Why if Republican's win big this November, the Democrats win big too.

[Meldread]

Before I even start this thread, I want to point out this isn't a "I hope Democrats lose" thread. This thread is devoted to strictly amoral Machiavellian strategic thinking.

Here is the way I see things currently:
- Democrats are spineless cowards, unable to whip their own party in line and pass a true progressive agenda with the largest majority in Congress that they've held in a generation.

- President Obama is weak in the sense that he does not command fear and respect of both the opposition and leaders within his own party.

- Bush was able to push through his radical agenda with even smaller majorities. The Democrats and the President have no excuse for failing to do the same with an even larger majority.

- The Republicans have shown us clearly the way to fight in Congress from the minority position, and even with astronomical losses we would not be in such a severe minority position as they currently find themselves today.

- If the Republicans win big, the wave will sweep in some of the most radical members of the Republican Party that we've ever seen.

- The Radical Republicans have an agenda that does not align with the Republican establishment, and in fact many hold no loyalty to the establishment at all. This means they will be difficult to control.

- Some currently elected Radical Republicans in the House have already indicated their desire for subpoena power - indicating that they want a replay of what was done to Bill Clinton in the 90's - probably something worse.

So here is my conclusion. Imagine Republican's win big. The wave will sweep in these uncontrollable radicals. The radicals will do what radicals always do - be uncontrollable, and go directly to the extreme. They will launch attack after attack on the White House, forcing Obama to either learn how to wield the power of the Presidency or be overwhelmed and forced out of office.

I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no excuse for Obama. It might be better if he learns the hard way, that you must crush your enemies completely, not only in body but in spirit as well. The Democratic Party was in a strong position after his election to President, we had the largest majorities we've held in a generation, and he was extremely popular across the board. It's true that both he and the party could not have remained at such a height indefinitely, but he should have used that time to crush the Republicans - who by contrast were the weakest they've ever been - completely. He should have plotted and schemed for a way to cripple the Republican Party so bad that it would take generations for them to recover, assuming they were not simply taken out by a third party rising to fill the void.

Instead, he and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership have learned a hard lesson. That by allowing just a tiny ember to be left alight, no matter how weakly it seemed to smolder, that it can still catch fire. Now, more will be lost because the Democratic Party and the President stopped half way rather than going for total destruction of their enemy: The Republicans have recovered, and are now seeking revenge.

If the Republican's win they will have to learn the hard lessons of failure, and if they learn that lesson they should vow not to repeat the mistake in the future.

The one ray of light is this: If the Republicans should win big, and the Democrats learn from their mistakes and begin to play hardball, then whatever gains Republicans make in 2010 will be lost in 2012. If the President learns how to wield his power effectively and uses it against both Republicans and members of the Democratic Party that stray from the line then he has a high chance of being re-elected in 2012 in a massive landslide.

Despite the fact that I feel the President is not as strong as he could potentially be, with the economy the way it is his approval rating is amazingly high. People like him personally. They may not agree with him, but they genuinely like him as an individual. That can be used to his advantage, indeed, he must learn how to leverage his personal likability and use it as a weapon.

I believe that played right, a defeat in 2010 can lead to a huge and massive victory in 2012, most likely off setting any losses we make in 2010. It also creates a clear and easy enemy for the President and the Party to attack and blame for all the problems the country is experiencing. However, a great deal hinges on the President's and Party's ability and willingness to grow a spine, learn from their mistakes, and become absolutely ruthless with their enemies - because that is what Republican's are - our enemies.

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. IF the Republicans win big (which I hope they don't), I will fear for the irreparable damage

that they could potentially to to our country. Sure, there would (or at least should) be a backlash....but only disaster can come from having such unfitting, undeserving and inappropriate people in office as those on the right (in the traditional sense) or in the tea category (in the faux sense).

So the best thing for all is to get out there and work for Dems and ensure people are energized to go and vote!

[Meldread]

6. Of course no one WANTS Republican's to win.

However, we all know the truth of things is this: It's not a matter of **IF** Republican's win, but rather by how much they are going to win. It is certainly good for us if we can keep their victories small, and in the short term it will energize the party.

On the other hand, Democrats have failed to deliver with such a historical majority. The only thing that is certain is that their majority will get smaller. How are they going to be more effective with an even smaller majority, when with the numbers they currently have, they struggle so hopelessly? It's not as if the Republican's will suddenly change after the election and begin working with Democrats.

That. Is. Never. Going. To. Happen.

It can only get worse for Democrats, and if they have the majority in both the House and the Congress, in 2012 they're destined to be blamed for whatever bad things that happen between the election and then - including the economy if it doesn't improve. This could hurt us in 2012.

The downside to Republican's taking control of Congress is the fact that they will wield subpoena power and use it aggressively. They will also control the legislative agenda. This means that whatever trickle of goodness the Democrats were able to get passed the Congress will end, and the Congress would officially be thrown into permanent gridlock. Even if Congressional Democrats allowed things to get passed, the President still wields the veto power, and it's absolutely certain that Republican's are not going to be able to pass anything but the absolutely least controversial stuff with a veto proof majority.

Really, that's the position that I see ourselves currently sitting in - it's not a good place to be. My point in making this thread was not to say losing is a good thing, but rather point out that even if we lose we can still win in the long run because it will not be hard to turn things to our advantage.

[walldude]

2. Well, if the Republicans win

it will certainly be interesting watching them try to out crazy each other. Too bad they'll probably sink us in the process.

[lonestarnot]

15. And they're trying to take over the water supply in AZ already.

:evilgrin:

[jesus_of_suburbia]

3. Your post is spot on.

... but you will be skewered by the usual crowd for criticizing the President and his weakness in the wake of his historical mandate.




Kick and Rec.

[pgodbold]

4. What he/she said. Perfectly I might add. nt

[ProSense]

5. ""there is absolutely no excuse for Obama. It might be better if he learns the hard way"

Don't agree. There were those who made a similar in 2004 because they couldn't understand why Bush was still polling high. They said maybe what this country needs is to hit rock bottom to realize that the policies aren't working.

Fast forward: The millions suffering now would certainly not agree with that.

[DainBramaged]

7. Really?

The Republicans turned the message around on the President,and he had no effective way to respond. He continued to think he could 'work' with the Right.


I posted this last November. It is now true.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7028765

Unless we come up with a coherent media strategy to counter the Repuke message machine

am very fearful we are going to lose seats in the coming election. Our leaders (Reid and Pelosi) are totally ineffective at countering the noise from the RNC and Faux bullshit. We don't have ANYONE even remotely like Frank Luntz, and because of this the Pukes are put out front EVERY DAY shooting their message like fireworks in a black sky, while all we can do is deny and look foolish trying to deny their lies.


I don't care what some of you may think about the high ground, the high ground doesn't win elections, and it's obvious from the health care reform debacle, he who is in charge of the media wins.


We have to take back the media and learn to attack instead of always giving ground. Our lines in the sand are meaningless. Someone on the Left needs to take the proverbial bull by the horns and coordinate OUR message to the media, not the RNC's.

[Meldread]

9. Exactly!

That is exactly the way I view things as well. I don't believe in the high ground bullshit. The only way I could tolerate the Democratic Party message of "lets work with the Republicans" is if the Republicans actually displayed a willingness to work with Democrats and concede ground on THEIR end (not on ours). Too often when it comes to negotiations it's Democrats and Progressives who sacrifice... what do Republicans and conservatives sacrifice? Nothing. Then, like with health care, even after all of our sacrificing we STILL do not get Republican votes.

I hate Republicans, but at least I can respect them for their willingness to fight for what they believe in, no matter the fact what they believe in is horrific - at least they fight for it. At least they're willing to make a stand, and cut the throat of any Republican who attempts to deviate too far from the herd. Democrats are the complete and utter opposite, and for that reason I find it hard to have any respect for them at all, even if I do agree (more often than not) with their message and beliefs - the only problem is that they're unwilling to fight for them.

[ProSense]

11. Maybe

there should be a bumper sticker: "We cave to teach our leaders a lesson."

[Meldread]

13. Who said anything about caving?

If I had it my way, the Republican's wouldn't be the only ones tossing out their elected leaders in Primaries. I don't believe in teaching our leaders a lesson by allowing the other side to win, I believe in teaching our leaders a lesson by systematically destroying those who betray us and replacing them with those who'll do what we demand of them.

The Republican's FEAR their base, and when they stray off the reservation, their base rises up to punish them. Democrats openly mock their base (us), distance themselves from us, and abandon long held principles. I believe Democrats should fear us just as much as Republican's fear their own base.

If not for the Republican base, I am certain that there are many Republican's in Congress who would have worked across the isle, but it was that fear that kept them in line - Democrats need to know that same fear.

Otherwise, we're simply going to face more election cycles just like this one. You cannot win by playing the Republican's game or giving into their positions.

[ProSense]

18. That's just how I see it. Besides

"I believe in teaching our leaders a lesson by systematically destroying those who betray us and replacing them with those who'll do what we demand of them."

That is not the only thing you're advocating.

From the OP: "I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no excuse for Obama. It might be better if he learns the hard way..."

Sorry, I don't agree with that. You think there is a lesson to be learned by allowing "those who betray us" to gain power?

[Meldread]

20. You're viewing what I wrote in the incorrect context.

My OP was about how a potential defeat could be turned to our advantage. I was not advocating defeatism or saying that it was a good thing, merely that it could be a good thing because it could potentially FORCE the President and the Democrats to fight back. It would place them in a position in which, if they refused to fight back, they would be destroyed.

As I later said, it is my belief that if placed in such a position the President and most Democratic members of Congress would overcome it. They'd find their spine, fight back, and become stronger and more effective as a result.

That's far different from saying, 'We should lose because those we've elected are weak and cowardly.'

The correct context, 'If we lose big, we have the potential to turn a bad situation to our advantage for the 2012 election cycle, and recover all that we've lost.'

[ProSense]

22. No,

"My OP was about how a potential defeat could be turned to our advantage."

I understood the context, I don't agree with the premise. People should not have to suffer for the sake of the Party learning a lesson.

[DainBramaged]

23. Do you honestly think, the way the Party has handled THEIR message, we will win?

It's known as cutting our losses. And you can't change anything we say, no matter how hard you try, these are our words, and if you are trying to propagandize our words, you are barking up the wrong tree.

[ProSense]

See, this is where we differ

Health care reform, Wall Street Reform and Elizabeth Warren's appointment survived the media frame to declare them dead. I see failed attempts by the GOP, despite their ability to con the public with the help of the media.

And here we are: surprise!

[Meldread]

26. Where did I say people should suffer for the sake of the Party?

If people suffer then it is the fault of elected Democratic leaders for not fighting hard enough to prevent the Republicans from making a resurgence. It is also the fault of the Republicans who make bad policy. Finally, it is the fault of the people who placed them into power - both those who voted for the Republicans and those who refused to vote.

If suffering occurs as a result, it's not so that the party can learn a lesson; it occurs as a consequence of the parties failure. The lesson that would be (hopefully) learned is also a consequence of the parties failure.

[ProSense]

27. Who do you think

will suffer based on the title of your OP: "Why if Republican's win big this November, the Democrats win big too."

[Meldread]

28. No one.

What is meant by the OP title becomes clear by reading the entire message: If Republican's win big, the Democrats have the potential to turn things around and win big in 2012.

Unless, of course, you believe that we should find ourselves in a similar or worse position in 2012?

[ProSense]

29. Sorry, don't agree

"If Republican's win big, the Democrats have the potential to turn things around and win big in 2012."

Didn't agree when Clinton said it, and still don't.

Republicans winning big increases the potential that people will suffer between now and 2012, and offers no guarantee.

This isn't about setting up a success for Democrats in 2012.

[Meldread]

30. You seem to believe that...

...if Democrats win that there will be no suffering. That's false. The truth of the matter is not whether Republicans will win, but by how much they'll win. The goal of the Democrats currently is not to defeat Republicans, but rather keep to their victories to the absolute minimum. We should certainly do that, but the way I see things is different.

Since Democrats have proven that they struggle to get anything passed with their historical majority, and their majority is absolutely CERTAIN to shrink in size, how will they then get anything done at all? The Republicans will not suddenly decide to assist in governance, they will continue their current policy. As a result suffering will continue, and because Democrats would control the Congress they'd be blamed for that suffering. This could in turn result in larger losses in 2012 - perhaps even the Presidency. The Republicans could then potentially control both houses of Congress and the Presidency, and then can carry out their agenda as they see fit.

The end result is that people are going to suffer no matter what, and the suffering will continue until Democrats have the ability to exercise the same type of power Republicans are able to exercise with a smaller majority.

We both agree that suffering is bad, and neither of us want to see it occur, where we disagree is in the belief that Democrats can somehow prevent it by mitigating their losses in 2010.

[ProSense]

31. Wait

"You seem to believe that...

if Democrats win that there will be no suffering. That's false. The truth of the matter is not whether Republicans will win, but by how much they'll win. The goal of the Democrats currently is not to defeat Republicans, but rather keep to their victories to the absolute minimum. We should certainly do that, but the way I see things is different."

No, people will suffer, but Democrats will work to ease the suffering.

Your argument seems to be that there is no difference between the parties? So why would Democrats losing now, resulting in a big win for Republican change anything 2012? The lesson, they're supposed to learn?

What lesson did Republicans learn by losing big in 2008?

[Meldread]

33. Nope.

That's not what I'm saying at all. It's certainly true that some elected Democrats would work to ease the suffering that people are experiencing. The only problem is that there are a handful of Democrats out there who are either actively betraying the party or who are too cowardly to fight. Thus, the desire of some to do good is undermined by the fact that the handful of Democrats of which I speak either inadvertently or willfully play into Republican hands.

There is a difference between the two parties - at least when you compare the two bases. The problem is that too many Democrats actively abandon the base, mocking us - calling us the professional left as an example - or actively seek to undermine our progressive values out of fear. (Not fear of us, mind you, but fear of our enemies - the Republicans and their Conservative base.)

Losing will not directly result in victory in 2012. That's not my point. My point is that if Democrats learn to fight for the values that the party holds, refuse to play into the Republican games or give into their pressure, we'll achieve victory not only in 2012 but in future elections as well. That is, after all, what you want - you want to end the suffering that is constantly inflicted upon us by Republican policies. The only way to do that is to force Democrats to fight for Progressive policies.

[ProSense]

35. In theory

"The only problem is that there are a handful of Democrats out there who are either actively betraying the party or who are too cowardly to fight. "

If the choice came down to any Democrat over a Republican to keep a gavel in Barbara Boxer's hand, I'm all for it. The time to fight is long past. This is crunch time, and the choice is Democrat or Republican.

[Meldread]

37. Who here, in this thread, is advocating anything different?

Who is advocating that either:

A) We should sit home and not vote.
B) That we should vote for the Republican.
C) That we should vote for a Third Party.

Give names.

Actually, you don't have to waste your time, because the answer is: No one. This thread is merely discussing the strategic implications of what to do --IF-- we lose big in November. That's exactly what I said in my first opening paragraph in the OP. To quote it directly: "Before I even start this thread, I want to point out this isn't a "I hope Democrats lose" thread. This thread is devoted to strictly amoral Machiavellian strategic thinking."

[DainBramaged]

32. This is what they believe.......

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=450006


In this election year, progressives are facing a rare opportunity: the chance to build a governing majority that can last.

While much of the attention is understandably focused on the presidential race, there will also be vital elections at the congressional level nationwide. It is in Congress that progressives can deliver a legislative program that helps working families, promotes our national security, and builds a prosperous and healthy future for our children and grandchildren.

This new, updated version of the Democratic Leadership Council's (DLC) Congressional Agenda is devoted to helping progressives make the most of this opportunity.

The proposals that follow represent some of the most promising ideas for modern solutions grounded in the progressive movement's commitment to opportunity, responsibility, security, and reform.



Did they ever think of changing the page to reflect current affairs?

[ProSense]

34. Who is they?

"In this election year, progressives are facing a rare opportunity: the chance to build a governing majority that can last. "

Where is this happening? Who are these progressives and what campaigns and GOTV efforts are they engaged in?

There are progressives fighting to help keep the Democratic majorities, and they are not predicting defeat or claiming some good will come of it.

Senator Boxer fought for her lead. Senator Feingold is struggling. I don't see what lesson is to be learned by Dems losing.

I don't see "rare opportunity" in people debating whether or not they should vote and seemingly campaigning against the President by declaring his efforts a failure or his position a sellout to corporate interest.

[ProSense]

10. "Unless we come up with a coherent media strategy to counter the Repuke message machine" Oh please

It's funny how people love to claim that it's the elected Dems (Our leaders (Reid and Pelosi) are totally ineffective ) who are weak and ineffective while they continue to give the GOP credit for their BS non message being advanced by the GOP shill media

Republicans suck, and I don't buy the BS that their ability to con the public is a result of effective messaging.

[DainBramaged]

12. Really?

Who owns the MSM? We certainly don't......



http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart/main


You are trying to change what I wrote, it's not happening. I was CHRYSTAL clear. and If you don't want to accept it, prove me wrong. So far you can't and you won't not now not by November 2nd.

[ProSense]

14. Wait

From your previous comment: "We don't have ANYONE even remotely like Frank Luntz"

The great Frank Luntz?

Pffft!


"Who owns the MSM? We certainly don't......"

Who said we did, and what does that have to do with the merits of the Republicans' argument?

[DainBramaged]

16. Wait, where are you going? Oh the road to distraction I get it.

The Republicans HAVE no merit to their arguments, I never said they did, I only said we don't have an effective machine to counter theirs, the MSM or Frank Luntz.


SHould I repeat it in bold and large?

[ProSense]

19. Hmmm?

Reconcile your two statements:

"The Republicans turned the message around on the President,and he had no effective way to respond."

"The Republicans HAVE no merit to their arguments, I never said they did, I only said we don't have an effective machine to counter theirs, the MSM or Frank Luntz."

Again with Frank Luntz?

[DainBramaged]

21. Is there a problem my referring to

FRANK LUNTZ

or are you a fan? We have NO ONE like him, he is the man who gives the Right-wing the message.

Or didn't you know that?




That's a picture with his good toupee.


For those of you who don't know who Frankie is, check here

http://www.theworddoctors.com/

[ProSense]

24. Yes

"We have NO ONE like him, he is the man who gives the Right-wing the message."

You previously said: "The Republicans HAVE no merit to their arguments"

He gives them arguments that have no merit? So what?

The problem is the media, screw Luntz.

[DainBramaged]

25. it was fun, goodnight

keep trying to prop the Party up. We are all in for a rude rude awakening November 2nd. And WE including YOU the Party, let it slip away.

you should have JUST ASKED US instead of alienating us as whiners.


Good night, have fun talking to an empty audience.

[lonestarnot]

17. Or effective anything but bankruptcy and suffering for anyone but the rich.

[Meldread]

8. I understand what you're saying.

I would certainly prefer what I wrote to be false. I wish the Democrats and the President were doing such an amazing job that the Republicans were looking at another historical loss in this election cycle. But that isn't where we stand.

My point in this thread was not to say losing was a good thing, or even a desirable thing, but instead to point out that even if we do lose big we have the potential to turn such a loss to our advantage.

I do believe that it would help the President if he actually had to deal with the most evil, most vile, and most contemptible the Republicans could throw at him. I believe this because I ultimately think he will prove successful and over come it, rising to an even greater height and becoming stronger and more effective as a result. Since it's likely that he'll be re-elected in 2012 either by a huge margin or a horrifyingly thin one, I'd prefer him to start his next term in the strongest position possible.

[deaniac21]

36. Brilliant!

[classysassy]

38. If the republicans win in November 2010

Their 2012 attempt to further destroy America will meet with a dismal failure,after two years of disgusting and failed policies the majority of Americans will see what a terrible mistake they made in 2010 and maybe they will be just a bad memory in future years.