Skip to main content

Rob Blancken holds a pro-gun sign outside a rally, sponsored by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, marking the one-year anniversary of the Aurora theater shootings, in Aurora, Colorado July 19, 2013.  REUTERS/Rick Wilking
Crazy guy won this round.
Tuesday night, the NRA-fueled recalls of two Colorado legislators was successful. They were targeted for helping pass good gun safety regulations.

Democrats had more money and district demographics in their favor. Republicans had intensity and more reliable voters.

Sen. Angela Giron lost significantly. State Sen. President John Morse lost by 343 votes out of nearly 18,000 votes.

In Giron's district, nearly 67,000 votes were cast for president in 2012. 35,000 voted in this election.

In Morse's district, 52,000 votes were cast in 2012, while just 18,000 voted Tuesday.

Guess who didn't turn out.

As I've long written, our biggest danger moving forward isn't ideology or public opinion, it's the apathy of our own base. Our base groups -- young voters, ethnic and racial minorities, single women -- are the lowest performing groups. We're in great shape in presidential elections, no doubt. We're in dicier territory in mid-term and special elections.

These are Democratic districts. Turnout in 2014 will be much higher, and the GOP's intensity advantage will be diminished (not eliminated because, well, see above). But if we want to be a comfortable majority party, then we need to figure out how to turn out our marginal voters, because without them we cannot win.

There's a second cautionary tale here -- the other way Republicans can win is by creating structural ways to suppress our vote. In this race, it was the elimination of vote-by-mail despite its growing importance in Colorado elections. In 2012, a third of the vote in Morse's district was cast by mail. In Giron's, it was half. Would regular election rules change the results? More than likely in Morse's, maybe not in Giron's. So don't doubt that Republicans are learning those lessons as well.

The NRA got a victory Tuesday night. We sought to deny them that victory and failed, but we're not done with this fight. This was a skirmish ahead of 2014 when both these seats and so many more will be in play. So what's ahead?

We gotta crack the code of how we turn out our voters. And we have to do everything possible to prevent GOP efforts to disenfranchise our voters.

That's the game.

One more thing:

Democrats dominate the airwaves with 2,346 of those spots. Despite with the national attention and conservative groundswell generated by these recalls, Republicans have aired just 144 spots on broadcast.
I've maintained for the last two cycles that television ads no longer work. Here's another data point in support of that theory.

Originally posted to kos on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:37 PM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos and Shut Down the NRA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Who watches TV still? (11+ / 0-)

    Everyone I know, except old folks, have Roku or something similar.

    •  other than some sports (7+ / 0-)

      i don't watch any commercial tv at all. no "news" or talking heads shows. zero.

      go ducks!

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:53:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm old, so I do still watch TV. (12+ / 0-)

      However, I DVR everything and watch it later-including the news, just so I can whiz through all the ads-especially political ones. Therefore, I agree with Kos that TV ads no longer work.

      •  I totally agree with that - who needs commercials? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Amber6541, VTelder, coquiero

        But we need to be quiet about that, because then the advertisers will find a way to prevent that. On Demand in ATT Uverse for example, for certain OnDemand copies of network shows, do not allow fast-forwarding and you are obligated to watch at least one of their corporate sponsors bits, though at a reduced timescale, and if they figure out (which they probably have) that we are recording to skippity-do-dah past all this annoying noise, they will find a way to force us to watch it. It irks me because of the tradition that if you pay for it, you don't have to watch ads, right?

        When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.-Mark Twain

        by Havoth on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:20:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bathroom breaks and the mute switch can conquer (0+ / 0-)

          advertising...

          What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. King Henry, scene ii

          by TerryDarc on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:58:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly what I do + Vote By Mail (0+ / 0-)

        Miss the commercials, actually watch news (Rachel and News Hour), movies and sports. Have not watched a sitcom in many years.

        Kos had his finger on the problem but skipped right past the obvious answer. There are structural reasons (not just laziness) that younger, working, single mothers, poor, lower middle income, etc don't vote in midterms.

        That can all be remedied. We've done it in Oregon and it's been done in Washington (they love to copy our every move ;->) - VOTE BY MAIL.

        Done at your leisure and done on every election. We get great turnout, just fill out the ballot and drop it off or mail it. Simple, effective and very lower-case d democratic.

        What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. King Henry, scene ii

        by TerryDarc on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:57:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The NRA Base (6+ / 0-)

      Most likely only watch one channel, the Faux News Network.

    •  And/or tivos everything (0+ / 0-)

      and fast forwards through the commercials.

      There's none so blind as those that will not see. --Jonathan Swift

      by chuckvw on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:14:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  'We gotta crack the code (11+ / 0-)

    of how we turn out our voters.'

    Anyone have any ideas?

    "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

    by GussieFN on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:44:56 PM PDT

      •  ? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        HappyinNM

        "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

        by GussieFN on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:49:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Obama's team had a system for getting (11+ / 0-)

          people involved and to the polls. They identified possible voters, and kept in touch with them all the way up to the election.

          •  Well, but the problem is (5+ / 0-)

            explicitly midterms.

            "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

            by GussieFN on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:55:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You asked if anyone had any ideas. (11+ / 0-)

              I suggested Obama did. Meaning his method. It's applicable in any election. By getting people involved, they have a vested interest in voting.

              •  Oh! (6+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Nulwee, edrie, LordMike, 88kathy, HappyinNM, Matt Z

                Sorry. I thought your idea was Obama. Like, not the man, but the concept!

                "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

                by GussieFN on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:04:21 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  It costs money to implement. Also why are we so (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bepanda, Amber6541, Thornrose

                lazy that we can't get to the polls, but the other side can?

                I've questioned this when we started to lose so many state elections.

                Time to get off our sofas and from behind our electronic toys and meet the enemy at the polls.

                It’s the Supreme Court, stupid! Followed by: It's always the Supreme Court! Progressives will win only when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

                by auapplemac on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:09:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's not lazy (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  eagleray, Amber6541, Matt Z

                  It's busy.

                  Old retired people, or the very wealthy, don't have to worry about going to work, dealing with kids, juggling multiple jobs, caring for kids, living on a schedule that often has little to no flexibility.

                  Why do you think vote by mail is so popular with them? They vote, but not when they have to go through too many hassles to do so.

                  It's even harder when it's not everybody voting. My bet is a lot of the people who didn't vote didn't even realize there was an election to vote in.

                  •  Too busy? Too damn busy to make sure you are not (4+ / 0-)

                    harassed or arrested by some nut job of a TP/GOP sheriff? Too damned busy to make sure you don't lose your home to some tax lien scam?

                    A good part of this idiocy of "too busy" and "too lazy" is because people have swallowed the bill of goods that government isn't really important. Government makes and enforces law, particularly that local ordinance stuff that can mess your life beyond any reason. Not paying attention and not doing your "housekeeping" job there is like not paying attention to whether you get paid properly or not. Just ask some of the people in the states where that lack of attention and being "too busy" resulted in what we now see in North Carolina and other states—malicious government and a clique in power trying to make sure you don't get another bite at the apple of voting them out.

                    The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

                    by pelagicray on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:18:37 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Neither, IMO (0+ / 0-)

                    It's not "lazy," it's not "busy," IMO, it's that some Democrats and Independents, particularly younger ones, are feeling that voting and politics has little effect on their lives. Add in the Republican intentionally applied dysfunction, and you have a formula for dismissive apathy.

                    "Voting or not does not really affect my life, so why bother to go to the trouble except for electing a President. After all, can't the President fix everything?" *

                    "All they do in DC is fight and refight the same battles, without ever solving or changing anything."

                    * See ongoing need for a "king" as part of the human condition.

                    I know that's a grim analysis, but less so than "lazy," which implies sloth, aka who cares? and  "busy," which implies that the plight of the less fortunate needs some greatly improved visibility, or, again, that those who don't turn out are just into themselves with no vision of the corruption that egotism brings.

                    People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. - George Orwell

                    by paz3 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:49:00 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, that's that guy who brings out MILLIONS ... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        scottdc, ekgrulez1, defluxion10

        ... of voters every 4 years to pull the big D lever in the voting stations, right??

        Yup, the same one that Libs like DKers snipe at and complain about every day but then wonder: why o' why won't you vote for DK's favorite Liberal Dem candidates??

        Hmmm ... I wonder why ... ??

        •  Obama is gone (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bryduck, Neo Control, Newt

          He'll never run again, for anything.  He'll never turn out kids and blacks again, the way he did in 2008 and 2012.  

          I have another clue for you,...it really was all about the Obama personality cult.  2008 and 2012 are truly unique elections in terms of turnout.  In between, you had 2010, and all of these special elections, like Scott Brown, the WI recalls, and tonight in CO.  Those base groups that Kos cites, kids, blacks/hispanics, single women, most of them are totally detached from politics and government on an everyday basis.  They have a paper thin understanding of the issues and their importance.  Nobody has ever been able to motivate them enmass (other than perhaps with Bush/war hatred in 2004, and even that wasn't enough), except Obama.  They are Obama personality cult voters, and that is it.

          Sorry, if this offends some of you, but Dems are never going to be able to win off-year elections and midterms with that "Base".  After Obama is gone, and his database is retired, those high turnout numbers will recede back into reality, and we'll be back to threading the needle to win national elections.  Romney did better than McCain.  If Chris Christie runs, he'll do much better than Romney.

          Oh, and fighting elections on Gun Control in 2013, in a western outdoorsy state, is just dumb.    

          •  Well, even if you are wrong, which I tend to (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Neo Control

            think you may be, these are some things to think about for upcoming elections and who we nominate going forward with regard to 'star power', databases, and engaging the base demographic groups. Nice to see other opinions here on dk!

    •  Pay money. (7+ / 0-)

      That's how Democrats of the old days used to do it. You make sure your people get the scratch. Somehow.

      All Dems offer their base voters these days is good feelings. So that's why they only turn out when they feel good. Start putting some real money on the table for the vote. Then you'll get reliable turnout, rest assured.

      •  Does that work when the (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jeff Y, scott5js, brooklynbadboy

        primary issue is non-economic, such as gun control? Or do you just make sure that it's always money, every time? I guess the latter.

        Works for me.

        "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

        by GussieFN on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:51:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You make sure everything comes down to money (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dkmich, a2nite

          in the pocket. You set up every vote so that its always about money, money, money.

          Poor folks respond to money, rest assured.

          •  But that would eject some Dems from office. (0+ / 0-)

            Make every issue about money in the pockets of people, and at some point it will circle around to labor issues - and the Dem party members who aren't all that progressive (like blanche lincoln) will get left out in the cold.

            Let's face it, the Dem party establishment would rather have members who's motivation is to stick with the group than members who's motivation is to take action on an issue.

            Issue-oriented people tend to do things like form issue-alliances without regard to party lines. Sorta like the alliance of people who have allied on syria without regard to left/right or Dem/Repub group lines.

            Making sure everything comes down to money is effectively an issue-oriented strategy, and issue-oriented strategies are dangerous to the status quo of political power. I won't hold my breath waiting for an issue-oriented strategy to be put in place anytime soon.

      •  that is such bs! democrats USED to be loyal to (7+ / 0-)

        (duh) DEMOCRATS because they KNEW which party would vote in their best interests.

        now, all the "left" cries is how democrats are weak, sell-outs, corporatists, etc.

        well, it worked.  people finally "listened" and stayed home!

        yay for us.  right?

        EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

        by edrie on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:52:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  maybe the way to motivate democrats (25+ / 0-)

          is to prove that the democratic party will vote in their best interests.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:58:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh ho ho, that's too obvious! (7+ / 0-)

            Democratic politicians triangulate, pander to RINOs and Repubs, demotivate the base, lose elections. Rinse lather pie.

            •  and anyone wonders why folks didn't turn out? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jqb

              here is a prime example of how to disillusion the base.

              good job!

              EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

              by edrie on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:11:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah! Better not tell them the truth (11+ / 0-)

                or the base won't vote for our guys!!

                Dude. People don't need purists to tell them Dems are weak and at best half-heartedly committed to the middle class. People see that for themselves.

                Code Monkey like freedom / Code Monkey like peace and justice too
                Code Monkey very nerdy man / With big warm fuzzy bleeding heart
                Code Monkey like you!

                Formerly known as Jyrinx.

                by Code Monkey on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:18:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The Democrat Party hasn't been (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  edrie

                  the party of the "working man" for 40 years.  In the old days, the Roosevelt Dem party was unbeatable. Then, in the 1960's, they became the party of everybody other than the stereo-typical white, union Democrat, and it all fell apart.  That, let me remind you, is when the Dems lost the south.  I'm not saying I'm against civil rights, just that it was at that time that the post-war Dem coalition was destroyed.

                  My Dad was one of those guys.  Always voted Dem, because they were the "party of the working man", and the GOP was the "party of the rich."  The 1960's and early 1970's (civil rights movement, RvW, etc.) changed all that.  My Dad used to watch those Dem conventions in the 1970's/1980's and cringe.  By 1980, he voted for Ronald Reagan.

                  •  My father also (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    edrie

                    And I could not get him to understand he was voting against his own interests.   It was not the lost of the south that got to him though.   It was Reagan and all those patriotic movies RR had made during WWII.  My dad, like much of his generation, was a son of immigrants.  He and his brothers served proudly in WWII and their father, my grandfather who died when I was just three, was apparently super patriotic.   He had left his native Italy when he was just 14 to escape poverty, the growing fascism, the growing criminality and the powerful church.  Many immigrants were like him coming from countries that offered nothing to those born into poverty.  America did.  So even though my times could be rough, just two generations later many of his grandchildren were able to go to college.  But they were all FDR supporters.    So how they became Reagan voters was complex.   A lot of it was the Hollywood hype and phony history Reagan presented. I was shocked about how easily my dad and his peers were duped.  Maybe it was because of the anti Vietnam protests they did not get.   Maybe it was because they did not understand that Reagan and John Wayne, macho heroes of their generation, did not serve.  I was close to my dad and Reagan was the first topic we had to put on hold and not discuss.  My dad wanted to hold on to the hero worship and never could get him to acknowledge that Reagan's policy were early signs of fascism.  

                    But my dad is gone now.  So are most of his peers.   Few of that era are left....not enough to make an impact.  But those union guys, like Patco, who supported Reagan and then were betrayed should have gotten it by now.  They were mostly my age.

                    Of course a lot of my generation is now retired too.  While I read here that so many of us over 65 vote republican, I, nor do any of my close friends, do so.  We are diehard liberals.   But I do think there are many of my peers who do.....but they were the ones who back in the 60s, during our marches and protests, who hated the "dirty hippies"  (which is how they saw us).  They were the George W. types of the world, either born rich or with a mind set that believed they should be rich no matter what.    My friends circle is mostly teachers so we tend to lean left.  

                    I just do not get how anyone now can still buy the lies and spin of the last 30 years.  I sure hope the young people realize they are the ones who have to do battle now just like many of us did in our youth in the 70s.

                    “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.” Louis D. Brandeis

                    by Jjc2006 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:17:21 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Buying into Orthogonian resentment factory. (0+ / 0-)
                    The Democrat Party hasn't been
                    the party of the "working man" for 40 years.  In the old days, the Roosevelt Dem party was unbeatable. Then, in the 1960's, they became the party of everybody other than the stereo-typical white, union Democrat, and it all fell apart.
                    You make the American working class sound like an older child getting jealous of all the attention being lavished on a newborn baby. Apart from Inflation, there aren't any issues where the Democratic establishment was any less concerned about workers than Republicans.

                    Even with inflation, you have a party that argued that our boys were losing their lives in a good cause in Vietnam, but could not admit that our dollars were losing their value in the same "good cause." There were a few on the left, like Bella Abzug, who properly blamed the war for the inflation, but the stereotypical worker didn't listen to them.

                    The Republicans were willing to use the inflation to manipulate the workers, but they were as insincere in their sympathizing as they were dishonest in their diagnosis--attributing the inflation to social spending which returned much more to the economy than the war did.

                    The Democratic Establishment didn't leave the working class until the 70s when they chose to woo a center, and despite all that wooing, the center is as exactly halfway between the two parties as it was when Jimmy Carter was elected.

                    The furor over Friday's [10.5] job report revealed a political movement that is rooting for American failure, so obsessed with taking down Obama that good news drives its members into a blind rage. -Paul Krugman

                    by Judge Moonbox on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:29:56 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Why is it... (20+ / 0-)

                that you seem to think that pointing out the rightward drift of the Democratic party is more harmful than the actual rightward drift of the Democratic party?

                "He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

                by Hayate Yagami on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:19:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Bingo! We have a winner. nt (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hayate Yagami

                  "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                  by FogCityJohn on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:04:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  pssssst - it's the numbers. to change ANYTHING, (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  auapplemac, eagleray

                  we have to have the damned NUMBERS - numbers control who holds the house committees, the senate committes, who puts forward legislation and who blocks it.

                  NUMBERS determine who appoints USSC nominees and judges and who blocks them.

                  NUMBERS.  it all boils down to the basics.

                  EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                  by edrie on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:49:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Because some people are emotional. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Hayate Yagami

                  Facts don't matter, feelings do.  If they think it, they feel it; and if they feel it, it is.  Doesn't matter if it's real or not:   Bush did 911 on purpose; abducted by aliens, god is a white man with a white beard and he created the world in six days; man hiding in the closet/under bed.

                  In MBs terminology, they are strong FPs as opposed to TJs.

                  ESTJ: extraversion (E), sensing (S), thinking (T), judgment (J)
                  INFP: introversion (I), intuition (N), feeling (F), perception (P)

                  I have three politically incorrect, straight, white male, grandchildren; and I don't care if you think they're important or not.

                  by dkmich on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 04:21:40 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah because people care more about his words (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PhilK

                than what Obama stands for and delivers.  Fucking retards we are not.

                I have three politically incorrect, straight, white male, grandchildren; and I don't care if you think they're important or not.

                by dkmich on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 04:05:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  and who makes up that base? NOT extreme left or (8+ / 0-)

            progressive dems, i'll wager.

            the democratic party is NOT a far left party - every time it's tried to run far left, the party has gotten it's "ass" kicked.

            look at mcgovern, dukakis, even carter.

            the majority of the democratic base are NOT us - and instead of trying to win them over to our point of view, many of us on this site spend a great deal of time attacking them.

            educate - not eviscerate - and we might just get more items that we want taken care of in government.  how?  because we need friggin DEMOCRATS in office to DO that.

            duh!

            good night - i'm leaving before my blood pressure knocks the upstairs neighbor out of bed.

            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

            by edrie on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:08:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  liberal issues poll very well (12+ / 0-)

              not only in the party, but in the nation, overall. the democrats need to do a better job of delineating themselves from the republicans. being the not-crazy party isn't enough.

              The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

              by Laurence Lewis on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:11:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  and being the bash-democrats-from-within instead (5+ / 0-)

                of the "bash-republicans for their votes" is not the way to motivate voters, either.

                EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                by edrie on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:17:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  if democrats don't do right (11+ / 0-)

                  they need to be told. nothing demotivates a base voter like not having base issues represented.

                  The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                  by Laurence Lewis on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:18:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  They have been told. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Boris49, Neo Control, Newt

                    This is why Dems hadn't backed things like AWB & mag bans for twenty years.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:48:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  irrational fear-mongering (6+ / 0-)

                      does that.

                      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                      by Laurence Lewis on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:58:44 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Irrational fear mongering is exactly why some (5+ / 0-)

                        push for the AWB and mag bans.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:03:03 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  keep trying frank (4+ / 0-)

                          france is in crisis talks, because of a rash of gun violence in marseilles, their "chicago." 15 gun deaths. this year.

                          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

                          by Laurence Lewis on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:04:08 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  Gun limits are not irrational fear. It is a (4+ / 0-)

                          recognition of the reality that 1776 muskets are one thing and 2013 state of the art killing machines need limits.

                          give the NRA the Royal Flush join Stop The NRA

                          by 88kathy on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:34:38 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                        •  I'm not afraid of you (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Thornrose, coquiero

                          But I'm concerned that people like you value a piece of paper more than the lives of our children.

                          Where's the party for the guy that simply wants less of our kids to die?

                          •  Your concern is unfounded and irrational. (0+ / 0-)

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:50:22 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Tell that to (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero

                            the 8 year old Black boy who was shot a few days ago.

                            Why is a piece of paper more important than human life?

                          •  Tell that to the families of 9/11 (0+ / 0-)

                            Why is Freedom of religion & warrants being necessary for wiretaps more important than human life?

                            Tell that to Nicole Simpson's family.
                            Why are knives and the right to a trial more important than human life?

                            Tell that to the families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan.
                            Why is the right to not be tortured and not be held without trial more important than human life?

                            Rights don't cease to exist simply because you choose not to use them.

                            The murderer of that boy was arrested for murder.
                            His illegal actions have no bearing on the rights of innocent people, anymore than the crimes perpetrated above has any bearing on yours.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:25:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The right to LIFE (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero

                            is the first and most important right. No other right exists for a person that is DEAD.

                            I'm not going to respond to your straw men. Answer my question: Why is a piece of paper more important than human life?

                          •  That is why murder is illegal. (0+ / 0-)


                            And I already answered your question.
                            I even gave examples.
                            That you decided to ignore it is neither surprising nor relevant.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:44:35 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You gave strawmen (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            coquiero

                            That you need to resort to logical fallacies to defend your point sends a message. I don't think its the message you want to project.

                            You ignore the children that are killed and all of the families that are torn apart by YOUR devotion to piece of paper over human life. Shame on you!

                            And no, you still didn't answer the question. Why is a piece of paper more important than human life?

                            I'll even give you a start to your answer: "I think the Constitution is more important than human life because __"

                          •  I gave comparisons. (0+ / 0-)

                            Somehow I find liberties included in the Bill of Rights to be comparable to......ya know......liberties included in the Bill of Rights.

                            You want to take liberties away from innocent Americans because you distrust your fellow citizens & are so self-centered that you think that your irrational & paranoid fears should supplant their rights & liberties.

                            I'm glad to see that you are openly against the Constitution.
                            Perhaps a free society just isn't suited to you.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:10:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How free are the people that are dead? (0+ / 0-)

                            I want a free society where everyone can LIVE to enjoy those freedoms.
                            Nothing is more important than life. I question your humanity that you value metal over real human beings. Shame on you.

                            You call yourself innocent, but you have no innocence. You are the one who is giving money to groups like the NRA, who just recently took out two Democrats. YOUR money funded an effort to remove DEMOCRATS from office. And you post this proudly, on a site dedicated to "electing more and better DEMOCRATS." If more children die because of NRA lobbying then the blood is on YOUR hands. Shame on you.

                            Your money is funding those goons. Those people are letting criminals buy weapons quickly and easily in private sales all over this country. Those people are putting guns in the hands of people that don't have any training to use them. Those people are the ones who are fighting even the most basic safety laws because "freedum." Shame on you!

                          •  I never gave a nickel to the NRA (0+ / 0-)

                            Everything else in your post actually managed to get even less accurate from there.

                            Way to take 'utterly fucking wrong' to unprecedented heights.
                            Hats off to you for such an amazing feat.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:27:02 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're right (0+ / 0-)

                            It was KV, one of your RKBA buddies, who spends money to get NRA certified. My apologies.

                            If protecting life is "utterly fucking wrong" then I never want to be "right."

                            It is accurate to state that you care more about a piece of paper than human life. Now you are just attacking me because you can't hide from the pain that your votes and your support directly lead to. You claim to support "freedom" but that kid's right to live isn't a "freedom" that people like you care about. Letting kids die isn't "freedom." Its barbaric, its evil, and its WRONG.

                          •  Don't sacrifice liberty for security. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            andalusi

                            Especially when those aren't the only two options. Rather, try looking at the cause of gun accidents/violence, rather than the tool of implementation. Bridges and ropes don't cause suicide, and neither do firearms.

                            Look at:

                            Ignorance/Taboo of firearms entices children.

                            Poor job prospects and shitty schools, combined with income from illicit drug trade, encourages gangs.

                            Poor mental health care leads to the unstable not getting care that would stabilize them.

                            Culture that stigmatizes asking for help, emotional or otherwise, that fails to address suicidal thoughts in their infancy.

                            Banning guns does not address any of these issues.

              •  See my sig........... (0+ / 0-)

                It’s the Supreme Court, stupid! Followed by: It's always the Supreme Court! Progressives will win only when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

                by auapplemac on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:15:31 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Our folks don't give a shit about 'progressive' (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PhilK, mmacdDE, Wisdumb, Whatithink

              'far left' or any of that crap. They're too busy trying to survive. They can give that foolishness maybe a smidgen of attention every four years and that's about it. That's all they can afford.

              Now you start putting some real money on the table and that will definitely get their attention. And their loyalty. But if all you want to talk about is Obama love and ideology and shit like that, you'll get a four year vote and that's about it.

              Democrats need to be the party of bread and butter not good feelings. 'Vote for me, you get x amount of moolah.' And then deliver it. That's how you win these special elections.

            •  Edrie, (4+ / 0-)

              while it is true that McGoerrn ran to the left, both Carter and Dukakis ran as pragmatic, non-ideological technocrats.

              Dukakis said explicitly that the race wasn't about ideology but competence--a move intended to make him seem safe to Republicans and independents but with the unintended consequence of lessening the passion of his Democratic base.

              There's no point in inventing a counter-factual history to support your argument. Such a method just removes you from the challenges of reality and invalidates your argument.

              •  having lived through all of those campaigns and (7+ / 0-)

                working all of them, in their day, they were running and were labeled as "liberal" - whether or not that definition fits in todays translation is immaterial.  then, they were considered NOT to be "conservative".

                i'm not inventing anything - i am speaking from a historical perspective based on the actual time of occurrence.

                mcgovern was the most "liberal"/"progressive" (a term not yet used to describe a politician) - but dukakis and carter were painted as "liberal" - carter over environmental issues, dukakis - well, he was just a poor choice from the get go but he was considered more "left" than reagan.

                in reality, gary hart and al gore (AND bill clinton) were all possibilities after mario cuomo dropped out.  so, compared to reagan, dukakis was considered the "liberal" candidate, even though he wasn't as much so as biden or gore.  in fact, i never liked dukakis because his campaign "leaked" the charge that caused biden to drop out - that in ONE of many speeches where he used material from another author (and always credited it except in one speech), the accusation of plagerism drove biden from the campaign.  biden was cleared after the fact, but dukakis had done his political dirty work.  it worked.  but he stilll lost.

                after mcgovern, all dems who ran were considered "liberals" to the point the word became poisonous and the liberal party in many states (including ny) dropped from the ballots.

                also, back then, the left was smart. they used the third party vote to push the main candidate toward the left.  at the last minute, the liberal or third party candidate would then put all their supporters with one of the major candidates - they used the control of their numbers to influence the direction of the party.

                now, imho, we just have nihilist third parties - ones that attempt to destroy, not actively shape the direction.  

                EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                by edrie on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:11:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  edrie, that's how I remember it, too! (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  edrie

                  It’s the Supreme Court, stupid! Followed by: It's always the Supreme Court! Progressives will win only when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

                  by auapplemac on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:18:48 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Well, of course all Democrats are (0+ / 0-)

                  labeled liberal by Republican opponents and their backers. That goes without saying and will never change. The point is that the Democratic party has run almost nothing but moderate candidates over the years, including Dukakis and Carter. In your messed up analysis, Gore turns out to be both more and less liberal than Dukakis. Dukakis turns out to be "liberal" in comparison to Reagan! By that measure, what Democrat wouldn't be, including Lieberman? "Back then," the left was smart? Example, please? You need to read more, take account of specifics, and stop thinking you have everything all figured out in a grand narrative of your own devising.

                  •  you have totally missed my point. (0+ / 0-)

                    it is ALWAYS about perception and labeling in elections - that is how the average john q public decides how to vote.

                    the majority of the electorate do not even start THINKING about elections and candidates until close to the election - it is those who shape the dialogue who determine the outcome.

                    it is boots on the ground where people get information.  it used to be tv ads - now is it misinformation from tv "news" and talk shows where they are bombarded with false memes and catch phrases.

                    IF we want to shape the future of this nation, we have to counter that misinformation instead of pushing our own bias.

                    it is the bigger picture that counts.  ONLY by getting democrats into congress and the white house with sufficient numbers to be able to turn the direction of the nation will we start to win the inattentive population's support.  when benefits start showing up for the average joe or jane, then they WILL start paying attention to a higher paycheck (higher minimum wage), health care, easier access to services, better infrastructure, more jobs and we point out WHY they have those benefits, then we can start pushing left - but we have to be in congress to even START the process.  

                    right now, all the average american in red america hears are the distortions and lies of the right wing and tea party.  they don't see the benefits of the aca or any other policy and even the bits that do trickle down, all they hear is the rabid right saying that those good things are because of republicans, not dems.

                    are there counter voices on the left screaming out the benefits brought them?  NO!  the left is screaming out the same damned thing as the republicans - that democrats are bad!

                    how stupid are we being when we continually sabotage every chance we have to shift this nation to a more progressive direction.  we can't turn it over night.  it takes time to move a mountain.  we aren't even trying to lift a pebble unless we are throwing those pebbles at each other.

                    it's time to start fighting back - at republicans, not democrats.

                    the choices are two.  either democrats OR republicans.

                    there ARE no other choices.  theoretical or in real life.  there.are.no.other.choices.that.can.win.high.office! (except in the rarified air of the tiny states of new england).

                    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                    by edrie on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:58:19 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Why would anyone think Carter a leftist? (0+ / 0-)
              the democratic party is NOT a far left party - every time it's tried to run far left, the party has gotten it's "ass" kicked.

              look at mcgovern, dukakis, even carter.

              What you're dealing in is perceptions and not reality. The question we should be asking is, how do we get the political center back to reality?

              To show the problem, think of the centrist position on taxes and give it an arbitrary number. Then do the same of the centrist position on taxes in 2000. Does the change in numbers represent the success of Bush's tax cuts, or dies it represent the taxphobia of centrist Democrats to put the blame for the deficit where it belongs?

              For 43 years, I've been listening to the Republicans whine about the "liberally biased media.

              For 43 years, I've been watching the Republicans act with confidence that the media was on their side.

              One thing I haven't witnessed in all that time is any Democrat in a leadership position point out the absolute
              contradiction of their position.

              How many of the "too liberal" Democratic candidates would still have lost if the voting public knew where the media actually stood--or bent over backwards?

              The furor over Friday's [10.5] job report revealed a political movement that is rooting for American failure, so obsessed with taking down Obama that good news drives its members into a blind rage. -Paul Krugman

              by Judge Moonbox on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:50:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  That's such a copout, LL. (7+ / 0-)

            How can Democratic lawmakers be expected to consistently vote on progressive issues if half the left can't be bothered to vote in elections?

            “We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children” ― Chief Seattle

            by SoCalSal on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:12:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Isn't what these two reps did? Why couldn't the CO (0+ / 0-)

            Dems support one of our issues that these reps put their necks on the line for?

            It’s the Supreme Court, stupid! Followed by: It's always the Supreme Court! Progressives will win only when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

            by auapplemac on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:13:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  that couldn't possibly be it (0+ / 0-)

            No, it must be that we on the left are idiots for not keeping our mouths shut about corporatism and warmongering from our own party.

            Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com and check out New World Orders

            by eparrot on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:17:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, these Democrats in Colorado (6+ / 0-)

          did exactly what the base of the party wanted (gun control) them to do.

          The question is, how do we get our voters to come out and continue to support what they supposedly said that they wanted (gun control) all along, after they get it?

          ------"Load up on guns, bring your friends. It's fun to lose and to pretend."------- Kurt Cobain

          by Jeff Y on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:03:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Democrats USED to be loyal to thier base. duh (0+ / 0-)

          That was before Mr. Bill NAFTA deregulate the banks Clinton sold us out for Wall Street money.   Now most Democrats are  WS/corporate owned and Republicans deflecting from the crazies.   The left are  "fuckin retards" remember?  

          Obama exploited the youth in his first run for office, and it only took them one time to learn, unlike some of the adults who still haven't.   Obama peddles populism and governs for the 1%.   It takes two tango.  If you want Democrats to show up, you can't piss all over them.   So before you sneer at BBO said, there needs to be a reality check.   Everybody else is suppose to be pragmatic, businesslike and work in their own best interest, but poor people and the middleclass are suppose to be loyal to people who stab them in the back and do nothing for their bottom line.   No wonder they can't get anybody to show up.

          I have three politically incorrect, straight, white male, grandchildren; and I don't care if you think they're important or not.

          by dkmich on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 04:04:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Democrats used to be loyal because (0+ / 0-)

          The local machine made sure they had ways to get people to the polls, could offer babysitting, a gathering spot with food, etc.

      •  Instead of money, how about ballot intiatives (4+ / 0-)

        To raise the minimun wage? In past elections these have brought out our base.

      •  Six to one spending advantage. (3+ / 0-)

        Still lost.

        Maybe you should guess again

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:53:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  We have to be organized down to the precinct... (26+ / 0-)

        ...level. We're not. I've seen it up close in Los Angeles and other parts of southern California. Precincts without captains, precincts without GOTV, precincts where the expectation is that voters will just "show up" when they see the ads. As you point out, that's not how Democrats in the old days did it.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:54:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  An understatement that "we're not." (6+ / 0-)

          I had to register under the wire for pres election and at Pasadena, CA Dem precinct headquarters. I was told (by multiple reps) I might have to do provisional ballot because they couldn't accept my form with a hyphenated name! They were clueless on the most basic level. Of course, I knew better and kicked around for over an hour before I could find someone who managed a reality check. This gives you an idea of the monumental problem.

        •  yep. we knocked on doors - we canvased - we (11+ / 0-)

          actually TALKED to folks about how their best interests lay in electing democrats.

          hell, i've turned around the 88 yr old i'm sharing a condo with - she'd been getting the far right mailers nonstop about how obama was going to kill medicare with obamacare.  it took ONE conversation to show her how she was being lied to.

          she'd been sending money to these creeps - not any more.

          it takes talking to people - face to face - discussing the issues instead of sitting around a blog and screeching about how dems are sellouts!

          it takes a 9 yr old who talks to folks to get attention for climate change - and it takes adults to cogently present reasons why people need to be at the polls.

          perhaps now is the time to start our ground game for 2014.

          i'm in, mb - and i hope kossacks in other states will start with their meetup groups to organize and work with their local party groups.

          and, yes, i said PARTY groups - because as much as some on this site like to keep sniping at the democratic party, it is the ONLY alternative to electing republicans!

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:15:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Heh. (2+ / 0-)

            If only we organized more!

            Umm, no.

            The problem isn't messaging. Nor is it organization. Nor is it ideology. Nor is it any of the usual campaign levers that keep our folks from coming to the polls whenever there isn't someone super famous on the ballot.

            The point is our folks don't expect Democrats to bring home the bacon. Because they don't. And as soon as they do, you'll have reliable turnout.

            •  they don't "bring home the bacon" because WE (2+ / 0-)

              don't have their backs when it counts!

              EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

              by edrie on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:53:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're completely naive (7+ / 0-)

                if you think it is the voters job to keep the politician happy rather than vice versa. That's one thing I give the GOP credit for: they do what their crazy base tells them to do and that's why they win all these local elections and run up the score in off years. Then when they get in power, they deliver. Often passing some of the craziest shit imaginable.

                Democrats, on the other hand, seem to think that you can just say whatever the voters want to hear on the campaign trail, and then do whatever you as a politician want once elected. And then folks like you say 'just cheer them on! Theyre governing!' And then the voters go 'there goes another one..saying one thing, doing another.' Then they lose interest and don't bother. Because you never ever get what you vote for.

                And that leaves Dems where they are now: 'We aren't great, but those guys are much much worse!' Which is true...but hardly motivational.

                It isn't the job of the voter to cheer for the politician no matter what. It is the job of the politician to keep the voters happy.

                •  at (almost) 68, i am anything BUT naive, dear. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Aunt Pat

                  jaded, perhaps, but hardly "naive".  ;)

                  EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                  by edrie on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:34:10 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  um - our job isn't to keep the politicians "happy" (0+ / 0-)

                  - it is our job to keep the party that closely represents our interested elected.

                  and, if you think keeping democrats in office instead of republicans is "cheering", then you really are the one who is naive.

                  is your solution, since you claim the "democrats aren't great", to elect republicans to "show" those democrats how bad they are?

                  that is called "shooting oneself in the foot" only with national consequences.

                  sometimes i have to wonder if those professing this attituded really understand politics at all!

                  EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                  by edrie on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:37:26 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Sent in for tonight's TC. (0+ / 0-)

                  I must end each day with a dose of Top Comments. A TC diary is a must for developing the calmness I need to get the required eight hours of sleep. - cohenzee

                  by cohenzee on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:38:04 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Precincts that went for Obama by twenty points (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ban nock, albrt, OMwordTHRUdaFOG

          Precincts in a state that, until now, never had even a single successful recall petition.
          Precincts that elected Democrats (before pushing for the AWB & mag bans).
          Precincts that have a distinct advantage in registered Dems.
          Precincts that had a six-to-one spending advantage.

          There is a lesson to be learned here, but 'precinct captain' ain't it.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:17:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Uh, did you notice how low the turnout... (12+ / 0-)

            ...was? Lower than 2012, of course. But also lower than 2010, a relatively low year.

            But my point is general, not just applicable to two Colorado legislative districts.

            By the way, if you had been in one of those districts, how would you have voted?

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:04:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Same as I plan on voting in 2014. (0+ / 0-)

              Taking the wife out for a lovely politics-free Tuesday evening.

              I've voted straight D in every election (except for Nader in 2000), but I'm not voting for anyone that pushes to take liberties away from innocent people. So unless I have a Dem in my district push strongly against this AWB/mag ban nonsense, I will sit it out.

              When I say that 2014 is all the gun controllers', I mean it.
              You want it? Fine. It's yours.

              I'll help pick up the pieces after they orchestrate their latest debacle.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:15:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sitting it out elects Republicans. Just as it... (14+ / 0-)

                ...did Tuesday night.

                While many Democrats want to restrict ownership of certain firearms and accessories, Republicans want to take away a helluva lot of other stuff: food stamps, health care, unemployment insurance, reproductive rights. So you go right ahead and help elect Republicans. Glad to know for certain that you and I are not on the same side.

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:22:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Then leave gun control out of it. (0+ / 0-)

                  Don't promise to take liberties away from then complain when those same people don't show up.

                  "Glad to know for certain that you and I are not on the same side."
                  True.
                  I'm on the side of winning elections.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:42:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You've just said you are going to sit... (7+ / 0-)

                    ...out the next election. So you're on the side of winning elections all right. The Republican side. Your privilege, of course, but don't pretend it's anything else.

                    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                    by Meteor Blades on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:53:11 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You wanted AWB. (0+ / 0-)

                      You got it.

                      The consequences are yours.

                      I don't simply blindly vote for someone with the 'right' letter behind their name.
                      I have contributed, voted & convinced others to vote D, because they earned it by sufficiently representing my viewpoints.
                      But I will not vote for anyone that pushes to take liberties away from innocent Americans.
                      It's a low bar. I am confident that the Democratic party will again provide it after they see what the consequences of bad gun control does.

                      And I will be the one picking up the mess this ridiculous shit will cause.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:03:58 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Show me when I have ever... (7+ / 0-)

                        ...supported an assault weapons ban. Not only did I not support it, I said from the beginning it would not pass.

                        Show me the Colorado assault weapons ban (except for Denver, where it's been on the books for nearly a quarter century, which had zero to do with this recall election).

                        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                        by Meteor Blades on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:29:02 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  President did. (0+ / 0-)

                          if you didn't, then I apologize for not knowing & am glad that you aren't for it.
                          However, you have come out in support of the President using executive order to pass a pointless gun control measure.

                          You can't ignore bans being on the table (including the mag ban in Colorado), especially when you support the President strong-arming useless gun control policies through.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 08:02:56 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  you run around here making rude, (0+ / 0-)

                            misleading and incorrect accusations about mine and others' stance on gun laws...even having one of your lies about me hidden yesterday...yet more than once I have stated my stance on specific details...so you now make a claim that PBO's EA's were 'pointless'...please stop putting words into my mouth, misrepresenting the goals of RASA and tell us...which of these in your opinion are pointless..??

                            FTR...I like all of them...I'm not afraid to share my views.

                            1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

                            2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

                            3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

                            4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

                            5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

                            6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

                            7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

                            8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

                            9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

                            10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make itwidely available to law enforcement.

                            11. Nominate an ATF director.

                            12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

                            13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

                            14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

                            15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effectiveuse of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to developinnovative technologies.

                            16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

                            17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

                            18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

                            19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

                            20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

                            21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

                            22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

                            23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

                            We are not broke, we are being robbed...but we can fight back...#KosKatalogue

                            by Glen The Plumber on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 10:36:47 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  What does gun control have to do with liberties? (0+ / 0-)

                    The First Amendment does not justify itself with words of how society needs polite conversation, but it does not protect those who "falsely shout 'Fire!' in a theater and thereby start a panic.

                    The Second Amendment begins: "A well regulated militia being necessary..." and the NRA wants to take it to the absurd absolutism that the ACLU refrains from in a 1st Amendment defense.

                    What we need is to find a balance between the right of gun owners and the right of potential crime victims that the "militia" be well regulated.

                    The furor over Friday's [10.5] job report revealed a political movement that is rooting for American failure, so obsessed with taking down Obama that good news drives its members into a blind rage. -Paul Krugman

                    by Judge Moonbox on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:26:04 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The definition. (0+ / 0-)

                      "lib·er·ty  (lbr-t) n. pl. lib·er·ties
                      1. a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
                      b. The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.
                      2. Freedom from unjust or undue governmental control.
                      3. A right or immunity to engage in certain actions without control or interference: the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights."

                      Bans are infringements on liberty. I don't believe in taking liberties away from innocent people in response to the crimes of murderers.

                      The wording of the second amendment has been widely understood for virtually the entirety of its existence.
                      If you choose to ignore it, that is your business.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:48:57 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Here's the key: (0+ / 0-)

                        "unjust or undue governmental control." Not all governmental control.

                        "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                        by bryduck on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:51:00 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

        •  We are organised at the precinct level in CO (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OMwordTHRUdaFOG, FrankRose, ancblu

          We have an intense ground game with thousands of volunteer canvassers. We have turned many elections that were supposed to be close into solid wins and elections that we were supposed to lose (like Bennet in 10) into wins.

          It's the issue.

          “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

          by ban nock on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:21:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Part of the problem is (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mmacdDE, Judge Moonbox

          In the county party organization.  It's a closed club, often run by retirees who have the time, and who often don't really have any idea how to do it.  All the officers are voted for by other officers., rather than simply registered party voters.  Because ALL Democrats are not welcome to vote in party elections they end up being left out and uninvolved.  We've got a system that only supports voting on Election Day, not helping run the party and being part of finding solutions.  Election Day is important.  But so are all the days in between.

        •  Most definitely (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Judge Moonbox

          I remember the last few times my mom voted in Philly.

          The dem ward leader, or one of the ward workers, came to the house, made sure she was registered, left info about the candidates and the election, came by on Election Day and drove her to the polls, and then back home.

          Without that level of support, she would never have voted. She used to when I was little and she was healthier, but not when she was older.

          That's what's needed. Personal touch. Customized help. An offer of a babysitter or a ride. A call or a brochure, with a handwritten note, left in the door.

          And social media. Give out your Facebook page, your twitter feed. For the local dems, don't overwhelm people with crap. I've turned off politicians that do that. I don't have the time for tons of Facebook status updates and posts. Once a week is enough.

          And the local party should concentrate on letting people know who the candidates are and when the election is, with easy ways to look up your polling place, the requirements for registration, and most important, help on meeting those requirements.

      •  No, actually the Dems DON'T offer their (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hannibal, Judge Moonbox, bryduck

        Base good feelings... Beyond Election Day.  The "real money" that Dems need isn't before the election, its AFTER.  In the budgets for essential services, and the social safety net.  It's money for great schools, and head start, and after school programs.  It's money to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, and create living wage jobs.  It's refunding meals on wheels.  We keep offering lesser evil candidates and policies and scaring our base into voting against theRepublicans.  That doesn't work reliably.  What Dems need is real movement on the Democratic agenda, not just hold-the-line.  When you get a candidate who says almost everything you need to hear, and you back him/her to the hilt, then he betrays you on fundamental issues, it creates a cynicism that is hard to overcome.  Voting is a very optimistic action, and Dems have to do better at giving folks reason to maintain that optimism.  Change isn't just a campaign slogan, its a goddamn necessity!

    •  stop trashing democrats would be a good start! (11+ / 0-)

      talk about turning off the young voters?  keep on stressin' that the democrats are the "same" as republicans!

      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

      by edrie on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:50:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Uncritical adherence to bad policy (4+ / 0-)

        really won't help.

        There's none so blind as those that will not see. --Jonathan Swift

        by chuckvw on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:22:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I think they can figure that out for (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hannibal

        Themselves.  

      •  Do you really think young voters (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eparrot, blackhand

        Don't already feel that way? Or do you think talking down to them and telling them what to think actually works? That they can't see how shitty their job prospects are, that major players in both parties caused their shitty situation, yet are still major players? That their friends who joined the military came home to find that the VA is disgustingly underfunded, and has been for decades? That labor rights are an issue constantly ignored by the Democratic party once the ballots are counted, despite promises of walking the picket line with us?

        The Democratic party is turning off the base all on its own, some burnt out activists griping on the internet doesn't effect things one way or the other.

        First they came for the farm workers, and I said nothing.

        by Hannibal on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:05:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  and their job prospects will be better with (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bepanda

          republicans in office?

          it is WE who are not setting the record straight for them.  i talk to young people every single effin' day - every place i go, i speak politic - i tell young people why it is CRITICAL for them to vote and why that vote should be democratic in nature.

          i explaine the lost vote of third parties and how their vote will actually enable the candidate least likely to help them to take office.

          i do this 365 days a year, not just in the run up to an election.

          i tell kids to be sure and register -  that their voice is important because it is THEIR future they are shaping.  i talk until i am blue in the face to people who have erroneous ideas about social security, the aca, those who are mislead by the lies in the media and the right wing talk show hosts.

          and, quite frankly, i could use some help here from some other folks who SHOULD be doing the same thing who are posting on this site but make my job a helluva lot harder because i have to not only expose the republicans, but i have to counter the crap that gets repeated by the paulites, the anarchists, the "all politicians are bad" mantras, etc.

          the democratic party isn't turning off it's base, it is the people who repeat the same old lies about the democratic party who don't understand how our government works.  numbers.

          plain and simple.

          to get ANYTHING done, the majority party that appoints the committee chairs, who decides what issues will be brought to the floor, who offers jobs bills instead of 40+ going nowhere attempts to repeal obamacare/women's rights/etc - that is where the power lies.

          but what do we do here?  we shoot ourselves in the foot- repeatedly.

          i sometimes wonder if anyone remembers how congress works any longer.  oh. i forgot.  most schools no longer teach civics or government.

          no wonder we're in deep doo.

          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

          by edrie on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:00:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  amen amen amen (0+ / 0-)

            very well said.

          •  Convince them. (0+ / 0-)
            and their job prospects will be better with republicans in office?
            The whole point is that they don't see any difference.

            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

            by bryduck on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:54:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  and whose fault is that? i place the blame (0+ / 0-)

              directly on those who misrepresent what is being done and what can be done in the present situation.

              and who gets the blame?  right wing radio/ fox news/ third party advocates/ any person who claims that there are no differences between the parties.

              EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

              by edrie on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:58:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Occam's Razor suggests (0+ / 0-)

                that its the Dems in office who aren't making it clearer.

                "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                by bryduck on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:24:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  how can they be heard over the lies coming from (0+ / 0-)

                  outside their offices?

                  i hear plenty of them from both the right AND the left these days.  there are very few fact based discussions going on anywere these days - it seems ALL about the egos of those doing the talking - and that isn't the politicians as much as the talking heads in the media, the blogs, etc.

                  JUST my opinion here...

                  EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                  by edrie on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:24:31 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So they should give up trying? (0+ / 0-)

                    (Not saying you are saying that.) They are the lawmakers, after all; they are the only ones who can make it so they can get heard. Either way, it's their job . . .

                    "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                    by bryduck on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:27:48 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  have you ever been part of a committee? (0+ / 0-)

                      i see it in one i'm in now where it takes MONTHS to get simple procedures agreed to - MONTHS, if not years!!!

                      getting a group of strong willed people in the same room, all with different ideas and goals, and making them work out their differences is a long, complicated process.

                      now, add large groups of people all pulling in different directions for every dotting of an "i" or crossing of a "t" - and each has an opinion that their letter is more important than the other - and you have slow, crawling, molasses in winter movement.

                      our government was set up that way to keep any one group from instituting radical changes in this nation.

                      it took decades to get civil rights passed.  decades to pass women's suffrage, centuries to change the course of history in this nation.  it has been designed that way.

                      if we want to change it, we have to be motivated enough to be persistant AND patient.  again, there will be NO "revolution".  it will never happen.  what WILL happen is that slow creep of change that hits with the ferocity of wrinkles on an aging face.

                      those who want change bad enough to wait long enough are the ones who will succeed.

                      that is the way of the world, my friend.  there are no "cosmic shifts" that immediately change the world for the better.

                      sometimes, there are changes that can set up back decades, if not centuries - like 9/11 and the bush/cheney subsequent decisions - but even those have taken over a decade to fully impact us - and it will take over a decade or more to reverse those impacts.

                      i am NOT saying don't push - what i am saying is what this aging body has taught me:  pick your battles wisely and know how, when and who to push instead of indescriminitely wasting energy.

                      short version:  organize and never lose sight of your goal.

                      that, sadly, is what occupy didn't do on a large scale.  they forgot what they were there for and the dissolution of energy and focus has made that organization ineffective on a national scale. that is more the pity.  the start was great - the ending, somewhat inglorious.

                      EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                      by edrie on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 02:04:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Oh, I understand all that. (0+ / 0-)

                        I just happen to think that we are too screwed to work the problem from below using the system any longer. It will either happen from above in the system, or the system itself will be torn apart. Too many levers of power are too strongly held by those who are fighting us; I don't see even a decades-long process working. If sheriffs set attack dogs on protestors nowadays, would there be any "film at 11" showing it, thereby enraging/disgusting an audience? More than likely, the piece would be set up as a "Look at those dirty hippies get their comeuppance" edited hit job instead.
                        Can change happen? I guess, but I'm not sanguine I'll live to see it, and I'm only 51.

                        "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                        by bryduck on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 04:25:29 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  sadly, i remember dogs set on protestors - and the (0+ / 0-)

                          outrage wasn't there then since the protestors were minorities.

                          these things go in waves - in generations - the ones who fight, those who benefit - the next generation who takes for granted, those who realize what is lost and start fighting again.

                          the ones who will really make the changes are TLO's generation, i'm thinking.  we're starting the awareness growing yet again - we're bringing multi levels of history and experience and her generation is feeling the consequence of the apathy of those who took for granted.

                          change happens, it just happens more slowly than it should, sometimes.

                          and sometimes that change goes backwards - forcing us to roll the boulder uphill all over again!

                          EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                          by edrie on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:01:52 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  what makes the next generation stronger is the (0+ / 0-)

                            instant availability of information through social media...

                            that is a catalyst for change - just as television was in the 50s.  watch pleasantville - that film is so eerily accurate about how change happens - i lived through that change into "technicolor" - i am one generation before you.  i split the 50s and 60s changes - turned 17 as a freshman in 63 when the change from the music revolution began.

                            that is a revolution that worked - and it is why there are so few indie music stations or artists being heard.  the "other" side learns quickly - thus we have cumulus, clearchannel, cable "news", etc.

                            that, too, will change.  look at how twitter has replaced the traditional news media - now, even the congresscritters are embracing it.

                            the question is will we learn how to use that change fast enough to prevent more backsliding and erosion of rights!

                            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                            by edrie on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:11:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So you lived through "good times." (0+ / 0-)

                            Even though they ended, at least you had some. Me? Not so much.

                            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                            by bryduck on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 04:02:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  yep - the good times were when i, as a woman, (0+ / 0-)

                            could actually open a bank account without a male cosigner (either father or husband) - could pursue the careers of my choice instead of being limited to secretary, teacher, nurse or wife - could freely express my own sexuality instead of being labeled as a "bad girl" - could get an assistantship for my masters instead of being turned down because women shouldn't go to school - could sit by my friends of any color because i wanted to instead of them having to go in and out a back door... etc.

                            there were changes in the early sixties that shaped a generation (or two or three or four) - and we worked for that change.

                            sadly, once we got a lot of it, some (in my generation) sat back on their laurels thinking the work was done.  those who did never expected the massive pushback we see now as the dinosaurs try not to get extincted out of political existence.

                            and, too, there have been some very bad times - like with the initial reaction to the hiv virus, the prejudice and hatred still of some groups, the rise of religious intolerance, the concept of "us vs them" that is permeating so much of society whether it be wall street or the mean streets that foment gangs of poor and gangs of law enforcement officers.

                            the bad side is the rise of steroid use that has pumped up so many who now, after watching years of violence porn on tv, film and video games, think that killing or slaughtering is okay - it isn't personal.

                            but, all in all, there are more good times than bad.  we've got new cures for disease, new means of communication (which we're STILL learning how to use effectively), better technology that is growing leaps and bounds from the windup aircraft of my childhood or the old gas guzzlers when gas was $0.19 a gallon.  we have so much ahead of us with nano particles, microchip implants that can assess the blood to give readback for heart disease, cancer, etc., all sending the information via bluetooth to monitors (that was announced today and yes, there is the opportunity for some abuse, but the opportunity to keep people healthier may far outway the misuse).

                            we can now replace organs (i remember the first heart transplant well), joints (knees, hips, fingers), blood (cleaning by removing, radiating then restoring to kill cancer cells) and so much more that even 50 years ago would have sounded like science fiction.  we are on the verge of artificial intelligence in our computers (now THAT worries me a bit) and processors so powerful that the ones in a cell phone out perform those in the clean rooms of the 80s.

                            yep.  there are many "good times" that we sometimes forget to see - but they are there.  we just have to look around us and take the time to observe.  and, with the bad ones, those "good" things will give us the motivation and strength to keep on opposing and fighting the bad.  (fracking, global warming, etc.)

                            okay - that's my "pep talk" for the nite...

                            peace and joy to you and don't forget to smell both the roses and the manure that makes them bloom!

                            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                            by edrie on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 06:49:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I challenge some of your rose-coloring. (0+ / 0-)

                            We don't know if scientific advances have actually been retarded by all the money spent on non-research and compensation by the for-profit companies that got enriched by them, but a whole lot of people got paid that had nothing to do with those advances. I don't want to get into counterfactuals, but I bet if all that money had been plowed back into R&D, we'd be even further along that progress timeline.
                            And if you look at electronics and computer tech beyond the hardware, other countries are eating our lunch and have been for decades.

                            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                            by bryduck on Mon Sep 16, 2013 at 09:41:56 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  some reason other than "not Republicans" (7+ / 0-)

      fight hard for the working class. Don't just put it in the platform and then ignore it.

      Dear NSA: I am only joking.

      by Shahryar on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:51:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  How about not selling out the base (19+ / 0-)

      On bread and butter issues?

      How about not taking the bankers' side after they collapsed the economy?

      Not tanking bankruptcy reform?

      Not tanking union card check?

      Not adopting an unworkable Heritage Foundation plan for mandating people to buy private insurance?

      Not pushing sequestration and austerity?

      Not busting teachers' unions?

      The permanent demographic majority we are being promised will not materialize if the party consistently fails to deliver as it has for the last five years.

      •  That's not what this is about (7+ / 0-)

        This is about getting enough voters to the polls to counteract the mouth-breathing loonies who think the only valid part of the U.S. Constitution is the 2nd Amendment.

        Tonight, we sucked at getting out enough voters to beat the braindead nincompoops.

        It's not any more complicated than that.

        Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

        by MJB on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:59:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, but I think the idea is (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Code Monkey, albrt, eparrot

          that the reason we sucked at getting out enough votes was because we haven't sold the base on the issues albrt mentioned.

          (Which isn't to say that I buy that idea; I think we need to focus a great deal more on fear-mongering, personally.)

          "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

          by GussieFN on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:02:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not true, this was a single-issue election (6+ / 0-)

            You can't "package" issues and demand that your voters automatically toe the line no matter what.

            You have to sell the issue, and the importance of it, and you have to put boots on the ground out there to get voters out to defend the pols who have the stones to stand up to the gun crazies.

            We didn't do that tonight.  We lost.  Adam Lanza, Eric Rudolph, and all the other mass murderers won with the help of the mindless automatons who think we're gonna take their toys away.

            Please help to fight hunger with a donation to Feeding America.

            by MJB on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:05:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not sure that's true. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Cat Servant, eparrot, bryduck

              (That is, I'm genuinely not sure, not just for the sake of argument.)

              If a political party increases base enthusiasm on one issue, does it not translate to other issues? I suspect it does. Hm. Now that I'm typing, I pretty sure that that's precisely what the right has done so well: combine a bunch of relatively unrelated issues into a single, high-intensity, package.)

              "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

              by GussieFN on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:09:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks. (7+ / 0-)

            The Democratic Party has two bases - the social issues base and the economic base.

            The social issues base is always a minority on each individual social issue.  Always.  They can only win by maintaining solidarity with the economic base.  

            When the social issues base decides they don't need the workers because they've got Mike Bloomberg, they will lose every time.  

            The message didn't need to be just gun control.  It could have been "gun control is good policy, and you need a Democrat in office to protect your job and your union and your civil rights."  But at this point everybody knows the Democrats don't really protect the jobs and the unions and the civil rights, so we're in a hopeless screaming match against NRA loonies about gun control.  

            Why would a person who's struggling to make ends meet want to tune into that?  

        •  In other words (5+ / 0-)

          The other side had a message, and we didn't have enough of a machine to overcome the message.

          The 2008 OFA turnout strategy was backed by a strong message of Hope and Change.

          Five years later the Democrats own the lack of Change, and at this point it's turned into a lack of Hope.

          The Democrats are toast in 2014 and 2016 if they follow the 2008 OFA turnout strategy but with no message and a solid record of 100% sucking wind on bread and butter issues.

          •  I don't see this at all. I see a lot of Democrats (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            MJB

            in Congress concerned about bread and butter issues, and voting that way if they get the chance.  I see them blocked by Republicans.  In the House, they don't even get the chance to vote, and in the Senate, they face Republican filibusters.

        •  That's why you're failing to get enough voters (0+ / 0-)

          Out, because you think it's only about getting voters out.  What you do between elections is an important necessity.  And we didn't suck at anything tonight!  Giron won.  Morse lost.  But morse is in Colorado Springs , where democrats are outnumbered by Republicans and unaffiliated voters.  It was a fluke that he was ever elected in 2012.

    •  dont make an election about guns. (7+ / 0-)

      simple.

    •  Vote in every election (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      defluxion10

      Vota en cada eleccion.

      Make it an article of faith, a hard and fast rule.  Young Democrats ought to preach it. Party leaders could be visiting public schools and talking it up.
      I grew up hearing my Republican parents say they voted in every election and I think they usually did. I think I last missed an election in 1974.

      Censorship is rogue government.

      by scott5js on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:59:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Shame nonvoters, Make it cool to vote (0+ / 0-)

      Part of an overall GOTV strategy could be to make political ads targeting college students that show it's cool to vote and that people who don't vote are part of the problem.

      Incorporate voting into TV and movies. Everything from a simple aside where all the main characters react disgustingly when another character reveals they went to the beauty parlor rather than voting, to a full on episode where some cranky busybody wins an election by one vote and it's revealed that one of the main characters never made it to the polls, etc.

      It should be a constant drumming:

      1. pushing civics and the importance of voting in schools,
      2. popular culture references in tv and movies,
      3. ready-to-air news stories provided to television news about voting,
      4. state and federal legislatures pushing for a federal holiday on voting day,
      5. Ready-made legislation for state legislatures (ALEC-style) that establish minimal voting options (2 weeks of early voting, mail-in voting, minimum number of polling stations per population, etc)

      [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

      by rabel on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 05:02:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  multiple days of voting, vote by mail (0+ / 0-)

      vote online.  Make it as easy to vote as possible.

      Having in-person votes on a Tuesday means that people who work aren't going to vote.  Which means that your electorate is going to be made up disproportionately of people who do not work.

      aka. seniors

      Having voting over multiple days and vote-by-mail allows people who work to participate in our democratic system.

      The under-reported irony of Romney's 47% statement is that the key to Republican success is the systematic suppression of working peoples' votes.

  •  This ruined my night (23+ / 0-)

    The right wing gun fetish freaks make me sick.

    ------"Load up on guns, bring your friends. It's fun to lose and to pretend."------- Kurt Cobain

    by Jeff Y on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:45:14 PM PDT

  •  2010 all over again (13+ / 0-)

    Same problem. Bummer. Republicans would fight a system like Australia's, where you're fined not NOT voting. Fight it tooth and nail. Cold dead hands and all that.

    Mark Twain: It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

    by Land of Enchantment on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:46:15 PM PDT

  •  I don't think this can be spun that easily. (5+ / 0-)

    This wasn't the NRA recall, this was driven by locals.  You don't have to agree with my position on civilian disarmament to see the lessons tonight and how they harken to 1994.

  •  People get the government they deserve. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chickeee, MJB, scott5js

    A mind like a book, has to be open to function properly.

    by falconer520 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:48:10 PM PDT

  •  Quit relying on anybody resembling a pol (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mconvente, PhilK

    to write. Politics is showbiz. It's the greatest show on earth. Dig up Barnum.
    Only been saying that for 8 years.

    Betchu REALLY wanna vote, now.

    by franklyn on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:48:20 PM PDT

  •  i offer a third reason: (11+ / 0-)

    moderate democrats are either getting turned off by the extremist rhetoric from the left OR they are just tuning out the infighting.

    imho, our biggest enemy is "ourselves" - just look at how ineffective this site has been for weeks - with these recalls coming up, what was the focus on this site?  

    dumbass meta diaries about who is a "better" progressive.

    well, again, imho, the "better" progressive is tuning us out and staying out of the fray and in doing so is missing out on a massive takeover of the political movement on the right.

    they don't have to beat us - we're doing that quite well, ourselves!

    WHERE were the "progressives" pushing people to stop this recall?  WHERE were the ones on the "left" who were saying democrats are a better choice than the republicans?

    well, the loudest and most virulent ones were saying (again) that there is no difference betweeen democrats and republicans , that democrats are "weak", that democrats are "sellouts", that democrats don't represent the "people".

    well, folks, the "people" in colorado heard THAT message loud and clear!

    now watch the dismantling of the progressive ideals go even faster.

    instead of "what's the matter with kansas?", we should be asking ourselves "what's the matter with US!"

    all i can say at this point is....

    stupid! stupid! STUPID!!!!

    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

    by edrie on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:49:37 PM PDT

    •  I like that you offer solid evidence in support (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw, PhilK, Cat Servant

      of your own theory!

      "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

      by GussieFN on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:52:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  anecdotal evidence - look at the number of names (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alain2112, Matt Z

        missing on THIS site since these flame wars erupted.

        people are just walking quietly away because NOBODY likes watching stupidity unfold or likes being a part of it.

        my own evidence?  i have been rarely engaged here during the nsa/snowdon/manning tirades.  i've better things to do with my own time than waste it reading far right hand mudslinging.

        it does NO one any good from ANY side of an argument.

        it is a waste of time and life to watch people dredge up old comments and battles and clique fighting and accusations of who is doing what to whom.

        the uglier the namecalling, the fewer people who actually come here for the politics.

        this site has been more like WWF than DK for these last months - it shows a serious lack of maturity, imho.

        now, i'm done on this topic.  don't wish to waste another moment of my life on this topic.  i've got videos to edit and protocol to write and legal issues and research to take care of - so please don't take this personally, but i'm signing off for the nite.

        good nite.

        EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

        by edrie on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:02:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I meant that you claim 'moderates' are (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          edrie

          turned off by infighting, then said, 'stupid! stupid! STUPID!!!!'

          Poor moderates!

          And a fine night to you!

          "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

          by GussieFN on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:11:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  ah, nope - my "stupid stupid stupid" remark (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            GussieFN, Matt Z

            is about our failure to see how fighting might turn off voters!

            sorry my passion left me unclear!

            nite to you, too - and this time i really have to shut this thing down - about to faceplant on the keyboard!

            nite,

            e

            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

            by edrie on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:23:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  your evidence (5+ / 0-)

      that moderate democrats are getting turned off by "the extremist rhetoric from the left"?

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:56:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No evidence of any of that (8+ / 0-)

      1) Daily Kos traffic is higher than it's ever been during a non-presidential campaign season.

      2) If you think some flame war at Daily Kos had any bearing on a special election in rural Colorado, then I don't even know what to say.

      3) We don't know who did or didn't not turn out. I would bet the turnoff in voting was Latinos (making up over a quarter of voters in both districts), young voters and single women. How do I know? Because that's who consistently turns out least of all in specials. I have no conclusive evidence that those historical trends applied here, but at least I can make a solid case for it: Fewer voters turned out in the district 2010 than did in 2008 or 2012, in the election results make clear that it was Democrats who were turned off. So was it Daily Kos flame wars in 2010 that cost us voters, but the Daily Kos flame wars of 2012 didn't?

      •  kos, how we influence outcome when we put our (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        WakeUpNeo, Matt Z

        collective minds to it is by working to connect with local - providing GOOD arguments and support for candidates - JUST as we have done effectively for years.

        my point here is that during this critical recall, our voices were lost to this inane bickering that has taken over the dialogue of late.

        you say that our page views are the highest ever - that is awesome - but what are they viewing?

        are the major number of diaries activist diaries or is the wreck list dominated by the clique wars?

        we lose our ability to influence when we lose our focus.

        i've worked presidential campaigns - big ones - ran the campaign literature and supplies for mcgovern/shriver in ny - we were sending washington materials because they ran out.

        it is the supply of quality information that drives voters - it is the boots on the ground that motivates people to get to the polls - it is this site's pooling of energy that can make that happen on a large scale.

        THAT is what i am talking about that has been missing.

        when i come here to find only who is a better progressive and all others are crap arguments, who is hr'ing whom (the new policy of one hr has significantly helped there, thank you for that!) or who is accusing whom of being a paid shill or sockpuppet or something else that is simply purile in nature, then we lose our focus and our power as a collective voice that can drive the direction of dialogue.

        THAT is what i have been alluding to tonite.

        do i think some "flame war" has a bearing?  nope.  do i think we missed an opportunity to HAVE a bearing?  yes.

        the lack of direction here is one that we cannot afford to continue for the 2014 elections if we are to fulfill your stated mission on this site - to elect more and better democrats (with the key word here being "elect").

        again, you miss my point if you think i am saying our little navelgazing exercises influence small electorates or latino or women or young people.  what i AM saying is that WE missed an opportunity to be relevant.

        young voters take to twitter, sites like here IF we can draw them into the discussions - and infighting doesn't do that but good cogent arguments and clear positions that benefit them will.

        if the mantra of this site is a steady drumbeat of "there is no difference" or "corporatist" or "sellouts" or "wimp/weak/no spine", etc., then we are selling snake oil on this site.

        the real danger is not just here - but in the sites that crop up on social media that repeat these bogus claims - claims that go unchallenged by facts.

        markos, i'm a top sales person - i can sell ANYTHING i believe in - and do... in multiple professions during my lifetime.  what i observe here is a lack of "selling" based on erroneous beliefs that keep getting repeated ad nauseam - the "sell-out" "no spine" "betrayed" memes that hold no basis in fact.

        that, quite frankly, scares me.  it means that we are losing one of the most important tools we have - that high readership that you have brought together.

        i just hate seeing that effort thrown away when it can be a very powerful tool (like it has been in the past).

        that's all i've got to say.

        nite.

        edrie

        EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

        by edrie on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:40:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I hear you, but (0+ / 0-)

          many of us don't believe in the Democratic party strongly enough to sell it the way one would sell something they really believe in. It has nothing to do with bickering - we wouldn't BE bickering if we really believed in it.

          I certainly believe that Democrats are better than Republicans. And I can give specific reasons why. But I can't generate any enthusiasm for what I consider to be a lesser of evils decision. For me, discussions with potential voters ALWAYS (in the past 3-4 years anyway) come down to admitting that that's what the decision is. Always.

          So maybe my attitude and the attitude of many, many liberals is causing fewer Democrats to get elected. And you can rail against us all you want, but our numbers are getting bigger and bigger (and not just because we're idiots). At some point, you're going to have to stop blaming us for not being as pragmatic as you think we should be and start figuring out how the hell we change the situation. Because most of us are NOT making bogus claims and NOT saying things with no basis in fact. Instead we're looking at the same facts and coming to different conclusions.

          Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com and check out New World Orders

          by eparrot on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:47:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  and when this happens... (0+ / 0-)
            So maybe my attitude and the attitude of many, many liberals is causing fewer Democrats to get elected.
            who DOES get elected?  republicans who vote to destroy every single ideal you have.

            you are assuming that "eventually" third parties will succeed - but i would like to point out that none ever have in the course of this nation on a major scale (sure, maybe an independent senator or two in 300+ years - not a great sign for thirds, is it).

            in the meantime, we are slipping further and further into the 19th 18th century.  can our nation afford the damage being done to the individual citizen, the environment, the legal system, the economy, civil rights, HUMAN rights - all to prove some insignificant point.  throw away this nation in the name of ideology if you like, me? i'm going to be fighting republicans AND you tooth and nail - all the way into hell since that is where this nation is headed.

            EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

            by edrie on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:28:36 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm assuming nothing of the kind re: 3rd parties (0+ / 0-)

              My assumption is that we are headed for a revolution and there is precious little I can do to stop it. And I am voting for Democrats while holding my nose.

              Where you and I differ is on the amount of enthusiasm we can generate for said voting, including how we interact with others who are considering how to vote. I"m not trying to prove any kind of point, I simply cannot be dishonest about my opinion and say anything other than we're voting for the lesser of evils. And that is not a convincing approach.

              I fully respect your attitude and approach. Not only do I wish you'd give me the same courtesy, the point I was making before is that the numbers of people like me are growing and if you choose to rant and criticize us as purists fighting for some theoretical point, you're only going to increase the chances of not seeing improvement. At some point, the Democrats have to become something other than "better than them," or we're all screwed regardless of what you or I think.

              Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com and check out New World Orders

              by eparrot on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:46:37 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  if you're waiting for that "revolution" - then i (0+ / 0-)

                suggest you pack a lunch - and dinner - and store enough food to fill a fall-out shelter because NO "revolution" is coming, my friend.

                as for the lesser of two evils - i'll take the "evil" of lilly ledbetter, the aca (it's somewhere to start - it isn't the "finish" by any means); thes winding down of one war, the extrication of another; and much much more that has and will happen with dems in office.

                with republicans - just go back and look at the reagan years, the bush 1&2 years and then look at the baby steps we're making with dems.

                why are they "baby steps"?  because of the obstruction of republicans, that's why.

                that is where we need to focus.

                so, who makes us "better than them"?  i suggest WE do.  not some politician.

                WE need to push left - but IF we don't win that battle, we take the next best candidate that CAN win elections and then push again.

                alienating the candidates that better represent our views (such as the idiotic attacks on dave obey by sirota and tina richards did), we only harm our own causes.

                we cannot win every single battle and get every single thing we want - we have to keep pushing every step of the way - but that involves pushing republicans away as much as it involves pushing ELECTED dems (and first, we have to get them elected to control the numbers in congress - i.e., who chairs the committees that put legislation we want on the floor of the house and senate.)

                we need to be more strategy oriented than "passion" oriented, especially when our passions defeat our own purposes.

                we are not as far apart in ideology as you might think - the difference between us is that i choose to work the table to benefit our cause instead of angrily turning it over and scattering the chips.

                EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                by edrie on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:33:09 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  angrily turning it over? (0+ / 0-)

                  look, I get that plenty of people are ruled by passion and we see a lot of it on this site. And an honest look at this exchange between you and I probably suggests that you and I do as well even though we imply that we're above it.

                  And yes, I don't think we're that far apart on a lot of things. And yes, I can certainly point to lily ledbetter, no DADT and dying DOMA, no tax cuts for the rich, etc, etc. But inevitably, people point out the NSA spying and giving every appearance of catering to wall street and now Syria. And note that all three of those are not issues that only the far left cares about even though they are often presented that way. My response is that yes, those suck, and I'm voting Democratic because the other stuff, hoping I can change the bad stuff.  If pressed, I have to admit that I don't have a lot of hope on that score. For most people who aren't particularly predisposed to be strongly for one party (the 40% of the voters we most need to reach), this is a lukewarm endorsement. And that's one big reason we have crappy turnout among moderate Democrats and independents IMO. It's not because a bunch of lefties are insulting Democrats, it's because the policies are wrong and there is no spinning it.

                  I made the point about where I think people are at and how it's only heading more that direction. and how that fact is going to become a greater and greater impediment to Democrats unless it is addressed directly and effectively. You may disagree about where people are at. Or maybe you feel that your approach in trying to reach them by telling them to stop being ruled by their passions is the right one. I don't believe that's the case, but I certainly respect your disagreement.

                  Want a progressive global warming novel, not a right wing rant? Go to www.edwardgtalbot.com and check out New World Orders

                  by eparrot on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:02:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  ah, i cannot help but smile at all the outrage ove (0+ / 0-)

                    the nsa spying - it is no better or worse or less or more than it has been forever.  only, now it is easier to do electronically. the fbi, dea, cia, atf, secret service - ALL have been actively gathering information on people so this is nothing new.

                    it is only the means and quantity of data that changed - but the actual review of data still takes time and the same human work that it always has.

                    i see the outrage as a distraction to the real misconduct going on in government - the lack of jobs bills, the lack of funding critical programs and infrastructure, the loss of jobs to outsourcing - but we're not outraged about those - only that some ubiquitous agency MIGHT have electronically gathered our emails!

                    your point about where people are now is a valid one.  my point is how did they get there?  IF we channeled our energy into the very real dangers of climate change, health care, job loss - then we could do much more about making the democrats effective in gaining ground politically - AND we could be building a future where we can address the other issues BECAUSE we have sufficient dems in congress to chair those committees and put those laws and resolutions before the main body of congress.

                    there is nothing wrong by being ruled by one's passions - it is how we chose to utilize those passions to get results that counts.  that is where we have to coldly become analytical to achieve our goals to fulfill those passions.  we can be both - passonate and coldly effective.  we have to be - otherwise, we miss opportunities, we lose ground and we have to start all over again in 50 years to get back to where we are today.

                    in my extra 17 years of life, i watched monumental changes occur on how we treated racial separation, discrimination against women, the right of choice over our own futures, health care, etc.  now we are trying to extinguish the whole fire while we ignore the little fires - the fires that will join up to be a storm that threatens to overwhelm us.  we have to pick and chose how we stop what is happening and to realize which battles give us a strategic and tactical advantage to move forward while eliminating those smaller issues that are growing into that firestorm.

                    i do not agree with you about the reason people don't turn out being that the "policies" are wrong.  the gun issue was right at the right time.  the problem is that WE deflected our energies to other things instead of going back to gain that tactical advantage through boots on the ground - phone banking - participation at the grass roots level.

                    we let the grass die under our feet because we weren't watering it this time.  we can't afford to do that again - especially not in 2014.  we have to BECOME passionate enough to convince people that the democrats are the only way they will move forward - even if it's just baby steps... but it IS forward and not backward, isn't it.

                    it's late, hope i didn't miss anything in your post - i've enjoyed our engagement - i think that we are saying things that are important to us all - how we need to "fix" the system will take many viewpoints, many voices - and we have to find a way to make those voices passionate enough to keep the disaster that would be a republican victory in 2014.  none of us, the planet included, can afford that risk!

                    nite,

                    e

                    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

                    by edrie on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 11:53:05 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  All of the numbers leading up to Tuesday... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blackhand

        ...in Pueblo indicated that D's out-turned out R's by at least 2-1.

        Further, that Quinnipiac poll of the whole state told us that, including very red rural districts, Coloradoans opposed the recall by between a 2-1 and 3-1 margin. That's including counties redder than the two state senate districts, especially Pueblo, which is very blue.

        Democrats opposed the recall by over 85%. Independents opposed the recall by a minimum of 10 points. Democrats in Pueblo may have outnumbered R's at the polls by 2-1. And the recall succeeded 56 to 44?

        If  85% of Democrats opposed the recall, and Pueblo had twice as many Democrats vote as Republicans, how did the recall succeed in Pueblo?

        Someone please tell me what is wrong with my math here.

        If Democrats did in fact double the turnout of Republicans in Pueblo, how did Democratic voter turnout fail???


        "Politeness is wasted on the dishonest, who will always take advantage of any well-intended concession." - Barrett Brown

        by 3rdOption on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:48:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  What people write here (0+ / 0-)

      has no real effect on elections--all we can do is raise money, and apparently that was done successfully. I know a day didn't go by without another appeal from DKos to contribute--the problem is clearly a lack on enthusiasm for gun control, particularly in western districts like these.

      "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

      by Alice in Florida on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:01:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  whispered rumors, repeatd lies take hold in the (0+ / 0-)

        mind of those who read them.  if a lie is repeated long enough, it becomes "fact" because it has a familiar ring to it.

        that is how the republicans have successfully convinced people that obamacare will harm them.

        what we read, what we see  sticks subliminally.  if, for example, the wreck list month after month decries a specific point of view, that becomes "familiar" to the lurker who may have found good fact and truth in other diaries - so that belief is implanted.

        it is a sales technique.  it works.  i don't and won't use it because i refuse to sell someone something they don't want or need.  i've always been successful as a sales rep because i identify that need or want and then let the customer know whether or not my product fulfills that criteria.

        as a car sales person, i've actually sent people to other brands because our vehicles didn't meet the criteria needed (honda/acura - love them but sent one customer to lexus because of crippling back pain - our "ride" was too hard for her - the driving the livingroom couch was a better fit).

        identify the need or desire then find a product to fill it - the same goes for politics.  what we aren't doing is paying attention to what the voters need and want - we're trying to insist they buy our product even when they don't want it.

        we need to show why OUR product will fulfill those basics that matter to the customer/voter.

        we're not doing that by infighting - hell, we can't even convince each other when we're so busy name-calling, insulting and throwing flames at one another!   and, theoretically, we all have very similar basic wants and needs!  we just can't decide on the damned trim!

        EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

        by edrie on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:47:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  There are people on this site who are happy (8+ / 0-)

    about the recall , they think it proves them right .
    They think it proves others on this site wrong and guilty .

    "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. H.

    by indycam on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:49:56 PM PDT

  •  Maybe the lesson here... (11+ / 0-)

    ...is that New England-style gun control in a purple state is going to cost you elections.

    ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
    My Blog
    My wife's woodblock prints

    by maxomai on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:50:32 PM PDT

    •  On the other hand, in a state with two horrific (5+ / 0-)

      massacres, you'd think gun control would have a chance.  And I think Colorado had already passed a law requiring background checks at gun shows, and that seemed to be okay with people.

    •  Not really (10+ / 0-)

      since the polling is clear that those gun control measures enjoy solid majority support in Colorado.

      The lesson is our people didn't vote. It's pretty simple.

      •  There's going to be a lot of that. (4+ / 0-)

        You can thank the AWB and mag bans for it.

        Somehow promising the electorate that you will take liberties away from them because of the crimes of murderers doesn't seem to inspire them to vote.

        But speaking of polling:  According to a Quinnipiac University poll of Colorado, 54% of voters oppose the new gun laws, compared to 40% who support them.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:37:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Not popular enough for them to vote. (0+ / 0-)

        One big danger of looking at pols:  it's very easy to say yes to gun control when called for a poll. That doesn't mean that person will then go out and vote. It's what people DO, not what they say that really matters.

        Saying yes to gun control also doesn't mean that person won't get second thoughts about violating the constitution.

        To me, more civilian gun control while the police become more militarized is a non starter. Start by respecting the rights of the people first.

      •  Sorry Kos... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ancblu

        ...but that statement of yours is just obtuse. ekgrulez1 already mentioned the Quinnipiac poll, which showed:

        All voters oppose 54 - 40 percent the stricter new gun control laws which led to the recall effort. Democrats support the stricter laws 78 - 16 percent, while opposition is 89 - 7 percent among Republicans and 56 - 39 percent among independent voters. Women are divided on the stricter laws 48 - 45 percent, with men opposed 64 - 33 percent.
        That poll was conducted less than a month ago, as opposed to the polls from January that I'm guessing you've been looking at.

        Follow-up results released by Quinnipiac University the next day show that Colorado voters disapprove of the way he handled gun control, and that he's in fact in trouble for re-election now. He was sailing to victory earlier.

        I'll grant that the data aren't convincing. We've only lost two elections so far over the Colorado gun law fiasco. But the partisan in me isn't in a mood to test this further.

        ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
        My Blog
        My wife's woodblock prints

        by maxomai on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 06:43:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Those are the top-line results (0+ / 0-)

          But follow up questions demonstrate a significant, unacknowledged problem: Coloradans don't know what bills Morse and Giron voted on.  Background checks garner 82%-16% support, for which one of the bills Morse and Giron voted.  A ban on high capacity clips (>15) received equal support and opposition among all respondents (49%-48%), for which they also voted.

          So do voters support or oppose the laws?  At best, we can only say voters don't know what laws were passed.

          Moreover, the same voters that don't know what laws were passed also thought Morse and Giron shouldn't be recalled.  But it's not up to statewide voters.

          Note further that the Quinnipiac poll didn't inform respondents about the bills or how Senators voted on them.

          If Quinnipiac (or any other polling outfit) changed the wording of their questions from "stricter laws" to "gun safety laws", I bet Unaffiliated responses would be quite different from these.

          I think Kos identified an important problem that we will revisit after Election Day 2014: Democratic turnout will once again be lighter that 2012 and that bodes ill for causes we care about.  We need to figure out ways to drive Democratic turnout in off-year elections.

  •  How did this happen? (11+ / 0-)

    Colorado is a Democratic-led state. How did the vote-by-mail option get eliminated for these recalls?

    There's a second cautionary tale here -- the other way Republicans can win is by creating structural ways to suppress our vote. In this race, it was the elimination of vote-by-mail despite its growing importance in Colorado elections.

    ------"Load up on guns, bring your friends. It's fun to lose and to pretend."------- Kurt Cobain

    by Jeff Y on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:50:59 PM PDT

  •  Damn, 2014 might be another creaming for our (8+ / 0-)

    Side. We need to find a way to get our voters to the polls or the senate might well flip.

    I'm not a dem stratergist so I don't know what could be done to fix this problem, but if it isn't fixed kiss 2014 goodbye, and then the GOP will really pound more voter supression tactics down our throats. Scary.

  •  the nra and its acolytes... (12+ / 0-)

    including some on this blog, will try to say this has larger meaning. but if it did, the nra would have gone after the governor who signed the law. or more state legislators. they picked two good targets.

    the momentum on gun laws remains on the side of gun laws.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:52:16 PM PDT

  •  Hey, Colorado gun nuts... (14+ / 0-)

    ...meet your new state senate president!

    She's a staunch supporter of responsible gun control measures.

    My parents made me a Democrat. Scott Walker made me a progressive.

    by DownstateDemocrat on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:53:25 PM PDT

  •  The only way to turn out (4+ / 0-)

    Lean-left apathetics is to endlessly blame hardcore political junkies who are to your left for losses in the 2010 midterms.

    That, along with hippie-punching, should get the total job done.

    •  But Democrats may have turned out 2-1 over... (0+ / 0-)

      ...Republicans.

      Those were the numbers by COB Monday night.


      "Politeness is wasted on the dishonest, who will always take advantage of any well-intended concession." - Barrett Brown

      by 3rdOption on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:51:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lazy Ass MOFOs (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight
  •  I offer an alternative lesson: (15+ / 0-)

    The Gun Control Crusade is a loser. Sacrificing a terrific electoral advantage on a the alter a symbolic law is stupid.

    These districts weren't just D+15. They weren't just districts where Obama carried a majority of Independents in 2012.

    These demographics also coincided with a referendum that was terrifically unpopular. Way more unpopular than the Walker referendum was in Wisconsin.

    And we got our teeth kicked in. And the NRA spend almost no fucking money.

  •  I'll tell you why... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Leo Flinnwood, bryduck, Wisdumb

    We have NO narrative.

    For SO many cycles we have drilled into demographic targeting, micromanaging particular demographics to push them over to our side.

    We TEASE issue voters (in the hair sense, not in the emotional sense) to ferret out those who are susceptible to our message.

    But we have NO NARRATIVE to fire up our base, EXCEPT in the last two presidential races when Obama and his team did a fairly good job of manufacturing one. (with LOTS of help from the Occupy movement.)

    And the answer is SO fucking simple...

    "WHY?"

    WHY do we do what we do?
    WHY do we believe what we believe?
    WHY does OUR side profess what it does?
    WHY bother voting Democrat???

    Answer those 4 questions, and you've got an electoral majority.

    So often we assume that voters care that we're a firewall against "the other side", but why worry about the Dark Side if you're so disconnected you don't care?

    That technique (better than the other guy) is probably working in VA, and will be of great benefit for us next year in NC and maybe OH...but is that how we're going to rely on winning?

    What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

    by equern on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 09:58:34 PM PDT

  •  It's fucking September. Hell, I didn't even (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike

    bother to vote, and we had some candidates for City Council that should have been elected and weren't. I don't recall ever having voted in September. Ever. And I go back.
    I suspect that had these Elections happened in Nov. we would have had a better turnout. But, Jeebus, the kids are just getting back to school and it's 80 frickin' degrees out and it's a work day and the polls are only open from Noon-9pm
    and... and... and... September voting sucks.

  •  "Good" Gun Safety Regulations?!?! WTF?!?! (0+ / 0-)

    Don't call it "good" gun safety regulation. Gun Safety is a common sense issue.

    So don't sprout out such lies in your propaganda calling it gun safety, when gun control makes society a more dangerous place to live in.

  •  We're fighting a lot of paranoia, and that's a (7+ / 0-)

    hard wall to tear down.

    "They're trying to take your guns away" or "they'll take your guns away and introduce a dictatorship" is what we're up against.

    "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

    by Wildthumb on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:03:04 PM PDT

    •  It's hard to argue that 'they're NOT trying to (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OMwordTHRUdaFOG, ban nock, ancblu

      take guns away', when an Assault Weapons BAN is introduced to the Senate by someone whom said "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it."

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:26:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Gun nuts had reason to vote, most others aren't (4+ / 0-)

    obsessed with the issue like they are and that doomed this.

    •  Yup, gun nuts have joined the other single issue (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber

      voters (racists, anti-choice, homophobic, and all sorts of other single issue bigots) in the struggle to keep the Teapublican Party relevant.  These bigots all put together can still sway elections as in this case, but eventually reason will prevail over all of these crazies.

      “In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it … we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

      by DefendOurConstitution on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 04:53:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Not a expert on this (6+ / 0-)

    But  you complain that

    "Our base groups -- young voters, ethnic and racial minorities, single women -- are the lowest performing groups. "

    Yet you cast the election as gun rights fight.

    Most of those groups are on the liberal side of that issue. (Myself included)

    But I doubt you can label those groups as AVID on the issue.(myself included)

    My simple truth is that the problem in this situation was that many in this party are not that motivated on the gun topic.

    Any time that you make an election about guns, the left will lose.  Simply because it is high motivation for the right, low motivation for the left.

  •  As we say in my business: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, Miggles, defluxion10

    Asses in the seats.

    I'd like to see a campaign spend minimally on air time--just enough for name recognition--and the rest on massive GOTV.  

    And by massive, I mean a dedicated fleet of buses driving people all day to the polls.

    A fleet capable of handling tens of thousands of people in a day.

    Not to mention the legal team to ensure the proper number of voting machines and people in each polling place to make sure there's no hanky-panky by "observers".  

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:04:13 PM PDT

  •  Kos how about you forget the gun stuff eh? (9+ / 0-)

    It's a loser at the polls. Wrong issue.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:04:38 PM PDT

  •  Meanwhile... (5+ / 0-)

    California just passed an expanded semi-automatic weapons ban.

    New sales of semi-automatic rifles with removable magazines would be banned in California under a bill passed by the Democratic-led state legislature on Tuesday, and those who already own such weapons would have to register them.

    The measure, which passed the state Assembly 44-31 and is expected to go to Governor Jerry Brown for his signature after amendments are approved in the state Senate, is one of a package of gun control bills passed earlier this year by senators in the wake of the massacre last year at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

    It would classify as an assault weapon as any rifle that accepts a detachable magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and would ban its sale or purchase. People who already own such weapons would be required to register them.

    But...
    New voting laws in the state have made it necessary for many Democrats - particularly in the Assembly - to win over moderates and conservatives, and Republicans were joined by several Democrats in opposing the bill.
  •  You can do anything you want. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike

    You can organize; spend, make the playing field level.
    But if no one shows up; then, you got squat. You have to make 'em show up.
    They're on our side to begin with, but you have to get 'em roused up. That is done, not through the message, but how the message is presented, and it MUST be done Hollywood.
    Did you know that more people wanted to pay attention to Milie(whatever) Cyrus than Syria, this week?
    Doesn't that tell anybody anything?

    Betchu REALLY wanna vote, now.

    by franklyn on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:08:41 PM PDT

  •  Great (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, Code Monkey, defluxion10

    Now we get to listen to Rs gloat how they represent "everyone" when only 10% vote for them.

    As for Kos'point about TV ads, they aren't ineffective, just overrated, especially when you get full saturation.

  •  It took a lot of guts to do gun control in CO.... (0+ / 0-)

    Maybe it was too much, too soon.  They did have their share of gun massacres there.  I suspect that "guns" was only part of the issue here.  The mess in Washington fueling anti-incumbent sentiment probably is what put these freaks over the top.  Of course, these recall winners are the incumbents now... good luck to them.

    Still sucks. It especially sucks that Morse lost by so few votes. The NRA made a smart target here.... a special election with super low turnout and no mail balloting.  Perfect to test their messaging and machine.

    GODSPEED TO THE WISCONSIN FOURTEEN!

    by LordMike on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:12:24 PM PDT

  •  unlike Syria, it's about the ground game (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10

    block by census block - 2014 needs to send a message that will crush, yes crush the GOP as a major(sic) party

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:12:29 PM PDT

  •  No answers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miggles

    If the race was about guns, the codgers were always going to turn out at a higher rate.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:12:34 PM PDT

  •  The most fun diary I read today was by (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10

    Horace Boothroyd III. The reason it was fun was that it illustrated how to make the conversation about what it should be about, not what the RW wants to make it about. In this case, RW said "taxes" and the good guys moved the conversation to the essential value of libraries. Nice work. I'm not sure how the conversation can be moved from "guns! our guns!" to something saner, but those Troy, Michigan folks figured theirs out. Maybe the rest of us should take lessons from them.

  •  Is it possible (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10

    that there are inherent structural reasons that the Democratic base is more apathetic and the only way to change things so that Democrats can be a "comfortable" majority party is for some cataclysmic political event to cause some sort of shift in how the party coalitions are configured?

    •  Or ... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zizi, ddn, edrie

      ... Maybe those millions of voters that come out to vote for Obama actually like Obama and hate when liberals in-fight like I see on DK every day.

      Not a very good & compelling reason to get out and vote, now is it?

    •  vote on Tuesday (0+ / 0-)

      that's all the inherent structural reason for Democratic apathy you need.

      If you have a job and a commute that gets you up early leaves you exhausted at night, you're just not going to make it to the polling place.

      If all you do is sit around all day, watch fox news, thinking about how everything was perfect when you were young, and waiting for a telemarketer to call so you can have someone to talk to, you're damn straight going to the polling place.

      Midterms and special elections are dominated by seniors who (because they literally have nothing better to do) are going to vote in every election.  They get drowned out when the hoards show up every four years, but every other time they decide who wins.

      You can't make everyone's lives easier so that they have free time to vote.  So the simplest way to fix our system is to make it easier to vote.  Extend voting hours, allow early voting, allow voting by mail or even online voting.

    •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

      The Dems are becoming the 21st Century equivalent to the Whig Party in the 19th, and [SPOILER ALERT!] the results of the comparison do not lead to a happy ending for the Dems. The Whigs could get it together enough to win state and national elections in Presidential years every now and then, but did poorly off-Presidential years and rarely bothered to create a national organization or coherent message beyond "We're not the corrupt Democrats!" Sound familiar?

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 12:11:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Reports of the GOP's death premature again? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    scott5js, defluxion10

    Wha?!

    Money doesn't talk it swears.

    by Coss on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:22:00 PM PDT

  •  What did the Democratic Party do... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miggles

    to turn out its voters?

    Besides outdated and ineffective TV ads.

    I keep hearing about what we need to do, but the Democratic Party doesn't want any advice or opinion from us. Just money, free labor and mute voting.

    So long as liberals demand a minimum wage that's the best we'll get. Demand a living wage instead ~ The modern Democrat is one who promotes old GOP ideas and calls them progressive in comparison to new GOP ideas.

    by masswaster on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:23:06 PM PDT

  •  Identity politics (4+ / 0-)

    It was on the side of the gun people here. It's a divisive issue for us: Many liberals  do not care about guns, many young people in fact love shooting. Our side needs to learn how to vote the long game, and not just when a President, gay marriage or pot legalization is at stake.

  •  Um, Perhaps Liberal Sniping is not Helping? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    edrie

    4+ years of non-stop incessant left-wing sniping at Obama's supporters & Obama voters certainly doesn't help motivate people to get behind and vote for DK's favorite candidates, not does it?

    2x large numbers of Obama voters came out to pull that big D lever.

    And 2x Libs like DKers do nothing but whine about Obama and Dems lack of your self-described liberal purity.

    Reap what you sow, my friends.

  •  IIRC this election aside from pure demographics (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ban nock, Miggles

    had issued-oriented pockets of the GOP base that are highly activated by fundie & RWNJ radio which is really strong in smaller communities in CO and probably where all free media was coming from, as well as the churches themselves. One hopes for further breakdowns of the vote in the coming days

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:27:10 PM PDT

  •  Prelude to 2014 ... (6+ / 0-)

    ... Look for the Repubs to take over the Senate and keep the house next year ... and expand their lead in state houses.

    It's the return of 2010 all over again.

    Instead of getting behind allies who have flaws, but work for our same general principals and against enemies like the GOP, you spend your energy fighting over the lack of liberal purity among Dems and the biggest vote-getters in the party, namely Barack Obama.

    •  We heard it the first time. (0+ / 0-)

      Repetition works on low-information folks.  I am sorry you are sad that some people think Prohibition is bad policy and 20% real unemployment with an entire generation thrown to the dogs is bad.  But repeating the same silly meme that low-interest voters are DKos junkies is just foolishness.

      Even if it weren't, you've stated your position.  DKos is probably not the best place on the planet to spend your time if you hate principled lefties.  OFA probably has some constructive work to do, and you don't have to worry about the awfulness of someone disagreeing with you on policy because of its top-down structure.  After the first bout of hippie-punching, you've convinced everyone you are gonna convince.  Go organize your like-minded brethren.

      •  I don't punch hippies (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ban nock, Matt Z, Newt

        But the mk3872 does have a point.

        Voting strictly on principle and not supporting any candidate who doesn't strictly fit the progressive criteria is noble as long as you're prepared to live with the consequences.   Ask the progressives in Wisconsin whether they think they may have been better off with Tom Barrett than Scott Walker, regardless of Barrett's more moderate positions.  

        No one says there shouldn't be debate.  But just keep in mind that Democrats, at best, won't be back in the majority in the House of Representatives and many statehouses until 2022.  And that's only if they show up and win some seats back in 2020.

        After 8+ years of GOP law-making, some more draconian than others, we'll see if people still pick 100% purity over winning back the majority.

        •  That was quite the word salad. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bryduck

          "No one says there shouldn't be debate."

          No one?  Literally no human being is saying that?  mk3872 is saying precisely that, so far as I can tell.  In this thread.  Above.  So that is one.

          "But just keep in mind that Democrats, at best, won't be back in the majority in the House of Representatives and many statehouses until 2022. "

          Sounds like there's plenty of time for a debate.  Quite a vigorous one, if we've got seven years for it.  

          "100% purity over winning back the majority."

          You're talking to the wrong folks.  That's the Greens, and that's why they automarginalize.  The question isn't over 100% purity.  It's whether 10% purity is sufficient, or if there is a line at all, so long as one has a (D) after one's name.  Or if one's last name is "Obama" or "Clinton".

          "More and Better Democrats" is the slogan.  If you disagree with "Better" as a goal, OFA is there for you.  The DLC is there for you.  Heck, the DLCC and DSCC are there for you.  Why are you here?  Go somewhere your free time brings you joy.  DKos will never be a place of uncritical acceptance of any politician of any policy view who chooses to run as a Democrat.

  •  It's the "T" word ,turnout, dummies! (5+ / 0-)

    Shame on us! For the supposedly rational party, Democrats don't understand that repeating the same thing over and over, low base turnout, or staying home on election days, is Political Malpractice 101, as Bill Clinton called it. Democrats seem to vote only every other year, and don't understand that they will get reactionary GOPers who do not represent the real America if they stay home. Now the MSM will run with how the NRA has Democrats by their cajones. Stop practicing insanity, or doing the same thing over and over, not voting and expecting different results. For more on voter turnout and the latest election doings, read   this

  •  This better not be another (0+ / 0-)

    2010.
    But, if the Democratic Party were to gain, say, 15 seats, the margin would become frightfully preyed upon by the banking cabal.

  •  Diary Needs Word Cloud To Show Use Of "Gun Nuts" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ban nock, Mgleaf, FrankRose, ancblu

    .....because that derpy abrasive attitude is a big part of why efforts at  gun control are so ineffective.

    Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad would amount to another form of madness. -Pascal

    by bernardpliers on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:48:43 PM PDT

  •  The recalls showed the limits of each (5+ / 0-)

    party.  From the GOP side, they needed a drastically low turnout to win.  Their message doesn't reach beyond a committed base.  For the Democrats, they seem to be their own worst apathetic enemy.  We have the tea party congress due to low turnout in 2010.  Now, we lost 2 legislators in Dem districts due to low turnout.  It is a persistent problem that needs to be addressed.  What Democrats don't understand is that politicians react more to a committed bloc of voters rather than generalized public opinion, because the former correlates to actual votes and the latter doesn't especially in off year elections.  That's why we're still fighting over domestic spending, social issues and other stuff...by not turning out, we allow the committed crazies to have a voice disproportionate to their actual numbers.  It's slowing the country down.

    Global Shakedown - Alternative rock with something to say. Check out their latest release, "A Time to Recognize": Available on iTunes, Amazon, Google Play, Spotify and other major online music sites. Visit http://www.globalshakedown.com.

    by khyber900 on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 10:50:38 PM PDT

  •  and our base will continue to disappoint (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilK

    as long as our leaders continue to disappoint.

  •  That's really, really depressing. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution, Matt Z

    48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam> "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." Edna St.V. Millay

    by slouching on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:15:22 PM PDT

  •  So the NRA won this battle, but clearly the sun (3+ / 0-)

    is setting on the brand of gun nuttery and paranoia they sell.  Their membership base, while rabidly motivated, is of a declining demographic in this country.  Polls show over and over and over again that the public supports common sense gun laws and regulations, like those passed in Colorado.  

  •  Although this should not be taken (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    defluxion10

    as a barometer of national sentiment, it might be a good time to stop gloating about the GOP's demographic disadvantage.

    "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

    by Alice in Florida on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:30:42 PM PDT

    •  It's not a barometer at all. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ekgrulez1, WeatherDem

      Morse's, certainly not; El Paso lies in smack dab in an R+14 district.  Giron, Pueblo may be the most Democratic leaning in an R+4 district, but with low turnout who knows how it would've turned out in a midterm, let alone a general election year.

  •  20 percent of the voters who signed petitions to (5+ / 0-)

    recall Giron were Democrats.

    http://www.denverpost.com/...

  •  To Win Elections You Need To Go Door To Door (0+ / 0-)

    Go to the people and tell them who you are and what will happen if they don't vote.  Also, democrats need to put something on the ballot that democrats care about voting for.  Minimum wage increase is one example.

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Tue Sep 10, 2013 at 11:40:31 PM PDT

  •  Well, that's that for any kind of gun control (0+ / 0-)

    legislation for at least the next 4 years. The media will hype up these results so much, and Democratic legislators will be running so scared, that it won't happen outside ultra-blue states.

    "Violence never requires translation, but it often causes deafness." - Bareesh the Hutt.

    by Australian2 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 01:46:17 AM PDT

  •  It all comes down to big $ buys elections -- and (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    recalls.

    It makes me sick that this kind of thing can happen, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised about anything coming out of Colorado Springs, or the rest of red Colorado.

    I think the whole wave of recalls started in California with the recall of three state supreme court justices (Rose Bird, Joseph Grodin and Cruz Reynoso) and exploded with the recall of governor Gray Davis, who was hardly dynamic -- or progressive -- but that's not why he was recalled. He was recalled as an experiment in, can we buy the governor's seat mid-term? Unfortunately, the answer was yes, and Davis was replaced by the Californicator (schwarzenegger), who sailed to victory against Reynoso (who was not exactly the best hope for Democrats, after being recalled himself). The gropenator also left us totally FUBAR by the time he left office.

    Fortunately (?), after a term and a half of the misogynator, we got Jerry Brown -- conservative Governor Davis resurrected, but more powerful (and disturbingly conservative) than in the past.

    Unfortunately, Democrats only try to recall the worst of the worst rethuglycans, and usually only after they've broken the law or close to it. More unfortunately, the bad-faith rethuglycans try to recall Democrats at any time they think they can get away with it, for whatever reason they can cook up.

    Perhaps at some point the Dems might belly up to the table and show the thugs how to play cards? We may be out-staked, but when faced with eviction, sometimes you gotta bet the rent money.

  •  It's no secret (0+ / 0-)

    When Democrats behave as Republicans, (like passing a law written by the Heritage Foundation and calling it "health care reform"), the base stays home. Were either or both of these two trying to polish their conservative bona fides to stave off recall? Democrats behaving as Republicans has got to be one of the most thoroughly discredited, yet still clung to, myths in politics. Be liberal. People will respond. What have you got to lose?

    "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

    by MargaretPOA on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:38:18 AM PDT

  •  The Answer, Kos, Is Right There: Vote by Mail (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus, sweatyb, WeatherDem, Matt Z

    You have the answer in your analysis.  We didn't have vote by mail in full force.

    It makes sense. Our base has its hands full with jobs, sometimes multiple jobs, kids, schoolwork, and, for some, simply being old. Who has time to vote? Also, it appears that there may have been the usual Republican nonsense of changing voting stations.

    Oregon and Washington state went from swing states to solid blue when they went to all vote by mail.

    With universal voter registration (if the government knows you're a citizen -- ie, SS number -- and has a valid address, you should be automatically registered) and voting by mail, we can get higher participation by our base.

    I'd like to see you adopt vote by mail as a key position, Kos. It's the only way we can permanently get around the Republicans' eternal effort to suppress the vote.

  •  We wre too over confident (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WeatherDem, Matt Z

    citing polls stating the recall was not popular with Colorado voters. Every poll I saw or read was state wide and there were no local polls reporting what was going on in those districts. The NRA was organized and they know how to communicate and mobilize their base. We (us) not anywhere as well They won fair and square They won this battle but they (eventually) will loose the war. just like Gay Marriage, guns are a cultural issue and changing culture is difficult

    a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.

    by Jamesleo on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 03:47:29 AM PDT

  •  I don't have an inside track on the rationale why (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PhilK, ekgrulez1, ban nock, Matt Z, ancblu

    it turned out the way they did, but after living in Colorado for 25 years, I think I have a sense of it:

    Many Democrats are Gun Owners
    Coloradoans do not like outsiders telling them how they should think.  Bringing Nanny Bloomberg into the mix was a negative and ticks the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party off to no end.

    The NSA disclosures gave many of us, and many Coloradoans pause.

    Entering into a conflict with Syria conflicted with present Western sensibilities.

    There are other things, I'm sure.  But my son who has lived in the state since birth (35 years now), holds the sentiments I've enumerated.

    Frankly, I hold them too.  

    •  which sentiment applies to these two legislators? (0+ / 0-)

      All those things are perfectly valid concerns.  I don't understand why you think they're germane.

      The laws the NRA objected to don't restrict gun ownership.  The legislators in question live in their districts so it's hard to see how they could be "outsiders".  The laws they voted weren't inspired by Mike Bloomberg, nor are the legislators associated with him in any way.  The NSA was not involved, nor do Colorado legislators have control over the President's policy with regards to Syria.

      You're suggesting that Coloradans reversed the result of a perfectly valid election (in an election with half the number of voters) and elected two untested and unknown Republicans because some guy from New York ran TV ads that they didn't like?

      Or because they are upset about the NSA program that these people don't have any connection with?

      But not because of anything in particular about these two legislators?

  •  Yep, I agree with your assessment. (0+ / 0-)

    Virginia is Red only because they have elections for State offices in off years from Federal elections. The result is GOP control of State Offices.

    No voter turnout is GOP wins, always.

  •  Evil wins again nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    nosotros no somos estúpidos

    by a2nite on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:27:27 AM PDT

  •  Late to the party here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WeatherDem

    But I get the feeling that this recall was seen as a trial balloon for the red team in order to test the effects of eliminating vote-by-mail.

    It looks to me like their test was successful.

  •  We want red meat and you serve tofu. (0+ / 0-)

    Angry, pissed-off people vote. Democrats, too often, don't clearly point out what hateful and horrible people we are up against. Republicans have made an art form out of hate and fear.

    Perfect example:

    Republicans KNOW Acorn > Hitler.

    Democrats are pretty sure KKK ≠ A Community Organizing Group.

    Yet the opposite of these statements is true.

    I am not saying that we need hate and fear but we need to be more plain spoken about how vile and evil the manipulators behind the Republican message are. This entails putting the heat on the wealthy. Not because they are evil per se, but there are quite a few that fund this hate with their wealth. Politicians do not like to mess with the rich.

    Also it is a long, drawn out process. The Koch family has been working their magic for 60+ years. A few wealthy people can be focused on one issue longer than a community.

    Any Democratic plan has to follow what has created successful community movements and shifts of opinion. Currently we are trying to out-spend the Republicans in the arena they built. We have to be the Oakland Athletics not the New York Yankees. We do need to spend, but on dynamic players with promise and on all 25 spots on the roster. Less Fund-Raising-Joe-Liebermans and more Kick-Ass-Elizabeth-Warrens.

    So if I wanted to change the political culture I would make every effort to engage young people and deliver them something specific in their community and let them know "I" did it. The Obama Campaign was successful in that arena and they have delivered, Gay Rights for example. But where Obama has failed is that he did not have his family carry a rainbow flag up the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

    That would have pissed conservatives off. We need them pissed-off. When they are calm they can SEEM reasonable.

    Every White House press conference could start off with a moment of silence for the 6-20 children who were victims of guns this week...read the names. SILENCE.

    Republicans would go Westboro. America would have a hard time understanding why they hate those kids.

    "You know, just because the thing I saw wasn't there doesn't mean there wasn't something there that I didn't see." Ann Althouse, Conservative Thoughtmeister

    by Bill Section 147 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:51:25 AM PDT

  •  OK - now that the recall is done, (0+ / 0-)

    will there be a special election to fill the seats?

    If so, who will win that?

    If not, why not?

    I am not religious, and did NOT say I enjoyed sects.

    by trumpeter on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 07:59:31 AM PDT

  •  recall with half the votes of the election (0+ / 0-)

    The recall laws are broken.  You shouldn't be able to win a recall unless you get a similar number of voters to turn out.

    Having 35,000 people vote to overturn the decision 67,000 people made two years before is ridiculous.

    Having 17,000 people vote to overturn the decision 52,000 people made two years before is a travesty.

  •  This shows again the power of narrow minded (0+ / 0-)

    single issue voters over voters who embrace long term big picture issues.

    My tea party aquaintances who see me as a gun toting liberal don't understand when I talk about the big picture. And I don't even talk about climate change. Instead it's about clean water, clean air, destruction of wildlife habitat, our natural heritage, and showing them how "getting the government out of the way" will lead to higher costs for everything necessary to sustain and maintain our way of life and economy. No, they look at me and just foam at the mouth wanting to pull out their guns and start shooting. The problem with that of course is that as a gun toting liberal I shoot back.

    And there's the rub or irony if you will. Their solution, and they will readily admit it, involves if necessary, violence to prevent progressives and liberals from voting. They want the right to legally store heavy conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction in their back yards. This is incredible. Oh, and I don't hear much from them about Assad using sarin against his own people because the foaming at the mouth tea party single issue voter wants to be able to use sarin against anyone here in the US who does not agree with them.

    Knowledge is Power. Ignorance is not bliss, it is suffering. If you like hypocrite Obama, you'll love hypocrite Hillary.

    by harris stein on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:16:34 AM PDT

  •  Neither, IMO, Redux (0+ / 0-)

    It's not "lazy," it's not "busy," IMO, it's that some Democrats and Independents, particularly younger ones, are feeling that voting and politics has little effect on their lives. Add in the Republican intentionally applied dysfunction, and you have a formula for dismissive apathy.

    "Voting or not does not really affect my life, so why bother to go to the trouble except for electing a President. After all, can't the President fix everything?" *

    "All they do in DC is fight and refight the same battles, without ever solving or changing anything."

    * See ongoing need for a "king" as part of the human condition.

    I know that's a grim analysis, but less so than "lazy," which implies sloth, aka who cares? and  "busy," which implies that the plight of the less fortunate needs some greatly improved visibility, or, again, that those who don't turn out are just into themselves with no vision of the corruption that egotism brings.

    People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. - George Orwell

    by paz3 on Wed Sep 11, 2013 at 09:51:06 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site