If I were the GOP, and I wanted to win a few elections...

[Robb]

...I sure as hell wouldn't spend any time trying to "energize my base."

I mean, maybe it's the cold medicine talking, but it seems to me the right is about as energized as they can get. Have been since Reagan. They're dying, and new ones aren't being born quickly enough.

No, if I were the GOP, and I wanted to win a few elections, I'd focus my energy on dividing the left. More bang for the buck with a good monkeywrench than a good idea.

Take an already nuanced and fractured party, full of members that compromised with one another to win an election in 2008, and target their internal differences. Make sure every single issue that any of them disagree upon gets as much air time as possible whenever it is discussed, much less legislated upon. Hell, I'd even throw a little money at hiring some solid, well-credentialed and uncompromising left-wing pundits on whatever media outlets I owned (e.g., all of them). Give them lots of air time. All they want, as long as they don't talk about compromise.

Convince the left "compromise" on one issue, even if it results in a step forward on another, is the same as "capitulation." Turn compromise into a dirty word.

Make the left regret acting with consensus in 2008. Convince us never to do it again.

Then, once you've chopped that big liberal block into a bunch of smaller ones you can beat, take back the government.

Easy. :shrug:

[Drale]

1. I've been seeing stuff posted on DU lately that seems

to have that goal in mind and I can't decide if its actually DU members posting it or if its freeper trolls.

[patrice]

3. It'd be fun to try a rudimentary semantic analysis of weird-ass posts that integrate

certain conventionally "opposite" traits. IMO, they think they are stealing Obama's tactics, but they aren't, because if you could get these types to honestly answer a few questions, you'd find there is little or no functional rational basis for their use of reich-wing talking points. It's ALL pure rhetoric.

[blondeatlast]

29. Both. nt

[Tesha]

33. I've thought that was the case for the entire lifetime of the DLC.

That seemed to be its sole purpose in life: divide
and weaken the Democrats.

Tesha

[valerief]

2. I'd load up the courts with thieves and buy Congress. Oh, yeah, and buy the vote counters, too. nt

[dionysus]

4. as evidenced by the state of DU.

[Robb]

7. No, actually.

I mean, DU tends to reflect what's in the news, because that's what we are -- we talk about the news of the day.

But it struck me last night -- never in my lifetime have there been more liberal voices on TV and radio than right at this moment. And since we didn't suddenly take ownership of the media, it means the people who do own it are letting more of us wacky leftists on the air.

Why in hell, I wondered, would they do that?

[SidDithers]

5. K&R...nt

Sid

[Dawgs]

6. I hope you didn't spend a lot of time writing this crap.

It makes no sense.

[JackRiddler]

27. It does if you want to devise an apologia for Democratic corporatism.

[fasttense]

8. If I were a RepubliCON and I wanted to win some elections

I would just rig the voting machines.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. They did win. By running real Republicans against Blue Dogs.

Blue Dogs, which the "practical", "realistic", Dems told us were the only ones who could win.

[Blue Meany]

10. I think they have been doing this for a long time already...

mainly through the DLC, which gets funding from some of the same sources as the GOP. The Republicans have long sought to meddle in Democratic primaries, as well, in order to choose who they are going to run against.

[JoePhilly]

11. You are correct ... the GOP strategy has 2 parts ...

1) Do what you can to get a 3-4% increase in the crazy right wing vote (check).

2) Gum up the works so bad that no matter what Obama does, or tries to do, parts of the left will flip out and scream and holler enough to discuorage 3-4% of the MODERATE / LOW INFORMATION Democrats such that they stay home. (check)

The 6-8% overall turnout swing would be about enough to beat Obama in 2012.

And it worked in 2010.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. Problem with that theory is, it was the fucking blue dogs who

'gum(med) up the works' in the first two years, not the GOP.

And it was the fucking blue dogs who got spanked in the 2010 elections, while nearly all lefties were returned to their seats.

But nice job blaming it on the left.

[JoePhilly]

30. Russ Feingold and Alan Grayson are Blue Dogs?

The GOP set a record for filibusters, by a factor of about 2. And the blue dogs helped.

But look, those moderate dems who are also usually low information voters hear only one message from the right ... "Obama bad" ... and the message that they hear from the loudest part of the left ... "Obama bad".

They aren't going to investigate why "Obama's bad", and they will stay home.

[RaleighNCDUer]

36. Don't be coy. Count the number of blue dogs who lost their seats

and count the number of lefties who lost their seats.

And it is not the fault of the left is someone CHOOSES to be a low information voter. The reasons the right give for 'Obama bad', like birth certificates, being Muslin, being a socialist, etc., bear no resemblance to those rasons give by the left - continuing damaging Republican policies, undermining the public school system, giveaways to the people who crashed the economy.

If someone can't discern the difference between those, well, we can give them information but we can't give them brains.

[txlibdem]

43. +1

How many of us sent a zillion emails to the President asking him to stop being a little wussy-girl and stand up like a man.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

37. I wouldn't blame the left

but it was more of an unholy alliance of lockstep Republican opposition + Blue Dogs. Had there been even a few Republicans willing to buck their party and work with the President in good faith and in the spirit of genuine bipartisanship, the Blue Dogs might not have been the headache they were and President Obama wouldn't have had to go to extraordinary lengths to cobble together SIXTY votes for EVERYTHING he got passed (post-stimulus, anyway). And yet, despite knowing this, some people actually wonder why we didn't get single payer or even a PO.

[RaleighNCDUer]

40. So Obama is not smart enough to be able to look at what was happening

and then buttonhole recalcitrant dems and say "Look, asshole, YOU ARE FUCKING THIS UP FOR ALL OF US. You want to keep the Democratic majority you gotta vote like a fucking Democrat. You don't, and we will lose the majority and you will probably lose your seat. And if you cause that to happen and you don't lose your seat, I will GURANFUCKINGTEE you you will lose your seat next time around. Capice?"

Of course, he doen't have the balls to do that.

edit for typo

[JoePhilly]

42. Did Ben Nelson lose his seat?

Try this ....

Go back and look at which Senate Dems voted for (1) Medicare part D back in 2003, and (2)Graham-Leech-Biley from around 1999.

Then take a look at home many of them are still around.

This notion that Obama was going to sit them down and somehow convince them to act other than as who they are is RIDICULOUS.

They do not care about having a Democratic majority. By playing the MIDDLE, the swing vote, these blue dogs get to play BOTH SIDES.

As a very simple example ... I give you BEN NELSON. The idea that Obama could force that guy to do anything is naive.

[RaleighNCDUer]

44. Really? Suppose the DNC was to refuse to give him ANY support

in the next election - no money, no advertising, no Pres or VP or 1st Lady meeting up on campaign tours.

OTOH, the DNC could GUARANTEE all that, and more - there's pork to go around - if he cooperates.

You gotta play hardball with the assholes. That's what they understand. Self interest.

But no, Obama played TO those guys. He didn't play hardball, he played whiffle ball. No wonder he got no cooperation from them.

He doesn't get it. You negotiate with the OTHER party - you LEAD your own party.

[JoePhilly]

45. The DNC isn't going to do that. Never have. Never will.

As for promising people pork, how do you think they got Nelson to vote YES.

You don't seem to recall that they DID BRIBE HIM. To get him to vote yes, they added an item to the HCR bill such that the federal government would pay much of Nebraska's Medicare costs. It was called the Cornhusker kickback!!!

You can read all about it HERE ...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30815.html

Ahhh ... that pesky TRANSPARENCY we demand so much. That deal became public.

The other day, another DU member who I won't name, told me that the President should be using the DOJ to investigate members of Congress, dig up dirt, and then force them to vote the way we want.

You want to bribe them. Which as I note above. We did.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. The problem is not a party in which factions compromise with each other -

the problem is with a party in which significant numbers insist on compromising with the other party while getting NO compromise from the other party.

But nice job of blaming it on the left.

[Robb]

15. See, this.

Conflating the idea of compromising within your own party with compromising with the other side is exactly what I'm talking about.

[RaleighNCDUer]

19. Did you read what you just wrote? nt

[Robb]

20. Twice, now.

Do you think the Democrats are so united in goal (I hesitate, but the correct phrase would be "in lockstep") that there aren't any who wholeheartedly support the same action you (assumedly) frame as capitulation?

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. You want to try that again in Engl;ish? nt

[Robb]

23. Only if I get a moment to recalibrate my irony meter.

[RaleighNCDUer]

34. OK, let me give it a shot -

"Do you think the Democrats are so united in goal"

No. I very specifically said there is a large faction which is intent on 'compromise' and said 'compromise' gets no concessions from the other party. This has NOTHING to do with the compromises between Dem factions that you dreamed up which got Obama elected - do you not remember that election? Does that sound like 'united in goal'?

"(I hesitate, but the correct phrase would be "in lockstep")"

meaningless snark - I'm talking about division, not unity

"that there aren't any who wholeheartedly support the same action"

Want to specify the 'action' you think I'm referring to? I thought I was being very clear - obviously someone who 'compromises' (I did not say capitulate, but you could interpret it that way) while getting nothing in return - the 'action' I was referring to - wholeheartedly supports his own action or he would not have done it. Duh.

"you (assumedly) frame as capitulation?"

So, as I get it, the gist of your argument is "Hey, lefties, shut the fuck up". Am I right?

[Robb]

38. Not remotely.

Although I suppose I can kind of be impressed with the effort that took.

Simply, Democrats ultimately elected Obama because we couldn't all get behind Dean, and we couldn't all get behind Edwards, and we couldn't all get behind Clinton. We got behind Obama, and lots of us -- most of whom actually opposed a lot of his positions -- called it compromise, from every corner of the Democratic spectrum. And I say that as an established Dean guy.

Besides, if you think anything that's been "compromised" on was a halfway deal with the GOP instead of an agreement most Democrats can live with, you aren't being honest with yourself about how far to the right the right actually is.

/begin hyperbole for effect

The GOP doesn't want to defund NPR. The GOP wants to replace it with 24-7 Rush Limbaugh, with transmitters powered by biofuel made from blended puppies.

/end hyperbole

[EFerrari]

13. The GOP doesn't have to divide the left when the Obama campaign

has already disallowed the progressives from any meaningful participation.

[SDuderstadt]

14. If you're on cold medication...

I certainly hope you've recused yourself from all moderator duties.

Just kidding, Robb.

[raouldukelives]

16. If I was a corporatist...

Instead of always fighting against the other side I would just buy them out as well.

[sabrina 1]

17. If I were a Republican and I wanted to win elections, I would

pretend to be a reasonable person who could be negotiated with, especially if there was a Democratic President talking about compromising and bi-partisanship all the time. I would figure out that the Democratic Party has a wing that is very conservative and I would enter into agreements with that wing, telling them so long as they keep the progressive wing of the party out of it, we can get along just fine.

Then I would send a few Republican Sens, like Lindsey Graham to talk to the president, shake hands, etc. so it looks like bi-partisanship which is very important to this president.

I would let the more radical wing of the R party make totally off-the-wall demands, like 'end medicare' and then pretend to be willing to 'talk to them' if we can at least 'give them something'.

After pretending to have given up something and in return getting more than we ever thought we could, I would feel very self-satisfied, especially since it was all done without even a fight, having kept the progressives out of the battle, and leaving it to the 'adults'. I would be very pleased about having 'killed two birds with one stone'. Getting a lot more than we expected, AND alienating the Progressive wing against the Dem. Party and a whole lot of Independents also.

Then I would move on to the next battle. This time I'd let the crazy wing of the R party demand huge cuts to SS. The Dem president, fearful that we might do it, (which we wouldn't, we're not that politically suicidal, we've seen the polls too) I would then offer a 'compromise'.

Instead of actual cuts, maybe raise the retirement age, one year? Two? Depends on the polls etc. And agree to no cost of living increase for retirees for another couple of years. HE gets to say he 'won' and once again, we get what we want.

The smart progressives who see all of this for what it is, wouldn't bother me. I'd let the party loyalists take care of them.

But I'm not a Republican, but if I were, that is what I would do.

[damntexdem]

18. They don't want to win a few elections -- they want to rig them all.

And they don't just energize their base -- they also actively suppress votes for Democrats.

[jillan]

21. They don't need to win, Corporations will buy the elections for them.

[Contrary1]

24. Why go to all that trouble and expense?

Just cheat and get the Supremes to rule in your favor. It's worked before, I'm sure it would work again.

[JackRiddler]

25. If I were you, I'd present this scenario as pure theory, given that there's no evidence

And looky there, it's what you just did.

[Bluerthanblue]

28. I think you are onto something. Divide and conquer.

Take any positive outcome which your opposition is able to achieve and minimize it.

Pit 'them' against each other.

Encourage anger, frustration, resentment and outrage.

I hope we don't fall for this.

[Wait Wut]

35. Ah.

:cry:

[Wait Wut]

31. Yep.

I'd be willing to bet that's what's going on. Not so sure about the media thing, but it's an interesting theory.

[Ohio Joe]

32. K&R - nt

[JackRiddler]

39. ... I would buy, steal, cheat, demonize, engage in infamous defamations, bully and energize.

Which is what they are doing. And for more than 30 years it's worked to cause Democrats to fold and keep moving to the right, creating elections with little appearance of choice and demobilizing most people into the non-voters' camp.

[Robb]

41. Hm.

"Inflitrate," "fracture".... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4809248