So if the Democrats lose the senate.

[BlindTiresias]

So if the Democrats lose the senate and also eventually the presidency, what resistance will be left exactly in the Democratic party? So many people that would stir the population to kick the Republicans out of office have been thrown under the bus that it is doubtful they would come to the party's aid. To make matters worse, the left would be blamed so hard and so viciously attacked that it may constitute a permanent break in the party.

What does everyone think? This constant blaming of the left and throwing under the bus of every left figure who criticizes Obama is bound to cause significant damage in such a scenario, right? Where would the party even be after that kind of rout?

(Please nobody spam this thread with "GOTV!" or "Thats why we need to VOTE!". It is already understood and is merely meaningless noise at this point.)

[DocMac]

1. GOTV!!!

[BlindTiresias]

3. Not helpful and already understood.

[DocMac]

9. This post isn't helpful.

But you know that already.

[BlindTiresias]

12. No, actually.

I don't know what you mean.

[DocMac]

14. We have to vote.

Everything else is noise. GOTV! Your post is noise, m'kay?

[BlindTiresias]

15. Lol yes!! YASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is already understood here! It communicates nothing because if you are a democrat on a democratic forum you likely already understand the importance of voting. So it is noise because it is communicating nothing, virtually everybody already agrees! Furthermore, it is not really in the purview of this thread as I am speaking of a hypothetical interacting with the cultural trajectory of the party. So it is a meaningless statement in this context!

[DocMac]

19. Pay attention!

Life does not end if Republicans win the senate. It means we have to try harder. So, GOTV and save us the stress of it all, please.

[HereSince1628]

68. Actually outbursts of the group zeitgeist communicate...

things like:

"I'm a good group member, cuz I know and repeat the group's memes...

and -Your- support of groupness could be in doubt!"

[demwing]

69. no it's not "m'kay"

smarminess doesn't add value

[Andy823]

2. How about

Flame bait?

[BlindTiresias]

5. What do you mean?

I'm asking about the long term prospects of effectively resisting the Republicans in a worst case scenario when we have essentially cut off our own legs. It isn't flaming, I am seriously asking if people have considered the ramifications.

[NuclearDem]

4. Enough with the doom and gloom already goddamnit.

If the rest of the left sits out this election and costs the Democrats the Senate, then they'll deserve the fucking blame.

Christ.

I live in a safe red district and just voted this morning for a Democrat I'm not particularly passionate about.

Until the two party system is broken apart structurally, there isn't the choice of sitting it out. The rest of the left might; the right absolutely won't. 2010 was a disaster, and we've lost the House until 2020.

So get the fuck out and vote.

[BlindTiresias]

7. I'm not advocating sitting out, though?

I am asking if people have seriously considered the impact of leftward blame and throwing many public progressives under the bus. It seems like a losing maneuver to me if the Democrats find themselves in the minority opposition again.

[VanillaRhapsody]

77. You certainly do not seem to advocate voting FOR Democrats...

See if you have been at Democratic Underground and ALL you have done is CRITICISE Democrats....JUST like the Rightwing does....YOU too have contributed to the suppression of the voting population....BECAUSE you claim to be on the left but ALSO do nothing but criticize them....other people notice that...and the MEME that both parties are the same.....is exacerbated. Because you fed right into the Rightwing bullshit.

[BlindTiresias]

85. Still doing the elipsis attack eh?

I advocate for the left wing, when the Democrats support leftists I support them, if they go right I oppose them. Very simple.

[VanillaRhapsody]

88. are you still ASSUMING I am a male?

[Thinkingabout]

23. No way, many said this of Obama also but it is not true. Eight more years of the likes of

Bush surely will not be kind to Democrats. She is a long time fighter of Democrat ideas, she has experience, she has fought for civil rights in her college days and it continues, she fights for rights of women, for increasing minimum wages and helping those are considered middle class or less, we need a fighter.

[Chan790]

45. Well, a prolonged vacillation between Republicans and Democrats that govern like Republicans...

in the US presidency since 1976 certainly hasn't been kind to the American people. Tell me again why we should give a fuck to the choice between being gutted or having our throats slashed. Fuck false dichotomies. Differentiating between any of the Republicans and Hillary is like explaining the contrast of white on white.

Hillary Clinton has never met a Democratic idea she liked without first getting the approval of her RW Wall St. friends and in a saner universe she'd be told she was a Republican and kicked out of the Democratic party as an interloper and hostile invader.

I've said it before and meant it--I will never cast a ballot for Hillary Rodham Clinton because I do not vote for Republicans, even Republicans running as Democrats.

[Thinkingabout]

47. Prove your point of Hillary getting the approval of Wall Street.

You may withhold your vote of Hillary and if you get another republican would that make you happy?

[Chan790]

59. It would make me a Spaniard.

I'm emigrating and surrendering my US passport if she's the nominee. I didn't vote for her when she was running to be my Senator, I didn't vote for her to be President, I wrote both of my Democratic Senators to urge them to oppose her nomination for Sec. of State and I will not be voting for her in the future.

In a more direct answer to your initial question, I would be fairly ambivalent. I view Hillary as a Republican and any Hillary win as a Republican win...so you're asking if I'd be happier if a Republican won than if a Republican won. I would not like a Republican President but I would be happy that the threat of a Hillary Presidency is over forever. I hate her guts like I hate injustice, Ayn Rand, and people that put rice on tacos.

[Thinkingabout]

62. You may hate her, but she is not republican, her voting record does not fall with GOP.

When you find the time to review her stand on the issues, please do, sometime rumors does not tell the real story.


http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

[samsingh]

76. i'm definitely not sure why you hate her so much

repugs destroyed the economy, stole an election, started unnecessary wars allowed or failed to stop 911. that didn't get you to leave the country, yet a Hillary nomination would?

something is not right.

[Trajan]

8. Perhaps your belief in political eschatology

Is leading you to needlessly fret over a manufactured meme?

I do not believe that the Senate is going to the GOP ... no fucking way ...

Furthermore, I don't see evidence that members of the left caucus are being marginalized ... any more than is usual ...

Fear is a bad thing

[BlindTiresias]

10. It was a hypothetical.

Notice the "if" and not "when" condition.

Also I am not sure, the Democratic party has gone a weird direction since 2008, certainly not one I would have expected.

[Motown_Johnny]

11. 2016 should be a good year for us

Remember that whole "un-skewed polls" crap back in 2012? They pointed out that with an electorate that is ~74% white, Romney wins. The thing is that the electorate was more like 72% white so Obama won in an electoral landslide.

In 2016 the electorate will be more like 70% white and it will be that much harder for any (R) to win. Any (D) who does not self destruct should be able to hold the White House.


As for losing the Senate this year, it would suck... but Congress is already broken. Between the filibuster rules and the (R)s holding the House, I don't think that losing the Senate would be as big a loss as it would have been (or has been) in previous cycles.


My prediction... 49 (D)s ... 50 (R)s... 1 (I) who caucuses with the (D)s and the tie breaking vote going to the VP.

Just watch the heads explode as the (R)s have more Senators than the (D)s and still hold the minority position.

[BlindTiresias]

13. Yeah granted

I am speaking more in the case it doesn't go our way. There seems to have been a trend lately where more people are getting marginalized for being critical of Obama's performance and these very same people have historically been the most stalwart critics of Republicans. If the Democratic party can hold on to power I suppose it doesn't matter, but it seems like a mistake unless you are absolutely guaranteed victory.

[Motown_Johnny]

17. hypotheticals rarely have a good answer

What if we are hit by an asteroid?

What if a new Spanish Flu outbreak wreaks havoc around the world?

What if this, that or the other.


The undeniable fact on this subject is the change in demographics.

Here is a link to an old post of mine that also quotes and links to an article from 2010. I still believe this to be an accurate prediction of what we can expect to see play out.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002975365


^snip^






The increase in the nonwhite share of the electorate over the next decade will have major consequences for electoral competition. If the Democratic Party is able to maintain anything close to the overwhelming advantage among nonwhite voters that it enjoyed in 2008, Republican candidates will need to win a considerably larger share of the white vote than their party’s candidates did in 2008 or even 2004 in order to remain competitive in national elections. Under these circumstances, even a 60 percent share of the white vote would not be enough to give a Republican candidate a majority of the popular vote and the last Republican presidential candidate to win more than 60 percent of the white vote was Ronald Reagan in 1984.

[BlindTiresias]

18. Yeah, this is true

But it does rely on the Republicans staying strategically static in the future. I could conceivably see them attempting to court non-whites and the youth via a libertarian angle which due to the current Democratic party's adherence to similar economic ideals would be be sufficiently close so as to obfuscate the difference.

[treestar]

78. They really will deserve that

Democrats should use the filibuster on them whenever possible!

[craigmatic]

16. There will always be liberals in the party. Demographics are also on our side. We won't lose the

presidency.

[FiveGoodMen]

21. Not sure about the demographics

It's not safe to assume that younger people and minorities will be progressive.

[craigmatic]

24. they'll either vote democrat or they won't at all. I would put money on that.

[BlindTiresias]

26. really hard to say, I think

If the Republicans successfully court the libertarian crowd you could very easily see the youth vote coming over.

[craigmatic]

27. You ever read the book the fourth turning?

The youth are a civic generation. The boomers fought the culture wars which are over now. Xers are a small generation which is slightly libertarian. That just leaves the Millennials who have grown up (myself included) watching all the petty arguments play out and want to see the government function and see important business get done like fixing the student loan crisis. We've seen Obama use the government to keep us on our parents' insurance and we want more of the government giving us a hand up. We just spent the last decade watching bush fail and most of us don't really blame Obama for the mess. As for the latino immigrants the first two generations of them are usually fairly liberal to moderate but that fades by the third due to religion and culture. Not to mention the gop is making no secret about their opposition to their children being allowed to stay. The repubs are digging their own graves here. Even the Cubans are starting to abandon them. So to sums all this up we're sitting pretty for the next 20 some years or so if they consistently turn out to vote.

[BlindTiresias]

35. yeah, I didn't particularly buy it

I'm a millenial myself and they are obscenely optimistic to the point of absurdity. I see plenty of libertarians in my generation and in general a complete lack of awareness of the political spectrum, which deludes many into believing they are far left when at best they are maybe moderates? Just further plays into the hands of the right wing as the left gets pushed into obscurity and the right wing gains what is becoming totalitarian control over society.

The difference between us and the previous civic minded generation was they had pretty well established ideologies to work off of. What do we have?

[craigmatic]

61. We have the samething we've had 30 years of conservatism. It's time for change.

Since president Carter we've had 30 years of southern pandering governors with the exception of bush 41. Obama is the first senator and northerner since JFK to get elected. The south's lock on the white house is broken and even if Hillary wins it's still going to be over. The problem that exists now is not so much that we can't win national elections it's that we can't get our agenda through congress. In alot of ways FDR had it easy he had congress, two landslides, freedom to operate, and no news cycle to deal with. Obama has to deal with all that and race. It's easy to get disenchanted but keep in mind this is a long game that we can win in increments.

[joshcryer]

31. Republican's can't cater to the youth.

They would have to revamp their party to the point that it no longer resembles the Republican party. The platform simply cannot attract the youth vote. The only vote that the Republicans remotely enjoy are white males, but even they are going to be burdened with student loans that the Republicans aren't going to absolve (but the Democrats are trying to get a fix on).

[BlindTiresias]

38. Never say "can't" when it comes to political evolution

Look at what the Democrats and Republicans represented only a century ago. The Republicans leadership may be evil but they aren't stupid, if anyone can maneuver themselves into a position where they can capture a good portion of the youth vote it is them.

[JI7]

43. they certainly are stupid, look how they lost easy seats like Lugar and many others by nominating

teabaggers instead of the other candidate in the primary who would have been an easy win for them.

[BlindTiresias]

50. Historically speaking

They have all but dismantled the new deal legacy and effectively turned the Dems from centre-left Keynesians to right wing Austrians, idiots can't accomplish that.

It is always a mistake to assume your opponent is stupid, anyway.

[JI7]

51. what's a right wing austrian ? how is that different from right wing british or right wing french ?

[BlindTiresias]

53. Austrian school economics

began with von Mises, was moderated and refined by Hayek and later Friedman. This informs the dominant economic thought in both parties starting in the 80's and is the source of the pro free market ideologies and smaller government ideology that became ascendant.

[JI7]

54. so how does it different from british, french and others ?

[BlindTiresias]

55. Its called the "Austrian school"

It began in Austria.

[joshcryer]

67. The vice chair of the Fed is a Keynesian.

Stanley Fischer will likely be the next Fed if Democrats retain power (Yellen made a great transition pick to keep people from having their feathers ruffled).

Here's what happened to the "dismantling of new deal legacy":

They failed. Unless we accept it, and push back against it, rather than go on the "defensive" after their ideas have been completely obliterated, then of course they can try to resurge.

But it doesn't look like that is happening.

[joshcryer]

66. They're trying to do it with "libertarianism."

But it is only attractive to white males, women and minorities aren't going to have it. Two demographics that the Republicans can't attract without changing their policies sufficiently enough that they no longer resemble the party.

[Hippo_Tron]

87. Sure they can, just the way Nixon won national elections while appealing to southerners

The religious right will accept that its lost the legal larger battle on gay rights just as the south accepted that it lost the legal fight on Civil Rights. But they can still vote for politicians who will push their agenda in more subtle ways, while still appealing to the broader electorate.

The GOP's main problem right now is that they have too many factions demanding absolute purity. Their other problem is that they have neither crime nor national security are particularly salient issues, and those are the issues that they typically use both to keep their various factions in check and to appeal to swing voters.

If Hillary wins in 2016, the GOP's factions will probably unite. If crime or national security (probably the later more likely) become bigger issues, the factions will unite.

In a two party system, it's only a matter of time before the other side gets their shit together and wins.

[tabbycat31]

56. Google the term rising American electorate

This is where the Democrats win elections. The RAE includes under 30, minorities, and unmarried women. They're less likely to be registered and less likely to vote, but if they vote they'll vote Dem.

Want to excite people under 30, the Democrats need to put student loan debt in their party platform and show the millennial generation that they're caring about an issue that matters to them.

[BlindTiresias]

57. Would never happen

measures to reduce debt burden or interest rates would upset the apple cart in finance, which means it isn't going to be a Dem policy.

[Thinkingabout]

20. The Obama adminstration has had their hands tied on getting his agenda passed because of the

House of Representatives, this is a clue to the future. Getting the voters out is a main objective, we have more Democrats than Republicans and the Republicans votes and ergo more Republicans are elected. If we do not vote then we do not need to complain with those who are elected. Encourage those of like thoughts to get out to vote, work for our candidates, we can win in elections if we vote, the numbers are on our side. Until we can get Democrats elected we will not get our agenda on board.

[annominous]

33. True, but this was also the game plan during Clinton's 8 years, didn't let him get

a democratic agenda passed. POTUS Clinton, to his neverending shame, helped the GOP get their agenda passed instead, as they ran him to ground over his sexcapades ... repeal of Glass Steagal, passage of NAFTA, privatization of many govt functions, no health care or health insurance reform, ... that's what Clinton got done. Does that sound like a democratic president to you?

This has been the gop (now the gotp) strategy since Bush1 lost to Clinton: when the gotp does not have the White House they do what they can (mostly in the senate with draconian requirements for supermajority to get anything done) to bring the country to its knees. When the gotp are in power, they loose the floodgates, some people prosper like never before on various bubbles, crumbs are allowed to fall off the tables of our "betters", and they focus focus focus on overturning the new deal, and every piece of progress that followed it.

That's their game plan, it is obvious. The gotp takes the long view. They besmirch democratic policies and politicians, and our bewildered democratic politicians have turned rightward to deflect their criticism, not recognizing that it's a game, and not recognizing it doesn't matter how they respond. Tomorrow, new day, same criticism. Life and death to us little people, a game to the gotp, who've been assured by their masters they will be taken care of. The masters of the gotp want to overturn the new deal so the workers can all starve like dogs in the street, once our useful working years are behind us.

It's a game for the gotp. They are psychos. The US grand experiment in democracy is a game for them, a game they have tired of.

[Thinkingabout]

52. Unless there are more Democrats elected to Congress and the numbers swing to have the

ability to override a veto then the GOP will put their agenda in place. We can fragment the Democrat party, lose the numbers to elect anyone and then we will get more than Glass Stegall repealed, trust me, it will be hell on earth.

[annominous]

64. It takes a supermajority in both houses to override a presidential veto

There's no way we lose either house by a supermajority in this election, the numbers are not there for the gotp. The gotp at best expects 52 senate seats (they need 67 for a supermajority), and if 2 of those are indies and they caucus with the democrats (Preibus today said he wouldn't let them caucus with the gotp if they win), then the democrats will have control of the senate because Joe Biden, as VP, gets to vote for majority leader and ... that will be that. VP Cheney's tie-breaking vote gave senate leadership to the gotp back in 2001, it has happened before.

If democrats do lose the Senate, then POTUS Obama will have to get tough, and veto bad legislation in the first place. He has only vetoed two pieces of legislation, one of the least veto-using POTUS in our history. We need for him to get tough. He's too conciliatory, and that is what worries me: that he won't veto bad legislation in the first place.

And remember, if we lose the senate, we still will have Harry Reid in our corner as minority leader, and I expect he will do to the gotp what they've been doing to us since 2010. Meaning, worst case: 2 more years of gridlock. Same as if we don't lose the Senate.

In reality, one way or another it is likely 8 more years of gridlock. We will have to wait for the 2020 census, and democrats need to work on taking back state houses between now and then. If our side has the state houses, we can undo the gerrymandering done by the 2010 gotp state houses. And new districts will be in place by the 2022 midterm election.

What a mess. Just because democrats stayed home in 2010.

[Thinkingabout]

75. Okay, a few this election, a few more next election and soon there will be a supermajority.

I am looking to the far future, we have had gridlock in recent years except when George W was in office and the GOP congress gave him everything he wanted. Having a Senate which has 60 democrat majority would be great.

[Cleita]

22. My question is if we lose the senate is our side going

to go along to get along like they have in the past, giving the Republicans everything they want?Or... will the Democrats filibuster all toxic legislation brought up by Majority Leader Mitch O'Connell as vigorously as the Republicans have filibustered all legislation attempted by the Democrats these past sessions?

[BlindTiresias]

25. yeah thank you

This is the level of discussion I was hoping for. I am not sure on this one, it really depends on if the Democratic party maintains the old orthodoxy or if the old guard would be seen as thoroughly discredited and leads to an internal revolution to change the course of the party.

I think if the old orthodoxy is maintained you will likely see them provide very weak opposition in order to "keep things running", certainly nothing on the scale of resistance the Republicans have posed under Obama. If the left is thoroughly marginalized from the party I could easily see it being worse than the Democratic party support of Bush Jr.

[JVS]

41. Senate Democrats are not going to filibuster legislation that can easily be stopped by Obama's veto

Unless the legislation is something so odious that the Senators want the public to see them fight it down, they'll let the buck pass to the president.

[Cleita]

42. Jackasses, literally.

No wonder we hold the majority and they run the show.

[Jim Lane]

65. Legislation is already irrelevant. The issue is nominations.

The Senate will be close, but it won't matter for legislation. Anything notably good will die in the House. Anything notably bad will be vetoed. The Senate composition might have some marginal influence on legislative compromises made to keep the wheels turning, but that's it.

The real question about a Republican-controlled Senate is what they'd do about nominations. We could see many unfilled positions in the executive branch and many many unfilled judicial vacancies.

As to the OP's question about the blame game, it might be that the single most important question is the blame game as it affects Republicans. If they get a Senate majority and use it for full-on obstructionism, it might hurt them at the polls in 2016. If the party elders try to rein in the Tea Party hotheads and go for less than full-on obstructionism, it will exacerbate the existing internal rift.

On the Democratic side, I don't see the left getting the blame (at least from anyone whose opinion matters). The Republican path to Senate control is chiefly through beating conservative Democrats like Landrieu, Pryor, and Hagan. The progressives like Ed Markey are not in serious danger. A good year for the Republicans will mean that the center of gravity of the diminished Democratic caucus will shift to the left.

[MFM008]

28. polls say

We will lose. File this next to president Romney. As far as 2016. The gop plans to win by how? I think we are in better shape than they keep telling us we are.

[giftedgirl77]

32. Hahahahahahaha

[mopinko]

29. your concern is duly noted.

[AverageJoe90]

30. Oh, sure, blame the Party for everything, why don't you?

Let's be honest here: the majority of the problems have laid directly with obstructionist Repug cowards & dirtbags in Congress.....

(P.S. That's why we need to vote. GOTV. )

[hrmjustin]

34. What are you trying to say here?

This post seems like a downer to me.

[BlindTiresias]

36. Essentially

I am saying who are critics from the left now are excellent allies when the chips are down, so it a mistake to throw prominent leftists under the bus for short term purity of message because if they are not there when the Democrats lose power (and they eventually will) it is going to be a bad time.

[hrmjustin]

39. If we lose the elections this year there will be plenty of blame to go a round in the...

... party and rightly so. I don't think it is as bad as people say it is.

[JI7]

49. you confuse leftisits with attention whores

leftists can be anyone.

i know many leftists who are regularly active on various issues. they are always out volunteering and working on things like the environment, women's rights etc. these people are out demanding why everyone is being mean to them.

[liberal_at_heart]

37. Realistically we have four voting blocks in this country.

Middle ground democrats, middle ground republicans, liberals, and conservatives. Eventually liberals and conservatives will break away from their middle ground parties and we will end up with four parties.

[Cleita]

40. That will only happen if we achieve something like

instant runoff voting. Then we can vote our conscience and still not lose our vote in a third party vote. I think we should be going for this as part of election reform.

[cheapdate]

44. How does catstrophic Democratic defeat weaken the left?

It seems that the opposite is true. Furthermore, it seems that the proposition that the left is strengthened by Democratic Party defeat is part of the misguided "strategy" that some people on the left cleave to. They believe that punishing the party will send a message and strengthen the left. It won't.

The Progressive Caucus has, or had, 64 members, I think. 62 Democrats and 2 independents.

They need support, not foolish boycotts or misguided "strategic" voting.

As much or as little influence they enjoy presently, when the Democratic Party is out of power they enjoy precisely NO power at all.

Progressive and leftist policy will come about when there's political support from the electorate. Serious anti-war progressives are a minority in the population and even within the party.

I think you win the hard way. One voter, one candidate, and one office at a time.

[JI7]

46. what is with this strange need to feel like a martyr

i have said many times that you should support another party if you feel this way .

but there seems to be some enjoyment of going on about being victimized .

[tabbycat31]

48. Truth be told look ahead to 2016

Many predicted the Democrats losing the Senate in 2012 and it would be worse this year due to the cycle and the map (there's no Blue State GOP seats that we could pick up). Politics is cyclical. The GOP was favored to pick up the senate in 2012 too but look at what happened. Going into 2012, it was really only predicted that the Democrats would gain 1 seat (MA) since it was the class of Dem Year 2006. Nobody could have predicted Claire McCaskill holding on and picking up Indiana.

There's a lot of red state Democrats up this year who's states have only gotten redder (Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu) and some retirements that give the GOP an opportunity. That's life and the cyclical nature of politics. The map didn't look good for Democrats going into this cycle because this is the class of 2008 (good Dem year and possibly the last of the ticket splitting) up.

However, 2016 looks like a good year for Democrats in the Senate. This is the tea party class of 2010 that will be up in a presidential year. 34 seats are up, and only 10 of them are Democrats. Only two of the Democratic seats look competitive (NV, CO). Easily flippable are IL, PA, WI. Others that will be competitive-- NH, NC, FL, OH, IA. Even if we just pick up the 3 easies and 1 more, that's a gain of 4.

According to Wiki (not the most reliable source but a good quick look up) there are no retirements (which will not be announced until after the midterms). I believe Barbara Boxer is retiring but I don't see a state as blue as CA electing a GOP senator. Other potential retirements are John McCain. Then there's running for other office (only David Vitter is a declared gubernatorial candidate for 2015), but Rand Paul is all but declared as a presidential candidate.

Another truth be told--- I see the GOP splitting before the Dems splitting--- you have Mike Huckabee threatening to leave the party over marriage equality. You don't have liberals like Elizabeth Warren threatening to leave the Democratic party.

[Calista241]

71. Mike Huckabee is a do nothing former governor and political commentator.

Nobody gives a shit what he does or says, Not even in the Republican Party. Elizabeth Warren is a sitting US Senator whose opinion actually matters. They're not even remotely comparable.

And I do think 2012 was a bunch of self inflicted wounds the Repubs have largely avoided this year. Sharon Angle and Todd Akins were complete buffoons. The Repubs could have won several seats if they simply fielded a halfway decent candidate (most of which lost in their primaries that year).

I do look forward to a more competitive map in 2016 tho.

[tabbycat31]

82. I agree with you about Akin and the like

The Senate would have been tied if not for 3 bad candidates in 2010 (Angle, O'Donnell, and some guy in CO who's name escapes me) and 2 in 2012 (Mourdock, Akin).

While I have been told at the doors that the Democrat was 'too liberal' most of the time Democrats don't run their crazies (in winnable races).

I'm looking forward to 2016 and seeing what kind of candidates emerge for the upcoming races that are winnable (Joe Sestak already wants a rematch and has spent the last several years laying the foundation). I'd love to see Russ Feingold take his seat back too.

[Historic NY]

58. Haven't you heard the Progressives will head into the breech...

they will save whats left of the Democrats and their party. Thats what we are being told, little do they know perhaps in 50 yrs or so they may be proved right. We're on the verge of going south, more so if people decide to sit it out. My uncle and family spent more than 70 yrs in elective democratic politics from the ebb and tides of local battles...Democrats win when we stick together, change from the inside not from the outside looking in.

[rufus dog]

60. Flamebait IMO

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025650589

[Rex]

63. Can't speak for the do nothing Congress, but really I think we get by with both House and Senate.

Just so much so and a few generations of safety in the WH staying in our hands. Bush/Cheney scared the majority of people on such deep levels. It will be a long time before the GOP sits in the WH again. The SCOTUS will move left and things will change. For the better.

I just don't see happening what you are saying could happen. I see Democrats gaining more hold over the government.

[demwing]

70. Any election has 5 possible outcomes

Candidate "A" wins by a lot
Candidate "A" wins by a little
Candidates Tie
Candidate "A" loses by a little
Candidate "A" loses by a lot

In 4 out of 5 outcomes, Candidate "A" is viewed favorably. Example:

• Candidate "A" wins by a lot - "Our candidate was the clear and obvious choice of the voters"
  
  
• Candidate "A" wins by a little - "It was a tough race, but the stronger candidate won in the end"
  
  
• Tie - "We're confident that our message will carry the party to success in the coming run off/recount"
  
  
• Candidate "A" loses by a little - "Our candidate was very competitive in a difficult race"
  
  
• Candidate "A" loses by a lot - "We need to rethink our approach/message/strategy"
  

If Candidate "A" is a blue dog, the blue dog will be encouraged to run again, the party will be encouraged to run more blue dogs, and progressive values will be diminished.

If candidate "A" is a real liberal, that 4 in 5 works in favor of progressives and progressive politics.

If the country moves to the right, blaming the people that are trying to move us to the left is like blaming victims for the crimes committed against them.

[bigwillq]

72. GOTVGuide

[Mister Nightowl]

73. We won't

Worst case scenario is a 50-50 tie, and we'll have Joe Biden.

[mmonk]

74. Let me know when people figure out

their voices (which is primarily the only place where progressive legislation derives from) comes from the House of Representatives where gerrymandering has taken over. There won't be much if anything at all based on progressive ideas at least in minimum until 2020 at the earliest.

[INdemo]

79. Democrats wont lose the Senate majority and as for

the Presidency Republicans do not have a candidate that is not a radical nut.
When it gets right down to the Democrats showing up at the polls, those "the hell with voting" will show up because they will realize what is a risk and they will vote.
But where the hell are the Democratic party leaders..Dont they give a shit or have they been bought
We need Howard Dean back.

[tabbycat31]

83. Howard Dean also ran a lot of blue dogs

As progressive as he is, he's also a very smart man and ran more conservative candidates in the states/districts where they had a better shot of winning.

[wyldwolf]

86. Howard Dean "ran" people?

Now there's some revisionism.

[INdemo]

89. But at least Howard Dean was activly working to get Democrats elected

This is almost like Democrats have conceded all ready. Unlike 2006 Republicans were on the offensive from the beginning of the midterms.This year Democratic party leaders are nearly silent..So have they been bought?
Republicans are now working the early voters,they have all this negative BS being repeated over and over again while Democrats seem to rap their arms around themselves and find a corner in which to hide.

[MineralMan]

80. Calls for GOTV are NEVER meaningless noise!

It's not about my vote or your vote. It's about getting people who might not vote to the polls to vote. Calls for GOTV efforts are always in order. Let's not lose the Senate. That's my plan.

[JCMach1]

81. 2016 is setup for a Republican bloodbath in the Senate...

We could have President Hillary and an all Democratic Congress...

Even if we lose the Senate this year...

[Aerows]

84. Democrats haven't lost the Senate, yet

They have every opportunity to make gains.