MrSmith1's picture

    The Drubbing ... Where do we go from here?

    Dems lost big last night.  What do we do now?  It's hard to feel optimistic about anything.  If our ideas are so great, why do so few people support and vote for them? 

    Is this the necessarily evil situation we need that will pave the way for a really huge Progressive revolution in two years?    Or do we have to roll over, give up and admit we have been beaten and learn to live with Conservative rule for the rest of our lives?   Have we been wrong or just deluded?   Is the Conservative agenda now a fait accompli?  Is this the death knell of Liberalism?  Should it be?   Why do we keep fighting for a cause that the majority of voters do not seem to want?  Over and over again our ideas seem to be rejected by voters.   Is the problem really that we've just been out-played and out-witted?  Or do we need to re-think our ideas and desires?   Do we have only the argument that big money from the Koch Brothers combined with the 2010 gerrymandering is responsible for our losses?
     

    When Mel Brooks as the King ("It's good to be the King!") is told the peasants are revolting, he replies, "Yeah, they stink on ice!"   After last night, I don't think there's any question but that, at the moment, we stink on ice.  We also stink in mid-term elections.   The question is, where do we go from here?

     

    Comments

    It isn't about Conservative rule, or progressives or liberals , 

    It's all about capitalism rules .

    The ruling that came out of the Citizens United sealed the fate of the working class.

    Those with money can sway the elections, capitalist can control who has the money.   

    The capitalist class is represented by the republican, democratic, populist and prohibition parties, all of which stand for private ownership of the mans of production and the triumph of any one of which will mean continued wage-slavery to the working class.

    As the populist and prohibition sections of the capitalist party represent minority elements which propose to reform the Capitalist system without disturbing wage-slavery, a vain and impossible task, they will be omitted from this discussion with all the credit due the the rank and file for their good intentions

    The republican and democratic parties, or, to be more exact, the republican-democratic party, represents the capitalist class in the class struggle. They are the political wings of the capitalist system and such differences as arise between them relate to spoils and not to principles.

    With either of these parties in power one thing is always certain and that is that the capitalist class are in the saddle and the working class under the saddle.

    Under the administration of both these parties the means of production are private property, production is carried forward for capitalist profit purely, markets are glutted and industry paralyzed, workingmen become [?] criminals while injunctions, [and?] riot guns are brought into action to preserve "law and order" in the chaotic carnival of capitalists anarchy.

    Deny it as may the cunning capitalists who are clear sighted enough to perceive it, or ignore it as may the torpid workers who are too blind and unthinking to see it, the struggle in which we are engaged today is a class struggle, and as the toiling millions come to see and understand it and rally to the political standard of their class, they will drive all capitalist parties of whatever name into the same party, and the class struggle will then be so clearly revealed that the hosts of labor will find their true place in the conflict and strike the united and decisive blow that will destroy slavery and achieve their full and and final emancipation.

    In this struggle the workingmen and women and children are represented by the Socialist party, and it is my privilege to address you in the name of that revolutionary and uncompromising party of the working class.

    Hellraisers Journal: Debs, "Differences as arise between ...


    The Republican Party.

    Let us briefly consider the republican party from the workers' stand point. It is capitalist to the core. It has not and can not have the slightest interest in labor except to exploit it.

    Why should a workingman support the republican party?

    Why should a millionaire support the Socialist party?

    For precisely the same reason that all the millionaires are opposed to the Socialist party all the workers should be opposed to the republican party. It is a capitalist party, is loyal to capitalist interests and entitled to the support of capitalist voters on election day.

    All it has for workingmen is its "glorious past" and a "glad hand" when it wants their votes.

    Hellraisers Journal: Debs, "Differences as arise between ...


    The party of the Rich Capitalists has always given the reason for workers and the poor supporting them as being that they hope themselves some day to be rich, but what millionaire hopes to some day be a worker?  I think they got the line from the song, Cool Considerate Men from the musical 1776.   In the show, it is sung by the Conservatives.  When the movie was made, President Nixon called Jack Warner and told him that the song made Conservatives look bad, so it was cut from the final cut of the movie and was only recently restored.

     

     

     

    Anyway, thanks for your replies Resistance.   Do you think we will ever have that class warfare revolution?  Or is it just a pipe dream of the disillusioned?   What do you think it would take to instigate it?   
     


    What do you think it would take to instigate it? 

    The Drubbing ... Where do we go from here?


    I don't know that it will ever happen.   I would like to think that at some point, people would wake up and seize the reins of power away from the entrenched corporate over-lords, but I just have lost faith that the American people have the guts and the willingness to rise up and strike a blow for their own good.   We chose our short term comfort over our long term interests a long time ago, and now we seem content with memories gleaned from Frank Capra movies rather than entertain engaging in the real thing.


    The capitalists are not stupid.

    They will reward the labor movements traitors, 

    The economy will improve just in time for the 2106 elections.  

    Some of labors supporters will soon forget the despair they feel now, because they'll begin to rationalize, Life isn't so bad under the ruler ship of the Capitalists.

    In the Nixon and Reagan Years many middle class folks made a lot of money.  

    They''ll see their interest bearing accounts get better and then conclude "Why rock the boat"

    Inflation will reduce the deficit. 

    It wont be just money in politics but money in your pockets, , ,  

    Buying your vote 

    Convincing some to believe the Republicans are good for America 

    Lets just hope the poor and poor middle class don't have to suffer to much. as the Republicans try to reduce the ranks of the 51%,  Romney spoke of 

    A reflection 

    I strongly feel the handwriting was on the wall for the working class, when Obama failed to protect the homeowners during the housing collapse; instead Obama protected the bankers.

    Had the Democratic Homeowners not had their (wealth affect) ruined, then the Democrats could have not only met the challenge of Citizens United; as the Democrats would have countered the rich and Obama wouldn't have had to ask Congress for infrastructure money or for Job creation;

    The people had the asset value in their homes, Privately borrowing and creating jobs, until Obama allowed that asset class to be destroyed; then asking the people to finance the government to do what the private citizens were already doing. Creating Jobs.

    Unemployment and financial worries  wouldn't have been an issue, that came back to bite Obama.

    Amnesty wouldn't have been an issue either if Americans had been working. 

    Obamas war strategy against the Republican Corporatists was terribly conceived. 

    Purposely?


    The Democratic Party.

    In referring to the democratic party in this discussion we may save time by simply saying that since it was born again at the St. Louis convention it is near enough like its republican ally to pass for a twin brother.

    The former party of the "common people" is no longer under the boycott of the plutocracy since it has adopted the Wall street label and renounce its middle class heresies.

    The radical and progressive element of the former democracy have been evicted and must seek other quarters. They were an unmitigated nuisance in the conservative counsels of the old party. They were for the "common people" and the trusts have no use for such a party.

    Where but to the Socialist party can these progressive people turn? They are ow without a party and the only genuine democratic party in the field is the Socialist party, and every true democrat should thank Wall street for driving him out of a party that is democratic in name only and into one that is democratic in fact

    Hellraisers Journal: Debs, "Differences as arise between ...


    Well they might be able to impeach (as in indict) our President but as long as we have more than 33 Senators, no impeachment will stand.

    And states like Minnesota should do just fine.

    Otherwise we are looking at two years in hell.


    It is going to be a long 4 years in Florida. 


    I don't know the answer to that question, I'm a Unitarian.

    This morning it's as if I just lost a lot of money and I'm trying to put on a "what, me worry?"" face. Things I would really like to say to Republican friends and family, but won't, run through my head, like,

    "You can be expecting a dinner invitation from the Koch family. Don't start sentences with "him and me" and skip your monetary insights such as ---"inflation is sky high right now"---which you are always telling me about---because there will likely be a bond trader sitting next you. Also remember that there are very few blacks in the top 1% so your objections to income inequality are factually weak and might seem racially tinged even to the actual 1%."

    I'm not bitter in the least that my progeny (and spouses)vote against my retirement benefits as well as their own interest-lowered student loans and better healthcare.

    On the other hand, a lot of things are going well, got some interesting projects underway and the way to get through this is to stay busy, have a purpose, do what I can for others, don't talk politics with family, and occasionally write a haiku or two.

    How could we have lost?

    Hey, we'll see ya in two years.

    Our rear ends were whupped.

     


    I'm too crazed to write
    a haiku.  You will have to
    settle for a rant. 

     

    (Sigh)
     


    Fortunately, we never have to run Obama again.  It's not fair.  Obama has definitely, in his sixth year, given us a better country than Bush did, but that's all forgotten now.


    As I listened to the Republican victory speeches, I kept wondering what planet they live on.  Their planet evidently has a really high rate of unemployment, soaring gas prices, a huge deficit and failed economic policies  ... oh, and they all hope their President will finally stop his obstructionist policies and start to work with them in a more bi-partisan way. 

    It makes me gnash my teeth and scream at the television in the middle of the night.


    You made me think of something that my mother would talk about.  When radio was new in the late twenties and thirties they would listen to it all the time even at dinner.  My grandmother was from Germany and when they would have Hitler's speeches in the back ground with some commentary about him, my grandmother would tell the family what he was saying.  She would comment that he did not live in the real world and could not believe German people would go along with him. She could not figure out the people she grew up around. 

    Get ready for government shut downs the next few years until the 1% looses money. If I was Obama I would let them trash the place. In the state of the union speech I would tell them to go ahead and send me cuts in SS, Medicare, health care, and do away with school lunches also food stamps.  I will sign everyone of those bills and we will be real bipartisan.  I would tell them to come on make my day. I double dare you. I would invite the Koch bros. to the state of the union to have a front row seat to thank them for all the billions they spend on elections.  If they don't come I would put their pictures on two empty chairs and still thank them for the patriotic duty of financing all those god awful commercials. Then I would tell the general public that they and only they have the power to stop these bills from landing on my desk. Other wise I am going to sign them. 


    ...She would comment that he did not live in the real world and could not believe German people would go along with him. She could not figure out the people she grew up around....

    I had a client from Munich who was a young teen at the end of the war, was drafted into some kind of defense work at like maybe 13/14. He said one thing about it to me once when I mentioned Hitler in some other context, something along the following the lines (he always tried to speak vernacular American English, but it was still came out broken):

    "oh geez that guy, we were all so crazy about him, and it was such shit!"

    He meant it like this: everyone went crazy stupid at once, and even though young, he remembered it as going along with a strong flow, sort of in amazement that he was ever that person or that it happened, like a bad dream you are not sure is true.


    Yeah, they keep saying they want to "bring the economy back."  Are they going to orchestrate a huge stock market crash and recession?


    The Democratic Party has no coherent agenda. Since 2010, most Dems have been running on fear of Republicans. If the GOP is the party of No, then Dems are the party of No-No. No one votes for No-No.


    Sure they do.  Although, admittedly, the laser hair removal demographic is, relatively small. 


    :)


    Sadly you are correct, they do suck.. Oh well.


    There is never going to be a progressive revolution in America. Forget it. Due to our Constitutional separation of powers, which makes a President easy to weaken or block, due to big media and elections controlled by money, money that seeks only more money and power, little is going to change for the better.

    Americans are too glued to TV, too easily manipulated by vacuous ideology, too distracted, over entertained, uninterested, uninformed, misinformed, lied to, too little interested, too feeble in objective reasoning to make independent judgments and choices, too convinced there is no role for government to address major issues facing the country, it they even believe there are major issues, to expect anything but more of the same from the federal government.

    My suggestion, move to Minnesota........or Germany.


    I think the progressive movement should start today.

    Support Bernie Sanders;  every time he can counter any of these talking heads, we need to insist he's our Future President and WE the People want to hear from him. Keep pushing for his input on all matters, make it clear the working class will longer be led to the slaughter. 

    It doesn't matter what the two corporatist parties want. 

    Let Bernie Sanders be our voice.

    If the corporatist don't want to tow the line, Bernie and those he supports. will be this Nations 2016 candidates.

    Maybe these capitalist enslaveers would think twice, before initiating policies that the working class is carefully eyeing,

    2016 will be the day of reckoning based upon what was done after the 2014 tsunami.

    Tell the Democrats, we don't believe they have our best interests in mind, they cant serve two masters and any suggestion they would do a better job, is nothing more than they trying to get our votes and once in office, screw the working class   

    Both Corporatist Parties better consider the people are watching and the Socialist/ Democratic party is on standby and the failures of the two capitalist parties will have been judged unworthy of support.

    Just because Obama and the Corporatist Democrats tail, is between their legs, doesn't mean the working class doesn't have a voice.

    Starting today President Bernie Sanders in exile, will get the name recognition needed to launch the offensive from a third party candidate, who can dislodge the deeply entrenched Corporatists.

    Pain in the near future, will usher in better conditions for the working class.

    Depending on whether the working class wakes up to the realities. 

    Deny it as may the cunning capitalists who are clear sighted enough to perceive it, or ignore it as may the torpid workers who are too blind and unthinking to see it,

     


    Yeah, they said that in early 1900s too, but America has a habit of long slumbers and sudden awakenings.


    Lets hope the Republicans taking control  in 2014,  is the sudden awakening. 


    Only if Obama fights, Rex Nutting, the only progressive at Marketwatch:

    ...What will Obama do in his final two years? Will he surrender to his inner nature, giving the Republicans everything they want in a spirit of unrequited bipartisanship? Will he agree to gutting his signature health-care law? Will he agree to roll back the progress on the environment? Will he allow Social Security and Medicare to be saved by destroying them? Will he give the corporate interests who now own Congress everything they desire?

    Or will he fight? Obama was twice elected by large majorities of voters who wanted a government that worked for them, not against them. He’s the president of all of us, but he’s also the only Democrat left in Washington with the power to moderate the Republicans’ corporate agenda.

    The real Obama will now stand up. The only question is, which one will it be?

    I am very afraid it will not be Obama the fighter. If so, Jeb in 2016.


    No, Obama will not fight. Nor will Hillary.

    Revolution will come from outside the Democrat establishment, a Tea Party of the left.


    In that case, I now consider myself a member of the Revolutionary Democrat party   

    RevDems unite!


    Hooray for  Dem Revolutionaries.


    There is a push for E. Warren to run. 


    There is a push, but I don't think she'll do it in 2016. Bernie Sanders may though.

    I like Warren a lot, and I think she's on the right track, but I'm already fatigued by the left's adulation of her. I'm on a Progressive Change Campaign Committee mailing list, which emails me incessantly about the "Elizabeth Warren wing of American Politics." Fuck that. It's the progressive wing of American politics.


    Gotta admit, it's better than the Earl Warren wing of American politics.


    Oh Q, where in the fuck have you been?

    hahahahahaha

    Remember those days?

    IMPEACH EARL WARREN!

    HA


    A


    But not as good as the Warren Zevon wing of American politics


    B S / E W

    Wouldn't that be a good ticket 

    We don't want any more BS from the Corporatists, ours is better? 

    I believe Bernie S. is more tested under fire.


    Agree-after one or two terms of Hillary and then another quagmire by Republicans. Or much later. I don't think either Warren or Sanders fits the profile for this new TP of the Left.


    Sherrod Brown?


    Not seeing it. More metro, kick-boxing, sushi with salsa kind of person.


    Oh I just caught this by accident.

    I hereby render unto our Leader the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site, given to all of him from all of me.

    Some of us are writers but a few are WRITERS!


    I haven't won this award for quite some time. Honored!


    At the end of the day, the public decided that they wanted to reelect McConnell. They reelected Republican Governors in Maine, Wisconsin and Florida. The public elected Joni Ernst. This is no big surprise. The majority of Whites did not vote for Obama in 2008 or 2012. Many Whites believe that they face more discrimination than Blacks. 

    Blacks experience outright suppression by government and police in communities like Frrguson, Missouri. They are not surprised by the election results. An angry portion of White voters see nothing wrong with police abuse, voter suppression, gerrymandering, etc.

    Attempts at converting these voters are futile, they have concreted their opinions. The only solution is the coalition formation that brought together a multi-ethnic coalition of Whites, Blacks. Asians, Latinos, and LGBT groups that ushered Obama into office

    Facts are not going to change the voting patterns of many White voters. The only saving grace is a coalition of "outsiders"


    It is what it is, a minority cannot beat the majority. 

    Amnesty sealed Obama's fate.

    Voters to Obama : To heck, your going to unilaterally give amnesty. 


    The hold up on immigration reform is the guest worker program. The oligarchy wants a very generous program in their favor so they can bring who ever they want at low wages  They want cheap educated professionals and to isolate the agriculture workers in camps only buying from a company store.   The southern oligarchs like Kochs want a colonial economy based on low educated people with low wages.  They want to extract as much natural recourses from the land as they can with out regulation.  They have been maintaining a one party system of colonial rule in the south for centuries. They really like to turn us into India. 

    If you spend the time I do looking at the satellite pictures at Lance-Modus the worst polluters in this country is the south east oil industry and electric companies.  


    Democrats ran en masse from Obama, it cost them at the polls.

    http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/11/ap_jon_husted_wins_ohio_...


    What is the answer to getting that "coalition" to vote mid-term elections?They never do. Suffering oppression doesn't seem to motivate them to vote in mid terms. My whole life they don't, consistently.

    They do come out for presidential elections, to vote for a president, based on celebrity and personality and cultural factor. The hotter the personality race, the more they come out to vote.

    The old white people who reliably vote in mid-terms take politics and government more seriously, whether it's because of crazy white guy politics or tea party politics or not is another matter. Let's stay away from the latter for a minute. They see their vote as control over government and they use it. They don't fall for any version of celebrity worship, i.e., Obamamania. They look at the candidates and vote for them as representatives of what they would like done or not and not as heroes or role models. They are instead more like employers hiring people to work for them.

    Why does this "coalition" pf yours look instead mostly for celebrity role models that they want to be a leader and take care of everything for them?

    And also how does on get such people not only to vote in mid-terms but how do we get them not to think of voting for president similar to a vote for their favorite on "American Idol" or a vote for their favorite basketball player?

    People in parliamentary systems are less prey to this sort of thinking because there are fewer "stars". How do we end this reliance of oppressed people on the idea of a savior and a leader? And make them take government more seriously? I know they don't trust government and politicians for life experience, but how does one get across the idea that to change that they have to take voting more seriously, like homework back when they were in school? Not like "American Idol", where if everyone at the water cooler is excited about a personality, one wants to get in on it too and that's when one votes?

    For me, it's just so clear that the type of thing that stokes excitement about a candidate, the politics of personality, is a main source of this problem. The "horse race" thing, a main source of the problem. It really shouldn't be fun, it should be a duty. And "the selling of" the president or the governor or the senator would stop.

    Not allowing the spending of much money at all to run for office and requiring voting like jury duty is required., that would certainly do it. Would certainly get more of the majority to vote in mid-terms and would ameliorate the politics of personality some in the presidential race.  Should we be doing that? Unfortunately, all political junkies would rue the day if it happened. Most peoplef fall prey to "American Idol" and likewise it's easy to love the whole horse race thing and laud it as a major part of American cultural history. Is that good for us, though?


    "The old white people who reliably vote in mid-terms take politics and government more seriously, whether it's because of crazy white guy politics or tea party politics or not is another matter. Let's stay away from the latter for a minute. They see their vote as control over government and they use it. They don't fall for any version of celebrity worship, i.e., Obamamania. They look at the candidates and vote for them as representatives of what they would like done or not and not as heroes or role models. They are instead more like employers hiring people to work for them."

     

    ArtAppraiser comes out in favor of raising the voting age to 60.   (Just kidding.) 

     


    I think it has a lot more to do right now with the resources to vote in the states that was up this time.  The pole tax here in Florida is pretty stiff with all the documents that you have to get for birth, marriage and divorce from the state of record it happened in to get an picture id.  Also they moved our polling to the suburbs away from bus lines so you have to walk many blocks. We all had to vote early in person because that was closer and on bus line.  In spite of all that we still increased the Democratic midterm vote but it was not enough to off set the hate some of these people have down here for the President. It had more to do with making ends meet then the "American Idol."   


    TPM has a headline story right now, by Ed Kilgore, that disagrees with your emphasis on the red state thing. He admits it but says the extent of the win goes way beyond that.  That the problem was that young voters didn't turn out, and the most surprising thing to me, what was a guess on my part below:  more Latinos (& blacks! increase from 6% to 10%!) and young folks are returning to voting Republican, not that more whites did:

    What The Hell Happened To The Democratic Vote?

    [....] But while Republican Senate and gubernatorial midterm victories in red states aren’t that great and accomplishment, the GOP also won Senate seats in two states carried by Obama in 2012 and another the president carried in 2008. And although some of the surprisingly strong Republican gubernatorial performances involve single-state quirks, they so exceeded expectations that some other explanation is called for.

    Comparing yesterday’s exit polls to those of 2012, the first thing that jumps out at you is a big shift in age demographics: under-30 voters dropped from 19 percent of the electorate in 2012 to 13 percent in 2014, while over-65 voters climbed from 16 percent in 2012 to 22 percent in 2014. That’s quite close to the age demographics of 2010.

    In terms of race and ethnicity, the white share of the electorate increased modestly from 72 percent in 2012 to 75 percent this year, not quite back up to the 77 percent whites represented in 2010. And interestingly enough, Republican performance among white voters didn’t change at all from the 59/39 margin achieved by Mitt Romney. What did change is that Republicans boosted their percentage among African-Americans from 6 percent won by Romney to 10 percent yesterday; from 27 percent to 35 percent among Latinos; and from 26 percent to 49 percent among Asians. It’s likely the age demographics had some impact on Republican minority performance, particularly among Latinos, given the relatively strong attachment of young Latinos to the Democratic Party. And in general, it’s probable more conservative minority voters were more likely to vote.

    But another way to look at it is that minority voting preferences are returning to their pre-Obama level — still strongly Democratic, but not so strongly that in a poor turnout year they offset the heightened Republican preferences of white voters [....]

    So where I am wrong is presuming blame on old white people getting out to vote, as they didn't change the normal situation. It is more evidence for my constant argument that people are voting more Independent all the time. They voted in the past for Obama in an Independent way, not as Dems. These kind of young folks and Latinos and Afro-Americans have no loyalty to the Dem. party, and it's probably pretty likely that many of them think what I was supposing downthread: they'd like to see Obama work with Republicans more, not fight with them. It's clear that the diehard Dems from these groups did not turn out the vote enough. That could be your reason but also many others. In any case, if Dems want to win, they have to figure out how to solve that. Like I said, it's been happening all my life, so it's not just because of tougher voter requirements.


    Like I said: they don't vote in mid-terms

    I understand the difficulties of their lives that makes it hard to vote or care about politics and also that some Republicans have been trying to make it more difficult in recent years. But things don't change until they do come out and vote (recent proof that it can happen: they helped elect the first Afro-American president by coming out to vote in 2008.) Blaming the people that do vote is not working out for them. I've seen evidence of that my whole life, and I am nearing 60. Basically end of story, nothing changes until they decide it's a major priority to vote, as difficult as it may be.


    Democrats won the last two presidential elections, had both the Senate and the House from 2006-2010, and held the House until yesterday. So while it may be technically true that Democrats lose "over and over again", so do Republicans.


    All I know is that I would definitely vote for a progressive like you who would write about such a situation so realistically and humbly. It's so refreshing and rare on the internet. It's the same thing I am always looking for in government, people who care about solving problems and looking at those problems analytically.

    Not agitprop nor someone trying to spin a "drubbing" into gold,. nor someone spewing disgust towards their fellow citizens who actually bothered to come out and vote, as antithetical as any motivations might have been.

    But then I'm weird, I guess. Too many other people seem to want to continue to hire politicians who want to "fight" and scream about the other side. As if there were only two sides to every story...

    speaking of, I'd like to add a little nuance to my screed upthread. I am willing to bet a significant number of the demographics that are normally considered Democratic voters in the past are no longer that but Independents ,whether registered that way or not. And that plenty of HIspanics/Latinos and young people, etc., voted for the Republican for this or that this time. Because they don't care about partisan labels any more. This is what sold many of those people on Obama, remember? That one of his main sales pitches was "post partisanship"? What I see is not that Obama has not fought back enough, but that maybe he is seen as having fought too much, that he is not seen as fulfilling his promise about not "fighting". Hence, they think, why bother to vote or if voting, why not vote for the other guy? Whether that's fair or not, a lot of his initial supporters were hoping someone could stop the kind of "passion" that a lot of political junkies on the internet seem to think is necessary. There's a conflict here -> people who don't like politics need to be convinced to come out and vote in mid-terms and -> those people are not going to vote for a "fighter." They aren't going to vote for a Ted Cruz, and they aren't going to vote for a Bernie Sanders, either.


    Hey, Artsy. Maybe it's a guy thing but I want him to stand up, at least, for himself, and I know all the while that this shame I feel for him is being cultivated by the 24 hour shunning of him by the media. It's awkward, because I see that the fight and scream thing is juvenile. Very much agree with the conflict you pose at the last. Your comments are always provocative---in the good sense. 


    The Republicans and Independents fear of Amnesty and Gun Control; brought them out to vote.

    They meant to fight over those issues, so they voted against the threat and they won.

    Obama's pandering to the Latinos didn't work and instead; enraged 

    And Democrats did not garner the support they were hoping to get from Latino voters.

    Latino Voters: Low Turnout, Less Support for Democrats

    Did Obama and the Democrats really think they could sway voters of the Red States by using a stick in the eye?   

    The sooner the working class fights and votes for members of their class, we win too.


    But isn't that the conundrum?  If you stop fighting and try to work with the other party to get things done, and the other party digs in, obstructs and thwarts you at every turn, making sure you get nothing done, you are labeled the one who failed, not the people that you tried to work with...  If you DO fight, you're labeled unwilling to work to get things done. If you DON'T fight, the bullies run roughshod over you and people lose faith in you.   

    It's maddening to have the GOP's obstructionist policies rewarded and have the GOP now tell us how willing they are to work with the President and how they hope the President will finally stop obstructing things and work with them.   Of course we all know what the GOP's willingness to work with the President means, it means that he should do whatever they want.

    I think people are disgusted by the manipulating and the maneuvering, and the unwillingness to compromise, not the fighting for or against specific issues.   I think what sticks in many people's craws is that the GOP has so successfully manipulated things to make it appear that Obama and Democrats are the ones unwilling to compromise, when the exact opposite has been and continues to be true.
     


    All I can say is that In my dotage I see ever more clearly that it's important that a president not just be skilled in wheeling and dealing,arm twisting and sausage making, but they actually must like doing it even with their worst enemies. The Woodrow Wilson, Carter and Obama types just can't cut it, nor would have Dukakis, though Gore might have--those that have such talent, like LBJ and Clinton and are willing to work like dogs at it, will accomplish things even in the worst circumstances. That it's delusional to think that a high-minded professorial type will inspire everyone else to behave, whether it's Congress or other countries.

    I remember the press conference of the following photo, it was the most amazing thing (the article it is published with is interesting on topic, too, even though it doesn't sync with everything I am saying: Gallup: Approval Of Congress Went Up After Government Shutdown Of 1995-96)


    I never see such pictures of Obama.What I have seen is a lot of articles that say he's a loner who doesn't like dealing with Congressional members of either party. As I said elsewhere lately, I think he's going to be a great post-presidential writer and actually look forward to what he has to say and reveal. A great president in a government set up with extreme checks and balances: not so much.


    the GOP has so successfully manipulated things to make it appear that Obama and Democrats are the ones unwilling to compromise,

    I cant think of a corollary in politics to the idiom

    One man's trash is another man's treasure.

    The Democrats view it as obstruction, but the Republicans and Independents clearly saw it otherwise. 

    What was Obama and the Democrats thinking, by raising two very divisive issues; Amnesty and Gun control to fight over?

    Weren't they hoping to manipulate public opinion?  They lost; now Democrats who weren't enthused about these two particular issues to fight over, have to suffer? 

    A burglar has entered your house or your neighbor has insulted you which one should you focus on?  What is the priority. 

    Priority 

    Obama and the Democrats chose the wrong course; if they were thinking about getting things done, to benefit all Americans, including Republicans and Independents.

    If they would have been wiser, they might have avoided angering the opposition who didn't view the Republicans as obstructionists but rather as protectors, from Obama and the Democrats . 

    Just because the Democrats wanted to attack the Second amendment and thought everyone else should too.?

    What a stupid strategy if they thought this would lead to things getting accomplished. 

    Now in hindsight, wasn't there more pressing issues to deal with; which Obama and the Democrats could have worked with the Republicans, for the good of the country?

    If the Democrats would have made a better choice; by taking incremental steps towards Democratic views rather than securing Obama's legacy "He got gun control" "He delivered amnesty"   Even if the Democrats did then lose, the effects would have been less fearful  

    Did anyone with any sense  think the Republicans would work with Obama, whose arrogance thought this was the time to drive this wedge and pick this fight?

    Everyone bemoans what they expect will happen now, that the republicans have taken control.

    Wasn't there any of these fears, that couldn't have been reduced or eliminated, before fighting over Gun Control and Amnesty, an issue that clearly lost in this election. 

    In the future, Democrats would be wise to avoid picking the wrong fights.


    How about, One man's filibustering is another man's standing on principal?.

    I agree, Dems have picked a number of wrong fights, but sometimes fights need to be fought, otherwise, if you keep giving ground to an intransigent opponent you find the issue has been completely taken from you and decided in your opponent's favor.

    P.S.  I don't think the Republicans clearly saw it otherwise.  They knew damned well it was obstruction.  Independents may have had some delusions that it was something else, but not the Republicans

     


    I don't have any good answers to your questions.

    The point AA made about Independents makes me think there a lot of people who are receptive to the idea of breaking the log jam if an alternative was offered.

    A series of graduated responses seems to be more the will of the people than a grand plan of sweeping change.

    Well, one thing is for sure: the GOP isn't going to be providing anything like that.

    So the good news is that there is plenty of room at the top.


    Well, one thing is for sure: the GOP isn't going to be providing anything like that.

    So the good news is that there is plenty of room at the top.

    Great point moat, made me laugh. I haven't really had time to study them. Are there are any good disciplinarians on the horizon to reign in the most extreme crazies to be on message, whatever that may be? Do they even have one except "attack Obama."? It is not going to get them far with Independents to have as a main goal attacking a lame duck president! That goes: nowhere. Where is the Newt style "Contract with America" that freshmen can wave to show why they are there? Where is the DeLay whipping talent to attempt to execute it all? They will be in a slo-mo death if all it's going to be is attacks on the president...been there, done that, impeachment, with Clinton maintaining high approval all the way through constantly saying "I will work with anyone willing to work with me..."


    TPM has an article up that answers some of my questions, basically it seems it is still going to be two Republican parties in Congress fighting amongst themselves:

    Meet The Real Next Senate Majority Leader: Ted Cruz

    [...] wait until you see what incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is about to deal with [....] it is likely to be a short honeymoon.

    Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the influential tea party firebrand, is poised to make life very difficult for the old-school Kentuckian by harnessing the power of the GOP base's rightward drift to wage fierce battles with President Barack Obama [...]

    The Class of 2014 features many younger conservatives who owe their rise to the GOP's right flank, including Iowa's Joni Ernst, Arkansas's Tom Cotton and Nebraska's Ben Sasse. Along with the other conservatives who won Senate seats in 2010 and 2012, they'll be a robust bloc, with considerable influence.

    "Cruz is gonna be using his national base to put relentless pressure on McConnell," said Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar with the American Enterprise Institute.

    "I've never seen a guy so despised by a vast majority of his caucus — they hate Cruz. They see Cruz as completely out for himself. But let's face it if he's out there inciting the base, and talk radio guys and blog people ... that's going to be difficult for them," Ornstein said [....]


    This is from just before the election, Dems have been losing some of the Latino vote they previously had:

    Latino Support for Democrats Falls, but Democratic Advantage Remains
    Pew Research Hispanic Friends Project, Oct. 29, 2014

    [...] The survey also finds that for about half of Hispanic registered voters (54%), a candidate’s position on immigration is not a deal-breaker in determining their vote if that candidate shares their views on most other issues [....]


     I sincerely hope that Obama does just what Republicans SAY they want him to do: Let Congress ~


    1. Take away health care from the millions who just got it; 
    2. Prevent people who have ever had a medical problem from getting affordable insurance;
    3. Let sick people get dropped from their insurance policies;
    4. Drop all children from their parent's policies once they are out of school (and unemployed looking for work)
    5. Outlaw Birth Control, sex education and abortion everywhere
    6. Take away help for children whose parents can't afford to feed them well, or take them to the doctor
    7. Start some more unfunded wars (that Congress' children never fight in)
    8. Remove every protection for the environment and against Climate Change
    9. Remove any prohibition about bribing politicians
    10. Pick the next several Supreme Court Justices so that only the uber wealthy are protected
    11. End Medicare
    12. End Social Security

    ...and on and on and on.

    You know why I wish this? Because this country fucking deserves it! The election this week proves that we are unworthy of our ancestors and that goes for Democrats (politicians who ran away from their own accomplishments and goals, and citizens who didn't get off their lazy asses and VOTE!). And Republicans are selfish bullies who want only power and "things" and are willing to get it by obstruction and fear-mongering, well-funded by those who know that they have so much money they will never have to step over rotting corpses of those whose votes they bought.


    Agreed. This election was an embarrassment.


    Democratic candidates stopped being Democrats. They abandoned their president, their party and their base - deciding instead that by disavowing progressive policies altogether they could find the electorate g- spot. Somehow, they believed that they could depend on people to support that which they decried as not worth supporting.

    Conversely, progressive referendums passed handily in several states, and Elizabeth Warren was second only to Bill Clinton in popularity on the campaign trail stumping for Democrats. It's truly sad that a base of powerful and hungry Democrats found themselves abandoned. Republicans know how to cultivate their base no matter what it takes. Democratic politicians would be well served by doing the same ... a good first step would be to remember they have one.


    Democratic politicians would be well served by doing the same ... a good first step would be to remember they have one.

     

    Couldn't have said it better myself!


    The republicans hung their star on a civil rights backlash in the south.  They didn't have to be very clever to lead that bunch.  There wasn't much cultivating needed.  Just look at how out of touch with reality they are or how big of a snake oil salesman they are.  All they had to do was dog whistle at them.  Dog whistle is easy.   


    This was a big loss, no doubt about it. But let's not make it bigger than it is. Politics can change on a dime. Remember just six years ago democrats controlled the house by an overwhelming majority, sixty votes in the senate, and the presidency. That's not ancient history. There could be just as dramatic a change in congress in two years as there was in this year or in 2008

    I also don't think people voted for republicans, any more than the voted for democrats in 2008. Mostly they voted against the other guy, or for change, or to send a message to politicians that things are not going well for them as they see it.

    In spite of the improving economic numbers the status quo is not working for most people. Obama and the democrats are seen as propping up that status quo with massive subsidies to wall street. I'm not saying that the people would support a for left liberal agenda. Not any more than this election shows that the people support lower taxes on the rich. What people want is for things to improve in their lives. They want to at least see that government is trying something that might make things better.

    Imo the message sent by this election, and since democrats seem to be in power it mostly affected them, is, "Cause if you really want to hear our views, You haven't done nothing."


    Excellent song choice Ocean-kat


    Recently I have been on the front lines so to speak with selling health care) and one take away seems that regardless of political persuasion, people don't like uncertainty, a key facet of the big term Change. And what the progressives bring to the table if anything is that uncertainty that comes from change. How to overcome that facet of human nature I don't know.

    Look, there's no reason to panic. Elections move back and forward. It's two steps forward and one back for progressives, but that's still progress. Ten years ago, any health care reform was off the table. Now, the GOP has to find ways to nibble around the edges of laws that have already been passed.

    We should look forward to 2016, and to 2020 (the election that will decide the next re districting).

    But the real place to build is on he local level. The conservatives have been running in LOCAL elections for years, building grassroots power. And we haven't but all politics IS local.

    You want to protect the environment? Run for zoning board. Zoning boards make a lot of decisions about how businesses are allowed to behave. And they provide the candidates for state zoning commissions, and so on up the chain,

    School board. Zoning board. City council. That's where progressives can take the country back. It's not sexy. But sexy presidential candidates will always let you down,


    I was listening to my local supported community station yesterday and they were covering the money that was raised to run for local offices.  I was taken back by the amount of dark Koch money that was filtered down to our local elections.  It is not just on the top end. The rich old dud that owns casinos in Las Vegas spent a truck load of money on our election here also.  He wants to build casinos in Miami.  Only the Atlantic Ocean is working on swallowing up Miami.  I live on the west coast.  


    I think you've nailed it, doc.

    Republicans have secured many State, county and local city elective offices that have an impact on the lives of everyone. So much so, they can easily push their ideological agenda into the public square without having to worry about it looking partisan, even though it is. And when a question is raised that it might be, they fall back to the generic platitude, it's what the public ... wants/demands/elected ... us to do.

    And it's at the local level where voting districts are created which republicans have so carefully cultivated to their advantage on the national level. Which means Democrats have to focus more on their State legislatures to bring them around before they'll see any significant changes in Congress, especially the House.

    But what's needed more than anything is for State legislature's to work together to form a unified opinion of what they want the federal government to do for the public. While the sovereignty of a State is sacrosanct to many, the country is at a point where State's have limited abilities to ensure the common good of it's citizens. Health care for example, is a bane to smaller States with lower population densities and are ripe to be fleeced by health care insurers. They need the fed's to assist in co-creating legislation to level out the playing field so small States have equal opportunities as the larger States with greater population densities.

    In other words, we need some progressive thinkers in our State legislatures willing the buck the trend and move the nation forwards with innovative ideas instead of the old run-of-the-mill sitting tight and holding tight on what you hold dear.

    That said, innovative ideas needs to be honed to perfection. For example, ObamaCare was nothing more than an ad hoc assembly of tit-for-tat scrapes of legislation. More care needs to be given by State legislatures on what they see as necessary public health care coverage that is equal across all State borders and passed on to the Fed to handle the commerce clause issues and make sure insurers tow the line.

    I guess I'm hinting at State legislatures taking the 10th, working together to hammer out their individual differences, to effectively to create a foundation for legislation the Congress to pass into law.

    In other words, make the State legislatures the law creators.

    That's kinda progressive, eh ???


    The Democrats need a new theme.

    Take Eisenhower and his motto ... do your duty ... and the progressive accomplishments of Robert La Follette ... to create a platform that focuses on the trials and tribulations of the working class that got trashed in the 2008 Great Recession.

    Why ???

    Because what they do have isn't working and what does work is on life support.


    Latest Comments