Learning the hard lessons of 2010 is an absolute imperative. Elections have consequences.

[RBInMaine]

Last edited Wed Jul 3, 2013, 07:45 AM - Edit history (2)

As we begin to look forward to the next mid terms next year, we must learn the imperative lessons of the sad disaster of 2010. In my view, that election will go down in history as one of the most consequential in recent history, equally as much as the disaster of 1994 when the R's took the House of Reps nationally for the first time in several decades. In fact, 2010 was probably WORSE. And the saddest part is how avoidable it was.

It was a major disaster because it came while the TeaBagger nutjob wing was taking over the Republican Party and that whole rotten cadre of wild eyed right wingers got into governorships (i.e. LePage, Walker, Corbett, Scott, Kasich, and others) along with them taking over state legislatures. Then came the national corporate/ALEC/Teabag agenda with an attack on voting rights, choice rights, workers rights, and the gerrymandering of congressional districts to ensure that even after they were out of power, they would still win elections. So even though we had a good year in 2012, we could not undo all the damage already done. Even though more votes were cast for D congressional candidates, R's still held the House. In Maine, though we took back the state legislature, we still have LePage, the crazy TeaBagger, and there are enough R's to sustain his vetoes. Though not as bad as his first two years, it has still been bad enough with them vetoing a lot of good legislation, such as Medicaid Expansion under ObamaCare. At the national level, we have had a House of Reps ONLY interested in hurting Obama and doing NOTHING to help the country and its economy.

2010 happened because way too many D's went to sleep and did not vote. Simple as that, and absolutely no excuses. Many were complaining that Obama and national D's hadn't been progressive enough when there was more progressive policy passed than we'd seen since LBJ. No excuses. None. It was horrible. And we are STILL paying for it. Look at states attacking women's choice rights. Look at the gerrymandered districts. Look at the attacks on workers rights, the environment, and on and on and on.

In 2014 we can learn from this gaping historic event and send these TeaNuts packing, or continue the crazy idea that the best way to "punish" impure Dems is to stay home and complain and instead allow the ultra corrupt TeaScum to get into office, then bitch and moan when they, as our own Gov. LePage said recently, "give it to us without Vaseline." Because, in fact, that is what the totally corrupt right wing has been doing to state after state and this nation and are continuing to do to us, all due to that horrid election cycle of 2010.

Our motto for 2014 needs to be REMEMBER 2010 !

[cantbeserious]

1. The Oligarchs Own And Control The Politicians - That Control The Levers Of Power - That Rule Us

The power of Money cannot be overstated.

It's all about the 1% versus the 99%.

The Motto should be "Millions Of Dollars May Speak - But Millions Of Us Speak Louder".

[RBInMaine]

2. CU is a problem, but we can raise enough cash to compete. D's need to CAMPAIGN & VOTE. I like your

additional motto. You are totally right that a major message has to be that we are in a fight for whether this nation is going be about the 1% or the 99%. We need to get rid of the apathy, and we need to make sure progressives and Dems get the hell out and engage in a BIG way. Too many D's and progressive stay home in non-Presidential years. THAT CAN NOT HAPPEN THIS NEXT TIME. We have good chances in states like Ohio, Maine, PA, and FL. We must VOTE and CAMPAIGN.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. 2010 in CA, Jerry Brown beat Meg Whitman in CA while Meg spent 5x the money

53.8% to Meg's 40.9%
Boxer in CA beat Fiorino 52% to Boxer 42% Fiorino

Whitman spent $140 million. More than any candidate for CA Gov ever. She lost.

The power of money is overstated every time someone says money has power. It has limited uses, but no power.

[BlueCaliDem]

8. It was the power of the minority vote in CA that saved both D's from losing to Republicans.

Both Republicans were polling equal to or ahead of the Democrats, but the undocumented maid debacle ultimately hurt the Republicans in California despite the lavish spending by both Whitman and Fiorina.

With the exception of Florida, in states where exit polling data is available, Democratic candidates won the Latino vote, usually by wide margins. In California’s senate race, Democrat Barbara Boxer won 65% of the Latino vote while Republican Carly Fiorina won 29%. In California’s gubernatorial race, Democrat Jerry Brown won 64% of California’s Latino vote while Republican Meg Whitman won 31%.
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2010/11/03/the-latino-vote-in-the-2010-elections/

However, money IS important (for misleading ads, paying canvassers, paying for offices, paying people, etc.) because before the undocumented maid debacle, Republicans were polling pretty well. It was only after the undocumented maid story came to light and took hold that the polls turned in favor of the Democrats. It were the minorities in CA that ultimately swept CA Democrats into power, bucking off the trend in the other states where a Republican sweep was happening.

Rasmussen’s survey two weeks earlier showed a dead heat, with Brown edging Whitman 47 percent to 46 percent. White voters favored Whitman over Brown 52 percent to 37 percent in the most-recent Rasmussen survey, but among Hispanic and Asian voters, Brown had an overwhelming 65 percent to 7 percent lead over Whitman.

Two weeks ago, Rasmussen found that Brown led Whitman 66 percent to 17 percent among that same demographic, suggesting Whitman recently lost a significant portion of her supporters among Hispanics and Asians. Among blacks, Brown led Whitman 87 percent to 5 percent.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43116_Page2.html

[life long demo]

3. I couldn't agree more

The damage that has been done by that one election will be with us for a long time. But I don't know if every Democrat knows or understands it. Maine has LePage, here in PA we have Corbett. But along with the governors, many repubs were elected to state senates and houses. Corbett and the state government has even tried to take homeowners property rights, and local zoning rights away for the natural gas companies. Education is being plundered. Taxes are being shifted from business to homeowners. Abortion bills and voter ID bills abound just to name a few. It is a nightmare.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. Some States had great turnout in 2010 AND elected Democrats. Why didn't you?

And if you are so skilled that you should be lecturing, why did you fail in 2010? Oregon had the highest midterm turnout since the 80's at least. Democrats voted like mad. A good number of Republicans organized in support of Democratic candidates because the Republicans were that nuts. This is an important lesson for those of you who run 'Moderates' and 'Blue Dogs' because you think your region is so backward that candidates need to drag knuckles to get elected. Some Republicans here voted for DeFazio, member of the Progressive Caucus too liberal for DU centrists. Why? DeFazio honest, direct and not insane.
So why is it again that in some regions the candidates we ran were so off putting that even Democrats did not vote for them? Running 'Blue Bags and Tea Dogs' or what?
The entire West Coast had a very good 2010. Why others did not is an excellent question.

[RBInMaine]

12. I've been in the game a long time and have burned more shoe leather than I could shake a stick at

working for Dems and on Dem campaigns and serving in the local party structure. There were some pockets of good Dem turnout in some areas of the country, but I am talking about the big picture that you know as well as I do. WAY too many Dems and "progressives" did not vote all over the nation and, even worse, did not engage and help with campaigns. It was BULLSHIT ! And I am sick of hearing about excuses for it, especially that lame excuse about "Well, the Dems weren't progressive enough" at the national level after 2008. There were still R's in the Congress, and there had to still be some amount of compromise at that complex national level. Even so, it was PROGRESS. Progressives should have been ecstatic, but without purity, WAY too many stayed home and irrationally bitched and moaned. And that is just the truth. And now they are REALLY bitching since they allowed the R's to win. Just ridiculous. No excuses for that. None. Because now we are STILL paying the price for it. ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES !

Now, in Maine, as in PA, as in OH, as in WI, as in FL, we got hit with the wave, exacerbated by Dems not engaging and not voting in high enough numbers. The numbers weren't horrid, but they were bad enough. We had five candidates on the governor ballot and we don't have a runoff provision in Maine. Therefore, having come off two terms of a Dem governor, our new Dem candidate was at a disadvantage, but she still got 19%. The moderate former Dem Indy got 36%, and the asshat got 38%. If there had been a runoff, the moderate Indy would have won and would have been much better than Paul LePUKE the Crazed TeaBagger. The progressive/Dem/moderate vote got split. THAT is why the asshat won here. In the legislature that year, many of the D's lost by very narrow margins. But that was because too many D's stayed home, and because too many moderate Indies voted R. Our D Congressional incumbents won their seats by decent margins because thy are popular incumbents and partly because they get crossover votes. Overall Maine has trended blue in recent cycles, but still has an independent/moderate streak. That is just he nature of the electorate here.

Yes, our state campaign and others in the nation could have been better, but a good part of the damage was about D rank and filers refusing to donate, refusing to engage, refusing to help, and refusing to vote. That wasn't the fault of those who DID work on the state campaign. I know because I was out there on the streets, in the offices, and also trying to help recruit volunteers. It was bad in Maine, and it was bad in many other areas of the nation too. Even Alan Grayson got hammered in his district that year, and who was a stronger fighter for progressives than Grayson? Too many of the D voters there did not have his back. That one was on rank-and-filers. There was no excuse for people not engaging. They were reached out to. They were asked. I do give great credit to those candidates, volunteers, and voters who did engage. But too many simply opted out. And for that, there is no excuse and no blame except on THEM.

[bornskeptic]

21. Then why does Oregon keep sending Greg Walden back to Washington? n/t

[davidpdx]

29. Simple

His district is bright red. The 2nd district is southern, central and eastern Oregon. If Oregon had a few thousand more residence in 2010 we could have gotten a 6th district which may have led to southern Oregon having its own district. While they Ds always run someone against him, its a foregone conclusion he's going to blow the person out. Having lived in southern Oregon he was my representative for a number of year (I'm now so lucky to have the almost equally as crappy Bluedog D Kurt Schrader who I will not vote for as he is way too conservative).

[riqster]

6. Awesome post!

Every region and locality has its own advantages and disadvantages: but in every region, if we GOTFV, we can win, or at least narrow the margin enough to scare the nut jobs.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. You can't GOTV with crappy candidates that are much like their opponents.

This is why so many of the States did so poorly in 2010 while others did very well indeed. Those States running 'moderately Blue Dogs' lost to actual Republicans while out here the entire West Coast elected many actual Democrats with record busting turn outs. In CA, two of the biggest spending,hardest advertising Republicans of all time failed in historic way and lost to Democrats.
Got to have candidates that motivate and inspire, not those who try to look like a Republican with a blue tie.

[RBInMaine]

15. Agree to a point, but some very progressive Kucinich types can't win in many areas of the nation.

Many areas of our nation are purple or lean red. Far left candidates can't win there. Better to have a moderate D than a TeaBagger.

[riqster]

18. As I have said before, your basic premise has a flaw

You use your region as an example of how everyone else should do things, and snark at us for not being as successful in electing Dems.

An invalid proposition, thus your argument fails. The rest of the nation is diverse in terms of demographics, economics, geography, and history. A candidate that can win in South Carolina would get their ass handed to them in Oregon, and vice versa.

All politics is local.

[Doctor_J]

11. We gathered up huge majorities in 2008

Did you notice any Repukes or RWNJ's acting scared? Step one to getting out of trouble: Realize what trouble you're in.

[rhett o rick]

9. Believing this war is between D's and R's is a distraction. Just voting for D's isnt

the answer. The War is a class war between the 1% and their Republican and Conservative Democrat minions and the rest of us. We must elect progressive Democrats. Support moveon.org, Congressional Progressive Caucus, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, DFA, and PDA. Give your donations to these groups or to candidates directly.

[RBInMaine]

13. Many of those CAN NOT WIN in areas of the country. If you want to be small tent, enjoy LOSING ALL

THE TIME. Please, get yourself into the political realities of the ENTIRE nation. Kucinch type progressives WILL NOT WIN in many areas of the country. Better to have a moderate D than a crazed TeaBag R. That is the REAL world. That is REALITY.

[rhett o rick]

16. Ahh, I am blessed to know someone that is certain about REALITY (in caps no less).

Blue Dogs are Republicans in Democrat clothing. They will stab you in the back at first opportunity. People have been pushing this "least of evils" meme too long. It isnt working. The Senate for example is stymied. The Blue Dogs wont change the rules. And electing Blue Dogs to the HOR also has failed.

We need progressives to fight the conservatives both Republican and Democrat.

I think and open-minded person wouldnt be so "certain" about reality.

[Doctor_J]

10. Or, remembering 2008, not so much.

Having huge majorities in the Senate and House, and the WH, for two years was basically worthless. The only thing the DC Dems demonstrated during those two years was that they're weak and almost as conservative as the Repukes. All of the hope that brought people out in record numbers in 2008 was dashed by incompetence, complacency, and complicity.

If the Dem part wants lots of votes in 2014, they should spend the next 16 months earning them, instead of complaining about how they can't get anything done.

Edit: If you want to know why people don't show up to vote for DC "Dems", have a look here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017128553

[RBInMaine]

14. This is the very kind of nonsense that caused us to get the TeaBaggers we now have. We had the

MOST PROGRESSIVE amount of legislation since LBJ after 2008. Do you have any sense at all of how the Congress works?

No excuses ! NONE !

THE R'S CONTROL THE HOUSE ! THEY CAN BLOCK VOTES IN THE SENATE WHICH NEEDS 60 VOTES TO MOVE LEGISLATION ! What don't you understand about that???

These irrational and nonsensical out of reality purity notions are just exactly what SCREWED US OVER in 2010 and got us stuck with the TeaScum.

Enough of the irrational purity!

[rhett o rick]

17. The ship of state is rapidly sinking and you are ecstatic about the new paint job.

The reason that Congress was ineffective between 2008 and 2010 was because the progressives couldnt overcome the Republicans and their allies Blue Dog DINO's.

We must run the damn Blue Dogs out of our party. They are destroying it from within.

Seems you are satisfied with the progress in the last 5 years but millions of Americans arent. The 1% have gotten richer and the 99% have gotten worse off. No progress has been made on elimination of the Patriot Act and FISA spying.

[Maximumnegro]

19. Good job proving his point!

[rhett o rick]

20. Kinda funny how the centrists have control of the party but complain that the liberals are

responsible. What happened between 2008 and 2010 while the liberals were screaming to close Gitmo, get single payer passed, repeal the Patriot Act and domestic spying? What were the centrists doing? Why wont the centrists end the filibuster rule?

The centrists have control of the party making it kinda hard to blame the liberals.

[Doctor_J]

23. we had huge majorities for two years. The pragmatists

chose to pander to the party that the voters repudiated loudly in 2008. They reached out to the nra, kept gitmo open, kept torture going, took sp healthcare off the table, and so on. They decided to try to get some republicans to vote for the democrats instead of serving all of the new voters who showed up in 2008. If they take the same approach next year you can expect the same results. Here's a clue: being against torture does not make someone a purist. Expecting the party to get something done with huge congress majorities does not make someone a purist. And screaming at people who are going to vote democratic anyway makes you an ass, and a huge part of the problem.

[pkdu]

26. Please define , in the context of your post, the following terms...

1. "Huge Majorities " (assuming this meant both houses)
2. " two years" ( assuming it didnt actually mean 24 months)

[Jamaal510]

22. Even if you don't vote and get involved,

someone else will, and they will make the important decisions for you regardless of whether you like it or not. This is the lesson that must be drilled into the mind of every self-described progressive.

[woo me with science]

24. Learning are an imperative?

Apparently so.

[RBInMaine]

30. Yup, you caught me on that. The "lessons" ARE imperative, and "learning" IS. Fixed it.

I am aware of the proper grammar. Was hurrying. Fixed it.

[Kablooie]

25. It will be more unlikely than ever for Dems to regain power.

The red states have complete freedom to exclude anyone they wish from voting now.
You're going to see a lot of draconian voting requirements popping up just before each election. They will be carefully tuned to prevent as many Democratic constituancies from voting as they can.
We may see Republican power increase in government as a result no matter what the Democrats decide to do.

[Notafraidtoo]

27. I worry about 2014.

The gun obsessed are going to come out in droves as well as the homophobic, if we don't find a way to energize Democratic voters it may just very well be 2010 again.

[RBInMaine]

31. If after 2010 D's/Progressives are not "energized" then they will once again DESERVE exactly what

they got after 2010 and are still getting. If the disaster of 2010 and everything we have suffered isn't enough to "energize" them, then let them SUFFER MORE !

Or, they can learn the lesson, get off their asses, and take the TeaPukes to the woodshed.

I can say this. We will be VERY energized in Maine. The TeaBag governor is making sure of that.

[davidpdx]

28. I'm not so confident we have learned that lesson

2012 was a pretty good year, but toward the end the Republicans were pretty much crapping all over themselves (the senate candidates from Missouri and Indiana, and Romney and Ryan of course). The presidential election brings much higher turnout. We have a shitload of Ds in the Senate up for re-election and quite a few who are freshman (sidenote: I believe Merkley will easily get re-elected in Oregon). As you mentioned we lost a lot of key governor races and state legislatures. FL, WI, and MI all were overrun by the cockroaches.

I hope I'm wrong, but it will be a tough year.