Skip to main content

View Diary: PROOF: GOP Deficit Hawks Lie - IMF, CRS & CBPP FINALLY Agree. See Charts (39 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  WoE, it was swing voters, independents (5+ / 0-)

    and the young who didn't show up to vote in droves. Please stop pushing this ConservaDem point that disgruntled left-wingers sat out the 2010 election in droves.

    if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:16:20 AM PST

    •  I didn't use the word disgruntled. (5+ / 0-)

      But I did cancel cable when Ed Shultz told voters to not vote.

      I'll defer to Nate Silver to respond

      ‘Enthusiasm Gap’ Was Largest in Presidential Swing States By NATE SILVER

      For example, exit polls suggested that an equal number people identifying as Democrats and Republicans turned out on Tuesday night. By contrast, Democrats led by 7 points on this measure in 2008.

      It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

      by War on Error on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:30:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  OK, I guess I'll have to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        War on Error, divineorder

        go dig up the diary on this subject...be right back.

        if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:49:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sorry. I hope we GOTV like our lives depend (11+ / 0-)

          on it in 2014.

          It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

          by War on Error on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 11:54:51 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  OK, here it is: (11+ / 0-)

            did liberals cause the 2010 shellacking?

            Take a look.

            And here's the reason I keep trying to shut down this zombie lie:

            The problem with breaking this narrative (35+ / 0-)
            is that this sort of narrative "x stayed home, screwing the rest of us" only has political value if it can be used for Hippy Punching.  

            You can statistically disprove it.
            You can rhetorically disprove it.
            You can anecdotally disprove it.

            It doesn't matter, because the people who use the narrative are simply not using it in good faith. It is a blackjack to be used on those who question the status quo assumptions of the inside the beltway Democratic Party.

            X always has to be a Hippy, always, or the narrative is useless.

            If we lose because of how the Democratic Party operates, it means fundamentally changing everything about how the party operates from top to bottom.

            Easier, cheaper, and less painful to blame a group you see as a fundamentally powerless as well as fundamentally trapped constituency.

            You can't "Centrist Punch" or "Independent Punch" because they are, by definition, the most hypothetically politially mobile voters, and your electoral model is based on the idea of wooing them at all costs.
            You only punch a constituency you believe has to take it. We have built an entire model of politics around the idea that it's good to malign the most loyal and ardent of your voter pool because they have no place to go, and your tearing them down lets you sell yourself to people who you assume wouldn't want to vote for you otherwise.  

            It's no accident that the most ardent and passionately Democratic voters are cast as the most disloyal and treacherous. You can't have anyone questioning their place in the narrative, or it falls apart.

            It's a political model of taking people for granted based on the idea that they have no place else to go, and, constantly reminding them that they are the most vile creatures in the world if they question this narrative, or if the Democratic Party loses.

            Every other Democratic constituency has a 'walk away' card when it comes to blame for a very important reason, as long as everything that goes wrong with the Democratic Party can be blamed on the least powerful and least politically mobile voting constituency inside the party, the party doesn't have to change the way it does business.

            The Democratic Party has had a dominant narrative for my entire adult life, we lose because Democratic policy is unpopular, and we must distance ourselves from what made our party great, because otherwise we can't win. In accordance with this view, we must chase the mythical Independent voter, this wild card of a creature who is truly independent and has no natural political inclination, and is always a political free agent ready to be wooed away from the other guy.

            There is no massive middle of unbiased and politically unaligned voters. there are "Independents" who are straight ticket Democratic voters, and there are "Independents" who are more Movement Conservative than any Heritage Foundationite.

            by LeftHandedMan on Fri Aug 05, 2011 at 11:21:16 PM PDT

            if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:06:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you, thank you Southernliberal (0+ / 0-)

              For saying this, and saying it so well.  I'm so fed to the teeth for being shat upon by members of my own party simply for doing my best to get us all to stand for the ideals and agenda we all share.  I do my best for Democratic candidates that I believe will advance the Democratic agenda, but I fail to understand how it can possibly be my fault if a Republican candidate that I do not support and did not vote for wins.
              There are many Democrats who have expressed a willingness to settle for whatever we are given by our politicians, and that's fine.  What I don't understand is why it's not ok for other Democrats to ask for, and work for more.

          •  WoE, it all depends (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            War on Error, divineorder, Lujane

            or almost all of it depends--on whether or not the Democrats cut earned benefits. If they cut Medicare or Social Security--or even Medicaid--the Republicans are going to triangulate on those issues. They already did some of that in 2012. And those of us who regularly go to the doors are not going to have any way to repudiate those claims, unless we're willing to not only lie, but to tell a dumb, easily disprovable lie. Oh, I'm sure there will be some sort of fancy-dancing "it's not really a cut" kind of talking point put out by the Dems if this comes to pass. But that will cut no mustard with the voters.

            I, for one, am feeling more disinclined to volunteer for the Dems right now than I ever have been in my life. And my reaction is cake compared to what you'll get from a lot of Democratic loyalists if they cut Medicare and Social Security.

            if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 12:09:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  We need to get out our message, the truth since (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            War on Error, Creosote

            narrative in Red states like mine is all GOP/Tea Party all the time. Voters need to be better informed than they are now. We have two years to show seniors Republicans are not interested in their welfare, to show our neighbors how much ACA is going to help them and on and on. We need to go after independent and disaffected Republicans, we need to grow our base.

            The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dreams shall never die. ~ Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy

            by cherie clark on Tue Jan 08, 2013 at 02:30:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site