Lots of angry D's/Progressives these days. Moral of the story: Elections have CONSEQUENCES.

[RBInMaine]

Great that so many D's/Progressives are fired up. Too bad it took a beating at the polls to cause this. The right wing got in, and now we are fucked. Obama said over and again, "Don't give them the keys back." Well, they got the keys. And now they are driving us off the cliff. But we must ask, where were all the Madison, WI protesters last November? Working the phones? Canvassing? Donating? Voting? How about in FL, and OH, and MI, and Maine, and all over? Yes, KUDOS to all those who did work and vote. But WAY too many went to sleep. Some even bitched to no end and refused to vote because "Dems need to be taught a lesson for not being progressive enough." even though we just got more progressiveness in two years than we've seen since the Great Society of LBJ. Elections have consequences folks. Live and learn.

[Cirque du So-What]

1. Many were too busy complaining over all the ways Barack Obama disappointed them

I would further speculate that some of them were too obstinate to actually go to the polls last election day. There's no way in pluperfect hell that teabaggers outnumber rational human beings, so it stands to reason that some sat on their hands on election day.

[RBInMaine]

5. MANY did. It was pathetic. And INEXCUSABLE.

[rfranklin]

12. You're right...Obama's behavior was pathetic and inexcusable...

It wasn't DUers who lost that election, it was the Democratic Party and the Obama administration. The voters who were angry or just stayed home and swung the election to the Republicans were the INDEPENDENTS who sway in the breeze of public opinion. If Obama and the Democratic Party had fired them up things would have been different.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William769]

24. -1

deja vu.

[William769]

23. +1.

[vaberella]

35. -1. n/t

[stevenleser]

77. So then you must be happy with the results of the actions and inactions on election day that led to

where we are now.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stevenleser]

81. LMAO, no, I'm not. It is a simple exercise.

It's one option past boolean. 1. You vote to continue whats going on, 2. You vote for the other guys, or 3. You stay home in protest.

If you think #1 is not a good option and you do either 2, or 3 and then the folks in power change, and you aren't happy, its not the fault of the guys you voted out. Its YOUR fault.

[rfranklin]

103. I did not stay home and most DUers did not stay home...

and that wasn't why the Democrats got "shellacked." It was independent voters who were angry that nothing had changed for them. Your Boolean logic is based on a false assumption.

[27inCali]

82. Obama has done plenty that I disagree with

everyone assumes they have the answers, all these ideological, black and white answers that are so emotionally satisfying. The truth is the Obama gave us a lot of Progressive legislative accomplishments and to the extent he didn't sign more, it had a lot more to do with shenanigans in the Senate than his own short-comings -but most folks look past the Senate because it's more fun to piss on Obama than it is to grapple with the reality that both houses are loaded with paid shills in both parties and that nothing can come out of congress without being loaded with kick-backs.

Now everyone is crying about him moving to the center. Well, you didn't show up to vote. You sent the message that he needs to work harder to win Independents because they actually show up to vote and they want him to move to the center and ignore the Left for the most part. He can't waste time trying to please the Left because he tried to do that the first two years and the Left didn't give him any credit or back him up for shit even during the worse of the HCR. So why work to get the votes of a bunch of fickle, self-defeating people who wont back you even when you push their agenda?

[CakeGrrl]

93. If a voter doesn't vote, it's their own damned fault.

If they can't think far enough ahead to see the implications of the bigger picture beyond their immediate short-term disappointment, then they reap what is sown by sitting on their asses and not exercising their right to vote.

The Democratic Party is not responsible for the inaction of individuals.

No one gets me to the voting booth but ME. No one completes my ballot and drops it in the mail but ME.

And speaking for myself, I OWN that responsibility when I do or when I don't vote. I don't lay it off on how a party or politician made me feel. That's plain lazy.

[AndrewP]

104. +1

[baldguy]

2. And the last election was ABOUT progressives being angry.

The GOP didn't win so much as the Dems lost - because the Dems couldn't get their progressive & liberal supporters to vote - because they didn't follow through in their mandate from 2008 for a more progressive & liberal agenda.

Maybe if they lose a few more times, the politicos will get it through their thick skulls that their GOP-lite strategy is a failure - just like the actual GOP strategy. But in the meantime everyone suffers.

[RBInMaine]

3. Oh hogshit ! Progressives got TONS of "progress" and Rachel Maddow will list it for you.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Here

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah

[baldguy]

15. Then where were their votes in 2010?

Or do you think 20 million Obama voters turn into Teabaggers after two years?

[vaberella]

39. First off, you're listing Progressivism as though it's an ideology. It's not.

Secondly, where are you getting this 20 million voters?! You're channeling Glen Beck, right?! Most of these people who took office did NOT vote for Obama.

Thirdly which always boggles my mind. This is at the State level. You're trying to tell me, hatred or dislike of Obama policies justifies shitting on probably decent representatives?! Don't you think people should be looking at the state level and the city level and making appropriate decisions and not the national.

I have this to say---how uneducated is our populace that this argument that people are angry at Obama justifies allowing their State seats to be dominated by Republicans. Did they all think they were voting Obama out of office. It doesn't work like that. Only at the general elections does that happen. By using that argument you sold society as a bunch of buffoons who see Obama and positive change as radicalness. And if you tell me it's because they're angry at Obama---what exactly are they angry at. Ask these people about Gitmo---I really wonder how many of them support Gitmo and putting a prison in the US for these people? The public option? Do you think many of them cared---they focused entirely on the HCR as socialized medicine. These people are asking for fiscal shutdown. You advocate for the same.

These people are made up of Independents and Republicans. Obama has not lost the majority of Dem voters, as a matter of face his approval amongst them is still in the high 80s. Give me some other plausible argument. Please.

[Exilednight]

66. Progressivism is an ideology, That's what an "ism" is. n/t

[MNBrewer]

90. links?

[Kahuna]

26. Yep. And maybe we can get even MORE conservative supreme court

justices who hand down rulings like, Citizens United that will entirely hamstring any chance of progressives achieving their objectives. And maybe in WI, more supreme court justices will be elected so that there in no chance of what Walker and his cohorts did to the unions to be overturned. Indeed, election have consequences.

[treestar]

36. Yep. They sure know how to shoot themselves in the foot.

Either starry eyed impractical or really for the Republicans.

[Kahuna]

37. It's no wonder the progressive movement continues to fall behind while

the conservative agenda rolls ahead. Cause and effect, maybe?

[MannyGoldstein]

4. 30 years of elected Democrats pushing further and further right

breaking campaign promise after campaign promise.

Is the economy thriving?
Is the Middle Class vibrant?
Are we at peace?

Can we finally admit that triangulation and trickle-down are failures, and move on?

[RBInMaine]

7. Are you in reality? Was Obama supposed to fix ALL of this in just two years? Are you happier with

R's in charge?

[MannyGoldstein]

8. He was supposed to work as hard for Working America

as he did for bankers.

And to act consistent with his campaign promises, which he has not: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah

It's time to stop blaming the battereee, and start blaming the batterer.

[Vinca]

9. Thank you.

[RBInMaine]

11. Is your glass ever half full? Obama "battered" you into not voting? LOL

[MannyGoldstein]

14. He "battered" tens of millions into not voting by lying about his agenda

And of course I voted, as did all on the left. It's the disgusted middle that is lost.

[vaberella]

41. Well then. You take full responsiblity for the Republican control. Great.

I'm glad someone is accepting responsibility. However, I didn't know Obama was a Senator, Mayor, Congressmen/women, City Council leaders....I never knew he was all those people. And Obama pissed you off so much that you even said...FUCK YOU, State legislator I'm tired of your Obamaness and causing my life to go to shit. You all look like Obama, so I won't vote. Really now?! This is genius.

[Kahuna]

42. But but but....moving to the center is "selling out," isn't that what progressives

keep telling us, everytime er, "pragmatic" dems state that obvious point? Your post confuses me. What is the point of running if it's only to "make a point" that the majority of Americans don't care about? If you can't appeal to the center, there is no way to win. PERIOD.

[MannyGoldstein]

45. Moving to the fringe right is selling out (at best)

81% of Americans are for raising taxes on the wealthy. Two-thirds of Americans are in favor of Medicare for all. Two-thirds are in favor of unions and against "free" trade. And so forth.

The evidence, based on Obama's actions, is that he is against the American public things. That puts him among a small fringe group of Americans.

Factor in his attacks on Social Security, and... wow.

[Kahuna]

47. The president had to compromise with the majority to do the least

damage for the rest of us. That's what happens when we already have a Democratic majority, but we give it up in order to punish those who merely vote to represent their constiuents. All Democratic representatives do not represent "progressive" voters. That's a reality that the president acknowledges when he has to and he makes a compromise to get at least some of what progressives want. That's the way of the world.

[MannyGoldstein]

50. He's the greatest orator in generations, yet refuses to fight for

what you say he believes in? And surrounds himself with Wall-Street predators?

Think.

[BobbyBoring]

72. For the first 2 years

he didn't have to but he did.

[Chisox08]

109. He didn't have to compromise with the Majority because he had the majority

If I'm not mistaken there were 59 Dems in the Senate and a Democratic majority in the House. The House passed bill after bill but the minority that ran the Senate also ran the country for the first two years. He didn't have to compromise. That is the problem Democrats don't know how to or afraid to wield power. When Republicans are in charge they ram everything that they can down our throats and dare the Dems to say anything about it. When the Dems are in charge they can't wait to compromise with the Repukes.

[RandomKoolzip]

27. +1

Thank you for articulating that.

[Kahuna]

38. He did work for working America. If not, the unemployment rate

would be double what it is right now and we would truly be experiencing a great depression. Excuse the president for the priority of saving the economy from falling off the cliff, FIRST. Unfortunately, the truth is, supporting the banking industry IS a very important element in that equation, as the banks hold the wealth of our nation. Great Depression of 1929, lesson learned. I can't believe I have to state the obvious. :eyes:

[MannyGoldstein]

46. Measured the same was as under FDR, unemployment is almost 20% now

This *is* a major depression for working America.

FDR supported the banks, not the bankers. Obama supported the bankers, and only marginally supported the banks - for example, Glass-Steagall has not been reinstated.

[Kahuna]

49. So, if the president had not supported the banks, the unemployment

rate would still be double that. That's what I said. :eyes:

[MannyGoldstein]

51. Your post is orthogonal to what I wrote. nt

[Exilednight]

68. If you really believe that, then you don't understand the economy.

[Kahuna]

69. Please elaborate. nt

[Exilednight]

71. Not sure if I can do this using the room provided, but I will try.

Banks are broken into parts. One arm of the bank might be responsible for mortgages, another part responsible for investment, and another that runs your local branch. (there's typically more parts than that in large banks, but you get the drift)

Our current system allows for a bank to practice every part of banking, for better or worse. But it wasn't always like this. It use to be that banks could only indulge in a handful of parts at a time. This was done so banks would not become to big to fail.

But back to the crisis at hand. If Obama had let the big banks fail, they would have been split up into several parts and each part sold off for their respected value. If it were mortgages that got you in trouble, then another bank would come along and buy those assets for fractions of cents on the dollar. This would allow smaller local banks to buy such assets and diversify the risk.

Here's an example and I will use round numbers just to keep it simple.

JP Morgan Chase says it has $1,000,000,000 tied up in mortgages, but then gets hit with a rash of people defaulting on their loans. This causes JP Morgan Chase to crash and their $1,000,000,000 is now only worth $500,000,000. They means they've lost 50% of their revenue, and speculators are believing that they will lose even more. JP Morgan says they can no longer stay in business and are going to fold because they can't pay back their creditors. But their creditors (the Fed) want their money and they don't want to be in the mortgage business.

Now the Fed realizes that it's not going to get all of its money back, but they want back as much as they can. The answer to such a problem is to find a new buyer for the few assets that JP Morgan Chase has left. The fed figures they can sell off the investment arm and recoup 30% of the cash they have lent out. They also figure they sell off the branch part and recoup another 5%. But they realize they are going to take a huge hit on the mortgages. So let's say they sell the mortgages for $100,000,000.

Well this presents a whole new problem. No bank as large as JP Morgan Chase is going to buy assets that are continually losing money, no matter how cheap they think they are. So the Fed decides to break up the $100,000,000 to million dollar chunks and sell it regionally to 100 banks in $1,000,000 chunks.

This gives your local bank the ability to buy these mortgages for a fraction of the cent on the dollar. But more importantly, it gives your local bank to keep people in their homes and renegotiate those mortgages with those having financial problems. If a family had a $200,000 mortgage for a home that was really only worth $100,000, this gives the bank the ability to revalue the house to its proper value and still make money. All of this is possible because the bank only paid $10,000 for the home.

It, also, allows the bank to offer the loan at a fixed mortgage rate and the ability to offer it a low interest rate. If they offer the loan at 3% interest, it's a win win situation for all involved. The bank is already making $90,000 before interest is even included. Let's say you do this on a 20 year mortgage, within 2 years the bank will have fully recouped their $10,000 investment. It also allows the bank to lower interest rates across the board.

There's several benefits to this system:
1. It keeps people in their homes.
2. It improves communities and strengthens community relations.
3. It downsizes banks from too big to fail.
4. After two years banks are flush with capital to help improve the community.
5. Those that are responsible for such meltdowns are the ones who pay the price.

[Kahuna]

78. Are you saying that devalued assets has no affect on Main St?

Remember, these banks had devalued assets and as a result, it dried up their ability to lend.

My main point is, you cannot separate Main St. from the banks and Wall St. It just doesn't work that way. so for all those howling about Obama propping up the banks and Wall St., this country would have been in a heap more trouble had he not done so.

[Exilednight]

83. That's not what dried up the ability to lend.

There's always the ability to lend. Right now, people with perfectly good credit can't get a loan, and it's not because there is no money to lend, it's because banks are sitting on their assets.

But to answer your question, yes, Main Street would of felt the fallout, but so would of Wall Street. The short term damage would of been pretty bad, but the long term restructuring would put us miles ahead of where we are now.

Foreclosures are moving at record paces, credit is still hard to come by and many good people have had their financial lives ruined because we took money that should of gone to Main St and propped up Wall St.

What we have now is a banking system that believes no matter how irresponsible they behave, they're going to get bailed out and stick the little guy with the bill. If the system had worked properly, the people responsible would of been stuck with the bill.

Edited to add: All we have accomplished with the current system is maintaining the status-quo and ensuring an environment to achieve the same results. Too much wealth in the hands of too few people.

[ReggieVeggie]

31. you keep asking about reality

ya ever think that might be YOUR problem?

[Exilednight]

84. The Rs are in charge? Really? Last time I checked

it was the Ds who controlled the Senate and Executive branch of government.

Are you in reality?

[MissDeeds]

19. +1 n/a

[polichick]

105. So sad and so true - too many Democratic "leaders" are really Republican followers.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Clio the Leo]

13. "You dont know how to drive!"

..... good times.

[DailyGrind51]

16. Remember when disgruntled Teddy Kennedy supporters "stayed home",

rather than vote for the re-election of Jimmy Carter? We got 8 years of Ronald Reagan!

[rpannier]

18. Kennedy voters staying home didn't do in Carter

He ran a lousy campaign and many people found him to be ineffectual as president.
It's a nice story, but Reagan pulled in many blue collar voters, evangelicals and southern voters.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[yourout]

21. Bigger Moral......Don't trust Republicans.

They will lie, cheat, and commit illegal acts to ram through their agenda.

[slackmaster]

22. Shame on you for suggesting that people should take responsibility for their actions and inactions

:argh:

[vaberella]

43. Some posters take full responsiblity for not voting well by blaming Obama for causing it.

Obama badgered them. ^_^ Because Obama was their Mayor, they're City Council leader, they're Congressional leaders. I mean Obama was running for all those seats in their state is what I understood it as meaning. And since they think he's awful they didn't vote.

[slackmaster]

54. I regard "not being McCain" as a perfectly adequate reason for having voted for Obama

;-)

[BklnDem75]

56. What does that have to do with what she said?

You're pissed at Obama, so you let the opposition sweep into your state? It's Obama's fault you have an asshole governor? State senator? Mayor? The so called 'base' didn't hurt Obama. They hurt themselves.

[slackmaster]

74. Where did I say I was pissed at Obama, here or any other thread on DU ever?

:crazy:

[BklnDem75]

85. I was speaking generally...

Unless you think I know how you voted. Try considering the context of the sub-thread. :eyes:

[rug]

25. So does craven capitulation.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. My State elected Democrats and we had the largest midterm

turn out in over 20 years! Here, we all criticize any policy or politician we wish to criticize, then we elect Democrats. I understand you prefer your methods, praising Democrats but electing Republicans, but to me that is backward.

[Kahuna]

40. Bravo for you and your state!

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Armstead]

29. The Democratic Party should MAKE elections have consequences

You seem to be missing a basic point -- or deliberatly ignoring it.

If the you want people to believe that elections to have consequences, then dammit make elections have consequences in a pro-active way. The PERFORMANCE and MESSAGE of the institutional Democratic Party and Status-Quo Democratic politicians aren't going to fire up people with non-messages, or pale echoes of the corporaste GOP status quo messages.

Remember, in the last election, many of the truly progressive and liberal House Democrats with a real message and track record of progressive populism got re-elected. Many of the Bluer Dogs got booted out.

Despite your perpetual bashing of the Vast Liberal Conspiracy, the problem in the last election was not significantly due to disgruntled hard-core progressives "staying home to teach Obama a lesson."

The problem is that too many people had little motivation to vote Democratic. The "swing voters" either stayed home, or found the GOP's sales pitch more compelling than many Democrats. The enthusiasm of many non-partisan or non-0involved voters who were "fired up" by Obama and the Democrats in 08 had been dampened by a combination of continuing bad news AND few signs that the Democratic Party was really bringing about any change from the entrenched status quo.

[whirlygigspin]

33. How dare you make sense in this forum

[ClarkUSA]

89. LOL! Blaming Pres. Obama?

"Not only is it ridiculous, but it means that these folks can only help themselves and those things they say they care so much about, only when and if they have a daddy-like Svengali who appeases their emotions enough to keep them stimulated.

It means that they are unable to connect the dots between their own specific actions/inaction and what it means if many together react similarily. It means they do not believe that their vote matters, although they believe that their vote means that who they vote for should do exactly as they dictate."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=627691&mesg_id=627748

[Armstead]

102. LOL! You're the one who made it all ablout Obama

Maybe a course in Reading Comprehension 101 would be helpful.

My post was deliberately NOT just about Obama. I was referring to a systemic problem that has been
an issue in the Democratic Party since at least the early 1990's...And in 2010 took the form of many (not all) Democratic candidates avoiding key issues or trying to be GOP lite.

Feel free to disagree with that and ridicule if you must. But at least understand what is being said before responding.

[jillan]

30. Unfortunately in life it takes something big to make you wake up.

Whether it's an illness of a family member you never have time for.
Whether it's blacking out when you have a drinking problem.

Wisconsin is a wake-up call to all those who tend to sit out elections.

[ReggieVeggie]

32. Democrats lost in 2010 because of Barack Obama

don't blame it on anyone else

[ClarkUSA]

34. Wrong. Recent PPP polling shows union households voting for Walker was his margin of victory.

The difference between how folks would vote now and how they voted in November can almost all be attributed to shifts within union households. Voters who are not part of union households have barely shifted at all- they report having voted for Walker by 7 points last fall and they still say they would vote for Walker by a 4 point margin. But in households where there is a union member voters now say they'd go for Barrett by a 31 point margin, up quite a bit from the 14 point advantage they report having given him in November.

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2011/02/do-over.html

Don't blame President Obama. Voters are adults who should be smart enough to vote their interests. As the OP so rightly put it: elections have consequences. Union households in WI who ushered Walker into a position of power learned that this year. Ditto for OH, MI, and other states where voters ushered in a GOP governor and GOP-controlled legislatures by their actions or inactions.

[PassingFair]

53. OMG, now YOUR blaming the unions?

Guess you believe that adult voters should be "smart enough"
to vote for someone who clearly ran one way, and then governed another.

Who ran as the alternative to DLC politics as usual, and then
IMMEDIATELY populated his cabinet with DLC vipers and Wall Street
henchmen.

[ClarkUSA]

60. The facts speak for themselves. I blame anyone who voted for Republicans or sat home in 2010.

[PassingFair]

65. The people who sat home did so because democrats acted like republicans.

FISA
Faith-based initiatives.
GITMO
Unpunished and continued theft by banks/WallStreet
NAFTA
No Child Left Behind

etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

We need to make the differences between the parties STARK.

Democrats should CLEARLY be behind the WORKING CLASS.

Period.

I am for whatever party that stands behind the workers
and finds funding for those that are elderly and disabled
and cannot work.

The Democrats have NOT been that party since Carter.

And YES, I ALWAYS vote. And YES, I ALWAYS vote for the Democrat.

But I listen to what others say.

NAFTA sunk the unions, and Clinton signed it.

People aren't STUPID and Dems can't expect people to vote
for them just because there's a D after their names.

I feel sorry for the good candidates that LOST due to incompetence
and "compromise" and pay-offs at higher levels. I feel sorry for
their working class constituents, too.

[ClarkUSA]

87. Oh, really? What polling do you have that indicates that?

[PassingFair]

95. The polling I did as I walked door to door in my precinct during the midterms.

Working people (or unemployed people who WANTED to work)
who didn't think either party
would do any good for them.

[vaberella]

44. Yuppers. Because Obama was running for every congressional seat in every state.

So of course they didn't vote. Who cares about whatever other candidates were running. Obama had held those seats and we couldn't vote because of it. Understood.

[MannyGoldstein]

48. Obama crushed people's hopes

A dispirited electorate has no good reason to vote for a group that has, by and large, hoodwinked them. It's like the poor souls who jumped from the Towers on 9/11 - it was death by fire or falling.

[vaberella]

76. Whatever...read post #75. You get the same response as the other poster.

And to invoke 9/11 in this is ridiculous.

[ReggieVeggie]

59. But you're OK with blaming those not motivated to vote?

Check. Understood.

[vaberella]

75. YES! I am 100% okay with blaming people who were not "motivated" to vote!!!!

It's a bloody right to vote. There are people all over the world who would kill to have the right to vote in the US elections. There are people in the United States who would kill for the vote. Who fight year after year after year so they can be citizens and be able to vote. I was raised in the US country since I was two years of age. I was not able to become a citizen until I was 25, when I gave my application in when I was 18. 7 years I wanted to participate in the politics of my city, state, and nation. And for 7 years I was denied it.

So fuckin' pardon me if I don't fuckin' feel sorry for people who felt "unmotivated". What a piece of shit sort of excuse is that?! No, I don't have any sympathy. There are people who can't walk, who can barely move who struggle to get up in the morning and fight their way through pain and hardship to vote, because they know it's the best way to exercise their voice. And I have to feel sorry for idiots who felt "unmotivated"? Really?

I never knew, that people needed someone else to make them feel motivated. I understand being inspired by someone, but being motivated to do something is entirely based on another person? Really? I thought they just needed to care about something and go for it. You don't need someone else. People who felt unmotivated are lazy and just don't care in my eyes. I don't need a single person to make me care about the politics of my country. I know what I care about and I search for it and I fight for it. No one man, is the image or the epitome of motivation.

People who subscribe to this thinking, that they were unmotivated are just people who don't want to take responsibility. Who like to push blame on others. I don't waste my time on that. When I know I didn't do something, I take responsibility. If I didn't vote, then I know I didn't care enough to vote.

Let me tell you something. I am currently living in Paris, I come from New York---a Blue State. My absentee ballot didn't come in. I went online in search of the address to the US embassy in Paris so I can vote. It happened to be the last day that votes would be counted. I traveled for 2 hours from where I live to get to the embassy and then waited on a line so I can fill out the form and vote---although I knew that most likely the Dems would win. But I was bloody motivated to vote--because I wanted to be rest assured with my conscience that someone like Paladino would NEVER get the chance to say he won, if my vote could have been the deciding one or a necessary piece. That some teabagger freak wouldn't be making any sort of decisions in regards to my state.

I was fuckin' motivated. Obama had nothing to do with my state elections or local elections. I knew that I had a focused enemy and Paladino was one of many. I knew that there was no way that if I can do something would I allow that freak within power. This was the state goddmaned elections. Not the general. If you're not feeling motivated----then maybe that would pass in the GE---don't vote for Obama. But you don't blame you're local candidates for whatever problems you have with him. That's just petty childishness. MSNBC---if you watch that or Rachel Maddow was talking about the sad freaks in each state who were teabagger monsters running. And those people were not scary enough to motivate someone?!

You're seriously telling me that those people were not frightening enough to get people going and making sure that these people stayed out of the running?! You're going to blame Obama for this?! Seriously?!

I can't buy that shit. No, no, no. There are a lot of Dems who traveled far and wide and cared enough about their vote to vote the right way and they got fucked over by fuckers who felt "unmotivated" because Obama did something to them in some way. Sorry if I feel no pity. I feel pity for those Dems who went to vote and got fucked over. Those are the people I feel sorry for. And I blame their fellow voters who felt "unmotivated," for that as well. They cared enough and were terrified enough of these assholes fucking up their states. They didn't waste they're time feeling unmotivated because of Obama, some of whom are quite critical and might not even like the man. But they went to vote. And I should care for the people who felt "unmotivated"...whatever.

[ReggieVeggie]

86. quite a tirade

so, American democracy rests solely on the voter and whether or not they vote and who they support

That menas that the politicians who make promises in order to garner votes are empty figureheads who don't have any power or any ability to influence anything.

That's a dim view of things.

Next time I cast a ballot, I'd better be given a bill to sign into law since the people I vote for matter so very little.

[Umbral]

52. Learn what? That no matter what happens, someone will find a way to blame the victim. nt

[neverforget]

55. We lost independents 55-39.

Swing-voting independents who, as usual, made the difference, favored Republicans for House by a thumping 16 points, 55-39 percent. Compare that to Obama's 8-point win among independents in 2008. It was the Republicans' biggest win among independents in exit polls dating to 1982 (by two points. The GOP won independents by 14 points in 1994, the last time they took control of the House.)

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010-midterms-political-price-economic-pain/story?id=12041739

[MannyGoldstein]

57. But reality has a well-known Liberal bias

So your "facts" and your "math" are not welcome by all.

[neverforget]

58. hippy punching is in again

[ClarkUSA]

61. Depends on the state. For states w/more registered Dems than Koch cons, indies weren't an issue.

See PA and NJ, for example. Furthermore, PPP polls show that it was union households voting for Walker that gave him the edge over his Democratic opponent: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=627408&mesg_id=627504

Thus, the OP is correct: elections have consequences.

[neverforget]

67. Elections have consequences and so does losing indies at such a

high number.

[ClarkUSA]

88. Yet indies' politics differ greatly from that of those who decry Obama's talk of bipartisanship.

Indies want a show of bipartisanship and they want a president who demonstrates above-the-fray politics. Pres. Obama knows this very well, which is why he kicked GOP butt in 2008 and will do so again in 2012.

Midterm elections nearly always favor the party who's not in possession of the WH, much less what happened in 2010, when Democrats controlled Congress and Obama's coattails were non-existent.

[RBInMaine]

97. Too "victimized" by Dems and Obama to vote?? LOL Find the planet.

[neverforget]

99. what?

[last_texas_dem]

106. +1,000.

[vroomvroom]

62. Dem. in Congress (and WH) are center-right which makes the decision hard: Repub or Less Repub

Of course its better to have democrats in office but its sad to think that those democrats in office are just republican-lites. Which is why it makes it hard for progressives to want to vote for this people. Of course its clear republicans are even worse but its a sad day that even our own party sells us out...they just do it with excuses (republicans tell it to your face)

[whosinpower]

63. bullshit

elections have NO consequences when our elected leaders, on both sides of the aisle are influenced and controlled by the monied elite. That is fact.

Elections may keep the masses happy, in kumbaya land thinking that their vote actually means something - but it does not. Not as long as money speaks to power and power listens to money before people.

When you have a system that rewards failed banks and punishes teachers - something is terribly wrong with that system - and it is not just republicans, or just democrats. OH they love it when we play THAT game. What a grand deflection.

And now this bullshit - blaming people who failed to vote democrat as being the reason Walker was able to do what he did. You were the one who lauded Obama in the highest manner for passing bush tax cuts....saying this triangulation was freakin brilliant. Well, RB - this freaking triangulation has freaking consequences - budgets are bursting at the seams with debt...and that debt is NOT because of teachers, or firefighter, or policemen or any union. How about that tax holiday for payroll taxes reinvigorating the economy - hows that working for ya? You know - the one that OBAMA brought to the table.....oh I know you wish and hope and pray that everyone will forget about that nice little tidbit when Boehner talks of cutting social security. More deflection....more bullshit.

And don't give me the song and dance that if only more democrats were in power - we would not be in the position we are. Democrats voted in FAVOUR for the first round of bush tax cuts. Democrats voted IN FAVOUR of both wars. Democrats voted in FAVOUR of tarp. Democrats, just like republicans will do what the money bids them to do. We didn't get to the position where 87 percent of all the wealth generated in this country goes to 1 percent of the population overnight. It did not magically occur with just Bush Jr.

When Obama was first elected - democrats held majorities in both the house AND the senate. Americans, overwhelmingly wanted a public option or single payer to be included in the health reform discussions....and instead....you got mandated health insurance to private companies, lobbied and put forth by private insurance companies who saw a public option as a threat to their profit margin. They lobbied hard, incited the tea party movement...and money won...once again. And once again, the majority of americans were told to shut up and take it on the chin.

[BobbyBoring]

73. Yep

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

There's a hand full of Dems, 1 Independent, and 0 Rethugs that give a shit about us. The whole system is rotten to the core and MUST be dismantled.

[mmonk]

64. No responsibility for anything by those elected to office.

Interesting.

[Union Scribe]

70. That's classy, ragging on the WI protesters. Real nice.

I look forward to your future "bitch had it coming" thread about sexual harassment.

[RBInMaine]

98. I've sent pizza twice & great they're doing it. But don't be blind to the inconvenient truth that

WAY TOO MANY didn't work on campaigns and didn't vote when they needed to in WI and elsewhere too. No excuses.

[pecwae]

80. Yes, blame the union members.

You haven't the faintest idea what those protesters were doing last November or any other time. But that didn't stop you from posting rancid hyperbole. Unbelievable!

[chill_wind]

96. And I imagine many WI voters would love to thank a few persisting with these

calling-out OP's and these angry attacks here in GD-P and the way they're being framed (or then again, maybe not). And maybe they feel
they owe this OPer a personal or collective explanation (or NOT) about whether or how or who they voted for last November,

but I imagine a lot of them are real busy right now:



WI, you do us all proud.

[creon]

91. Consequences

Yes. Elections have consequences.

But, what is done is done.

2012. There is an election in 2012. Organize. Recruit competent and honest progressives to run for Congress.

Vote. Get other people to vote. GOTV.

In order to pass progressive legislation -- you need a progressive majority in Congress.

[creon]

92. yesterday

Nov 2010 is past.

Over. Done with.

Nov 2012.

Do or not do.

[Knight Hawk]

94. The Black vote

I believe the hugh Black and youth vote that voted in 2008 just stayed home more than the Progressive vote.Obama really excited the black and youth vote in 2008 .He was not on the ballot in 2010 and had lost some of his WOW power.So a combination of those three voting groups staying home hurt us in 2010.I realize that some people fit into more than one category.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JCMach1]

101. Corporate money has consequences- that is the message we should get

[hatrack]

107. Oh look! Another steel-cage death match for the Scalded Cat Brigade

Why, I've never even seen a thread like this before on DU - I'd better read it all the way to the very end, and then reload as many times as possible for three or four more hours!

:eyes:

[Avant Guardian]

108. Elections only have consequences when republicans win

...

[displacedvermoter]

110. What is the purpose of this post?

[craigmatic]

111. The truth is that the 2010 elections were the fault of

the president's team for not standing up for what they actually accomplished. They backed away and let the republicans shape the message. They let the netroots drift away by not listening to the base that put them in office in the first place. They depressed turn out by not fighting even symbolically when they could have. So who really went to sleep here? It wasn't the people. They were paying attention which is why they didn't turn out and instead of learning from that the same team thought theat they could win support back by doubling down on their failed tactics of negotiating with republicans after giving them half of what they wanted before discussions even started.

[mochajava666]

112. Well said