Democrats from Hell

Comments

27 comments posted
Too little too late

Roe v. Wade was lost when the 2004 elections were lost. It just takes time to filter through the system.

Admittedly, the Democrats did a spectacularly pitiful job fighting the Alito nomination. I think a filibuster would have been pointless grandstanding, but they could have at least put together a coherent and intelligent questioning strategy. They were laughable.

I've been reading a lot of blogs the last couple of days and your post is symptomatic of the feeling of the more vocal liberal base. However, I don't really believe that the Dems are going to lose many voters and neither does the Dem leadership. Frankly we are a 2 party system and you can't get a viable 3rd party candidate (ask T. Roosevelt). The liberal base cannot leave the Dems until they unite and formulate an actual electoral ground game to get votes and state and national candidates. It is extremely unlikely that is going to happen and the Dem leadership knows it. You'd have to split the Dem party and that would require a level of planning and coordination that is currently lacking. Just leaving is not enough. You have to go somewhere with enough voters to create the critical mass necessary for a new party. Otherwise, you will return just because you hate the Repubs.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male on 17 January 2006 - 1:04am
When the parties are ever more alike

You wiil see a lot of would-be voters staying home. People do not take off from work or postpone dinner to go be disgusted in the voting booth. They wan to vote for someone, not against the other guy.

That is why Bush won. They had their supporters voting for Bush. While the Democrats were counting on lots of people getting out to vote against Bush. (Vote for Kerry? I'm sure some did.)

This "we'll fuck you, but the Republicans would fuck you worse" attitude from the Party-first folks is not only disheartening, it's foolish.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 17 January 2006 - 9:34am
Credible threat

I agree that some would be voters will stay home, but it will be a short term phenomenon. Let's be honest, you will eventually come out to vote against the pro-life crowd. The issue at hand is whether or not the disaffected base can issue a credible threat of defection to the Democratic leadership. To do that, the base would have to begin splintering the party by creating an actual policy platform that will pull voters and existing elected representatives from the Democratic leadership. It's very hard to create a 3rd party in the US. Frankly, all I see is a lot of whining and very little of the planning activity that would threaten the Dem leadership.

Apparently, the Dem leadership agrees and will continue to ignore you until you can offer a credible threat. The Alito confirmation could be the test of the liberal base's strength or it could confirm the Dem leadership's view of the base as impotent and beholden to them.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male on 17 January 2006 - 10:45am
we're always at war with Eurasia

Let's be honest, you will eventually come out to vote against the pro-life crowd.

You seem to have an interest in maintaining the status quo? Just curious.

Frankly, all I see is a lot of whining and very little of the planning activity that would threaten the Dem leadership.

That's the beauty of it. We don't have to do very much -- or anything at all -- to "threaten" the Dem leadership.

Last week I was going to plunk $100 in the kitty for a (D) candidate for Senate in my state. It's going to Lilith Fund in TX instead. Yes, the money is going out-of-state to support reproductive equity instead of supporting a (D) candidate for Senate in my own state. Federal-level Dems have outlived their usefulness.

it could confirm the Dem leadership's view of the base as impotent and beholden to them.

Could care less *what* they think. I've arrived at the conclusion that our politicians (both sides) are completely out-of-touch, anyway. My (D) representative doesn't even answer letters. It's just about impossible to get motivated for these fools.

dblhelix's picture
Posted by dblhelix (not verified) on 17 January 2006 - 12:03pm
anti-status quo

No, my point is that the status quo will be maintained unless the base can create a credible threat. Shifting a little money elsewhere is not a credible threat. Rhetoric and polemics are not a credible threat. A credible threat is either a third party (unlikely) or an internal movement in the Dem party to unseat incumbents with representatives that actually listen to you and vote for your issues.

Although many think the fed level Dems have outlived their usefulness, they will stay in office until a great deal of effort is made to unseat them. Incumbency is a tremendous advantage.

As a broad generalization, people are motivated either by ideology or fear. It's obvious that the Dem leadership has abandoned much of their ideology and the base is not giving them reason to fear.

Either the liberal base unseats incumbents, or eventally the Republicans will. Although to be fair, most Democratic seats are in safe districts, but it would not take the loss of many more seats to give the Republicans overwhelming control.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male on 17 January 2006 - 12:22pm
rebuilding

No, my point is that the status quo will be maintained unless the base can create a credible threat.

First of all, personally speaking, it is not a goal of mine to make loud or empty threats to get the attention of the Democratic leadership. Actually, it's the Dem leadership always crying and whining -- see the Klink loss in PA when the pro-choicers didn't turn out as an example.

It's obvious that the Dem leadership has abandoned much of their ideology and the base is not giving them reason to fear.

Agree with the abandonment. As far as the latter is concerned, neither you nor I can quantify at this time what the effect will be in aggregate on turnout in '06. And actually, I don't really care. Here's why.

Let's say I agree with your earlier statement that Roe was lost in '04. You're still talking in terms of Dems vs GOP, as though it were the crucial battle of our lives. It's not. For many of us, this is a period of reflection on how women are getting jerked around on reproductive health and freedom -- particularly when the Democrats have accepted boatloads of money from women's groups over the years. This didn't happen overnight.

This is about rebuilding. And the days of Democrats pocketing large wads of cash to advocate for women's rights are over.

dblhelix's picture
Posted by dblhelix (not verified) on 17 January 2006 - 1:07pm
On this part you are correct
Let's be honest, you will eventually come out to vote against the pro-life crowd.

I've been quite open about this. So have quite a few people -- mostly women, let's face it. (Maybe to most men, it's not "important shit." Oh to be blinded by male privilege!)

No, many of us will vote against politicians who consider the woman's womb property of the State. The mistake the Democrats make is thinking that they should just get a pass on that.

And the mistake the Party-first bloggers and "strategists" make is thinking that they can get out the vote among progressives to vote for anti-progressive candidates. People smell bullshit, and the low poll ratings for Republicans and Democrats show that very clearly.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 17 January 2006 - 1:05pm
priviledge blinds you

your male priviledge blinds you to the reality of our betrayal. you lecture us on a subject you are not qualified to discuss. you think the subject is party politics, yet it is not. your "short term phenomenon" is based on the fuzzy vision you use when looking into women's world.

what we're discussing on this blog is beyond politics. our subject is betrayal and the push towards removing basic human rights from women.

fuck "phenomenon".

the democratic party is the pro-life crowd. their stance on alito makes that clear. their push for anti-choice candidates makes that clear. their votes in congress for anti-choice law makes that clear. i'll will be voting against them with my feet. i am not alone in my vote.

how many? the next time you step into a voting booth, if you "pull the lever" for a democratic candidate you'll need to find a way to vote twice. once for you.

and once for me.

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 17 January 2006 - 1:40pm
Game Theory

All elected representatives and political parties have a pool of election experts that we have trained in game theory. Barring massive ideological influence, almost all of their decisions are based on the outcome of election game theory calculations.

One of the primary, time tested tenets of voting models is that single issue interest groups are essentially captive. They almost never change their voting patterns. They scream and yell a lot and have undue influence in primaries because they vote in disproportionate numbers in primaries, but they rarely change their voting patterns.

Democrat game theorists have concluded that the potential loss of pro choice voters is far outweighed by potential median voter gains. They also know that single issue voters almost always come back and vote for the party they are OPPOSED to. The time frame for them not to come back is measured in decades. The Democrats are trying to reverse a 38 year slide. Since they don't have a comprehensive plan or demographics on their side, they are copying the Republican plans.

Therefore, unless one wishes for the pro choice movement to be marginalized and further abused by both parties and the judiciary, a credible threat must established. We train political game theorists to ignore rhetoric and feelings of anger and betrayal, unless they lead to long term voter shifts. Single issue movements that do not appear capable of mounting credible legislative activity get marginalized and lose not only the battles, but also the war.

Don't assume people don't understand you. We model you all the time and are very accurate at predicting outcomes. Establish a credible threat or prepare to see your issue get steamrolled by your opponents.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male on 17 January 2006 - 10:49pm
What a steaming pile.

Democrats have not had a cool and collected thought in several election cycles. Game Theory, indeed.

Establish a credible threat or prepare to see your issue get steamrolled by your opponents.

that would be BOTH sides. But thanks for the, uh, tip.

I notice you use "Democrat" when it should be Democratic. You remind me of Ben Nelson. Lieberman does that as well...

LOL Except he is with winners, Shelby and a few others would fit right into the Democratic party these days. Starts to reek of rancid Dixie. And I come from Southerners going all the way back.

You have a pleasant evening.

Marisacat's picture
Posted by Marisacat on 17 January 2006 - 11:34pm
the borg

Don't assume people don't understand you. We model you all the time and are very accurate at predicting outcomes.

Must be why you went scrambling to track married suburban women and catholics ... after the fact.

Unlike you, even the Third Way recognizes that "an enthusiastic base is a necessary condition for any party's success."

Establish a credible threat or prepare to see your issue get steamrolled by your opponents.

Oh dear. I hope the Democratic strategy isn't reduced to threatening women anonymously on message boards. My moral values meter finds this lacking in honesty and integrity.

dblhelix's picture
Posted by dblhelix (not verified) on 17 January 2006 - 11:34pm
lol

Refuse to work for the Democrats. They consistently make bad choices even after you explain how they are going to lose. Saying 'I told you so' all the time is really not that fulfilling.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male on 18 January 2006 - 12:05am
but ...

Refuse to work for the Democrats.

according to you it's already game, set, match for the Democrats, irrespective of what I do.

That leaves -> popcorn and opera glasses.

It's late -- see you tomorrow.

dblhelix's picture
Posted by dblhelix (not verified) on 18 January 2006 - 12:40am
Games never over

No, I just said that you had to make a credible threat and that saying you just weren't going to vote anymore isn't a credible threat. A credible threat would be putting forth a slate of pro-choice candidates to contest incumbent Dem seats in strong liberal areas. That kind of threat they would have to pay attention to.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male on 18 January 2006 - 1:21am
well, all your election experts

be wrong about me.

democratic party is dead. bring on the steam roller.

bayprairie's picture
Posted by bayprairie on 17 January 2006 - 11:38pm
When a majority of Americans support women's autonomy

...it seems your claim that the demographics are not there is rather empty.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 18 January 2006 - 12:06am
and yet....

the pro-life side is passing most of the legislation and rolling back reproductive rights across the nation. This suggests that either the above isn't true, or it is not such a simple cut and dried issue to a large number of voters.

Also, my demographics claim was relating to the overall state of the Democratic party. The loss of the south really hurt them.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male on 18 January 2006 - 1:25am
Disagree
and yet....

the pro-life side is passing most of the legislation and rolling back reproductive rights across the nation. This suggests that either the above isn't true, or it is not such a simple cut and dried issue to a large number of voters.

I wonder where you get that assumption? When nobody is engaging politically on the side of women's equality and rights to their own bodies, that's not any sort of direct indication that the people don't hold those beliefs.

If you think that elected representatives are perfect reflections of the views and values of the electorate, then I have a bridge in New York I'd like to sell you.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 18 January 2006 - 11:18am
Empirical results

The long term empirical data bears out my hypothesis. For 30+ years, the pro life movement has been successfully and vocally rolling back reproductive rights. This has been a cornerstone of the most reliable base of voters in the Republican party. Therefore, if your assumption that the majority of Americans hold pro-choice views is correct, then, ceteris paribus, Republicans and the pro-life movement should not have shown steady and continual gains.

Since the pro-life movement has shown steady gains for the last 30 years, one is only left with a couple of possible conclusions.

1. The pro-life movement has managed to coerce or fool voters for 30 years to vote against their interests. Not likely and if this was true, then the fundamental justifications for democracy would be false.

2. The pro-choice movement has either been apathetic or incredibly incompetent. Apathetic the prochoicers aren't. You state that no one is engaging politically on the pro-choice side. This is patently untrue. The pro-choice side has several vocal and visible organizations. They just aren't successful. That's distinctly different than saying 'no one is engaging'.

Although I often question their competence, they aren't any worse than most other single issue groups.

3. Most Americans do not hold a pro-choice view. Also something, I don't really believe is true, but there isn't any really good data. All of the studies I've seen tend to be biased. So one cannot completely discount this option.

4. Most Americans do not view the situation as a simple contests of absolutes. My guess is that most Americans do agree to a limited right to choice with significant restricitions based on term, parental notification, mother's health, rape, etc... The pro life movement has exploited this grey area to roll back the 'absolute' reproductive rights of women. In turn, they have also gathered more of their moderates to their side than the prochoice movement which has vigorously defended the absolutes.

Arguing that most Americans support the pro-choice side when the pro-choice side has been losing ground for the last 30 years is the worst kind of delusional thinking. If they truly supported pro-choice, we wouldn't be concerned about the Supreme Court and the raft of pro-life legislation. The only way to reverse this trend is to take off the blinders, see what the people that disagree with the pro choice side really think and convince them that the pro-choice side is right.

Remember, in a democracy, right, wrong or the natural rights of people don't really matter. In the long run, all that matters is your ability to convince enough people of your viewpoint. Once you can do that you can add and subtract all the rights you want.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male on 18 January 2006 - 5:25pm
you used a fancy latin phrase

so you must be right. I surrender to your greater wisdom, oh Socrates. The fact that there was no credible POLITICAL pushback would have NOTHING to do with those gains, nope, not a whit.

You had a highly motivated interest group with a political party willing to harness its energy and advance it's cause. Opposing you had less motivated and somewhat complacent interest group with NO political party actually willing to fight for it. It's like a weekend pickup softball team from the local pub taking on the Red Sox.

Madman in the Marketplace's picture
Posted by Madman in the M... on 18 January 2006 - 6:31pm
Hey Hey... good post Morgaine

oh they came out "swinging" after Al's speech... lol they raised a pinky (I am sorry to be rude) read the lay of the land and exhorted the lumpenproletariat. And somehow or other declared victory... or victory around the corner.

It ain't pretty, it is politics from the far desert:

A Victorious War Starts With The Gore Speech

Plainly put, there are multiple issues and land mines facing the House and Senate GOP leadership this year where Democrats, working with their supporters and interest groups like they did on the Social Security victory, can rack up victories in these issue-by-issue, month-by-month battles, all aimed at derailing the GOP’s control over one or both houses of Congress this year.

Again, this will be a long, grueling process this year, requiring commitment and support of the party and the interest groups who are fighting these battles, and your assistance by contacting the media and elected officials to keep the pressure on them to deal with these matters or face the consequences.

But a year of hard work in 2006 can lead to a series of victorious battles and a successful war that can yield what we are all seeking in 2007: the political unraveling of the Bush Administration before they destroy this country.

I AM sorry, but what were they doing for months and years? MANY years? I have loved Gore's speeches, beginning with the one the night he conceded (ah but there is the rub) and the several since. The Establsihment has listened to none of them! Esp not his speech two weeks before the IWR vote, made here in San Francisco, Sept 23, 2002. Deaf ears... the DC establishment is entrenched, and moving ever rightward. Clear for decades.

More lap dogging for the proles, masking as "busy work" (I prefer petit point, at least I get a pillow out of it).

A special favorite from the self-appointed lumpen leaders:

What will we do? What will we make Congress do? And might I add, when will we stop grousing about our listless Democratic leadership and inspire THEM TOO -- and give THEM HEART that we will stand behind them, and we will not allow them to be turned into clowns and buffoons -- and that includes taking on every media outlet that so dares to paint the Democratic minority in a negative light?

LOL. This sort of scheisse is all around.

(sorry for the length!)

Marisacat's picture
Posted by Marisacat on 17 January 2006 - 11:09am
Stalling... waiting for the GOP

This latest "tactic" of Harry Ried to delay the vote one week is only to allow enough time for the GOP to douse Gore's speech... making it safe again for the Dems to roll over on their base.

...give THEM HEART... give me a fucking break... they just want money.

This little gem was the king of scheisse...

I was thinking about that the other day, in wondering why there were no clear signs that the Democrats would sustain a filibuster of Alito's nomination. And then it hit me; is it possible that the Democrats have calculated that Alito doesn't represent a net change on the court?

What did he get hit by... a fucking Mac truck to come up with that logic.

TDB's picture
Posted by TDB (not verified) on 17 January 2006 - 12:02pm
yeah, I read the portion of that

post that was on the FP. Why click for more scheisse. That was a "mopping up" operation for the pliable fall out.

Amusing if nothing else.

When 06 comes nd goes the Dems are going to need diapers. Last election they can run on BushHate. They never got it to work. Not enough - and now they are outta gas... People who squeeze out wins will do it on their own, like the lesbian Latina sheriff down in TX, last cycle. I expect to see DFA weaken as well.

Opera glasses and popcorn...

Marisacat's picture
Posted by Marisacat on 17 January 2006 - 1:03pm
puh-leeze

and that includes taking on every media outlet that so dares to paint the Democratic minority in a negative light?

I watched cspan. You can only work with what you are given. Did Biden even give Alito a chance to get a word in edgewise?

dblhelix's picture
Posted by dblhelix (not verified) on 17 January 2006 - 1:41pm
So let's suppose the Democratic Party saves Roe...

So what? It has already let it get chipped and carved to a faretheewell. And what about all the other issues Democrats are too frightened or too turned off by to touch? Gay rights, air and water pollution, the wage gap, child abuse, the erosion of civil liberties, waging wars for no reason...?

I'm a Green. Come on over!

Diane's picture
Posted by Diane (not verified) on 18 January 2006 - 8:51am
Anyone want to go Green with us?

I was finished with the Dems when they couldn't muster up 41 Senators to back the Alito filibuster.

We're lifelong Dems, but planning on going Green in a very public way--maybe a nice group visit to the local Board of Elections to change our affliation. The Dems have deserted their base, and we're out of here. I've come to the conclusion that the Green Party speaks for us (www.gp.org)

Anyone want to join us? Talk to your friends, and see if we can build this into something big. Contact us through www.MandateTHIS.org

MandateTHIS's picture
Posted by MandateTHIS on 14 February 2006 - 9:35pm