Re: NOVEMBER - Are We In For A Big Let-Down?

[Hissyspit]

The depressed cynic part of me is kicking in. With such high expectations concerning the mid-term elections regarding the potential "taking back of Congress" (and the real and symbolic impact that would represent) considering all the news and anecdotal evidence and growing conventional wisdom (and there is a lot of it) that Americans are turning against all Republicans, not just the pResident, is this going to turn out to be the revolt that wasn't?

Taking into account third-party or independent spoilers, election fraud, last-minute Rovian tactics that MIGHT work, is the administration going to be able to effectively say, "oh, this wasn't as bad as everyone said it would be. Mid-terms you always see some backlash and we still have control of both branches of Congress."

Not trying to be trollish here. Just getting nervous... the big build-up; the big let-down. Discuss. Pull out some statistics to make me feel better.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. How does being a depreseed cynic help us win?

Can it. Seriously.

[GOTV]

8. Does being an optimist help us win?

So many of my liberal friends were sure a disaster like Bush could never beat a man like Kerry. It would be an easy win they would say.

We didn't work as hard as we should have to win the vote by fraud proof margins and we lost.

I also fear the same result with the frequent and soothing reports coming from websites all over the internet...

So reasurring...
Bush drops 2 points...
And it's such a nice day....
Dems up in generic congressional poll...
I think I'll put my feet up...
I wonder what's on TV...
ZZZzzzzzz....

Oooops! It's election day!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. Yes, it does.

See: Reagan 1980.

[GOTV]

14. I saw Kerry 2004

We were all optimistic. We all cheered the efforts of moveon and laughed at true majority's "Pants on Fire" float and thanked all the voter registration workers and then we went home to our summer barbeques and fell asleep on the couch.

I'm in Northeast Ohio. There are Dems and Liberals all over the place here but I can tell you that every progressive meeting I attend and every campaign headquarters are filled with more chairs than people.

Too many people are sure that this time we can't lose and the only people working are the people who always work.

I just saw Sherrod Brown speak in Ohio City a week ago. Maybe 100 attendees. This was at lunch time in a very heavily trafficed part of Cleveland and a very liberal area on Cleveland as well.

People just don't interrupt their lunch to help a cause when they think it's a sure thing anyway.

We have two forces working against us. One is the "They'll just steal the vote anyway" group and the other is "It's in the bag" group.

What we need is more people with the hope that this election can be won and the fear that it will not be won without their personal effort.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. We were not all optimistic. Not even close.

I will say we shouldn't expect it to be a sure thing, but that's far and away different from us talking about losing. That helps absolutely nothing.

[GOTV]

21. Talking about negative consequences helps prevent them...

You obviously hung with a different crowd then I did in 2004.

But I remember Zogby telling us that the election is "Kerry's to lose" I remember Al Franken telling us that we were going to win. Election day he was gloating.

That's two examples I can think of from the media. Very few people I talked to thought Kerry could lose.

Talking only about the positive possibilities instills false confidence and complacency. You try to convince a person to wear a condom without talking about pregnancy and disease and you will fail to convince them. Similarly you shouldn't talk about the elections without warning people that if they don't work they will lose.

They will be working. If we don't work they will beat us in November.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. So you advocate using fear tactics?

That's essentially what you're saying.

[GOTV]

24. You may give it any label you wish...

... but I'm advocating exactly what I said. No one works to achieve that which they believe is already achieved.

If you do not believe there is a possibility of losing you will not work to win. We all have 40 hour a week jobs along with friends and families. We all have other problems in our lives and we will attend to those which are most pressing. If you convince me that we've got the election covered, then great! I'll go weed my lawn.

After the defeat of Kerry in 2004, and the defeat of the Reform Ohio Now amendments of 2005 you will not be able to convince me that the election is all sewn up. I've already seen that good news and good polls do not deliver won elections. We lose elections in spite of positive talk. You might be able to convince others however. But I hope not.

We're hearing almost a steady stream of "Dems are gonna win big" news reports and I'm telling you - don't believe me if you don't want - very few people in progressive rich northeast Ohio are inspired enough by the news to volunteer.

You say we need to be optimistic to win elections. The news is optimistic. You're getting what you want. But the results are that few people are working to achive electoral victory in my area.

How are things out by you? Are you turning volunteers away? Maybe it's just lazy Clevelanders.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. Again, did I ever say or advocate saying the election was sewn up?

But you still fail to explain how saying we're going to lose and the sky is going to fall is going to be helpful either. Is there no middle ground where we can be positive but still express the need to keep working?

[GOTV]

32. You advocate speaking only of the positive...

... Here is the quote.

"that's far and away different from us talking about losing. That helps absolutely nothing."

Talk about losing "helps absolutely nothing" is what you said.

I disagree.

I may have failed to convince you of my position but I did expend a good amount of effort explaining my position. I have not simply asserted my belief. I gave concrete examples of optimism expressed in the media on the 2004 election and of course we know the outcome. There's one explanation.

I have explained to you that, at least in my area, people are not in fact working. You want positive talk, we're getting positive talk yet people are not working. That's a second explanation. That may not convince you but you can not reasonably claim that I have failed to offer an explanation.

I think my 3rd line of reasoning was also pretty clear. I'll reiterate. People tend not to work for results they believe are inevitable. If I already believe my house will not burst into flames overnight, I will not stay up all night with a bucket of water. Silly example? Perhaps. But you didn't seem to pick up on the condom example. Unless I think we may lose in November I will not take time to do the boring and personally uncomfortable work of convincing strangers to vote for my causes.

So again, I have in fact given explanations for my statements which you may find unconvincing but I am not just asserting my beliefs as fact.

Yes, there is a middle ground. It's where I'm standing. The middle ground is: the belief that we can win the upcoming election but that we won't if we don't work. If you work and vote you win - if you vote without working you lose. That's the middle ground. We can win (that's the positive) but not if we don't work (that's the negative)

You, on the other hand has claimed that talk about losing "helps absolutely nothing". It seems to me you are the one going to the extreme and eliminating one possibility. Talk of losing is not allowed. It "helps nothing".

Of course you never expressly said we should not keep working, but why should I keep working? That's another question that I think would be instructive (although you ignored my previous questions)

Why should I keep working when the polls keep saying the dems are going to win? Please answer the question without any reference to the possibility of losing which, as you say, "helps absolutely nothing".

Can you do that?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. No where in those quotes did I say only speaking of winning was necessary.

But such incredible negativity doesn't help either. THAT is the point. You want to be negative? Talk about the consequences of giving up. THAT kicks people in the ass - not whining that no matter what we do, we're going to lose. THAT helps nothing.

[GOTV]

38. You said speaking of losing "helps absolutely nothing"...

... so what else is left?

So, Am I to take it that you are open to talking about losing? Would you say that talking about losing actually can do some good?

If you see "incredible negativity" in what I'm writing you haven't been here for a while. The crippling negativity is from the anti-diebold "Nothing we do matters because they will just steal it anyway" crowd. If you've really been reading my posts you would know that I consider them the other of the two internal forces that will sap the energy out of the activist base.

I am at the middle ground. I don't believe all is lost. I think we can take congress and the Senate back in spite of Diebold and anti-voter legislation. I just don't think it will happen unless we work and make it happen.

So, can I continue to remind people that it's too early for champagne?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

40. Absolutely.

It is too early to be popping champagne corks.

I think people call it "the carrot and the stick" routine. You need to have both to be effective.

[ChiciB1]

43. Don't Want To DASH Any Hopes... But If Olbermann Keeps Having

Dana Milbank (do I have te right Dana?) on his show stating that he thinks "the London Fear Scare" will probably work FOR the Repukes again, then I don't see much to jump up and down about. Plus we need to remember the GERRYMANDERING that has gone on!

Then switch to Lieberman/Lamont and see how hard Repukes are working for "The Lie" and it's going to be difficult. Also, he stated last night that he didn't think George Allen is going to be hurt by his latest "macaca" thing! So with journalists like him... on Olbermann's Show all the time, what does that say??

I've wondered for a very long time WHY Keith keeps having him on. Dana seems a bit biased to me. While he says "well yes, this is a problem but on the other hand people aren't really going to hold it against them," I get a little toooooo uncomfortable. I've gotten my hopes up too many times in the past and don't even "go there" anymore. Not until it's a DONE DEAL! I have lost ALL TRUST in what may or may not happen, The Royal Pain and his cohorts have too many tricks up their sleeves!

Even watching Tom Kean on Jon Stewart's show was extremely tame. Kean is just out hawking his book and sputters here & there, but nothing with any teeth in any of his statements that I see. And no action is being taken either!

[Stardust]

57. Dana Milbank arrogantly derided the Conyers' hearing

on the Downing Street Memo. It was shameful and really showed his true colors. Dana Milbank cannot be trusted. He's a smug snake in the grass.

[Jed Dilligan]

37. Terrible analogy

Reagan was optimistic about America's future, the OP is introducing pessimism about the performance of one party. Not the same thing at all.

[enough already]

50. Kerry won

And there is no such thing as a "fraud-proof" margin.

[AZBlue]

53. Overconfidence is an easy way to lose.

And you never know what the GOP will pull, so you must always be ready. I think it's a great attitude to have - keeps us fighting until the last vote is in.

Plus...DU is not representative (at all) of the general American public. What we think and know here has little to do with what America thinks and knows. They aren't as knowledgeable about the Bush crime family nor are they as fed up as we are. Not yet. The elections are far from "in the bag."

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

60. Who called for overconfidence?

Certainly not me. But keeping your eyes open and playing the "sky is falling" card are two entirely separate states of mind, is it not?

[AZBlue]

62. Any confidence right now is overconfidence.

Too far out.

Optimism is needed now, not confidence.

[primative1]

2. Oh Stop Being a Realist ...

Enjoy the moment. They only come around once every few years ....

[waiting for hope]

3. I truly believe there are

more people out there that want change then the media would let you think. Keep the hope up and stay involved!:patriot:

[enough already]

51. Until you see the polls showing Lieberman winning

I think we're fucked. Again.

[annabanana]

4. Quick! Throw the machines into the nearest body of water!

That is the only sure way for the voters NOT to get ripped off this November. If the vote is counted accurately, we have nothing (nothing) to worry about.

[Lochloosa]

5. Interesting article by Christian Science Monitor.

Not sure it allays your fears but the last paragraph gives me hope

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0807/p01s02-uspo.html

Perhaps the most telling generic poll to is one sponsored by National Public Radio, and conducted jointly by Democratic (Stan Greenberg) and Republican pollsters (Glen Bolger). In surveys of only the 50 most competitive districts in the country, as determined by the Cook list and some others, the poll found a startling shift from two years ago. In 2004, the total vote in those districts went Republican by some 12 points. In late July 2006, Democrats came out ahead by about six points.

[bdamomma]

6. we all need to get out there and vote

this is what they want us to do think that we do not have a chance, if not, you can kiss away everything we all believe in.

[GOTV]

10. We need to do much more than vote.

We need to get two non-voters each to register and vote with us.

[KKKarl is an idiot]

12. Optimism always worries me against the republicans

Republicans control the airways on talk radio. The thing that will help the democratic cause & ultimately this countries future is that fact that most republicans still do not want to go to the polls. But Limbaugh & Hannity are working hard to get the vote out. Lets hope the die hard republicans are still as upset with Bush & this congress when elections come around to ensure a victory.

[GOTV]

16. We haven't even hit advertising season yet.

When the swiftboat style ads start hitting the airwaves in a month or two, will we still be wondering if we shouldn't volunteer for someone or something?

[ChiciB1]

44. Electronic Voting Can Still SCREW It Up!!!

We still don't have paper ballots here where I live! But we got DEM Machines!!!

[mmonk]

7. Possibly.

With the false framing of the issues from the republicans, media, and certain dems along with terrorism theatrics and real possibilities of events which may serve the false framing and its agenda, the possibility does exist. I'm getting used to feeling like this.

[SaveElmer]

11. Progress Yes...Majority...unlikely...

It has always been a bit of a long shot...but I still think we will do well

My prediction would be a pickup of 3 in the Senate and 10 in the House...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. I'm a little more positive than you, but you're absolutely right.

A majority would be fantastic, but we're too far down right now to expect that to happen. That's why 2004 was so crushing. If we'd just maintained then, we'd be looking a lot better.

[izzie]

13. I usually wait for the day after. I bad at this stuff.

--

[Iwasthere]

15. You are going to feel beaten down...

That is their goal, I sure do... but we must trudge on, fight through it... VOTE VOTE VOTE and watch em close, especially Ohio... need to catch em in the act. If a machine is suspect, unplug it and surround the building then... hell I dunno, but we need to get radical and do whatever it takes to have an honest vote. If we let em do it again that is all she wrote.

Support John Conyers... get active - email him, he will tell you what you can do.

I am fortunate to live in Oregon where we have mail in ballots. We have NO problems. Pretty easy and hack free.

[GOTV]

19. Ohio now allows anyone to absentee vote...

... so that's good here as well. but voting is not enough.

What we really need is people working. Voting rules have changed in Ohio. Many places have electronic machines that didn't have them in 2004.

We need people to go to Dem voters doors and remind them that the election is coming. Tell them to be prepared for electronic voting. Tell them they can vote absentee. Tell them that they will need a picture ID this time.

Blackwell is throwing up whatever obstacles he can think of to prevent people from voting and being forewarned is forearmed. We need people to do the forewarning.

If you vote but don't work, you've allowed someone else to be denied a vote.

Again we need everyone to do more than just vote.

[OneBlueSky]

17. the bottom line is this: BushCo cannot afford to lose . . .

control of either the House or the Senate . . . to do so would expose them to prosecution for the myriad of U.S. and international laws they have blatantly broken, ignored, and otherwise trashed . . . including the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions . . .

a loss of either house of Congress is something they simply cannot allow to happen . . . and they will pull out all the stops to make sure that it doesn't . . .

will they succeed? . . . can't say -- but I look to the 2000, 2002, and 2004 elections as examples of what they're capable of . . .

[mmonk]

23. I'm not sure the DLC dems are really for

exposure of bush's illegalities which bothers me as I don't see a definitive turn without real debate and some real exposure.

[GOTV]

26. I think they have a real fear of APPEARING to go after Bush...

... which of course makes it difficult to know what they're actually thinking.

I think that they feel that running on a platform of "We're going to get that Bush guy" would play poorly. I think they feel people want to vote for people who will fix America first and chew each other to pieces second.

If that's how they feel I think they're right.

Once they are in power, if they actually do feel the need to go after Bush, they'll be in a much better position to explain what they're doing and get public support for hearings or impeachment or whatever.

Right now the GOP is too powerful to give us a good chance at building our case. If you're going to try to kill the devil, you probably shouldn't announce it ahead of time.

[mmonk]

35. Proof?

[GOTV]

39. of?

[mmonk]

41. Something that backs up your position of course.

[GOTV]

42. How could I have proof?

I think were talking about the same set of facts. The DLC has not promised to try to get Bush if elected. You have one interpretation, I have another. Since we can't get inside their heads the best either of us can do is speculate on their motivations.

I can't imagine how either of our opinions could be proven. Perhaps if you can try to prove your opinion I'll understand what your asking for and respond in kind.

[mmonk]

46. I just never assume. I've been disappointed alot in the last

few years. Until they show by some comment they are willing to do investigations, I will not assume those that act like they don't favor it will support them. I will only assume those that are already on board will be the only ones willing and wait to see on the rest of them.

[enough already]

52. Lieberman isn't

We can't let him win.

[Dinger]

29. That's What Scares Me

I think the Dems have an excellent chance of getting the House, and a little more than 50% chance of getting the Senate too, but like you said, they KNOW what will happen if they (repugs) lose. Desperate people do desperate things.

[elliswyatt]

25. being optimistic

does shit. Get out there and start working like your life depends on it, because it does.

In 2004 people were so sure the Dems would win, thinking the American idiotry were at least smart by a majority, that they let their guard down. Now those same people say the election was stolen, and don't take responsibility for not working hard enough.

[GOTV]

27. My experience is similar to yours...

... Lots of my progressive friends would sit around laughing at how stupid Bush was and complain about his budget busting tax cuts but when I started saying "Ok, now let's go knock on doors, lets go to festivals and register voters etc." suddenly I became much more lonely.

[JoshDem]

30. Could Be, If Recent Poll Trends Continue

Santorum has closed to within 6 points.

The most recent polls in Montana, Ohio and Missouri have the races now tied versus previous Dem leads.

Stabenow once safe is now up by only 5 points and Kean has closed to 2 points in NJ.

Meanwhile Tennessee, Virginia and Nevada now seem out of reach.

The only one trending toward us in Rhode Island where Chafee dow 6 and may not survive primary.

[General Lee]

31. Hissyspit I think you may be on to something.

Read "Dark Ages America" by Morris Berman and you might agree with him, as do I, concerning the apathy and lack of scholarship on the part of the average American. A recent poll suggests that 50% of the public still believes that Iraq had WMDs when we invaded and 60% believes that Saddam had strong links with Al Qaeda (http://www.vdare.com/roberts/060814_gullible.htm). However, let's give it a shot anyway and see if we can help prove ourselves wrong on this matter and the optimists right!

[DeepModem Mom]

34. Rove is a master of low expectations. We've been disappointed...

too many times not to be concerned.

[SteppingRazor]

36. Whether you'll be let down depends on what you're expecting...

I'm expecting a Democratic pickup of about 12-18 in the House, and 3-5 in the Senate -- in other words, I believe it's perfectly possible that we won't take back either house of Congress.

I think, realistically, we need two good election cycles to take back both Houses.

So, if you're expecting Democrats to easily takeover both Houses, then, maybe you're in for a bit of a letdown. :shrug:

[JoshDem]

45. Rasmussen has it Repubs 50, Dems 47 with 3 Toss-ups.

If Dems to win control need to win 3 toss-ups(Nevada, Ohio and Missouri), pick up Pa and RI where they are winning, win Tenn. where they are down 6 and hold onto states where they are up narrowly(Michigan, New Jersey).

[SteppingRazor]

47. What about Montana? n/t

[JoshDem]

48. Meant to say Montans was a toss-up--not Nevada

[boolean]

49. Only if the Democrats fuck it up for themselves

They only need to stick TOGETHER and ATTACK the GOP when they are ATTACKED BY the GOP. They need to get the DLC to shut the fuck up for a while. They need to get their asses over to every media outlet and DEMAND to be heard. They need to call press conferences, release statements, and make commercials CALLING OUT every motherfucking GOP talking point. They need to emphasize that not only are the GOP a bunch of morally bankrupt assholes, but that THEY ARE A TRUE ALTERNATIVE. They need to NOT BACK DOWN when the GOP says something idiotic about them, or demands an apology from them, or lies about them. They need take that mud and sling it right the fuck back in their faces. They need to demand that the GOP apologize to the country for the UTTER MESS they've created.

But most of all, they need to get together. Every single fucking one of them in a room, together. Rent out a banquet hall or something. Get them ALL together, and ALL AGREE ON THEIR STRATEGY. No infighting bullshit. Pass out memos just like the GOP does with talking points. Memorize them. Fucking spout them. AND DO NOT DISAGREE WITH THEM IN PUBLIC.

If they don't fuck it up, you won't be disappointed.

[IndianaGreen]

54. We are in for several terra alerts and at least one Bin Laden video

one in which he appears wearing a Ned Lamont T-shirt.

I expect the Republicans to behave in the same shameful way they always have, and I also expect to see questionable vote counts.

[newscott]

55. It depends on your expectations going in

I have low expectations so will be pleased if we can gain any ground or even one part of the Congress back.

[formernaderite]

56. Only if we back down and run to the center to fake being a

republican....that is what got us into this mess. Clinton and the DLC managed to confuse the electorate...however he never received a plurality of the vote, and managed to lose both the house and senate. I mean....if you're going to elect someone who sounds a bit like a repub....why not just vote for the repub? Let the real democrats out of the closet!!!

[Constitution]

58. A lot of Democrats won't be voting Democrat this year. This could hurt.

The liberals are pretty fed up and most will be voting third party for the first time. It's time the Democratic Party reached out instead of pushing away or they will lose and not know what hit them. And please don't kill the messenger.

[Phoonzang]

59. I tend to agree with you.

It's not something I'm comfortable bringing up, but since you did it first.. I'm pessimistic about our chances in November. To be blunt, I think we're going to make no progress at best and at worst, actually lose seats. I think we're guaranteed to at least lose one seat because of Lieberman, but I don't realy know what's going on in the House.

The Repubs will be able to paint us as weak on terror and with little incidents like the airline plot, they'll be able to pound the message in. We're the party of Al Qaeda! Of course the media will do their damnedest to repeat this message over and over. Americans are so easy to turn...all it would take is a few more of these incidents.

And then there's the whole disenfranchisment and ballot funny business that has tended to happen during close races over the last few years... Eh I don't even want to get into that. I just think we're in for a big let down and a bunch of gloating Republicans.

/Doom mode off

[Khayembii Communique]

61. Short Answer: Yes

Long Answer: Definitely