Well, we have one more Senate seat to try to win back

[pintobean]

That could possibly extend republican rule.

Democratic Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu defeated
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9d6790555a164cde983f3495892376bf/democratic-louisiana-sen-mary-landrieu-defeated

Congrats to the purists.

[RandiFan1290]

1. So, liberals stopped her from running further to the right?

or should she have voted against the ACA to help save her seat?

[BlueCaliDem]

4. No. Purists have made her Senate seat go even MORE to the Right than Landrieu has ever been.

And you think that's funny?

[daleanime]

5. No, we think it's funny....

that you expect us to believe that.

[BlueCaliDem]

7. Um...did it go whoosh over your head that a Republican won her seat?

And do you think Cassidy will attempt to vote for progressive policies in the next six years? Seriously?

For the record, and to refresh your memory, Senator Landrieu voted with President Obama and Democrats NINETY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE TIME. What do you think the percentage will be that Cassidy will vote with Democrats in the next six years? I'm betting on zero, but I'm certain Purists still hold out hope that we can get progressive policies through with Republicans in the majority.

I swear...some people are so freaking short-sighted.

[daleanime]

20. And how far over your head is the fact....

that this is suppose to be a democratic? People can supposable vote (or not) for who they want. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.

If you only present your self as your opponent but smaller, what do you think is going to happen?

[BlueCaliDem]

21. "People can supposable vote (or not) for who they want"...and they did. They voted to reward

lazy Republicans and for the government shutdown, the $18 trillion dollar Federal debt, the crash of the economy and high unemployment, and enlarging income inequality in this country. Yep. They sure did, by either not voting or voting for Republicans.

America sure is living up to its dishonorable position as being the second most ignorant country in the developed world.

[RandiFan1290]

6. You'll have the perfect party

once you purge all those pesky liberals!

[BlueCaliDem]

10. Naw. We'll have a perfect Party once those "pesky" Purists grow up and see the bigger picture.

Too many are still navel-gazing. But at least with Senator Landrieu's loss, they can bitch and moan all day, every day, for the next two years that Obama and Democrats aren't "liberal" enough. They must be tickled pink.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

51. Realists, you mean.

Realists realize that you go to the polls with the voters you've got, not the voters you wish you had.

And that means that you have to run candidates who actually enthuse people to vote for them, not simply whine about 'purists' or 'navel gazing' or how stupid voters are after you lose because you ran a sucky campaign that didn't leave enough people bothering to vote for you.

Whining that other people 'lost' you the election is a sure path to continuing to lose elections. Run better candidates, get more votes. It's a pretty simple equation.

[BlueCaliDem]

62. Aw yes. The typical American "instant gratification" and "woo me with your sweet nuthin's".

Wouldn't that fall under "navel gazing"?

No wonder the Koch Bros are so successful at getting their candidates to win. All they have to do is toss tens of millions of dollars in ads full of "sweet nuthin's" - and voila! They get their lackey into a seat of a Democrat who is pro-Women's Rights, pro-ACA, pro-Democratic policies 95% of the time, and they're another step closer to realizing their Libertarian dream of dismantling the only real enemy they have that is strong enough to challenge them - the U.S. Government.

Look, sweet-nuthin's are cute if you want to vote for Mayor of your city or town, but when it comes to positions in the U.S. Gov't that affect the entire nation, there's no room for personal vendettas and personal instant gratification. Common sense should dictate that we look at the bigger picture and the people we send to the Federal gov't as a whole, not as individuals. Unfortunately, that isn't the case in the U.S. In fact, some of the deluded would even go so far as to protect and defend that ignorance as they cheer that yet another Democrat they don't care for, for whatever personal reasons they have, loses their seat to a Koch-bought Republican for six years while attacking anyone who has the temerity to point out that stupidity.

In the case of Senator Landrieu's, we Liberals lose yet another Democrat who voted NINETY-FIVE PERCENT of the time with President Obama and the Democrats. Let me repeat...NINETY FIVE PERCENT. They should ask themselves...will Koch-lackey Cassidy top that voting record by voting with President Obama and Democrats at least 96% of the time? I won't hold my breath.

One bird in the hand is better than two in the bush. Now, with yet another lost seat for our side, Purists - who are simultaneously the loudest critics of President Obama - are going to have to rely on the one person they loathe the most to veto bills that they're vehemently against. Ironic, isn't it?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

64. Reality is reality.

Voters don't care if you, on your moral high ground, want to insult them for being what they are. It's not going to change them. If you want to elect candidates, you have to 'gratify them'. If, on the other hand, you want to simply sit back and sneer at them for actually wanting politicians to do something for their paychecks, feel free, but you're not going to get any electoral victories doing so.

I'm sure your boss hired you not actually expecting you to do what he wanted you to, but strangely, most voters don't agree with that outlook.

[BlueCaliDem]

76. I believe your post is better directed at the cheering crowd that are happy

that a Democrat who voted 95% with President Obama and Democratic policies despite being a "red" State Dem, is pro-women's rights, pro-gun safety laws, and pro-LGBT rights. Now it's being cheered on that she's been replaced with a Koch-bought-and-paid-for-Republican who won't vote with President Obama and Democrats at all, and who has an anti-women's rights, anti-any gun laws, and anti-LGBT rights position.

I will, however, give these cheerers the benefit of the doubt that they can't see that part of reality of us losing the Senate in last election. On the other hand, due to their self-inflicted myopia, I'm expecting even louder kvetching on this board by the usual suspects that President Obama will be shifting more to the Right. Well, as President Clinton once told a heckler who asked why he signed DADT and DOMA, he said, "If it meant that much to you, you should've given me a Congress I could've worked with."

So painfully true. And that will be my answer to those "hecklers" who will make themselves loud and known on this board in the coming two years as President Obama is now forced to work with a more decidedly RW Congress to get anything through - or not veto enough bills to their liking.

As an aside, my boss hired me as a marketing coordinator for his gluten-free, soy-free, products, both branded and non-branded, but left it up to me how best to go about doing that as I work with a professional team of marketers and our brokers. A good boss knows that there are realities that his/her employees will be forced to face that he/she couldn't foresee at the time of hiring (bosses are not all-knowing), so I guess I'm not the person you can put that metaphor to although I do know and understand why you used it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

84. According to opencongress.org

she votes 87.4% of the time with party, and that's because

This is a ranking of how often Democratic Senators vote with a majority of the Senate Democratic caucus. It factors every single vote that has been taken since the beginning of the current 113th session of Congress. All votes are weighted equally in this ranking, so a non-binding resolution honoring a collegiate sports team, for example, is considered equal to a vote on passing health care reform. Since the vast majority of the hundreds of votes factored in are routine in nature, the result is that even highly-independent senators have a seemingly high score on voting with their party.

Ie, almost all of those votes 'with party' are pointless. The average Dem votes 'with party' 95% of the time, because the 'vast majority' of the votes don't actually mean much. So I'm not going to get worked up that the replacement Koch puppet won't vote with Dems on non-binding resolutions to name post offices.

My last boss likewise allowed me latitude in how I achieved his goals, but he also expected me TO achieve them, not to make excuses for why I couldn't, or to blame him if I failed.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

105. Even if the number of significant votes is less than that

It is still MUCH better than Cassidy's record is going to be for the next 6 years. I will concede, however, that she didn't run a particularly good campaign and that she (and other Dems) shouldn't be cowering in fear over Obama (who hasn't done anything to earn the insane level of hate the right-wing spews). Unfortunately, we have a significant number of people on our side not motivated to vote in midterms and people on the other side whom hate their President more than they care about their quality of life (and that of their fellow citizens).

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

107. Of course, but will any of those votes actually matter to outcome?

After all, for her vote to be meaningful, it has to A) be on a meaningful vote, and B) be the 'deciding vote'. Dems haven't lost the Senate by just one seat, after all. Whoever occupies that seat is only going to make a difference in very finely-balanced votes that are teetering on the edge of pass/fail.

So chances are, for the next six years, Cassidy will get to simply be another pile-on vote for whatever Repubs pass along straight party line, not the reason that something passes or fails.

[BlueCaliDem]

150. According to CQ Roll Call

(and I correct my previously noted 95% to 97%) Senator Landrieu's voting record in line with the president and her Party is broken down as follows:

The 97 percent support for the president comes from surveys done every year by the Capitol Hill news organization, CQ. According to CQ, Landrieu voted with the president 97 percent of the time in 2013, 90 percent in 2012, 95 percent in 2011, 98 percent in 2010 and 97 percent in 2009.

The five years reflect some 419 votes, with 226, more than half, confirmation votes on presidential nominations.

Notable votes in favor of the president's position included yes votes for the Affordable Care Act in 2010; extending lower interest rates for student loans; a farm bill that expanded crop insurance and made modest cuts in the food stamp program, expanding surveillance of people suspected of terrorist attacks and for legislation eliminating a loophole that allowed purchases of some guns at gun shows from private dealers without background checks.

There are some pointless votes there, yes, and you might want to "pooh-pooh" the above listed votes away in order to support your position that Senator Landrieu doesn't make the grade as a Democrat in your mind, but those votes were very important to people outside of your world. And yes, that would include me. Even if she only voted with President Obama 51% of the time, that's still 51% more than Cassidy will, isn't it?

Also, the result of Senator Landrieu's loss is the gain of another Koch-lackey who'll help pass far more pointless votes than Senator Landrieu could've ever dreamed up, and it will be President Obama who will stand between disastrous Republican bills and us.

By the way, you do know that Cassidy was one of the authors of the Keystone Pipeline bill, don't you? Landrieu might have wanted to vote on it, but Cassidy helped write it. That, to me, is worse.

Your boss can expect the most minimal from you, but you won't even be able to do that if the success of your job hinges on the cooperation of co-workers. If those co-workers dislike you so much and continue to sabotage you instead of help you, well, you're not going to get very far, are you? Do you really need me to remind you that the president isn't a King or a Dictator? He can't waive a magic wand or bully members of Congress into doing his bidding. I'm sorry if you can't accept that. The only good news I can take to heart after this past fiasco of an election is that President Obama does have the veto pen and Republicans don't have enough votes to override it. I can only hope he doesn't listen to the chatter that Republicans suddenly have a mandate, and with abandon, wields that pen for the next two years.

[sabrina 1]

145. So voters should not have listened to the Dem Party back in 2009

when they BLAMED THE BLUE DOGS for stopping them from eg, getting a PO in the HC Bill. Or holding war criminals and wall st criminals accountable, among all the other stuff we 'couldn't get passed'?

I was told right here that we can't do things even though we had done what we were told would work, get a majority in both houses and win the WH, that now it wasn't the Republicans we had to worry about, it was the Blue Dogs!

Your reference to DUer WMWS is actually in agreement with him. He KNOWS how people are 'woo'd' into believing things that are not often the case. That is the point of his handle. So thanks for that at least.

[BlueCaliDem]

149. I wasn't making a reference to any DUer, WMWS or any other

and I have that particular DUer on ignore since he's all noise and no substance. And I can get that from Right-wingers on HuffPost or YouTube.

That said, when it comes to national elections and our U.S. Congress and the White House, voters should listen to the wants and needs of their family: preservation of Civil and Voting Rights, the economy, jobs, lowering interest rates on student loans, improving access to and quality of education through more Federal funding - stuff like that. They're never going to get any of those things with a Republican majority in both chambers. That's what they're supposed to understand when it comes to national elections.

As I've mentioned in my former post, one bird in the hand is better than two in the bush, and it irks me that some believe that it was a-ok to lose Senator Landrieu because "she was a DINO!" and "there might be chance to have a more liberal Dem to replace her in 2016 when Vitter is up for re-election". Yeah, fat chance of that happening in Louisiana.

[Marr]

135. +1 It's twice as funny when you realize these are the same people who

describe themselves as 'pragmatists' and haughtily lay claim to being the 'reality-based community'.

[sabrina 1]

144. And even funnier when you realize that it was THEY who blamed the Blue Dogs

for Dems not being able to get 'anything passed' back in 2009 when we had a majority in both Houses and they couldn't blame the Republicans anymore.

Now they're whining because the voters took them seriously!

[Marr]

148. LOL-- no kidding.

Good point.

[Phlem]

88. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

No shit.

You just can't make this shit up.

[TheKentuckian]

9. What was it that "purist" did to cause her loss? How many "purist" are in her electorate and what

evidence do you present that these "purist" didn't vote for her?

[aspirant]

18. Agree,did she run with Obama?

Last edited Sun Dec 7, 2014, 12:55 AM - Edit history (1)

How many black dems and black purists voters did she lose?

Why didn't the KeystoneXL Pipeline Queen attract all the oil voters?

What happened to all the non-purist voters that she rode to victory in her past elections?

Is it always the voters fault and never the candidate?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

52. She pretty much kept all her AA voters.

According to Steve Kornacki, she still got something somewhere in the mid 90%s of all AA votes, it was white voters that killed her. When she was winning elections, she was getting in the 30s, percentage wise of white voters. Her latest unsuccessful bid that resulted in the runoff, she only had something like 18% of white voters.

[AleksS]

153. That just boggles my mind.

As a white guy, it boggles my mind that 82% of the white vote was republican.

I can understand why 90% AA votes would be democratic since republicans don't even bother to hide their racism any more. But to my mind, it's not like democrats are out there being actively anti-white. Why white folks would vote in such overwhelming numbers for republicans just doesn't make sense.

[BlueCaliDem]

22. It's PuristS, as in more than one. As for your other, I'm sure, sincere queries...

I'll get back to you.

[Major Hogwash]

35. Well played.

Sometimes it is better to pretend to give them attention so they will think they made a point along the way.

[BlueCaliDem]

60. Yep. And I must have hit a nerve, too.

Responding with foul language - as that poster had - merely tells me I was correct not to indulge in it's disingenuous questioning that was poorly disguised as fact-checking. It's a tactic I regularly use on Teabaggers and other assorted Right-wingers on other boards when they resort to that level of immaturity. Drives them up the walls. Always good for a chuckle, though!

[sabrina 1]

142. This is not a game. If you think that politics is just a game, you have no idea

what the average American is going through. THIS is why we are losing.

[TheKentuckian]

49. So you've got nothing but shit pulled out of your ass, correct?

Just a random lash out based on nothing?

Weak.

[BlueCaliDem]

57. Hit a nerve, have I? So much so that you had to resort to foul language that I'm sure you don't

ever use in polite company. How mature of you.

Have a nice one.

[TheKentuckian]

61. You were asked direct questions, you punted in favor of snark and lame accusations.

Such are the tactics of the fundamentally dishonest and that always hits a nerve with me as it should all decent beings with any scruples at all.

"Resort to foul language" is a cop out of epic scale, this is not the 50's Mr or Mrs Cleaver, I say fuck all the motherfucking time even in joy and certainly in anger.

"Polite company" is laughable, get over yourself "Father knows best"!

If you have time for your now two responses the you have time to answer what was asked but you have none so you are stuck with games and appeals to fake old timey language patterns.

[BlueCaliDem]

63. Riiiight. So what you're saying is, you weren't being snarky? Oh come on.

You started it and consequently LOST the debate when you resorted to pubescent use of foul language when you weren't obliged. I don't subscribe to childish Teabaggerish tactics, Kentuckian. I do enjoy raking my nails across the chalkboard for people who think they're too clever by half, though. Thank you for the opportunity.

[TheKentuckian]

65. I asked you real questions. These responses are the tactics of those with no answers.

You made an accusation that you cannot in any way support so you are left with this happy horseshit.

What you want is to be able to spout unfounded nonsense unchallanged and go to tricks and gags to try to worm out of not being able to substantiate lies.

I've lost nothing. You have clearly demonstrated you have nothing for all to see.

[BlueCaliDem]

68. No. You know as well as anyone who read your post that you were being snarky.

And I refuse to indulge people who do that. Period.

And yeah, you've lost. But it doesn't surprise me that you don't understand that.

[TheKentuckian]

70. Statements were made when challenged they could not be supported and evasive maneuvers were engaged.

Sounds like losing to me.

I mean to resort to the "you used a curse word" defense as a regular on this site in particular is beyond desperate and pitiful.

I note you still don't know who "the purists" are, how many are in that electorate, explained what they needed to do to change the result, or even prove they didn't vote for her.

It isn't snark to call you on your unsupported but definitively declarative statements. It is the response of one with no argument to deflect as you have elected to here and it is pitiful.

[Rex]

124. I wonder why they all started showing up after the midterms?

It's as if they can't actually debate anything of real substance. I don't know why people try, as soon as I look at their profile they go on the "shit stirring" list. It's the same people that will never actually answer your questions and just waste your time.

The OP just got out of a Timeout for hides and it took all of 5 second for him/her to make a thread that stirs the shit. Funny watching them pretend to their 'friends' that they thought this thread would sink like a rock...

I wonder if a single one of them can tell the truth or actually discuss the issues without deflection?

You are a better person that I. I've learned not to waste my time on them.

[TheKentuckian]

160. Nothing "better" about being obstinate about letting bullshit fester unchallenged.

But I appreciate the sentiment.

[Marr]

136. +1

[W_HAMILTON]

11. Yes, but it's easier to run against a crazy Republican.

Crazy Republicans and their crazy policies are what got us a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in the first place. Centrist Democrats, the policies that we had to water down to earn their support, subsequent criticisms of those watered-down policies and more progressive ideals done in order to save their own political lives (but at the expense of the party as a whole) -- that is the type of crap that caused us to lose that majority.

Unfortunately for us, Landrieu crossed that point where a crazy Republican does more to promote the Democratic brand than she does.

[BlueCaliDem]

14. I guess that's the silver lining in this. I never cared for Landrieu but I didn't want us to lose

another Senate seat. But I guess we lost so many that one more won't kills us, and you're right: it's easier to run against a crazy Republican than a conservative Dem although she did vote with President Obama and Democrats 95% of the time.

On the other hand, that happened when we had a majority in the Senate. I'm certain she'd be even more conservative had she won her re-election due to the Republicans having won a 53 seat majority in last election before they got her seat as well.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

75. "I never cared for Landrieu." It's attitudes like that that cost us the election.

The fact that people can spout that crap on a Democratic forum is why we lose elections - bashing a good Democrat that votes with the party 95% of the time.

[BlueCaliDem]

77. I'm not bashing Senator Landrieu, Hassin. I would have voted for her even if I don't care for her

were I a constituent of hers. I'm not. I'm in California.

I have voted for Senator Feinstein when she won her primary against Mike Strimling - the one we voted for. But when he lost against her, I didn't sit home and whine. I got out and voted for her in the general because a moderate Dem like Feinstein is still better than a moderate Republican - and voting for her was essential in order to keep power in the Senate on our side.

[Arcanetrance]

27. That's pure crap forgive those of us that don't feel the best answer is to continue a rightward move

At some point you have to go nope we still have principles to uphold. Obviously Landrieu wasn't right enough for the constituency there. It's not being a purist to say nope there's only so far right of a candidate we are willing to put up with being run under the guise of being a Democrat

[BlueCaliDem]

41. It's pure crap to delude oneself into believing that they'd EVER elect a Liberal in Louisiana.

Lot's of wishful thinking and peering through rose-colored glasses, but not nearly enough common sense in the noggin to understand that that dream isn't even remotely possible. A moderate Dem like Landrieu who votes with President Obama and the Democratic Party ninety-five percent of the time is a whole heckuva lot better than a GOPer who votes ZERO percent of the time with the president and the Democrats. Never heard that idiom, "it's better to have ONE bird in the hand than two in the bush"?

And for all their kvetching that they don't want a "rightward move" of our government, what do they think just happened?? WE SHIFTED TO THE RIGHT BIG TIME. Did they miss the last election?

Now those idiot Teabaggers can spit in the faces of Liberal Purists who didn't bother to vote and Democrats who did, and tell them that this is a "right of center to right-wing" country". And guess what? They have the districts, governorships, legislatures, U.S. House and U.S. Senate to back them up this time, thanks, in no small part, to the "disaffected" Purists who couldn't bother to get out and vote.

[Arcanetrance]

42. But that's the thing Landrieu wasn't going to win this race

That had nothing to do with purists in the Democratic party. But honestly should we just run Republicans as Democrats in places like Louisiana because at least it's a D after their name. At one point do we go you know what of we are gonna lose this election why not try running a candidate that stands for liberal social policies. Things like raising the minimum wage would probably resonate amongst the blue collar oil field workers that she was trying to win over

[Phlem]

87. Purists. That's so idiotic and grade school it's embarrassing.

Hey Let's move so far to the right that conservatives can't tell the difference anymore, That'll really fuck em up huh? .........wait a minute.

[tblue]

80. So it wasn't the voters in Louisiana

It's people on DU who decided this election.
Whutd we do?

[BlueCaliDem]

2. I'm beyond angry that lazy Republicans have been rewarded with even more power in the

government they loathe so much and have fought so passionately to dismantle. Uneffingbelievable. No wonder the United States ranks as the second most ignorant country in the developed world. Last election proved it.

The only solace I can take away from this is, the odds will be in the Democrats' favor come 2016 when Republicans must defend no less than twenty-four Senate seats, with eighteen of them likely to be comparative. We will win back the Senate and keep the White House and despite the kvetching by the purists among us, we will have a Democratic president choose the successors of Scalia, Kennedy, and Bader-Ginsberg, especially should President Obama begin campaigning for the Democratic nominee and pull the Black and Latino vote to our side.

Still, we can't understate the great loss for our side this past election. It's painful. Very painful. But at least it's not irreversible.

[riversedge]

46. Very painful indeed

[MFrohike]

3. Such a stupid sentiment

I'm sure Rockefeller Republicans said the same to Goldwaterites in 1964. Remind me how that one turned out?

[malokvale77]

8. "Congrats to the purists."

It is your intention to turn away good Democratic voters?

[pintobean]

12. Not at all.

That was sarcasm, so... just the opposite.

[malokvale77]

16. Mea Culpa

Having read some of your other posts, the sarcasm wasn't obvious.

[pintobean]

17. No harm, no foul

[malokvale77]

19. Thank you

I'm a bit edgy lately.

[pintobean]

24. I took no offense. You just asked a question.

I didn't use the sarcasm tag, so it was a reasonable question.

[malokvale77]

25. I'm good (nt)

[onehandle]

13. The Confederacy Has Risen Again!

Yeeeeeehaaaaaaaa!

[BlueCaliDem]

23. And too many on this board are cheering it under the guise of punishing another "DINO" who, in

fact, voted with President Obama and Democrats ninety-five percent of the time.

I'm certain they trust that Cassidy will vote more with President Obama and Democrats than DINO Landrieu has.

[pacalo]

26. I share your disgust.

I've read all your posts in this thread & I thank you for speaking out. I'm at the point where I've gotten disgusted with politics with all the narrow-minded views that seem to have taken over DU, so I just don't have enough fire left in my belly to even respond much anymore.

Landrieu was in a tough spot, considering this is a red state. From everything I've read about Cassidy, he's an opportunist & dishonest. He'll be easy for the corporatists to buy. Super easy.

Thanks for your understanding, BlueCaliDem.

[BlueCaliDem]

43. Thank you, pacalo. It just irks me to no end that there are a few on this board who

actually cheer that we've lost yet another seat for our Party to the Koch Bros who want that tar sands pipeline that they're so terrified of - something that's now become a reality because the Republicans will pass that bill since they have control of both chambers.

The irony is, these myopia-inflicted Purists are the same people who loathe "Republican-lite" President Obama, but who are now 100% dependent on him to veto that terrifying bill.

A moderate Democrat like Landrieu still kept seats on our side of the aisle. Senator Landrieu who, despite being a moderate or DINO, did, in fact, vote with President Obama and the Democratic Party 95% of the time. The shortsightedness of Purists is their lack of understanding that Senator Landrieu didn't just lose her seat and is punished for her DINO ways. The reality is that another Republican is added to the 53 Republican seats in the Senate, shifting the U.S. Congress even further to the Right.

The only solace we have now is 2016 when Republicans have to defend 23 seats in the Senate of which 18 are very competitive while Democrats only have to defend one seat. ONE seat. The likelihood that Democrats win back the Senate and keep the White House is pretty darn good. So it brings me some comfort to know that President Obama is still in the White House with veto pen on the ready, and that this Republican-controlled Congress will be a lame-duck Congress until, hopefully, January 2017.

[SidDithers]

95. Nailed it...

Sid

[BlueCaliDem]

98. Thanks, Sid. :-) eom

[pacalo]

99. Very well said, Blue...

particularly your last paragraph:

The only solace we have now is 2016 when Republicans have to defend 23 seats in the Senate of which 18 are very competitive while Democrats only have to defend one seat. ONE seat. The likelihood that Democrats win back the Senate and keep the White House is pretty darn good. So it brings me some comfort to know that President Obama is still in the White House with veto pen on the ready, and that this Republican-controlled Congress will be a lame-duck Congress until, hopefully, January 2017.

Based on comments of Republicans that I know, my own personal feeling about all these Democratic losses is that Fixed News' social brainwashing is the main culprit.

[BlueCaliDem]

100. It's pretty clear that propaganda has been successful on a large segment of the American population.

I agree with you about social brainwashing. Faux News and HateRadio (which is 98% if not 100% right-wing) are the reasons why too many Americans are unbelievably ignorant and just outright stupid. It's a harsh thing to say, but it's backed by evidence that we now see all around us in the form of voting for a political Party that's trying to take every penny they can away from us while protecting the vast wealth of the millionaires and billionaires in this country, and rewarding a political Party with more power in our governments for having done nothing for us with the power they had before. There was a time when political Parties were punished for that behavior by losing power. Now they're rewarded. Does that make sense to anyone??

The lazy culture infesting this country plays right into the hands of skilled propagandists. These people's sole purpose it to keep the 350+ million American people distracted and uninformed so that we're kept divided in order for the top 1% to keep control over us. To them, a united people are a dangerous people to their power and their astronomical wealth.

That's why it doesn't surprise me that the United States holds second place (see chart below) for the most ignorant country in the developed world, according to an Ipsos-MORI study that was conducted last October in 14 countries with 11,527 participants.

Tactical PSYOPS that the wealthy use via propaganda outlets cleverly posing as our 4th Estate news media was launched against the American people when they saw how well it worked in Vietnam (where it was born), and it's been highly successful, effectively lobotomizing a large segment of the American people. Once upon a time, Americans of all colors and creed used to take to the streets and protest injustice-and did it effectively. We'd otherwise not have a civil rights law or weekends off, for example. But now we appear to just sit back and take injustice each and every time - except for minorities like Blacks and Latinos, that is. They still take to the streets against injustice against their own. But then again, they don't listen to HateRadio and they don't watch Faux News.

[pacalo]

155. For me, the big elephant in the room when discussing Democratic losses is media chicanery.

The unconscionable fact that only a few media conglomerates own the media while corporations are clearly not on our side (price-gouging the people every way they can, the Citizens United decision, etc.) is what is destroying any chances for fair, legitimate elections in the U.S. that purports to have a government "by & for the people".

We can hem & haw about why Democrats lose, but the big elephant in the room that we are overlooking (because we've gotten used to it?) is that we have a rigged media with an agenda of its own that is misinforming people for its own gain rather than what is good for the people.

I saw an old movie on TCM several weeks ago called "The Fearmakers" that addressed just a tad of fact-skewing that we're seeing today. After the Citizens United ruling, there needs to be a re-make of this movie.

Here's part of the dialogue between the main character, a public relations bigwig, & an ethical senator that I transcribed from a movie clip on YouTube:

Sen. Walder: I'm saying that taking public opinion is useful. Making public opinion is dangerous. Alan, do you have any idea how many highly financed full-time organizations we now have set up here in Washington to pressure Congress & government agencies for their particular groups & clients?

Alan Eaton: It's the right of the people to petition the government.

Sen. Walder: No question about it. That right must be maintained. But it's a far cry from one citizen's three-cent-stamp purview to the professionally-packaged campaign -- complete with fake front groups, high-sounding titles -- to pre-written laws ready for our signature & endorsement.

Alan Eaton: If money still talks, Senator, a little three-cent stamp has a hard time being heard.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

38. Fair point.

[Thinkingabout]

15. This is a great loss for the people of Louisiana who voted against themselves today in favor of

A Ted Cruz RW TP, no winners with Cassidy in place of Landrieu.

[sabrina 1]

28. I just predicted this OP would appear on DU and you proved me right BLAME THE VOTERS!

Purist is a DLC/THIRD WAY talking point aimed at Liberal Dems who they HATE even more than they hate Right Wingers.

She lost because the Dem Party Leadership REFUSES to listen to the voters.

It was the Leadership of the DEM Party who TOLD VOTERS that even after we won by a huge margin in 2008 and they could no longer blame Republicans for not passing Progressive Legislation, that they couldn't do it BECAUSE OF THE BLUE DOGS.

Stop the nonsense, the people have awakened. They do not believe we cannot get a good Democrat elected in any state as we have been consistently told.

The voters have now said the opposite 'you can no longer get a right leaning Dem elected because the voters WANT PROGRESSIVE DEMS.

And when you use Think Tank anti-Left talking points to try to make some point or another, all you do is confirm everything that the voters have finally figured out.

Now let's get Democrat who actually represents the Democrats who elect them to take back that seat and let's stop pretending it isn't possible, that 'we have to settle'. Apparently we cannot settle anymore, the Dem voters are no longer willing to accept that lie.

[beltanefauve]

31. Yes!

[pintobean]

50. Good luck with that

but you need to worry about all that during the primaries. Once our candidates are chosen, we need to back them all the way. The purity bullshit should go out the window after the primaries. Landrieu voted with the party 97% of the time, but we saw people here rooting for her defeat.

[sabrina 1]

53. DLC purists have LOST once again. And they will keep on losing by sticking to their Wall St Purist

clap trap that what's good for Wall St is good for the people. They are destroying the Dem Party and will not support Progressive Dems ever in the primaries.

THAT is why we can't get good Progressives elected, because they deliberately stop them by doing such unbelievable things like supporting a REPUBLICAN in a BLUE STATE over a PROGRESSIVE. Endorsiing a REPUBLICAN.

Bullshit that Progressives can't win. That is only true so long as we tolerate Third Way leadership in this party.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

55. Barring a huge mistake on the part of an incumbent (or the party machinery)

the incumbent wins the primary, no matter who is actually the 'best' potential officeholder, so talking about how one should only 'worry during the primary' with an incumbent running for re-election is rather a smokescreen.

Republicans ran into a rash of losing incumbents over the last few prior cycles simply because they redistricted to make districts TOO RW, leaving themselves vulnerable to the nutty teabaggers in their attempts to make sure Dems had absolutely no chance in those districts. Otherwise it takes a truly spectacular foul-up from an incumbent to get them booted.

[on point]

106. 1000+ ^^^^ Sabrina !! Thanks for the excellent summation

Always on eggshells for the Blue dogs. The dem party unable to be the dem party, the excuse is being afraid to upset the mythical center right. Result of not standing for anything - complete repudiation by the voters and eventual erosion of dems in the south. Run some progressive and make the case for dems, instead of being repuke light.

The DNC should start listening or start packing their bags.

[Rex]

129. Well you know he/she just got out of Timeout for hides

and couldn't wait to start a shit stirring thread donch'a know! After all these years, people still fall for it and post in their threads and they love it - it creates division among DUers which is their only tool left.

Thanks for once again calling out the DU libertarians, sunshine is a good thing.

[onecaliberal]

29. You can blame whomever you'd like for the loss.

The fact is the people of LA voted. Now they will get what they voted for.

If you can't figure out WHY progressives don't vote, stop running fake democrats who act more like republicans.

[tblue]

79. +100000 My gosh, the generalizations

are childish, nonproductive, rude, and need to stop.

[onecaliberal]

85. Indeed they do. The sad fact is entirely

Too many supposed Dems are happy with the corporatists who do nothing but pay lip service during election season then go back to Washington and continue to vote to screw 98% of Americans.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. Maybe we should try running a left wing candidate who can't win rather than a right wing candidate

who can't win.

What's your solution?

[Major Hogwash]

32. She didn't win.

So, at least you're happy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. She didn't win and I don't care.

[Major Hogwash]

34. You don't care?!?

Could have fooled me!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. Should I be excited, dismayed, joyful, depressed?

Of all the things I care about the defeat of Landrieu rates near the bottom of the scale.

[treestar]

94. There was a possibility she would win

The elections are state elections. I don't see how you expect persons outside the state to force them to run someone they don't want to run.

And the primaries were open, so that wasn't possible.

[JoePhilly]

111. Name the candidates you plan to run now the DINOs are gone.

[geek tragedy]

36. After Katrina and the mass exodus of black folks, Louisiana has become irredeemably and hopelessly

right wing. Bobby Jindal is a moderate down there.

[harrose]

39. Another election stolen by the ReThugs

n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

40. Evidence indicates otherwise.

Liberals are keeping their seats, while the wolves in Democratic clothing are getting decimated.

[LeftOfWest]

44. This. n/t.

[davidn3600]

45. Democrats are winning in blue states; Republicans are winning in red states

That's what I'm seeing...

All this stupid talk in here about red states turning purple and purple turning blue is bullshit. Republicans have the most seats they've ever had in Congress since the end of WW2. Anyone who thinks the GOP is dying party is a fucking fool.

[Recursion]

47. Nope. Of the 10 D House incumbents who lost, only 2 were conservatives

Simultaneously, the only Democrats to beat R incumbents in the House were conservatives.

[KingCharlemagne]

58. These stats seem to run contrary to the trend in the 2010 mid-terms, when

liberal Dems survived largely unscathed but Blue Dogs got shellacked.

Do you have a link for the results (and\or liberal-conservative analysis) from the 2014 mid-terms? I was so depressed at the results that I did not bother breaking them down at the micro level at the time.

[Recursion]

72. Well, I did an OP that compiled it, if that counts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025923064

[KingCharlemagne]

83. Well, that will most definitely count! Thanks for replying with the link. Can't

Last edited Sun Dec 7, 2014, 03:41 PM - Edit history (1)

believe I missed your thread this a.m. but it looks like you started it pretty early CA time and it may have slid down a ways before I got up. Again, thanks for the link.

[joshcryer]

81. Feingold and Grayson lost in 2010.

Hardly "unscathed."

[KingCharlemagne]

89. Hence my use of the phrase 'largely unscathed.' That said, I had forgotten

about Feingold and Grayson and mourn the former's loss particularly. (Grayson won his seat back in 2012, IIRC.)

But as to my larger point, was I remember correctly that in 2010 it was the Blue Dogs who got hammered?

[Andy823]

92. Don't confuse him with facts

Seems like around here a lot of posters just through stuff out, and make things up, with no FACTS to support what they say, and sadly their loyal followers never question them, so they just keep on doing it.

[sabrina 1]

48. Exactly! I wonder when they are going to finally get it? Not those who push these Wall St wolves on

us, but those who are still in denial.

[Rex]

74. Facts have a liberal slant.

Seems to drive a certain group here crazy.

[joshcryer]

82. I agree, Recursion is a fine liberal DUer.

[LondonReign2]

113. I can call myself the Queen of England

just as Recursion can classify virtually all the Democrats as Liberals. Doesn't make either one true.

[Autumn]

54. pintobean, purists had nothing to do with this, nothing,

Let's put the blame right where it belongs. On Mary. Louisiana is a republican state, they wanted a republican and they voted one in.

"Given a choice between a fake Republican and a real one, the public will choose the real Republican every time." Harry Truman

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

56. I gotta say, I can't see how any real 'purist'

would be out there voting for a Republican. The people who are most likely to 'cross' and vote for a Republican are not the liberals, but the centrists, and yet the hue and cry goes up every time to blame the left when the right wins a race, rather than the actual politician who lost.

[Autumn]

59. I wouldn't have voted for her in this run off. Some values should not be pushed

aside. And a citizen owes no fucking politician their vote.

[2banon]

66. wow. completely devoid of the facts in this campaign. unbelievable.

[truebluegreen]

67. "..we have one more Senate seat to try to win."

...fixed it for ya.

[m-lekktor]

69. If all the Louisana DEMS are conservative how can this be

the fault of the"purists" if there are none in Louisiana? I do believe you are screeching at the wrong group of people.

[jwirr]

71. We are not purists. I do not like that she presented a bill I was opposed to and asked MY Senators

to help her by voting for it. That is the same as asking MY Senators to betray me and the rest of our state. Sorry but that is what my objection was. Up until then I wanted her to win simply because she was a Democrat.

[Rex]

73. So you are congratulating yourself?

Strange.

[BlueCaliDem]

78. As you can read by the posts responding to your OP,

they hate being called Purists yet when you read their angry posts, it's hard to see why.

Thanks for this reality check, pintobean. DU needs it from time to time.

[pintobean]

91. You fought a good fight.

I thought it was a throw away thread that might get a few replies, then sink. It just pissed me off yesterday when people were trashing Landrieu and advocating giving the seat to the GOP; it was election day, and I would say a TOS violation.

[LondonReign2]

114. People get angry when they are slandered?

Who could have predicted that!?!??!

[pintobean]

116. Who was slandered, and how?

[stevenleser]

86. Yep. Bad news, unless you are a Republican. nt

[Man from Pickens]

90. It has nothing to do with purity

The Democratic Party is dead in the South - we haven't one statewide seat from the Carolinas to Texas. It's a far bigger problem than Landrieu.

[SidDithers]

93. DU rec...

One DUer is proudly boasting that they stayed home to make waffles, rather than vote in the run-off election.

They're fucking proud of the fact that they chose not to try to prevent the Republican from winning.



Sid

[pintobean]

96. Thanks Sid

I wonder if DU's TOS means anything anymore.

And, I wonder how many of these purists give you shit for not being able to vote in US elections.

indeed

[FSogol]

138. That member should be tossed. Skipping an election isn't a liberal/progressive idea. n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

143. Apparently

the TOS has been reduced to nothing more than a friendly suggestion.

Agreed. The gloating was disturbing to see here.

[SidDithers]

146. DU is on auto-pilot...

Absentee landlords let juries and MIRT do the light housekeeping.

Sid

[MineralMan]

97. Yes, and instead of a Senator who votes over

90% with the democratic caucus, we now will have one who will vote that way 0% of the time. Until 2020, at least. Just wonderful, huh?

[B Calm]

101. Well we ran a right-wing candidate and still lost. You think maybe we

should run the next candidate even more right-wing? That strategy has worked so well down there, vomit!

[FBaggins]

102. The amazing thing...

... is that anyone can look at the political spectrum and call her a "right-wing candidate" with a straight face.

[B Calm]

108. If not for her we'd probably had a public option with the Affordable Care Act. .

with a Straight Face!

[FBaggins]

109. That's laughably wrong

If not for her, we would have passed nothing at all.

[B Calm]

112. She fought it all the way, and weakening it until it was something that she would vote for.

[FBaggins]

115. Which you somehow take to mean...

... that we could have passed a better bill if it hadn't been for her actions?

Again... that's laughably naive.

[B Calm]

117. if she acted like a democrat we would of had a public option

and you know it's true!

[FBaggins]

118. Nope

There were several other democrats involved in blocking the public option.

[B Calm]

120. Exactly what I'm saying! Her and her dino buddies

are weakening our party.

[pintobean]

119. She acted like a 60th Democrat

who voted for a filibuster proof bill that became law. Those days are long gone, and we're coming closer to the Republicans being able to do that.

[B Calm]

121. But she still did her part to weaken it before passing it.

[pintobean]

122. ACA wouldn't have happened with a repub in that seat

the same bill, or weaker, or stronger. Not at all. That's the point.

[B Calm]

126. So if we ran a right-wing candidate and still lost, you think maybe we

should run even further to the right next time, okay got it!

[FBaggins]

130. Calling her a "right wing" candidate just makes you look clueless

If you can't tell the difference... you may be beyond hope.

Nobody is saying that we should have run an even less liberal candidate... they're saying that the people who think that we should run "real democrats" in all races are nuts.

If you're unwilling to have policies set by compromise between liberal and moderate democrats, then your only alternative is to watch them being set by compromises betwee conservative and moderate Republicans.

There is no third option.

[B Calm]

132. Got it!

[SidDithers]

140. +1...nt

Sid

[LWolf]

103. That's right.

Shoot the messenger, and put out another false message.

THAT'S the way to handle loss.

[pintobean]

104. Who did I shoot, and what's false?

She did lose.

It is one more seat we have to make up.

Purists were advocating for her loss. They got what they wanted, so I congratulated them.

[FBaggins]

110. One wonders why they even care

Since she's supposedly a "right-wing"/"conservative" candidate... then they shouldn't even consider this a loss.

[LWolf]

156. Your shot is aimed at liberals, as you know.

The idea that electing neo-liberal Democrats is a "win" is false. The idea that supporting better liberals is a losing idea is false.

Since you asked.

[pintobean]

157. That's ridiculous

The purists are a small sub-set of liberals.

[LWolf]

165. Right.

[yellowcanine]

123. When people have the choice between a fake Republican and a real Republican........

"Given a choice between a fake Republican and a real one, the public will choose the real Republican every time." HST

I know, there is debate about what Harry Truman meant or if he even said it, but I still think there is a lot of truth to it. Would Mary Landrieu really have done worse if she had not whored for the Keystone pipe line so strongly, for example? I doubt it.

[B Calm]

127. Lot of truth to that statement! +1000

[WilliamPitt]

125. "Congrats to the purists."

And I thought the "Eaten by an anaconda" thing was the dumbest crap I'd see today.

[pintobean]

133. "POS used car salesman"

Who used that line, and who was it directed toward?

[SidDithers]

147. "Martha Coakley will win on Tuesday. Bank on it."...

Another classic from DU resident self-proclaimed sage.

Sid

[pintobean]

151. That was hilarious

I had forgotten about that.

Bank on it

[WilliamPitt]

128. ...and P.S.

It was the party that pulled the money from her campaign, not anyone on DU.

"Purists."

What utter drivel.

[FBaggins]

131. The party pulled money because she had no chance of victory

That isn't the point.

The "purists" would have pulled the money because they can't tell the difference between a Republican and a moderate Democrat.

[Marr]

134. "Congrats to the purists"? What?

I've got news for you. When some corporate stooge DINO loses an election, that's a repudiation of *their* strategy.

When someone like Bernie Sanders loses such a race, you can say 'congrats to the Purists'. Right now, however, a more appropriate phrase would be, 'congrats to the self-proclaimed pragmatists'. They had their candidate there, and she lost. Be an adult and stop blaming the world for your messes.

[FSogol]

137. Kick and rec!

Remember: voting with the party 98% time just isn't good enough.

[yellowcanine]

139. I would like to know how WE could have saved Landrieu's seat.

Seriously, how do you think that could have been accomplished. IMO, once she failed to avoid a runoff, the seat was lost. I think her only hope at winning was to turn out Democratic votes in November and avoid a runoff. The only way to do that, imo, would have been to run to the left, not the right, which is what she did, particularly on Keystone and the ACA (a disgraceful performances, on both accounts, btw).

[B Calm]

141. BINGO! More like being a Realist than a Purist!

[FBaggins]

152. This doesn't have anything to do with saving Landrieu's seat

That might have been possible a year or more ago, but it isn't the point of the conversation.

This is about all of the other seats we'll lose in the future if we decide to let our own version of the tea party decide that only "real Democrats (tm)" are worth supporting.

I think her only hope at winning was to turn out Democratic votes in November and avoid a runoff. The only way to do that, imo, would have been to run to the left, not the right

That's because you (mistakenly) believe that there are enough "real Democrats (tm)" in Louisiana to win statewide elections.

There aren't. Not even close. But there are bunch of people who consider themselves Democrats... who look just like Landrieu (well to the left of the political midpoint of the state... but well to the right of the average DUer).

[Jamastiene]

154. We have been told repeatedly that only conservative Democrats could win.

By that claim, she should have won...unless she wasn't conservative enough for the Third Wayers in her district. Maybe try running a more conservative Dem there next time. Sure, that will work. Worked so well this time.

[davidpdx]

158. Riddle me this?

What did anyone on DU do other than say they dislike her?

Did they vote against her?
Did they donate money to her opponent?

Please give me some tangible proof that DU defeated Senator Landrieu and it had nothing to do with the dirty money being pumped into Louisiana by the Republicans.

Not holding my breath.

[pintobean]

159. Some here advocated for her loss

Those are the ones I refer to as purists. What they were doing is a violation of the terms of service for this site - Democratic Underground.

I don't know where you're getting the rest of that crap, certainly not from my OP.

[davidpdx]

161. My point is saying they don't care if she loses

which is what they were saying, did NOT cause her to lose. It's like me taking a voodoo doll and putting pins in it and telling you I caused you some kind of illness. But I guess if you really want to blame them for something they didn't do with no real proof, make yourself look foolish by all means.

[pintobean]

162. "advocated"

to speak or write in favor of; support or urge by argument; recommend publicly

That's not "saying they don't care if she loses". You don't get to redefine my posts to make your argument.
And, only a fool would think that posting on DU can swing a senate race.

[davidpdx]

163. Well then look in the mirror

[pintobean]

164. pffft