Democratic Party on Downhill Slide for 2010 Elections If They Don’t Change Course

[Time for change]

Not too long following the 2008 national elections, at which time the Democratic Party reached a peak in popularity relative to the disgraced Republican Party, it began a downhill course which could spell serious problems for them in the 2010 elections.

Not only did they recapture the presidency in 2010, but they picked up 8 seats in the U.S. Senate to bring their total to 59 (later to become 60) and 21 seats in the House, thereby boosting their majority to 79 seats. But subsequent events have shown that even with a Democratic president, a huge Democratic majority in the House, and a presumably “filibuster proof” majority in the Senate, passing much needed progressive legislation has been very difficult. Substantial losses in 2010 could make that task nearly impossible – with dire consequences for our country. Therefore, it could be useful to think about the causes behind the declining political fortunes of the Democratic Party since their historic Democratic election victories in 2008 (and 2006).


Political status as of late 2008 and the downward slide of the Democratic Party

From some point in late 2008 to April 2009, Republicans hit such a low point that only 22-26% of Americans identified themselves as Republicans, hitting a low of 22% in April 2009. That compares with 33-39% of Americans who identified themselves as Democrats, though that that number decreased progressively from 39% to 33% during the first few months of 2009. The status of the Republican Party following the election of 2008 was summed up by Lidia Saad, referring to the latest Gallup poll: “After suffering major blows in the election, the Republican Party is experiencing its worst image rating in at least a decade”. This graph sums up the trend as of April 2009:



But then, throughout 2009 the Democratic Party advantage over Republicans in “Party identification” declined enough that polls in August and October showed a Democratic advantage of only about 6%.

Polls bearing on the next House election have roughly paralleled the changes in party identification, or appear even more ominous. “Generic Congressional vote” polls ask respondents what party’s candidate they intend to vote for in the next House election. They are generally regarded as the best tool available for predicting the national outcome of House elections. During October 2008, the month preceding the Democratic pickup up 79 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, the average of 17 Generic Congressional vote polls gave the Democratic Party nationally almost a 10% margin of victory, with all 17 of them indicating at least a 4% Democratic margin. More than a year later, in November 2009, the average of 5 polls indicates a Democratic margin of victory of less than 1%. Since all House members are up for reelection in 2010, that means that with just a very slight shift, or even with no shift at all, Democrats could easily lose control of the House.

The situation looks a little better in the Senate – perhaps mainly because only one third of U.S. Senators are up for reelection. It’s way too early to tell at this time, but according to some polls and predictions, six Democratic seats are rated a tossup in 2010 (open seat in DE, Reid in NV, Dodd in CT, Bennet in CO, Lincoln in AR, Specter in PA), compared to four Republican seats (MO, OH, KY, NH). Nate Silver sees it similarly, rating the same 6 Senate seats as the most vulnerable for 2010.

It is currently far too early to predict any of these things with much confidence. But the above discussion provides a good indication of how far Democratic political fortunes have declined since their election victory in 2008.


REASONS FOR DEMOCRATIC PARTY DECLINE IN POLITICAL STATUS AFTER NOVEMBER 2008

It is impossible to say for certain why the Democratic Party has lost so much political ground since November 2008. Two related possibilities come to mind. One is our current economic crisis. The other is the corporate friendly leanings of much of the Democratic Party.

The Bush administration laid the ground for our current economic crisis, which began during his watch. The situation is very similar to what President Roosevelt faced when he took office in 1933, when our country was in the midst of the worst depression in its history. At that time, FDR had a 196 seat Democratic advantage in the House and a 23 seat advantage in the Senate.

It took several years for the crisis to fully resolve. But FDR initiated bold and aggressive measures from the beginning of his presidency, which got our country quickly moving in the right direction. The American people rewarded his efforts by reelecting him for a record three consecutive additional presidential terms – twice by landslides, and a third time by a comfortable national popular vote margin of 7.5%. They also voted for increased Democratic majorities in the Senate and House in 1934 and 1936, so that by 1937 the Democrats enjoyed a 244 vote margin in the House and a 75-17 margin in the Senate. FDR’s bold handling of our economic crisis is a large part of the reason why he is generally regarded by historians as the second greatest president in our history. His economic policies also set the stage for what Paul Krugman refers to as the “greatest sustained economic boom” in our history.

The reason I mention this is that it proves that taking office during a severe economic crisis is not by any means a certain recipe for declining political fortunes.


Democratic Party handling of our economic crisis

President Obama came into office with a fairly conservative bunch of economic advisors – some of the very same people who set the ground for our current crisis. And he still has conservative economic advisors. He did lead the U.S. Congress to enact a stimulus bill. However, more progressive economists warned that the proposed stimulus measures would fall far short of what we needed. This is what Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman had to say about it:

Mr. Obama’s prescription doesn’t live up to his diagnosis. The economic plan he’s offering isn’t as strong as his language about the economic threat. In fact, it falls well short of what’s needed…

With both consumer spending and business investment plunging, a huge gap is opening up between what the American economy can produce and what it’s able to sell. And the Obama plan is nowhere near big enough to fill this “output gap.”… To close a gap of more than $2 trillion – possibly a lot more, if the budget office projections turn out to be too optimistic – Mr. Obama offers a $775 billion plan. And that’s not enough…

Only about 60 percent of the Obama plan consists of public spending. The rest consists of tax cuts – and many economists are skeptical about how much these tax cuts, especially the tax breaks for business, will actually do to boost spending…The bottom line is that the Obama plan is unlikely to close more than half of the looming output gap, and could easily end up doing less than a third of the job.

And so far, Krugman’s analysis appears to be right on target. Unemployment has gone up, not down. By November 2009, the official unemployment rate stands at 10.2%, with actual unemployment in the range of 15-18%.


The gap between Democratic Party stands on economic issues vs. public opinion and public interest

The Democratic Party has been far to the right of the American people on economic issues – meaning that they have acted more in the interests of the corporatocracy than of ordinary Americans. By doing so they generate millions in campaign contributions from corporate America. But will that be enough to compensate for what many Americans sense as a betrayal of their interests?

The bailout of Wall Street
Most Americans have never approved of the multi-trillion dollar bailout of Wall Street. Prior to the first Congressional votes on it during the Bush administration, Opposition to Bush bailout plan one poll showed that 45% of Americans disapproved of bailing out Wall Street, compared to only 30% who approved of it. Things haven’t changed much in that regard during the Obama administration. In general, the Obama administration continued with very much the same policies as the Bush administration on this issue, despite dire warnings from moderately progressive economists, including James Galbraith, Robert Reich, Dean Baker, Paul Krugman, and Joseph Stiglitz. What Stiglitz had to say about it was typical of many others:

The U.S. government plan to rid banks of toxic assets will rob American taxpayers by exposing them to too much risk and is unlikely to work as long as the economy remains weak…. The U.S. government is basically using the taxpayer to guarantee against downside risk on the value of these assets, while giving the upside, or potential profits, to private investors… Quite frankly, this amounts to robbery of the American people. I don't think it's going to work…

But despite what so many knowledgeable economists warned about it, and what the American people thought about it, both Congressional Democrats and Republicans went ahead with plans to bailout Wall Street at the expense of the American taxpayer, under both the Bush and Obama administrations, in both cases with the full backing of the president.

It should not be surprising, then, that a poll on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s handling of the situation was rated poor (42%) or fair (22%) by 64% of the American people, compared to only 20% who rated Geithner’s performance good or excellent.

The Democratic Party on health care
When Barack Obama campaigned to be the Democratic nominee for President in 2008, he advocated a national health care plan in which all Americans would have the opportunity to purchase affordable (through government subsidies) government health care insurance that is “similar to the plan available to members of Congress” (also known as the “public option”). For whatever reason, that idea has long been swept under the rug and replaced with proposed legislation in which such a plan would be available only to most Americans who could not obtain health insurance through their jobs, and in which everyone else would be obligated to purchase private health insurance. And even with 60 Democratic Senators it is far from certain that Congress will be able to accomplish even that amount health care reform.

The reason for this predicament is elucidated by a statistical analysis by Nate Silver. That analysis identified financial contributions from the private health care insurance industry as a major factor in determining the willingness of U.S. Senators to vote for a robust public option – one which would create substantial competition for the private health insurance industry.

The American public on health care
The rejection by substantial elements of the Democratic Party of a robust public option for health care insurance for all Americans is at odds with the wishes of most Americans – wishes that played a major part in the widespread rejection of the Republican Party at the polls in 2006 and 2008.

Most important, when Americans are asked whether they favor such a plan in a manner that accurately reflects what the plan really is, 77% say that it is either “extremely” or “quite important” “to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance”. So widespread is that attitude that even 71% of Republicans adhere to it. Other polls show that Americans favor such a plan by a two to one margin when it is phrased as universal health care or “Medicare for all”. And polling of insurance plan enrollees shows that those with Medicare report far fewer problems than those with private health insurance plans.

So how does the corporatocracy and its supporters in Congress fool so many people into believing that the public option is unpopular? They call it bad names and they lie about it: They call it government run health care – which it is not. They say that it will prevent people from choosing their own doctors – which it will not. They say that the plan uses “death panels” that will decide whether people live or die – which it most certainly does not. They phrase poll questions to ignore the fact that the public option is an option – meaning that it involves a choice. And they call it socialism – which it partially is, but so what?

And since Medicare is so popular with the American people, they try to hide the fact that the public option is just another way of saying “Medicare for anyone who wants it”. So successfully have they confused this issue that 39% of Americans (including 62% of Republicans) say that they want the government to keep their hands off of Medicare – a government run program.


CONCLUSION – THE GAP BETWEEN THE AMERICAN PUBLIC AND THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES

Thus it is that a large enough number of our elected representatives in the Democratic Party have been so influenced by corporate interests that after American voters replaced overwhelming numbers of Congressional Republicans with Democrats in 2006 and 2008, Congress continues to remain much more attuned to the interests of corporations than to the interests of the American people.

The American people have become thoroughly alienated from the corporate elite who so affect their lives, as demonstrated by a 2007 Harris poll asking which industries Americans regarded as “generally honest and trustworthy”: Oil companies 3%; health insurance companies 7%; telephone companies 10%; pharmaceutical companies 11%; electric and gas utilities 15%.

Therefore, those of our elected representatives who support corporate interests at the expense of ordinary Americans do so in the hope that they will be able to use the money heaped on them by corporations to shower the American people with enough propaganda to obscure what they do and who they are. Those who remain faithful to the people they were elected to serve must do what they can to get the American people to see the truth behind the corporate propaganda, and they must hope that their reputation is not so smeared by the corporate controlled media that American voters are fooled into voting against them. Many pursue elements of both of these strategies.

So which is the better political strategy? I can’t prove it, but I believe that most of the information discussed above points to the failure of the Democratic Party to do what most Americans elected them to do as THE most important reason for the declining political fortunes of the Democratic Party since their historic election victory in 2008.

With the rapidly increasing popularity of the Internet as a source of news, our elected representatives who desire to serve the interests of their constituents have increasing means of going around the corporate media to get the truth out to the American people. Alan Grayson (D-FL) recently showed how such a strategy can be used to great effect to change the nature of the debate on an issue of great importance to the American people:

Many of us already knew that Alan Grayson was a fearless champion against the rich and powerful. His notoriety this week for comments about the Republican plan for health care therefore did not come as a shock. His floor speech and his unwillingness to back down afterward have set a new standard for how Democrats deal with Republican hissy fits, where they get all offended by some comment and demand an apology and ritual humiliation. Their goal is to control the narrative and put any Democratic use of moral language out of the bounds of acceptable political debate…

Grayson DEMOLISHED this tactic. And he did so by continuing to tell the truth and never backing down. And by the end of the week, many were joining him. Yes, they said: why does the GOP have no plan for health care? Why have they allowed thousands to die for a lack of coverage for years without articulating any strategy to deal with the crisis?...
In a second, this has become the narrative of the week on health care. And Alan Grayson led the way. He just might lead the Congress to a better bill.

[jpak]

1. All I see are red lines dropping from 30 to 22% - sounds like it's the GOP that's in the shitcan

just sayin'

[Jim Sagle]

3. You don't see the blue line dropping from 39 to 33?

[Time for change]

7. It was after the period indicated on the graph (April 09) that

the percentage of Americans who identified themselves as Republicans really began to rise.

[gratuitous]

2. Republicans are behind in fundraising again

And I don't think they can look to their usual sugar daddies to bail them out. The inevitable result of their ruinous economic policies has hurt their donors a lot more than the typical Democratic donors. Republicans will have to make a lot of money appear out of nowhere in the next 6-8 months if they're going to make serious gains in the House. Also, as long as the Republicans are in thrall to the tea-baggers and their ideological purity drive, qualified candidates had better check their brains at the door of the registration office.

I don't think more than a dozen seats will change hands, and Democratic losses are going to be more along the lines of Creigh Deeds in Virginia, who lost because he ran away from Democratic policies and programs.

[tekisui]

4. Those are really interesting numbers.

The repukes are dying. And, the Dems are following.

Over a third call themselves Indys. 2010 and 2012 will be a about voter turnout, who can better mobilize and sway the indys.

I see a lot of people losing trust in the parties.

[Jackpine Radical]

13. The conventional political wisdom usually portrays the independents

as being in the middle. The Dems keep thinking they have to move right to capture the centrists. In fact, I think a whole lot of the new independents are pissed-off and disillusioned leftists who no longer see the rightward-trending Democrats as having relevance to them. As T4C notes, Grayson is showing the way. Hell, so did Feingold, whose courage and independence pulled him 10 points ahead of Kerry in 2004. There were lawns with both Bush and Feingold signs in Wisconsin, and if you asked the property owners what they were thinking, they'd talk about Feingold's honesty. "I don't agree with Russ on a lot of things, but I trust him."

Democrats have to move to the left and give up their corporate tit. They need to stand up for the interests of the average American. The average American will reward them for it.

[tekisui]

15. You nailed it.

Russ makes it impossible for someone to say, "they can't see the difference in the parties".

[Rosa Luxemburg]

19. Dems are too busy worrying what the GOP thinks

should focus on policies for the people.

[Scruffy1]

96. Yes-and the blogosphere too

Way too much about nut jobs like Sarah Palin etc. Nobody cares what they think. Half of the news on the internet is about these whackos and I think the Obama administraton is running from their paper tiger. what the people always want is leadership and I don't see a hell of a lot of it coming out of Washington. Compare it to Will Rogers famous monologue about the Congress just passing any bill that FDR sends down to Congress. We must start ignoring the republican Party and see it for what it is-just a corporate front group that owns a bunch of senators in backward states. Fuck 'em. Drive on by.

[emmadoggy]

46. Spot on. I completely agree with that assessment.

:thumbsup:

[tomp]

55. we need the graph that shows left vs right independents.

my intuition is that there are enough leftists to disrupt the plans of the democratic party to remain corporate.

kucinich 2012!

nobama, no way!

[elocs]

57. Tommy Thompson notwithstanding, I think Feingold will remain a senator here in WI

for as long as he runs. I know Republicans here who look at Feingold like they did with Bill Proxmire--he's a Democrat but they trust him because he has the courage of his convictions.

[Jackpine Radical]

65. Yes, exactly.

Some people say cheeseheads are unique in the way they look at politicians, but I don't believe that.

[TheBigotBasher]

5. Two issues are causing this

The Democratic Party can not deliver its agenda because a tiny minority of Senators can hold the Party to ransom as a result of the need for 60 votes.

The failure to deliver that agenda means that people will blame the Democratic Party.

Blue Dogs - it is your seats that go.

[elocs]

6. Remember the line from "Eve of Destruction":

"Handful of senators don’t pass legislation".

[TheBigotBasher]

10. A handful may not pass it

but they can block it. As Blue Dogs have learnt, it only takes one.

[bobbolink]

8. Yet, a simple majority, as I understand it, can change that rule.

Yet, they don't

[avaistheone1]

20. That is a fact.

Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate; now what's going to happen to us with both a Senate and a House?
-Will Rogers
As quoted in Dreams Come Due : Government and Economics as If Freedom Mattered (1986) by John Galt, p. 235

[GinaMaria]

39. Do you believe that Rome declined because of the Senate?

The senate was the only semblance of democracy left when the emperors rose to power. The senate and the imperial family were often at odds. So many factors contributed to the decline and eventual fall of Rome. The senate was corrupt but so was the military to a degree and the Caesars as well. It's difficult to look at one slice of Roman society and lay the blame at their feet with so many different factors playing a part.

[AlbertCat]

62. Do you believe that Rome declined because of the Senate?

Do you know who Will Rogers was?

Jeez! :eyes:

[Jackpine Radical]

67. Thanks.

I was trying to figure out some sensible way to respond. I think you found it.

I wonder if that crack about "organized party" would have provoked a lecture about the DNC or something.

[bobbolink]

9. Thank you for posting this.... much food for thought, for those willing to think.

I had thought about posting.....asking what our plans are for ensuring a victory next year, rather than letting it slide.

But, I realzed that I'd just get slammed by the cheerleading squad here, so I figured it wasn't a battle I wanted to pick.

I hope many think about what you've posted, and chose to get busy with reaching out to those outside of our usual realm. Not to mention, to stop attacking those of us who see things differently, so are told our votes aren't wanted or needed.

Thank you.

[Time for change]

16. You're welcome -- I think it's time that we think hard about finding progressive replacements

for many of the blue dogs.

I should have mentioned this in the OP, but just look at the 6 tossup Democratic seats in the Senate for 2010: Lincoln, Bennet, Reid, Specter, Dodd, and an open seat in Delaware. Other than Dodd, the rest of them aren't exactly near the liberal end of the party. And I think that Dodd's in trouble because of his support for the Wall St. bailout.

[Raster]

75. Excellent analysis, TFC. The Dems waning fortunes are NOT because they are not centrist enough,

it's because they are too centrist, and too conscious of straddling the line to really stand for something. And unfortunately, the Dems will take the hit for the Wall Street Payoff... er, Bailout. And let's look at the health care fiasco: a veritable give-away to the very soulless, bloodsucking vampires we needed to reform.

Right or wrong, the Dems are being viewed as just as bad as the rethuglicans. We have no high ground to mount. Joe and Jane America are starting to come to the sad realization that there may well be two political parties, but they both feed at the same trough and by the same hand. Die-hard Dem apologists are quick to point out the party's storied accomplishments from years back as proof we are better than the 'thugs. But in today's political climate it's "what have you done for me lately?" And unfortunately the answer is NOT MUCH.

[defendandprotect]

92. Meanwhile, I've heard that Rahm Emmanuel is still hatching little blue eggs . . .

soliciting conservative "Dems" to run against even moderate/liberal Dems ...!!

[bobbolink]

105. You're right, of course... except that its PAST time. However, I was thinking about more than that

Look around DU, and look at the people who dismiss those of us with a different view, and have let us know that our votes are not needed or wanted. Just how is that going to affect the election? Do we really want that kind of exclusionism?

Then look at the lack of concern for poverty. That is a very large voting block, and if you want better results in '10, you best start reaching out to poor folk NOW and understand our needs, and start working in OUR interest also.

Then there is the wholesale dismissal of the angry people on the right. They are angry about the same things, but haven't had the help to connect their feelings to the actual cause. Its true that many of them are unreachable, but its also true that many ARE reachable, but they won't be reachable with the current atmosphere of derision.

It is in our hands, and as of now, if we BEGIN now in earnest, we CAN reach out to those who are disaffected, and it will mean much better election results.

But I have the sad feeling that anything I or anyone else will say about this will be dismissed until it is, once again, too late.

Dems, time to do some real soul-searching and decide who the party REALLY represents.

[Jackpine Radical]

11. You have an uncanny knack for articulating my thoughts.

Right down the line.

Thank you for another outstanding piece.

[Time for change]

48. Thank you -- That's very interesting what you had to say about the

Bush/Feingold voters. The Democratic Party ought to take note that Feingold holds one of the safest seats in the Senate, and it's mostly blue dogs who are in trouble.

[ChiciB1]

74. You Know, Many Of Us Democrats Have Been Saying Things Like This For

a very long time, only to get slammed for our leftist leanings. And I can attest that it IS true that Democrats are switching to Indys because of how The CURRENT Democratic Party has failed us. I know friends and family who have decided to do this, even I have entertained the idea more than once.

And dare I say, even Obama doesn't seem to want to take the bull by the horns! I don't WANT to say these things, I wanted better and have waited to see some CHANGE! Just haven't seen much yet and really wonder IF it will happen. So many of us worked so hard to get Democrats elected and busted butt to get Obama elected, and now so many feel duped and betrayed.

Even here on DU, those of us who have the same feelings mentioned in the OP have basically been spit upon. I'm sure many of you know what I'm talking about too because you've probably been attacked at some time like I have been.

Monopoly is a word that often comes to mind for me... this country is being controlled by too many big Corporations, Insurance Companies and all the usual suspects. I think it was just yesterday that C-Span had a discussion about WalMart and it's overwhelming influence on this country and even other countries. Sure they did a "little" clean up work, but for the most part they are a MACHINE that keeps gobbling up more and more. A person could go on about this subject for days, but I use it only as an example.

How we get back to basics in this country is a question far too many of us ask. We may know the answer of what is needed, but trying to take on "our rulers" is a task that seems all but impossible. I sure don't know where to turn. I've been an activist, I've worked hard to stay involved (up until recently) but we have no UNITY even here at DU! Too many of us have done what was asked of us over and over and still our Representatives turn a blind eye!! The thought of even a Democrat getting elected where I live is laughable, but maybe with the rise of Indys it could get a little better, I don't even know anymore!

Perhaps it will just end up with "dog eat dog" and the winner comes out on top, RIGHT OR WRONG!!

It's all too sad and actually unnecessary... but the beat goes on!

[closeupready]

12. K&R

But I don't think language like this hits the mark - the problem is corruption - that is, they don't CARE what their constituents want or need. But K&R anyway. :)

[Jakes Progress]

14. The republicans are going the wrong way, and we are chasing them.

Regardless of what was and wasn't said during the campaigns and regardless of what the pundits in the circle say, the last election was about people being fed up with what and who they had in Washington.

Those of us who spent time in living rooms and kitchens of undecided voters last year trying to get Obama elected know that it wasn't what he said or promised. It was the way he said it and what he stood for. America, founded on and financed by slavery, elected a black president as a way to show it wanted a real change, not rhetoric and diddling about the edges. Just as the OP states, the people in Washington of both parties do not represent what the country wants. The very stupidest thing that the Democratic party can do is run to the right, chasing the dying ideas of a dying party.

[avaistheone1]

21. Applause for what you said

[pokercat999]

29. And yet, as of this place in time, all we have gotten is

diddling around the edges. A good example is the latest rules governing lobbyists being removed from panels. A weak start to one of our worst problems.
How about a vote by vote comparison to the amount said congressperson received from the concerned industry or entity? How about forbidding paid lobbyists access to the government, period.

How about something just about ALL the normal citizens want?

The real problem is that our government, on both sides of the isle, no longer represents the interests of the people. The differences between the MAJORITY of Americans is not that great, but it does not serve the interests of the powers that be to see us come together. Whatever drives us apart is good for the elites, whenever we band together they lose.

The real question then is how do we bring the center left and the center right together to defeat both democrats and republicans that only vote their own personal interests? I think Candidate Obama had the answers in that he won the center left and right vote, President Obama, in governing, has reverted to kind and is allowing the bad actors take over his government.

[CrispyQ]

50. Spot on!

"The very stupidest thing that the Democratic party can do is run to the right, chasing the dying ideas of a dying party."

I'm sorry to say that it looks like they are being stupid about this.

[cecilfirefox]

17. I am very nervous about 2010. I'm hoping however many seats we loose in the House we can still

maintain a majority. If so I hope the popularity of the President can bring us back up in the 2012 election.

[defendandprotect]

18. "Impossible to say why Democratic Party has lost so much political ground,,,,

since November 2008."

I think Obama made it clear when he chose economic advisers and eloped into the

White House with Rahm Emmanuel.

Voters may not all have know who he is what DLC is -- but they've gotten the message

since then.

Also, the failure to move to create universal health care for all -- MEDICARE FOR ALL --

IMO is huge in the drop in support.

Will liberals/progressives be there for Obama when he needs us again?

I hope we keep fighting to rid the part of DLC and DINO's and Blue Dogs -- and I hope

we all come together strongly enough to make it damned clear to Democrats that we mean

business!!

[cadaverdog]

56. Amen to your comment about Rahm Emanuel

I see his heavy thumb print on so many of the decisions by the administration that have absolutely shocked me. It's almost as though Obama is in love with the "idea" of being President, rather than actually leading as President. Why does it seem like he is walking on egg shells, when he should be marching straight through the Republicans and Conservatives and showing us the way to a better America?

[Greyhound]

22. Auto K&R and OMFG.

Which way will they go? Personal attacks or blanket denial?

How many times does it take before they learn that you have to stand for something?

Are they really dumb enough to count on a Palin (or someone equally ridiculous) candidacy to slime into a second term? Maybe the republiks are dumb enough to do that, but staking your future on the other guy's idiocy isn't exactly "Grand Master" chess.

[Time for change]

95. I think that the idea that they have to stand for something has not penetrated into the minds

of very many Congresspersons, including Democrats

[Greyhound]

103. It's the only thing the republiks have in their favor and they've had it for my whole life.

They are the party of bad ideas, but they do stand up for them.

I seem to remember that once-upon-a-time the Democratic Party had some good ideas that they stood for, too. Too bad that so many republiks decided it was easier to corrupt the other party than to fight for their own.
:kick:

[natrat]

23. this by design-complete corruption

[diva77]

24. and there's election fraud - we no longer have proof that any given

election results are valid - recall Jonathan Simon's article addressing the 2006 elections.
http://electiondefensealliance.org/landslide_denied_exit_polls_vs_vote_count_2006

We are in a catch 22 situation where officeholders are not accountable to the voters but in order to achieve transparent elections, elected officials must take action to return to transparent elections -- which they are unwilling to do ...

If we want to narrow the gap between the Dem Party and public interest, rampant election fraud is the huge elephant in the living room that must be dealt with...

[BR_Parkway]

25. Democrats lose when they act like Republicans - I don't know why

that's so hard for those in DC to grasp.

If we wanted Republicans in Congress/White House - we'd vote for them in the first place.

[Jackpine Radical]

85. Harry Truman nailed it 60 years ago.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time."

[Vidar]

120. Thanks for the quote.

[eridani]

26. We may not lose badly if the Repubs keep on being such jackasses

However, it would still be a major mistake to count on that.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

43. Right

We cant count on the Republicans losing it, we have to count on the Democrats winning it. They arent going to do it by becoming Republicans.

[ChiciB1]

76. Well A Couple Of "Two Cents" Here... Repukes Can Keep Acting Like They

are, it's the Democrats that are bringing us down! Most Democrats aren't standing up for "we the people" like Democrats USED TO DO!

They too have their hands out and have gotten their palms greased with too much green. They want to keep it that way, so unless WE can figure out some way to OVER THROW them, it doesn't make any difference if they're Democrats.

This country has overcome many hard times and made changes to get back on course. Right now I think the Repukes & Democrats think the people of America will eat all the crow they feed us! What I've been hearing more and more is... THIRD PARTY, many want a THIRD PARTY! Perhaps we just might need to figure out some way to make it happen! We can't seem to get the current bunch in D.C. to listen to us. As as life long Democrat it's hard to make that decision, but I also want to know that the person I voted for actually cares about THE PEOPLE!

I suppose there is the possibility that there WILL be some kind of uprising, I don't know. I DO KNOW we can't go on like this because we do so at our own peril! Ominous sounding I'm sure, but what other answer is there??

[defendandprotect]

91. The vote won't be as large for the mid-year which will hurt Dems ... but

it would be nice to see GOP get even further behind with the numbers . . .

That's the way it should be --

but, unless we hear MEDICARE FOR ALL coming from Obama's lips, it's doubtful!!

[jaysunb]

27. 10 months to clean up 8 years of shit....

:shrug:

[FedUp_Queer]

73. That's really getting old.

Here's why: He's not even trying to clean up the shit...that's the point here. He's put the people who caused the mess (Wall Street in the person of Geithner and Summers and Emmanuel) in charge of "fixing" it. That's the point. He has backtracked on health care (what we get will likely be weak and little if any improvement what we have now); he has backtracked on Military Commissions; he has backtracked on DADT and DOMA; he has created and expanded his own little Gitmo (now called Bagram and now in Afghanistan). If Obama were actually taking steps to "clean up 8 years of shit" people would not be complaining. The point is, in many ways, he's not, and the biggest sign that it was business as usual on monetary, fiscal and regulatory policy was the appointment of Emmanuel, Summers and Geithner.

[defendandprotect]

93. Right ... and Emmanuel, Geithner and Summers happened immediately . ..

so immediately the administration eloped with the very people who caused the mess -- crimes!

[Tesha]

113. No! Ten months to at least give the impression that the cleanup is underway.

And right now, it ain't! If anything, we're just getting more of the
same old shit handed to us and told it's caviar.

Tesha

[glowing]

28. That doesn't mean people want to elect a Puke.. Many of these Dems that

are holding up progress are the blue dogs.. conservadems.. who are essentially republicans as far as I can tell. I think 2010 is our best chance to run progressive candidates who aren't beholden to Wallstreet and the Banksters. Pres. Obama would be able to do more with progressive members in the houses.. then he wouldn't have to coddle and pretend at this by-partisan crap.. and we wouldn't have to swallow really bad bills like this health care or rather insurance give-a-way.

[pokercat999]

30. President Obama, please follow Rep. Grayson's lead and

expose the federal government for what it actually has become. You would be the most hated man in Washington DC but, you could become the most loved President in US history.

America elected you expecting one thing above all others........the complete and unadulterated truth, in all that you do and in all that you tell us.

[spanone]

31. b u l l s h i t....media wishful thinking

[mod mom]

32. 2010 Congressional elections-definitely vote, probably vote, not likely vote, or definitely not vote

QUESTION: In the 2010 Congressional elections will you definitely vote, probably vote, not likely vote, or definitely will not vote?
The results were, to put it mildly, shocking:
Voter Intensity: Definitely + Probably Voting/Not Likely + Not Voting
Republican Voters: 81/14
Independent Voters: 65/23
DEMOCRATIC VOTERS: 56/40

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 11/22/2009-11/25/2009. All adults. MoE 2% (Last weeks results in parentheses

THE FOLKS WHO VOTED FOR CHANGE ARE PISSED BY THE LACK OF IT!

[natrat]

35. exactly, how could you vote for people with a fraud like obama at the top

[Time for change]

98. Wow! Those are amazing statistics

The Democratic Party better take note.

[on point]

33. Money to Real democrats; not the party

I think one of the ways to rid ourselves of the blue dogs, DLC, corporate whores and other DINOsores is to give money ONLY to candidates and NONE to the democratic party.

If we give it to the party, they will spread it around. Instead we should give, and give generously, to candidates. Let the DINOsores see that those who stand with and for the people get large and immediate donations, while those who sell out get nothing.

I am already practicing this and have given money for instance to Grayson and others.

[DontTreadOnMe]

34. very good suggestion

ONLY donate directly to the candidates you support.

[natrat]

36. the concentration of wealth is now so extreme that they get money regardless

it's bad and not turning around and no one is lifting a finger to reverse the course

[Jackpine Radical]

86. I'm not sure money converts into votes as readily as it used to.

People aren't necessarily voting the way the commercials tell them to anymore.

Take me, for example. I spend hours every day online, and less than an hour a month watching anything on a TV set. You could spend a billion on TV ads in "my" media market and miss me entirely.

[Jackpine Radical]

54. I have done exactly the same thing, sent money to Grayson, and

I've been advocating sending the following note to the DSCC and DCCC:

IOU $100
Payable upon passage of Health Care legislation
that incorporates a Medicare+15%,
universally accessible Public Option
<Signed>
Jackpine Radical

[ChiciB1]

79. Jackpine, That's A Great Note To Send! I Just Tell Them I Won't Donate Now

but that's not enough! We should ALL write a note to the DSCC & DCCC! Still I'm not sure it will work, but they might "look" at it!

They seem able to get enough money from others now, so it's a gamble!

[Time for change]

97. That's the way it has to be

Who would want to contribute money to Dems who obstruct progressive legislation.

[soryang]

37. Wait till the 500 billion in medicare cuts kick in

Wait till the huge increases in medicare advantage premiums arrive in the mailbox. I predict that the elder population either will not vote at all or will vote republican out of anger.

[OnyxCollie]

38. K&R. nt

[Unvanguard]

40. The explanation is much simpler: it's unemployment and the economy.

The bailouts would be forgiven if it weren't for that. And if the public option were as salient as you make it out to be, people would be supporting Obama's health care plan by larger margins. The problem is that the Republicans have successfully shifted the debate to certain emotional attitudes--"We're spending too much", "It's a government takeover", "They'll cut off your grandmother"--rather than rational policy engagement; the public actually supports most elements of Obama's health care plan, in abstract, while (slightly) opposing it as a package...

[leveymg]

41. THE LESSON OF VA: Whichever party better mobilizes its base to turn out is going to win

The Democratic candidate ran to the Right of Obama, pledging to Opt-out of the Public Option, if enacted. The Bluedog-controlled Senate Finance Committee was drafting a weak Bill. The result: the Progressive Democratic base didn't turn out the vote. Deeds lost 60/40 - a near-historic margin.

[natrat]

42. please, you think it's that simple? you think it has nothing to do with national politics?

please, people are not stupid --they see a bullshit scam and want no part of it

[leveymg]

45. Mishandling of HCR is the major reason Deeds was trounced. Nat'l politics is at the heart of it.

[NorthCarolina]

44. I am hoping that it is only the Conservative DLC and Blue Dog Democrats that need to worry

about 2010. Could it be that folks are finally waking up to the fact that the Democratic Party has been co-opted by rampant Corporate friendly Republicanism, and have decided to seek out and vote for progressive Democratic candidates in a effort to return the party to being an advocate of the people? Image what the return of an *actual* two-party system could do for America. Either that, or maybe we will see Palin/Beck triumphant in 2012.

[WilliamPitt]

47. Disagree

The Dems have to retain 9 Senate seats to keep control, and they are safe in 11. The GOP has to run the table on 30.

Plus, the Dems are out-raising the GOP by more than 3-1.

[Time for change]

49. I didn't say that Democrats are in danger of losing the Senate

I suggested that they're likely to lose a couple of seats. But with a nearly equal Congressional generic ballot, they seem to stand a good chance of losing the House if the economy doesn't improve and if they don't get their act together.

[WilliamPitt]

51. The numbers are indeed worse in the House

but I think we run a far greater risk of having our majority margin shrink instead of losing it outright. The fundraising numbers I indicated will help ease the damage.

We shall see.

[Jackpine Radical]

52. Jeez, Will. Moving the Blue Dogs to the Right column, where they actually belong,

we don't have a majority in the Senate NOW.

[WilliamPitt]

53. Separate issue

But you're not wrong.

[notesdev]

63. That would imply

moving the Democrats to the minority... do we really belong there?

Sure, it's a lot easier, no real responsibility, but I'm not sure I like the idea of leaving Republicans in control.

[Jackpine Radical]

64. No, we don't BELONG in the minority. But that's where we are.

"We," of course, being the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

[notesdev]

66. I would say we wouldn't and shouldn't be

if we stand up and refuse to let the elite class hijack our support for a more egalitarian society, we could build a genuine majority.

But Nancy Plasticity has other ideas, I wager.

I think we need a law that says if your net assets qualify you as among the top 1% wealth holders in the country that should bar eligibility from office. It really has come down to Them vs. Us.

IMO it's time Them learned there are a hell of a lot more of Us out there.

[cecilfirefox]

102. I concur here, but there is a problem.

The places in the House we've made large gains in are in more or less republican leaning/republican districts. If the people here at DU had their way and all the conservative Dems(teh humanity!) and Blue Dogs were not in the house after 2010 we could very well loose the House. I suspect, like you've alluded to, we'll loose seats but whether or not we loose the House is another matter all together. As a citizen though and a Democrat I will say that I am kinda wanting to see results now to. :/ All good things for those that wait I suppose.

[LongTomH]

58. Excellent post, Sir!

You - and many of the respondents made some very good points! The Democratic party really needs to return to its role as "The Party of the Common People."

I would recommend that everyone follow the link to the article by Prof. Paul Krugman. Prof. Krugman explodes much of the recent 'conventional wisdom' about the causes and effects of economic inequality in the United States.

[Jackpine Radical]

69. Thanks for the Krugman piece.

It would be interesting to see an update of his numbers from 2001.

[Time for change]

99. Thank you -- Krugman is a gem

Here's what he had to say about the health care debate:

The central fact of modern American political life is the control of the Republican Party by movement conservatives, whose vision of what America should be is completely antithetical to that of the progressive movement. Because of that control, the notion, beloved by political pundits, that we can make progress through bipartisan consensus is simply foolish. On health care reform, which is the first domestic priority for progressives, there’s no way to achieve a bipartisan compromise between Republicans who want to strangle Medicare and Democrats who want guaranteed health insurance for all. When a health care reform plan is actually presented to Congress, the leaders of movement conservatism will do what they did in 1993 – urge Republicans to oppose the plan in any form, lest successful health reform undermine the movement conservative agenda…

To be a progressive, then, means being partisan – at least for now. The only way a progressive agenda can be enacted is if Democrats have both the presidency and a large enough majority in Congress to overcome Republican opposition. And achieving that kind of political preponderance will require leadership that makes opponents of the progressive agenda pay a political price for their obstructionism – leadership that, like FDR, welcomes the hatred of the interest groups trying to prevent us from making our society better.

[MarinCoUSA]

59. Thank you for the post T4C. Dem wing of Dem Party needs to take over

...hoping BHO has a progressive instinct. Until the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party takes over why the bother to vote- especially true for indies.

[wisteria]

60. So all our President has to do is listen to you and Krugman and our numbers will skyrocket?

Honestly, I think some of the Democrats slight decline in numbers has to do with the way the Repubs were able to frame the health care issue and the bailouts. It is difficult to get important issues accomplished without losing some support initially. Our numbers will improve before 2010.

[Overseas]

72. I'd say yes to that. Our numbers would improve dramatically, if not skyrocket.

Strong Democrats standing up for the people, even at the expense of losing corporate campaign donations (aka legal bribery)? Yes, I think that would be very popular.

[placton]

61. Dems are not gonna vote for this shit in '10 and '12

but hey, why worry?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7103611

[Overseas]

68. K&R. My naive optimism has been battered many times.

Naive just because I always seem to think that ensuring their eternal popularity with voters will trump the power of "campaign contributions" (aka legal bribery) among Democratic legislators.

Democrats who were determined to show how modern they were by supporting less regulated international trade back in the 90's could have said they needed to pass national health insurance to even the playing field with most of our industrialized competitors. They told us how much of the price of US car was for health benefits as a means to push US unions to reduce their benefits, instead of comparing that to how much of the price of a Japanese or German car was for health benefits, when they had government subsidized health insurance. I just couldn't understand why the US Chamber of Commerce wouldn't be pushing for national health insurance too; I thought they were supposed to support our businesses in the global market and our competitors had national health insurance. But they were focused more on lowering US workers' pay and benefits in general than helping our businesses compete internationally with countries that had retained enough basic compassion to give their citizens (and resident aliens) government-subsidized health care.

My naive "Democrats are supposed to care about the people" led me to hope they would step up with national health insurance during the Clinton era because we had been hurt already by the Merger & Acquisition fury of the 80's, a.k.a. "Morning in America" in which tons of US manufacturing jobs were eliminated. Jobs with benefits were outsourced to countries with lower wages and fewer benefits. In times of such brutal economic upheaval, I counted on the Democrats to give the displaced workers a basic safety net like Medicare for all. It could have been justified so easily and righteously.

And if corporate power was too strong back then too, Democrats knew that stuff about "half a loaf is better than none" and "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" last time. They knew the slow course of getting Medicare for all in Canada then too. But it was a perfect cover-- "We wanted All or Nothing. And we got nothing." It was a convenient defeat that could be used to weaken all kinds of future legislation if Democrats wanted to help suffering citizens instead of the Multinational Superpeople our corporations had become. Hey fellas, you gotta take what you can get. Remember, you lost national health insurance by wanting too much.

Flash forward past turbulent campaign 2000 because there is far too much to discuss there. Tsunami with lots of aftershocks of capitulation by merciless pro-corporate legislators that let the Kennebunkport Cowboy and Cruel Supply-sider Cheeney (eager to roll out the war profiteering he'd been planning since serving as Secretary of Defense for George H.W. Bush) be foisted upon us by The Supreme Court. Helped along by clever news-chat about what a dork Al Gore was, and how he wouldn't be fun to have a beer with. Devastating national history to have lived through.

Flash forward to the Alito nomination to see another time when the naive optimist fires flared as we thought Harry Reid was really going to filibuster the nomination! Alito was such an extreme right winger, so totally partisan, that he was a ridiculous appointment. We were so excited that Harry was going to filibuster it. We were talking about good ol' Harry the Boxer. But no, the GOP came up with some kind of Nuclear Option that "wiry but tough" Harry just had to avoid. Apparently, poisoning the Supreme Court with a right wing lifetime seat was less terrifying to my Democrats than the GOP's Nuclear Option against filibustering. That was a great victory for the GOP and a major penalty for the USA for decades to come.

My naive optimism led me to hope time and again that the Democrats would force the GOP to do the full filibuster-- Go ahead and read the phone book to filibuster important legislation to help a majority of our citizens! Yes please, my dear Democrats, let the US public see the GOP actively obstructing legislation, I thought. But no. All the GOP had to do was threaten to Use The Nuclear Option and that was enough. So the GOP has been able to rack up over 80 filibusters, just with little threats. I believe the number was 89 at last count.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch of Power Politics, who looks tough and who looks wimpy? If the cynical Washington Beltway view is that most Americans don't know much about the issues, and that's why they had preferred The Beer Guy over The Geek, why were the Democrats giving in so easily to the GOP? Wouldn't a public enamored of style over substance want to back a strong Democratic party, standing tall in support of the people, instead of wimpy compromisers?

The 9/11 attacks had let the fear mongers really take charge and run waves of frightening propaganda, forcing through all kinds of unconstitutional legislation in the emergency shocks, and crossing previously inviolable ethical boundaries like the Geneva Conventions and No First Strike. Fear made it happen. Shock & Awe, branded as such. Fear kept it going. Terror alerts. Ever stricter inspections at airports. Pro-torture TV drama too. So you had a largely terrified populace. Who would they choose in times of fear? The Tough Guys who hang together as a block, or the wimps who talked tough then compromised at every turn?

Then came election 2004. GOP-friendly companies' electronic voting systems were allowed in. No Democratic filibusters in favor of paper ballots that could be audited and recounted afterward. No walk outs in favor of fair elections. Plus lots of old-fashioned election manipulation by the GOP to cloud the waters-- catch one instance of robocalls giving false instructions in Democratic districts and you were brushed aside with "those few hundred votes won't affect the outcome." Catch another and get the same story. Demonstrate on TV how easily computerized voter rolls could be hacked into and be waved away with "we'd never let that happen in America." Even though our legislators actually had let that happen.

My naive optimism was further tarnished by having our reports from the field, of hundreds of instances of election manipulation, brushed aside by many leaders in the remaining liberal press too. We were treated to lots of twisted logic to explain away the apparent preference of the American people for an administration that lied the country into war, never caught Bin Laden, couldn't provide armor for its own troops, and practiced torture on a broad scale. I was actually hearing discussions on TV news-chat shows about how the exit polls, by which we judged the accuracy of elections in other countries, had failed in this one instance. That was painful and remains so. We have not dismantled the electronic voting machine systems. So the 2004 formula could be used again, and it was, on a "too close to call" small scale, in subsequent elections. Distract voters with petty election manipulation like outrageous smear ads, robocals and fliers misdirecting voters, and uneven distribution of voting machines, then use a bit of electronic action to move things ever so slightly in favor of the GOP. It will be more difficult in 2010 with GOP popularity at an all-time low, but the Baffling Independents can be used to gloss over the disparities. "Guess those Independents are just wary about enlarging the size of government," may be the preordained TV news chat topic for 2010.

With the election of President Obama, to clean up the abuses of Bush Gang Rule because they had so diminished our position as a global superpower, my naive optimism has been directed to focus on the "He's Playing Chess" idea.

So I thought the "chess" thing with healthcare, having let things get so far from the most pragmatic solution (Medicare for All who want it as the public option), was to expose the GOP and right wing's willingness to go to dangerous extremes to protect the private profits of the health insurance industry. Once the public had seen all that fake grass roots town hall storming, and a few courageous liberal reporters had exposed its health insurance industry financing, the Democrats could have stood tall, outraged at the lengths to which the insurance companies had gone to protect their soaring private profits. Private health insurance giants had been willing pay amoral right wing PR groups to stir up dangerous fear, hatred and gun-toting in desperate populations. Enough was enough. Democrats had invited the GOP to debate the issue and they'd just pursued a fear-mongering campaign. So surely, after that ridiculous summer spectacle, in which even senior senators like Grassley crept in to warn of pulling the plug on Grandma, the Democrats would stand tall and say-- OK boys, you've shown your true colors. You aren't interested in a real debate. Conservative economic principles say competition is key, so we're making the public option Medicare for All, because an industry that's been exempted from antitrust regulation for decades needs that competition. We all know that; without competition the privatized health insurance business has increased its profits by 428% at the expense of our citizens' national health security. The triggers of decency have been blown off their hinges already. "Die quickly," is not an option. We've tried that already-- 44,000 of our citizens die early every year right now.

But no. No chess. Where's the chess? I was waiting for the chess. Instead I heard that we had to slash the legislation even more to grovel for a 1 or 2 percent bipartisan bill.

Okay, so the chess isn't here yet. And no Democratic push to make the GOP do a full filibuster to stop the vote. No valuable footage of Republicans stalling on giving health security to our desperate population bankrupted and evicted from their homes. And now, if the GOP was forced to filibuster, it would be against a bill so thoroughly weakened by capitulation to corporate power that even progressive Democrats could support a filibuster. So how will the public see the GOP filibustering against a very sensible plan to help a desperate population? If the GOP were filibustering against the OPTION (not mandate) of Medicare for All, they would be seen in all their cruelty. But apparently we are not going to do that. So when do we get The Chess? Or what is the Deep Chess move that I'm missing here?

How do I keep from thinking that The Chess is against progressive democrats like me? How do I keep from thinking that The Chess is the final death knell of compassion? The final eradication of damn liberal ideas like taxpayer financed healthcare for all?

Yes, I do cling to the achievements of President Obama diplomatically, beginning to undo the massive damage the Bush Gang inflicted on our national security and international reputation. But there is a long way to go, and our war criminals are roaming free, emboldened to the point of being interviewed on TV for critiques of our new president's policies. I can think up more Chess ideas in the foreign policy arena, but immediate prosecution of our war criminals would have been a bold checkmate to right wing power that would have really prepared our country to make dramatic changes. And we voted for change.

[Time for change]

84. Great summary of the last several years of our history and of our current situation!

[Overseas]

90. Thank you ! //nt

[DemReadingDU]

107. I really liked your summary too

Many times I feel we really don't have a two-party system anymore. It is one party, lobbyists. The lobbyists spend whatever amounts are needed to get what the corporations and the wealthy want, not for We the People.

We need to get the money lobbyists out of our elections. Until that happens, I don't see much reach change happening.

[Overseas]

115. I, too, rue the Corporate Superpersons' legions of lobbyists.

You said it well, alas. That elite squad of Corporate Superpersons and their lobbying troops have been getting stronger over the past few decades. They've bought and sold so many sectors of our civil and commercial life.

How will we ever Reclaim Our Democracy? http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/

[LongTomH]

112. Brilliant commentary Sir!

I heartily agree. My own naive optimism has been crushed time and again. These days, it's hard to hold on to any hope at all!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

70. Maybe, they'll try earning the votes of the left, instead of taking them for granted.

It would be novel for candidates to try to appeal to the left instead of mollify the right or just be "not as bad as".

[yurbud]

71. Democrats are putting corruption not only ahead of public interest, but of keeping their seats

[certainot]

77. as long as the GOP has a talk radio monopoly to feed media

and intimidate politicians it can have it all both ways.

it is the only reason the flat earthers still get 50% of the seats at the table. global warming and health care should be no brainers but the lobbyists get to launder their message through 1000 UNCONTESTED radio stations to create a giant anti- obama ant- progress anti-liberal constituency and the left barely pays attention until it shows up on fox later in the day or week after its too late.

global warming won't wait for demonopolization or other legislative remedies, the left is going to have to start picketing the stations and boycotting their local sponsors.

until then liberals/dems/progressives will keep playing catchup, living in a talk radio vacuum whining about obama's/dem's inefectiveness while 1000 uncontested radio stations pound away at them 24/7/365 framing and intimidating politicians and media.

the internet is helping- it is still mostly naturally democratic, but ignoring talk radio is the reason we're in this 20 yr mess and to continue to cede the biggest soapbox in the country to the GOP and it's think tanks and lobbyists is a terrible mistake.

[Time for change]

100. Yes, the corporate media monopoly is killing us.

[ChiciB1]

78. Thanks SOOOOOOOO Much T4C For This Post!! I Read It All But The

links, but will go back to read them now! I feel this is at the very core of what is going on and what is going WRONG!

Thanks again!!

[Time for change]

101. You're quite welcome. Thanks for your input on this post.

[Kansas Wyatt]

80. The Pom Pom Squad will be scratching their heads again after 2010...

And 2012 trying to figure out why people would vote against their best (alleged) interests.

Listen up you dumb ass cheerleaders... When you put Corporate America ahead of the American People, you are acting just like Republicans, and the American People will not trust you or do a damn thing for you again. You would be amazed at the widespread popularity and support if you would have only started pushing the country back to the left. That is why you won the White House and both Chambers of Congress with a mandate! Just easing off the sharp right turn doesn't fucking cut it.

[RBInMaine]

81. A protracted recession ALWAYS hurts WHATEVER party is in power. R govs. in most states that are

suffering right now are as unpopular as the D govs. in suffering states. The economy drives almost everything.

[Time for change]

83. It didn't hurt the Democratic Party during the 1930s, when FDR was president

That's because FDR and the Democratic Congress got us moving in the right direction.

[RBInMaine]

87. This is a credit-based recession. Job growth will be slow. Obama said it would take YEARS to pull

out. What do you expect? A frigging miracle?

[Time for change]

88. Job growth will be slow?

That would be great. You think we've had job growth?

[Greyhound]

104. There is only one reason that he has tried to lower expectations for the "recovery".

That is that there is no intention whatsoever to do shit for you, me, or any of the other millions of "little people". He has proven through his actions that we are at the very bottom of his list of priorities.

You want a job? Fuck you.

Can't pay your bills, feed your family? Fuck you.

Your kid can't read well enough to understand a simple job application? Fuck you.

Been kicked out of your house? Fuck you.

You say you're sick and in need of treatment? Fuck you.

Your pension was looted by the company executives? Fuck you.

You think working for 40 years is enough and you think you've earned retirement? Fuck you.

If you were smart enough to have gone to work on Wall Street, you would have been able to finance some "contributions" and be covered, but you weren't, so Fuck You.

[RBInMaine]

82. America is having NO love affair with the R's AT ALL. They are sour over the ECONOMY.

[bridgit]

89. I heard Monica Crowley try to soothsay & conjure up as much on McLaughlin

[rhett o rick]

94. It isnt blue vs. red. It's progressives vs. regressives. Many of the regressives are moving into

the Democratic Party and influencing the party. The independents have no where to turn with the republicants self destructing, except to vote Democratic. However, they may not support progressive candidates but instead choose to vote for conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson, that dont want health care reform, or lobbying reform, or ending the wars, etc.

The concern isnt about Democrats winning, it's about progressive winning over the blue damn dogs.

[Jim Sagle]

106. The DC Dems haven't any interest in winning elections. Their job is to suppress the base.

They know perfectly well that implementing economic justice would boost the Democratic Party and cripple if not kill the Republicans. They're paid to pretend they don't understand.

Those who lose their seats land well-earned jobs in the corporate sector for much more money. And the losses will be explained as a failure to be corporate ENOUGH. The media will pretend to believe that. The rest of us don't count, not even a little bit.

[Mari333]

108. wish they were aware of it

they seem to be in it for the short term profit like they usually are.
or they are merely sitting pretty on their laurels just assuming we will vote for them because they are dems.

they are sadly mistaken.

[TexasObserver]

109. We've lost the independents we gained in 2008.

The president started losing them his second month in office, and he's continued to lose them.

Those numbers don't even represent the people who ARE Democrats but are so disappointed in the president and the congress they see little point to sending this same bunch back again in 2010. Yeah, they're better than having Republicans win congressional seats, but that's far short of being gung ho to vote for someone in the midterm elections.

I am a lifelong Democrat who had boundless HOPE in January, but I've seen almost a year of nothing being done about all the terrible things the Bush administration did, all the illegalities, and such. I've seen a year of Bush war policies followed, of Bush appointees running Defense, running the military, running the wars. I've seen the same Wall street thieves running the economy as under Bush.

So far, he's gotten a Nobel Prize he didn't earn and he's had a beer summit. To find a Democratic president as ineffective as Obama, we have to go all the way back to the 19th century. He's now behind Carter in terms of effectiveness as a president, who at least was able to bring a sense of positivity for several years before the bottom fell out in 1979, and who had balanced the budget during his term.

These numbers in the OP materials cannot be viewed other than through the prism of the president's dropping popularity, which reflects the disappointment in his policies and inactions, from both sides of the spectrum. He's losing independents, but he's also losing many Democratic voters. We cannot win if those who usually vote Democratic stay home.

[soarsboard2]

110. Great Analysis - DISASTER ON TUESDAY

The Democrats need to get their act together NOW!

Obama seems to be floundering.

When he asks for more troops for Afgahistan AND IGNORES THE ECONOMY ON TUESDAY -
*****the bottom will fall out**************************************************

You heard it here first.

[soarsboard2]

111. Pubs More Likely to Vote

The latest Research 2000 poll finds more evidence of a growing enthusiasm gap
between the two major political parties: 81% of Republicans said they would
definitely or probably vote in next year's elections as compared to just 65% of
independents and 56% of Democrats.

[depakid]

114. Great piece!

However, I can sum up the reason in one sentence:

The Democrats have created the (somewhat deserved) perception that they're too compromised to stand up and fight for ordinary Americans and craft bold legislation that improves their situations.

Do that- and Republicans would be vanquished for a generation.

[lisainmilo]

116. I agree with you!

Dem leaders need to deliver what they promised. STAND UP for what you were elected for.

[soarsboard2]

117. Totally Agree

we need a focused jobs creation machine set into motion ASAP.

[Individualist]

118. When independents' choice is between a republican and a republican enabler,

they'll vote for the republican.

[yurbud]

119. Dems are trying to take GOP place as corporate water boys

[grahamhgreen]

121. They only answer to the wealthy.

[Fire1]

122. In response to your title. That goes without saying and I think

President Obama knew this from the beginning, thus the "courting" of the Republican party.