This kind of stuff makes me want to scream:
The chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee said Friday that if Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D) doesn’t prevail over Gov. Scott Walker (R) in next month’s Wisconsin recall election, there won’t be any ramifications for Democrats nationally.
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.). (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)“I think, honestly, there aren’t going to be any repercussions,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said in a broad-ranging interview on C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers.”
“It’s an election that’s based in Wisconsin. It’s an election that I think is important nationally because Scott Walker is an example of how extreme the tea party has been when it comes to the policies that they have pushed the Republicans to adopt,” Wasserman Schultz said. “But I think it’ll be, at the end of the day, a Wisconsin-based election, and like I said, across the rest of the country and including in Wisconsin, President Obama is ahead.”
I read that this morning and was tempted to stop my automatic monthly donation to the DNC. What the fuck is she thinking? Of course there will be ramifications, and mainly from labor, who busted their ass to get this recall to happen, were then saddled with the less labor friendly candidate to run against Barrett, and then watched the DNC say “Ah, fuck it. No money for you from us.” Try winning the general election in November without broad union support, Debbie, you halfwit.
And it will also be demoralizing to every Democrat in the country who donated time and money to make this recall happen. Additionally, if Walker wins, it will embolden others like John Kasich to continue their anti-union and anti-worker policies. And on and on.
No ramifications? It’ll be a disaster, and there is no way around that. Especially because this is a very winnable race.
And more upsetting is just the blasé attitude about this whole recall, and the unwillingness to get involved and help out. The entire job of the Democratic National Committee is to promote the party platform and to support Democratic candidates and help finance and support their campaigns. That is it. That is their entire fucking job. No ramifications is not the answer I want to hear from the head of the DNC. Every time a Democrat loses and election across the country, I want her to feel the same amount of pain as if she had lost her first-born child. I don’t want her saying “no biggee” and whistling cheerfully as she moves on to her next interview or fundraising dinner.
God, I hate Democrats.
JMG
John, I don’t think you understand the role of the DNC. It isn’t to help Democrats defeat Republicans, it is to beg for the crumbs of donations they might get from rich people to help incumbent Democrats keep their jobs. You should NEVER donate a cent to it.
JoyfulA
Bring back Howard Dean to chair the DNC!
Cluttered Mind
This is who and what the DNC is and always has been. They don’t need your money, they have Jamie Dimon’s. Donate to individual candidates whom you support, that is a far, FAR better use of your money.
taylormattd
I don’t really get it. What is she supposed to say? “Yes, if Barrett loses, there will be terrible ramifications for democrats nationally this fall, and it bodes very poorly for us”.
Now your point about the DNC not helping out in Wisconsin is well-taken.
Baud
Really? When you were a Republican, did you ever hear them say that some state election is a must-win, and that it would be devastating to the party nationally if the Republican party lost? Republicans never talk that way — they always talk about how they can overcome anything — and they are seen as a strong party.
You know what, I hate Democrats, too, because of the double standard we always impose on ourselves.
dsc
just sent her an e-mail.
taylormattd
@Baud: I know, I don’t get it. This must be the outrage of the day making its way around the emails/facebook groups for lefty bloggers.
dr. bloor
@cole: disagree with you here, and she’s probably trying to temper expectations as Walker is much more likely than not to win. Nobody needs to have the cable weenies using this as ammo to talk about how Obama is so incredibly vulnerable and how both houses are clearly going Republican this fall.
Having said that, putting a match to a fifty dollar bill each month is arguably more useful and definitely more gratifying than giving it to the DNC.
MikeJ
@taylormattd: Yeah, I’m with you. If it looks like we might lose in Wisconsin, and it does, it doesn’t make any sense for her to say that a defeat there means we should give up on November and just hand everything over to the Republicans.
Corner Stone
What would you expect her to say?
Violet
It’s the “there won’t be any repercussions” part of the statement that’s really awful. The rest of the “It’s a Wisconsin issue” crap could be construed as typical political boilerplate. But claiming there won’t be any repercussions just makes Dems who are working hard in the state angry, demoralizes other Dems who think the national party doesn’t care about them, and energizes Republicans to think/act along the lines of: “Hell yeah, there WILL be repercussions! We’ll show that dumbass DNC bitch what repercussions look like!”
ruemara
What did you expect her to say? It will be a terrible, demoralizing harbinger of doom for the fall election? We’ll be heartbroken and unable to regroup without therapy? Good lord and butter, this is a silly thing to feel rage about. The same people who wanted Obama to be at the head of Wisconsin protests-even when the locals said, “Naw, bad idea.” don’t seem to get that it can’t be a DEMOCRATIC PARTY THING, it has to stay a local race. It cannot be allowed to become equated as a sign of democratic party prospects for the upcoming fall. Wisconsin wants a change, they better be as organized and fervent as they were with the recall petitions. Already, the coalition of the angry is now the coalition of stupidly petulant, as people complain about Barret. They have to decide if whining about things is all this was about, or if removing Walker is the fucking goal. I agree with the lack of appropriate funding, but this is a damned silly ragegasm.
taylormattd
@Violet: “But claiming there won’t be any repercussions just makes Dems who are working hard in the state angry, demoralizes other Dems who think the national party doesn’t care about them”
So democrats in Wisconsin would have been happy and encouraged if she had said “if Barrett loses, there will be terrible ramifications for democrats nationally this fall, and it bodes very poorly for us”?
taylormattd
@Violet: “But claiming there won’t be any repercussions just makes Dems who are working hard in the state angry, demoralizes other Dems who think the national party doesn’t care about them”
So democrats in Wisconsin would have been happy and encouraged if she had said “if Barrett loses, there will be terrible ramifications for democrats nationally this fall, and it bodes very poorly for us”?
hildebrand
Redirect your ire a bit – I think it makes a small amount of sense to play the expectations game with the race – and thus DWS is attempting to play CYA should Walker win (again – blech). That said, I think it perfectly acceptable, nay laudatory, to rip the DNC a new one for not doing everything in their power to get Barrett a victory.
Barrett did a good job of going after Walker during last night’s debate. Walker sounded defensive and smug (at the same time, a trait most tea-party types seems to share). This is a winnable contest, but Barrett’s team needs a massive infusion of DNC cash and GOTV folks to help him win. You want to bitch – bitch about that, not about someone playing the bloody expectations game.
Another question – where the fuck has Saint Feingold been in all of this?
Marcellus Shale, Public Dick
hey at least she didn’t use gorge will’s line about “promiscuous sociology”.
wisconsin could be big, but its always been an “all-in” kind of pot. don’t undervalue the win.
of course this is probably the national chairman, knowing that a win makes the next generation of stars out of the state dems in wisconsin. maybe the footsteps she hears are more about her and her status, than the political landscape thingy.
Spiffy McBang
No one is expecting her to claim doom and gloom if Barrett loses the race, but the maddening thing is this: The DNC is not being forthcoming with any real help for the guy, which means his poll numbers are not as good as they could be, which is leading them to have to treat it as not a big deal if he loses. If they’d give him some fucking backup, DWS would be able to talk about how confident she is Barrett will win instead of hedging on the effects of a loss.
Anya
@Cole – Lighten Up, Francis
JGabriel
__
__
ruemara:
taylormattd:
No, of course not.
Wasserman Schultz should have refused the premise of the question and responded with something like, “We’re determined to win this one and won’t be answering any what-ifs based on other outcomes.”
.
Linnaeus
I’m with the others here who have made similar comments. If the DNC chair were to talk about how bad a defeat in Wisconsin would hurt Democrats, I would think that would be even more demoralizing. She’s trying to manage expectations.
I do agree that the DNC should have done more, although I will also say that I had qualms about the whole recall strategy in the first place. Walker never looked vulnerable enough (at least from what I saw, though those who know more than I do might differ with that assessment) to warrant such a risky strategy.
That said, if Walker wins (and honestly, it does look better for him now that it does for Barrett), he will no doubt try to claim it’s a vindication for his policies but I’m not sure how much stronger he will really be. This campaign has bloodied him and exposed a lot of things about him that heretofore have been downplayed or kept hidden. This criminal investigation of him looks like it’s got serious legs. It may not bring him down now, but possibly could in the future. Plus there’s the legislative recalls; win those, and Walker won’t be able to pass as much of his agenda as he likes. I’m not saying that a Walker win isn’t a setback – it definitely is – but it could set the stage for undoing the damage he’s done later.
And I’m not sure how much other governors will be emboldened by this. The conditions in different states are, well, different. Kasich got his union-busting bill badly defeated and I don’t think an election in Wisconsin is a strong enough message to Ohio voters to make Kasich think he could try more of the same. The guy to watch in the region, IMHO, is Rick Snyder in Michigan. He’s cleverly avoided the public missteps that Walker and Kasich have made, plus he’s been helped by a very large GOP majority in the Michigan legislature. Snyder does a very good job of seeming moderate and reasonable, while signing bill after bill of regressive legislation. He’s the most dangerous one.
gaz
stop supporting them. they don’t support the progressives. They are the Third
WayRailCorner Stone
Hey, I don’t care what DWS has to say about Wiscy. I’m still going to crawl over broken glass to vote for her this Fall!
urizon
The DNC didn’t want this recall because they’re afraid the crazies will go after Democratic governors. Guess what? They already have. I thought DWS was one of the good ones, but they all really do suck deep down, don’t they?
Corner Stone
@JGabriel:
You mean she should have “Pelosi’d” the premise?
Hmmm.
Violet
@taylormattd:
No, of course not. She should have done as JGabriel suggested and refused the premise and changed the subject to something else she wanted to talk about. If the point is downplaying expectations, stay on the “this is a Wisconsin issue” tactic and start talking about something the President is doing or bash Mitt Romney or something else.
She’s a skilled and experienced politician. She knows how to not answer a question and respond with something she wants to talk about . She could have done that here and she didn’t.
Uncle Cosmo
@taylormattd: Exactly. Anyone remember the first round of WI Senate recalls? Democrats picked up 2 seats–a significant & even stunning achievement, leaving the GOTP with a razor-thin 1-vote majority–but with all the overconfident noise about flipping the Senate, the results were treated as if the good guys had lost. Why give the Thugs any more of an excuse to claim that a razor-thin victory (if they get a victory at all) represents a total repudiation of all things Democratic? (Not that they’d need one; see Bush, George W, theft of 2000 election & subsequent assertion of mandate…)
The other good thing about downplaying expectations is that the people of Wisconsin will get full credit fo a Barrett win (looking less unlikely each day).
Kane
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/15/debbie-wasserman-schultz-dog-collar_n_1517687.html
John, if I can quote you from your recent S.E. Cupp rant:
“If you can’t figure out why both are inappropriate and offensive, you’re part of the problem.
…
It’s about whether or not this is something that is right. It’s about whether you think your sister or mother or daughter or friends should have this happen to them because someone else doesn’t like their politics.”
PeggyAI
What JGabriel said! And then send some damn money & help.
PeggyAI
What JGabriel said! And then send some damn money & help.
cathyx
Like I said before, a recall election has more impact on the rest of the nation than a regular election. People are so upset by what the governor of the state is doing that they went through the long and involved process to recall him (not an easy feat). The impact this recall will have across the nation is huge. Other states will feel empowered by this, and maybe will start to have faith in the system again.
For anyone to say that the results aren’t important is either completely out of touch or they really don’t want him to be recalled and are justifying why they aren’t supporting the dem candidate.
JGabriel
__
__
Corner Stone:
I was thinking more C. J. Cregg, but you’ve got the general idea.
.
reflectionephemeral
@Violet: But now we’re talking about interviewing tactics, not “the DNC sold us out!”
Even if you don’t like her answer, I don’t see how it’s a big deal.
Clime Acts
Dear, dear John…when will you learn?
It’s all good. You have no choice and you must support every Democrat and vote a straight Democratic ticket no matter what BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS ARE FAR WORSE! THE WORLD WILL END UPON MITT’S ELECTION,OMG!
Chuck Butcher
I’m guessing here, but considering that the DNC is the national arm of the State Parties it would like to not show a lot in what is a State election. From the outside it is impossible to tell what resources the DNC is “redirecting” to the state – or the State Party – without actual participation in the fundraising.
The recall election looks to be a toss-up, even if Barrett held a narrow lead it isn’t to the national organization’s benefit to make it obvious that they think it is critical.
I have to guess because I’ve pulled out of organized (D) politics but I do know that the DNC has all kinds of “back channels” to get things done without stomping on them. The Dean 50 State program was very careful to not step on State or County Parties toes. You might find the State Delegations to the DNC variable, but the DNC does employ some pros.
(I pitched a bitch about this awhile ago – I’ve since reflected)
The Sheriff's A Ni-
@Violet:
So she’s a skilled and experienced politician who knows how to respond and yet somehow she was unskilled when she responded? What?
From this peanut gallery, I see the unions busting their ass for the recall. But Baldwin’s stepping in for Koch in November, Feingold is off doing god knows what, and the race came down to a pair of not entirely appealing choices that turned the recall into a rematch of the last election. I would’ve liked for the DNC to have done more, sure, but on the surface I’m not entirely certain it wouldn’t have been a quixotic adventure to begin with. I’d rather them spend more on, say, Tammy Baldwin and Sherrod Brown’s campaigns this fall than the long shot that the second time’s the charm for Barrett.
Bruce S
The terrible record of the DNC on this up until the recent decision to spend on the race notwithstanding, I really don’t think she could have given a different answer in the context of a CNN interview. She probably could have handled the question better and angled her comment more skillfully, but the “right answer” wasn’t, “Yes there will be terrible national repercussions for Democrats.” It’s her job to NOT say stuff like that, even if its true.
Baud
@cathyx:
Did you read her quote:
MosesZD
You still give money to the
Republican partyDNC? What ever for?I give mine to solid Democrats like Pete Defazio in Oregon. Those kind of people. People who are actually Democrats in more than name only and don’t sell out the poor and middle class for the rich.
Mark S.
Jesus, Cole, maybe you should switch to decaf.
Clime Acts
A quick scroll thru comments reveals the usual codependent Bot morons spouting the usual codependent bullshit.
DWS should have done all she could to FUND this Wisconsin with aggressive DNC $$$, get powerful national surrogates like BO in there to push for a recall, and make it happen, rather than ignoring the whole thing. Instead, the DNC has not lifted a finger and now we have DWS as much as preparing for defeat.
It seems likely the DNC WANTS Walker to win for their own reasons.
At the very least in this interview she should have expressed confidence that the recall would SUCCEED.
Idiot, lying Dems as per usual.
gaz
@Chuck Butcher: DWS’s statement notwithstanding, I’m comfortable criticizing the organization and withholding funding on one point alone:
They refused to donate half a million dollars to to a GOTV drive in this recall battle. Put up or shut up is my essential position on it. The GOP fully expects the Democrats to give up the game on the state level, and this refusal to help in such an important state level election is nothing short of a gift to the GOP. The GOP has been carefully organizing a massive state level fight across the nation, and the democratic establishment has been standing around holding their dicks. It’s beyond stupid. It’s like they want the Teamorans to win. I might as well donate to RNC or the RGA. There’s not much daylight between the orgs. Clearly, they all want the GOP to win.
Mark S.
Every time the Steelers lose a game, I want Mike Tomlin to feel the same amount of pain as if he had just lost his first-born child.
Baud
@Mark S.:
I know. This from a guy who last night was upset at the thought of killing spiders.
Chuck Butcher
For those of you calling the DNC a corporatist whore or words to the effect – you may be confusing the DNC with the Congressional arms. The DNC operates out of the direction of the State Parties Delegates and you’d be well served to get acquainted with the State Party if you think it is a tool of the right/plutocrats. There are State Parties that are exceptions but generally they are to the left of the (D) voters and pols. That would put them well to the left of a lot of this blog’s commenters.
FoxinSocks
I’m here in Maryland, what can *we* do to help the recall effort? Is there some place to donate?
Every time a Democrat loses an election across the country, we should feel the same amount of pain as if John had lost one of his beloved spiders.
gaz
@Chuck Butcher: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/scott-walker-recall-dnc-fundraising-8836645
Specifically
Now please explain why I should ignore this?
jazzgurl
What is it with this constant frigging nitpicking of anything that moves that is Democrat. John dear heart, try spending more productive time doing something for …instead of opening mouth and ranting against !!!! You are also pasrt of the problem.
I absolutely refuse to have you say anything like this about Debbie. She has been terifically good.
Linnaeus
@FoxinSocks:
I donated to the Barrett campaign through ActBlue.
Kane
This is all Beltway media talking. Unless you really believe that democrats are so fragile that our confidence and hope hinges on what Debbie Wasserman Schultz says. And it’s nonsense to believe that Kasich is waiting with bated breath on the results of what happens in Wisconsin to decide what his policies will be. Kasich isn’t about to have a political epiphany should Walker lose.
If I had to choose between your panicked response and the measured response from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, I would take hers.
cathyx
@Baud: I did read her quote. Did you? You didn’t finish it.
When the very next thing you say after a statement is but, that totally negates what you just said you believe.
All she cares about is the presidential election. But the fact is, this local election has a lot to do with the national one. If voters are disheartened, they will think what’s the use in trying, and stay home for the next one.
Susan
According to Howie at DownWithTyranny, Wasserman-Schultz is Joe Lieberman in a skirt.
Stuck in the Funhouse
Someone might have mentioned it, but the gov recall race is not the only one coming up. There are some more senate seats, and dems in WI only need one of those to capture the state senate. If they win that back and lose to Walker, it will be considered worthwhile, and a win. If not, obviously bad.
Chyron HR
@Clime Acts:
Awww, look, babby learned a new word. I wonder how many times this weekend he’s going to scream it at us regardless of the context?
eemom
All the above.
DNC not helping recall: bad.
D W-S quote: meh, wtf do you expect?
Jesus Christ, Cole, put the glue down already. This is getting embarrassing.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
Yeah, no. We nailed Kasich on SB 5 to the tune of 57% against. Ohio is not Wisconsin, we’re the more urbanized and more exurbanized Rust Belt. There’s a lot of suburban and exurban voters whose granddad, dad, brother, sister was able to give their family a decent life thanks to a union. Kasich and his backers underestimated that, I’m fairly certain it’ll be a while before they try again – if ever.
4tehlulz
0/10 for linking the Washington Post.
Baud
@cathyx:
The second part of the statement was 100% accurate.
Good, that’s what she should be focused on.
Democrats saw what that brought them in 2010. If we as a party can’t overcome let-downs and adversity, then we are a lesser people than the tea party.
ruemara
When I described this place as emo, I had no idea I was insulting emos. You could give lessons to emo on how to drama their lives up.
gaz
@Stuck in the Funhouse: If they this recall it’s a HUGE morale blow and a loss of momentum for state-level Democratic ops. Expect to hear the villagers bleat endlessly about how this is a vindication of right-to-work union busting bullshit. Expect to hear endless blathering about the monumental waste of effort put into the recall. Expect the Wisconsin rebellion to be painted as futile. And that’s just on the morale and rhetoric front. The gubernatorial recall in this case is about something MUCH larger than just who sits in the the comfy chair, and it’s even about more than policy. It’s about direction, messaging and momentum. This race is too important to abandon, state-senate notwithstanding.
Half a mil is chump change. These days, that’s not even “walking around money”. If the DNC caves so easily on such an important issue, and over such a minuscule amount of money, how can I expect them to EVER have our backs? It’s complete and under bullshit. At least 100,000 Wisconsin folks happen to agree with me.
ornery_curmudgeon
I think we know Ralph Nader is to blame.
eemom
@Mark S.:
omfg, I didn’t even see that until now.
Done with the joking. You are one sick fuck, John Cole.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©
Shocked Balloon Juicers are shocked!
To find that their right-wing corporatist President and his election apparatus will never actually find their comfortable shoes.
Not to defeat Scott Walker, and not for any other union cause, either.
They work for the plutocracy that bought Obama’s election in 2008, and the rest of us are just supposed to vote for the “lesser evil”, no matter what.
~
gaz
@cathyx: This. 100 times this!
hildebrand
@ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©: Oh, look, DougJ is trolling the thread. Good one. Remember though, after such a righteous piece of hit-and-fun fulmination, you need to work in a quick bit about how Kucinich will ride to the rescue if we beg him.
CW in LA
@Mark S.: He probably just figures the check to the refs didn’t clear in time.
jl
On other hand, Democrats are picking up some new blood unlikely to CYA out.
TPM says Richard Carmona, Dub’s Sugeon General and real life action hero doctor/police, is running for Senate in Arizona as a Democrat.
Apperently he was an independent before.
Interesting news to me at least. I don’t know enough about his politics to guess what kind of Democrat he will be on the issues. But the style will be a nice change.
gaz
@ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©: I’ve read you elsewhere – and I expect better from you.
I’ll enumerate your failings in this post:
1. Broad brush painting of the entire BJ commentariat. I, for one am not shocked – perpetually disappointed maybe, pissed maybe, but not shocked.
2. Classic firebagging.
3. Borderline ratfucking. (Jane would be so proud)
4. And a classic – voting for the lesser of two evils is an unrealistic implication.
#4 is really offensive and stupid. If you had offered any kind of solution, other than making an implication that staying home is best than I’d give you a pass.
Try harder next time. Or just keep trolling, I don’t really care. You and Clime Acts can go throw yourselves a pity party. Maybe you should, and leave the rest of us alone.
gaz
@ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©: Lost my edit capability, FYWP.
#4 should read –
4. And a classic – voting for the lesser of two evils is an unrealistic proposition (by implication)
the fugitive uterus
@JoyfulA:
FUCK YES – WI would have already had check in hand. WTF is wrong with her?
“Because Howard Dean understood the importance of local elections” – which is what i tweeted the Chairwoman last week.
kay
@ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©:
Oh, bullshit. I was reading on blogs during the Issue Two referendum that Obama had to put on his shoes and come to Ohio while the national AFL-CIO rep was saying exactly the opposite to us here. I had an OFA organizer in my office while I was reading this same sentence on blogs. It was surreal.
We didn’t once mention Democrat in that campaign. Not once. We used “fairness”. There’s a reason for that. Some 40% of union households in rustbelt states ARE REPUBLICANS. It was not partisan (ostensibly). That was deliberate.
It’s a dance. Labor pushes and the state party pushes and the national Democratic Party pushes. This is a long and complicated relationship and every single actor knows exactly what the deal is. They’re advocates. Their whole job is to say “we want more”, whatever “more” is.
Did you listen to the debate last night? The Democrat is running on the fact that Scott Walker is a national Right wing celebrity. That’s deliberate too.
gaz
@hildebrand: I can say with near certainty that this person is not DougJ
Stuck in the Funhouse
@gaz:
The village is going to bleat on something stupid, no matter what happens. But I don’t agree at all about the actual pol damage outside of WI, for most voters. Here is the deal, WI dems and others wanting to use the recall law, is perfectly legit, if they jump through all the hoops to get the second chance at Walker. And I support that, there are a lot of folks in that state and elsewhere, that can’t stand Walker’s policies, but also not that keen on a recall, just for the purpose of not liking his policies, absent any real evidence he has personally acted illegally, or in a sizable way, unethically.
As far as the DNC is concerned, them getting deeply involved and with national donation money, would be the best way to nationalize a failed attempt at removing a legally elected republican whose policies they hate. And that should be the attitude for the rest of us in other states. If folks elsewhere want to give their money for the cause in WI, and I’m sure many did, then they could and did directly donate to that states dem institutions and candidates.
This ain’t no national Waterloo, imo, either way. And I don’t plan on aiding it to be one if WI dems lose in that state. They made their choices, but they are the only ones with a vote on whatever fate awaits for their recall.
Corner Stone
@ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©: I never expected a sitting president to walk in something like that, and wished he had never said anything of the sort.
kay
What I haven’t been able to figure out is how closely private sector unions are aligned with public sector unions in Wisconsin, because that was really the crucial piece in Ohio-that those two groups were 100% united.
They’re very different groups. Public sector unions are browner and more female than private sector unions.
Corner Stone
@Clime Acts: Godzilla. No, not a metaphor. The actual Godzilla will be elected if we criticize DWS.
the fugitive uterus
well, if i’m going to donate $, it’s gonna go directly to the WI Dem party, not the DNC.
Chuck Butcher
@gaz:
I could cut and paste my rather irate comment from my ire at that moment. I know something about how DNC works and I’ve known DNC Committee-persons. There are ways for DNC to do this without putting their fingerprints all over it. I’d guess that for several reasons in this case they don’t want them all over it.
Look, the dumbass GOP is already making a case about “out-of-state money” – incredibly enough. The reality is that “paid for the Committee to …” isn’t blatantly outside money – DNC is about as goddam obvious as it gets. I know how many of us know that Americans For Prosperity is a national corporate shill but it does not say in bold print Democratic National Committee.
This kind of thing always means the balancing act of:
a pissed off “Gaz” versus another outcome
I assure you that calculation has been made…
FlipYrWhig
They were “saddled” with Barrett because, you know, the candidate they liked better lost the primary. If local labor can’t energize and organize to win a Democratic primary in a Rust Belt state, maybe they’re the ones with the problem. At a certain point, the grassroots progressive has to win, instead of this incessant pattern where the grassroots progressive loses (Hackett, Lamont, Halter) and then everyone moans about how unfair it is that the powers that be stacked the deck against them and made it too hard to win. The _point_ of being grassroots is that you out-hustle the institutions and power centers and you win anyway.
the fugitive uterus
if i have to watch Gov. Haley do a victory dance, i’m gonna shoot myself in the eye
also, is it me, or does Scott Walker look like his ears are melting off the side of his head, like Bishop’s clone in Alien II?
FlipYrWhig
@Chuck Butcher: I was pretty sure I had seen a report about that back-channel money being shipped in here… I want to say I saw it was $800K and that it was reported on a DKos diary, but I can’t remember the specifics, alas.
gaz
@Stuck in the Funhouse:
I think there’s plenty of ammo there. Remember John Doe. Remember Walker’s disastrously corrupt tenure in Milwaukee as well.
I think you make a fair point here – even though I disagree, it’s fair:
That said, FTR, I disagree with the mindset on the basis that risk-adverse cowards are the reason the Democrats tend to lose as much as we do. A little boldness – and sticking their necks out seems to pay dividends when it’s practiced by the GOP. I’m sick of the cowardly bullshit from people on “our side”.
Also, FTR I’ll be sending my DNC donation money to WI directly, and I hope many others will do the same.
Ronzoni Rigatoni
Well, I don’t contribute to the DNC for a lot of reasons, but primarily because they didn’t send me any address labels this year. I live in FL’s 13th District, current home of Vern “the thief” Buchanan and former home of (gasp!) Katherine Harris (the corpse of Mario Siliconi, inventor of the breast implant I am told, should be dug up and thrashed mightily). What meager money I have left from buying my weekly catfood ration is donated monthly to Allan Grayson, and his district is nearly 200 miles from here.
kay
@Chuck Butcher:
I think you comment on state parties and the national party was dead-on honest and correct. That’s been my experience, too. I would also add that it is absolutely guaranteed that the Ohio state party will blame the national party when a race isn’t going well, and vice versa. It’s what they do.
I think it’s a bad idea, but it’s what they do.
The Ohio state party can usually hang onto their shit and wait until the race is over before blaming, though. I understand they’re advocating for more money, but it isn’t a great idea to take on a hugely risky strategy and then appear to lose your nerve in the home stretch. They can still win this. Complaining isnt going to get them there. They chose this strategy, labor and the state party. It’s a hugely heavy lift. I’d like them to follow through and keep working without indulging in a preemptive analysis. I am pulling for them, but I think the public garment-rending is a bad idea.
kay
@Chuck Butcher:
Quoted for truth :)
Corner Stone
@FlipYrWhig:
Wow. Stunning, indeed.
Hackett had a shit staff, and didn’t care to do anything about it. Lamont never had the financial backing of any D players, no matter what lip service was paid, and Halter was one fucking centimeter to the left of Blanche. He was not liberal, nor progressive. Just the best possible alternative to the completely bought and paid for Lincoln.
gaz
@Chuck Butcher:
Fair point. Still, I’ll be sending money to WI directly. Unless I know that they were actually sending a back-channel donation. I like to know where my donations are ending up.
That’s pretty mercurial of you. Maybe a bit passive-aggressive? I can’t tell because I can’t quite unpack that.
If you’ve got something to say, just come out and say it. Whatever it is, I can assure you I regularly deal with worse in r/l than anything I’ve ever encountered on this blog, so just come on out with it.
Stuck in the Funhouse
“cowardly”? don’t think so. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor, especially for an election that is not a normal election, but an allegation along with the numbers to have the case re adjudicated in the court/vote of public opinion, via local election laws, by the people within that jurisdiction. My guess is everyone in that state long ago made up their minds which way to vote, and I bet dollars to donuts, that a lot of them can’t stand Walker, but don’t agree with the recall, and end up voting against it, or not vote at all. I think that is a perfectly healthy attitude, even though I despise the weasel and his ilk in every single way.
Chuck Butcher
@gaz:
Jayzus – please do, it will gratify you and the DNC will be pleased that the money went there. How fucking stupid do you think the DNC is? They want Walker’s head on a fucking pike – not much works better for them than that. They don’t want their boot prints on it. It isn’t risk averse behavior to decide that it is electorally better to not show than it is to show when you want to win.
I know damn good and well that the DNC can get money headed to WI without getting its fingers on it. They are a political organization they ARE allowed to talk and coordinate and if money doesn’t go into their coffers their prints aren’t on it. The second a check goes into their account they have to account for it… has to be to them, though.
Suffern ACE
I remember Republican leaders caring a great deal if the could kick out Davis in CA and redraw Texas to take a permanent majority there.
Hill Dweller
Why should anyone give a shit about the villagers’ opinions? They’re going to push a right wing narrative regardless of reality. Look at their reaction to Obama hitting Romney for Bain. I think they’re on the fourth different angle of criticism this week. But the Obama campaign essentially told them to f off, and doubled-down.
As for Wisconsin, I’m sorry, but if the citizens of that state don’t understand the ramifications of three more years of Walker by this point, they deserve him.
The DNC should help fund GOTV efforts, but trying to nationalize this is a mistake, in my view.
OFA is helping on the ground, but Obama making a big speech won’t do a damn thing to help Barrett. Neither the First Lady nor the President going to Wisconsin in 2010 helped matters.
kay
@cathyx:
You can’t do that it states, cathyx. You can’t co-op their state for a national Party election goal or “movement”. You can’t say that out loud.
Scott Walker is denying that exact charge. Walker is denying that he is a tool of the national conservative movement. There’s a reason he’s denying it. It’s a loser in state races. It will hurt him.
gaz
@Stuck in the Funhouse:
And while discretion is the better part of valour, cowardice is the better part of discretion. – Sir Pelham Grenville Wodehouse.
I guess we disagree on degrees. Anyway, the DNC gets my money if they earn it. They haven’t here, IMO. Wisconsin progressives have.
FlipYrWhig
@Corner Stone: So… What’s the “stunning” part? Right-wing insurgent candidates pick off establishment insiders now and then. Why can’t left-wing insurgent candidates, or more populist alternatives, or more labor-identified candidates, break through? I mean, if that’s what the “Democratic base” is longing for, shouldn’t they, you know, win? Shouldn’t they rally _as_ outsiders, or as alternatives, and rip it up and start again? If the point is that you can get in touch with the people and change the game and win, then, go win. If you can’t, maybe the problem is that you have a mistaken impression of what the people want.
gaz
@Hill Dweller:
They shouldn’t. Too many people watch TV, so they will anyway.
The game is rigged. I agree with that. But especially in such a rigged game, framing is important. It’s far easier for them to say “The recall is futile and this shows that people don’t like ‘uncivil’ democratic activism, and don’t like unions either” than it is for them to contort themselves into taking that position in the face of a successful walker recall. They’ll still do it of course, but it will be harder to make the case, and less persuasive, IMO. Pretty much the only thing we really can do in the face of this is to box them in to having to make convoluted and complex arguments. The more our message becomes simple, and theirs becomes complex, the more persuasive we will be. That’s a pretty general observation, but I think it applies here specifically as well.
Chuck Butcher
@gaz:
If the DNC thought it would work to the benefit of Barrett they’d figure out a way to spend money without hurting the State Party’s feelings. This is the discretion part – don’t slap your label on the election if it will cost them votes. You need a net damn gain.
They know that “Gaz” (and companions) exists out there and that this will piss them off – that cost has been weighed. Money is only a part of elections, it can play to your benefit and it can cost in an election. OR has been used as a laboratory for out of state nut cases for years – that fact has been used fairly successfully opposing them.
FlipYrWhig
@Stuck in the Funhouse: I think the way it came out to be Walker vs. Barrett also created a lousy impression that Democrats wanted a “do-over,” which was sure to dampen enthusiasm in its own right. I wonder… If the process was more like a vote of confidence on Walker, not a whole new election, would “No Confidence” win? My sense is that people in WI don’t like Walker much, but they don’t like the do-over aspect even more. And the other day I brought up the example of Feingold, who didn’t want to change the filibuster rules, because the aspect of senatorial perks and prerogatives was more important than doing something to advance the here and now objectives of elected Democrats. Maybe WI is full of process wonks who hate recalls and permanent campaigns more than they hate Scott Walker.
kay
Also. In fairness to Russ Feingold, I do believe he is campaigning in Wisconsin. I’m not sure where that rumor started.
Can I just say that they, labor and the state Party, really can’t just panic and start screaming at other people at this point? It’s a horrible idea, and they should resist/ignore anyone who thinks it’s a good idea. It looks weak.
The polls are essentially even, and there’s been so few recalls no one knows what is going to happen. There are no undecideds, so persuasion isn’t the thing now.
Kane
http://election2010.illumen.org/latest-news/milwaukee-journal-sentinel-the-wisconsin-voter-column-2
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/24/dems_pour_money_into_wisc/singleton/
I believe this “I hate Democrats” meme is what Walker would call his divide and conquer strategy.
FlipYrWhig
@kay: I hadn’t heard about Feingold and this election either way. I was only bringing him up as an example of how a proud progressive might still find himself leery of a political process even if that process, used successfully, would advance progressive objectives.
hildebrand
@FlipYrWhig: Bolt-from-the-blue candidates can win – see: Barack Obama. Granted, Obama was not the lefty that Republicans fear-mongered about, and certain naive Democrats dreamed he was, but it shows that what you need is a good candidate with a great pitch and excellent organizational skills, or at least a killer work ethic. This can happen at the local and state level, but it takes a great deal of effort. Russ Feingold’s first senate campaign was outstanding in that regard.
Hmm, speaking of Feingold, pity he seems to be sitting this one out. (Unless, I am missing something – but my daily read of the Milwaukee Journal doesn’t seem to be overflowing with Feingold sightings.)
Danny
Welcome to the post-Citizens United world. No one can have missed the fact that loads of wealthy industrialists have poured Super PAC money into Wisconsin to take care of their union busting boy. Well guess what? There are no wealthy industrialists who are willing to throw piles of money at Barett. Imagine that. The DNC have to pick their fights and if they chose to go all in to unseat Walker then that money is going to not be there come November. It’s bad enough that SCOTUS changed the law to afford rich people the option to buy elections. We don’t have to make it worse by doing this tiresome “betrayal” shit for the #98797 time.
Corner Stone
@FlipYrWhig: I just find your analysis always stunningly wrong, or inapt to the situation being described.
Hackett narrowly lost to a Republican in a deeply R district. Lamont won the D nom and then lost to an I after he was essentially abandoned by the D party and people with all the money. Halter was never a progressive nor a liberal.
gaz
@Chuck Butcher: Taking the long view, I see that this line of thinking to be what has gotten liberals in to this mess over the past 30 years. We’re LOSING. If I could point to anything, it’s lack of courage and commitment to convictions. Something we were good at in the late 60’s, in the late 30’s, etc.
That said, you may be quite right about them accurately weighing the “gaz” factor in this one instance. I sincerely hope you are.
In the long view, this kind of crap seems to be the reason we lose ground in the big picture, even if we pick up a few wins here and there.
So I’ll continue to be frustrated about it. I show up to activate, and I’ll pray that the 11d chess pays off, even though I haven’t seen it working. I’ll also be buying up torch and pitchfork futures =)
FlipYrWhig
@hildebrand: That’s a good example. And there are others, like Donna Edwards over Al Wynn in MD. But the specific thing that makes me grumbly is when the upstart, further-to-left-candidate loses the primary and then her or his supporters grouse about how the other guy is totally fucking up everything. Well, them’s the breaks. It’s _supposed_ to be hard. That’s why it’s so galvanizing when it works.
Chuck Butcher
The Milwaukee Sentinel/Journal has already essentially called this recall “sour grapes” and opposed it. This stuff actually counts, as does the obvious source of monies and influences. Wisconsinites quite correctly see this as a WI election – national ramifications be damned.
It should be pretty easy to make Walker look like the tool of national interests – but that is up to the locals if they want any kind of validity.
Here’s the calculation:
Would DNC money openly given result in a net gain in votes? It would have to be openly given – there are rules and they aren’t window dressing. Once money is in DNC’s hands they have got to openly account for it – no ifs, ands, or buts. DNC apparently has decided it is not a net gain.
Odie Hugh Manatee
Some people love DW-S but I have never thought she was all that. She’s no Nancy Pelosi and even Nancy has her problems. I would think that the national Democrats would be throwing some heavy assistance at WI but that would go against their informal motto.
Democrat National Committee: We snatch defeat from the jaws of victory so you don’t have to.
gaz
@Kane:
Thanks for this. I did not know that. I’ve sort of avoided Salon since I’ve grown extremely tired of Joan Walsh, David Sirota, and the the Greenwald flying monkey brigade. Their “hack list” was unintentionally ironic, IMO and was basically the final straw for me.
In any case, that’s good news, and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention.
kay
@FlipYrWhig:
I think Feingold is fine but I never had the intense love I see online. I think he always had to walk a fine line and get huge turnout in blue counties, to counteract the red counties.
I actually think Sherrod Brown or Franken are a better model for liberal Senators out of midwest states. The economic populist thing overcomes the civil liberties support and social issues landmines. Brown focuses on economic issues. It’s really difficult to pull off, but I think that’s a good winning combination. The politician has to be talented too, it’s not like you can put any schlump up there because he or she has the “right” positions. If they’re more liberal than the general electorate, they have to be better at winning.
FlipYrWhig
@Corner Stone: I was thinking of the Hackett for Senate episode, where Sherrod Brown was briefly cast in the role of the ruthless establishmentarian big footing the plucky outsider from his rightful place.
I’m picking out from the piece the one particular bit about labor being unhappy that their candidate, Falk, didn’t make it. Yes, if you’re the outsider, that is in fact going to mean that the insiders may turn their backs on you. So… Suck it up and get the people on your side, especially if that’s the whole rationale for your candidacy, how much better-connected you are to the people. If you don’t win, maybe you misconstrued how connected you were to the people in the first place.
Chuck Butcher
@gaz:
Damn Gaz, I’m not talking about soft pedalling or fucking rolling over. I’m talking about the net result of DNC money being publicly thrown at Barrett. You do not get this, the fucking DNC is left of almost every candidate and most of the (D) voters. They also know that, pretty much.
The DNC does not want to be the issue in this recall, they want Walker to be the issue and if possible the Kochs and their kochsuckers. Putting their money in the race makes them a part of the issue.
Lojasmo
I don’t donate to my state party, the DNC, the dccc, or the nscc. That being said, what else should she have said?
Kane
@gaz: I think Walker and the GOP would love nothing more than to cause dissension amongst the ranks, to give the impression that President Obama and the DNC aren’t helping the cause in Wisconsin. It’s incredibly frustrating when some on the left are so eager and willing to take the bait, when all it took was a simple google search to find this information.
FlipYrWhig
@Chuck Butcher: I appreciate your perspective on the insider-outsider, national-local dynamics at play here.
Chuck Butcher
@Lojasmo:
Confusing the State Party or DNC with the Congressional plutocratic sucking organs is a mistake. Obviously I don’t know which State Party is yours, but with very few exceptions – they’re quite a bit left of middle.
Mr Stagger Lee
@Kane: The only reason she did that because she was named and shamed into doing it.
kay
I just get tired of the brave, bold strategy and then the freaking out, despair, and blaming.
Those two things can’t go together. You can’t cover your ass and preemptively finger-point WHILE pursuing a brave, bold strategy. This involved substantial risk. Just accept that, and finish it. They’ll get HUGE credit for the win, so they have to take responsibility for a loss, if they lose.
gaz
@Chuck Butcher: I get what you are saying. I just don’t agree with it in the larger sense. I concede that in this one instance that you may be right. I accept that, and hope for that. In the long view, I think the tactics suck. I think the DNC should generally avoid “staying out of it”, accusations of “out of state money”, etc. be damned. The sheer fact that the GOP happily engages in this while beating dems into submission over it is a net loss for us, particularly in a post CU nation. I don’t think you are advocating for “rolling over”. It’s 100% clear to me that you don’t think that’s what this is. I’ll even concede on this one instance that you could be right. To repeat myself further, I hope you are right.
In any case, Kane posted something that makes this all moot, and makes me feel quite a bit better about the whole mess.
I think your point is fair even I disagree on these tactics in the long haul, and I genuinely appreciate that you took the time to respond. Sincerely.
Since I’ve ceded ground on your essential point further comment on it would probably just result in us talking past each other.
The only thing I can add is that despite JC’s post I have never cared what DWS says, and probably never will. I do care what the DNC does and will continue to do so. Based on Kane’s posts I now have concrete proof that they are doing the right thing. I like that. It makes me feel all kinds of warm and fuzzy. =)
At the end of the day, thanks to Kane, I’ve learned something important on this thread – and I’ll step away from it feeling better, and having gained something I did not know, in the process. Yay, win!
FlipYrWhig
@kay: Amen to all that.
Mnemosyne
@Kane:
Yep. And the firebaggers fall for it every. single. time.
ETA: Also, too, someone needs to punch David Dayen (dday) in the neck for this one.
gaz
@Kane: I won’t let up against walker, I just disagreed about where my money would be best spent in defeating him. You know, my commie hippy qu33r out-of-state Obama-bux..=)
FTR, I also disagreed on tactics, but your posts cleared that up for me. No matter what though – I’ll not STAY home. I’ll not withhold money from progressive causes, and the walker recall effort will not suffer any financial penalty on my part, so if that’s what Walker wanted from me, he’s not going to get it.
Corner Stone
@gaz:
Does this mean you’re no longer voting for a third party candidate this Fall?
gorram
@Baud:
Oh sweet jesus, did you miss the past couple of years? That was the lesson of 2008 – we didn’t get a supermajority in Senate and we had to deal with fucking moronic blue dogs in the House, so nothing got done. That was the lesson of 2010 – we lost the House and even less got done.
The President is, thankfully, not high king, and we need other positions filled with people other than horrendous sociopaths. That includes state governments even. Why is this so fucking hard for people to get?
Chuck Butcher
@gaz:
No what Kane posted was the 2012 DNC national campaign monies. What campaign volunteers etc get up to on their own hook is not DNC. A DNC fundraising letter will not generate a report of DNC monies going to Barrett, those monies will go to Barrett w/o ever crossing DNC’s frontiers. Those letter may generate millions of dollars but DNC’s name will not be on them if they do. The only thing the GOPers will be able to point to is a letter, not dollars.
The GOPers have not been winning because the RNC has been throwing money at state and local elections. The GOPers have surely paid attention to them along with some other tactics and the natural alliance of corporate media with corportate interests…
The Dean 50 State was an attempt at long term building, it was expensive and it is now dead. You see – Obama won. Which of course had nothing to do with the strategy, but it spent successsful state monies on loser states/CDs…
kay
@FlipYrWhig:
To me it just always sounds like fear, and I don’t think they should indulge in that. If they, we, are going to pursue things that are really risky, we are going to lose as often as we win, so if losing means absolute despair, if losing is the worse thing ever, maybe we can’t take the risk.
That’s why they’re bold and brave, these strategies. They often fail. If they were guaranteed to succeed, they wouldn’t be brave at all.
gaz
@Corner Stone: God, this again?
I’ll protect my electoral vote. I’ve donated to the Obama campaign, and I’ve spent plenty of time and energy on being pro-Obama. Stuff like convincing people that Romney is an asshole. Fuck off with that shit.
How about this? My vote doesn’t effect you, doesn’t effect Obama, and means exactly fuck all as far as you are concerned.
Shorter: kiss my pretty little ass.
Cacti
The Wisconsin democrats stepped on their own dick with the choice of Barrett as the nominee.
Nominating the guy who lost in the last election, less than a full term ago, makes the recall seem an awful lot like sour grapes from a sore loser.
gaz
@Chuck Butcher:
One look at congress and the nasty state level stuff leads me to a different conclusion, but I suppose you define “winning” differently than I do.
FlipYrWhig
@kay: I think there’s tremendous romance to the idea of fighting hard and winning. And a lot of people in the blogosphere say they would be content with the idea of fighting hard and losing, because at least it was a good fight and they went down swinging. But no one really wants to accept fighting hard and losing, so they come up with rationalizations about how the hard fighting never really happened the proper way.
gaz
@Cacti:
I lament that as well. In the end, we’ll see though. He does have the name recognition, I’ll give him that. But yeah – that may not help – it may even hurt. * shrug *
We need MORE AND BETTER DEMOCRATS. Maybe Feingold should have stepped up for this race. He’s widely known, at least – but I suppose he has his reasons. I’m not saying he’s a super-hero, just maybe better than Barrett. In any case, I also want a herd of unicorns. =)
I’ll hope for the best. What can you do? Politics sucks sometimes.
kuvasz
Hard to say that Ms. Wassermann-Schultz’ statement was unexpected, and hate to put the “p” word in your mouth Mr. Cole, but that is an attribute of such people; disloyalty.
If you can’t depend on the Democratic Party at large to help you win a partisan state wide election what the hell good is it to be a member of the Party in the first place? Either we hang together or we hang separately. I don’t know how others were raised, but I was taught to defend my brothers and sisters if they got in to a fight, not say “it’s up to them” and turn away. That is the disloyalty to members of the group of which Ms. Wassermann-Schultz purportedly leads.
The recall movement is the epitome of democratic, grass roots populism. It is what active political participation in society is about, and it ought to be nurtured. Instead, it is looked upon as at best a curiosity and at worst a weed in the garden of the two- party system to be ignored.
The one thing that the select few who run the national Democratic Party do not want is for people to recognize that the rank and file can hold the power by organizing within the Party. Once you get there you don’t need any “leaders.” And we can’t be having that, can we?
kay
@FlipYrWhig:
I think it’s more than that. I think it has to do with their perceptions of winning= power as the “blogosphere”, so they’re personally invested. There’s nothing really wrong with that. Unions do the same thing and state parties do the same thing, but I think unions and state parties are more straightforward about the power calculus. One of the things I’ve really enjoyed about working with union people is how fucking BLUNT they are. They say exactly what they want. It’s not surprising, really, given that they are, well, UNIONS. They really, really understand negotiations and jockeying and pushing for a better deal. They understand that dance.
Anyway. My own personal approach is, if you’re going to jump all the way in on one of these things, just jump, and stop making preemptive excuses, and stop hedging. It isn’t “we’ll win if we get everything we want, the moment we ask for it”. That’s hedging. It looks weak to me.
kay
@FlipYrWhig:
They had a fairly big loss in Indiana just a couple of months ago, unions. They lost on RTW, and I know they thought they had a chance right up until the end, because people from here were there. But they won in Minnesota and New Hampshire. So, two out of three, in that period from January to June.
AA+ Bonds
Risk averse planning for a risk averse party.
I am thrilled to jump on the DNC when necessary but this statement is just playing CYA in case they lose in Wisconsin
The question, as others have realized, is whether WI’s Democrats get the funding they need
Feel free to jump all the fuck over that
rikyrah
Look,
they have had Walker for 2 years…
if the folks in Wisconsin don’t know that their asses need to vote on June 5th
then fuck them.
they were the same mofos who sat on their asses in 2010.
why the fuck do folks have to beg these people to come out and vote.
they haven’t seen enough?
I think DWS was wrong, but goddamn.
what the fuck has to happen in Wisconsin for people to know that they need to get off their asses and vote June 5th?
The Snarxist Formerly Known As Kryptik
With every day and every bit of news passing in this election, I find myself staring at the idea of another total wave election across the country for the GOP. This is yet another year we should be steamrolling over them, as they’ve brought out the crazy, they’re not even hiding the fact that they just want to shaft everyone who doesn’t have 7 figures in their bank accounts at minimum. ANd yet it still seems like, time and time a fucking again, that ‘FUCK THE DEMS AND THE COMMIE UNION ECONOMY KILLER TERRORISTS, GOP FOR FUCKING EVER!!!!!’ remains the only consistent electoral winner ever. Even if Obama wins, I keep seeing the future of a total screwed Democratic party because apparently the entire country has had a total fucking Stockholms Syndrome breakdown and wants to totally wipe us out and institute Bush III because ‘Hey, you’ve had 4 years, give the new guys a chance, oh, and FUCK YOU GODDAMN DEM FUCKERS!!!’
It’s so fucking absurd, especially when the public supposedly supports Dem policies, and yet shits on the party and goes super nuts to push the GOP into power more and more and fucking more.
NR
@Baud:
Bullshit. Democrats did not stay home in 2010. This is a zombie lie that needs to die once and for all.
Chuck Butcher
@gaz:
Do you have an extraordinarily short attention span or what? Obama won ’08 and that ended the 50 State. Is your object to just argue with me? If it is let me inform you that you are very first person on this blog to ever make the mistake of accusing me of being “passive/aggressive” because my aggression will leave you in no doubt whatever.
No, I don’t think ending the 50 State was a good idea, and anybody not interested in picking an argument with me would have figured that out without a fucking diagram drawn for them. I should have known better than to engage with you…
Schlemizel
As I recall DWS got a free pass for supporting a couple of Republicans in Florida races against Democrats. I was stunned when she was made chair of the DNC. That should have been an automatic disqualification for the job.
We have no leadership; they appear to be as compromised on economic issues as the GOP.
TIL that there is a blue dogs page on Facebook. I went there & left a polite comment telling them how little I thought of them & how much I wish they would all just join the GOP.
Eli Rabett
When anyone calls from the DNC give them an earful. Stop all contributions. Tell anyone who calls from Obama that you would have given more if not for DWS and the DNC. Make them hate you
Eli Rabett
BTW is it too late to primary her??
Corner Stone
@gaz: Just wanted to make sure I have a handle on the vacillating self-righteousness you spread all over this blog.
feebog
I have thought from the beginning that the Wisconson Democrats played this wrong. They went out and got their signatures at the first possible moment. This assured that the special election would be held in June, four months before the general election. Had they waited until March and April to collect the signatures, we would be looking at a recall election that coinsided with the general election. And election where they would be assured of a much larger Democratic turnout.
I know that the idea was to maintain momentuem,but I wonder how much momentuem would have been lost. Additionally, the “John Doe” investigation would have been that much further along, with heavier damage to Walker. I still don’t think this is over. Walker has poured millions into advertising and he has been stuck at 50% for months. I am donating a few bucks this weekend, how about the rest of you?
kay
@feebog:
I’ll donate to we are Wisconsin. I think if they can get the blue counties out they can win because it looks like the Walker voters are dug in, and won’t be switching.
GOTV isn’t expensive.
texascowgirl
@rikyrah:
THIS. I’m down in Texas and I don’t expect the national Democratic Party to rescue Texans from what we consistently vote for. If a majority of Texans don’t like what the ignorant ass Republicans are doing, they could vote against it. At least Dallas County got fed up and went blue. Every Wisconsinite knows what’s happening in Wisconsin, they know what he did to unions and funding for schools. They know that nothing he has done has brought jobs to Wisconsin and if they don’t like it that can vote him out. If they want to be in denial about him turning Wisconsin into a right to work state, what can anyone do? Has anyone considered that maybe the people who a fine with what Walker has done are a majority in Wisconsin now?
The President went across the country back in 201o begging people to not put the car in reverse and they did anyway. Elections have consequences. Even for the people who knew better.
NR
@Schlemizel:
Yep. The Dem leadership is owned lock, stock, and barrel by Wall Street and the corporations. That’s why the economic reform our country so desperately needs will never happen until progressives move to a new party.
The Fat Kate Middleton
@Mark S.: Can we stop this kind of talk, please? Just lost our two year old, first born grandchild last month. I can’t tell you how painful it is to read these comments. Sorry to complain and guilt trip – but it just is what is.
And I gave $50 to Tom Barrett a few days ago.
ruemara
@kay: There’s something to the romance of tragedy that seems to appeal. I prefer to hold my cards and not give any hint of where the weakness is, but, ymmv.
@The Fat Kate Middleton:
I am sorry for your loss and the unintended callousness of that statement. Deepest apologies.
The Fat Kate Middleton
@ruemara: Thanks, Rue, not blaming or shaming, really. I remember when I used to make comments equally callous – never again.
J R
I agree with Dr. Dean’s 50-state strategy, if it is dead now that is a disaster.
I agree with everyone that donating to the DNC, the DCCC and the DSCC is a waste. I donate to candidates and causes.
I sent $300 to the Wisconsin folks via Act Blue last night – not the first time. I will donate to President Obama’s campaign again as well. But the institutional Democratic committees – not so much. They don’t seem, since Dr Dean, to have the right strategy in place.
Unfortunately, the two states I could vote in are West Virginia and Arizona – neither will provide electorial votes to President Obama, regardless of the good job he has done saving the national economy, ending the war in Iraq, and killing Osama bin Laden. Something Bush never attempted, let alone accomplishing.
I hired a construction guy to do some sheet-rock and metal soffitt work – he actually believes that the President is a secret Muslim – also a Pentecostal of some sort. Sad, but nothing I can so about it. People with racist foundations will find a way to believe something hateful about dark skinned people. Sad and hateful, but what can you do?
I’ll support progressives where and when I can. No point in dragging each other down, so John, get a grip!
gaz
@Corner Stone: And I just want to make sure you’re posting while sober. So the fuck what?
If you don’t like it, why don’t you pie me?
gaz
@Chuck Butcher: cool off man. I didn’t understand what you were trying to tell me. I said as much in the post. get over yourself.
gaz
so many hurt fee fees here. this thread is annoying.
kay
@ruemara:
1.4 million seems sufficient for GOTV, so I tend to think some public posturing is going on here, between the 3 parties, national, state and labor.
Which is fine, I just wish they’d posture in a more confident way. I saw they released internal polls, so they recognize the danger of “OMG we’re going to LOSE!”
eemom
@NR:
You’re a fucking idiot who needs to STFU once and for all.
Democrats DID stay home, without question. Your dumbass little firebagger brain has that “question” confused with how much their staying home had to do with the false equivalence bullshit lies being spewed by your fellow firebaggers for the preceding two years. As to that, there may be some legitimate question.
ruemara
@kay: It could be that reverse psych tactic. The less people think its in the bag, the more they may be ready to go hellbent on getting out to vote. If you love being an underdog, appeal to the feeling of being an underdog. It’s like that silly miracle whip campaign. You’re not edgy for eating miracle whip but if that makes your target demo buy more so they can feel hip for eating whatever that slop is, more power to ya. I trust the WI leader more than I trust national media or punditry.
jefft452
“And it will also be demoralizing to every Democrat in the country who donated time and money to make this recall happen”
Screw that
“Learned helplessness” is a crack pot theory
First, the people were supposed to turn against the Senate Dems who left the state, instead they got protests at the Capitol
They thought locking the protesters out of the Capitol would end the whole thing, and rammed through the Union busting bill, then an unknown beat an incumbent Walker ally on the Supreme court
Then they “found” extra votes to overturn the election, and it still didn’t teach Badgers to be helpless
They told us that the Senate recall petitions were doomed, and the Badgers put 6 Walker allies through a recall election.
We were supposed to be afraid of the dreaded backlash after this, and the Dem “fleebaggers” were just as in danger of recall
Replacing 1/3 of all R Senators that it was possible to replace was spun as a humiliating defeat, and we were told of “recall fatigue”, surely we would give up now
Yet instead of quitting the Badgers delivered over a million signatures, in a state with about 4 million voters
They had some Union rep on TV a while ago and asked him what would he do if Walker survived. He shrugged his shoulders and said “fight”
“it will embolden others like John Kasich to continue their anti-union and anti-worker policies.”
Yeah, If Walker can use the full support of the wingnut message machine, a 25 to 1 spending advantage, voter suppression, and “found” votes to eke out a 50.01% victory in an election to decide if he can stay in office for his whole term, it would suck
But if Kasich, who’s own Union busting bill lost 60/40, thinks it would be a harbinger of a perminant conservative majorities, then he’s dumber then he looks
NR
@eemom: Jesus, you’re a fucking idiot. It’s right there in the exit poll data. The left did not cause the 2010 election loss, no matter how much your tiny pea brain wishes they had.
The Dems lost in 2010 because the economy sucked, and the economy sucked because the Dems spent the previous two years kissing Republican and corporate ass instead of doing what was necessary to fix it. That’s a concept simple enough that even someone as stupid as you should be able to grasp it.
gaz
@jefft452: I like you.
Go badgers, also too! woohoo!
I’m not sure what you think about Walkers win or loss impacting democratics outside of the state. It sounds like you are saying it won’t? I’m not so sure, but in any case, I like your enthusiasm.
kay
@ruemara:
I have sort of a novel theory I’m counting on.
People I trust here told me Democrats lost in 2010 because they ran even with the GOP among women. As you know, Democrats ( any Democrat) need an edge with women because they lose among white men.
State workers in Ohio skew female. I hope that us also true in Wisconsin.
I’m counting on women :)
gaz
@kay:
And why not? Women have been the movers behind most of the really good shit that has happened on this planet, while guys take all the credit and measure each other’s dicks.
/snark
But seriously, it sounds like a sound strategy on your part =)
kay
@gaz:
I went to lots of union rallies during SB5, and they were great, all those combative Teamsters, etc. but the phone banks were all middle aged women, so I knew we’d win :)
They vote. They may not be as vocal, but they turn out.
Let’s hope they’re oversampling men in these polls :)
eemom
@NR:
I’m sorry, the fucking moron shoe is still on your foot.
Exit poll: that which measures people exiting from polls.
Percentage of people exiting polls who stayed home: 0.
Your link cites data which purports to prove that among people who, you know, did not stay home, those who self-identified as liberals voted for Democrats in roughly the same percentage as they did in 2008.
That has zero the fuck to do how many Democrats stayed home.
Once again: stayed home = not participating in an exit poll. Just to clarify.
Corner Stone
@gaz: Sorry, forgot to include the “heh”.
Heh.
ruemara
@kay: From your mouth to the Goddess’ ears. May Uzume dance on their polls.
Chuck Butcher
@eemom:
Complete and utter horseshit, no more than an “urban myth” promoted by the likes of you. The data sits there unconcerned with your bullshit, the Independents flipped and that told the story.
You can wish to make it about something else but the turn out numbers were ordinary and distributed ordinarily. The DFHs didn’t cost a fucking thing nor do what you’re spouting. The beloved “middle” shit on the (D)’s heads.
Now if you’d like to work out why that might be useful but promoting a lie isn’t.
Corner Stone
@eemom: Moron.
What part of “percent of electorate” can your pea brain not understand?
eemom
@NR:
I also acknowledged that it IS questionable how much the lack of Democratic turnout in 2010 had to do with “the false equivalence bullshit lies being spewed by your fellow firebaggers for the preceding two years.”
Apologize for using words and concepts that are beyond your itty-bitty grasp. That’s the same thing as saying it’s questionable that “the left caused the 2010 election loss.”
Regardless of petty bickering with an idiot like you, my point, and my concern, is that Democrats suck at GOTV in off-year elections, and that that needs to change.
Chuck Butcher
@eemom:
How fucking stupid are you? You do know that turn out numbers are known and those percentages are known and a few little goodies like that? Up until two years ago I could have taken 10 minutes to get a county by county turn out by registration over a ten year period including the latest election. I quit that shit but that certainly means spit about other people.
I got too tired of people just like you making shit up to keep putting the time and money into it.
boss bitch
Oh yeah, let’s bring back Mr. Kill the Bill-Compromise On Ground Zero-Howard Dean.
A 50-state strategy for a fucking recall election? Its like the goddamn default whine when Dems lose an election. Oh its not the shit load of money coming in for Walker, its not the complete ignorance of the people of Wisconsin or the unions that still stand by that crook no matter how many videos expose Walker for what he really is. NOPE! Its because Howard Dean and his 50 state strategy ain’t being employed.
eemom
@Corner Stone:
What part of
having nothing the fuck to do with “Democrats stayed home” do YOU not understand?
First of all, liberals are not the same as Democrats. Second of all, even if they were, the proportion of the electorate that self-identified as liberal — 20%
— proves my point.
That may well have been no worse than their percentage of the electorate in other mid-term elections. That wasn’t my point.
My point may well be beyond the grasp of you and your fellow assholes just because it’s so simple: when Democrats stay home, we lose.
NR
@eemom: Wow. Are you seriously this stupid?
Exit polls measure the percentage of the electorate that any given groups made up. And the exit polls show that liberals made up exactly the same percentage of the electorate in 2010 as they did in 2006. In fact, this means that more liberals voted in 2010 than did in 2006, because turnout was higher overall. 20% of 41% is more than 20% of 36%.
But I fully expect that this concept will be beyond your pathetically limited mental capacity as well. So I’ll try to explain to you like you’re four years old:
More liberals voted in 2010 than in 2006.
Can you at least wrap your head around that?
boss bitch
And to the person who said Obama should be there…you must have lost your ever loving mind. He went there in 2010 several times and Dems lost. Who got tainted with that loss? Obama. SO yeah, let’s send him there again IN THE MIDST OF HIS OWN RE-ELECTION and have him tainted with another huge loss. FUCKING GENIUS! Then we’ll have more Democrats running from him in the 2012 election.
BRILLIANT!!
Corner Stone
@eemom:
May well have been no worse = the same or similar turnout.
You’re completely wrong here. You have zero factual evidence to back your point.
If I’m wrong then please link it.
eemom
@Chuck Butcher:
I’d like to respond to this, Butchie, but I will need a gibberish-English translation first. Can anyone help?
eemom
@Corner Stone:
But that’s not my point either.
My point had nothing to do with any kind of comparison to previous years.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©
@eemom:
Try: when Democratic Presidents act like Republicans, we lose.
The people who stayed home in 2010 in Ohio, at least, were young voters, unemployed people, and underemployed people.
These are the kind of voters who generally don’t show up in great numbers, but did in 2008. Two years later, their lives weren’t better (quite the opposite), and they returned to norm. Of course, right-wing Dems were eager to tell everyone to just shut up and vote corporate, so they pushed the narrative you are parroting.
P.S. gaz, only a Republican president like Nixon could go to China, and only a Democratic president can cut Social Security. Obama is doing his damnedest to get that done.
Why is that, do you think? It’s not to motivate the Democratic base. And it certainly didn’t help in 2010. (Obama made Simpson and Bowles were made co-chairs of his deficit commission in early 2010.)
~
Corner Stone
@eemom:
This is the stupidest fucking thing you’ve said in at least 24 hours, and that’s saying something.
jefft452
@gaz:
“I’m not sure what you think about Walkers win or loss impacting democratics outside of the state”
I think that losing in WI would be bad, but also a Walker loss would hurt R’s a lot more than a Walker win would hurt D’s
ReflectedSky
I’m skipping reading the other comments, just this once.
John, stop sending the money. Email Debbie why. I think it is OUTRAGEOUS that the national leaders of the party aren’t helping with the recall. It’s making me again consider not voting for Obama. Yes, I know that’s heresy to say at Balloon Juice. But all by himself, he doesn’t do much. Only caring about who wins the Presidency is part of why the Democratic Party is a party in name only, and why the country is in so much trouble. To not recognize how much a win would energize Democratic voters (and contributors) and how much a loss will demoralize them is so utterly stupid it honestly makes me want to put on a tin foil hat and say the fix is in.
Cacti
Wisconsin Dems sealed their fate when they nominated last election’s loser for a second time.
The DNC knows that Barrett has the loser stink on him and didn’t want to attach themselves to his second failure in 2 years.
joel hanes
DWS, Steny Hoyer, Steve Israel, Rahm Emmanuel : these are corporatists, not Democrats. They are part of the nation’s problem, and consistently act to block any really liberal policy from fruition, and in primaries to support conservative Blue Dogs over superior liberal candidates. Ignore their words; watch their actions.
I’ll never give a dime to the national party while they’re in power. Instead, I’ve given hundreds to the WI recall, bought pizza for the protestors, contributed to the TAA cleanup of the Capitol building, and gave money to all the the Blue America candidates early on (because I can’t give a lot, I give early).
Mileage obviously varies for many of you.
That’s fine with me; it’s disagreements that make politics.
joel hanes
Oh, BTW: Debby will never see your email.
If you want to get the attention of a national politician, write a properly formatted business letter, double spaced and indented, print out four or five copies, and send to the addressee at both home and DC offices, to the DNC office, and if you have a Dem Rep or senator, Cc: them.
Be brief; be courteous; address one issue only.
Cacti
@joel hanes:
Re-nominating Barrett was an own-goal. Getting mad at the national party doesn’t change that fact.
NR
@eemom:
You have no “point” at all. None. Liberals voted in 2010, and they voted for Democrats. More liberals voted in 2010 than in 2006. They did not stay home. No matter how desperately you want to blame the left for the Democratic rout in 2010, that narrative simply doesn’t match up with reality.
Of course, I suspect that won’t stop you from continuing to push it. The only alternative would be for you to accept that it was Democratic failures, and their Republican and corporate ass-kissing, that caused the loss of 2010. And simple-minded people like you prefer to have easily identifiable bogeymen to scapegoat as opposed to having to actually think.
joel hanes
@Cacti:
Re-nominating Barrett was an own-goal.
Yes. And there was never any hope of national support for Falk, who is both a liberal and something of a political amateur.
The whole thing is depressing.
joel hanes
@Cacti:
Getting mad at the national party doesn’t change that fact.
Oh, this isn’t why I’m mad at the National Party; that dates back to the nomination of Hubert Humphrey and the insanity outside the Chicago Convention of 1968, and solidified during Clinton.
Obama’s immediate dismantling of Dean’s 50-state organization and centralization of Dem power in DC was just a confirmation that the national party has decisively turned its back on FDR and on representing the interests of anyone but the rich.
There was a powerful democratic energy and a populist story in Wisconsin that could have been harnessed, but according to the wisdom of national Democratic party, it was the wrong story and not a kind of energy they wanted to be associated with.
Chuck Butcher
@eemom:
You really are relentless in your stupidity. Those numbers are available to those who should have them – I was one – and it takes about 10 minutes to get co x co numbers for 5 cycles including the latest.
You want to just make shit up when the actual numbers are there and they don’t support your bullshit. You’ve been told about a gazzillion times you’re FOS on the topic and you keep running at it. It is not fucking mysterious magic, the numbers exit. I could tell, by actual name who had voted and their registration – not how they voted, but the fact that they did. Those data bases exist, they are not imaginary. Exit polling is what it is, the others are hard data.
eemom
@NR:
I’ve made my point clear several times, so I’m not going to restate it.
The fact that it doesn’t fit it into the tiny little pigeon-holes of your size extra-narrow mind is your problem, not mine.
eemom
Can someone — anyone — explain to me exactly what it is lil Chuckie is trying to say here?
Or maybe you could just have another go at it next time you’re sober, Chuckie. Of course, that may be several election cycles from now.
NR
@eemom:
The only thing you’ve made clear is your deranged belief in a complete fabrication that has no connection whatsoever to reality.
Corner Stone
@eemom: Sure. He’s saying you’re relentless in your stupidity.
Pretty clear to everyone else here.
Thymezone
@eemom:
The national turnout was 42%, and this shit for brains actually said that “Dems did not stay home?”
I don’t know anything about NR, but that one assertion by itself makes it a certainty that I can never take anything he or she says seriously from this point forward. That’s just beyond idiotic, it’s in some other realm of
fucktardedness.
I gotta say, even given our history here (mine now in its eighth miserable year), recent activity on BJ has convinced me that this blog is just dead. I mean, come on, the owners have a responsibility to keep the comments section from turning into the kind of trailer park braying that characterizes too many blogs today. Fuck, I knew it was bad here but I didn’t dream it was that bad.
Unless of course NR is just a spooftroll, in which case, he or she sucks at that too. But it’s a different sort of suckage, obviously.
Stuck in the Funhouse
@eemom:
I’ll likely regret this, and I don’t know exactly what you are arguing. But the exit polling in 2010 was pretty much normal for the type of election it was, a midterm, with democrats having someone in their party in the WH for his first midterm, or 1st term.
That doesn’t confirm which cat of democrat voted, or didn’t vote, but overall about the same number of dems voted as have historically for such an election. But I personally don’t think self described liberals turned out to vote, any less as in past elections of this type. Even though before the election, some did say they were not going to vote out of anger at Obama for this or that reason.
The internet and ideological breakdown of center left folks that write and comment on blogs, I think is very very different than the rest of the country. A much bigger representation of more strident liberal/leftist activist dems, than out there in the countryside. That belies the polling that from the beginning of Obama’s presidency, self described liberal dems have approved of Obama’s job performance, more than other cats, like moderate and conservative dems.
The reason repubs won so big, was partly just a normal reaction from those of the party out of the WH being more angry with a liberal prez doing liberal stuff, driving them to vote in higher numbers than is normal for all mid terms. This is historically, quite normal. And also the economy being very bad at the time, and seniors that had voted for Obama, flipping to the wingnuts from wingnuts misleading them about the effects of the ACA, and how it was to affect medicare.
magurakurin
@boss bitch:
yep. I’m not a big fan of the DNC, but I imagine they are juggle a lot of diverse groups and donors. And also agree that it is probably better just to donate to the candidates directly. But, polls show that 39% of Union households support Walker. I mean, WTF, over? Wisconsin has a problem and it is way, way more serious than weak support from the DNC for a recall election.
eemom
@Stuck in the Funhouse:
No, you don’t know what I’m arguing. Maybe, again, because it’s so simple.
It is fucked up for liberals/Democrats to show up to vote in such pathetically low numbers — 20% of the electorate — in ANY election.
I don’t care how many elections it’s happened in before. I don’t care if it was better, the same as, or worse in 2010 than it was in 2008 or 2006 or 1896. In EVERY election where it happens where we lose, it is responsible for that loss. Because when our people show up, we win.
The republitards have one thing going for them: their morons show the fuck up to vote.
We don’t have that going for us. And that is why we lose.
Fuck this shit. You people’s heads are too far up your own convoluted assholes for simple common sense.
Stuck in the Funhouse
@eemom:
Sounds like you are talking in generalities about the fact that a lot of people don’t bother to vote, in any election, and if they did, dems would win. I think it is true that republicans in general get more of their voters to the polls than dems do. It isn’t a huge disparity, but when the elections are running close, that small margin can make the difference between winning and losing. And wingers are generally more attuned to politics and what is going on politically, in their democracy, imo. And that likely goes for right leaning indies as well.
Smiling Mortician
@ReflectedSky:
This is both good and bad. Good because you missed at least two hugely redundant and spittle-flecked flame wars. Bad, because if you had read Kane’s comment at #98, you would have learned that according to the Wisconsin State Democratic Party chair, half of the on-the-ground organization for the recall is Obama for America people. Half. As in, somewhat different from
Hey, look at that! The national leader’s peeps are helping with the recall after all, if by “helping” you mean, y’know, doing fifty percent of the legwork.
John Cole, is this what you were aiming for? If so, well played, sir.
NR
@Thymezone: Another one from the moron brigade, I see. It’s pretty amazing how aggressively stupid you are. You’re giving eemom a run for her money.
2010 had typical turnout–perhaps even a bit on the high side–for a midterm election. Sure, a lot of voters stayed home, because a lot of voters ALWAYS stay home. 2010 was no different from any other recent midterm election in that regard, and so the narrative that butthurt liberals cost the Dems the 2010 election by staying home is flat-out false.
Next time, try reading and comprehending before you open your mouth. You might be able to avoid making yourself look like an idiot.
Corner Stone
@NR:
Doubtful. Doubtful, indeed.
Corner Stone
@eemom: You’re now shifting to an argument about GOTV across a spectrum.
Your original spew was about comparative turnout in 2010.
There’s no running away from that. You’re a moron.
Carolinus
The DNC has been backing the Barrett campaign substantially since the start. See this weeks old Madison Capital Times article:
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/john_nichols/john-nichols-dave-obey-says-top-national-democrats-will-go/article_b1d9fce6-a08a-11e1-85c9-001a4bcf887a.html
In this video of Rachel Maddow’s show from Friday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTGUzNmM0mQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=499s
Rep. Eprenbach says the DNC’s contribution is now up to $1.4m and OFA is helping with 60 offices across the state. The DGA has given over $3m so far.
The national Democratic party has actually committed a lot of money and resources to the race, it’s just that Walker has raised game changing amounts of outside money. It’s the post Citizen’s United world, and this is what the Robert’s court putting their collective hand on the electoral scale looks like.
I just think we’re going to be seeing this replayed a lot across the nation, where state races will be getting swamped in out of state money, and the DNC, DGA, DSCC will be perpetually criticized as they give what they can, with too little money to go around.
Thymezone
@NR:
Aw shut up, you fucking idiot. I didn’t characterize any voters, as liberals or butthurt even as stupid as your ass.
I said Dems stayed home, unless you think that 58% of voters stayed home and NONE OF THEM WERE DEMS, you fucking stupid goddam asshole. Is that what you are saying? Because unless you are writing in code there is no other way to interpret your stupid ass comments. Of course Dems stayed home, in droves, as did a lot of other people. YOU STUPID FUCK.
Carolinus
@Smiling Mortician:
The whole thing is disturbing. As polls got dicier, folks seemed to be building a narrative, over the last couple weeks, to blame any losses in the WI recall elections on the national party. If said loses occur, I expect they’ll be dispiriting enough already, so the last thing we need is a partywide recriminations game.
I suppose there’s no avoiding it though unless we squeak this one out. I can’t think of a single time when the left start forming up one of their epicly unproductive circular firing-squads, no matter how inopportune the timing, and then stood down.
Clime Acts
@the fugitive uterus:
But Howard Dean is unacceptable to Obama Dems because he yelled to loud…or something.
eemom
@NR:
So you are accusing someone else of reading comprehension failure — when I made it clear 6 hours ago, several times, that my problem wasn’t with “butthurt liberals” making Dems staying home — but with Dems staying home, for whatever reason, because when Dems stay home, we lose.
And I then made it clear, again, in response to your irrelevant exit poll waving, that my problem wasn’t with more Dems staying home in 2010 than did in other elections — but with Dems staying home in 2010, because when Dems stay home, we lose.
And I have since abundantly repeated that my problem in all elections where we lose, in all times, for all reasons, is with Dems staying home — because when Dems stay home, we lose.
TyEm then pointed out:
So, you know, for you to accuse someone else of reading comprehension failure at this point is evidence of………something. Occasionally phrases denoting the possession of extreme testicular amplitude are employed in situations like this. In your case, however, I don’t think that’s it.
eemom
@Corner Stone:
No, you’re a liar, liar.
Show me where in this thread I made a complaint about comparative turnout in 2010. Come on, pigshit — show me.
Thymezone
Why do we suppose that so many voters apparently have no interest in voting in “off year” elections?
It seems to me the answer is obvious: So few congressional districts are competitive. The vast majority are gerrymandered and safe seats. Low-interest voters have little incentive to go out and vote in a congressional election where the outcome is known in advance. Nothing is more effective in terms of voter suppression than gerrymandered safe districts.
Once you have the seat safe, then the real contest shifts to the primary. At that level, a very small percentage of voters can choose a candidate who is pretty sure to win in the general election.
The system is dysfunctional to say the least. Between safe districts, and big money, democracy is taking it in the ass at the present time.
Chuck Butcher
The turn out rate in this country is a disgrace and a real problem for what passes as democracy. We frequently have rates low enough that a quarter of the registered voters choose the winner, much less what percentage of those who are actually eligible to be registered and to vote.
That condition only worsens with the GOPers determined to make it more difficult to vote. I’m pretty familiar with the reasons/excuses for not being registered or not bothering to vote from working GOTV and other aspects. The hell of it is that a lot of those complaints are self full filling with the inaction of citizens. Some arguments like, “they’re all bought and paid for,” are getting tougher to counter and a shrinking electorate makes the buying that much easier. Etc…
Corner Stone
@eemom: “for the preceding two years.”
Fuck you pigfucker.
Chuck Butcher
@eemom:
The turn out was ordinary for all parties involved, with the “I” most depressed and also the one exit polled as flipping. You’ve pulled the DFH trick enough times previously…
Everybody stayed home…
They do – it sucks
NR
@Thymezone: Good god, you’re an idiot. You don’t even have the faintest fucking clue what’s being talked about here. Just do yourself a favor and quit while you’re behind.
NR
@Corner Stone: Game, set, match. Good ol’ eemom was trying to blame the 2010 election loss on “firebaggers,” the way that so many here like to try to do, and when she was presented with data that refuted that claim 100%, she tried to backpedal and claim she never really said that in the first place.
It’s pathetic.
Thymezone
That’s pretty much the story of 2010. The problem is not that it wasn’t a typical off year turnout, the problem is that it WAS a typical off year turnout. The result was that the crazy loudmouths had a fairly easy shot … just get a few extra voters out in vulnerable districts, and elect a couple dozen lunatics to the House, and bingo. A country frozen in place.
The sad part is not that Dems stayed home, they did with everyone else, and in typical fashion … when they could have turned out in better numbers, and made a difference. They didn’t, and as you say, Chuck, it sucks.
But the question is … once you get past the stupid asshole brigade of the NRs and the other shit for brains types in here …. what do you do about it? When a few rich people bring the money and a few lunatics bring the enthusiasm, and everyone else is asleep, it doesn’t take that much to achieve deadlock. If deadlock is your goal, you win.
How did the lunatics win their deadlock congress? Well, imagine that your other team is made up of people like NR and Corner Stone and that’s your opposition. I think you can see how easily the whole thing can be fucked when one side is focussed on winning like a laser and the other side is busy gazing into its navel and arguing with the brainless in blogland over whether Obama is progressive enough or whether John Cole is being mean to ABL.
Thymezone
Of course, as bad as it is, at least this isn’t DKos where the great Netroots Movement can bask in the glory of its 2010 accomplishments and prepare for an even more successful 2012 now. Boy don’t we all wish we were going to THAT convention?
Seriously. Don’t you? I’ll bet Markos sells a lot of books again this year.
Thymezone
@NR:
Uh, yeah, right. Whatever you say, dude.
Corner Stone
@Thymezone: You’re just mumbling now you old fuck. Stop cheeking your meds and do what the good nurse tells you.
You have no idea what’s being discussed here on this thread, which is clear from your incoherent ramblings.
You and eemom. What examples of erudition and clarity.
Thymezone
Oh, and as for DWS … she’s looking like a really bad choice for the job she is in, unless there is some really heartening activity going on behind the scenes that we can’t see. She might be a good legislator, who knows, but I don’t see her having the chops to lead the DNC to gains we need. I see her as a person who is very preoccupied with other things, which is understandable considering her situation, but not helpful in terms of the DNC and our situation. I wish I were wrong, but I am not seeing any evidence that I am.
Wikipedia: Shultz has also been criticized for what has been termed her “frequent absences” from Congress. In 2011 she missed 62 votes of Congress, placing her 45th of 535 in missing Congressional votes. The bulk of those who missed votes did so due to family circumstances, illness, or the Presidential campaign.[30] She has been criticized further for her frequent appearances on MSNBC. Particularly, Dylan Ratigan accused her of coming on his show and just “doing talking points”.[31]
Thymezone
@Corner Stone:
Go fuck yourself, you useless POS. You haven’t had an original idea or a good point in the 7.5 years I have been here. Pretty much everybody here with a brain thinks you are a goddam idiot. People who live in a glass house of stupidity like you should be careful throwing rocks.
NR
@Thymezone:
So in other words, the 2010 election had exactly the same turnout as every other off-year election for at least the last 40 years…. And somehow, this is progressives’ fault.
Wow. You’re even dumber than I thought. And that is really saying something.
Thymezone
@Corner Stone:
Sorry, Stone,but the cheek spreading that you and NR do is not really helping the thread. I realize that you listen only to the sound of your own imbecilic voice, and I am allowing for that out of sympathy for you due to your past bouts with intellectual insufficiency and general lack of contribution to any discussion in the history of the blog. Don’t you have a fucking life, by the way? You are always around, like a fly around a ham sandwich.
Thymezone
@NR:
You just can’t help yourself, can you? How do you take “everybody stayed home” and turn that into “it’s progressives’ fault?” Seriously, how do you do something like that. I have not used the word “fault” or “blame” on this thread. I have said … more than once … that Dems, not progressives, or liberals, or any of the other deflection words you have used .. stayed home LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. What part of that DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND you miserable lying stupid motherfucker?
Corner Stone
@Thymezone: mumble mumble…pudding…
Corner Stone
@Thymezone: Shit. All you do is whine how Cole’s better days are behind him. Which is basically like yelling at all the kids to get off your lawn.
Geeze, just look at your pathetic self. You’ve been cranking on Cole for almost a decade.
Thymezone
@Corner Stone:
What does this have to do with Cole? Is that all you got, a last minute context shift? Suck my dick, you pathetic loser. In case you aren’t paying attention, I’m agreeing with Cole WRT the core assertion of this thread (the deficits of DWS). Are you recovering from some kind of stroke? Is that penis piercing you got getting infected and causing you to lose focus?
Thymezone
@Corner Stone:
What does this have to do with Cole? Is that all you got, a last minute context shift? Suck my dick, you pathetic loser. In case you aren’t paying attention, I’m agreeing with Cole WRT the core assertion of this thread (the deficits of DWS). Are you recovering from some kind of stroke? Is that pen*s piercing you got getting infected and causing you to lose focus?
NR
@Thymezone: Once again:
That’s you, right there, assigning blame for the 2010 election. Don’t try to backpedal away from it. You’ve already shown that you’re a complete idiot–now you’re demonstrating that you’re a coward, too.
Corner Stone
Whine, whine, mumble, mumble, pudding, pudding.
Chuck Butcher
Ah cripes TZ, there are complete books on turnout that only claim to be skimming it. Essentially the crux is that voting requires some kind of effort and to put out that effort involves having a stake in the game. Sure, gerrymandering is an issue, but it is one in an ocean of them. Here’s a symptom – in what rational system would the bailed out crashers of the economy in 07/8 be the beneficiaries of that crash? The ones doing the best? Tell a non-voter it makes a difference…
I’m not saying there is no difference in the Parties, but by outcomes the (D)s are just nicer Republicans. There may be the largest progressive caucus in the Senate, ever – but… outcomes.
It isn’t like this is something new, it has been getting worse for decades. There are things that have gone on that can be tracked with voter disenchantment but it sure is past the limits of a blog comment.
FlipYrWhig
2010 didn’t happen because liberals stayed home more than normal. 2010 happened because the one-time surge to back Obama qua Obama wasn’t replicated. But that doesn’t support anyone’s protest narrative either, like “people stayed home because of corporatists” or that kind of thing. From all appearances, people who like Obama more than they like liberals or Democrats as ideological categories didn’t bother to vote in local races. That’s it. And the Democratic party was worried about that from the get-go, and it was a flashpoint in the Obama-Clinton consultant-class discussion.
eemom
@Corner Stone:
The phrase in question modifying the duration of lies, not voter turnout.
You are an utterly contemptible individual.
eemom
@Chuck Butcher:
Oh — sobered up enough to finally figure out what I was saying in the first place, have we?
But still not man enough to actually apologize for being a raging incoherent asshole, instead of mumbling bullshit “well you were MEAN to DFHs BEFORE.”
Fuck you, loser.
taylormattd
@eemom: They are the stupidest fucking people on the face of the earth. Ignore them, and they’ll go back to fapping at Jane Hamsher’s blackface art or maybe Greenwald’s nun-rape analogies.
El Cid
Look, if the head of the DNC said it, it was the right thing to say.
JackHughes
The Democrats are a political party in name only.
Political parties have a common “agenda” with a “strategy” to enact it. The Democrats? Nothing — except inaction, capitulation or whining about an apology once in a while.
Political parties have “party discipline.” Half of national Democrats campaign against their own standard-bearer and head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.
The only inducement Democrats can offer voters is that they aren’t Republicans. It’s pathetic.
NR
@taylormattd: Pot, meet kettle. Although your problem isn’t just that you’re stupid–your problem is that you combine your stupidity with blind, unthinking loyalty and obedience to a political figure. That’s not just stupid, that’s dangerous.