This was the message from voters to the Dems...

[jmondine]

1. We support a progressive agenda.
2. You did not represent that agenda.

Period.

[CincyDem]

1. This is where the logic always falls apart for me.

So...because #1 and #2 are true...I'm going to stay home and pout so those who do get their a$$es out and vote can elect the antithesis of a progressive agenda.

This feels like a "perfect is the enemy of good" issue.

How does letting the leadership of the country slip into overtly anti-progressive hands serve the future good ?

[sabrina 1]

12. The voters were not pouting. Ever heard of a 'vote of no confidence'? That's what voters

did, and not just to Dems, to Republicans also. It was one of the lowest turnouts in midterm history. Republicans cannot claim any victory, they get only the fringe votes.

The voters are weighing their options now for the future, which they must do. I have a feeling there is going to be a big change in US politics over the next several years.

Voters know where the problems are, they will have to start from scratch to begin the long journey towards fixing them. And locally is where many are starting.

[Hippo_Tron]

55. Vote of no confidence would be to show up and write in a candidate

Sitting at home isn't a vote of no confidence.

[sabrina 1]

85. No, this election was a declaration from voters that they have no confidence in their government.

The political parties can ignore it, which I'm sure they will since the whole problem is, they really don't care about the voters, they work for Corporations now, or ONE of the parties can decide to put the country first and begin to actually listen to what the voters have been saying.

That party will win, as the votes on issues on the ballots, demonstrate.

But to call this a 'win' for Republicans, is to ignore, once again, the voice of the people. I call it what it is, a vote of no confidence and will continue to do so.

[Andy823]

106. Call it what you want

The fact is republicans now control both the House and the Senate, and they will use that to help the rich, not the poor and middle class. Another fact is republicans got out and voted, otherwise they would not have won the seats they needed to gain control. Midterms are always have a low voter turnout, but republicans have been able to use that in 2010 and now in 2014. All they had to do was get their base all worked up, and get democrats all depressed, and it worked, again.

Those who didn't bother to figure out how bad things will get in the next two years will be the first once complaining when they don't see a raise in the minimum wage, help for student loans, a decrease in money for programs to help those in need, etc. Not voting helped the republicans so now they can do their dirty work of cutting everything they can for those in need while giving all they take to their rich donors. Not voting is not smart, when we all know just how bad republicans can make things in the next two years.

[Skidmore]

115. This. Well said.

It allows Rs to firmly entrench their policies and will take a very long time to overturn. In the meantime, many will suffer. What works for Teabaggers does so because they do not care what happens to others. That model does not translate on the left at all. It is singularly destructive.

[RKP5637]

152. Exactly!!! And democrats will whine and while and whine. Effective action would have prevented

this, but it's more fun to sit home and whine.

Damn, I do get really fed up with the democratic party. Same shit as in 2010. Frankly, the party deserves to lose, yet another wake up call. I wonder if it will sink in this time!

And, we have the fake democrats that ran for election. Hell, they might as well join the republican party for all the good they are doing. Sorry, I can't be politically correct in what I'm saying. The democrats totally fucked up this election and are getting what is deserved IMO. A momentum has been started, now the democrats will have to run their asses off trying to catch up!

[SomethingFishy]

122. Forget it..

They will never "get it". The smug narcissism that exists in the Democratic Party will never allow Dems to even consider the thought that losing the election could have anything to do with their policies, it has to be the fault of the voter...

You know, after reading today's Matt Tiabbi article I am ready to put Eric Holder in fucking handcuffs as well as the bankers he allowed to buy their way out of prison. But Holder, who basically fucked over tens of millions of Americans is beloved as "one of the good guys" by the same folks who seem to think this loss entirely falls on the people.

[Enthusiast]

134. +1 an entire shit load.

[sabrina 1]

163. Thank you! And I agree, 'they' will never admit it, because they are happy with protecting their

REAL BOSSES. Eric Holder will go on to a big job with plenty of money, as will anyone who lost this election who lost because they used OUR votes to protect the criminals who destroyed the lives of so many ordinary people. But they should not take the anger of the people so lightly. Notice how hard it is now for them to use the usual talking points, mostly aimed at the 'left', and get away with it. A few years ago it was easier for them.

Things WILL change, they will be left behind, history is a precursor of these things. They have lost two elections now because of their refusal to respect the voters.

Good luck to them, the people have spoken, they gave them a vote of no confidence. Now it's time to leave them behind counting their money, while we the people figure out where to go from here.

[randys1]

127. Then they werent paying ANY attention to what was going on, because to say ALL

government let them down or was the problem, was to be completely ignorant of what has been going on for 6 years.

I cant believe I have to type these words on DU of all places, but here we go:

President Obama and most of the Democratic Party spent the last 6 years working tirelessly to try and get fanatic assholes to agree to go along with any number of ideas that would help the American people and other than for a short period of time in 2010 the rightwing fanatic assholes SHUT DOWN every attempt including shutting down the entire government at one point, something MANY people have FORGOTTEN already

[arcane1]

136. The voice of the people speaks at the ballot box.

[elzenmahn]

149. While I agree with the sentiment - this election was BOUGHT and PAID FOR...

...to sit at home is, in essence, a vote for the Republicans - because their people TURN OUT and VOTE.

And WE KNOW what we're going to get when the Repubs grab the levers of power.

Right now, job one should be to KICK THE REPUBS OUT and KEEP THEM OUT. Then, we can start worrying about primary challenges to those that fall short.

It will take some time, because we'll need to rebuild the power base at the state and local levels. Once that is established, then we can start running more progressive candidates with a genuine chance of winning. But right now, we need to rebuild the foundation.

[Hippo_Tron]

160. Okay, put yourself in a politician's shoes for a moment...

Your goal is to get to 50%+1 to win the election.

You know that a lot of people stay at home and you know that if they came to the polls it could change the outcome of the election. The problem is that you don't know whether they're staying at home because they have no confidence in their government or because they don't give a shit. There's no real way to tell. So you could try to figure out what issues appeal to the non-voters, but you can't really tell if appealing to those issues would actually get them to show up to vote.

However, if people started showing up and writing in candidates in mass numbers, it would be abundantly clear that these are motivated voters who could be won over if they actually liked any of the candidates. A politician trying to get to 50%+1 would look at these voters and figure out what issues appeal to them, and start appealing to them on those issues.

Maybe sitting at home is a protest vote for some. But it's an incredibly ineffective way to protest. If you want to protest, write-in a candidate or vote third party. It's the only way to make the politicians hear you.

[CincyDem]

75. And if we lived in a parliamentary system, that just might be applicable.

Voters don't offer a "vote of no confidence" when they don't show up. The offer a vote of "vote of screw me over".

I think it was Ansel Adams, the great American photographer, who was asked the secret of great photographs. His response "f/64 and be there". (for those not photo minded, that's a camera setting).

His point, more applicable to this conversation, was "be there".

The key to having a representative government "inform yourself and be there".

And I would respectfully submit that the voters are NOT weighting their options now for the future. The "voters" got the government they voted for. It's all those non-voters who might be weighing their options but other than grumble and bitch about the government, I doubt there are many sitting at home this week saying "dayum - I should have voted".

[TeamPooka]

108. A vote of no confidence still requires you to vote.

[MrModerate]

13. We are not talking about the political junkies . . .

Who inhabit this site, but the mass of voters who only pay attention when campaigns heat up and they are reminded of their rights and obligations regarding the country's governance. They are 'the governed' too, and we have to win their concurrence as well.

If Dems run weak, fearful campaigns, leaving such voters with no conclusion but that Democrats — regardless of the values they might share — are not inspiring, capable leaders, then how can we be surprised when they stay home on election day?

[corkhead]

74. I've been scolded by those who think this line of thinking is poppycock

Repub-Lite Dems who think we all should just support the brand, regardless of whether it represents our views or not.

I wanted to vote for candidates who will fight to protect my privacy, my civil liberties, and the environment, and doesn't want to continue our international imperialism or lay down for Wall Street, mega corporations, or the MIC.

I voted anyway, but I didn't see what I wanted on the ballot and I am sick of it and being chastised for whining about "not getting my pony."

[CincyDem]

80. Then we need to create the candidates (and support) to get those things.

I'm tired of R-lite dems and I wanted to vote for exactly the same candidates as you. They weren't running and I didn't get my pony. In fact, in Ohio I feel like I just ended up with a pile of pony-shit.

So look at the list of candidates. Where did they come from? How did they become the "chosen few" who end up on the ballot with a D next to their name.

Start looking at the local Democratic Party Committee. If you want to change the candidates, change the local party committees who pick the candidates.

I end up listening to a lot of talk radio during the day (it's a job thing and I spend time here to wash it all off at the end of the day). One of the things I'm noticing lately is a lot of folks, mostly Tea Party types, talking about the importance of becoming "precinct active" in the party. A point someone made was that if you take care of the precinct and committee level activities, the candidates and elections take care of themselves.

I hate to say it but they're right. I despise the ideology but it's hard to argue with the strategy.

We could learn a thing or two from the Tea Party - not WHAT to get done but HOW to get things done.

I loved the idea of Occupy Wall Street but it's organic nature and purposeful avoidance of leadership ensured that it would grow into an interesting historical footnote. Birthed at the same time, the Tea Party effectively has "presidential hopefuls" who are as viable as they are scary.

Where's the Tea Party of the left - a political party, not just a dissatisfied collective living in a park.

[Bandit]

81. When you can spend millions developing a candidate get back to me.

Money develops the candidates we get not the public.. Anyone that really might bring about change gets clobbered before they even get started. Hell Standard Oil dropped thirty million dollars on a city race in California..A race for Mayor and city council.. The city was suing them and now it will drop the suit because they got the people they chose.

[jhart3333]

118. If you mean Richmond, we won

They spent a lot of money and got nothing for it:

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/11/05/voters-reject-oil-titan-chevron-elect-progressive-bloc-richmond-california

Don't worry though. They'll be back with even more money next time.

[marions ghost]

83. The Tea Party

is a subset of the Repug party and obviously has support. The Corporate Repugs need the tea Party.

The left wing of the Dem party has no voice or party support (or Big Money). The "tea party of the left" is the scariest segment to all of the PTB--because that group wants serious, tangible progressive change. The system as it is does not support that kind of change. The Dem party knows the left will vote for them under duress.

It's just not that easy to equate the two factions.

[jtuck004]

109. "I've been scolded by those who think this line of thinking is poppycock" did they get their ass

handed to them last night?

Perhaps you should stay with your line of thinking. I am.

[upaloopa]

129. Rediculous those were not on the ballot

I guess your going to ask McConnell and Boner for them next

[CincyDem]

76. Because elections have consequences.

I'm not surprised when they stay home on election day and I agree that Dems seem to have this fundamental talent for picking weak candidates at the local/state levels. That said, while they may be correlated, I don't think the connection is causative.

Oxy-rush uses the phrase "low information voters" (in reference to voters who just do what their told) and of course his point is 180 degrees off target. He implies that low information voters are voting the democratic party line when in fact is has been a consistent republican strategy to scare them into voting republican. How else would you get a 35 year old unemployed white guy with 18 bucks in the bank living in a trailer on food stamps and medicaid to vote republican "cuz the democrat party wants to subsidize handouts to the poor".

Democrats don't have low information voters - we have low information non-voters along with some moderate (high?) information vote protesters.

This is like a hunger strike. At some point, when the protester is fully committed, it always ends badly.

I'm concerned that our democratic principle of peaceful protest is turning into a hunger strike because we're not getting served ideologically pure leadership candidates - so we'd rather stay home and go hungry.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

18. If you were going to pick a leader in the Senate, whould YOU have picked Harry Reed?

The guy famously said he'd rather dance with the Republicans than fight them.

[Art_from_Ark]

36. Tip O'Neill liked to schmooze with Reagan

I think that was one of the reasons why Reagan was able to get his way so much with the House.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

49. According to Tweety,...but he's wrong....

[Art_from_Ark]

54. I heard-- and saw-- that long before Tweety

http://www.google.co.jp/images?q=Tip+O%27Neill+Reagan&client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&hl=ja&oq=&gs_l=

[Spitfire of ATJ]

64. Tip was the only one who could STOP a lot of the Reagan Era crap....

That was back in the days when cocktail parties had members of both parties in them.

Now it's like the Republicans are inviting CEOs and lobbyists and Dems are trying to do the same.

Forget being seen together. That's fucking TREASON.

[Art_from_Ark]

70. But how much of the Reagan crap did he stop?

I saw a video clip on the McLaughlin Group of him and Reagan sometime in the mid-80s having themselves a good time after Reagan got one of his crappy bills passed, and Jack Germond, my favorite member of the group, did not look too pleased with it. The pictures of him and Reagan in US News and World Report didn't help, either. Maybe he was able to stop some of the Reagan juggernaut, but Reagan still had his way far too often.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

72. It was before "trickle down" was a proven failure....

And also before the Arms for Hostages and Iran/Contra scandals.

[Art_from_Ark]

73. But Reagan fired the PATCO air traffic controllers in mid-1981

That should have set off some warning bells right then.

Reagan came out against virtually everything I believed in long before Iran/Contra came to light. As a good liberal Tip should have been wary of dealing with such a devil.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

91. Washington is known as "Hollywood for ugly people"....

Everyone was star struck with all of the ACTUAL Hollywood types visiting the White House. There was a notion we heard repeated in California with Ahnold that he wouldn't do anything too extreme or it would piss off his fans. (As if Reagan had some kind of huge fan base)

Keep in mind that there was also an assassination attempt just two months into his first term and that caused most of DC to rally around him. Also, back then there was an attitude in DC that politicians were supposed to give the People what they want and that was expressed through their choice for President. Now the Ideology comes first and the DC Villagers and K Street acts like that is more important than what is good for the country or what the people want. What's "Popular" is dismissed as "Populism" and treated like it's "Commie".

[Hippo_Tron]

56. Reagan got his way because the "conservative coalition" (blue dogs and GOP) were the majority

That changed in later years when more liberals got elected to congress. But there was a de facto GOP majority for Reagan's first two years, which is why Tip O'Neill had to allow Reagan's agenda on the floor.

[Art_from_Ark]

71. I understand that

The blue dogs were called "boll weevils" in those days, and I understand that Tip had to give in a little, but not to the point of acting like he and Reagan were bosom buddies even after passing crappy legislation.

[Scootaloo]

19. if either way your vote will go to a policy you don't support, WHY VOTE?!

I'm lucky, i live in a district with politicians I support. The rising competition agaisnt democrats here are socialists for crying out loud. But for a lot of the rest of the nation? They're faced with the option of voting for a conservative republican, or a Democrat who's trying hard to sell themselves as a conservative republican.

That leaves two notions.

One, you on the left, progressive, liberal side, are simply being taken for granted. it's assumed that you'll reflexively throw a vote at the democrat, so they don't ever need to listen to you, consider you, think about you, or form an agenda with you.

Two, it shows that they will do just the opposite for the obama-hating yukklenuts who roll coal, think life begins in the testicle, and thatthe only way to end a war is to "nuke the bastards."

if I were a Kentuckian "undecided," would I have voted for McConnell or for Grimes? If I'm a left-leaning undecided, they were both equally awful. if I were a right-leaning undecided, I would go with the republican campaigning as a Republican, rather than the Democrat campaigning as a Republican. either way, Grimes loses that vote.

Let's start with getting some "good" out there before you and your sort start using that shitty argument you just tried. "Not as bad as fucking atrocious" does not equal "good."

[cemaphonic]

32. Well, there is a chicken-and-egg problem here,

since the current ground staked by the two parties is predicated on the typical voter turnout. Look at any eligible/registered/likely voter polling comparison, and it becomes clear that if we could somehow get near 100% turnout, the Republicans simply couldn't compete with their current coalition. The political center shifts leftward, and a lot of the purple state contests would be center-right vs center left instead of center-right vs far right. Meanwhile a lot of progressive legislation that enjoys wide but shallow support in the bluer states would have a much better chance of actually being put into practice.

Getting people to go along with "hold your nose and vote now to improve things over a generation" is a tough sell though.

[Scootaloo]

46. See, I don't think that's true

since the current ground staked by the two parties is predicated on the typical voter turnout.

Each party, when they've won in the past, take it as a mandate for the policies they run on. They don't change those policies after winning according to turnout. And between the two, only the democrats don't reexamine policy after losing.

Electing Democrats who promise nothing except finding some magical center point between themselves and Republicans, results in center-right politicians giving us right-wing policy. It doesn't move a fucking thing towards the left.

The only way to move things to the left is to get left-wingers on the ballots. The only way to make our displeasure known is to throw out the people who are causing that displeasure.

[Maedhros]

103. I post this a lot, because I think it is the most insightful analysis of Democratic Party principles

The Democrats want to sell us a big, stinking pile of Hope backed up with empty feel-good rhetoric, not results.

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/23/the_hope_diet_would_the_tea_party_fall_for_this/

“Hope” also sets an extremely low standard for judging Democratic politicians. Hope is, by their definition, something they bring with them, or a place they come from, or a poster they are (literally!) the illustration for; ensuring that this fanciful substance flows our way doesn’t require them actually to, you know, enact anything we’re hoping for. On the contrary, they can do things (like Clinton’s deregulations or Obama’s spying program) that actually harm their constituents, and then tell us, as Barack Obama tweeted after the 2012 election, “The definition of hope is you still believe, even when it’s hard.”

This is the opposite of accountability. It means, just keep waiting, and just keep voting. If you think good thoughts long enough, maybe someday you’ll get that million bucks, or that single-payer healthcare system.

And that’s probably why this stuff springs so goddamned eternal. After 30 years of these pseudo Democrats—Democrats who fundraise like Republicans, Democrats who govern like Republicans, Democrats who basically become Republicans (for example, Zell Miller, the creator of the “HOPE Scholarship”)—it’s easy enough to understand why elected officials love the concept. “Hope” means, forget about how you got taken last time. Think positively. Maybe this next Democrat is the one who will finally act the way you think Democrats ought to act. And when he doesn’t, “hope” means you need to stick with him anyway, because . . . well, because he’s the one who carries hope in his back pocket and all.

At any rate, “hope” is a virtue they mainly recommend for you, the Democratic voter; with their funders and bundlers, the relationship is a little more contractual. For them our Democratic leaders undertake to perform certain actions; it is only for the rank and file that they recommend a diet of wishes. If we complain about this state of affairs, they will no doubt tell us that results in this material world aren’t everything. There’s something philosophical and ennobling about hoping for things. “Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him,” says Job of the Almighty.

When confronting our earthly leaders, however, the situation ought to be a little different. We shouldn’t have to hope. We should expect politicians to deliver.

As Devo put it, Democrats are "floating hope on an ocean of need" and it just doesn't cut it. Why do voters stay home on election day? Because the politicians they are supposed to vote for don't deliver.

[cheapdate]

65. Fascinating. Do you use that same principle in other areas?

Say for example, strictly hypothetical for illustration, you were arrested and booked. But the sheriff let you choose between two cellmates. The first one was "fucking atrocious". He was the meanest, toughest, dirtiest inmate in the jail, a real sadist. He was known to "like it rough". He was a biter. He smelled like a festering wound. The second one was "not as bad". He "liked it gentle". He was demanding and sometimes infuriating, but he was fastidious and occasionally good company.

Basically they're both going to screw you, but one is going to screw you easy and then leave you alone. The other is going to screw you hard every day, and steal your dinner every night.

You're telling me that in a forced choice situation (if you don't choose someone will choose for you) you're equally as willing to get screwed hard and often as get screwed gently and infrequently?

[sendero]

79. You are a prime example of ..

... "don't get it".

In the scenario you have described the voter just doesn't bother to show up. That is exactly what happened. The voter did not choose between rough and gentle, the voter said "fuck it". And it's not like the voter is actually going to be put in either cell, the consequences of not voting are negligible in his mind as there is little difference in getting fucked rough and fucked otherwise.

[cheapdate]

138. "...in a forced choice situation (if you don't choose someone will choose for you)"

I'm quite positive that I "get it", and by "get it," I mean I recognize that some people create various rationales for not bothering to vote.

By the way, the poster didn't exactly imply the consequences were "negligible" -- they described a choice between "not as bad" and "fucking atrocious".

"Not as bad" is the only sane choice in that situation.

[merrily]

41. The logic falls apart either way.

How does letting the leadership of the country slip into overtly anti-progressive hands serve the future good ?

If one doesn't think see today's Democrats as "the good," but just a different flavor of bad, then the whole good-perfect-enemy metaphor isn't relevant.

One older woman (top of her Ivy League class) said, "What's the use? One party is disgusting and the other is so phony."

She had been a straight ticket D voter all her life.

That does not necessarily mean that they don't see any difference at all between the parties, but maybe they don't see enough difference in life under either party.

We can debate if they are right or wrong, but the real trick would be to figure out what will get them to the polls.

[AgingAmerican]

43. Apathy

nt

[merrily]

51. Do you mean that her view of each party had led to her not caring who wins?

If so, I agree. She was not indifferent to the situation, as she saw it. She was upset. But she was apathetic about which party was in power.

There is always something in my gut that will not let me be indifferent to who wins.

[AgingAmerican]

57. When your party leadership

touts the views of the other side while shunning those of your side, it breeds apathy in many voters.

[merrily]

61. I'm over touting. Now, it takes results.

This, though, is one scary election outcome. I feel worse than I did in 2010--and I was still coming down from a 2008 high then.

Well, I am done for this evening. Peace.

[1StrongBlackMan]

110. Just wait ...

progressivism will spring from the ashes! You just wait!

[DebJ]

124. Sounds like what my mom calls 'bite your own nose to spite your face'. AKA 3 year olds. n/t

[jtuck004]

142. "slip into" < It's already in anti-progressive hands. n/t

[PatrynXX]

157. really need to change the way we pick the people who are going to run.

it's that simple.

[JohnnyRingo]

159. Because it's nonsense.

The OP could have added #3: "So the voters elected the Tea Party because the Democrats weren't liberal enough." My moderate democratic congressman, Ohio's 17th district Tim Ryan, won his seventh term Tuesday by a two to one margin (70%). He's pro-union, but don't ask him for gun control or anything that violates his Catholic faith. He just remains quiet on such issues.

It's telling that the author even used the word "progressive" in this post, a term that was wisely crafted to replace the apparently tainted word "liberal".

If what this poster claims is true, we'd have seen two solid terms by President Kucinich. I love him, but no one is to the left of Dennis, and he's sadly unemployed.

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. really?

[LAGC]

39. Ain't that the damn truth.

[Marr]

68. "Send our jobs overseas"?

Help me out here-- which party is actually fighting that?

[LondonReign2]

86. As well as "tap our computer messages"

[onecaliberal]

3. And republicans do? Crazy ass ones at that?

[Spazito]

4. If wishes were horses, beggars would ride...

meanwhile the repubs won because their supporters know voting gets it done, those who espouse utopia think not voting gets it done. Wrong.

[tavalon]

25. I know for a fact that the person who wrote this OP

voted. He is very committed to all things progressive. I also voted. I am committed to all things progressive. I'm getting really tired of holding my nose, though.

In case anyone is going to argue that I don't know that he voted or even how he voted, I've met him a time or two. Or, rather, was married to him for 12 years.

[Spazito]

95. My post was referencing those who didn't vote not those who did...

Holding one's nose while voting is not uncommon, I have found I have done that more often than not over the 40 years I've been voting. I don't think it is a valid reason for not voting.

[LondonReign2]

87. False. Liberals are the most reliable voters

It's the middle of the roaders you have to convince, and they are uninspired by "not as bad as'.

[Spazito]

93. If what you say is true then the percentage of Liberals is far less than 30%...

given only approx 36.6% of eligible voters voted and the majority of those seem to have been republicans given their wins across the board.

Only 13% of those eligible under age 30 voted so the percentage of Liberals under 30 must be miniscule if, again, what you say is true.

[LondonReign2]

94. I haven't seen any breakdown for 2014 yet, but here are the previous numbers

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/06/1003805/-Did-liberals-really-stay-home-and-cause-the-2010-rout
“So I went back to the exit polls and the picture I see shows nothing like that. If you are a proponent of this claim, I challenge you for empirical proof that some set of activist liberals "took their ball and went home" or whatever metaphor you prefer to make Obama's leftward critics appear childish and immature. Inside, the evidence I found that shows this just ain't so.”

http://blogforarizona.net/do-progressives-even-sit-out-elections-the-numbers-say-no/
“As you can see, Democrats did slightly better with liberals in 2010 than in 2006. Had there really been a collective we’re-sitting-out-the-election-to-spite-Obama pout going on, then there should have been a sharp drop in the liberal participation percentage. Yet notice the 9% in moderate voter participation and the concomitant 10% increase in conservative turnout. Republicans were pumped for that election but their turnout tends to be higher in midterms anyway. Millions of moderate voters either flipped to conservative or stayed home in 2010.”

“As you can see, all the Democratic groups dropped, but the liberal Democrats dropped least of all”

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/progressive-movement/news/2012/11/08/44348/the-return-of-the-obama-coalition/
Ideology. Liberals were 25 percent of voters in 2012, up from 22 percent in 2008. Since 1992 the percent of liberals among presidential voters has varied in a narrow band between 20 percent and 22 percent, so the figure for this year is quite unusual. Conservatives, at 35 percent, were up one point from the 2008 level, but down a massive 7 points since 2010.
Ideology. Obama received less support in 2012 from all ideology groups, though the drop-offs were not particularly sharp in any group. He received 86 percent support from liberals (89 percent in 2008), 56 percent from moderates (60 percent in 2008), and 17 percent from conservatives (20 percent in 2008).

[Spazito]

96. Here is the breakdown for the recent election...

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/11/05/midterm-turnout-decreased-in-all-but-12-states

[LondonReign2]

99. What I don't see in there--and maybe it is in one of the embedded links--

is a drill down of political views. If you look at the other links, it includes self-described Liberals vs. Moderates, etc. And what you'll see there, completely contradicting the spin the conservatives like to give, is that it is the Liberals that come out to vote in election after election.

It isn't the Liberals that don't show up because they didn't get their pony as our conservadems like to falsely claim (often repeating this claim even after being shown data that it isn't true), its' the moderates you need to convince to vote.

[Spazito]

102. Again, either the percentage of Liberals is very small or they did not all come out...

to vote as you seem to think. The term Liberal is subjective as two people who believe they are Liberals yet do not see eye to eye on everything, have different perspectives on what should be the priority issues.

[LondonReign2]

105. From the data

Last edited Thu Nov 6, 2014, 02:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Ideology. Liberals were 25 percent of voters in 2012, up from 22 percent in 2008. Since 1992 the percent of liberals among presidential voters has varied in a narrow band between 20 percent and 22 percent, so the figure for this year is quite unusual. Conservatives, at 35 percent, were up one point from the 2008 level, but down a massive 7 points since 2010.

So there you go. Sorry if actual facts ruins your narrative about the pony wishing libs taking their ball and going home.

[Spazito]

131. Actually your stats bolster my point...

2012 was a Presidential election where turnout is always greater, the stats to compare would be 2010 to 2014, both mid term elections.

The turnout in 2010 was 40%, the turnout in 2014 was 36.6%, a drop of 3.4% which would lead one to presume the Liberal turnout was less than before. Your stats are comparing two Presidential elections while the discussion is about mid term elections.

[Autumn]

6. You might just have a point there. Voters for the most part passed progressive legislation

while kicking some Democrats out.

[Rex]

23. The truth emerges for those that notice. Conservative dems just don't show up and vote!

I am so sick of hearing them complain on DU! They complain the MOST and vote the LEAST.

[brooklynite]

7. ...in Kentucky, Arkansas, Georgia, Montana, Alaska?

Well, why didn't you say so before?

[mythology]

8. Some people would feel compelled to offer proof of such a contention

Personally I think that it's a combination of a general dissatisfaction with government, an election cycle where more vulnerable Democrats were up for reelection in the Senate, the House being so gerrymandered that it's virtually impossible to retake and most importantly the structural importance of a two party system.

If there were multiple parties, then you could say that if people voted for a further left party that people wanted a more progressive agenda. But when there are only two parties, if you are unhappy with the government, you can really only vote for one other party, in this case, the batshit crazy party.

There's also the historical precedent that the party that holds the presidency almost always loses seats in the second midterms.

[BillZBubb]

9. So instead they voted republican? That makes no sense.

The real message was "you Democrats are in charge and things aren't going well. So, you're fired."

That's the message the republicans got out and it is the one that got the right wingers to the polls.

[merrily]

45. I agree. They were dissatisfied and they voted for change.

Would they have been as dissatisfied, though, if, say, Warren's student loan bill had passed?

[FLyellowdog]

47. And we Democrats did a really crappy job

of contradicting the Republican message. We could have; we should have; and then perhaps we would have won.

The GOP repeated their lies often enough and loud enough that people began to believe them and with few people calling them out on the misinformation, how could they NOT win? They ran on a platform of fear, gloom, and doom and we offered nothing in rebuttal. In fact, some of our candidates actually fueled this narrative by running FROM the truths about this administration's accomplishments and now we're paying the price.

I'm unclear about what exactly Pres. Obama's failed policies are and how the GOP would have done things differently. But it's evident the majority of those who voted know. How in the world did I miss it? Maybe I don't watch Fox News enough or maybe I have a tendency to check what I do watch for facts. Certainly one precludes the other.

My favorite political quote of all time is from the movie the American President where Andrew Shepard explains his nemesis' plan of action by saying the following: " And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you, Bob Rumson is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things and two things only: making you afraid of it and telling you who's to blame for it." Insert "the GOP" where Bob Rumson's name is, and you have the authentic reason of why we took such a beating last night.

The GOP lied time and again about what's wrong with our country, exacerbated fears about Ebola and ISIS. et al, and blamed our President for not doing things they repeatedly prevented him from doing. And all this in addition to overlooking any good that has come out of the Obama presidency. Is it any wonder that our candidates were defeated?

Somehow we have to take back the mindset of the voting public and do everything we can to engage those who don't vote so that a greater percentage of the population will vote.

One of our jobs as the Democratic base is to unite behind our principles and stand with our candidates by being better at exposing the lies of the opposition. If we don't take up the slack where our candidates leave off, who will? Failure to take a proactive stance will simply ensure that we will continue to lose elections.

Last night I was deeply saddened and greatly discouraged by what had just happened, but in the light of day things have cleared up a bit in my mind. I know that I have to become better informed on issues, better aware of opposing candidates' records, and better prepared to dispute untruths and twisted facts. I don't have to convince everyone; I just have to convince a few. Imagine...if each Democrat did that, what a landslide for the Liberals we'd see in 2016!

IMHO

[BeyondGeography]

77. It's worse than that; most people don't even know who's running what and many of them are our voters

[Wellstone ruled]

10. Cow towing to Wall Street and not

holding the real crooks for their deeds of destruction of working folks came back to bit the party in the ass. Weak agendas produce weak policies and results.

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

11. We should have destroyed Republicanism when we had a chance

But we didn't want to bother with war criminals. We wanted to "look forward". That was the time to turn fascism on its head, but we did NOTHING. Which is criminal itself.

[SoapBox]

15. I agree...

And instead we blow it, blow it, blow it...

Today is what we ended up with. They have one step left, to take the White House...then the future is over.

[blkmusclmachine]

14. ,

,

[Gore1FL]

16. They lost because they ran against themselves instead of running against the republicans

At some level that might what you are saying, but not exaclty.

[Maineman]

17. Perhaps we should sent Obama the real message from the nation, at least many of us.

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Perfectly stated.

Thank you!

[Recursion]

21. Yeah, Republicans also thought they lost in 2006 because they weren't conservative enough

Confirmation bias is a neat thing

[Ash_F]

50. No, for the most part they acknowledged that they were too racist/sexist.

Not that they did anything about it.

[Recursion]

52. Oh, sure, the party leaders did. I'm talking about the conservative blogosphere

The bloggers, freepers, LGFers, etc. all said the real problem was they weren't conservative enough, and excoriated the party leadership as quisling RINO sell-outs for even talking about addressing racism and sexism.

[Ash_F]

58. The OP and others make a point

Though low turnout may have put pubs in office this time, most referendums and propositions, that people voted into effect across the nation, leaned heavily towards the left.

Or towards what I would call the REAL American center. Hell, they just banned fracking north of Dallas on Tuesday! For the first time in the nation.

America is to the left of both parties.

[Recursion]

59. America is all over the place and loves laws until they get written

If we had plebiscites on individual laws we'd wind up with a much more liberal system than we have, yes. But policy actually doesn't do nearly as much as people think to get people to vote for candidates.

[Ash_F]

62. Politicians come and go

But policies like that fracking ban, or gay marriage, are going to stay.

[Recursion]

63. I certainly hope so

The fracking bans were good wins, and marriage equality has been too (we managed to turn that from a wedge issue against us to one for us). But polls also show Americans want to eliminate the budget deficit by "cutting foreign aid"...

[Rex]

22. Easy you are riling up the conservative dems that hardly show up to vote!

Boy do they complain...a LOT!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

24. Incorrect. The message from Democrat voters to their candidates was:

We are toddlers. Unless we get *everything* and unless you get us all excited, we will NOT go to the polls.

Meanwhile, Republican voters were voting en masse ONLY to keep Democrats from occupying positions in govt.

The end result is what we keep seeing.

Only one thing can be said: That lib voters are not too bright.

[gordianot]

27. Yup

[cheapdate]

53. +1

[Codeine]

82. Sarah is on point. nt

[JoePhilly]

88. The GOP voted against US. Dems fought amongst themselves.

[Marr]

89. If Ford has a bad quarter, they don't get to shrug it off with "car buyers are stupid!".

If you lost an election, you employed a losing strategy. Period. The 'pragmatic, sensible, adult, reality-based' thing to do is push the party to be more appealing to voters, not whine that they won't buy your Third Way car and keeping building more of them.

[LondonReign2]

97. Bullshit

You have proof that it was "lib voters" demanding they "get everything" or they wouldn't vote, right?

[steve2470]

146. I understand people not being inspired to vote

Charlie Crist in Florida was not what I would call an inspiring progressive Democratic candidate. However, he did win the Florida Democratic primary. He was our guy, for good or bad.

Now, we have Governor Voldemort Criminal Alien for another 4 years. Staying home was not an option, IMHO. Crist, for all his flaws, is still better than the current space alien.

Hopefully next time we in Florida can get someone more inspiring. I was pretty confident that medical marijuana would bring out younger mostly Democratic voters in droves, and that would help Crist and other Dems. Unfortunately, not enough to pass the MMJ amendment.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

161. Bingo

[TrollBuster9090]

26. Either that, or...

If YOU don't support Democratic Party policies, why the hell should WE?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

29. That's exactly the idiotic and infantile sort of thinking which keeps putting GOP in office

You know what I mean. That certain, "If-You-Don't-Support-My-Favorite-Issue-I-Won't-Vote" bullshit that Democratic voters love to do.

Republicans don't do that. Republicans are serious enough to get their candidates in office and worry about the tiny details later.

[TrollBuster9090]

33. I was thinking more of undecided voters, and democratic-leaning voters when I said that.

Undecided voters and fence sitters, rightly or wrongly, tend to follow the voice that sounds most certain. (It's a human weakness.) Republican policies may be mostly wrong, but wright or wrong the Republican candidates always give a full-throated defense of them, and a full-throated criticism of Democratic policies. If Democratic candidates do the same thing, and EQUIVOCATE when asked if they support their own Party's policies (like Grimes did), the undecided voter will say "Well, if YOU don't support or believe in your own Party's policies, how do you expect ME to?"

It's a human weakness, but there it is. If non-committed voters see Democratic Party candidates running away from their own leader, and their own philosophy, the uncommitted voter will assume that what the critics say about them must be TRUE.

[geek tragedy]

28. Keep on telling yourself the voters chose Sam Brownback

and Ick Scott because they were craving more leftwing policies.

[florida08]

113. Could not believe Brownback won..but I couldn't believe Scott in my state either

[cali]

30. delusional bullshit. Period. and !

[Ruby the Liberal]

31. Message our esteemed leaders heard...

compromise more and move to the right.

[Mr.Bill]

34. I like the Democrats I voted for.

I voted for them and they won.

But then I live in California.

[defacto7]

42. and I live in Utah...

need I say more? I still voted though.

[Mr.Bill]

44. Keep up the fight.

Remember, Reagan was our governor for two terms. Most recently we had a washed up Republican action movie hero that buried us in 40+Billion of debt. That won't be fixed overnight.

[pnwmom]

35. Dream on. n/t

[Zambero]

37. Well, not exactly

The Republicans they voted in certainly don't represent a progressive agenda. The perception of many voters was that Democratic candidates no longer supported their President, having supported his policies earlier but distancing themselves based on recent opinion polls. So why should the voters support Democratic candidates when those same candidates rejected the President who also happens to be a Democrat? Their conclusion: vote Republican. On ballot initiatives, there was no party affiliation, so voters could decide them on the merits. So you have a voter who on one hand would support equal pay or an increase in the minimum wage, while on the other hand voting against a Democrat who might have given lip service to those issues but refused to line up with President Obama in supporting them. Not a good display of consistency and not a way to make a case for what your party has to offer.

[WestCoastLib]

38. Absolutely

And the liberal states are getting more progressive. California and Washington have both voted to raise taxes recently. Pot is legal for half the west coast. Gay marriage and equal rights are winning big in blue states.

The Progressive agenda is a winner. Neo-con democrat politicians are losers.

[TomCADem]

40. So, they voted Republican Because Republicans Would Advance...

...that Agenda?

[LondonReign2]

98. No, they failed to vote at all

because many of the Dems refused run as anything other than Repub lite-- they ran AWAY from the party. Grimes ran as a gun shootin', coal lovin', jesus fearin' candidate that couldn't even say who she voted for.

[JohnnyRingo]

158. Is that why democrats didn't show up in elections past?

It seems to me that it's historic that the disinterested moderate dems are the ones who stay home, but not the hard core liberal ones. Voters like us DUers never miss an election. Tuesday's election saw the same turnout we see for every midterm in most places.

This election had nothing to do with candidates that aren't far enough to the left. My moderate democratic congressman, Ohio's 17th district Tim Ryan, won his seventh term Tuesday by a two to one margin (70%).

If what you and the OP are saying is true, then democrats could just run true liberals like Kucinich, Sharpton, or McGovern, and watch them win in a landslide, but that didn't seem to work out well for them, did it?

Remember that even Obama ran twice as a moderate and some DUers have been complaining about it for six long years. It was only Fox News that painted him as a wild eyed liberal, and it sure wasn't to get out the democratic vote.

[LondonReign2]

164. Forget "not Liberal enough", we had candidates that barely ran as Democrats

Saying "I'm not Obama", as Grimes did, and running away from fundamental Democratic issues is not a way to inspire the voters.

You are correct, the liberals show up to vote no matter what. But you aren't going to expand your base if you give the voters little reason to vote for the not-Republican.

You say Obama ran as a moderate; maybe so, maybe not. But what he did do is embrace traditional Democratic values. He claimed to stand for economic fairness, for the worker person, for fixing things like our adventures in the Middle East and Guantanamo, for fair taxes...and the black guy with the funny name won in a landslide.

So liberal, moderate, whatever...if you stand for traditional Democratic positions you have a much better chance. Perhaps Grimes couldn't have beaten McConnell in a state like Kentucky, but trying to act like a Republican-- failing to even defend who you voted for!--was a sure-fire way to lose.

[cheapdate]

48. I don't think that Kay Hagan or Michelle Nunn lost

because voters in NC and GA were "sending a message" to the Democratic Party. They were good candidates who ran hard and lost in very close races.

I'm in the deep red south so my perspective might be different.

Personally, I'd support an eco-anarchist agenda, but that's a struggle on a separate front.

[malletgirl02]

144. I agree

I don't know much about NC, but I do know GA it is a deep red state. Nunn should hold her head high she as a democrat amost won deep red GA. I don't know much about NC, so I'm not going to say any thing about Kay Hagan.

[RiverLover]

148. Kay Hagen was profracking & pro-offshore drilling just like the rethugs

"“We have to have a big energy policy,” she said, acknowledging she "supports fracking and offshore drilling, if done a certain way."

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/05/27/3892112_even-as-she-straddles-the-line.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

[cheapdate]

153. And yet I'd much rather have her in the Senate that Republican Thom Tillis.

[RiverLover]

155. Me too. Lesser of 2 evils for sure.

[Cha]

60. No.. NO "Period".. there were a lot of different factors.. and to those who stayed home and whined

in a corner and let the repubs win for 2, 4, and 6 years.. I say you don't know anything about how things get done. Yeah, cutting off your little nose to spite your sourpuss always works.

[defacto7]

66. I've posted this before and I'll post it again.

It's not what the public associates themselves with or disassociates with that counts, it's who's in control. If the people were in control of government like we expect it to be, then the logic of this OP may be reasonable. But we aren't in control anymore. It's the power of money, organization and national/international business interests that are in control. Remember the cliché, "possession is 90% of the law". We the people possess nothing.

To hell with both major parties as organized entities that represent certain factions of the people as well as the non-parties, the new parties, whatever... we the people have to take back our country, and if we have to sign a contract with the devil to do it, then that's what we do. The America we once knew or thought we knew doesn't exist anymore. Smoke and mirrors.

We have one more chance in 2016 just to start the process of forming a progressive America. 2014 is gone... done... over... we do not have 2014 as a starting point anymore. They have had 50 years of patience getting to this level of control. You want to shake your laurels of progressive agenda victories? Don't hold your breath. We are not in control... our little victories can be reversed with little resistance if the extreme right wing hold the power in the SCOTUS, Congress and the White House. If you think adolescent attitudes toward politics will win the war, then you think spitting in a grizzly bears face won't get you eaten. If you are young enough to think all those old guys up there in high political office are messing with your stuff.... they were you... and you will be them.

Associate with whatever entity has the possibility to grow strong enough, soon enough, to take back what we have lost to those who have bought us, brainwashed us and groomed us. Otherwise we'll just choke on that smoke and watch our reflection disappear in dreams of revolution that will never be.

[sheshe2]

67. Wow!

Your so called progressives gained us so much! You stayed at home and pouted.

Your agenda? How about the peoples agenda? We now only allow "progressives" in our party?



That is so sad.

Period.

[Andy823]

107. Very sad indeed

Not voting to send a message, when it obvious that the republicans will take control and do more damage to this country if they can, is simply insane. Those who push this kind of BS are the problem. Way to many posters here think they are the "only" true liberals, progressives and everybody who doesn't think their way are "authoritarians", which is total BS. They promote an agenda that will not help, but only hurt those they convince to follow them. How many of those who stayed home to send a message will be hurting before the end of the republicans control in two years? How many of them think that they can gain any kind of progress such as help with student loans, reliable health care, a minimum wage nationally, etc. by letting republicans run things?

The doom and gloom posters are having a ball now and using this to promote their agenda, whatever the hell that might be.

[Last_Stand]

69. I don't think my wife's Missouri white redneck rural relatives...

are waiting for a more progressive agenda from the Democratic party.

Somehow they are still managing to blame all of the state's problems on those "goddamn liberals" that haven't ever controlled their state...

[DinahMoeHum]

78. "We voted for progressive measures and propositions"

The message should include the above, and amended as follows:

"1. We support a progressive agenda.
2. We vote for progressive measures and propositions.
3..Unfortunately, you did not represent 1 and 2"

Just sayin'

[Yavin4]

84. Have to give the people something to vote for

Cannot rely on "vote for me because the other person is a nut job".

[NCTraveler]

90. K&R because I think you can make this overall assumption and more often than not it is correct.

But each candidate lost for their own reasons. Everyone is saying they lost because of one reason. the reasons are numerous and are candidate by candidate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

92. And, they are amazed that people don't bother to vote.

[jmondine]

100. Clarification from the OP

First off, I voted.

Second, the OP is meant to encapsulate what I think the current Democratic leadership should take away from this, because I am very nervous about them screwing it up yet again and thinking, "Oh. The voters want us to work with the Tea Party. They want us to shift even more to the right".

I am not saying that Democrats do not, as a whole, support progressive policies. There are some who don't, and some who do. However, the voters obviously didn't know where the candidates stood, or didn't trust them. The Dems made a huge mistake running from every popular initiative, not to mention the President, in an effort to court the "middle".

The Republicans courted their base. The problem is, the Democrats also courted the Republican base, with predictable results.

The Democrats now need to stand up for everything that voters supported: Sensible gun laws, decriminalization of marijuana, protecting Social Security and the environment and raising the minimum wage. And make the Republicans pay every time they stand against these things.

The message is clear. Let's hope the Democrats are listening.

[shenmue]

101. I think you've got it wrong

1. We did support a progressive agenda.

2. Progressives do not like to vote.

[jmondine]

104. And yet those who did vote...

... defeated a "personhood" amendment, legalized marijuana, closed the gun show loophole and raised the minimum wage. And they still didn't vote for the Democrats.

[florida08]

111. agreed

I believe the working middle class didn't see anything that was helping them. They had long forgotten that tax cut. Many who lost good jobs are now fighting for their life. Still. Yet they see billions going to the banks (85b a month)

I might be wrong but I also believe they were upset by the domestic spy program and data collection, the veterans health care failure and being back in Iraq. They just threw their hands up. It reminded me of the midterms of Bush. These were things the GOP had no effect on.

People just don't desert their leader because they're busy.

[tridim]

112. Thing is, that means it is up to US to run as progressive candidates in 2016.

I'm DQ'ed from running for office for the same reasons that lots of progressive (free thinking) people are. I'm nowhere near squeaky clean.

How about you?

I don't mean to be a downer, but this is the reality.

[jmondine]

116. I am so far from squeaky clean, I make Pig Pen look like Felix Unger

Totally agree with you, though. I think it's important to support and elect progressive candidates at the local level as well. I confess that I am guilty of ignoring this, though I won't be anymore. It's not as fun or sexy as just focusing on the state and national, and it takes a herculean amount of patience to see it pay off on a grand scale. But it is what needs to happen.

[CaptainTruth]

114. I believe the main reason Dems lost was ...

because Repubs spent 6 years hate-mongering Obama, demonizing him to their base & telling them to hate him, then they made the election all about OBAMA instead of about ISSUES.

Look at the results, minimum wage, gun control, marijuana (arguably liberal) all won. Democratic issues won. Dem candidates, defined by the Repubs as part of the evil Obama agenda, lost.

The Repubs framed the election as a rejection of the "evil Obama," & Dems went on defense against that, distancing themselves. Dems should have run a much stronger campaign on ISSUES, highlighting Dem positions that Americans overwhelmingly support.

Instead of allowing Repubs to define the election as a rejection of Obama, Dems should have defined it as an embrace of policies that are widely popular with Americans.

[Blue_In_AK]

117. Alaska was particularly schizophrenic in this regard.

We passed four very liberal ballot measures by large margins, and yet (barring some miracle) are sending a Neocon to the Senate and increased what was already a Republican supermajority in our state legislature.

Jeanne Devon (The Mudflats) had a good Facebook post on this, comments from a disgruntled conservative:

Psst! Come with me, and peek through this little window... If you think all conservatives are gloating at your expense, here's a different perspective from one of them, pilfered to amaze you, and maybe to make you feel a little better.

"Alaskan election results are in.

Unions got their unbridled benefits and pay raises back, at the expense of their fellow citizens.

Unions and Sarah Palin got their governor.

Liberals, deluded Libertarians, and young pot heads got their marijuana regulated and legal.

Liberals, and those who don't understand how capitalism works, got their minimum wage increase.

Liberals and Native corporations successfully killed any future resource development in the Bristol Bay region.

And Republicans got...

A man who has been in Congress for 4 decades.

And (possibly) another elitist Republican senator, who will be working together with the other elitists to represent corporate interests, their own power, and the special interest groups."

Bwa-ha-ha. Actually, the new president of our State Senate looked rather shell-shocked on the news last night, talking about how they will have to implement the new marijuana law and how surprised they are that they're going to have to deal with it.

[Phlem]

119. Exactly.

[JohnnyRingo]

120. Then why did the voters elect candidates on the far right?

Was it to teach the moderate democrats that if they can't have fully committed progressive candidates the people will vote Tea Party?

If so, well played, but it seems like strange logic.

[jimlup]

121. While I agree that the two statements are true

I would argue that the message from the voters was more one of complete frustration, confusion and gulibility.

[JPZenger]

123. Message: You didn't motivate us. You didn't differentiate yourself enough from the gridlockers.

[One_Life_To_Give]

125. Without very detailed exit polls can't say.

Most voters are given a very limited choice. Pulling one lever vs another is an inaccurate gauge at best. About all we can say is the electorate is unhappy. There are many potential reasons for unhappiness. Stomach and roof are usually high on the list.

[upaloopa]

126. No this is the message

We support a progressive agenda.
We didn't bother to vote and we sure as hell won't get a progressive agenda from the repubs we helped elect.

[Octafish]

128. Explains why the young people tuned out.

Explains why the old regressives turned out.

[upaloopa]

130. So I guess McConnell and Boner are going to

pass a progressive agenda.
That is called cutting off your nose to spite your face

[napi21]

132. I think Norm Goldman is right. He said people are sick of a gov't that does nothing,

they don't know enough about how their gov't works, so they say "Hmmm, the President is a Dem, he's the head of gov't so I'm going to punish HIM and put the other party in office." They are so uninformed about the way their gov't works they don't realize the Pres. has very little power and CANNOT PASS LAWS, nor can he spend money or reduce taxes etc.

I really do believe that was the biggest problem on Tuesday.

My husband was talking about "the Koch Brothers" to a neighbor a few months ago, and they thought he was talking about the people who own Coca Cola! They never heard of the Koch's or Citizens United, or much of anything else.

[Enthusiast]

133. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

Period.

[arcane1]

135. The numbers say "we support a republican agenda". Votes not cast are votes not counted.

What good does it do to send a silent message to the candidate who LOST? It's the winner who gets to govern.

There is only ONE clear message from Tuesday: more voters prefer republicans.

We will NEVER fix that by staying home.

[Progressive dog]

137. And that's why they voted for Republicans,

because they prefer a progressive agenda.

[Number23]

143. You got like, WAY too much logic there for this thread

[RiverLover]

147. Logic is seeing that most Progressives didn't see either party represent them, so they stayed home

Jeesh.

[Number23]

162. No, "logic" is saying that someone doesn't represent me 100%

So I will stand by and watch while someone who represents me 0% takes office.

Jeesh, indeed.

[DireStrike]

139. They don't care.

Even if they lose their jobs on the hill they will land in a nice lobbying position, usually making even more money.

[hay rick]

140. The message was a yawn.

A lot of people are simply disengaged. There is a difference between supporting liberal values in a poll and being motivated to vote based on how well candidates embody those values. Our collective downhill journey will surely continue until a lot more people figure out that democracy is not a spectator sport.

[whereisjustice]

141. You mean spying, drones, torture, bank fraud, and putting social security on the table

isn't attracting Democratic voters?

[Liberal Veteran]

145. Incorrect: The message was....

1. It was a mid-term election.
2. Mid-term voters skew older and more republican.
3. Our party leadership didn't do an effective job to offset that (e.g. whining, wishy-washy, lack of focus on accomplishments, allowing infighting among the base to make us look incoherent).

When it comes down to it, we aren't real good at circling the wagons and are more likely to say "Well, yes we did this, but we could have done a lot better."

[swilton]

150. 1,000 Recs

[zentrum]

151. Dumbfounded.

When marriage equality can be rolled back or delayed, when Dreamers can be strung out another 2 years, when women are about to lose equal access to health care and free choice, when social security can be chained-----how the groups effected by these policies could sit at home, is beyond comprehension..

Was doing better yesterday understanding all this , but today I'm dumbfounded.

[DeSwiss]

154. K&R

[center]
[/center]

[jillan]

156. You have to give people a reason to vote. They didn't.