This is from a Daily Kos diary, discussing the results from the Research 2000 poll they commissioned that has the whole blogosphere talking:
QUESTION: In the 2010 Congressional elections will you definitely vote, probably vote, not likely vote, or definitely will not vote?
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: 56/40
Two 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.
This is big, big trouble. Can you say "progressive demoralization?" |
| On civil rights, economics, the war, Guantanamo, etc - Obama has done the typical mainstream Democrat thing by letting the right panic him into running away from campaign promises. Sure, there have been reasons to celebrate (such as a halt to the right wing slide of the Supreme Court - a biggie), but we've seen backpedaling on the marquee stuff - and are still facing disappointment on health care and likelier disappointment on climate change. The Democratic congress, too, has been unwilling to do its own part when called on, or to meaningfully challenge the Democratic President when he has signaled (both openly and behind the scenes) retreats from campaign promises. Much of this comes back to an unwillingness to play hardball with so-called "moderate" members, though in fairness the House leadership has been more aggressive than the Senate (at least for the moment).
But, we're told, we have to be pragmatic. The obvious question, then, is where's the pragmatism in getting our asses kicked and accomplishing nothing?
We often hear that government should be run like a business, however the "experts" applaud innovation in business but consider innovation in policy to not be "pragmatic." In every other aspect of life, looking at what historically works and what doesn't work before making an important decision is considered prudent, but in discussing federal policy such as health care, we're told that's not "pragmatic."
And finally, looking at what actually wins elections, as opposed to what "experts" on the teevee and in the professional electioneering world tell us win elections (e.g., always run to the right) is considered dogmatic and loopy, rather than "pragmatic."
Which just proves once again how many deeply dimwitted, self-congratulatory, bubble people there are who consider themselves elections "experts" and "professionals." This is in no way to suggest there aren't dogmatic absolutists on the left who couldn't get elected in a one-candidate race, but those folks are hardly the ones in the positions of power, working so hard to bring on large-scale electoral catastrophe.
No, that would be the "pragmatists" such as Rahm Emanuel and Harry Reid.
And as a further example of that "pragmatic" thinking, don't be surprised if the "pragmatists" who insist that if everybody would shut up, follow along, be patient and give up their silly lefty dreams still blame self-inflicted defeat on the liberals. A cool, reasoned analysis of cause and effect will always fall before the power of intellectual inertia.
Or to put it more simply, if Obama and the Congressional Dems don't start coming through, and they all get their collective asses kicked in the 2010 elections, expect the "pragmatists" to blame it all on the liberal base for not seeing the wisdom in being more like them. |
250-1
55-1
