Skip to main content

View Diary: I don't understand (295 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Fascinating thread - blame the voter (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ladelfina, Sparhawk, treesrock

    A lot of armchair psychoanalysis going on here that overlooks the obvious fact: Democrats were unable to win the diarist's father's vote. It would seem obvious. That's exactly the same as blaming Packer fans for the team not going to the Super Bowl again this past January, and about as effective.

    Here's some other facts: in 2008, Obama got 1.677M votes in WI. In 2010, Barrett lost to Walker with 1.004M votes. Extrapolating from the AP figures with 87% of precincts reporting, it looks like Barrett will end up with 1.070M votes tonight.

    673,000 Obama voters didn't vote for Barrett in 2010, 607,000 didn't vote for him tonight.  Walker lost about 100,000 McCain voters in 2010, and about 0 tonight.

    The question everyone should be asking about the diarist's father, or about 600,000 missing voters in WI, is: Why can't Democrats win those votes?

    I don't have an answer, but I don't think it's racism, homophobia, religion, culture wars, guns or any way the Dems might consider pandering to the stereotypical right.  Unlike the diarist's father, most of those 600,000 voters in WI did not switch their votes to Walker. BUt in either case, a rightward shift probably isn't the answer.

    In my opinion, based largely on my opinion (but also on what my neighbors - mostly Dem voters - say), the Democratic Party and its elected officials simply haven't done much or tried to do much for many of those voters - student debt remains high, people still can't get health insurance and won't be able to afford it when it's mandated in 2014, unemployment is over 8% and not falling, unemployment insurance is running out, and if you're a minority, all of that is two to three times worse minimum.

    Feel free to defend the Democratic Party - after you explain why they were unable to motivate over 600,000 voters to go to the polls to kick out scum like Walker and all of his cronies who also won tonight. Or blame the Republicans in the House and the filibuster in the Senate. That'll win the next election fer sure.

    But don't blame the voters - that accomplishes exactly nothing in getting their votes in the next election. Or blame the voters and keep on losing.

    It's never too late to have a happy childhood - Tom Robbins

    by badger on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 09:16:28 PM PDT

    •  Let's be real - all contributed to the outcome (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The voters who fit certain psychological patterns, the voters who wanted Walker gone and didn't show up to vote, the people who ran the efforts to change people's minds, and the people who were responsible for getting others to the polls all share responsibility for the outcome.

      Supporter of philosophical constitutionalism, republicanism, and democratism. -3.5, -4.87 All about the rule of law and moderate regulation + Civility first + Constructive comments + Remember the cooperative principle

      by LimitedGovernment on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 09:33:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree, except for that last part. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OhioNatureMom, badger

      It has been clear to me for a long time that the Democratic party is not a progressive party.  But what I don't understand is why Democrats have to have reasons to vote for them but Republicans don't.

      The Republicans strategy, openly stated, has been to make Obama fail. To stop his entire agenda and keep him from even getting a chance to make his ideas work.  Sure, he hasn't been the genius, 11 dimensional chess playing, rope-a-dope president so many expected, but at the end of the day, the GOP along with the aid of a weak, non-progressive democratic party, prevented him from even considering going for the required solutions.

      You can say that makes him weak, and not capable, but who the hell could overcome that?  Name one person.  The people elected Obama by a large margin. He deserved to succeed or fail on his agenda.

      And at the same time, republicans can run on doing what I just described, NOTHING BUT OBSTRUCTION.  What exactly are they running on? What reasons are they giving for anyone but their base to vote for them.  The majority of Americans were repulsed by the GOP primaries.   But Dems can't point out that the other guy has serious problems with his claims of competence?  His claims of success where there were none?

      Please explain to me why Dems need to convince you to vote for them, but pugs don't.  I'd really like to know.

      Would we be so happy to have a military that dwarfs all others combined if it was a line item deduction on our paychecks next to FICA."

      by Back In Blue on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 10:00:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Republicans do convince people to vote for them (0+ / 0-)

        Republican voters either don't see Republican politics as obstructionist, or they actively want obstruction. Either way, the GOP is convincing their voters to turn out and to vote GOP.

        The GOP lost about 10% of votes in WI between 2008 and 2010. The Dems lost over 30%. Yesterday, Walker got more votes than McCain, but Barrett still fell nearly 600,000 votes short of Obama's total. Those 600,000 didn't vote GOP (more or less) - they didn't vote, along with another 600,000 or so who didn't vote in 2008 either. Barrett could have beat Walker two to one if all those votes were collected.

        Dems need to convince you to vote for them only if you want to win elections, and they need big wins only if you want government to address people's real problems - that's what a campaign is about, and Democrats are doing it wrong.

        It's never too late to have a happy childhood - Tom Robbins

        by badger on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 11:10:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not different. (0+ / 0-)

          If the GOP is getting voters to vote for them to STOP OBAMA, or any configuration of that theme, then how is what the Dems are doing right now trying to STOP WALKER, ROMNEY, fill in the blank GOP scumbag?

          I honestly think GOP voters don't care about the details. They just want to be "FOR" being against everyone else.  After all, it's the definition of a conservative to not want anything to change unless it means going back to the way they think things use to be.

          Dems/liberals on the other hand, for reasons I simply do not understand, would rather fight in the tall grasses of the dunes about the finer points of "that dem sucks because he didn't do what I wanted" only to get swept away by the title wave of austerity and social neanderthal-ism, that is the GOP's plans for America.

          At the very least I am voting to help keep from losing any more ground, on the supreme court, in congress, state and local govts, voter suppression and disenfranchisement, and yes, the presidency.  Because why on earth would anyone actually vote to make things harder on themselves?

          Why isn't what Romney plans to do scaring the shit out of every non-conservative in this country?  I know we're not supposed to blame the voters, but from the interviews of Wisconsin voters, especially that very special group of Obama voters who voted for Walker, all I can say is that this country is in big trouble if this is typical of the average American.

          But, hey!  We're dems!  We're liberals!  We love misery!

          Would we be so happy to have a military that dwarfs all others combined if it was a line item deduction on our paychecks next to FICA."

          by Back In Blue on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 06:20:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, that's part of it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OhioNatureMom, badger

      But why is it that we have 1.2 million Wisconsin voters voting to keep Walker in office when it's against many of their interests (and sounding more and more like he's just a corrupt bastard to boot)?

      We have to answer that question, too - we can't spend all of our time wondering just how it is that we can't manage to get 600,000 Obama voters to vote for Barrett.  (Some of those voters did vote for Walker if exit polls are correct; others were out of state, since college is out; still others aren't engaged in off-season politics - the reasons are many.)  And too, if this was a regular recall election, getting as many voters out for a recall as you got for the regular election would have done the trick.

      So let's not throw this question under the bus just because it sounds like blaming the voter.  The diarist has a great question: why is it that Democrats are losing so many votes from people who are voting against their best interests?  These should be "our" voters, coming out and voting for our candidates.  Can we bring them around?  Are we missing something?

      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. - William Pitt

      by Phoenix Rising on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 01:26:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Walker actually got 1.3M (0+ / 0-)

        more than McCain polled in 2008. Barrett got 1.1M, beating his 2010 total.

        It makes no difference why 1.3M people voted for Walker, if 1.7M had voted for Barrett - worry about the 600,000 votes you had and lost instead of peeling off a few thousand votes from Walker's total.

        Worrying about the 1.3M instead is how you get Democrats fighting to cut Social Security and Medicare, worrying more about the deficit than jobs, abandoning a public option in health insurance, and losing elections.

        How to win:

        1. Get all of your voters to vote.

        2. Get the voters who don't vote at all to turnout and vote for you (another 600,000 in WI at least, I'd guess).

        3. Don't presume that you know what a voter's "interests" are better than the voter does, and don't presume that voters perceive the Democratic Party's relation to their interests in the same way you do.

            a. Ask the voters (your voters) and develop and implement policies accordingly (the present method is ask the donors and cater to them). Issue polls already do this.

            b. Educate voters or persuade voters where you can't alter policy to accommodate their present views; frame the debate to emphasize areas of agreement.

        It's never too late to have a happy childhood - Tom Robbins

        by badger on Wed Jun 06, 2012 at 11:01:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site