Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

I have heard or read very little from liberal muckity mucks last evening, or this morning, about the total collapse of the Democratic base in yesterdays elections.  What was more important on the to do list yesterday than stopping by the polls to cast a vote?   I did however catch Kos, linked to via the Huffington Post, crying and whining and making excuses for the failure of the base to turnout.

If this guy is supposed to be one of the leaders of the liberal movement, then the liberal movement is in trouble if you ask me.

Kos let the whining and crying begin.   "If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary bipartisanship, you will lose votes", he writes.   Gee, it took conservatives 40 years get to the point where they were ready to cut off their noses to spite their faces.   People like Kos want to seriously do better than that!   They can get there in just 2 years.  

Another gem from Kos, "If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes."  This is similar to his first point.  It's more of the same childish 'I'm not getting my way and I'm gonna take my blankie and go suck my thumb' bullshit.   Nothing worth doing in our government has ever been done quickly.   That is just cold hard fact.  It is reality.   Wingnuts are the supposed to be the ones who can't deal with reality.

The last of 3 points made by Kos is just dumb.   "If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes."  Seriously, this guy is supposed to be somebody in the liberal movement?   Seriously?   Last I checked all those items are high on the agenda.   Last I checked Democrats in Congress - liberals and moderates alike - are working hard and expending political capital to move these items.   Kos makes it sound as if they are off working on other things and have back burnered this stuff.   They haven't.

I sometimes admire the Republicans.   They never lose sight of their goal line.   They always are ready for a fight, if for no other reason than to take it to someone with a (D) in front of their name.    They know that when a Democrat wins it is bad news for them, it is a lost opportunity.   Granted after 40 years, this may be ending, the Republican kook fringe may be splintering off.   But do liberal Democrats want to copy that behavior now, after Obama has been in office for just 11 months?   After we've controlled Congress for only a couple of years?

Are the Nadarites who cried that there wasn't a "dimes worth of difference" between Al Gore and George W. Bush set to make a comeback?   Do we really forget that quickly?  

I have another theory why the base didn't show up.   Maybe the base is just lazy and complacent and thinks that showing up in 2008 was enough.  That they'd won and President Obama would make all well overnight.   It doesn't work that way.

Think about what was lost in Virginia.   You have 8 years of hard fought Democratic efforts by Warner and Kaine that will now be at the mercy of a Republican Gov who was allowed to win without so much as a fight from the left.   I thought Tim Kaine was one of the good guys?   Is that the best way to honor his efforts?  

I really hope some people pull their head of their asses and realize that a movement is not a sprint, they are marathons.  By working and organizing and fundraising and attacking Democrats for 40 years Republicans came within a Bush / McCain of their dream of being able to stack the Supreme Court with a far right majority for decades.  What could liberals accomplish if we fight just as hard for 40 years and never lose sight of the goal line?

Tags: 2009 off year elections, cry babies, Kos, liberals, Nadarites (all tags)

Comments

73 Comments

Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

Is that you Rahm?

by JasonMoreland 2009-11-04 08:00AM | 0 recs
No its not.

by RichardFlatts 2009-11-04 08:07AM | 0 recs
Did anyone take into account

the reason the Democratic base "collapsed" was because this wasn't a national election and they just didn't care. In the daya and weeks before this election, I didn't see anyone talking about in my age group, and I live in New Jersey. No one cared, the World Series is on, it's Football season, whatever.

I think we need to stop overanalyzing...The Democrats almost never led in either governor's race, and they actually won the damn race Upstate. Oh, and did we fail to mention how Bloomberg was nearly defeated?

And if it is true, that only true progressive causes bring out Democratic voters, explain Maine kos.

by ND22 2009-11-04 08:28AM | 0 recs
Deed ran to the Right

and lost the Left

And Corzine was IIRC fairly unpopular even before Obama became President. The State of New Jersey hired a Wall Street multi-millionaire four years ago hoping it would do for New Jersey what he did for Wall Street. Mission accomplished, he set both up for crippling failure.

http://www.wfmz.com/view/?id=245823 per this article Corzine was running a 52% unpopularity rating in April of 2008

And he only took 78% in a Democratic primary against token opposition in June
http://www.politickernj.com/wallye/30277 /corzine-held-78-non-competitive-democra tic-primary

Really the only regret progressives should have is that these two states will have Republican governors to sign the next re-districting bill, the two Dems are not big losses in themselves.

by Bruce Webb 2009-11-04 11:49AM | 0 recs
Deeds never had the left

nobody in Virginia ever "had" the left. In both cases, Democrats trailed in 95% of the polls for the past year.

by ND22 2009-11-04 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

I smell Rahm's greasy presence here

by tarheel74 2009-11-04 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites
I love the way you Blog Birchers try to make excuses for your Egyptian river cruises.
Actually, the RW of the GOP has been quite proficient at cutting off its nose to spites its face over the years--I can think of three Congressional seats (two in the Senate and one in the House) that have went from Republican to Democrat years ago in part beacause of the same kind of right wing hissy fits that made NY-23 Blue Tuesday--and have never gone back.
With Republcians winning the Presidency, often in a rout, the Flying Monkeys could get away with it.
But now those chickens may be coming home to roost.
The peopkle who say that VA and NJ were lost due to local uissues and poor candidates are right. Those who think the ideological purity stuff  from sites like Kos, DU and Bartcop are right too.
Elected Dems will hae to live in the real world and that place consists of more than little old lefties in tennis shoes.
by spirowasright 2009-11-05 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

Unless Markos is saying that he himself didn't bother to vote, it sounds like he's just making empirical statements to me.

The fact that you get more votes if you energize your base, and you get fewer votes if you don't, is just reality and I sure hope no one denies it.

You can rant and rave all you want about how "well, if that's how the base behaves, then the base sucks!" but successful politicians figure out how to prevail given the realities of human behavior.  There's a reason we spend millions of dollars on this thing called GOTV.

I live in one of the most Democratic counties in New Jersey.  A year ago I had to wait an hour in line to vote for Barack Obama.  This year it was literally just me and some old lady.  That's a problem.  It's not Obama's fault, but it sure becomes a problem for him if the same thing happens for the midterms next year.

by Steve M 2009-11-04 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

That was exactly his point. That if you depress your base, you are not going to win a base election in 2010. It is not rocket science. But, for some (probably conservadems and Blue Dogs), the very idea of pointing this out gets in the way of the narrative that some were already trying to run today that "no, it is that the party needs to run to right." It is similar to last night when you pointed out in response to the hyperbole that when one says don't depress your base this equates to a Department of Peace in some people's mind. The point is to argue anyone mentioning the failed strategies of conservadems when you are facing a base election is a "dirty hippie who does not plan to vote."

by bruh3 2009-11-04 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

OK I may be stepping into something I should just stay away from, but . . . when has that ever stopped me before.

NJ Corzine was in trouble even with his base. I don't think any amount of outreach could have saved him in the long run.

And Deeds good grief could anybody have run a worse campaign.

If this is a referendum on anything I agree with Kos run better candidates. Where I might disagree - this doesn't mean more progressive or more moderate just better candidates. Democratic candidates that can not only appeal too your based in your district or your state, but a large enough swath of indies to get elected. Deeds nor Corzine were not this candidate.

by jsfox 2009-11-04 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

The Democratic base just hasn't quite gotten over Reagan, in spite of Dubya's demonstrated incompetence. If it were not for the economic collapse, we wouldn't even be here. But now, due to poor salesmanship on our part, perhaps Obama's dumb appeal to bipartisanship, the average American today believes that all of our economic problems were instigated by the Democrats or even him.

Hard to believe, but...that's my view. Bush is hiding out for good reason, but who even remembers him.

by MainStreet 2009-11-04 01:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

What are you trying to say with this:  The Democratic base just hasn't quite gotten over Reagan?  Do you think the Democratic base adores Reagan?  If so, I find that to be typical Reagan-idolizing revisionist history.

by orestes 2009-11-04 01:22PM | 0 recs
The average American

still blames Bush for the economy, even Rasmussen agrees.

by ND22 2009-11-04 01:33PM | 0 recs
Re: The average American

The average American blames anyone on the ballot, which is what the polls were saying when they said they were worried about the economy. They look at who they think is in charge to blame them. It did not affected national democrats because there was not a national election last night. It would be a mistake to assume this means they don't blame us. The truth is that they don't blame us "yet."

by bruh3 2009-11-04 02:32PM | 0 recs
It helps to understand

that every incumbent defeated or nearly defeated last night was in office prior to the economic collapse...a fact that isn't true with Obama.

by ND22 2009-11-04 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: It helps to understand

The funny thing is Kos's  thesis is wider than Obama. It is about any national Democrat generally trying to run to the right as a response to last night.

As to your argument, Deeds was not governor of Virginia.

by bruh3 2009-11-04 03:19PM | 0 recs
No, but Tim Kaine was

and Tim Kaine belongs to the same political party as Deeds. Hence the polls that showed Kaine too would have trouble against McDonnell had he run for reelection

Deeds lost for a lot of reasons, the number one reason being that he just couldn't appeal to voters. He didn't have to run as a true and blue progressive, he just had to get out Democratic voters...but he also lost because he belonged to the same party as the previous guy who was governing the state when the economic crisis happened.

by ND22 2009-11-04 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: No, but Tim Kaine was

We are not living in the time that Kaine ran. He was a bad candidate as well, but won anyway. So, that can not be the criteria upon which Deeds lost. What mattered was as you said that there was no contrast, but you seem to underestimate how that contrast (good versus evil, black hats versus white hats, good guys versus the bad guys) with clear policy goals (read values) provides the emotional fuel. I truly believe a good strong populist message could have won in Virginia.  That's Kos's whole point- that we did not contrast how we would be for the little guy. There are Democrats fretting saying we should run right. Kos's point is if you do that, you are headed towards further loses because you are providing no contrast that will excite your base. In 2005, the contrast was that the GOP and Bush were still out there- we saw their policies. We saw what Kaine offered in contrast. By the same token, Deeds offered very little contrast as a Democrat with his times.

by bruh3 2009-11-04 03:43PM | 0 recs
In no way shape or form

was Tim Kaine a bad candidate in 2005, way to shoot your credibility on anything.

by ND22 2009-11-04 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: In no way shape or form

Do you think making bare assertions here makes you some how seem like you know what you are talking about? You keep doing this. You will admit X is a variable, and then shot it down without any reason other than you have decided through conclusionary stataments all you own that it is not. Now, I pointed out a candidate was bad in what is my opinion considering his style of discussing issues, and framing them, but only got through do to the times he was running and you call this a sign of my bad credibility. Your response is a sign that you are just seeking to argue for arguments sake, and have not thought about it much other than talking points. For the record, he was a bad candidate regardless of the fact he won. Bad meaning were it not for his times which provided easy built in contrasts, I doubt he would have had a shot. Versus now, where people need to underlying how they contrast with another politician now that the easy reference of Bush is not there. In other words, the same dynamic is at play as before. The difference is that they must put more effort into it than 'Not Bush." Just because others have no come to my conclusions about dynamics does not mean it is wrong. You may want to start to think for yourself.

by bruh3 2009-11-05 03:34AM | 0 recs
Re: In no way shape or form

I will re-write my statement:

He was not a candidate who could have provided contrast. He was in  a time period where contrast was easy due to the circumstances. That does not mean he was a particularly good candidate as his  response to the president's speech illustrated. This keeps coming back to the ability of a candidate to energize voters by giving them a reason to vote for them. A good candidate will make that contrast and energy. A bad one will simply go through the motions.

by bruh3 2009-11-05 03:41AM | 0 recs
If I have to bet, I'll bet on Markos

Markos has consistently been in touch with the democratic electorate and progressive movement.

There is a reason why he is called to be on Meet the Press while other democratic bloggers... have not.

That said, he was just speaking empirically.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-11-04 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

How are you defining "the base"?  I have not had time to follow any of the analysis of yesterday's results (and frankly find most of what is said in the media to be facile and irrelevant), so perhaps I am missing something.  But I would expect it is the people who could not get energized to vote for the Dem candidate as the ones who disappointed.  I wouldn't tend to think of these people as the base at all.

You have placed me in the unpleasant position of having to defend Markos.  If he is to be considered an activist, I think the use of threats (see, this is what will happen if you don't move to the left) is completely appropriate.  The republican party had its ascendancy because it listened to the conservatives, who brought along the votes.  I think the same approach is needed from the left.  Make demands, cut off heads, use your power.  That is how you build a movement.  The repubs. collapsed because of their values, not their methods (well, excluding their illegal methods).

by orestes 2009-11-04 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

I would argue that conservatives for many many years had to put up with their own canidates enacting policies they hated but they stayed with their party and moved incrementally.   They didn't start to unravel until they started demanding more and more strict orthodoxy.

Look where we are on guns right now.   The conservatives have won on that.   But they didn't win it over night.   It took them years.   We can't come close to passing the assault weapons ban again.

Look at tax rates on wealthy Americans.   They have largely won.   Rates have come down, down and down over time for the wealthy Americans, they have not gone up.

The Supreme Court is another example.   It is a conservative court.   To get there they had to put up with a lot of pro-choice appointees, but they got there and if not for Bush, could quite possibly had the last piece of the anti-abortion puzzle if they had won last Nov.

Conservatives didn't just give up in the 80s when Reagan passed an amnesty for illegials or appointed Sandra Day O'Connor.   They kept at it.   Many liberals don't seem to have the same stamina.   They'd rather give up and let the Republicans win when they lose a inter-party skirmish here or there.

by RichardFlatts 2009-11-04 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

I am one of the "base", and if you enact policies that betray your promises and betray the bedrock values of the Democratic party then no, of course I will not support you, won't vote, and won't donate a dime. Simple. You screw me, I screw you. No fancy analysis needed here.

Liberals lacked the backbone needed to get our values enacted, and many allowed a climate of corruption to prevail in our party, which undermined many of our better policy prescriptions. That is why conservatives have won the victories you cite. Our fault entirely. Until we stand up for our principles none of them will prevail. I refuse to give energy and money to a party that no longer represents me.

by 07rescue 2009-11-04 11:49AM | 0 recs
Lets be real world here

Where is your tipping point?

If they deliver on an issue for you, but didn't get all you wanted done on the issue, do you cast them aside?

If they deliver on 3 issues and fail on two do you still bail and turn it back over to the Republicans?  

How do liberals and moderates co-exist in a party in your mind, or are you a Democratic version of Beck, who thinks moderates need to go?  

How does all that work for you?  

I'd be interested to know.

by RichardFlatts 2009-11-04 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Lets be real world here

It's really immaterial what my personal tipping point is, and it would deflect this overall discussion if I replied to that and allowed a nitpicky argument to derail this thread, as you appear to hope to do. The point is that for many of us in the base, that tipping point has already been reached where we no longer will lift a finger to assist in getting people elected who do not represent us.

The Democratic party is already losing seats because too many of us will not support it with our votes, volunteerism, or dollars. Many of us are the long time foot soldiers of the party, and when we sit home, the Democratic Party loses. So whether the elected Democrats choose to get some spine on more of the issues the base holds dear will determine how many of us will ever get back on board. No need to elaborate or be specific which issues those are.

No supply of corporate and lobby dollars will supplant the need for the real life support of friends, family, and neighbors getting out the votes. We are the lifeblood, the people who really care and are capable of the long term dedication a party needs to survive and thrive. Many of us cannot be bought.

Most dangerous of all, when we decide to work against candidates who betray true Democratic Party ideals, even though they are nominally Democrats, we are very effective. Sell us out at your risk.

by 07rescue 2009-11-04 06:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

Members of the Democratic base don't hang out at RedState, cheer for Republicans and complain about the "liberal media" while claiming that Fox News really IS the "most fair and balanced".  Who exactly do you think you are fooling?

by thatrangeofshadesbetweenredandbluestuff 2009-11-04 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

Can you cite examples of some of these policies that conservatives put up with for years from their republican leaders?  My recollection is that any failure was attributable to the leftist media, leftist politicians, etc. not a party stance that betrayed their values.  The examples you do cite are inapposite.  The republicans have always taken a hard line on gun control.  I don't recall the republicans endorsing the brady bill or any other gun control measures.  Same with lowering taxes on the wealthy.  

I don't know if you're being insincere in your statements or just don't have enough sense of recent political history.  To say that conservatives were not happy with O'Connor is simply wrong.  O'Connor was extremely conservative.  It is only because she had a modicum of a brain that she was viewed as centrist in her later years.  That was more a reflection of how loony Scalia, Thomas, et al. are than how moderate she was.  Look at her fourth amendment jurisprudence if you want to get a sense of her views.

Finally, I do not believe the republican party really wants to overturn Roe.  It is a huge recruiting tool.  More importantly, the result of overturning Roe would be a public relations nightmare for the republicans and they know it.  

by orestes 2009-11-04 01:19PM | 0 recs
Ok, here's a bunch

-abortion
-school prayer
-flat tax/tax reform
-entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare)
-Welfare
-flag burning

during the Cold War, conservatives had to consistently deal with what they saw as weakness from their party on taking on the Soviet Union.

by ND22 2009-11-04 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Ok, here's a bunch

Please explain how the republican party eschewed these agenda items.  You are conflating failure with moderating their position.  Three of these items are controlled by the supreme court, not the legislature.  They have certainly done everything they could to create the most conservative court possible.  And they did introduce anti-flag burning, pro-school prayer legislation nonetheless.

by orestes 2009-11-04 01:40PM | 0 recs
No, everything can be done legislatively

Ever hear of the Hatch Amendment?

That and the flag burning and school prayer legislations did not pass. Isn't that what progressives are upset about, legislation not passing? If all that needed to be done to please the base is introducing legislation, we should be ecstatic considering single payer, DOMA repeal, DADT repeal, and EFCA have all been introduced.

by ND22 2009-11-04 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: No, everything can be done legislatively

If you follow the discussion you will see that I responded to what I believe is a false statement that conservatives put up with "enacting policies they hated" for years.  So, you misunderstand the focus of this discussion.  I have still not seen any support for the notion put forward by the diarist.  

by orestes 2009-11-05 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Ok, here's a bunch

This is not the base. The base is the average American worrying about his or her job being shipped abroad and worrying that they are faced with double digit unemployment with no health insurance or insurance that will bankrupt them. That's the base that did not show up last night because they saw no reason to show up based on what candidates like Deeds was offering. If you read some analysis of the election in Virginia, what it says is that his numbers were starting to rise before he mentioned his disapproval of the public option (as I remember), but it declined after. This is the base.

by bruh3 2009-11-04 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

Heck at every Republican conventions for cycle after cycle they have been told their nominee if elected will support an amendment recognizing the fetus as living or whatever language they use in their platform.   They never bring forth such an amendment.  

by RichardFlatts 2009-11-04 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

That is not the same as putting up with policies they hated for years.  The clear implication of that statement is that the party affirmatively promoted (many, you seem to want to imply) policies that conservatives rejected.  Yet you have not provided any examples.  Without such examples, your thesis is unsupported.

by orestes 2009-11-05 10:14AM | 0 recs
Recently

the medicare prescription drug benefitwas very unpopular with conservatives.  Yet they stuck with Bush in 2004.

Contra to your assertion, conservatives were never happy with O'Connor.  They opposed her nomination back in 1981 because they correctly predicted she would be unwilling to overturn Roe v. Wade.

by JJE 2009-11-04 02:11PM | 0 recs
The base was energized in 2008

by two things: rage over 8 years of Bush/Cheney, and Obama novelty.  Nothing is going to bring that back.  Not passing a single-payer health-care bill, not pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan and closing Gitmo tomorrow, not anything.  Pols should strategize accordingly.

by JJE 2009-11-04 12:53PM | 0 recs
If progressive policies are all that's needed

to "excite the base" and get them to the polls, Maine wouldn't have banned gay marriage yesterday.

by ND22 2009-11-04 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: The base was energized in 2008

If we accept your statements as true, you can't possibly be talking about the base.  If single payer health care would not energize you, you are not part of the Democratic base, by definition.

by orestes 2009-11-04 01:26PM | 0 recs
I think his point is

that single payer may make the base happy, it doesn't change whether or not they show up at the polls.

Look at the exit polls, Democrats love Obama, are thrilled with him, are thrilled with their party, and they STILL didn't vote.

Because they weren't thrilled with their choices in said election or, as I saw it, they just didn't feel obligated to show up.

by ND22 2009-11-04 01:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I think his point is

Actually, the exit polls don't tell us anything about the people that didn't vote, by definition.

If every single Democrat who loves Obama shows up to vote, and everybody else stays home, the exit polls would say that 100% of Democrats love Obama.  Obviously nothing that simplistic is going on.  But you still have a biased sample in your exit poll consisting of people who are, in fact, energized enough to show up and vote.

by Steve M 2009-11-04 01:38PM | 0 recs
I mean approval polls, not exit polls

by ND22 2009-11-04 02:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I mean approval polls, not exit polls

I think the challenge, as I've argued elsewhere, is converting personal affinity for the President into votes for other Democrats, in an election where Obama himself isn't on the ballot.

by Steve M 2009-11-04 03:17PM | 0 recs
Yes that is a challenge

but I'm not even so sure it's merely for the President. If these voters only came out for Obama, Hillary Clinton would've lost last year and I think we can all agree she never would have.

These voters, the ones who didn't show up, didn't show up because they didn't feel the need to. They elected their Democratic President and Democratic Congress, they feel they're done. Corzine and Deeds didn't seem like candidates who NEEDED to win, gay marriage didn't interest them. The only place they showed up was in NY-23 where it was a chance to A.) add another seat to Congress and B.) Stick it to the teabaggers.

by ND22 2009-11-04 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes that is a challenge

No, they did not show up because the Democrats failed to provide contrasts whether because the Democrat was not like (a la Corzine) or they were so far to the right that it failed to please the base (a la Deeds). It was not that they thought their job was done because I doubt they thought about it much more than listening and realizing hey I got nothing at stake with these two.

by bruh3 2009-11-04 03:38PM | 0 recs
I just said the same thing lol

you just rephrased it.

by ND22 2009-11-04 03:45PM | 0 recs
Re: I just said the same thing lol

My point is that you seem to be de-emphasizing the point even as you state it. You mention it but then say seemingly no that's  not quite it. But contrast is precisely it. The rest if just window dressing.

I am not saying we 100 percent disagree. I am saying that you seem to be down playing the contrast as the singular issue to me. And, whereas I see it as the singular issue that drives the base out to vote.

by bruh3 2009-11-04 03:49PM | 0 recs
Of course I'm downplaying it

because it means nothing...you have two Democratic candidates who lost races they were never favored in, meaning they had to build a base of support over a more popular candidate. The only people who need to worry next year are the ones who are already losing.

If we were going into the midterms with the Republicans favored, then we should be worried, but if Congress and the President are as popular in a year from now as they are now, then there's no concern...because Congress and Obama are not Deeds and Corzine.

by ND22 2009-11-04 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Of course I'm downplaying it

It is not just about these two races, but what other Democrats decide for future races this means. Pretending that they are not doing this is kind of pointless. And what you call nothing is what motivates voters. As I said, you seem to attempt to cover you base by making the argument, and then discount it for no good reason as I walk through why it matters. this is not theory. This is what has happened over base elections in the past, and will happen next year. It's not rocket science. It happened with Clinton in 1994. What killed him was that he passed NAFTA, and thus depressing the base. At this point, I am really unsure what to say. Either you get that contrast matters for getting our your base or you don't. Saying you are mention it,  and then down playing its importance, tells me you don't get it. I can't debate that sort of thinking anymore because the evidence for what I am saying is readily available across multiple election cycles.

by bruh3 2009-11-04 05:03PM | 0 recs
Re: I think his point is

On the single payer issue, you cannot draw any conclusions for the obvious reason.  On the exit polls, you cannot opine whether the Democratic base failed to turn out.  I draw a distinction between the base and those who tend to vote Democractic.  By base, one usually refers to those people who are politically engaged and who will go out to vote for their party.  Do you have any evidence that the base did not vote yesterday?

by orestes 2009-11-04 01:44PM | 0 recs
A definition of base

whereby the base always turns out, is a pretty useless definition, in my view.

by JJE 2009-11-04 02:05PM | 0 recs
Re: A definition of base

I am not wedded to that definition.  It is the one that I understand is generally used.  How would you define it?

by orestes 2009-11-04 02:08PM | 0 recs
I would define it

as those who, when they vote, reliably vote Democratic.  A good example is African-Americans.  They do not always turn out, but when they do they vote Democratic by enormous margins.

by JJE 2009-11-04 02:13PM | 0 recs
Re: I think his point is

Joe Scarborough said it a few years ago ... you can't count on young voters to build a sustainable coalition.   Pat Buchanan has said the same.

I hate to say it but Joe  and Pat are right.  

by RichardFlatts 2009-11-04 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

"The president's restrained approach is ultimately an encouraging trait for the leader of "a nation that prefers passion to reason," writes Jazzcomedian. "Since 1968 we've elected a crook (Nixon), a politically incompetent humanitarian (Carter), an amiable dunce (Reagan), a mediocre patrician (Bush 41), a gifted, good hearted philanderer (Clinton), and the trifecta, a neo-con, amiable, dunce (Bush 43). Now we have President Obama who I view as intelligent, hardworking, and pragmatic with a genuine interest in the working and middle class."

Call me a cheerleader. I remember Eisenhower and was raised the son of news-addicted died-in-the-wool Liberal Democrats. I was weaned on this shit. Jazzcomedian nailed it, and if you live long enough you'll call these the good old days. Don't let yourself regret that you didn't bask in the joy of this moment. The chances of living long enough to see another are slim.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/04 /huffpost-readers-judge-ob_n_344082.html &cp

by QTG 2009-11-04 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

Like other netroots bigwigs, Kos thought he invented something in 2006 and 2008. He was playing with the wind at his back. Not exactly complicated. I stood on the 16th tee today knowing I could hit driver, 3 wood, 5 wood, hybrid, long iron, anything. Then on 17, playing in the opposite direction, I couldn't get there with my two best pokes.

No different in politics. Situational influence is never properly weighted. The guys who left this site to start the other one a couple of years ago likewise didn't want to believe all their energy and syllables were artificially floated by the climate. Kind of amusing, actually.

Post-1992 I sensed that Democrats had no energy, since the White House had been the elusive goal for more than a decade. It's similar this time, other than Bush and Iraq provided such a frenzied boost that we had two downwind cycles, with congress the first target, followed by the presidency, once the situational benefit was ours. We were never going to defeat an incumbent with his party in power only one term, Bush's situation in 2004.

This stuff is easily evaluated years in advance. In 2012 we'll be fine, with the incumbent/one term factor benefiting Obama, along with the demographic shift, down to 73 or 74% whites in the electorate. But next year we'll only pretend to care, kind of like sporting teams that say all the right things but simply don't need the game as much as their opponent. It's going to be a loss, regardless of anything Obama does in the next year. I hope we can save as many governorships as possible, because the only way the GOP can survive the negative demographic tilt is to fortify their bench with as many prominent and nationally electable governors as possible We downplay the governor races at our own peril.

by Gary Kilbride 2009-11-04 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

I saw the dude last night on 'Countdown'.   Its clear to me know ... he wants to be the Democratic version of Dick Armey.    We don't need a Democratic version of Dick Armey.

by RichardFlatts 2009-11-05 04:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

Anyone who was a republican as a young man during the 80's will always be suspect to me.

by orestes 2009-11-05 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

His point is pretty simple: look at the demographics that did not show up. Even with Corizine, look at where they did not show up even compared to Corzine's prior run (and not just last year). That tells us what we need to know about what's happening. That there is a base problem. They are not showing up. If some estimates are right, no more  Republicans showed up than usual. What was unusual was the lack of Democrats in enough percentages to matter in Virginia and NJ.

by bruh3 2009-11-04 02:37PM | 0 recs
Yes, this is obvious

we're discussing WHY didn't show up. If they still like Democrats, WHY didn't they show up in these races and in Maine (but apparently showed up in NYC and NY-23?)

Deeds and Corzine didn't get out a base of voters who would have otherwise came out if it were a national election.

by ND22 2009-11-04 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, this is obvious

a) From the diary, it is clear that it is not obvious.

b) They showed up in Maine. The problem there was older people. That's a generational thing that will eventually change in short time. The turnout was higher than normal for Maine.

c) Has it been shown they showed up in greater numbers in NY  23 or are you just guessing? Your argument over NYC is odd. This is a Democratic enclave by something like 70 percent.

d) Bloomberg did not win because of Republicans. He won because of cross party appeal. In my neighborhood, there were Bloomberg signs. The race was close due to it being a Democratic city and people not liking that he repealed the term limits to run.

e) The relevant races Kos seemed to discuss were Deeds and Corzine. Kos is actually making a classic political science argument. That if you have a base election, you win if you get your base to show up.

The way we can tell what motivated them is a bit of leg work, but it is pretty clear. First, those who showed up said they showed up due to economy. Second, when you poll generally on the subject- the same comes up. Third, when you look to secondary issues, it is things like healthcare of which Deeds ran to the right by saying he would opt out.

It is not the fact that it was not a national election. Corzine's numbers (as I remember) were lowering than when he ran the last time. The last time for him was not a national election. The last time Dems ran in VA it was not a national election in 2005. So, that argument seems wrong on the facts.

The difference is that they failed to excite the base this year. The general lesson is proof of the tenet that if you fail to excite your base during a base year, you lose. You can see this across the demographics.  Which means, going into 2010, that's what the Democrats must do to win. This means you must find policies and reasons to excite them. In other words, they must feel that something is at stake. That's why contrast is important. If there is no contrast, people do not feel anything is at stake.

The key with Bush was not just his name. it was that emotionally everyone felt there was something at stake. This year with Deeds being so far right, and Corzine being unliked, no one felt they had anything to lose regardless of who won. The key one for Democrats is Deeds. He tells us that if you run to far to the right- why will the base shows up?

This is not what should voters do. It is a question of what they will do is they do not perceive contrast (or the emotional reasons  to show up due to intensity over what is at stake). If Deeds had run a populist campaign based on jobs, healthcare and the economy and really hammered this home in NoVa and the liberal enclaves, it would have been a different race. He may or may not have won, but he would have had a shot. Ironically, one Virginia blogger pointed out that his GOP opponent discussed jobs more than Deeds did.

by bruh3 2009-11-04 03:35PM | 0 recs
ok so

b) They showed up in Maine. The problem there was older people. That's a generational thing that will eventually change in short time. The turnout was higher than normal for Maine.

"The base" as of now, opposes gay marriage. Good to know.

by ND22 2009-11-04 03:47PM | 0 recs
Re: ok so

Yes, I thought this was clear from California and Prop 8. The same people who went out to vote in favor of marijuana rights in Maine and abortion rights in California voted against marriage equality in the same years that they voted on the other rights issue.  This is bigotry plain and simple. It was true of African Americans in prior years. The biggest issue for gay rights is age of the members of the base, and not partisan or ideological identity. Nate Silver (you will have to look it up) made this argument based on cross tabs some time ago.

by bruh3 2009-11-04 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

I didn't realize that November 4th was Must Be Bitch On Kos Day.

by Khun David 2009-11-04 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

Every ballot needs to be a choice between a Palin-style Republican and a Kucinich-style Democrat. We need to get away from this namby pamby middle ground and force the independents to choose a side once and for all.

by QTG 2009-11-05 04:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites

You sound like a Democratic Rush Limbaugh.

by RichardFlatts 2009-11-05 04:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Kos, Cry Babies and Nadarites
Thanks for explaining my joke. Now, can we all stop saying precisely the same thing and taking it seriously?
 MyDD should not be the mirror image of RedState. The reality is that most Americans won't vote, most of the ones that do only vote in Presidential years if there isn't something more important to do and someone reminds them, and the rest of us are just crazy fringers who talk politics 24/7.
by QTG 2009-11-05 08:11AM | 0 recs
The base won't show up for Republicrats

Deal with it. Well, unless you scare the hell out of 'em about how scary and monstrous the Republicans are compared to the Democrats. More and more people aren't going to buy that unless the Democrats, including Obama, achieve some noticeable leftist, progressive victories. Don't see them. Sorry, the Lily Ledbetter and Hate Crimes legislation ain't gonna get the job done.

Deal with it instead of whining about the base and Kos, who's just presenting what happened, that the base didn't show up.

by fairleft2 2009-11-05 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: The base won't show up for Republicrats

More and more people aren't going to buy that unless the Democrats, including Obama, achieve some noticeable leftist, progressive victories

don't look now, but "the base," you know those who didn't show up, think the Democrats, including Obama, are achieving some noticeable leftist, progressive victories.

by ND22 2009-11-05 09:46AM | 0 recs
Re: The base won't show up for Republicrats

Jobs and better health care?

by fairleft2 2009-11-05 09:58AM | 0 recs
Yes

both of which appear to be imminent.

by ND22 2009-11-05 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Yes

We'll see. In the case of better health care we'll have to wait till 2013 to see, of course.

by fairleft2 2009-11-05 12:37PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads