 |
||
Digby (taking numbers and quoting from Markos) had a great post over the weekend about the single most urgent topic facing Democrats going into the 2010 elections: the lack of enthusiasm by Democratic voters about voting next year. I have cited some polling and turnout statistics in the past from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, and Digby focused on another polling fact that is as harrowing a number going into an election year as I have seen in a long time:
From the new Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll:
We have added a new feature on our weekly national poll -- a gauge of voter intensity. The question offered to respondents is a simple question about their intentions for 2010:QUESTION: In the 2010 Congressional elections will you definitely vote, probably vote, not likely vote, or definitely will not vote?
Markos writes:
The results were, to put it mildly, shocking:Voter Intensity: Definitely + Probably Voting/Not Likely + Not Voting
Republican Voters: 81/14
Independent Voters: 65/23
Democratic Voters: 56/40Two in five Democratic voters either consider themselves unlikely to vote at this point in time, or have already made the firm decision to remove themselves from the 2010 electorate pool. Indeed, Democrats were three times more likely to say that they will "definitely not vote" in 2010 than are Republicans.
The way some Democrats want to respond to numbers like these is pure and simple death wish politics. It's the bizarre inside-the-Beltway centrism that cares more about what corporate lobbyists and CBO scoring than about what anyone who might actually vote thinks: don't anything too tough to Wall Street, don't create jobs because it will add to the deficit, don't put anything into health care reform that voters might actually notice for the next five years, and be "fair" to the poor insurance companies.
The quote of the day that has me gnashing my teeth:
White House health reform czar Nancy-Ann DeParle said the president was moving as quickly as possible. She said that the insurance industry cannot be forced to accept people irrespective of preexisting conditions until everyone is required to have insurance, and that the administration does not want such a requirement until the exchanges are up and running.
Insurance companies have been making enormous profits for decades now by hiking prices through the roof and denying care to sick people, and we are going to worry about being fair to them in the transition to a better health care system? When we are going to mandate that people buy insurance, and subsidize them to do so, after the new system is in place? C'mon now. If the insurance companies have to reduce their profit margins for a few years, I don't think we should be shedding any tears for them.
Democrats have to figure out how to produce real benefits for real people now, not in future years. A new poll out from Democracy Corps nails it: rather than bragging about the signs of progress in the economy when voters don't feel them yet, Democrats need to focus with urgency on jobs, and other tangible benefits voters can see and feel. Trickle-down economics (first get the banks healthy, then eventually everyone will get jobs) and health care reform with benefits kicking in for people in 2014 will make the 2010 elections ugly.
It's time to kill off death wish politics in the Democratic Party.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
There is no hope -the suppression of opposition voices is complete.
My friend wildedge got scrubbed from this site for demanding the impeachment of Obama from the left, and threatening not to vote for him 2012.
Change we can believe in - not.
Great post Mike. If Democrats have any hope of maintaining power, they need to put viable solutions on the table for Middle America, where people care a hell of a lot more about jobs and the economy than government-run healthcare, union card check, the protection of gays from hate crimes, and cap and trade, to name a few.
Both parties have failed miserably to address the needs of Middle America, and whichever party can mainline the real pocketbook issues hammering these folks and put viable solutions into motion will emerge victorious with Middle America. Republicans had eight years to deliver and they simply ran out the clock, saddling Americans with a $12 trillion deficit, a $787 billion taxpayer bailout, two costly and senseless wars, a culture of corruption, and voter apathy. Republicans set the bar quite low, but Democrats have yet to deliver much thus far, and the natives are getting restless . . .
http://ame
""Change that dramatic takes time""
Wrong Obama could have re-negotiated bad trade deals from day one he wont.
An ugly 2010 election is currently in the cards for Democrats anyway. Failure is seldom rewarded by voters (just ask Republicans about that), and going farther left will only make matters worse. This party has painted itself into an agenda driven corner, championing solutions that won't salut. Good luck. You're going to need a very healty dose of it.
and why shouldn't we democrats stay home , en mass?
we voted in a democartic congress in 2006 that was supposed to get us out of Iraq (stil there), investigate "bush the Lessers" white house and staff (never done) and start helping the Middle/working class (baiuling out the bankers?).
then we voted in a new President who said he was finally going to "change the way thing are done in Washington". For many of us that meant make sur ethat anything the federal government does , benefits the MAJORITY of US citizens instead of Corporate elitists and the political class.
instead we got a "stimulus"bill that ws nothing but a 15 year wish list of things the demcrats wanted to do while out of power and money given to states to save other government jobs.
We got MORE bailouts for "too big to fail" companies , while mom and pop lose their jobs, then their homes, and the "too big to fail" are now even BIGGER!
now we have a health INSURANCE reform bill, that mandates the individual to buy PRIVATE insurance and will be the biggest cost shift from Business to working people in our lifetimes.
why would any democratic voter want to go to the polls to vote for MORE of this?
You were niave. Change that dramatic takes time. And the change actually made needs to be sensical enough to improve things at least a little. We're all still waiting on that last one.
Hows that "Hope and Change" workin for ya?
Noam Chomsky was right - there is only one political party in America - the Businessman's Party. We need to work for a successful progressive third (I mean second) party.
As for the Democratic Party's suicide this year - who cares? Jus more o the same.
I will not stay home, but I will vote for any 3rd party that comes along. Greens would be my favorite, but the point is to not support any major party.
Enjoy electing a Republican next year!
Democrats are not entitled to a single vote. If they want progressive and liberals (1) to show up at the polls and (2) vote for them, then it's time they give at least as much attention
I will no longer vote for ANY candidate of any party or non-party who accepts corporate campaign money and participates in this form of legalized bribery.
If a Democrat doesn't take corporate money, like Senator Russ Feingold, great. If not, I'll be voting for the Green Party, for an independent, or writing in the name of someone I trust.
The free ride for Democrats to wipe their feet on their base so they can shill for corporations is over. Just not being as bad as the Republicans is no longer enough.
Mike,
For much of my life I have been a democratic activist but last month I did something I never thought I would really do...stay home on election day.
Other than e-mails and faxing letters, I think that if I don't and others don't ....if things don't change radically,
perhaps some of these lousy lame brain dems and republicans will lose.
I haven't had a chance to stay home yet, but I expect that's what I'll do as well. I'll vote in the primary, because a lot of challenges need to be made within the party. But as the folks in the "middle" say, where else am I going to go? Staying home is the only thing that makes sense.
Alas, I think I'm genetically incapable of staying home on election day, much as I believe this sends the strongest message of all. So long as we're dealing with a system in which we must choose the lesser of two evils, I cannot, by my inaction, endorse the worst evil (though I grant that it's harder and harder to tell the difference).
It's been said time and again that all politics are local... never more true than now. Time to start attending the meetings of your local Democratic clubs (bring a friend). Time to start throwing our weight behind REAL liberals and pulling support from faux-Democrats. If Gandhi could liberate India from the British Empire, surely we should be able to free our party from self-serving crooks and conservatives (or so I tell myself).
As for Mr. Lux's article... the Democrats don't have a death wish... the Democrats don't even exist anymore.
Part I
Some things are worth trying to repair; some things are better tossed aside and replaced with something new.
Can you really "fix" the Democratic Party? Maybe ... but I doubt it. Groups like PDA have tried desperately to push the Democrats toward single payer health care or at least a "robust" public option. I commend their efforts but they've failed miserably.
I don't believe that "staying home sends a strong message". The Democratic Party, just like the Republicans, are run by money, run by identity politics, run by "whatever it takes to win." They are not run, unfortunately, by a deep commitment to a core system of values. And so, when you sit at home, they think: "darn, we didn't use the right commercials to raise more money; our candidate was not handsome enough or "seemed French" or "droned on when he spoke"; and "we should have spent more time in Ohio." What they don't think is: "darn, some of those people who stayed home probably disagreed with us philosophi
The "progressive wing of the Democratic Party" has no voice. None! If you are a progressive or a leftie or whatever label works for you, the path to power, or at least a little influence, does not lie with changing the Democratic Party from within. Too many of us have been there and done that for far too long. You can't get there from here.
So, what's the answer?
Part II
How can progressives, lefties and others seeking significant change in the country's direction gain a voice in the national dialog?
Much has been written about the stranglehold of the current two party system. The mere mention of third parties is quickly met with a "you're just throwing away your vote."
But are you?
Third parties have virtually no chance of succeeding on the national level. They have very little chance of succeeding at the state or local level either. The rules, and the money, are stacked against them.
But, joining and supporting a third party is the only way to have a voice. Let's use the Green Party as an example. At 1% of the vote, the Green Party will not be able to "sit down with Democrats" to seek a little influence. Democrats will run towards the center. But suppose Greens could build to 5%. The Democratic Party cannot afford to ignore a voting block of that magnitude. The goal, then, at least the short-term goal, is NOT WINNING ELECTIONS; the goal is winning a seat at the table with a well defined platform and a well organized membership.
To dismiss third parties with a "but they can't win" misses the point. There is strength in numbers if and only if that strength is organized and it speaks out. Staying home might get you some big numbers but you remain invisible and silent. Power will not come looking for you.
If the Dems continue to do nothing to fix the economy and get over 15 unemployed Americans back to work, they are going to lose the 2010 and 2102 elections. Period. AsPresident Clinton keep reminding us, "It's the economy, stupid." Unfortunately, Pelosi and Reid just don't get it. Or care.
My only problem with this post is that it seems to assume that elected Democrats, including POTUS, and the DLC actually care if they lose. The only thing the majority of them care about is maintaining the status quo of being lap dogs to Corporate America and its money. The few elected officials that actually attempt to be good reps, continually get sold down the river by their own party. Democratic voters need to recognize that their party has become a sham just as much as has the Republican party. It is only by shutting the spigot of cash that either party will every come to represent all of America and not just the wealthy few.
Implicit in what you say is that our democracy does not work. Seems you are right. We can't deal with our problems effectively. Even the new idea of a budget commission is an admission of that.
Democrats have a favorite saying. It's a saying to defend their inept incrementalism. It's a saying to justify their bankrupt centrism. It's a saying to distract us from their wishy-washy comprises.
And what is the Democrats' favorite saying?
"We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good."
They've been saying that a whole lot lately because they have been utterly ineffective since Obama took office.
Of course, if you stopped to ponder this saying, even for the briefest time, you would easily see its flaw.
The truth is that the "perfect" is not the enemy of the good; the "bad" is the enemy of the good.
Democrats have badly failed on health care reform. The so-called public option, which should have been a single payer option, has been diluted to the point of total uselessness. Not to worry though - our inept Democrats probably won't even get a weak public option in the bill.
On Obama's two wars, and they are his now, no progress has been made. Worse, the military budget under Obama has been increased from what it had been under Bush. How good are Democrats supposed to feel about that? And don't even get me started on Obama's support for the Patriot Act.
Instead of taking on corporatism, insurance industry greed and the military-industrial corporate welfare program, Democrats have blamed their failures on those supposedly calling for perfection. We don't need perfection; we'll settle for a little less horrible.
I agree with your points, but not the 'favorite saying.'
"The enemy of good is perfect" is exactly the opposite of what you're stating because you are fixating on the words rather than what happens in the pursuit of perfection. While making something "perfect," there are literally years and years of delay, massive amounts of opportunity loss, and massive overspending (time, money, whatever). Getting something "good" - now - is better than getting something that's "perfect," because "perfect" will take way too long, cost way too much, and will probably be less than perfect when "complete" because requirements for perfect back when the project began will change by the time it's delivered.
So the pursuit of "perfect" invariably turns out to be wasteful, too costly, and rarely as good as a seeker of perfection can ever intend.
In the case of the Dems, a couple may be pursuing perfect. But most are pursuing re-election. Some are clearly not very shrewd as they fail to see the possibility that they will lose their seats if they don't achieve something.
The House Dems aren't doing too badly. Senate Dems and our Sellout in Chief are the people responsible for the ineptitude. It's a pretty small number, actually. But enough to destroy the party because precious few Dems are challenging the President and the Lincoln's. I'm hoping for a Feingold or someone else to publicly eviscerate these people and stir the pot.
"The House Dems aren't doing too badly?"
Really?
Would that be the 70 or so Progressive House Dems who stood together last summer on the Capitol steps and told Pelosi in no uncertain terms that they would not vote for a health care reform bill unless it contained a "robust" public option?
Would that be the House Dems who joined with the Republicans to pass the abusive anti-abortion Stupak amendment?
Would that be the House Dems who voted for the TARP bill that enabled "too big to fail" banks to pay their CEO's whatever they wanted to and did nothing to help homeowners prevent foreclosure?
Or maybe it's the House Dems who are allowing the current wave of massive interest rate increases on credit cards?
Please let me know exactly which of the above House Dems "aren't doing too badly."
The problem with the Democrats is not just a handful of Blue Dogs. The problem is that the Democrats are controlled by the pro-corporate DLC that puts K Street contributions ahead of the national interest. They wouldn't dare call for single payer; they wouldn't dare call for deep cuts in the military budget; they wouldn't dare do anything to challenge the big banks or big Pharma or big anything.
There's gold in them thar hills and the people be damned !!!
So true. And they shouldn't come out and pat themselves on the back for bad reform that was stretched and craned for over a clean and simple solution. Nancy Ann DePearle? Who put her in charge? She's obviously a rookie. I could just see her interaction with Obama:
De Pearle: Mr. President? Sorry to disturb you, but the insurance companies aren't comfortable with this, and they don't really like that.
Mr. President: Well, just take care of it, Nancy.
WRONG WRONG WRONG
Sanders / Kucinich 2012! Let's get someone in there who doesn't hate progressives.
The overall dedication to corporate interests and simultaneous apathy to citizen interests is going to be the Dems downfall.
How they can misread the voter Bush fatigue of the last election so terribly is astounding. Voters wanted change, not more of the same. For some reason the Dems, with some exceptions, think that they can continue with business as usual and that somehow the voters will go go along.
They will be surprised. Conservatives and right wingers will vote republican as usual. A certain number of Dems and Independents will stay home or perhaps vote for a progressive independent if one exists. Why go to the polls when the choice boils down to a either a Republican Party Republican or a Democratic Party Republican?
If there is not a mass awakening by the administration, the midterms will not be kind to them.
I just can't ignore it anymore. There are a handful of good congress people fighting a slew of corrupt ones and the president leaves us with our fannies hanging in a very cold wind, all by ourselves.
"If there is not a mass awakening by the administra
That doesn't seem likely considering tonight President Obama will seek to sell the American people on the escalation of Afghanistan, which history tells us is a fool's errand.
Also with Bernanke to be retained, and Geithner & Summers in no danger of losing their jobs... I believe this Administration shows no sign of any type of awakening.
Harry Truman said 60 years ago that if the voters choice is between a Republican and Democrat acting like a Republican, they will choose the real thing every time.
I much appreciate these kinds of insights from Mike Lux (one of my favorites), and the willingness of HuffPo to print them. Some 25 years ago, I was assigned by the Hartford Courant, Connecticut's largest newspaper, to join its investigative team to probe how insurance companies handled claims of workplace-caused disease. Over nine months, we documented enormous problems for the public, including an insurer strategy of (in essence) starving out diseased workers clearly exposed to hazard substances linked to their disease so that the workers would settle for pennies on the dollar because of the medical costs and inability to work. The process was summed up by this on-the-record quotation from the former medical director for the state's then-largest employer, UTC. "The insurer would contest claims that were obviously occupational," said. "Their mechanism for reducing claims is to delay them. It's probably not a bad strategy [for increasing porfits], but it hurts people." But once our project was complete the paper's new publisher, killed the project as too boring, though relenting later to permit a small portion to be published. I later published the essence elsewhere, including trade publications and my 1987 book "Spiked" about the news business. In sum, mine is just one example in the history of documented claim-avoidance by the health insurance industry. Sadly, it illustrates also the reluctance of opinion leaders to stand up for customers, given the huge disparity between the purse-power of insurers and ailing consumers.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
