What is the Democratic Party doing wrong?

[kentuck]

And what should it change in order to appeal to more voters?

Some might think that Democrats should win every race, considering the division and extremism of the Republican Party?

Why is the Democratic Party so unpopular? Why can they not lead this country out of this mess?

Is it the media? Is it money in politics? Is it corporate control of our government? Is it apathy of the voters?

Should not Democrats be doing better than they are at present?

[upaloopa]

1. It takes lot's of money.

We are out spent in every way. In media, in print the anti Democratic story is played 24/7 to a dumbed down electorate.
I have friends who receive disability. Both mom and dad and one kid receive disability checks yet they say they are anti government. They fail it see the irony in this.

[rock]

46. At some stage

Irony becomes stupidity. Jus' sayin'.

[upaloopa]

60. I agree

[leftstreet]

2. Democrats campaign on OPPOSITION!! Then oppose nothing n/t

[kentuck]

4. What do you mean?

Can you elaborate?

[leftstreet]

5. Claim they'll fight the GOP. Get elected. Don't fight

Confirm, support, pass GOP legislation. Then claim they're being 'obstructed,' and yet never turn to the public (outside of campaign season) for support against that 'obstruction' they vowed to fight to begin with

They are their own version of a Battered Political Party Syndrome

They need an intervention or something

[TBF]

18. ^^ Or something. nt

[BootinUp]

59. Have you ever found anything...anything at all good

Last edited Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:41 PM - Edit history (1)

that the Democrats have done (in the last 8 years)?

Take your time.

[JEB]

3. Too many act and think like fucking GOPers.

[derby378]

6. Dems have trouble defining their core values

What unites blacks, whites, Asians, Hispanics, gays, straights, bisexuals, trans, men, and women as Democrats?

Republicans have been successful with hammering us with a statement of values, even if they don't practice it.

[conservaphobe]

7. I fear they are missing the boat on marijuana legalization.

It would go a long way in attracting younger voters and shaking the 'nanny' image.

[Eleanors38]

22. I have warned of this for years. The Party won't lead.

[winter is coming]

63. I'm not sure they'd be "leading", at least for medical marijuana.

As with gay marriage, ordinary Americans are lightyears ahead of the politicians.

[Eleanors38]

84. At this point it's who capitalizes on rolling back prohibition,

One party or the other could chisel off a couple million younger voters. Usually, it's the party which leads or dominates the dialogue. At a minimum, the GOP can stunt a renewed Democratic buy-in by younger voters. Marijuana legalization is a fumbled ball neither "side" wants to recover.

[Jackpine Radical]

53. I've been arguing that for years.

Want a huge turnout of young people & civil libertarians? Put pot legalization on the ballot as an initiative or advisory referendum everywhere. Do it everywhere in an off-year election & you'll sweep the House.

[laundry_queen]

89. +1 nt

[Autumn]

8. The urge they have to get along with the republicans is too strong.

That in turn creates apathy among Democratic voters. The checks and perks they receive from lobbyists also is a big part of the problem. They really only need us little people every election cycle.

[geek tragedy]

9. it's the fact that rural/exurban white voters are overrepresented in Congress

States like North Dakota have equal power in the Senate to states like New York.

Also, rightwing white people are more evenly distributed throughout the country by geography, whereas the reasonable people and especially people of color tend to be concentrated in cities and suburbs, so there's a structural gerrymandering that's tough to overcome.

[YoungDemCA]

20. True

nt

[bettyellen]

28. THIS. And we needed to try hard and protect Women's reproductive rights on a Federal level already

I'm sick of being used as a wedge issue. Dem men have to realize their softened support has enabled the Taliban, and that is bringing out the fundies to the voting booth. And hurting us all.

[Takket]

10. The dem party is not unpopular

Obama defeated McCain and Romney and in 2012 Dem's won the popular vote in the house

Democratic Party 201 +8 46.2% (seats) 59,645,531 48.8% (popular vote)
Republican Party 234 -8 53.8% (seats) 58,228,253 47.6% (popular vote)

We have the majority of the vote and 46.2% of the seats... thank you very much gerrymandering.... and because of that Boehner is the most powerful man in America. He has brought the entire country to a grinding halt.

[betterdemsonly]

11. Legalized bribery in the form of pacs and campaign contributions

Last edited Wed Jul 2, 2014, 05:08 PM - Edit history (1)

No one is willing to reform the system to make it more fair either. At least no-one that ends up with party's nomination. The media is a big problem too.

[kentuck]

13. The other day I got a request for a donation...

...for a group to get money out of politics.

Money is no substitute for policies or solutions. Money is only a wall to prevent solutions.

[JaneyVee]

12. Republicans are dragging down everyones notion

Of government.

[Populist_Prole]

14. Focusing too much on social issues rather than economic ones

Once they went all 'Third-Way' and forsook Joe Lunchbox for well-heeled social liberals, it's only gotten worse. Oh the lip service before elections is as good as it ever was, but as far as walking the walk they're more like socially liberal GOP-ers.

That's just my opinion. During a recent political quiz/poll link from DU, I took it and the resilts showed me as a "Hard pressed skeptic". Yes, I guess that's me.

[geek tragedy]

16. Please stop blaming women and minorities for white men voting like rightwing assholes.

"Joe Lunchbox" is in many cases a hardcore bigot who votes Republican because Republicans are the party that reflects his bigotry--anti woman, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-black.

And, of course, anti-environment.

But, they are pro-gun and pro-Christianism, so that counts for something I guess.


Which is why they voted for Reagan in droves. I guess maybe you want the Democrats to be more ideologically in sync with Reagan.

White working class men moved away from the Democrati party during the Civil Rights Movement, especially with the passing of the Civil Rights bill.

The white working class male voters who vote overwhelmingly Republican are especially concentrated in Appalachia and the slave states. Go figure.

Your opinion is to blame everything on "well-heeled social liberals" and portray bigots as the victims in an effort to piss on the importance of civil rights.

Which means your opinion is not a very intelligent one.

[Populist_Prole]

19. Horse hockey. you're barking up the wrong tree.

Your response is a shrill and broad brushed as you're implying mine to be. Minorities? Did I mention them? I say "Joe Lunchbox" to characterize the working class, and you immediately connect that to Archie Bunker. You know that working class whites ( or any other race ) are the sole elements of bigotry? Did you not notice I said "too much" on social issues?

Where would any socially liberal group be if the backbone country, which absolutely positively is the working class, is impoverished?

[geek tragedy]

24. People never mean Latinos or blacks when they talk about "Joe Lunchbox"

Just like 100% of references in NFL broadcasts of "a lunchpail kind of guy" are to white guys. It's code.

Your sneering contempt for people who care about civil rights--blaming "well-heeled social liberals" for the downfall of the party--makes it crystial-fucking-clear where you think the problem lies--that the Democrats abandoned the Reagan Democrats in favor of GLBT Americans and women and of course ethnic minorities.

Democrats win low income voters and middle class voters.

Your history is a big fat lie. The Democrats did not abandon Joe Lunchbox, your mythical working class hero. Joe Lunchbox voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 because he resented government doing stuff like affirmative action and supporting abortion rights. And he's stayed in the party of bigotry since then.

If Joe Lunchbox had not voted for Ronald fucking Reagan and Poppy Bush, then maybe your theory wouldn't be 100% horse crap.

[YoungDemCA]

30. And I would just add that lots of white working-class men still vote Democratic

Particularly in urban areas outside of the South and the "flyover states" (ugh).

[geek tragedy]

33. Yes, white working class voters in New England

and the midwest are a lot more reasonable than they are in the south.

[AverageJoe90]

87. Yeah, this is true.

And even here in the South, you've got those white men who are genuinely pro-Democratic, even if mainly in and around urban areas.....I should know, because I'm one of them. And you can bet I've been a devoted supporter of both Wendy Davis AND Leticia Van De Putte.

[JI7]

70. yes, that's why the "welfare queen" was so appealing to them

[The Magistrate]

88. Jury Results, Sir

On Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:16 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

People never mean Latinos or blacks when they talk about "Joe Lunchbox"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5183978

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Umm....."sneering contempt for civil rights"? That's more than a little harsh, don't you think? I doubt that anything the other person said could possibly have warranted such.


You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:28 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The spirit of this post is uses sharp language but it is political, not personal. The debatable "sneering contempt" phrase, in the context of this thread, doesn't meet the disruptive, rude, hurtful, etc. criteria, in its attempt to clarify a loaded label.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The posts are blunt/have language, but it seems nevertheless constructive. Seems like a difference of opinion among posters. Leaving it.

Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I could not imagine why this had been alerted on and was eager to see the alerter's comment, which proved one of the most laughable and inane such I have seen in several hundred jury stints. There is no, repeat NO reason to hide this post, and the alertee's point could have been made much more forcibly, harshly, even, and still been well within bounds.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: What is this I don't even
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

[geek tragedy]

95. Regards, sir. It appears someone's angst will have to

go unresolved.

Enjoy the holiday!

Gt

[YoungDemCA]

25. For women, people of color, and the LGBT community, "social" and "economic" issues are inseparable

Please don't try to minimize that.

[Populist_Prole]

27. I guess we then know what the wedge issues are now, don't we?

[YoungDemCA]

31. What?

What do you mean "wedge issues?" Please elaborate.

[geek tragedy]

34. civil rights are not 'wedge issues" no matter how many straight

white men make that bullshit claim.

your lack of concern for the civil rights of those who were not born like you is your problem, not ours.

[bettyellen]

43. "your lack of concern for the civil rights of those who were not born like you is your problem"

[woo me with science]

44. Wedge issues are most effective when they are also important issues.

You can't wedge people apart with what is unimportant to them.

What makes them "wedge" issues is that they are deliberately used to divide the public and create wagon-circling, with the goal of ensuring that the predatory policies that the two corporate parties DO agree on can be pushed through without serious opposition.

The irony is that the corporate agenda of the One Percent is designed to create an antidemocratic, corporate-ruled, authoritarian society in which the people will have no real power over social policy or anything else.

[Number23]

68. TELL IT, Geek!!

TELL IT!

[leftstreet]

38. It didn't need to be one or the other

That's unique to the faux-two-party system. The deliberately planned illusion of choice leaves Black Joe Lunchbox, Gay Joe Lunchbox, Impoverished Joanne Lunchbox with little evidence that politicians have anyone's interests at heart but their own and their wealthy sponsors

[winter is coming]

64. +1. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Treating people decently, whether on social issues or economic ones, shouldn't be a radical idea.

[bettyellen]

41. bullshit- those are core Democratic values you are knocking there. "well heeled social liberals"???

way to promote the RW memes. They are not the same as any republicans, unless you are a white man who only gives as shit about money, and not the biggest reliable constituencies of the Dem party. Stop letting them use us a wedge issue if you want both houses back. The crazies will stay home.

[JI7]

73. WHich Social Issues do you have a problem with ? because for minorities and women, economic issues

are connected to social issues.

[tularetom]

15. They haven't figured out how to unify their diverse elements

And of course the problem is they have a lot of diverse elements.

The republicans have a very narrow base to appeal to - old, white, male, that pretty much defines it. Of course they have discovered how to make poor people vote like rich people, something else the Democrats haven't yet mastered.

It makes it very simple for the lazy ass media to define what it is republicans stand for. Not so easy for Democrats.

[YoungDemCA]

32. Another good point

nt

[otohara]

17. 18-29 Year Olds Dropped Off by 60%

from 2008 to 2010.

Midterms and special elections are our problem -
There are 20,000 registered Dem voters in my HD - we had a primary last week and only 6000 voted.

We are the real party of stupid,

[woo me with science]

21. CORPORATE MONEY.

They are not fumbling and inept. They are purchased, along with most of the rest of our government.

The problem is systemic and entrenched. It takes billions to run. Billions have restructured the system to shut out non-corporate voices. Billions shape the media. Billions buy policy. Any outstart voice is crushed. There is a mass propaganda machine in place. Good god.

We have got to stop acting mystified by this. The answer is clear and right in front of us.

[kentuck]

23. Yep.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Eleanors38]

29. Precisely. We ARE in a corporate state NOW. The conversation

starts with this concession, or I bring up deer hunting, or my latest means of sharpening mower blades.

[muntrv]

48. And corporate media.

[Armstead]

91. Yuppers -- and I'd add brainwashing

It's not only the corrupt overtly bought off ones. Too many have been "borged" into the same economic line of CONservatism and actually believe in some of the crap.

[octoberlib]

96. +1

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. It might help if they considered principles and ideals as something more than slogans.

Sure, they might lose a few battles, they might lose a few elections, because of doing so. Suffrage, civil rights, the 8 hour day, were unpopular and it was risky to take those positions but, eventually they did take some risks and prevail.

Now, it seems that for most (all, almost all) politicians their only priority is getting elected and then doing whatever it takes to get the money to get reelected.

"Not as bad" is a piss poor campaign slogan and a piss poor way to run a government.

[Eleanors38]

36. Who talks most about corporate over-reach? Teaparty. nt

[Iggo]

37. Getting rich instead of doing right?

Nicest way I can say it.

[AgingAmerican]

39. Too chicken

Too much playing nice with the GOP. No stones. Too much Third Way® right wing influence.

[FSogol]

40. Perspective

Which is more interesting to watch? Godzilla destroying Tokyo or someone designing a storm drain inlet that won't get clogged by debris during storms? Notice that in action movies (the most popular type of movie) everything gets destroyed, but they never show the hard work in rebuilding?

The point is that Democrats want to make the world a better place. They work to achieve that goal. Repubs want everything to remain the same and don't mind destroying whatever gets in the way. Did you see the people protesting the bus carrying refugee kids to a shelter? They don't care about anyone or anything. Thus when you have a 10 second blurb to sum something up, the:

"Gragggh, I will destroy my enemies" sounds better than, "I have a 7 part plan to fix this problem and the 1 step is to......"

Democrats need to keep doing what they are doing, but need to learn how to frame issues better. We need to emphasize what works and how to improve it. We need to point out how supporting the GOP is detrimental to the country.

"Really, you want smaller government? what about social security, what about medicaid?

Framing the issues better and educating people that Food stamps are a smaller part of the government than the Marine Corp Marching Band's budget. And that food stamps also help farmers, agriculture, local stores, etc.

Educate the voters, frame the issues better, poke holes in GOP nonsense, and call the media's biases.

We need 20 years of Democratic control to reshape the USSC. let's not take a step backward in 2014 because certain people think the party is too moderate and that chaos will somehow remove corporate America's grip on our government.

GOTV

[kentuck]

42. The best way to a person's mind...

is thru their heart. Democrats are missing a sincerity in their message, imo.

[FSogol]

47. I disagree. Look at Democrats like Martin O'Malley and even the hated on DU, Terry McAuliffe.

Both have tirelessly thrown themselves into governing their states and made progress.

[kentuck]

50. What do you mean?

Do you think these two Democrats are not sincere with words??

[FSogol]

52. What? You said, "Democrats are missing a sincerity in their message"

I gave you two examples of Democrats that are in no way missing sincerity in their message.

[kentuck]

55. Obviously, not all of them....

are lacking sincerity.

[JI7]

72. so which ones are lacking sincerity ?

[kentuck]

79. I think a large proportion of Democrats...

...are more interested in re-election and remaining in office than they are about traditional Democratic values, and many are willing to compromise simply for the sake of compromise. Their lack of sincerity is manifested in their inability to communicate a credible argument against the harmful and irrational arguments of the right-wingers in the Republican Party, in my opinion.

[JI7]

80. can you give me names ?

[Armstead]

92. President Obama sometimes

"I will defend net neutrality."....Then appoints a shill for Comcast to head the FCC.

Hope and CHANGE in 08, then appoints the same bunch of Oligarchs who helped to wreck the economy to come up with policies to "fix" it.
"I will have a transparent government." Then negotiates awful "free trade" agreements in secret.


Things like that.

There is much I like about him. And I think he is more a symptom of a deeper problem....Same problem John Kerry had when asked if he was a liberal......."Mmmmph, er I wouldn;t say that...mmmmmpppph..I don't think the terms liberal and conservative is as important as getting resuts......mmmmmmph.....waffle waffle."

[mmonk]

45. Being "bipartisan" and corporate when the other party isn't bipartisan and was already corporate.

[Maedhros]

49. Democratic politicians believe they are entitled to working class votes,

but demand that the working class expect nothing in return for them.

E.g.

2006 - Give us a Congressional majority so that we have subpoena power to investigate Bush/Cheney crimes!

2007 - Investigate Bush/Cheney? No way - we've got to keep our powder dry!

2008 - Obama elected in landslide, with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate

2009 - We can't do anything, because Republicans!

Democrats have demonstrated that voting for them does not result in substantial gains for the working class.

[kentuck]

51. The pathway to knowledge....

is understanding.

[Ash_F]

54. Yep

A heartfelt apology to America and a promise to do better might help, but they really should have been thinking about this long before now.

2014 is not looking good.

[Maedhros]

56. When Republicans campaign on crazy policies and win,

they deliver on the crazy. Their crazy base loves it! And if a candidate isn't crazy enough, THEY VOTE HIM OUT. The result: MORE CRAZY.

When Democrats campaign on liberal or progressive policies and win, they immediately backtrack once in office. The liberal/progressive base hates it. When the ostensibly liberal candidate governs as a triangulating moderate conservative, he's reelected anyway. The result: MORE CONSERVATIVE.

Now why is it that young liberals don't vote?

[geek tragedy]

58. Do you really think 2006 was a working class revolt in order to

get criminal investigations into Bush/Cheney?

No, that's not a 'working class' issue. Criminal investigations into Bush/Cheney were more of a bourgeois blog demand than anything one saw from factory workers or home health aids or the labor movement in general.

[spanone]

57. i think it's the media in conjunction with tons of corporate money...and wimpy politicians.

[democrank]

61. My two cents.....

I`ve been an active, voting Democrat for fifty years. A lot has changed in our party and not all of it is good. We made a huge mistake when we either approved or looked the other way when the center of our party moved further and further to the right. Today the words "far left" are used to describe someone whose positions would have been in line with the party`s majority just a few decades ago. We now have anti-union Democrats, pro-torture Democrats, anti single payer Democrats....even Democrats (and lots of them) who now favor the same exact policies they opposed under George W. Bush. It`s very troubling to me and to many older Democrats I know.

A few days ago I chatted with a Vietnam veteran who was actually laughing at what passes for a protest these days. He remembers millions in the streets, not dozens....millions.... and without the benefit of cell phones, computers, facebook, etc. We were willing to take a stand back then, for ending the war, for civil rights. Back then it was a matter of life and death and we knew it. Today we`re supposed to cave in and call it a compromise.

Our party`s biggest mistake is in messaging. We have none. Look at how successful Republicans have been at labeling us the party of no morals. Many Democrats favor a woman`s right to choose but Republicans took the women out of it and just say we have no problem killing babies. It`s not true. Republicans have labeled us unpatriotic. Their proof? Flag pins. Someone should ask a Republican to research where little ole Vermont stands compared to other states in service members per capita. That`s right, as much love for country as anywhere else, right in the middle of the "Northeast Liberals" Joe Scarborough is always degrading. I`ll bet anything that if we took a populist, worker-friendly message down south (just like Howard Dean suggested) we`d make headway. We`re always talking about people voting against their interests. They do, but if our message wasn`t so weak, maybe so many wouldn`t.

To my way of thinking, it`s back to basics time in the Democratic Party. I like the way Bernie Sanders does it. Go to a certain town, put up a sign for a free spaghetti dinner, give a short speech....then listen to The People.They`ll tell you to take the obscene profit out of health care, open up some more trade schools for the kids who never had a silver spoon, get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan and dozens more very good ideas. Down to earth, back to basics.

[Armstead]

93. Worth much more than two cents.....Hit nail on head

[MissDeeds]

62. What is the party doing wrong?

Running to the center for starters. We have been inundated with centrists, corporatists, DINOs, and candidates who have abandoned core Democratic values. Look where it got us. We have a plethora of apologists who want to pander to the right. Very few are willing to dig their heels in and fight for the middle class, hold Wall Street and big business accountable, curtail military involvement when it is not absolutely necessary to protect the US. The party also used to uphold unions, protect social security, education, the aged and the infirm. We were always the party of "we the people". I hope we will soon return to that ideology.

[winter is coming]

66. ^^ This. A lot of our weaknesses can be summarized as "running to the center". n/t

[treestar]

65. Are you a Democrat?

If so, what are you doing wrong?

Voters who don't vote get Republicans. And they deserve it.

[kentuck]

81. It is a mistake to think...

that the "average" voter is as informed as you and will crawl thru glass to get to the voting booth. They need a reason to vote and it has to be communicated to them with the right tone and substance.

[Puzzledtraveller]

67. Both sides spend most of their time campaigning

saying and doing whatever needs to be said and done to make sure they keep their jobs, the actual work, the nut and bolts and the nations business and that which makes our lives better or worse rarely gets done and if they believe or have ideas that in the smallest way conflict with party line those ideas will never see the light of day, Republicans, Democrats partisanship for the sake of being partisan. There is NO need for results when you can have your constituents, those of the left and the right fighting one another over things that will never cost the politicians a dime of work, or their financial interests. Social issues, standing up for this or that while maybe being right and past due at the end of the day does not lower the average Americans utility bill, taxes, cost of living, education, child care. But it's cheap and cost nothing. One thing is certain, Wall Street will be fine no matter who is in office because they own the presidency.

[JI7]

69. social issues certainly do affect economic issues for women and minorities

a gay couple that is able to get married and get the benefits that go with it will affect them economically.

[TheKentuckian]

82. Certainly true but that kind of a thing is no substitute for jobs, opportunities, and wages.

Last edited Thu Jul 3, 2014, 12:22 AM - Edit history (1)

That is not to make light of the needs for equal protection under the law for the gay couple at all but rather that the same couple ALSO needs the same things the straight couple does too in order to make it as does the single guy person who has not found their match.

The woman making 78 cents on the dollar that a man makes is not helped by lowering the man's wages 22 cents, she needs her's raised and then both need a lot more because even the man's wages are a joke and stagnant, her's are just more deplorable.

Politics is economics virtually anything voted for needs resources assigned to make it more than window dressing, they cannot meaningfully be separated and Civil Rights and Civil Liberties are hand in hand. Rights (access) are meaningless in an operational fashion if they lead to no liberties (what you get access to) and vice versa. These things are absolutely not in conflict and there is no choice to make because without one there can't be the other.

[JI7]

83. it certainly does matter , why do blacks have such higher poverty rate ?

[TheKentuckian]

86. I'm sure many books could be written to answer that but poverty breeds poverty to start

The poorer you are the more everything functionally costs - less ability to purchase in bulk, credit either unobtainable or at ruinous cost, lack of reliable transportation, little networking, and probably millions of impacts.

Institutional roadblocks to keep it going. A few hundred years behind on even the barest of hint of passing wealth on.

Jim Crow in living memory and all that went along with it. Lots of brothers in jail. The obliteration of family and roots due to slavery and carried on to this day.
Kettled into ghettos with no opportunities, few positive examples, shit educational resources and bad schools.

Racism locking us out of opportunities and precious few able to lend a hand to help lift the next person up. Roadblocks from building businesses of every description. Lack of ownership of property. Hand to mouth lives giving little opportunity to look up and ahead.

It goes on and on but 90% is economics and the other 10 was created by economics or is driven by them now from slavery forward.

[Armstead]

94. I agree

[alarimer]

71. They need to realize that progressive policies WIN and stop with the triangulating bullshit.

Stand up for core Democratic principles, return to the New Deal, stand up for the Bill of Rights.

Lost the Republican-lite inclination.

Or, you know, actually keep your promises once elected.

[JI7]

74. is that how Terry Mcauliffe won and Russ Feingold lost ?

[ljm2002]

75. You can't sit on two stools...

...and that is what the Democratic Party did when it bought into corporate $$$. Nowadays the Democratic Party gives tepid support to labor, at best; and they rarely stand up for the little guy when there are corporate interests at stake.

Therefore, we get to choose between people who we KNOW have sold out to the monied interests, vs. people who we think MAY have sold out, and who will never really go to bat for us.

Not a formula for voting enthusiasm.

That's how I see it. I think money is a huge issue, the right wing echo chamber is a huge issue, all of that -- but really, if the Democratic Party got back to core principles and drummed up a little populist enthusiasm, we'd be winning.

[lostincalifornia]

77. They have been passive for far too long

[randys1]

78. Vast majority of people who would bother to vote would vote Democratic

but the problem is why dont they vote...

Way too many just wont vote...

[madville]

85. Our turnout is less than stellar

Particularly in midterm years. 2008 and 2012 were anomalies for Democratic turnout, Obama easily brought an extra 10-20% to the polls who would otherwise stay home.

That's also another reason a H. Clinton 2016 is not a lock in the general election. Democrats may be less than enthused and her rapid haters will turnout in record numbers, would definitely be a tossup.

[Rex]

90. Considering that the POTUS is doing his job and Congresses I say we are doing

pretty well.

We were blindside by the injustice of the 2000 SCOTUS ruling. Faced years and wars under a lawless George Bush Jr. Then when Obama gets into office, the GOP puts the brakes on running the govt and focuses on destroying the POTUS and diminishing his ability to do his job running the country.

In short...the answer, which seems to always be the problem...REPUBLICANS. Lawless, out of control republicans I might add.

[TransitJohn]

97. The same thing the Republican Party is doing wrong

Being exclusively concerned about getting and keeping power while the country and its people waste away.

[Savannahmann]

98. I've talked about this many times.

I get blasted for spreading FUD. I've been called a Rethug plant, a secret Libertarian, even a RW Troll. I warn of dangers, and the problems with our party.

But why not go ahead and end up on the enemies list again. At this point the worst that can happen is someone underlines my name.

Our first problem is arrogance. Yes, I mean that word exactly as it is normally defined. We believe the Rethugs are dumb, and we act like everyone else sees them the same way. We don't listen, and we don't respect our opponents, and they keep winning the important issues. And every time we lose, we come out arrogant, claiming that some micro victory was the real issue, and they lost. We may even be somewhat detached from reality at this point, but that may just be my sense of depression about the future of our party.

Let me give you some examples. Texas, Republicans passed restrictions on a woman's right to choose. Wendy Davis went up and filibustered, and the Rethugs cranked up a special session and passed it anyway. We howled in frustration, and we raged on our keyboards, and we cheered when Wendy ran for Governor, because she was sure to win against the Rethugs right?

But we ignored what was going on. The Rethugs had gotten smart. We didn't take them seriously, and we got our asses kicked. Here is what I mean by gotten smart. They used a reasonable sounding argument to pass their restrictions. Knowing that in many cases, a Doctor who is licensed in the state just comes into town a few days a month to perform the procedures, including but not limited to abortions at the clinics, the Rethugs saw the weak point. They decided that the clinics had to be registered, inspected, and insured to make sure that they met the requirements of out patient surgery. This increased the costs dramatically for the clinics. But then they required that any Doctor performing such procedures must have admitting privileges at the local hospital. In other words, the Doctor should be able to do more than dial 911 if something goes wrong. When we fought against this, we ignored all the reasonable sounding arguments, and didn't bother to educate the people. Instead we just shouted and ranted and raved that this was all designed to obstruct a woman's rights.

Because we ignored the arguments, we ended up looking stupid. Because the image created was one of filthy clinics and Doctors who were one step above a Quack, and couldn't get admitting privileges at the Hospitals because they were such lousy medical practitioners. Of course that is not true, but that is the image that the people got, and we didn't do a damned thing to fight it. We just shouted and ranted and we lost, big time. Wendy the hero who stood up? She's got next to no chance of getting elected Governor. She was right to oppose it, but she and we did so as stupidly as possible.

We should have pointed out that under this legislation, a Doctor, even a renowned trauma expert from Houston, if he was in Dallas and did not have admitting privileges, he could do nothing except basic first aide at the scene of an accident. People could easily die because of this law and the unintended consequences. No, we shouted about a woman's right, we didn't engage the RW in debate, and show them as short sighted. Instead, we just fell back on the normal knee jerk shouts assuming that everyone knew that the RW was evil. We were arrogant and we lost.

We approach every issue the same way. The Rethugs are painting pictures, and we're shouting that they're stupid, greed, racist, and in the pocket of the 1%. That may all be true to some extent, but guess what, it doesn't change the picture that the Rethugs are painting with their words.

They oppose things, and they attach other important issues to it during the opposition. They opposed the Job Killing ACA (Obamacare). They opposed the Job Killing Minimum wage hike. In both cases we downplayed the fears of job losses, and when confronted with studies including one from the CBO that yes, jobs would probably be lost, we arrogantly said. "Oh well, those are probably lousy jobs that people would be better off losing". The Rethugs are painting the picture that they are fighting for jobs, and we are left looking like we give a shit about the working stiff. Oh well, those are probably jobs you would be better off losing.

It's hard to be the party of the people if you don't give a shit about the people. Here's a question. How many times has President Obama "pivoted to the economy"? A dozen? More than a Dozen? I've lost count. Not once has he offered a plan. Not once. All he does is take credit for the "greatest economic recovery in history" while our side is pointing out that thirty percent of the people in the Rethug states are living below the poverty line. Some economic recovery. Arrogance, because we don't bother to explain things, we don't get credit for them.

Time after time, issue after issue. We make the same mistakes over and over again. Right now the Senate is in jeopardy. The answer from the people here? Oh well, if we lose the Senate now, it will set us up big for 2016. How exactly that works must be using some of that magic we hope pushes us over the top.

What is our campaign plan? Oh that's easy. We will not run on principles. We won't run on issues. We won't bother staking out our positions and actually nailing the party down to the ideals we all think we have. No, our plan is simple. We hope that the Rethugs screw up. If this plan doesn't work, we console ourselves after the election that the candidate was secretly a Rethug, or was beaten by huge amounts of money. You see, when the plan of hoping the Rethug screws up doesn't work, we can't say we coasted through, we have to blame someone else for our misfortune.

Remember Alex Sink? We were cheering that we had it won, and then the Rethug won, and instead of learning from our defeat, we blamed the loser for nonsense, and claimed it didn't matter anyway because the RW bought it with Citizen United money. None of that was actually true, but to admit the truth would have been to confront our arrogance, and we're not about to do that.

Our party has become little more than a bunch of cheerleaders. Our team is going to win because we wear blue uniforms. Yay team!

Instead of taking issues, a single issue, and finding support for that single issue. We eschew such and demand that we only work with the Party. We've put the Party over the people, and demand that the people follow us or else something bad will happen.

Take Marijuana Legalization. We could find several Libertarian leaning Rethugs to support the idea. But we'd rather eat a raw turd that give any Rethug the time of day. So people will keep getting locked up for a bullshit crime, This way we can campaign on it, assuming that we ever have enough of a majority to do something about it.

Nope, instead of starting a discussion that might actually lead to some progress, we demand fealty to the banner over the hated enemy. Do I sound annoyed? Do I sound disgusted? Guess what, I am. Because every couple weeks, this question is asked, and every couple weeks we get a flurry of the same lame answers that have never worked. GOTV man. Yeah, that worked out well in 2010. More people turned out in 2010 than turned out in 2006. That's the dirty little secret. The Rethugs stayed home. They were pissed at Bush, and pissed at the party. McCain ran the kind of campaign we like, one where he screwed up. So we won. We try and tell ourselves we're popular, but somehow that popularity doesn't really translate to people supporting us, because we don't stand for anything.

Everyone knew what MLK stood for, and millions supported him, turning him into a Martyr and a Hero after his death. Everyone knew what RFK stood for, and JFK, and Truman, and even Carter. But for some reason, we are more afraid of taking a stand on the issues than we are of the Rethugs winning. They take stands on plenty of issues. They make long winded speeches. We respond with nonsense and here's the best part, people here line up to cheer the nonsense. Yeah, they told those Rethugs they were full of shit. We didn't prove anything, and we didn't change any public opinion. But who needs that when the base is happy.

So one thing I think we need to change is our Arrogance. We need to start taking the Rethugs seriously, and we need to start taking the issues seriously. But we won't do that, it's too hard, too much work. instead we will just sit around and hope the Rethugs screw up, it worked with McCain didn't it?

[BlindTiresias]

99. They run on opposition to the GOP

And then they capitulate or engage in milquetoast bi-partisanship. Say what you will about political expediency but that is a recipe to generate helplessness among your supporters and and make you appear weak to those on the fence.