12%. That's all.

[MannyGoldstein]

Christie beat Buono 60% to 38%.

Had just 12% of New Jersey's voters gone from Christie to Buono, she'd have hit 50% and won.

If the following Third Way cavalcade of crap hadn't happened, I think she'd have picked up much or all of that 12%:

1. Christie had the unabashed support of much of the NJ Democratic establishment
2. The DNC pretended that she didn't exist, withheld money and support
3. The President refused to endorse her, thus tacitly endorsing Christie

Way to go, Lieberdems!

[ForgoTheConsequence]

1. What you're saying makes sense.....

But..... somehow the "progressive" wing of the Democratic party is to blame. I'm not sure how yet, but I'm positive someone will be here to tell us soon.

[scheming daemons]

9. Nobody is to blame on the Democratic side. It was an unwinnable race.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

13. Was it?

Even if it was "unwinnable", you don't abandoned your candidate and endorse a Republican.

[Uncle Joe]

14. That kind of mentality only made it a self-fulfilling prophecy. n/t

[scheming daemons]

17. Reality is reality

Some accept it... Others don't.

[Uncle Joe]

18. Some only follow the common herd.

To see victory only when it is within the ken of the common herd is not the acme of excellence.

Sun Tzu

[sibelian]

39. Human reality is the sum of human decisions.

Letting things happen to you and avoiding setting your own agenda always leads to "reality is reality".

[SomethingFishy]

69. So the reality is "if you can't win endorse a Republican?"

No thanks.

I don't compromise my morals and values because I'm losing.

[scheming daemons]

117. not talking about those that endorsed a republican

I am talking about

A) not dumping money into the race

And

B) not endorsing anyone.


A is obvious. B is being politically prudent.

If any national democrats endorsed Christie, they should be held accountable. But I won't judge local NJ politicians because their situation may have required some level of self preservation.

[JaneyVee]

162. How about this, you can't win if you don't even try. Disgusting that Dems abandoned her.

[rhett o rick]

25. I guess rationalization is the key to your happiness.

Conservative Democrats are killing this party. They HELPED a Republican and not just any Republican. One that probably will run for the Presidency. We know who those DINO's will support. And you rationalize it away.

It's no use having dry powder if you lose the war.

[Scuba]

42. +1,000

[bvar22]

123. X1000

New Jersey was NOT a place to surrender without firing a shot,
unless your goal is to make America more Conservative and "Business Friendly".
Unfortunately, New Jersey is not the only place this has happened over the last 10 years.

KUDOS to those who believe we should fight Conservatism and Republicanism WHERE EVER it rears its ugly head.


[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[Lancero]

26. Really?

Because he got elected solely because Democrats voted for him.

Well, actually... You might have a point. Kind of hard to win a race with a bunch of knives in your back.

[rurallib]

61. true - se should never contest an unwinnable race - like Wellstone v. Coleman

or MacAuliffe v. Cuccinelli which was all Cooch to start out.
Or how about that Truman against President Dewey?
Never, never support a loser, dems

[dflprincess]

178. The Wellstone Coleman race was tight but never considered unwinnable.

Wellstone's "unwinnable" race was in 1990 when he defeated incumbant Rudy Boschwitz.

[sabrina 1]

80. Every race is winnable. She was betrayed by her own party, period. And it's not the first time this

has happened, nor the first time this ridiculous excuse has been presented after the betrayal.

Had Republicans done to Christie what Dems to Buono, she would be the Governor today.

[Curmudgeoness]

160. Well, if we only work to win the easy races,

we will never get anywhere.

[BillyRibs]

164. I Call Bunk!

Christie has a 33% approval rate. he also spent over 11 million on the campaign while Buono only spent a little over 2 million. For the DNC to ignore, and the local democratic not to endorse Buono was stupid and short sighted (Howard where are you now!) for a completely winnable race. The Democrats failed to back one of their own. Ergo they FAILED!
OWN IT!

[HooptieWagon]

2. What kind of candidate was she?

Did she run a good campaign? Did she do a good job on her own fundraising? Did she have a coherent message? Did she have a name and experience?
I'm just asking, I know nothing about her or her campaign.

[Trekologer]

15. Buono didn't run a very good campaign

Her message devolved into "Christie is running for president so don't vote for him". She didn't provide a clear alternative.

Christie's positions on many issues aren't popular yet he is, mainly due to his post-Sandy leadership (which I have to admit is somewhat deserved). I don't think that any NJ Democrat would have been able to beat Christie.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

21. mainly due to his post-Sandy leadership (which I have to admit is somewhat deserved)

Stronger than the Storm' ads go to politically active firm, cost $2M more than runner-up, report says

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/08/stronger_than_the_storm_ads_go_to_politically_active_firm_cost_2m_more_than_runner-up_report_says.html

NJ Residents Faring Worse Than Neighbors in Hurricane Sandy Recovery

http://abcnews.go.com/US/jersey-residents-waiting-hurricane-sandy-rebuilding-money/story?id=20371933

Chris Christie's Ego is So Big that He Took $2m from Sandy Victims So He Could Be in a Commercial

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/06/1229369/-Chris-Christie-s-Ego-is-So-Big-that-He-Took-2m-from-Sandy-Victims-So-He-Could-Be-in-a-Commercial




Some leader.

[Trekologer]

23. I said somewhat

In the weeks after the storm, he said the right things and did some of the right things that the head of the government in the aftermath of such an event should do. He was the opposite of Bush following Katrina.

Since then, I don't think that Christie has done a good job. But he has been able to ride the wave, so to speak. Sandy will be to Christie what 9/11 has been to Rudy Giuliani: the event that highlights their otherwise mediocre tenure.

[SoapBox]

28. Well said.

[sabrina 1]

82. Thanks, facts can be inconvenient when the narrative is to excuse the inexcusable.

[BillyRibs]

167. SAY WHAT!?

He Shows Up After a storm and you call that leadership!? You My Friend, have very low standards. I Call what Christie did a photo op! nothing more. Believe me as the affluent have been served, many of the poor are still looking for a place to live. Fat Bastard did what he was suppose to do. NOTHING MORE!

[ForgoTheConsequence]

185. Uhhh... what?

Re-read my post.

[JoePhilly]

88. She did not lead the response to Hurricane Sandy.

Little name recognition.

Little chance to create a message that is better than "I led the Sandy response".

Its hard to see how she could win in that environment.

[HooptieWagon]

96. It appears so.

Plus, what many are forgetting is that Christie had previously won a state-wide election. Hes not going to lose those votes unless he fucks up big-time. The combination of a popular incumbent, and lack of a message why the popular incumbent should be replaced, pretty much doomed Buono.

[LAGC]

3. Rarely do we see Manny and ProSense in full agreement.

[DeSwiss]

33. There was recently a hybrid-eclipse of the moon.

- That's probably it.

[rhett o rick]

46. It's a sign. nm

[brooklynite]

4. Pretty sad that your voters are so weak-minded...

Hard to believe 1/3 of Democrats voted for Christie because their State Legislator our some County Chair endorsed him...

[sabrina 1]

87. It's not hard to believe at all for anyone who has been paying attention to what has been

going on within the Dem Party over the past number of years. But it certainly makes it clear that something has to be done about this party before we end up with just one Corporate Party with two wings.

[socialist_n_TN]

155. "..before we end up..." Too late.....

nm

[Bluenorthwest]

94. 'Your voters'? Manny's voters are Democrats.

nt

[brooklynite]

121. Referring to "New Jersey" voters...

I don't think New York voters are as easily swayed.

[JI7]

5. "that's all" ? that's a pretty big margin

[hrmjustin]

6. I agree they should have supported her and there is no excuse for what they did.

He was going to win no matter who they put up against him.

[scheming daemons]

7. She lost by 500,000 votes, manny

Nothing would've swapped 250,000 voters from Christie to Buono.

You're as bad at math as you are political analysis.

[hfojvt]

16. whoops, it was 462,000

when I had 380,000

Means only about 1,6 million voters stayed home and Buono would have needed 29% of those lazy voters to get out and vote.

Damn partial results anyway.

[JimDandy]

31. Or for the 30% of Dems who voted for him to not have done so. n/t

[Fumesucker]

8. What gets me is the ususal "party loyalty uber alles" suspects are soft peddling it big time

Not voting for Democrats means you should be excommunicated, on the other hand endorsing Republicans is perfectly understandable.

[djean111]

91. That has me amazed, really. What rank hypocrisy.

[Bluenorthwest]

97. It is somethig to behold.

nt

[polichick]

115. They're simply followers - follow the leader at all costs.

[cui bono]

171. +1,000,000

Totally

[hfojvt]

10. to heck with switching

if just 20% of the 1.92 million New Jersey voters who stayed home, had gotten off their lazy butts and gone to the polls to support Buono, she would have won.

I just wonder how many people get discouraged from voting by having the media report "the future" instead of the "news"?

Christie's gonna win easily.
Christie's gonna win easily.
Christie's gonna win easily.

I read some report about Truman's election that said something like this "lots of people who voted for Truman didn't think he was gonna win, but they voted for him anyway."

As if doing that was somehow illogical. As if a voter is supposed to vote for "the person they think will win" instead of "the person they HOPE will win". I cannot imagine voting that way, but apparently some people do.

[scheming daemons]

11. You're bad at math too.

20% of 1.92 million is 384,000.


She lost by nearly 500,000.

[sibelian]

40. You're walking straight past the point.

I'm not sure if you're doing it deliberately.

[rhett o rick]

130. I am at a loss to figure how what that poster is driving at. It

appears he is trying to rationalize that its ok for Dems to vote for Republicans if the Democrat running has no chance to win. I dont understand that logic at all.

I am guessing that the Conserva-Dems are trying to justify their support of Christie. Our tent is too large, we now have Christie supporters under our tent. This is not surprising when you read about all the Repubs changing their party affiliation, but not ideologies, to the big D.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. I can't believe I'm agreeing with you, but you're right

One of the problems in American politics is that there are too many people who treat elections as if they were voting for homecoming queen. They want to vote for the person who is going to win.

Not the person they think would be best.
The person they think will win.

What if everyone voted for the person they really liked?

[tiredtoo]

20. For some reason the people really like Christie EOM

[icarusxat]

177. for some reason...

people in Utah think Rmoney won and the local media report his every utterance. The media sway the uninformed...
What NJ sees regarding Christie can not possibly be what informed voters across the nation have been seeing...

[SoapBox]

29. Lydia, you are so spot on.

Homecoming Queen...hilarious.

...even though it shouldn't be.

[whttevrr]

22. Maybe the powers that be want to see Christie in the Clown Car Parade?

It is a set up.*

Christie goes through the Primary Process and explodes into un-electability.

A damaged goods candidate runs instead.

Big D wins?





*Half joke on a conspiracy shell, with a side order of glib.

[tularetom]

24. If Christie survives the primary process and becomes the candidate in the general election

republicans of every breed will fall in line and vote for him just like they did for romney.

But one minute after he concedes the election to his Democratic opponent, the right wing will jump right into the middle of his shit. He'll be torn apart for not being a "real" republican (nutty enough) and the second guessing will begin and the accusations will fly.

It's as predictable as the sun rising tomorrow.

[LibDemAlways]

27. If he does become the nominee, he'll have to

put some dirtbag extreme right winger in the VP slot to appease the lunatic fringe. It didn't help MCCain. It didn't help Romney, and it won't help Christie. They've put themselves in a no win, damned if they do, damned if they don't scenario.

[BlueStreak]

30. Was it some kind of zen move to pick the opponent for 2016?

Obviously Ted Cruz is the best opponent, but I suspect that the Dem establishment (i.e. DLC 3rd-wayers) assumes he won't have any more chance than Herman Cain when it gets down to it.

And maybe they think they would rather face Christie than Jebbie, Huckelberry, or Rubio, or even Rand Paul.

I don't agree with that reasoning. I'm just sayin' there could be a lot of punks inside the beltway very proud of themselves for this brilliant chess move, promoting Christie.

[JDPriestly]

32. Those Democrats are paving the way for a Christie presidency. It's a crying shame.

Christie is an abomination. He bullies women. I have seen a couple of instances of it. That is reprehensible and should bar him from public office (same if he bullies men).

[Nay]

111. I have to agree here. This is a double-triple-quadruple sneaky-ass move

by the PTB (which is composed of Dems and Pubs) to put Christie up as the Pub candidate for Prez in 2016.

Just the idea that so many Democrats voted for this bully is bad enough, but the DLC's failure to support their own candidate mirrors the lack of support in 2012 for the very credible Dem opposition to Eric Cantor here in VA. They acted like he didn't exist, even though he was polling very, very well in the district.

When you have Dem leaders dissing their own candidates, what the hell does that tell you?

It tells you: "You're on your own, suckers."

[Demo_Chris]

34. Love ya Manny, but Christy was a strategic move...

And the win here was bigger than NJ, it was another stake through the heart of the social conservative movement. Consider: A moderate Republican won in a blue state, while a radical social conservative LOST in a red state. You want to talk about sending a message, this is it. The goal here isn't to win one state, it's to undermine and eventually destroy an entire political and social movement, and it's about damn time.

In my opinion.

[DonCoquixote]

38. with all due respect, you are wrong

Because CC is going for the national election. We need to start the pressure on him NOW, because we need to start that infighting with his party that will undo him. Even if NJ was handed to him, we still need that snippet where he finally blows his cool, and says something that will A) prove he is not that liberal GOP the media want him to be or B) makes the tea party mad. The danger is, right now, he can coccon himself in for a few months while the m,oney machine rolls.

[Demo_Chris]

41. He might well win at the national level. nt

[scheming daemons]

45. tea party already hates him

Listen to Limbaugh yesterday ... he was bashing Christie mercilessly ...


As was hannity.

[Demo_Chris]

127. Of course, he undermines their message...

...and the alternative reality they sell. Christy has no place within that reality.

[QuestForSense]

172. They'll come around.

He'll be their antidote for Hillary, wait and see.

[DonCoquixote]

184. Yep

and that is what I fear. Hillary will unify the GOP by giving them the one person they actually hate as much as Obama.

[scheming daemons]

44. the manny's and willyt's have their hearts in the right place

But they can't see the long view.

[MannyGoldstein]

53. If only we could be really, really smart, like you.

That's why things have gotten so much better in America since the Third Way took over our Party in 1992 - you guys know the big picture.

[geek tragedy]

59. Yes, your crusade against Democrats who actually win national elections is most

inspiring.

You're correct we should have stuck with losers like Mondale and Dukakis. Heck, maybe we can run Barbara Buono in 2016. She showed she can be a feisty loser--just what DU wants.

[leftstreet]

95. The OP is a crusade against Democrats who support GOPers

from what I'm reading

[geek tragedy]

100. Manny sees the 1992 era on as the downfall of the Democratic party.

This, of course, exactly coincides with the era when the Democratic party started winning elections.

Period A:
1972: Democratic nominee gets destroyed
1976: Democratic nominee wins thanks to backlash from Nixon impeachment
1980: Democratic nominee destroyed
1984: Democratic nominee destroyed
1988: Democratic nominee destroyed

Period B:
1992: Democratic nominee wins
1996: Democratic nominee wins
2000: Democratic nominee wins (but gets screwed)
2004: Democratic nominee barely loses to wartime president
2008: Democratic nominee wins
2012: Democratic nominee wins

In Manny's view, Period A was the good old days and Period B represents failure.

[leftstreet]

102. As do many of us. Those are DLC wins n/t

[geek tragedy]

105. Yes, a lot of DUers prefer losers to winners. Much easier to complain that way nt

[leftstreet]

108. Democrats who support GOPers are losers n/t

[geek tragedy]

110. Losers are people who lose nt

[SidDithers]

107. Manny wanted the 2008 election overturned...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x761367

If you could reverse ONE election outcome, which would it be?

Of all the presidential elections since Watergate, if you could go back and reverse the outcome of just ONE of them (knowing that would have changed history and subsequent elections most likely would have featured different candidates debating very different issues, which election would you change and why?

1976: Carter d. Ford
1980: Reagan d. Carter
1984: Reagan d. Mondale
1988: Bush d. Dukakis
1992: Clinton d. Bush
1996: Clinton d. Dole
2000: Bush d(?). Gore
2004: Bush d. Kerry
2008: Obama d. McCain

MannyGoldstein

16. 2008.
Edited on Mon Mar-28-11 08:18 PM by MannyGoldstein
In the prior elections, people got what they wanted, whether it was good or bad, perhaps with the exception of the stolen 2004 election (which was close, anyway). So, no matter who won, things would have generally gone the way they did. For example, Al Gore was an active participant in Clinton's development of the outsourced-torture "extraordinary rendition" program.

In 2008, people voted overwhelmingly for hope and change, but we got much other, for examples:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/resp...

This is an enormous problem. We've had almost 20% real unemployment for years, and more shoveling of worker's cash to the wealthiest. So now the Democratic brand is badly damaged, and the people have returned even-crazier Republicans to office in a desperate attempt for actual, helpful change. It's like the poor souls who leaped from the Twin Towers on 9/11 to avoid the fire. Awful, awful choices.

Would McCain's policies be much different? I don't see how. In addition, at least we'd have a chance for bringing in people with Democratic ideals in 2010 and 2012 - 2010 was a disaster, and 2012 is unlikely to see a good outcome at the Presidential level.

Not Reagan. Not Bush Jr. The person Manny most thought shouldn't have been President was Obama.

His words. His opinion, which he's demonstrated over and over for the last 2 and a half years.

Sid

[geek tragedy]

109. He was right about 2012, as Obama getting re-elected must have been a bitter pill

for him to swallow.

[dionysus]

120. no kidding! when will enough be enough?

[JI7]

140. pretty much tells me what his intentions are with these posts

how many pro Barbara Buono threads did he make before the election ?

did he do anything to try to get support for her ?

[Number23]

141. So is he saying that McCain should have won and not President Obama? Is that what that post says?

It's a bunch of oily words that don't say much (typical for that poster, imo) but if in fact that person is saying that the 2008 election should have been reversed, there is no doubt that means he believes that McCain should have beaten Obama. Astonishing. But I have to say it certainly does explain a hell of alot lot and it certainly puts the spotlight on his flock of Believers here who swallow his every utterance as well. A most curious group.

The responses to that insanely stupid post in that thread are spot on.

[SidDithers]

148. Yup. That's exactly what it says...

Of all the elections in the last 40 years, the one Manny wanted most to see reversed was 2008.

Not 1980.
Not 2000.

2008.

Manny's posts should always be read with that fact in mind.

Sid

[Kermitt Gribble]

125. Yeah, because it's all about "winning"...

Who cares if the Party adopts right wing positions as long as your team "wins"?

Got it.

[geek tragedy]

126. It is all about winning. Losers are irrelevant, no matter how noble and principled they are nt

[Maedhros]

159. What good does it do us when "Democrats" win elections,

but do so by adopting Conservative policies?

I don't want Conservative policies, even when delivered by Democrats. I want Progressive policies. So Democrats winning elections does me little good - we put a Democrat in the White House and we STILL get the TPP.

[geek tragedy]

163. They're all the same if you ignore the differences.

Those of us who were awake during the past decade under Bush know better.

[Maedhros]

169. It goes back past Bush.

Welfare Reform. Deregulation of the banking industry. NAFTA. GATT. TPP. APP.

All of these detrimental to America. All of these occurred under Democratic Presidents.

Ever since Reagan this country has been on a pro-corporate trajectory that does not change with the letter next to the President's name. That is a problem. Ignoring it isn't a solution.

[geek tragedy]

176. Bad policies have been enacted under every President in our history.

This country has been pro-wealth class since its inception.

That being said, Democrats are vastly preferable to Republicans, that's really not in doubt.

[Maedhros]

179. It's time to stop accepting excuses. [n/t]

[geek tragedy]

182. Of course. No one said Democrats don't need to improve.

But, they also must win.

[tabbycat31]

118. Chris Christie is not a moderate

If he did not have a Democratic legislature, he'd be Scott Walker.

[dsc]

188. Christie is no moderate on social issues

He is adamantly opposed to abortion, he fought marriage equality until it was obvious he would lose in the courts. He is also a fiscal extremist.

[adirondacker]

35. It kind of does have the stench of old Indy Joe. nt

[Enthusiast]

36. Kicked and recommended....nt

[xchrom]

37. du rec.

[Scuba]

43. I'd be very pleased to support MannyGoldstein for Chair of the Democratic Party.

[zeemike]

170. And I would second that nomination....n/t

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

47. That's all?

In any election, erasing a 12-point lead belongs in the "That's All" category right along with Climbing the Matterhorn or Quitting Smoking.

Buono was going to lose this election, make no doubt about it. Unseating a sitting governor in the absence of a serious scandal is pretty tough to do. And since Christie's mismanagement of Hurricane Sandy seems to be a deep, dark secret with the Mainstream Media, that one really doesn't count.

That being said, the behavior of National, State, and Local Democrats in endorsing (or at least not standing behind) our candidate is downright loathsome. The strategy of keeping our powder dry to compete somewhere else is a loser. Every time.

[Nye Bevan]

48. If the DNC had spent a lot of money on this race, there would have been less money for VA.

And the likely outcome is that we would have lost in both VA and NJ.

[treestar]

66. Yes. The party has to make decisions

It's too easy to judge them. Had they done as OP wanted, he'd be saying they did the wrong thing when both elections were lost.

[Nye Bevan]

49. And BTW, had just 10% of voters gone from Reagan to Mondale in 1984,

Mondale would have hit 50% and won. Soooooooo close.......

[SidDithers]

50. You win the thread...

Sid

[MannyGoldstein]

52. Didn't Mondale already have Democratic establishment support?

Endorsements and access to DNC cash?

Perhaps I'm mistaken?

[Nye Bevan]

54. My point is that you are characterizing a 22% victory margin as a close election.

When really, it is not. The DNC could have spent every last dollar on this race but in all likelihood Christie would still have won. And then plenty of other races would have been placed in jeopardy.

Knowing how to pick your battles is a key political skill.

[MannyGoldstein]

56. When a candidate's own party moons her, it counts for a lot

Last edited Thu Nov 7, 2013, 11:24 AM - Edit history (1)

Even if money were withheld, endorsing Buono rather than Christie and talking her up could have made a big difference. Withholding money was also dumb - here was a chance to wound a potential presidential candidate who's only half crazy, and so who may have a chance in the future.

[JoePhilly]

51. NJ politics is a cesspool ... national Dems were smart not to swim in it.

And most of the NJ Dems in that cesspool, are already dirty.

[MannyGoldstein]

60. Perhaps you can list some dumb things Dems have done in the past 5 years? nt

[JoePhilly]

67. Why? If I need to know today's reason to be angry at Democrats, I simply come to DU,

and look for OPs that you have written. You've got the job totally nailed down.

I'm inclined to believe that you have a list of Daily Democratic Grievances, going back to the day the President took office. Actually, I suspect it goes back further.

Now ... on the topic of this OP ... the NJ Dems who supported Christie, are disgusting creatures. They knew Christie would win, and decided to cut their losses. By endorsing Christie, they (and their districts) might get a little back. They did Christie a favor.

And NJ politics is about favors, and slights, and grudges. Actually, its not just NJ politics that works that way. The entire state has a barter system that built on favors, slights, and grudges. And it crosses political lines in a major way.

[SomethingFishy]

70. If I need to see unfettered support of anything the Democrats do

I simply come to DU and look for OP's you have written.

I'm inclined to believe you have a list of Daily Democratic Excuses going back to the day the President took office.

You must have had to run the entire list to figure out a way to make 50 Democrats supporting a Republican candidate look like a good thing.

[JoePhilly]

72. Hey Sparky ... question ... What's the date of the last DU OP I have written?

Here, I'll help you.

I have not written an OP in quite a while. Probably close to a year or more since I have written one.

I do respond regularly to OPs, and to other posts, but I rarely write an OP.

Manny however is quite prolific and writes many OPs. Numerous OPs attacking Dems and the President. Its very common.

Some advice, if you are going to jump into the middle of one of these discussions ... try to have at least some connection to reality.

Even if only a small one.

[SomethingFishy]

73. The guy who supports supporting Republicans says I should have a connection to "reality"

Yeah, keep digging.

[JoePhilly]

77. Where did I say I SUPPORT supporting Republcians? I do not.

I simply described why the NJ Dems did what they did. If you READ what I wrote, you'd see I called them "disgusting creatures".

You really need to work on reading comprehension.

[MannyGoldstein]

74. I didn't think you could.

But was hoping to be wrong.

[JoePhilly]

78. I could, I simply see no need. You have it MORE than covered.

[SidDithers]

75. +1...nt

Sid

[Bobbie Jo]

165. Nailed that one.

Makes the sudden indignation about "supporting Democrats" seem a bit.......contrived?

[JoePhilly]

166. That's a good point you made there.

[MineralMan]

55. Whether Christie could have been defeated is open to question,

but the Democratic Party should most definitely strongly support Democratic candidates in such highly-visible races as this one. That the Party did not was a bad decision. Buono would likely have lost in any case, but building Democratic support for today and into the future is part of the responsibility of the DNC and of state party organizations.

With 2014 looming on the horizon, Democrats in states where the Republicans have extremely strong positions should still campaign vigorously against Republican candidates and for Democratic candidates. Winning the election may not be possible, but building support for Democrats is one of the most important things we can do, even when it seems hopeless. Pointing out the grievous flaws of Republicans as part of the campaign is crucial, not just for the current election, but for elections down the road.

Christie won in New Jersey, and it's difficult to see a scenario where that would not have happened. Meanwhile, across the river, a progressive Democrat won an important election. Democrats need to support Democrats, even when the election seems hopeless, because there's another election coming up and building momentum for the future should always be a goal.

[Fix The Stupid]

64. +1 - Great post. SUms up my feelings exactly n/t

[Nay]

113. Thank you. It seems like the Dem party doesn't understand that "building

momentum for the future should always be a goal." After all, the RWers don't care if they have a chance or not in any specific election, but they pay to put their people up there and figure they are simply building momentum for the future. And they are correct.

May I point out another example of this attitude? Here in VA, the Dems had a volunteer walking around the neighborhoods calling on registered Dems, making sure they planned on voting. I asked for a McAuliffe/Northam/Herring sign to put in my yard, and the volunteer looked slightly embarrassed and said he didn't have any. I then asked him where I could go to pick one up, and he looked even more embarrassed and said they didn't make signs to give out for people's front yards. I asked him why, and he replied that the party "didn't think yard signs made people vote one way or another, so it was a waste of money."

GRRRRRR. This is a perfect example of the short-sighted thinking rampant in the Dem parties. The signs ARE NOT for influencing voters one way or another on voting day. They are there to inform everyone who passes by that NOT EVERYONE in VA is a Republican. Period. This declaration of our existence is the first step toward consolidating and encouraging democratic attitudes, not 'a way to influence votes.' Democrats continue to ignore the psychology of this whole fight and this is why we lose.

As it is now, the VA Republicans make it their godly duty to plaster the state with their huge signs every time there is an election over a dogcatcher position. Loyal Pubs immediately are given signs to cover their yards, and for 2 months their signs are EVERYWHERE. Do you not think this sends a message??? Of course it does -- it tells passersby that Republicans are totally dominant in the area, their opposition is weak and lily-livered, and you, the passerby, couldn't possibly want to be associated with losers, would you?

[MineralMan]

119. Excellent Points!

We do need to learn some stuff, I think, and act on it.

[geek tragedy]

57. 65% approval rating = re-election.

Want someone to blame, blame the voters who overwhelmingly approve of what he's doing, for some baffling reason.

[MannyGoldstein]

58. "Even the President and other elected Democrats love him!"

"He must truly be doing the right things!"

[geek tragedy]

62. He didn't win because of local Democratic endorsements.

He got local Democratic endorsements because he was a guaranteed winner, and small-time politicians suck up to big time politicians that are going to win.

They jumped on the bandwagon.

This election was over as of Hurricane Sandy. Smart money realized that.

[JoePhilly]

85. NJ politics runs on favors. Always has.

[JoePhilly]

81. That's Obama's fault. By working with Christie after Sandy, Obama handed Christie a

large approval rating; ergo, Obama intentionally got Christie re-elected.

[geek tragedy]

84. That's what this comes down to--the mirror image of the Republicans

who excommunicated Christie because he went a whole two-weeks without being a hyperpartisan asshole.

[JoePhilly]

86. Good point.

[NCTraveler]

63. The kitchen sink should have been thrown at him

Even if he still would have won. He just won an election for governorship, has possible presidential ambitions, and no dents were put in his armor. He should at least be walking away with a higher unfavorable rating. These fights must be continuous and relentless from the democratic establishment. They seem to be weak kneed and willing to let this guy continue to get away with his extreme conservative thoughts.

[Zorra]

65. At least we traditional Democrats know exactly where we stand now.

In the back of the bus.

My confidence in the democratic goals of the Democratic party right now is near a lifetime low.

[woo me with science]

68. Huge K&R. The wolves in our party have been unmasked.

Robert Reich summed up what we are really dealing with here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3994720
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/2013-election-results_b_4226267.html?utm_hp_ref=media&ir=Media

Pundits who are already describing the victories of Terry McAuliffe in Virginia and Chris Christie in New Jersey as a "return to the center" of American politics are confusing the "center" with big business and Wall Street.

The relevant battle here is between corporatists representing the One Percent and the rest of us.

[Fumesucker]

83. The Very Serious People aren't remotely confused, they know exactly what they are doing

Reich is entirely too kind to them, what they are doing is utterly and completely deliberate.

[woo me with science]

99. I stand corrected.

Of course you are exactly right.

Thank you.

[PoliticAverse]

71. Obama Congratulates Christie on Re-Election

President Barack Obama has called Republican Gov. Chris Christie to congratulate him on his re-election in New Jersey.

...

Obama didn't campaign for Buono this year, even though he did campaign for Democrat Terry McAuliffe in Virginia. On Tuesday McAuliffe won the only other governor's race in 2013.

White House spokesman Jay Carney says Obama was glad to congratulate Christie on his victory.

Read the rest at: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-congratulates-christie-election-20809009

[bigwillq]

112. Aww, how nice. Best buddies!!

[Laelth]

76. Lieberdems, indeed. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[Spider Jerusalem]

79. 60-38=22 (n/t)

[PoliticAverse]

98. Yes but you only have to switch half the 22% to the other candidate to turn the loser into a winner.

[Rex]

89. Third Way types get to be hypocrites.

Trust me Manny, if somehow it could be proven to show that liberals switched sides and not moderates you would see the Usual Suspects calling for our blood!

My my how the Usual Suspects are all quiet now, I guess they approve of betrayal. Just another reason I take what they say with a grain of salt.

[geek tragedy]

92. Buono's problem is that a lot of liberals did switch sides. As did Latinos, African-Americans,

women etc. Moderates defected at a larger rate, but there was a mass exodus to Christie in that race.

[Bluenorthwest]

101. People who vote for Republican are Republicans. Such people were never liberals. No liberal

votes for anti choice anti gay Republicans. Actual Democrats don't vote for the right's brightest hope because of a freaking storm.

[geek tragedy]

104. At least you're focusing on the people responsible for Christie's win--voters.

And they will continue to vote regardless of whether you or I consider them Democrats or traitors or whatever.

We can't take any group or demographic for granted.

[Doctor_J]

132. No they didn't. The DINOS and sensible centrists did

[Rex]

135. My post must have rubbed him the wrong way.

You are CORRECT, the moderates voted for a slimeball that will do his best to push GOP values...and I for one WON'T let them forget it! Seems only fair, since they betrayed their own party.

[geek tragedy]

137. 32% of self-described liberals, 51% of Latinos, and 21% of African Americans

voted for Christie.

And then turned around and voted for Democratic legislators and for a permanent boost to the minimum wage (with yearly increases).

Christie won because he's a celebrity and because of Sandy. People could have made all the policy arguments on the planet, and they wouldn't have worked, because a lot of people voting for Christie weren't voting for his policies, in their minds anyways.

Saw the same crap with Ghouliani.

[JI7]

138. 30 percent of liberals voted for Christie , as did a significant number of just about all Dem voters

[Rex]

139. Link?

nt.

[JI7]

142. here

"Christie did very well for a Republican with core Democratic constituencies. He won 49% of voters between the ages of 18 and 29. He won roughly three in 10 self-described liberals. He won 50% of the Hispanic vote. And he won roughly 20% of the African-American vote."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/05/politics/election-2013-exit-polls/

[Rex]

143. So they know how many liberals voted for him, but not moderates.

MMhmmm...right.

[JI7]

146. the point of the article was those that regularly vote Democratic

which is why it mentioned black voters, hispanics, liberals, young people and lower income voters. and how Christie was able to do well even among the Dem Base .

[Number23]

145. !!!

He won roughly three in 10 self-described liberals. He won 50% of the Hispanic vote. And he won roughly 20% of the African-American vote."

I'm not happy about that at all and I don't like Christie. I don't really trust CNN exit polls either but that data is interesting. What is even more interesting is to see the obfuscation, confusion and flat out just plain DUMBNESS of those trying so hard to pretend that it was DINO's, Obama, the man in the moon etc. that caused Christie to win when in fact, it was a broad coalition of VOTERS that brought him to victory.

Anyone that can look at those numbers and call self-described liberals, black and Hispanics votes "DINOs" is even more ignorant, fringe-ified and worthy of being completely ignored than normal. And the fact that so many of the ones whining about Christie's broad coalition are the same ones that seem to want the president to reject his own broad coalition of voters and focus only on "liberals" makes their complaints and attempts at distortion even more obvious and absurd.

[JI7]

149. yes, similar to Arnold in California, and in the case of California the Dems

running did have more national Dem support. but we of course saw that Arnold easily won anyways because there are cases where people vote based on other things. this is especially true of State officials such as Governor because they usually don't have the stench of unpopular national politicians in DC on them.

those traditional Dem voters that voted for Christie did not do so because they have a positive view of the republican party. but because they see Christie himself as having whatever positives. Governors are usually seen as outsiders apart from the national party.

this is why we always see Candidates for President who are Governors use it to their benefit to get support from all voters.

[Number23]

151. Exactly right. There are few in this world that are idealogues and I think that's a damn good thing

Sometimes it's something as simple as "celebrity" that can pull self-avowed liberals away to another party on an issue or two. The simple fact is that there are large numbers of voters that don't simply see a letter by someone's name and vote for them as a result.

but because they see Christie himself as having whatever positives.

Christie's handling of Sandy garnered him international attention. He made a point of actually "transcending" the Repub brand and that worked for him. He commandeered a broad coalition of voters and won. I'm not surprised in the least that many of the favored denizens of GD don't understand that or consider that irrelevant as they tend to favor "principled" losers over winners of any stripe, but to the rest of us that makes him a formidable opponent.

[JI7]

153. in this case

i don't think many complaining such as the OP really cares other than using it against Dems as usual.

[1StrongBlackMan]

174. +1

[1StrongBlackMan]

175. Hush Truth! n/t

[Jester Messiah]

90. Here's the thing though...

When that huge devastation whipped through his state, Christie handled his shit. He dropped all the partisan bullshit and worked with the President for the good of all his constituents.

That matters.

So all other issues aside, I'm not surprised he's gained some loyalty from the voters.

[WinkyDink]

93. Christie had the "Giuliani Post-Disaster Effect."

[leftstreet]

103. Then he could have won without Democratic support n/t

[WinkyDink]

150. It's why Democrats voted for him.

[Hosnon]

106. 12% is an enormous difference in an election. nt.

[polichick]

114. This is exactly why real change isn't likely to come through the Dem Party.

[loudsue]

116. What I don't get is: Why don't we consolidate our message, and use EVERY election as an opportunity

to get our message out? Why don't labor unions take the lead on this way of changing the game? Every poll taken everywhere lists JOBS as the number one concern of Americans. Who better to get out that message than the labor unions? We don't just want "jobs", as in minimum wage, part time, you'll work when we say you'll work jobs. We want real jobs, and labor unions are the ones who negotiate better salaries and benefits.

THAT IS THEIR THING!!!! If we could put money behind every candidate that would get that message out, and stop this "rule by corporation" thing we have going on, Americans would go for it big time.

Popular politicians don't stand a chance against a message that everyone wants to participate in.

[Puzzledtraveller]

122. Maybe

If the following Third Way cavalcade of crap hadn't happened, I think she'd have picked up much or all of that 12%:

Or dem voters would have just stayed home.

[bvar22]

124. "Way to go, Lieberdems!"

Couldn't have said it better myself.
DURec!



[font color=firebrick size=3][center]"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone[/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[MannyGoldstein]

128. I swiped the term from someone on Daily Kos.

It is a great moniker.

[Rex]

144. That is a good term for them. DINOs is too nice.

I hope they are happy with their vote for a Repuke.

[libodem]

129. That name

Hits a little close.....oh. that is "lieber"....my bad.

[Tarheel_Dem]

131. If only you were as good at actually getting liberals ELECTED as you are at laying blame, at least..

you'd be useful. I find it rich that critics like yourself who routinely use this forum to ATTACK the very institutions (DLC/DNC/TURDWAY) you now blame for the loss. I've seen thread after thread here, telling people that when they were solicited by the institutions you now blame for Ms. Buono's crushing defeat, they told 'em to FUCK OFF. How does that work? Where are the funds supposed to come from to dump into these "symbolic" races?

The purists don't want these institutions to take money from corporations, 'cuz that's BAD money. And since we don't have as many millionaires and billionaires as our oppents; and if people are running around these boards encouraging others not to donate, where does the money come from, genius?

Christie was smart, he got Corey Booker's election out of the way so he could run up his numbers against an unknown, with no national name recognition. The fact that N.J. Democrats didn't take to Buono can hardly be blamed on anyone but Buono, and the NJ "machine". Just ask Steve Kornacki; the national party isn't to blame for this one. If NJ Democrats had ever been serious about taking down Christie, Buono would never have been the candidate. And if the president had gone out and offered a full throated endorsement of a candidate everyone knew was going to lose badly, that wouldn't have helped the party one bit.

I wish, that somehwere in your all too numerous ramblings, you could find a way to be more effective at actually getting progressives elected, instead of the usual divisive crap you post....I mean, if that's your actual raison d'être.

Hey, how many threads did you start asking your fellow DU'ers to moneybomb Buono's campaign?

[Number23]

147. "Hey, how many threads did you start asking your fellow DU'ers to moneybomb Buono's campaign?"

Another astute poster asked something very similar upthread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3998102

Not that the kickers and rec'ers of this tripe will care one way or the other. I've never seen a group of folks so happy to be so transparent and so irrelevant. But I guess it keeps them off the streets, so there's that...

[Tarheel_Dem]

152. It's frightening that this particular rant, if not on a "democratic" site, sounds exactly like....

the clips of Rush Limbaugh being played on progressive radio today. He's making the same arguments for Cucinelli, against the GOP. You can't make this shit up.

Let's face it, liberals have as many excuses for why they don't break through, as Carter has peanuts. It's clearly meant to be a suppressive tactic, and it continues to fail. DU's third party advocates reign supreme here. They keep doing the same old shit, and they keep failing; that's the very definition of insanity. I want them to start winning fucking elections, and stop blaming the world, and the mean old DNC, for their failures.

I guess you can't blame DU, afterall it's the place where Dennis Kucinich regularly won presidential polls. Nowhere else in this country is that possible, but DU.


I'm still asking where was all this "concern" for Buono's campaign, and it's money woes, and why weren't the alarms raised by the "concerned" posters from the outset? The internet liberals get to have it both ways; anything good that happens for Dems is in spite of Obama (VA), but anything bad is because of Obama (NJ).

[MannyGoldstein]

180. Liberals are *exactly* like the Tea Party of the Left

Except when Liberals ran the country, from 1933 and for the next 40 years, the 99% did #%^*ing awesome!

Which sucked!



Sincerely yours,

The Predator Class

[Doctor_J]

133. The Dem establishment HATE liberals. Our only function now is to act as scapegoats

when a debacle like this or 2010 happens. They don't give us a fucking thing in return for our money and votes.

[Rex]

136. That is why I take moderates here that like to lecture others

and voted for Reagan, with a huge grain of salt. Just remember NEVER forget how liberals stuck to their principles, while DINOs helped a Repuke get elected over a Democratic candidate!

They make America SUCK imo.

[ProSense]

134. The Democratic Governor's Association invested $6.5 million in VA race

The Democratic Governor's Association invested $6.5 million in VA race
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023996544

[greiner3]

154. Personally;

I think there was an agreement between Christie and President Obama that if Christie would say all those 'nice things' about the administration and FEMA and stuff then Obama would not put up much of a fight against Christie.

Or not.

[ellennelle]

156. if wishes were horses

and horses could fly, we'd all be covered with horses**t.

look, in the world of politics, 12% is simply insurmountable. especially when your opponent has the media wind at his back. i mean, i feel bad for buono; this was not about her being weak, but christie being a juggernaut.

that's the first thing, the second thing -

did you folks simply not notice that christie just got pwned? the entire GOP just got pwned?

to drive it home, obama his very own self called christie to congratulate him.

do you see what he did there?

christie was already damaged goods for simply hugging our prez. now that same prez congratulates him for his win. this man is the GOP's best bet for anything resembling a reasonable candidate in '16, and obama just lifted his leg all over him. forever marked; obama just owned christie, he made him his own personal pawn.

there is a way in which a candidate needs certain opponents. think mccaskill and akin in MO last year; she promoted his nomination just so she could more easily smack him down in the statewide.

the same reasoning plays out here; christie is the most obvious contender, the '16 version of romney, but - like romney - he's damaged goods. a known quantity that has self-destruction built in due to the very same split party politics that were in play last year. the tea partiers will tear christie apart in the primaries and debates, giving the dems plenty of fodder for their campaign, and those same tea partiers will either sit the whole thing out in nov. like they did last year, or write in cruz or rand paul (talk about damaged goods!).

or, even better, christie won't be able to overcome the cruz crazy, and that will be their candidate.

no matter how you slice it, lose/lose for them.

yup, christie walks the big boss man walk, and talks the tough guy talk, but in the end, he just got pwned by a skinny black kid with big ears from the ivy leagues who knows how to play the long game.

[WillyT]

157. K & R !!!

[marble falls]

158. "It's Chinatown, Jake ....."

[RBInMaine]

161. If all that investment had happened, he would have still won and looked even better coming out.

Some races simply are not winnable. It stinks, but it happens on both sides. National R support for the Cooch-Hole in VA dried up. They knew he wasn't going to win. The TeaBags in VA are saying the same things you're saying about the NJ race. Christie was a popular incumbent and was going to win no matter what. That's just reality. Too bad the state Dems didn't do more there, but it was important for the national Dems to stay the hell out of it.

[Hotler]

168. I have no hope. I see no future. n/t

[Auntie Bush]

173. I hate that term "The Third Way"

Wish you wouldn't ALWAYS use it! You've posted very few times without mentioning it!
Ticks me off!

You use it as a slur! Why can't you call them CENTRISTS? That's what they are. Only Centrists have ever won. Why badmouth a fellow Democrat just because they are left of center rather than far left?

[MannyGoldstein]

181. FDR was a centrist?

Maybe when he ran in 1932, but not afterwards. We had 40 amazing years of liberal government. Then the Third Way happened.

Almost no national Democrats are left of center. Two-thirds of Americans favor Medicare for All, slashing the military, increasing Social Security benefits, and so forth. Very few elected Democrats back these.

[Auntie Bush]

187. That's ridiculous. Most all support those ideas...but they are not dictators and try to get us as

far left as possible. Unfortunately, we can't do whatever we want and have to get legislation passed. Now days only a centrist can win the presidency. Not one far lefty was ever elected...and I desperately want a Democratic president!

[YoungDemCA]

183. In my experience, the so-called "centrists" are among the least loyal and principled voters...

...within the Democratic Party.

But of course, money talks in American politics. The "centrists" tend to have more money than other Democrats (in my experience). They have their own interests, which don't align with traditional progressive Democratic principles.

[DeSwiss]

186. ''Piscis a capite foetet.'' - K&R n/t