Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BlueCaliDem

(15,438 posts)
28. Yeah. Yours. AWESOME theorizing - in a LaLa World.
Tue Mar 4, 2014, 04:20 PM
Mar 2014

That's your interpretation of how "we" won the elections. And maybe your theories carry some weight, but they were not the deciding factors.

In 2002, we were marching TOWARD an inevitable war, and Americans don't like to change presidents in the middle of it. Republicans did an excellent job milking the 9/11 fears predicated on the American electorate by warmongering corporate media, and Democrats did nothing to counter it. 'member?

In 2004, we were right in the middle of war, and as any political strategist will tell you, the American people don't like to change presidents in the middle of war. Besides, people were pissed off that the DLC successfully sabotaged Howard Dean's campaign with the "Dean scream" that was clearly manufactured and manipulated. Democrats, especially young Democrats - the ones who came out, en masse, for Obama - did not like Kerry, and stayed home. Then Bush's buddy, Blackwell, in Ohio, manipulated the election there and voila! Bush got a second term.

In 2006, we got tired of Republican over-spending and drumbeats for another war (Iran), and so did the CATO Institute. They, and their moneyed ilk, held back from attacking Democrats because they damn well knew that it was high time to put the adults back in charge of the purse strings - but not give them more power than that.

2008 had NADA to do with "Hope & Change" other than the historical election of America's FIRST black president and wanting to be on the side of said first black president. Young people liked him because he was Denzel-like: a cool cat with a Harvard degree.

A vast majority of the voters voted FOR President Obama, not Against Romney.

Yeah. If that's what you want to tell yourself. The reality is, the 47% vid sank Romney's chances to win the White House. So they voted against Romney, not necessarily for President Obama.

You really give the American people waaaaaaaay too much credit for doing the right thing when necessary. I'm more realistic. Americans will always, always do the right thing - after every other alternative is exhausted. And not before.

Maybe you revere the good and positive messages that Democrats can campaign on, which is admirable, but I'm far more skeptical. I've learned that the majority of Americans want to see BLOOD. And the one who draws the most, wins.

When a Republitarian comes out and campaigns on, "I'll work hard for your Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!", the Democrat has to come out and say, "That's what he says now, but while in office he's voted against every single bill that would help you and your family get those jobs. When he talks about jobs, jobs, jobs, he's talking about HIS."

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Historical patterns strongly suggest we will NOT regain the House and MAY Lurks Often Mar 2014 #1
Historical voting patterns strongly suggested that we'd NEVER elect a BLACK president. BlueCaliDem Mar 2014 #5
I'm not setting my hair on fire, but historical patterns can give indications of the future Lurks Often Mar 2014 #8
Until they're not. As last election showed us. BlueCaliDem Mar 2014 #12
I'm certainly not going to try and predict the Senate Lurks Often Mar 2014 #16
Then I'm confused. BlueCaliDem Mar 2014 #17
I said MAY win the Senate, not will Lurks Often Mar 2014 #18
maybe I am an idiot, but to me Democrats have shown leadership rurallib Mar 2014 #2
The problem is too many elected Democrats don't put the blame where it belongs. stillwaiting Mar 2014 #7
Really? Savannahmann Mar 2014 #9
Democrats may be blowing it again. earthside Mar 2014 #3
Tea party extremism? Savannahmann Mar 2014 #10
Well, it's worked for the Republitarian Party, hasn't it? BlueCaliDem Mar 2014 #13
Revisionist History. Awesome. Savannahmann Mar 2014 #20
Yeah. Yours. AWESOME theorizing - in a LaLa World. BlueCaliDem Mar 2014 #28
Yup. That is it. earthside Mar 2014 #14
Yeah. Savannahmann Mar 2014 #21
Come election time AgingAmerican Mar 2014 #11
I think ProSense Mar 2014 #4
Well... BlueCaliDem Mar 2014 #6
+1 Dawson Leery Mar 2014 #27
6 million full time jobs short of 2007 One_Life_To_Give Mar 2014 #15
The 3% Strategy (being 3% less sucky than Repukes) isn't working anymore. kenny blankenship Mar 2014 #19
+100 woo me with science Mar 2014 #35
We have a giver-upper in our home. He did get medical coverage under the ACA and.. Tikki Mar 2014 #22
It's hard to blame those who have given into despair Savannahmann Mar 2014 #25
So what are you doing about it? Pretzel_Warrior Mar 2014 #23
Damn it I forgot Savannahmann Mar 2014 #24
Well, it would prove more useful. Pretzel_Warrior Mar 2014 #26
Don't underestimate the talent the Republicans have for screwing things up. Common Sense Party Mar 2014 #29
That's not much of a plan Savannahmann Mar 2014 #30
No need to pray--some of the Repukes are going to crash and burn without any Common Sense Party Mar 2014 #33
People resent being lied to and manipulated. woo me with science Mar 2014 #31
You're ProSense Mar 2014 #32
good thread, but as pointless as trying go convince the GOP that 'skewed polls' are a myth... Demo_Chris Mar 2014 #34
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Poll numbers show Democra...»Reply #28