshadowing.

      Any "bad blood" between the Obamas and Clintons is gone, if it ever even existed in the first place. (I don't think it did.)

      Hillary is the perfect candidate to solidify the gains that Obama has made, and finish his successful revival of working class/union Dems as an essential part of our winning coalition.

    •  Proof for this .. is what? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse

      Would Hillary Clinton dampen turnout? She has genuine progressive intentions ...

      Why would a progressive ever hire an idiotic turd like Mark Penn?

  •  Martin Heinrich in New Mexico (17+ / 0-)

    Heinrich was unlikely as a candidate in the first place, when he ran for Albuquerque City Council.  A tall, serious guy his first career was as a solar energy engineer and consultant.  

    But he adopted a clear sense of doing what worked, drawing down lists of names from VoteBuilder and getting a team of fired up volunteers to do the calling and doorbelling chores.  

    When City Council Member Heinrich decided to run for Congress, it seemed quite a long shot.  But the same seriousness of purpose and focus on what works made him a winner in a district that has been Republican at least half the time.  

    He is serious and studious and is pretty progressive as well as keenly intelligent and willing to listen.

    He might be a good example of how the Democratic base can come out enthusiastically for a good progressive candidate.

    People were amazed when he decided to run for the US Senate seat being vacated by retiring Senator Jeff Bingaman, but the same seriousness of purpose saw Udall, Bingaman and Heinrich standing on the podium together election night in front of a loud and cheering crowd.  

    A look at Heinrich might reveal another example.

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:10:16 AM PST

    •  Accidental Senator (5+ / 0-)

      In that he was a somewhat accidental House member.

      Without the assholery otherwise known as the US Attorney scandal, David Iglesias might well have been able to win this one.  Instead, he's working for Obama as a prosecutor at Gitmo.

      Also, without that scandal, the 2008 cycle would have been different.  If Domenici hadn't retired, Heinrich would have had a much harder time winning NM-01 against incumbent Heather Wilson.  Might possibly not have been able to do it.

      Wilson was also damaged in that scandal, as well as Abramoff-related favors for Sandia Pueblo (amongst other things.)  Hard to know, but she might have won the 2008 Senate primary, in case Domenici retired anyhow for health reasons like he said.  And would have done way better against Tom Udall compared to Pearce.  Though with the 2008 climate, it would have been very tough for Wilson to win, regardless.  But she might not have beaten Iglesias in the primary.

      Hard to know, but there were circumstances caused by GOP malfeasance that provided Heinrich with a lot of help.  (So there, Karl Rove!  You lost Senate seats due to your own actions, too!!)

      But, yeah.  Martin's great, and deserves credit for a decisive win in the Democratic primary last spring, too.  I supported him, and am very very happy to have him heading to the Senate.

      I suspect that if anyone had told him, 10 years back, that he'd be a Senator, he wouldn't have given it any credence.  I don't think he had that ambition then.

      "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!", but "That's funny..." (Isaac Asimov)

      by Land of Enchantment on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:31:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Democrats still need older white voters (10+ / 0-)

    They may not get a majority but they can't just let the floor drop out either.  If Democrats want to lose, screw white boomers out of Social Security and Medicare.  And I have a hunch brown boomers may have an ahha moment as well if their support is rewarded by being screwed out of retirement security.

  •  Don't forget the fast growing Global Warming (12+ / 0-)

    demographic.  With each new super storm, each new record drought and heat wave, each new snowmagedon..., those people who usually walk into the voting booth and flip a coin are going to start going big for Democrats who are science and reality based.  And those Independents and even some Republicans who get hurt with these bizarre weather events, are going to think twice about the propaganda machine they've been listening to.

    I think this will be one of the fastest growing parts of the Democratic base in the years to come.

  •  disaffected partisans. Sabato-tage nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10

    The 1st Amendment gives you the right to say stupid things, the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee a paycheck to say stupid things.

    by JML9999 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:13:24 AM PST

  •  this reflects presidential vs midterm elections (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Darmok

    that is all.

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:13:24 AM PST

    •  2006 was a mid-term election (5+ / 0-)

      And the Dem base showed up.

      That's what makes all the difference. Their voters will always show up. Ours will sometimes show up.

      •  bush approval under 50 after katrina (0+ / 0-)

        when the president tortures, leaves a city to die and their party had bad candidates, it's always the other party that reaps the benefits.

        dems showed up in 2010.  you're just wrong about this.

        -You want to change the system, run for office.

        by Deep Texan on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 11:00:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  we didn't win the middle in 2010 (0+ / 0-)

        liberals showed up.

        the base showed up as far as midterms go and participation in midterms has been going up.

        so you're just wrong here.

        -You want to change the system, run for office.

        by Deep Texan on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 11:08:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry (0+ / 0-)

          but too many people didn't show up in 2010 for it to be just moderates that didn't show. 30% of Democratic voters (calling yourself independent is irrelevant when there's only 2 parties) just plain vaporized between 2008 and 2010, while all the '08 GOP voters came in '10. As for this year, a lot of white D voters didn't show up, but the winning margin was provided by people of color that previously were not voters.

          And GOP voters were just plain embarrassed by the GOP's shortcomings re Katrina and Iraq in '06. Their voters don't always show up - they just did in 2010 in the same numbers that they did in 2008 and 2012.

          Our voters have the power, if we don't get all whiny and disorganized. They've maxed out their support.

          He's saying that the base is bigger than you think it is. For white liberals to call themselves "the base" might be personally comforting, but it isn't actually true. As a white liberal, I'm quite OK with that.

      •  A Republican friend of mine told me that she (0+ / 0-)

        always votes because she was taught it was the thing she was supposed to do.  She isn't very political, but she always votes.

  •  Hm, I can't really agree that this is a center- (8+ / 0-)

    left nation.  Not yet, at least.

    But with every passing year it is now moving towards becoming a center-left nation since the growing Millennial vote is more liberal than conservative and the more conservative generations are shrinking.

    We're definitely going in the right direction and I am very hopeful, in general.

    Hopefully the fact that marijuana legalization passed in two states and same sex marriage passed in three states will provide a clear focus for Democrats.

    The fact that a President who fully and clearly came out in favor of same sex marriage won a clear victory also is very encouraging.

    "A candle loses nothing by lighting another candle" - Mohammed Nabbous, R.I.P.

    by Lawrence on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:14:03 AM PST

  •  Memo to Democrats: don't be fake Republicans (26+ / 0-)

    As Harry Truman said, 'Given a choice between a fake Republican and a real one the public will choose the real Republican every time."  When we stand for something and act like real Democrats, we'll get more people to vote for us, even "independents."

    •  DLC Third Way not OK nt (11+ / 0-)

      The 1st Amendment gives you the right to say stupid things, the 1st Amendment doesn't guarantee a paycheck to say stupid things.

      by JML9999 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:15:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  People pretend party ID numbers can't be changed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, Odysseus

      The reason the "fake republican" strategy fails is that it undercuts making the argument to convince people to become Democrats.

      Strategy 1 takes party ID as immutable, and so tries to play to the middle and work with the existing demographics.

      Strategy 2 tries to move the voter ID numbers by increasing the size of the base by making liberal arguments and persuade people.

      Sadly, proponents of strategy 1 hate hate hate strategy 2 people, since they feel that it makes the party looks bad with "independents"

      I'm obviously a solid strategy 2 partisan that feels to bust this open we need to first win the debate.  Then winning elections is easy.

      Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

      by Mindful Nature on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:49:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We had a fake Republican (0+ / 0-)

      get in a rematch with the real Republican who beat him in 2010. Charlie Wilson was an Ohio Blue Dog who was beaten by Bill Johnson in 2010. For some reason, the Democrats decided to run Charlie again. I held my nose and voted for him, but I know some progressives who just couldn't, so they left that race blank. I think a good progressive, with party money and support could have beaten Johnson who is a Tea Party candidate. I know Gerrymandering helped Johnson, but there are still enough liberals in this district that someone to the left of Wilson could have beaten Johnson.

    •  Absolutely true. (0+ / 0-)

      I'm sorry but running an anti-choice candidate has never been a winner for Democrats and now it's pure poison. The element that uses that issue as a litmus test will ALWAYS vote for the Republican. Ojo, Ohio Democratic Party.

      Jon Husted is a dick.

      by anastasia p on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 04:09:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent (5+ / 0-)

        Just a great article.

  •  Cuomo (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    scott5js

    What exactly makes Cuomo "Lieberman-style"?

    Was it his personal glad-handling of Republican state senators to encourage them to cross the party line and support gay marriage?

    Was it his innovative, competitive state-aid process for the state's economic regions?

    Was it the blood-stanching property tax cap?  The willingness to give up the possibility of immediate non-partisan redistricting for the promise of a constitutional amendment requiring it later?  The 70-percent approval ratings?

    What?

  •  I think you win when you have (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TAH from SLC, Berkshires

    a reasonably good plan and are full of conviction that your way will show progress.  People vote for people who are confident in their approach and argue it intelligently, provided your approach isn't obviously flawed.  This worked for the GOP for a long time.  Look at Reagan for example But now, for them, more and more people see their approach as obviously flawed.

  •  Kos, why do you have to write about strategy?? (3+ / 0-)

    We should have moar posts gloating over the 2012 elections!!1!

    /see sig

    Disclaimer: If the above comment can possibly be construed as snark, it probably is.

    by grubber on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:17:00 AM PST

  •  Excellent. I agree. (5+ / 0-)

    I'm glad Barack Obama is our President.

    by TomP on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:17:31 AM PST

  •  And the U. S. will probably be saddled with a GOP (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    beanbagfrog, scott5js, Dr Squid

    House 2010-2020 because of non-voters in 2010. They really showed...nobody.

    "A young man who wishes to remain a sound Atheist cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere ". C. S. Lewis

    by TofG on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:17:31 AM PST

  •  Add 2006 to your list (10+ / 0-)

    That was a big, important win for us.  With thanks due to Howard Dean and his 50-State Strategy.

    "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!", but "That's funny..." (Isaac Asimov)

    by Land of Enchantment on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:18:18 AM PST

  •  Spineless equals weaken (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade

    Democratic Party without a spineless are gutless and nobody embrasses anything gutless.

  •  Obamacare and the base (0+ / 0-)

    Ya, there's been such little talk about how Obama team lost us the midterm by ignoring and alienating the base in the health care debate. Obama refused to even sound progressive let alone advocate for more progressive reforms. Not only did the base not bother turning out in 2010 but prior to that didn't feel like they owned Obamacare and didn't robustly defend it.  If progressives had been battling for Obamacare it would have totally changed the perception that nobody supported it and resulted in much less erosion among "independents",  who really just brake to whoever feels like the winner.
    It was a mistake that we will be paying for for at least a decade.

  •  Is this term "creative class" new? (0+ / 0-)

    The Republican brand: "Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich"

    by D in Northern Virginia on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:20:51 AM PST

  •  They aren't "pretending" to be independent. (9+ / 0-)

    People whno are to the right of what they see as the Republican party, and those who are to the left of what they see to be the Democratic party aren't pretending to be independent.

    They are feeling independent.

    But our "first past the post" political system leaves them with only 2 choices. So they take the choice closer to their opinion.

  •  Regarding Sen Sherrod Brown (6+ / 0-)

    to Kos's point that Brown was relatively unknown, I was/am a NY OFA affiliated partisan. Our task this year was to phone bank Ohio and PA and to canvass PA.

    I made tons of calls to Ohio. I was surprised how many people said to me...voting for Obama, but senator who? (The call script asked us to plug Sen Brown and record responses.)

    I would always say, thanks for voting for the president and he needs an ally like Sen Brown.

  •  Like the GOP denies climate change (4+ / 0-)

    DC Dem leaders deny they can win and take a proud place in history by running campaigns and governing in ways that promote the middle class, create jobs and build a strong economy that protects all Americans.

    Sen. Brown has proven time and again that high quality public policy agendas both win elections and secure a strong future.

    Please stand by. I'm looking for a new sig line.

    by Betty Pinson on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:24:24 AM PST

  •  Specious, no? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    beanbagfrog, Deep Texan
    I actually don't have determinate proof for this headline, but the last three elections certainly suggest it—Democrats win when they aggressively court their base (2008 and 2012), and lose when they get mushy (2010).
    A grand proclamation based on a total of 4 years, all centered around a single candidate.  There is no evidence as yet that this unbeatable "Obama Coalition" will persist beyond Obama.  I hope it does and will work to help make that happen, but I think that is a legitimate concern for our party's future.

    Before everyone nay-says me on that, I would make a simple semantic point:  You can not call someone a unique transformative figure that transcends the modern political era, and then at the same time say you are confident that any other candidate will do the same.

    The GOP experienced this with Reagan.  Reagan was equally transformative and built an equally (probably more so) unbeatable coalition.  The man won FORTY FIVE STATES while challenging an incumbent and FORTY NINE when running for a second term.  

    The GOP assumed they could carry that and they did it exactly ONCE when Reagan's own VP ran for President with Reagan actively endorsing him.  That worked for ONE TERM, that guy got voted out (by a mushy triangulating DLC candiate, btw), they lost again with Dole before they rode Anti-Clintonism and Bush's cult of personality to a win in 2000 over a weak VP... re-won with fear and terrorism-mongering in 2004 and have looked pathetic trying to prop up that Reaganesque air of invincibility ever since.

    I will believe in this Base-Dominating Powerhouse Theory a hell of a lot more when I see it actually elect someone NOT named Barack Obama.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:24:47 AM PST

    •  Just to echo something upriver (0+ / 0-)

      Don't forget that Obama inherited Howard Dean's DNC and built on it.  So there is an opportunity to bring out volunteers for a non-Obama candidate using practiced strategies...

      But it's definitely not a guarantee.  As they say in organizing circles, you have to undo it and rebuild it for it to stay fresh.

      •  as his own campaign people said (0+ / 0-)

        it doesn't work that way.

        the organization has to be there because the people around the country are willing to go through hell for you.

        it's organic.  it just wouldn't work if they turned over what they had to the next candidate.

        the next candidate has to have that kind of organic organization structure come to life on it's own because the candidate is liked very much.

        -You want to change the system, run for office.

        by Deep Texan on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 02:18:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  and they have to be smart in how they (0+ / 0-)

          help build, foster and apply that organization.

          i doubt it will even be the same people running the campaign next time.

          a lot of credit goes to them.  however, much of the credit goes to candidate Obama.  people liked him and what he had to say.

          his message and his persona.  

          -You want to change the system, run for office.

          by Deep Texan on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 02:19:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  That would mean we could never build on what was (0+ / 0-)

          done before.  I don't think an "organic organization structure" really comes to life on its own

    •  agreed (0+ / 0-)

      people vote for people or single issues like abortion.

      it's team sports and popularity contests.  the people don't exactly care to grasp the details of policy.  they aren't exactly stupid but have other interests.

      well some are..

      -You want to change the system, run for office.

      by Deep Texan on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 11:12:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes. Liberals have cornered populism, and populism (3+ / 0-)

    wins in a trickled-down-and-out world.

    The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries. -WiA "When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill..." - PhilJD

    by Words In Action on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:25:07 AM PST

  •  Yes, more of this please! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10, shaharazade

    I'm one of the people you are talking about, a self-styled Independent who would never vote for a conservative yet believes the Democrats are too wedded to Wall Street to call myself a Democrat.

    I stayed home in 2010 and Illinois elected a Republican to fill President Obama's Senate seat. I suppose I got what I deserve, but the lesson here for the party is to draft really good Progressive candidates, stop giving in to Republican demands without a fight, and stick up for our values which Kos and other posters correctly point out a majority of Americans agree with.

    As a result of the 2012 elections, the Republicans seem to believe they need to cater more to their base and less to the center. Instead, this should be the strategy of the Democrats. Dance with the guy who brought you!

    •  I'm in the same boat. (0+ / 0-)

      Couldn't bring myself to reward dems in 2010. I understand my reality has been debunked, however, and that I am just a myth.

      How many divisions does OWS have?

      by Diebold Hacker on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:08:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Democrats had no message in 2010. I looked (0+ / 0-)

        at several Senate candidate's websites in 2010 (candidates who lost), and they seemed to be targeting their campaigns to small business people.  Now, I think it's fine to be concerned about small business, since it's important for the economy, but I think the reality is that most small businessmen are going to vote for Republicans.  The Senate Democratic candidates in 2010 seemed to be aiming for the same voters that the Republicans already had.  It seems to me they decided, well, these are the people who typically come out in midterms, so I need to appeal to them.  That strategy didn't work.

        I agree with Markos.  We'll do a lot better in the midterms if we actually run with a Democratic message.  Although, there will still be the problem of convincing sporadic voters that it really is important to vote.  

  •  When we have a backbone, we WIN! I agree 100% n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    Well behaved women rarely make history.

    by IamNotaKochsucker on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:25:41 AM PST

  •  Kos We need to start Right NOW on building and (5+ / 0-)

    supporting enough Real Democrats to take over the House in 2014.
    I am so sick of Boner and Lyin and every pasty white man running their committees. Let make the commitment and just do it!
     

    I am pro-life. Bring our troops home ALIVE!

    by Doc Allen on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:26:31 AM PST

  •  I've got nothing but vague recollection (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    slinkerwink, shaharazade, BobBlueMass

    to back this up, but my vague recollection is that even the very worst Democratic Presidential candidates in my lifetime got at least a minor uptick in polling whenever they managed to focus for a while on defending the New Deal.

    When civilizations clash, barbarism wins. http://Allogenes.wordpress.com

    by Allogenes on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:27:17 AM PST

  •  I don't buy the 2010 argument. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan

    It seems that the base voters were the only one's motivated in 2010. According to Pew, we lost because left-leaning indies sat down, so your prescription to motivate the base doesn't make much sense with respect to 2010.

    A broader coalition of Democrats were motivated this time around, and we won. It's encouraging that we won a base election and that we won without a single Southern vote.

    •  Yeah, it was actually the new Obama voters who (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, happymisanthropy

      didn't show up in 2010. And Democratic leaning indies. Base democratic traditional liberals showed up like always.

      •  the point really is for me (0+ / 0-)

        we win when we have good candidates.

        that's what it's about.  policy is good for wonky people.  most just pick who they like best.

        we will probably lose a little of the edge we have on them in 2016 because Obama isn't on the ticket.  however with demographics changing, it might not matter.

        -You want to change the system, run for office.

        by Deep Texan on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 11:17:14 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Without a "single southern vote"? Not true! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy

      Last I looked, Virginia and Florida were in the South. In addition, President Obama did better cycle-over-cycle in several southern states thought to be hopeless by many here at dk.

      If we really are center-left, then Progressives have got to learn to play in the South where demographics suggest we should be more competitive.

      But if you think President Obama didn't need any southern votes, you're wrong.

      "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

      by sebastianguy99 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 11:39:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama would still have won without FL and VA. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan

        He didn't need any Southern votes.

        It's good that he over performed his polling in much of the South. It's good that many in the South are beginning to realize that the Enlightenment wasn't such a bad thing. But Southern racists don't have the stranglehold they once did.

        •  Check the popular vote, he did need them (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fuzzyguy

          There are racists everywhere. Don't be a dick and pretend they are only in the South. Check the SPLC and see for yourself.

          Don't be a dick and pretend that outside the South lies a country skewed to the Left. There are no guarantees of victory outside the South, just ask Gore and Kerry.

          Don't be a dick and pretend that if Progressives are for real, then they will at least be competitive in the South where demographics suggest parity. Otherwise, to we are just a multi-regional movement and not a national one.

          Don't be a dick and be patronizing. It makes you seem, well, southern and conservative.

          "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

          by sebastianguy99 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:04:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Please. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Deep Texan

            Nowhere did I say or imply that all Southerners are racists, nor did I suggest that Democrats should abandon the South.  I said it's good that Obama over performed his poll numbers there. Obviously that would not have happened if everyone in the South was a racist asshole.  You read a whole lot in my comment that simply wasn't there.

            The fact remains that Obama didn't need a single Southern vote to win re-election. Instead of yelling at me, why don't you go and teach some yahoos to read. That way we'll do even better down there in 2016.

            •  A dick and a liar (0+ / 0-)

              Your comments tell us that being able to read and write doesn't determine if you have integrity and character. Obviously you are as delusional about yourself as the worst wingnuts. In fact, I see no difference except geography.

              But hey, if being a bad ass on an anonymous forum makes you feel superior, who am I to point out your lack of grace tells me you are only pretending to be a Progressive.

              "There is nothing more dreadful than the habit of doubt. Doubt separates people. It is a poison that disintegrates friendships and breaks up pleasant relations. It is a thorn that irritates and hurts; it is a sword that kills.".. Buddha

              by sebastianguy99 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 05:03:39 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  I think what he's saying is that when your message (0+ / 0-)

      appeals to the base, it will appeal to the left-leaning indies also.

      •  I think that's what he's saying also, but (0+ / 0-)

        I still don't buy it.

        Obama didn't do anything magical to win over leftists during the year-and-a-half before the election.  In the summer of 2011, he was embroiled in debt-ceiling negotiations that were wildly unpopular.  His approval rating was even under 40% in some surveys.  Dangerous territory for an incumbent.

        So what happened?  The Republican primaries and the selection of one of the most abysmal Republican candidates ever nominated.  

        Moreover, Obama ran on a message of compromise and bipartisan cooperation, something that the more leftist base was thoroughly dissatisfied with during the debt-ceiling negotiations.  That message of compromise and a balanced approach to debt-reduction, a priority many liberals are opposed to even considering, are significant components of a strategy that apparently succeeded in drawing out a broader coalition of Democrats.

        So no.  I don't believe that Obama won because he appealed to  progressive partisans.  That argument smells like Monday morning quarterbacking to me.

        •  I don't think you're right on what he ran on. (0+ / 0-)

          When most people heard "balanced approach," I think they saw it as "instead of nothing from the rich and everything from the middle and lower income people, the way the Republicans would like to have it."

  •  Whether or not the Democrats live up to the '12 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade, happymisanthropy

    campaign will make all the difference in '14. Even if they don't always succeed -- if they demonstrate that they ARE on the side of the 98%, that they do know the way out of this mess, and they stick to their guns and don't support murky deals that give away as much as they get...then and only then can we can rock in '14.

    The Class, Terror and Climate Wars are indivisible and the short-term outcome will affect the planet for centuries. -WiA "When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill..." - PhilJD

    by Words In Action on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:27:37 AM PST

  •  POTUS said it best: (7+ / 0-)

    "I didn't get reelected just to bask in reelection, I got reelected to do work..."

    Fuck Big Brother...from now on, WE'RE watching.

    by franklyn on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:27:58 AM PST

  •  Now even Kos spreads the zombie lie (7+ / 0-)

    that disaffected Democrats caused the 2010 results. That's bullshit. Obama's most enthusiastic supporters, young voters and African-Americans, are the least likely to vote in off-year elections. The party did a lousy job of motivating them to get to the polls. Meanwhile, the largest group to vote in off-years, grumpy old white people, were incredibly motivated due to the media-created Teabagger craze, so they showed up in droves. The percentage of voters who self-identified as "liberal" was almost exactly the same in 2006 and 2010. But, hey, Kos, don't let the facts get in the way of some good old hippie-punching.

    Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað

    by milkbone on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:28:03 AM PST

    •  Kos is punching Dem party leaders, not hippies. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shaharazade

      Have you noticed?
      Politicians who promise LESS government
      only deliver BAD government.

      by jjohnjj on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:35:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Take a look at what he wrote (4+ / 0-)
        So why did Democrats lose independents 56-37 in 2010? Because liberal voters pretending to be independent because "Democrats are spineless" didn't show up, while teabagger voters pretending to be independent because "the Republican Party is full of RINOs" did
        The problem is that he characterizes the New Coalition Dems as being the "Democrats are spineless" crowd.  They aren't.  The "Democrats are spineless complainers are the solid liberals who turned out.  The ones who didn't show up were the minorities and the Post moderns "can't pin me down" (here in CA, I think they're the Decline to State voters) folks.

        Except that one phrse in quotes, he's correct.

        Hay hombres que luchan un dia, y son buenos Hay otros que luchan un año, y son mejores Hay quienes luchan muchos años, y son muy buenos. Pero hay los que luchan toda la vida. Esos son los imprescendibles.

        by Mindful Nature on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:56:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  2010 messed a lot of things up (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, scott5js

      That was a screwed-up year.  Everyone was just... negative.

    •  No enthusiasm for Repub Lite (0+ / 0-)
      The party did a lousy job of motivating them to get to the polls.

      How many divisions does OWS have?

      by Diebold Hacker on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:11:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  not sure, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      milkbone

      there are consequences when you follow what your funders want. The Dems need an empowered left faction and/or Socialist competitor to change the game against the plutocrats. The solid South is populist and adopts conservatism as an ethnic marker. The Dems don't seriously contest for White male votes as the integrationist Wallace did in Alabama in 1983, or an ethnic Hillary Clinton in 2008. To self-identify as liberal takes a lot of courage, if Obama had an identifiable program like FDR's New Deal, political philosophy would be defined by whether you support it or not. But that takes a lot of left activism and Obama doesn't have cover to his left, rather he exiled Krugman, Reich and Stiglitz, and created an idle minority in the House. This is not rocket science. The sad fact is that any populist momentum is hopelessly centrist, if not fascist, rather than the much needed correction strongly to the left.  You correctly talk about indentured students and Depression-laden African-Americans as being the decisive elective factor in 2010.  Obama's first debate with Romney reflected the tone of that corporatist defense of 2010 and the reduction of Obama's vote total this year as well, not a revitalization like a New Deal.

  •  GOTV everyday (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shaharazade

    We have to slog continuously to rid the country of GOP governors and legislatures.  

    This is the area I hope to see improvement now and forever

    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

    by War on Error on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:29:44 AM PST

    •  We also need to (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      fuzzyguy, Odysseus, War on Error

      get some real Democrat's, not corrupt corporatist's  as candidates both state and local. 2010 in my state the Democratic gubernatorial  candidate had a hard time beating a stupid, barely articulate, RW ex basketball player.

      Our Democratic governor squeaked by and first thing he did was announce 'Oregon is open for business' and proceed to advocate sending dirty coal via the rails and river through OR to ship to China. He also sneakily undid the real progressive tax and election reforms put in place from 2006 on.

      On the other hand Sen Merkley won handily in 2008 against Gordon Smith a so called R moderate, by running as a full throated Democratic candidate.More importantly once elected he has acted and worked for progressive and democratic values and policy. He is not a blue dog, he is not a wienie Dem.  

      It's hard to get good democratic candidates when the Democratic party machine is run by DLC Third Wayer's. My district is 85% Democratic, the rest are indies and a smattering of Greens. My state house rep. won in 2010 with 85% of the vote. He ran against the party machine candidate with the big bucks in the primary and won. He ran with both a D and WFP after his name on the ballot.

      Strategy and rhetoric alone does not work if once elected the Democratic pols morph into DLC corrupt, by-partisan, Third Wayer's. People's bs meters are on full tilt these days with good reason. Either the Democrat's that were elected to do. Represent 'we the people and the law, or they will lose in the next cycle. The Democratic base and liberals are not as low information and stupid as the demographic that votes for the bat shit crazy mean spirited RW.

                   

  •  If the GOPers abandoned their bigoted views (0+ / 0-)

    towards women, and non-whites, they'd gain more votes, but not enough.  There are too many other issues that they are on the wrong side of.  I'm thinking that the GOP is on the road to disaster.  Oh, they'll flourish in what red states they occupy, but the blue states will get bluer, and the battleground states will become blue, on a more consistent basis.

    There is no hell on earth appropriate enough for those who would promote the killing of another person, in the name of a god.

    by HarryParatestis on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:30:08 AM PST

  •  I've been saying the same thing in my sig line (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    ...for about a year now.

    But of course, Markos has put it in great perspective, as always.

    Message to Dems: We HAVE to start showing up for Midterms.

    by Jank2112 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:30:46 AM PST

  •  Kelly Ayotte just stated to Andrea Mitchell (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10, Matt Z, beanbagfrog, a2nite

    that if Susan Rice is nominated for SoS, Ayotte will put a "hold" on her nomination.  

    You're forewarned, Harry - put a stop to this crap.

    "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

    by SueDe on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:31:17 AM PST

    •  Goodbye Joe, hello Kelly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, a2nite

      There always has to be one or two in each party.

      "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

      by kovie on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:36:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  if you hate the word "democracy", you're a (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      happymisanthropy

      republican

      I've already forgotten who the Republican candidate was in 2012

      by memofromturner on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:41:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Holds are not filibusters (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan

      Filibusters are part of Rule XXII.  Holds are in Rule VII.  

      Any change to the rules of the Senate requires a two-thirds vote.  (which is why Reid is not trying to eliminate the filibuster, he is simply going to start requiring it to be an active filibuster as the rules state)

      Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

      by Wisper on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:50:28 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Simple majority at start of session (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bryduck
        Any change to the rules of the Senate requires a two-thirds vote.
        My understanding is that the Senate can change its own rules at the start of the session by majority vote. Plus a Biden if needed.

        How many divisions does OWS have?

        by Diebold Hacker on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:22:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not exactly (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, Odysseus

          it can reinterpret some things.  What Reid is planning on doing is doing what he wants, being corrected by the chair, asking for a formal parliamentarian ruling, losing, and then using his majority to overrule the chair.

          This will work on things that are not explicitly written in the 43 standing rules of the senate.

          This is why he can not get rid of the filibuster.  He is going to overrule the chair to say that a motion to begin debating is not eligible for filibustering.  He is going to do the same about motions to send a bill to negotiations with the House.

          He will also do it with the idea that an actual cloture vote (wherein the filibustering side needs 40 NAY votes to prevent a vote) will be a required vote of record.

          BUT... the GOP will still be able to filibuster the final passage of the bill.  Its written directly into Rule XXII.

          As for holds.. I mentioned in the Front Page diary, that I think the "secret" part of the holds are just a Senatorial custom on which Reid could use the same tactic* but the ability to place holds is written into two separate formal rules.  He cant abolish that outright.

          (* I am not 100% sure that the secret part is not in the rules, but I do not recall that being an explicit rule)

          Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

          by Wisper on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:31:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  There is nothing precluding Reid from (0+ / 0-)

        considering a change in Rule VII at the same time he considers rule changes regarding the filibuster.  According to Johnathan Bernstein, senate rules can be changed at any time, not just the first day of a new session.

        Here is a discussion between Bernstein and Greg Koger, author of "Filibustering" on how rules could be changed anytime during a session.  Doing so may cause political problems, but not constitutional problems.

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

        by SueDe on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 12:59:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Current Democratic party is a Centrist Party (4+ / 0-)

    Not Center-left. Travel to Europe to get an idea what Center-left is. The democratic party is not. See, ObamaCare was a Republican Plan developed by GOP think tanks in opposition to Hillary Clinton's health insurance disaster. This is not the only example. The real problem has been that the GOP has moved far to the right.

  •  Moderate != Independent (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sebastianguy99

    Once pundits assimilate that fact we will get more intelligent punditry. No, I'm not holding my breath; for starters, I'm already blue.

    If you assume that many of the Independents are in fact people who are just Too Cool to admit they are partisans and are not really in play in a close election in a swing state, the analysis changes quite a bit.

    Our presidential election process really comes down to about a million swing state undecideds, and turning out about 120 million partisans and leaners. I, myself, think the path of turning out your 60 million partisans is more productive than trying to pick up more of those one million swingers.

    Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

    by blue aardvark on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:33:08 AM PST

  •  Which is PRECISELY why Dems need to court (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10, Matt Z, happymisanthropy

    mushy centrist independant voters by agreeing to do the responsible thing and giving up on raising taxes for the rich while cutting entitlement spending.

    --T. Friedman

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:34:30 AM PST

  •  I don't think it's about "base" and all that stuff (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wisper

    It's because the Democratic platform, such as it is, holds to more rational and constructive positions than the Republican one does. Democrats are also more interested in real efficiency--not the fake "efficiency" of the so-called free market.

    Like most people, I don't consider myself to be anyone's "base." I have views. They're based on something. Politicians appeal to me to the degree to which their views either align or usefully correct mine.

    Just being right does count for something.

  •  I just don't think there are very many (0+ / 0-)

    independents anymore.    They may say independent but idealogy says otherwise.  Look at Lieberman.  He was a republican to the bone.  The only good thing about Gore not being put into office.  Lieberman was put out the door eventually.

    We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

    by Vetwife on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:37:07 AM PST

  •  2014 (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vetwife, happymisanthropy

    Even though I would very much like to win in 2014; Nate Silver, over at 538 blog says the likelihood of this is very small.

    If we are to have a chance, a lot of things must happen, and they must happen starting very soon ... like right now.

    No more gooper LITE!

    by krwada on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:39:24 AM PST

  •  Democrats can win . . . (4+ / 0-)

    . . . elections they actually contest.  They cannot win elections they do not contest.  It's just as simple as that and Howard Dean demonstrated it as chair of the DNC in 2006 and 2008.

    "The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little. " --Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by jg6544 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:40:35 AM PST

    •  P. S. (4+ / 0-)

      Actually, this rule applies not only to elections, but to all contests - for legislation, etc.  Democrats seem to me to have suffered periodically from the notion that, there are some things we don't have to fight for because we are "right" and there are others we dare not fight for, because we might lose.  That is utter nonsense, all of it.

      The only battle you're sure to lose is the one you don't fight.

      "The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much. It is whether we provide enough to those who have little. " --Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by jg6544 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:42:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The tea party governors have a hold (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, a2nite

    on the states which is why I believe Nate believes that.
    They come up for re election in 14 and with the redistricting and suppression, that is the reason it is so hard.  IMO.

    We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

    by Vetwife on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:41:44 AM PST

  •  Here's a mascot for American "Independent" voters (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    scott5js, happymisanthropy

    I suspect that the most important political question to inattentive voters is: "What will my friends think of me if I say I voted for ____".

    Right-wing talk radio understands this, and has spent two decades ridiculing and demonizing "the L-word" simply to move the weak-willed "go-along" voters away from our camp.

    Some Indy voters might even boast about their non-partisan issue-oriented pragmatism... but mostly they just want to avoid getting screamed at by the RushBots and FoxPuppets they have to share an office with.

    So, yes... campaigns that create a large, enthusiastic and visible base will bring along many of the "weather-vane" voters.


    Have you noticed?
    Politicians who promise LESS government
    only deliver BAD government.

    by jjohnjj on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:42:57 AM PST

  •  Why are Corey & Rahm still relevant? (3+ / 0-)

    Both are DLC/ThirdWay/Lieberman fake Dems yet continue to hold sway in Obama's WH.
    They  both work to bust teacher's unions and privatize education in their respective cities. Their policies engender segregation by race & wealth.
    Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report says of Booker:

    “He is ideologically committed to the privatization of public education and to government that serves the rich.”

  •  This is the first time I've read this: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy
    the growing percentage of liberal voters (from 22 percent of the electorate in 2008, to 25 percent this year).
    I am elated!  I didn't know that; in fact, I had the opposite impression.  

    The is excellent news for...the country!  ;)

    "The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed." ~ Steven Biko

    by Marjmar on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:44:06 AM PST

  •  Right on target about Andy Cuomo (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    Liberal only in a social sense - union basher, plutocrat protecting, Wall Street Bloomberger.

    No thanks.

    "No special skill, no standard attitude, no technology, and no organization - no matter how valuable - can safely replace thought itself."

    by xaxnar on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:45:01 AM PST

  •  Please include Houston in the torrid pace (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sebastianguy99

    61% of voters in Houston voted for Obama.

    http://offthekuff.com/...

  •  I'm not sure where this fits (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jack23

    but there surely was a dramatic, I mean dramatic, drop-off in the number of African-American (and other minority) voters in my neighborhood (Brooklyn, 90% A-A) in 2010.  There was no line to vote that year, instead of the down-the-street-and-around-the-corner, hour-long, lines in 2008 and 2012.   I remember coming out of the polling place alongside two African-American men, one of whom was saying to the other, "People just gotta understand, they can't only come out every four years, when the black guy's running, they gotta be here all the time."  

    I don't know what this meant nationally, but the occasional voter just stayed home where I was.  Maybe in 2014 it will be different.

  •  thanks for the new sig-line, kos (0+ / 0-)

    "This is a center-left country. Democrats can act that way and win. In fact, they must." -- Markos

    by cassandraX on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 10:47:55 AM PST

  •  this is wishful thinking (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    David in NY, Deep Texan, mightymouse

    fact is: everything other than presidential years is considered an "off-year" election and millions of young and minority people who are made such a fuss of don't bother to vote in "off-years" so the situation will remain problematic - a it has been forever - until Democrats figure out how to turn out their "base" in "off-year" elections. It's simple, boring and infuriating, and not fixed by wishful thinking diaries like this.

  •  mostly I concur, but in addition ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mightymouse

    In terms of strategy moving forward, I completely concur -- concentrate of the center-left Democratic base and get these (us, me) out to vote!

    But there are year-specific, or election-specific issues, too, and we can't forget those.

    First, we lost so big in 2010 because virtually everyone in the Democratic party who wasn't in a completely Blue seat ran as fast as they could AWAY from every accomplishment they achieved in the first two years of Obama's presidency.  They did not stand up and fight for what they had achieved.  (I voted in Arizona in 2010, and this was certainly what I observed in that state and not just there.  My Democratic-soon-to-be-ex-Congressman certainly ran away from all of his good votes.)

    *  Health-care reform -- don't explain it; rather hide behind every conceivable rock to pretend you hadn't supported it.

    * By Feb. 2009 Obama had already announced an 18 month withdrawal window -- but was this touted?  No, not really.

    * The STIMULUS!  Yes, the stimulus, with its mix of infrastructure investments and tax cuts, had already helped to turn the economy around -- and yet Democrats ran as far away from it as they could.

    * and so on, and so forth.

    But the problem went beyond this, too, and this is what I refer to as year-specific or election-specific issues:  mid-term elections ALWAYS have fewer voters.  2014 will be a similar OFF-PRESIDENTIAL-ELECTION-YEAR.

    So the question is -- after taking to heart the points Kos makes in this post -- how to keep as much of the base as excited as possible for the next 2 years?  And, recognizing that many voters WON'T stay excited no matter what is done in the coming 20 months -- how to RE-EXCITE them come fall of 2014?

    Presidential speeches a la electioneering (as Obama is already indicating he'll do) -- yes.  Keeping Obama For America going -- yes.  But that takes money.....  Ensuring Dem. congress/people and senators constantly and publicly defend their votes, hmm.  What else?

  •  Using Pew's groups... (0+ / 0-)

    it seems like a solid way to win consistently would involve (1) inspiring the "Post-Moderns" to show up at the polls and (2) confusing or discouraging the "Disaffecteds."  This should be possible with a base strategy, e.g., aggressively pushing established liberal social and safety-net issues (gay rights, women's rights, protecting Social Security and Medicare) and highlighting how Republican policies are injurious to the working poor.  I also don't see why we would need to pay much more than lip service to crap like the national debt or taxes, e.g., it's our goal to keep the debt reasonable and taxes fair over the long term.

  •  I disagree. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    There are only two ways for Democrats to win elections, depending on when we are talking.

    Before the election: Democrats can only win by accepting issues as framed by Republicans and conservative think-tanks (e.g. we should put all our resources into convincing the Republican base we aren't socialists).

    After the the election: Democrats can only have won by giving freebies to idle leaches (e.g., distributing free birth control pills to slutty women).

    I know this is true because I heard it on television.

    I've lost my faith in nihilism

    by grumpynerd on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 11:12:41 AM PST

  •  Base (0+ / 0-)

    This is all pretty good, but remember that the base includes labor and the middle-income groups, and not just women and Latinos.

  •  I think this is right in almost all cases (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus

    in my own small town in historically rural republican upstate New York where registered Republicans out number registered Democrats 700 to 400 my approach has been to maximize my democratic vote and reach out to and maximize turn-out amongst left of center third party voters and blanks (as we call independents here).

    Here in this area most blanks are voting Democratic these days when they vote. This has not always been the case but as the Republican party has radicalized blanks that weren't already "disaffected democrats" have moved in our direction and as long as we present as sane, reasonable, rational and serious alternatives then our only task is to turn out the vote.

    In doing this we have won and won consistenly when we have succeeded in maximizing our own vote and that of the blanks. I have made little to no effort to reach out to Republicans or conservatives... except in the case where one of their candidates was a crook and we knew that honest Republicans would vote for a reasonable alternative. But in general... no. We go after our own... and we win.

    "Do what you can with what you have where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt

    by Andrew C White on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 11:26:50 AM PST

  •  Now that David Plouffe has signaled (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy

    that cuts for Medicare and SS are on the table, say goodbye to success in 2014.

  •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BobBlueMass, happymisanthropy

    Forever keeping this quote on my computer:

    Populist Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown was relatively unknown, running in an evenly matched battleground state, facing tens of millions in GOP attacks, all the while being unapologetically liberal. And won easily.
    Whenever some hand-wringing conservadem comes on here or anywhere else about how we can't be true to liberal, democratic, progressive principles and win in [fill in the blank] state or district because its just not a fit, refer back to the quote.

    No more Ben Nelson's, no more Joe Lieberman's. More Sherrod Brown's, more Elizabeth Warren's. The first two really weren't Democrats anyway.

    I won't believe corporations are people until Texas executes one. Leo Gerard.

    by tgrshark13 on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 11:36:24 AM PST

  •  Democrats can win base elections, and only base... (0+ / 0-)

    is a really stupid statement here with no evidence to back it up.

    it's easily proven false and this kind of broad brushing the issues we face obtaining/keeping power isn't helpful.

    where is the data kos?

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 11:38:16 AM PST

  •  That's a lot of assumtions from a single point (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan

    Not much evidence to back it up, and you need more than a single data point of 2010 to back it up.  I could just as easily assert that Democrats can win any election that doesn't end in a 0.

    Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

    by lostboyjim on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 11:45:20 AM PST

  •  The nugget buried: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    fearlessfred14
    That's why Joe Lieberman-style Democrats like New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo must be persona non grata in the 2016 Democratic presidential sweepstakes.
    It isn't widely known outside the Empire State that all that progressive goodness Cuomo heaped on the gays did not translate to good will to unions, environmentalists and his budget and tax philosophy.

    It needs to circulate in primary states.

    The primary states need to know that the progressive left of NY is not in love with Cuomo's performance so far. He left Democrats hanging, both in the election and in the fight for Senate control.

    He's not unreachable, or a terrible person I think.

    But he is not driven to please the Democratic base. He, like a lot of centrist pols seems more interested in courting the Republicans than delivering progressive change. (With one big notable exception.)

    If he did become president, he'd govern like he'd govern NY, by only responding to the left then they scream their heads off at him. I mean, I'd rather not work that have to hard in 2017-2021.

    But, I have my chips on another candidate.

  •  Again (0+ / 0-)

    the biggest danger comes not from the GOP but from those on our side who will trade the future shift to the center left for a single elction.

    You self proclaimed pragmatists know who you are.

  •  Your very first sentence tells me... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    flhiii88, Deep Texan

    you're living in the same bubble-world conservatives live in: if we stick to our liberal/conservative values, we'll win.

    Both ends of the political spectrum take the same simplistic view.

    The real world is complex.

  •  If America is "center-left"... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, Odysseus

    Then all of Western Europe is full-blown Commie. I mean, are you serious? The US still has a lot of work to do to get to the center, let alone to the left.

  •  hmm. Maybe republicans won't (0+ / 0-)

    Turn out to be the only old dogs to learn new tricks...

  •  Independents are Republicans who split tickets (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan

    These reflexsive flipfloppers are uncomfortable in the extremist, RHINO hating GOP and they know that they can safely indulge their proclivity under mild mannered Democrats. You can't depend on them but you can nudge them away from teh GOP crazy.

  •  In fact, they must - INDEED (0+ / 0-)

    regretfully, the chances of this are very small.

    The leadership of the Democratic Party has been way to ready to compromise/capitulate on the core issues that the majority - base and independents - of citizens REALLY want.

    The results came home to roost in 2010 and we have suffered through 2 years and counting as a result.

    The voter turnout and election results in 2006 and 2008 could not have been any clearer a mandate:

    REVERSE NEO-CON BUSH AGENDA
    END THE WARS
    PROSECUTE WAR CRIMINALS
    PROSECUTE FINANCIAL FRAUDSTERS

    when Pelosi unilaterally took any discussion of prosecution off the table, that let alot of air out of the base.

    then when Obama waffled and compromised on nearly every issue, the rest of the air went out.

    The result:  2010 mid-term debacle where tea party republicans got something like 55% of a 35% turnout (and effective 20% of the voting population) and declared MANDATE!!

    With Obama immediately going roll over belly up compromise.

    Ugh.  

    Now, as you point out, Obama won a decisive mandate in Electoral and popular terms.  Even congressional voting was a strong Democratic advantage - only gerrymandering saved republican majority.

    And yet,  the discussion is framed in republican terms and dollars to donuts, Obama and Democratic leadership are heading to some sort of Cat Food Commission compromise.

    We need a Roosevelt.  We got a Reaganite.

    IMHO.

    •  exactly why right won..complaints like this (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan

      all progress gets done with compromise.

      •  agreed (0+ / 0-)

        governing like adults is compromising.

        you know like in a marriage.

        -You want to change the system, run for office.

        by Deep Texan on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 02:24:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  funny - compromise = giving in by Democrats (0+ / 0-)

          Right "won"?   "like adults"  let's get serous.

          The right has "won" nothing.  Bush was appointed by a stacked Supreme Court.  The last mid-term the right "won" by getting an effective 20% of the electorate.  

          Obama crushed Rmoney by every measure.   Senate had net Democratic pick-ups.  House actually had more votes for Democratic candidates.

          "Adults" do not take intractible positions based on ideology and PR "pledges" when it comes to debating serious policy.   "Adults" do not filibuster EVERY bill.  "Adults" do not introduce the same bill to repeal settled law 30+ times.

          Here is the compromise:

          Raise rates on the higher brackets to Reagan era levels.
          Raise rates on cap gains and carried interest to Reagan era levels.
          Cut the defense budget by 30% - stop the wars
        •  I don't know how a marriage can work if the values (0+ / 0-)

          of each person are as diametrically opposed as are the values of the Democrats and Republicans.  Compromising with today's Republicans means things will continue to get harder and harder for the middle class.

  •  In 2010 young progreesives did not vote (0+ / 0-)

    Young voters need to get out and vote in mid term elections..if they did Democrats would win.

    I also remember too many lefties whining in 2010 about Obama did not do this or that, didnlt vote and see what we got...crazies in the House.

  •  I disagree with the title, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan

    and with it an interpretation of the idea behind the diary.

    I don't think it's campaigning for the base that wins us election - I think it is being good, strong, Democrats who actually stand up for what we believe, and who refuse to kowtow to the GOP interpretation of what we say and who we are.

    We win elections when we stand up and say who we are, and say it in a clear, confident way, backed by facts.

    When we just sit back and say "But ...  we're the good guys!" and then let the opposition define and shape the conversation we will lose every time, not because out base is weak, but because we are not hewing to the qualities that define us and define that base.

    Other than that, yeah,  I agree.

    But how you shape the conversation is important, and we have to we have to do that.

    I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

    by trumpeter on Wed Nov 28, 2012 at 01:55:11 PM PST

  •  Look up the word liberal in the dictionary. (0+ / 0-)

    Most people would probably be more attracted to a person who matches that definition that the definition of the world conservative.

    The Dims need to stop fighting the Reporats PR on their own turf.
    We sound better selling of own merchandise.

    Yes the Dim party has to fight the lies but that can't be all they do.

    We sell a more appealing product, the liberal Dim PR apparatus needs to do a better job of advertising the benefits of that product.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site