Let me be clear: It is delusional to claim dems lost because they didn't stand with the President

[cali]

Democrats lost because of a number of factors. and they vary from state to state. Here are some of those factors:

Citizens United.

Voter suppression

Racism

Fear

An economy that does NOT benefit the vast majority of people

Gerrymandering

Some not very good campaigners like Coakley in MA and Braley

An election map that heavily favored republicans re the Senate

It's the midterms and they follow a damn consistent pattern with very, very few exceptions

Low turnout (about 40% lower than 2012)

An older electorate

A for shit DNC

And yes, deny reality until the fucking holsteins hobble home: President Obama is deeply unpopular in most states. Racism is indubitably a big piece of this, but it's not the only piece.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. As you note in the last lines, his deep unpopularity was not helpful.

One of the talking heads on MSNBC noted that in one exit poll (I missed where) something like 91% of voters who voted for the republican stated that they were actually 'voting against Obama'.

Voting against Obama was a major factor in Republican turnout, and the tighter candidates tied themselves to him, the higher Republican turnout would have been.

[cali]

2. I never get the excuses and denial that invariably pop up after we lose

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

5. It's simply being human.

No one likes to think that 'their guy' made serious mistakes, or that the things they believe simply don't work. Scapegoats must always be found.

[FBaggins]

18. It isn't usually "excuses"

Oh sure... we all go through the stages of grief in the aftermath of a big loss. So there's some of that. It's natural.

But most people don't realize that politics is really not a 2-party game. There are loads of factions within each party that are constantly vying for control. If you can successfully spin a loss as being the result of not listening to your faction, you can gain power within the party even in he midst of loses.

The biggest problem I have with the "no supportng the President enough" spin is that the other side (the winning side in this case) was doing everything they could do to pin our candidates to an unpopular President. It's takes an extreme suspension of disbelief to think that "you're darn right I'll give him whatever he wants!" would be the winning strategy.

[Tatiana]

50. I don't either.

And here's the thing... we can't solve the problem of losing elections until we address the actual reasons why we lost.

If we continue to tell ourselves Dems lost because they didn't "stand with the President" we will continue to lose.

[TwilightGardener]

36. Yes, it was a pummeling by proxy. Can't do anything about the guy in the WH, so

you beat down members of his party instead. Pent up anger, six years out of power in terms of the Presidency, it does happen to both parties.

[spanone]

3. i'll kick & rec that!

[corkhead]

4. having the choice of repub or repub-lite is not a good motivator for turnout

[cali]

6. Seriously? Not this old saw again. In some states all they want is republican

and liberal candidates are not going to win there anymore than a conservative candidate will win in Vermont.

[corkhead]

13. ask the disinterested voter why they are disinterested and they will tell you why they stayed home

many of them will tell you that they all suck and there is little difference between them.

I am not in complete agreement with that sentiment, but I am not surprised by it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

38. If that's true, then we shouldn't even bother running candidates in those states.

Big waste of money.

I don't buy that though. There are more people who can't be bothered to vote in each state than there are people who want to vote Republican. Give them a belief that if they do vote, it will actually help them, and they'll vote. But that's the problem - the people run as Dem candidates don't give them that belief, so they continue not to vote.

[Kaleva]

45. But liberal candidates in many regions can't make it past the primaries.

In those elections, where a supposedly true choice is offered and which ought to get voters excited and to the polls, the liberal gets defeated,

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

47. Which is why we need open primaries.

That reflect the interests of more of the electorate than just the narrow slice who are registered Dems.

Will it make for 'more liberal candidates'? I don't know. But it will make for more electable candidates in the general.

[AleksS]

53. Yet the liberal policies win. Which is what confuses me.

Yet the liberal policies win. Which is what confuses me.

Minimum wage referendums tore it up last night--even in the reddest of states. Personhood went down in flames--even in a state that went red. Progressive policies, when up for direct vote, win no matter how red the state.

Is it possible to run as "not a liberal" but still have liberal positions on issues? (I'm asking sincerely how a person would do that.)

The issues win; can candidates embracing the issues win? Can a candidate embrace liberal positions and not be considered a liberal? Or was it strictly the "Democrat" label that flipped the switch for voters. Was it a case of: "Well I like what the Democrat stands for, and the republican plans to screw me, but f*** Democrats."

[hrmjustin]

7. Yes! it is not just one issue but a number of them.

[cali]

14. right. many more than I listed, and some are very, very local

for instance, in my state of Vermont, the guv, Peter Shumlin is thought of as arrogant and unlikeable. And last year there was a story about his buying a house that adjoined his property for well under market value from a mentally impaired person. It was very damaging.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

49. Our losing Dem gov candidate

was a guy who, despite being ex-law enforcement, didn't think the laws regarding driving applied to him, and drove for years without a valid license. If you can't bother to vet your candidates, you're going to waste a lot races, a lot of money, and tarnish the party name.

A couple of cycles back, we elected a Dem to another state office (I forget which) who then immediately got into a sex harassment scandal and had to resign.

The state party is simply incompetent.

[amandabeech]

8. You hit the nail on the head with the economy.

Many, many people are struggling and have made up little or no ground since the initial recovery from the crash.

You only have to look at the low sales figures for retailers pitching to low and middle income earners.

There simply has been little improvement except for those at the top. The President can only do so much without Congressional consent, but looking back on the President's economic appointees, it seems to me that he really didn't understand what would happen to ordinary people.

[Bandit]

61. But the Bankers have done extremely well since then.

The "People's Party" gave billions upon billions to the bankers and not one red cent to the people who were/are in desperate need. Now why would any of those people stay home and not vote, sure can't figure that one out..

[amandabeech]

73. I can't figure it out, either. n/t

[mariawr]

79. Me either...and I sure am shaking my head over Tuesday. nt

[cilla4progress]

9. Truly, would this be happening if Pres Obama were not Black?

All the Dems running from him?

The piling on?

I have seen more overt racism since his election, than in the 30 years previous.

[cali]

15. As I said, racism is a part. It's a significant piece in some places, but it's not the only

reason by a long shot. He did win 2 Presidential elections after all. I agree that there is more overt racism since he was elected.

[maced666]

39. LOL how did he get elected?!

LOL you think he was white - twice in 2008 and 2012 - then turned back into a black man?
Oh man this denial is making for some hysterical comments.

[DrDan]

48. absolutely - many ran from bush, even Gore would not enlist Clinton support

I think we overuse the racism card - it is an easy one to play. He did win twice, did he not?

[Bandit]

62. Do you remember the Clinton years?

Hell even Al Gore would not have Clinton speak for him and chose the most Conservative Democrat he could find as a running mate..Everyone shunned Clinton in 2000 and IMO it cost the Democrats dearly to do so.

[yeoman6987]

82. In 2006, votes ran away from Bush who was caucasion

Governors welcomed the President with open arms and still lost even in Maryland. I don't think racism is a major factor. 6-years is a major factor. That is why we need a one-term six year presidency. The last two years of any president has been a disaster for Americans. Reagan passed social security reform....no more widow pensions, SS stopping at 18 and age from 65 to 67. Clinton gave us welfare reform and other yucky bills I can't remember. Bush gave us the drug bill and a ton of other junk. Get rid of the last two years. President Obama would be leaving with a wonderful legacy but will it be as good in two years????? Who knows but I prefer not to find out.

[moriah]

10. The horrid attacks ads seemed to have worked in Arkansas.

I heard like 20 attack ads from the Republicans for every 1 Democratic ad on the radio here.

And only a few "Rock the Vote" ads just encouraging people to vote.

[Art_from_Ark]

83. My mom said the same thing

She got to the point where just hearing the name "Tom Cotton" on the TV would drive her nuts.

On a side note, do you realize that one of the US Senators, the 3rd District Congressman, and the governor-elect, are all Republicans from Rogers? Rogers used to be solidly Democratic-- now it has become Republican Central.

[ProSense]

11. "Let me be clear: It is delusional to claim dems lost because they didn't stand with the President"

Democrats lost because of a number of factors. and they vary from state to state. Here are some of those factors:

Citizens United.

Voter suppression

Racism

Fear

<...>

The President is black.

[cali]

16. one more time: that is not the only reason. It's a factor; a significant one, but still one of

many. He did win two Presidential elections.

[ProSense]

22. "He did win two Presidential elections."

True, but he didn't win Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky or Lousiana, and he barely won Florida.

Like I said, it was about a unified message and stance. Instead, the timidity created an overall atmosphere of incoherence and weakness with Democrats issuing conflicting messages on everything from the minimum wage to Obamacare. It affects all races.

[cali]

24. true, but he did win Iowa. He certainly won MA and MD.

and other states where dems were drubbed last night. And the republicans had a huge advantage with the Senate electoral map. Lots of vulnerable dems, no vulnerable repubs up.

[wysi]

72. Coakley was the Dem candidate for MA gov...

... and she's hopeless. The trouble in MA (my home state) is that the party thinks they can run any old piece of crap with a D next to their name and still win... and history (and Scott Brown) demonstrate that this idea is false.

[Calista241]

88. The Repubs elected 2 black legislators to Washington this year.

If we sit back and just count on this group of people to vote Dem 85% of the time, one of these elections were going to wake up to really getting our ass kicked.

Some people may mock me for suggesting that minorities could abandon The Dem party, but if we don't start taking care of them, someone else will.

[malthaussen]

17. Sure, and that probably animated a bunch of voters...

... who would still have voted for the GOP even if the President were not-black. It would be useful if we could find a way to measure how much racism influenced voters who would otherwise have voted more intelligently. But then, since racism is founded on ignorance, why would one expect an ignorant voter to be more intelligent on other issues? One report had exit polls in KY showing that voters were most upset about Ebola and Benghazi. That kind of ignorance is color-blind, or if not color-blind, just liable to reinforce the stupidity of racism.

And if racism were such an important factor (not that I deny it has some significance), why was the black man elected twice?

-- Mal

[malthaussen]

12. I blame Ebola.

That would fall under "fear" in your list.

What frustrates me personally is the apparent inability of the Democratic Party to clearly show that the GOP opposes what the majority desires, and that the Democratic Party is intent on promoting what the majority desires. When citizens vote consistently "yes" on issues of importance, yet vote for politicians who explicitly oppose these issues, there is a serious disconnect that does not compute for this observer.

Sure, the President's unpopularity probably animated a number of voters (despite being largely undeserved), but how much of that unpopularity is due to the Party refusing to emphasize the positive contributions of the Administration?

-- Mal

[geek tragedy]

19. presidents get blamed for the bad stuff, get no credit for the good stuff.

Presidents' parties usually shit the bed in the 6th year cycle--Republicans lost 8 seats under St Ronnie Raygun in 1986, for example.

Same dynamic as has always been there--the best, maybe only, argument either party has is that the other one sucks.

[cali]

20. yes. every word is spot on.

[Autumn]

21. You are so right, and to pretend that dems lost because they didn't stand with the President

is way beyond delusional. You hit this out of the park cali.

[cali]

23. thanks, Autumn. It's just pointing out the obvious.

[lame54]

25. being clear does not equate to being right...

Dems could have overcome your entire list of excuses if they stood by their accomplishments and pointed out republican downfalls

They chose to let the repugs frame the debate then rolled over for them

[cali]

30. baloney. the facts support my op. You have no facts to support you- or at least

you don't offer any.

[lame54]

54. do you need facts...

Most of the dems ran away from Obama and his policies

Or were you not paying attention

[ieoeja]

26. "Don't vote for Democrats ... except me!" is not a winning strategy.

You can't keep telling people that the Democratic Party is too liberal, full of communists and statanic atheists, then expect them to vote for you when you call yourself a Democrat.

It worked for Bill Clinton who spent more time attacking the Democratic congress in 1992 than he did George HW Bush. But that was an anomoly. Worse yet, we are seeing the long term results of that tactic.

It was bad that in certain parts of the country calling yourself a "liberal" is met with much the same reaction as calling youself a "child molester". Thanks to the DLC/Third-Way/New-Democrats, the same thing can be said of calling yourself a "Democrat".

[Dawgs]

27. Nunn/Carter in Georgia would have benefited if they stood with Obama, and..

People weren't excited about voting for Dems because they didn't run on ANYTHING. You've got to give people a reason to vote.

[Calista241]

75. Nunn and Carter lost by over 8 points.

If they'd embraced Obama 100%, maybe it would've moved them a percent or two, but to lose by 8 points is get totally dominated. From a local perspective, things couldn't have gone any better for Nunn. She was running against a very flawed candidate, she appeared to run a sterling campaign, and she made no real mistakes. She was well funded, and yet she still got waxed on election night.

Obama won in 2012 by far less than 8%, and pundits and voters everywhere were predicting the permanent death and capitulation of the Republican Party. Yet, two years later they pull off one of the most successful midterm election wave victories of US history.

What I learned was that despite my hopes, Georgia just isn't ready for liberal government despite the conservative government we have clearly not working for us.

[Dawgs]

77. I didn't say she would have won. I said she would have benifitted.

And, she didn't run a sterling campaign. There isn't one issue that anyone could say she ran on. Like I said, you have to run on something. That, and she used Zell Miller, a fucking traitor to Democrats, to endorse her. Not a good move for many of us that know how he supported W in 2004.

I agree that Georgia isn't as ready as many of us thought.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

28. A rash of Democratic retirements did not help either

Many likely would have held on IMHO

[cali]

31. absolutely.

[okieinpain]

32. agree. hell harkin couldn't stick it out for another 6 years.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

57. They retired on a bad year

However, we stand a good chance of picking up the same number or more seats in 2016 to get the Senate back in 2016. This is a temporary setback at worse IMHO. Republicans will have to defend the teabagger class of 2010 in 2016.

[okieinpain]

58. it looks that way. hopefully president obama will do a good job

the last two years. this might really give him a chance to shine.

[okieinpain]

29. I'm going to disagree with you a little bit on president obama

I just felt like the whole "obama who?" deal was a turn off. I even heard on a npr report a african-amercian say that african-american's are savy voters that understand why dems are distancing themselves from the president", hate to say it but not all african-americans are savy voters.

I'm a savy voter and the distancing pissed me off, i live in oklahoma and I can shut a republican up quick with the good things president obama has done. if I can do it then a person who's profession is doing nothing but dispersing information should be able handle that one with ease.

I just don't buy that you can trash the head of your party and win. when bush was in the low 10's his party didn't throw him overboard.

[cali]

33. doing that one on one is entirely a different thing. You don't have the MSM to contend with

and yes, repubs did distance themselves from bush in the 6th year cycle.

[okieinpain]

44. they did but not like the dems did with obama. n/t.

[Darb]

34. Standing with the President must include

telling the story. What was GDP when Obama became President? What was unemployment? How many jobs lost? Stock Market? Auto industry? Real Estate industry? Banking? What are they now?

We were in the toilet, circling, and now we are not. Our economy is growing faster than any in Europe. Faster than Japan. Yeah, the little guy is the last to feel it, but that does not change the fact that we are in far, far better shape than we were when he was handed that shitstorm.

Obama led us out of the goddamn wilderness and .........................................crickets.

I never heard a peep.

(no pleas for ponies....thanks)

[MoonchildCA]

52. This is it exactly.

Sure, there are many other factors at play, but not touting this administration's accomplishments, I believe, is the biggest factor.

This did not start with the elections. The blame begins with the media. They have been silent about it. This is the only reason the president has such a low approval rating. Everybody (mostly), believes he has been a failure. The republicans are shouting it from the rooftops, and the democrats are complacent. They basically say, "Yeah, well, the republicans are worse." This does not win elections.

The republicans had it in the bag the minute the media stood silent. And the media stood silent, because it is owned by Big Money. And Big Money owns this country.

I don't know if we can dig our way out of this, but the Democratic Party is in dire need of new, strong leadership that has the ability to drive the message, no matter what the obstacles are.

[marions ghost]

66. It's hard to teach

when you're up against lies and distortion. The emotional issues got all the traction. And that's all the mainstream media will deal with.

[pampango]

35. Certainly true but when so many candidates run against the party's leader, even though it may make

sense locally in the short run, it creates an impression of a party that does not have its act together. "You, Mr. or Ms. Democratic senate candidate are running away from President Obama. If I like Obama why should I vote for you? If I don't like Obama why shouldn't I vote for your republican opponent?:"

I understand your point that in conservative states it might be counterproductive for a liberal president to campaign for a senate candidate. (And we can't expect a senate candidate in Georgia to run a 'Massachusetts/Vermont' style liberal campaign.) But in most places it should be possible for our candidates to point out differences with Obama while still focusing on his accomplishments - particularly when compared to Bush and to the policies offered by the current republican senate candidates.

When our candidates try to 'out-republican' the republican candidates with an "I hate Obama more than you do " message, they not only weaken Obama further but they beg the question "So why should I vote for a Democrat?" The worst part of that tactic is that we are probably going to lose seats in conservative states anyway. With the "run away from Obama" and liberal ideas strategy, we not only lose an election we lose the opportunity to push progressive ideas, which is a strategy that may pay off in the long run.

[dawg]

37. I disagree.

I have a President who is so conservative that I realistically fear he might sign off on Social Security cuts.

If a Democratic candidate for office wants to make like he's too liberal to be associated with, then I have a real problem with them. Why drag my ass off my nice comfy sofa just to go give them my vote?

Of course, I did go and vote for Democrats (including many Conservadems). But it's easy for me to vote. I'm self-employed; I come and go as I please. There were no long lines for me.

[treestar]

40. I'm sure he is deeply unpopular in red states

I could have predicted that.

[jeff47]

41. No, the dems lost because they didn't stand with the President

We had a lot of candidates who were desperately seeking votes from the right. That's why they ran against Obama.

The problem is those voters would rather tear their own arm off than pull the lever for a Democrat. The "for shit DNC" keeps pushing this as a winning strategy despite its constant failure.

President Obama is deeply unpopular in most states.

His lowest popularity is above all other president's lowest popularity since JFK.

But "Obama's not popular" is the story the Republicans wanted, the media gave it to them, and the for shit DNC didn't smack down the media for all the bullshit. So "Obama's not popular" became the story.

[maced666]

42. You left Obama himself off the list - he needs to own some of it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025765712

[JaneyVee]

43. It IS also a factor. When candidates won't even...

Say they voted for him then people don't feel confident in a party not united. Like I said before midterms: Solidarity wins elections, not cynicism.

[bigwillq]

46. An economy that does NOT benefit the vast majority of people

Probably the biggest reason, imo.

[Drunken Irishman]

51. It's not necessarily standing with the Pres - it's running on the success.

Whether it's the ACA or the improving economic conditions. Instead, they threw the President under the bus which only magnified the perception that he was a failure. Basically, by not touting the success of the last six years, they conceded the last six years had failed, playing right into the GOP's agenda to link every failure to the Democrats.

Why would a voter vote Democratic in that scenario?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

64. Bingo

Best comment in this thread so far.

[Puzzledtraveller]

55. I blame Snowden and Greenwald.

[Orsino]

56. Plus quaking and stammering when adked about the leader of the party.

Not standing with the president, or at least not proudly campaigning on the president's accomplishments, were only symptoms of general failure to stand up for real issues affecting voters.

But it's delusional to deny the existence of this factor.

[applegrove]

59. All of the above and they ran away from the President.

[Recursion]

60. David Domina opposes Keystone, sent bankers to jail, and lost (nt)

[think]

80. If issues don't matter neither does the candidate.... nt

[joeybee12]

63. Agree, but also no unifed, consistent message, and it's always easier to campaign against

something than for it...

[TheKentuckian]

65. Slightly disagree. Absent any other compelling rationale and narrative for election

running on what we have beats "they suck worse", "hey, we are pretty much the same so vote for me", "I'm the true conservative in this race, see I shoot skeet", and "Economy? What's that? Let's talk exclusively about reproductive issues".

[Niko]

67. You could not be more wrong

All Democrats had to do was show up at the polls. They didn't, because Democratic politicians didn't convince them that it mattered. You know what keeps a Democrat home during election day? When the Democratic politician can't even admit she voted for Obama.

[Rex]

68. Um...NO...that is just one more factor, you seem to be the delusional one here.

Obama had a huge amount of positive factors going his way, the DNC never touched on ANY of those.

[arcane1]

70. Fuck you and your stupid post n/t

[Rex]

71. Don't enjoy your stay.

[GeorgeGist]

74. You forgot Chickenshit.

[BlueStreak]

76. Two-way street. Combine the Conciliator-in-Chief with a party of spineless cowards

and this is what you get. Nobody anywhere willing to stand on principles.

The question isn't why we lost. That is obvious. The question is whether we will replace the deposed crop of cowards with people who are willing to stand up for Democratic principles or even democratic (small d) principles.

[still_one]

78. voter turnout and apathy. Women and young for the most part didn't show up. It bothers me that GOTV

is always a major theme, but frankly if people cannot make the connection between the importance of voting and how it can affect their lives, then whose fault is that?

I am not an advocate of bombarding people with phone calls and badgering for them to vote. They should not have to be persuaded, and if they do, then they really have very little civic duty and most likely are unaware of issues they are voting on.

The only thing I will amend to my statements is that access to voting should not be difficult. I am a strong advocate of voting by mail.

The idea of same day registration on election day is bullshit. If someone is truly interested in having a say in the direction of the country they should register long before the next election. No excuse.

[think]

81. While all those factors are very real

A unified message by Dems touting the accomplishments of the Obama presidency sure could have helped IMO....

[nilesobek]

84. Totally and respectively disagree.

The candidates left President Obama like a dog stranded in the yard. They left our top guy, our best man, who won 2 elections handily, in the wind. We are not showing any solidarity or any message of strength to the Republicans. Those candidates caved to media pressure and forgot the guy who got them there.

[Savannahmann]

85. Forgive the analogy.

In street racing, a vast majority of the people choose to go with flashy cars, loud engines and the rest. In other words, obviously speedy cars. There is another smaller genre though. They are called sleepers. These cars don't look fast, are painted to look as common and normal as possible. Everything that makes them fast is hidden away, where you can't see it. It's a surprise then to have a powerful Ford Mustang, and get blown away by a Buick Rivera. Sleepers come in all shapes and sizes, but the one thing that makes them the same is that they don't look fast, and they don't sound powerful.

I mentioned above that for a guy obsessed with speedy cars, it's a big shock to get beaten by one of those sleepers. It doesn't look fast, and it doesn't seem especially dangerous. That is the analogy I'm talking about in the title. Democrats expected the Republicans to do all the work for them, they expected the Republicans to lose and give the win to the Dems by default.

We expected outrage over the Texas Abortion law to win the election for us. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024828366

We said that people would be thrilled with the rapid response of the militarized police and how it showed the Government was on the job. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022742634

Outrage over Citizens United would drive the people to the polls. Outrage over Sandy Hook would doom the Republican Party. Come on Cali, how many times have you seen threads just like that on this board? How many times have we heard the pundits say it on the news? The Government shutdown. The Republicans were deeply unpopular. You and I both tried to warn people here, and we were pretty much universally ignored, belittled, accused of spreading FUD. Tinfoil hat smiles, hair on fire smiles, I've seen it all, and so have you.

So the Democrats rolled to the start line in one of those flashy brightly colored cars with a big motor and loud exhaust pipes. The Republicans rolled to the line in a beige Buick. The lights turned green, and the race was on, and the Buick went to the lead, and just stayed there. The Democrats didn't take the race seriously until it was too late. It was a week or two before the election when everyone looked around, saw the polls, and decided that they were all wrong. Well, they were wrong, but in favor of the Republicans, it was an even worse blowout than many of us feared.

Now, the owner of the flashy car with the loud engine wants to claim that the Buick cheated. He used Nitrous Oxide. He jumped the light. He's using special tires. All of this to cover up the fact that the flashy car didn't take the race serious having dismissed the car without even really considering the possibilities that are hidden below the surface. One party went into this assuming that the Republicans would be obliging and commit suicide. Despite how smart the Republicans have been playing the game for the last two years, many on our side continue to underestimate the determination of our opponents. We talked about Texas, and how the Republicans were really smart in setting up the law to look reasonable. We talked about Sandy Hook and the Gun Control debate many times.

What we saw was two parties. One taking it very seriously, and offering advice based upon focus groups and polling on how to win. The other just going along assuming that the car they were racing was really slow and would just lose.

The reason a Sleeper works is that people underestimate how fast it really is. The reason the Republicans won is because the Democrats underestimated them, believing them to actually be the ignorant idiotic mouth breathing morons that we portray them to be. Well, we have a choice. We can learn, or we can pretend. If we learn, we have a good chance in 2016. If we decide that it was all racism, then we will be doomed again in two years to have this very same discussion.

The Republicans are smart. They are playing to their strengths, and we ignored them. We assumed it was only a matter of time before they did another Real Rape or something else stupid. Instead it was our side making the stupid comments.

So where do we go from here? Do we start to respect our opponents, and learn that the Republicans want to win, and are going to try to win? Or do we just sit back and wait for them to do something stupid so we don't have to work for it? While I hope we go with the former, I am seeing the signs we are going with the latter. We're going to sit on our asses and just obstruct, obstruct, and obstruct some more. This way, we can lose even bigger in 2016 because the Democratic brand will be so damaged we would lose to Tickle me Elmo.

[Renew Deal]

86. It sounds like you're feeling guilty.

[rock]

87. +1

Yep.