OK, Black Tuesday was all the fault of the electorate.

[Jackpine Radical]

The millenials didn't come out. Too many women and Latinos voted Republican. Too many voted against their own interests.

It was all their fault. They're a bunch of lazy, ignorant oafs who just don't grok the importance of voting for the Lesser of 2 Evils.

Et fuckin' cetera.

OK, let's grant all these points.

The question remains--What are we going to do about it?

We can berate them and heap all the scorn upon them that they so richly deserve. We can inform them in no uncertain terms that we know what blockheaded idiots they are, and they and their unwashed progeny are doomed to extinction if they don't wake up and vote right.

Yeah. We can do all that.

And we can offer them a stellar candidate like Hillary in 2016--Hillary the Bosnian War veteran, who has never passed an opportunity to start a war, back an international trade pact, or ingratiate herself with the likes of Monsanto, Jamie Dimon, and the Walton Family.

And then we can once again berate the electorate for their collective fit of yawning and scratching their armpits in November 2016 while Jeb Bush packs his bags for the move to DC and reviews his list of troglodytic candidates to replace Ruth on the Supreme Court.

Or, we can start trying to figure out what it takes to lure those odoriferous peasants to the polls and finding ways to provide it.

Maybe we need to convince them that voting for Our Guys really will make a difference in their lives. Maybe we need to put together a platform that promises to strengthen unions, create new jobs rebuilding our infrastructure, and provide universal health care with no nonsense about subidies, deductibles and copays. And, most importantly, maybe we need to acknowledge the discrepancies between our promises and our performance in the past and convince them that we REALLY MEAN IT this time when we make those promises.

And, despite all our better political instincts, if we ever expect this trick to work twice in a row, it would probably be a good idea to make some obvious, well-publicized and effective efforts to carry through with some of these promises, painful as that prospect might be.

[world wide wally]

1. Why is it that only our side didn't turn out?

WTF were the Republicsn's offering?

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Precisely.

[Rex]

3. Nothing...they offered absolutely nothing and won.

Which has me kind of shocked. Every darkhorse win was by a repuke. Stinks to me.

[branford]

5. Many registered Republicans didn't turn out last Tuesday.

However, more Democrats apparently stayed home. The turnout was not particularly impressive for either party. As usual, however, the older demographics and whites voted in greater numbers, and they tend to trend more conservative.

As to what the Republicans were offering, the answer is simple: Opposition to President Obama. Whether you like it or not, Obama's approval across numerous indicators is low, and he is the leader of and represents our party. This phenomenon is the reason why the president's party usually loses seat in the midterms of a second term, and the extent of our losses simply reflect Obama's numbers and lackluster candidates and messaging.

The fact that we lost elections is historically consistent and understandable. Nevertheless, the fact that we took such a viscous electoral trouncing is our own fault. Particularly when you're the underdog, you need to both energize you party members to actually go out and vote and provide something to sway the undecideds. Mission not accomplished.

A campaign message that amounted to little more than "we're not as bad as Republicans" was hardly persuasive or inspirational, and accusing potential voters in 2016 of being too stupid and lazy to vote, or at least vote the "right way," will definitely not serve our party well in future elections.

[world wide wally]

11. Why do we hear about how low Obama's ratings are and not about congress's ratings?

and why didn't our candidates say anything about it?

[FreeJoe]

23. My congressman

Congress is reviled, but in almost every district, their congressman is liked.

[branford]

25. We hear about the low approval rating of Congress all the time.

Despite the general low opinion of Congress, however, many people actually like their particular Congressman.

More importantly, the president is a far more public and important leader and symbol of our party than any individual Congressman of either party. Heck, many people are unable to even name their Congressman, but certainly know the identity of the president.

I also do not understand your complaint that our candidates should have raised the low esteem of Congress in their election campaigns. Most of the seats we lost in the Senate and elsewhere were incumbents. If they complained about Congress, they would be impugning themselves, particularly since Harry Reid's general strategy was to avoid any contentious votes at all.

[world wide wally]

28. I'm not sure how you can defend a catastrophic strategy.

Regardless of "Spineless Harry's" avoidance of anything "contentious", it was a losing strategy. On the other hand, another "Harry" (who did have a backbone) ran against a "do nothing vongress" and he made out alright.

[branford]

29. I'm not defending anything, I'm pointing out the obvious.

You complained that we never heard about Congress's low approval rating. That's simply not true. It was, and is, discussed constantly. However, the approval of Congress overall is not equivalent to the President's approval. As I stated, many people actually like their own Congressman, and the president is a much more powerful leader and public symbol of our party's policies, message, priorities and success, than any individual Congressman or even Senator.

I'm also not certain that last Tuesday would have been any different if Reid took a different tact and permitted contentious votes. Many of the the more liberal laws would have still lost and been an embarrassment for our party as the more conservative or moderate Democrats voted with the Republicans (e.g., gun control, Surgeon General nominee Murthy, etc.), or if these Senators supported the president, they would have likely been even less popular in their homes states, and lost by a larger margin.

[JI7]

6. Black President in the White House, that's what Republicans campaigned on(or rather against)

[SolutionisSolidarity]

26. Bigotry and xenophobia.

They aren't going to help people, but they at least give them a scapegoat to hate.

[F4lconF16]

4. K&R

This is exactly what corporatists need to recognize. We can complain and yell at voters all we want, but we need their votes, and the only way to get them is to listen.

[sabrina 1]

7. Well, attacking voters as a strategy, refusing to acknowledge that they DO know what

their needs are, telling them they can't expect those they elect to do the things they promised because Republicans won't let them, EVEN WHEN they are in the minority, translates into voters asking themselves 'then tell us again why we should bother to give you the power you keep telling us you cannot use?

Especially when we observe that when Dems WANT to pass something, like the Bailouts for Wall St Criminals, or the ACA, they are able to do with WITHOUT Republicans. That kind of makes voters wonder if they are able to get what THEY want when they want, but don't want what the voters want so they don't bother.

The placing of SS on the Deficit Table was a huge issue which they chose to ignore until the election was close, when they told voters 'we are taking it off the table', well, until after the electionl.

Is there ANYONE in DC on our side who actually didn't get what a huge issue this is for every Democrat and for Independents? I knew someone whose children were on food stamps, a single father, sick and out of work temporarily, even with food stamps, having a hard time feeding his children. It's not like it is a lot of money to begin with. But when that small amount was cut by $50, the impact was devastating as he struggled to get well enough to go back to work.

But we have political operatives, clearly with no concerns about feeding their own families, throwing temper tantrums when anyone raised these issues, pointed out 'this won't help get Dems elected unless they STOP helping Republicans cut crucial programs. Like school lunches etc.

Do they really think people don't notice these things and won't say to themselves, 'if I had voted for Republicans, this is what they would have done, so why should I waste my time voting, it does nothing for me and my family'? Nooooo, stop saying things like that you will suppress the vote' yell the political insiders!

If it wasn't so tragic it would almost be funny. Blame the voters, blame those who try to warn that Dems need to FIGHT for the people, because we know the Republicans won't. But people were told to shut up about all of this and now they are whining about losing, and BLAMING THE VOTERS. Keep on doing the same thing I suppose, OR start to FIGHT for what is important to the voters, they don't care about Corporations needing a tax cut.

DC is for Corporate interests, not for the people's interests, THAT is what voters tried to say because they are NOT stupid, contrary to the arrogant assumptions of political insiders.

[world wide wally]

10. Yeah,,, you are exactly right…… but that is only reality………. I guess that doesn't count when it comes

to voting

[Savannahmann]

8. One small correction.

It is more probably going to be Rand IMO. Rand Paul has the issues covered that the millinials and many others care about. He has an economy plan, another crappy tax cut saves the day plan, but one he's been out talking about including in Detroit. With the economy as the biggest issue, he's not ignoring it, which is a plus over most of the potentials.

He is very vulnerable in one area, immigration. But with the pressure on the Republicans to act, he probably won't need to address it. Unless the President decides to offend 80% of the voters and do unilateral executive action.

So back to the millinials, Rand is in favor of restricting the NSA. I don't think he will actually do it, but he is talking the way the majority of people who support privacy want to hear. Legalize Marijuana, he is on the populist side of that issue too. He went to Berkeley, and wasn't booed off stage. Rand is way more dangerous than Jeb. Worse, he has some bi partisan things with Corey Booker, so he carries the whole work with the other party cred that the moderate voters like. Oh, toss in demilitarization of the police for good measure and he is a solid contender.

It won't be Jeb. It will be Rand Paul, and I don't think Hillary is ready for that one. Then her best hope is to appeal to the bomb them all crowd. That crowd didn't put McCain in the White House.

[Jackpine Radical]

14. Rand's biggest problem will be to get the corporate coffers to open up for him.

There's a reason why Romney ended up being the nominee over the top of all those teabaggers last time.

[mstinamotorcity2]

19. Rand Paul is not

fooling Detroiters. We know exactly who he is.

[Savannahmann]

22. OK,

Who else is even mentioning Detroit's economic problems? Anyone else putting a plan out there, even one that is damned near the tinkle down economic crap that Reagan put out? I haven't seen it, but since you're there, what is the plan to stimulate Detroit and who's putting it out there?

[mstinamotorcity2]

24. This s Snyder's

baby now. And you got some old school Michigan republicans that know they are not immune. This is Koch territory.

[AZ Progressive]

9. "Your opinion is my business, because you vote in people that make decisions that affect my future"

Yes, this is the unfortunate reality in a Democracy, especially nowadays.

[Chathamization]

12. Eh, people didn't bother to show up to support minimum wage increases or marijuana decriminalization

Nor in the primaries to support the candidates who had a platform that "strengthen unions, create new jobs rebuilding our infrastructure, and provide universal health care with no nonsense about subidies, deductibles and copays." The problem with turnout isn't as simple as not having good candidates or running on good issues.

[Hugin]

18. In my State they showed to "support minimum wage increases or marijuana decriminalization".

But, then they turned around and elected the few candidates who were openly opposed to those!

I couldn't believe it!

:smh:

[Lady Freedom Returns]

13. We need to stop being so passive!

We need to stop going the soft e,asy going way and put some Repukes feet on the coals! We got the facts, we need to put it out there! And not just during the election, but 24/7!

[treestar]

15. The poor voters are such victims

There's nothing they can do about anything.

What about the ones that voted Republican? Can be say it's their fault? Or is it the fault of the Democratic candidates that they voted Republican?

[craigmatic]

16. We'll get it back in 2016.

[Hugin]

17. Yes, I agree... Having candidates that adhere to the party platform is a biggie.

That is one feature of the other guys is that they stick to their idiotic draconian regressive platform... Rhetorically, anyway.

Over the years, many of the keystone items in the Democratic Platform have been irretrievably smeared by the GOP into a total distortion of their true meaning... Take pairing Liberal with COMMIEPINKONAZI!!ii1! for instance.

Maybe, we should somehow re-brand some of the main features of our platform into a new and untarnished meme.

I'd suggest starting with some of the following:

Unions
Security Nets
Job Security
Equal Pay
Education
Health Care
Infrastructure
Climate Change

[Hugin]

20. K&R

Tell it!

[99Forever]

21. A huge K&R

[Rosa Luxemburg]

27. I guess the voters didn't have any reason to vote

no message in 2014 from Democrats. No message from GOP except they were playing with people's minds with the help of big corps and media. With the presidential election they get fired up. Midterms - no.