Upset liberals are overthinking the election.

for years by using an absentee ballot.  I did it first when my husband's health made getting him to the polling place difficult, and found it makes great sense.  Relax, take your time marking the sample ballot (in pencil in case you change your mind), then mark the real one, put it in its envelope, stamp it, sign it (ours requires your legal signature on the back) and mail it.
I understand Oregon has gone entirely to mail-in voting, and it's apparently working quite well.  Check to see if your state has this system....I'm on the permanent list so I never have to ask for a ballot again.

controlled states. There is no way to get mail in ballots in republican run states and for the state to turn republican, enough people would have to get out and vote to turn the state blue to start with.

I got some mail on it preceding this recent election. (although I LIKE going to the polls so I declined.)

(But, fellow Buckeyes, please keep this to yourself, Columbus has ENOUGH bright ideas, as it is...)

Maybe your state has it, too. Worth looking into. I know I was surprised...

and I saw Record Turnout - of over-65s! At my polling place Tuesday we had 1,600 voters (in a medium-sized town in upstate NY) - less than 100 who were under the age of forty, at an informal guesstimate. You would have thought we were offering Free Senior Breakfasts at Denny's....

Since over-65s tend to be overwhelmingly Right Wing, I think you can draw your own conclusions.

    Keep feeding the delusion that everyone over 65 is a hopeless right-winger. That's the path for Democrats losing more elections. The Baby Boomers may be a tedious bunch but they are almost all over 65 and they have voted and will vote.  Who do you think marched for civil rights and was "clean for Gene" or fought against the Vietnam war?
That would be the old codgers among us.

      There is one solid fact we know about voting in the USA: the older you are, the more likely you are to vote.

Isn't it bleedingly obvious that likely voters are the ones you want to contact if you are a progressive candidate or campaign worker are the people most likely to turn out in every election come rain or shine?

Some are even younger.

Too many minorities and especially young people act as though the President of the United States were the only elected official.
I am old enough to remember the Civil Rights struggles of the mid 20th century and it sickens me how the successors of those who fought those battles let those rights go unexercised.

   Why are the people running the election in your district so bad at running elections?
In 2004, a 2 and a half hour wait?  A standard hour wait to vote in presidential years?
       Those waits alone would discourage many voters who have jobs to get to, kids to pick up from daycare,etc.  No wonder people skipped the mid-terms in your area.
The only people I know who can afford that kind of loose schedule for "I'm going to go vote now" are retired people.
Young people with jobs and kids have tighter and far less flexible schedules.
      There is nothing progressive about making exercising the franchise a test of your commitment.

There WAS no line in this midterm, so...no one had to wait.  And the people you describe, people in their 20's and 30's, make up the bulk of people who stand in line for at least an hour during Presidential elections.  But they didn't even have to wait in line this time.

BTW, the 2004 Presidential election was when Democratic voters tried to get rid of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and stop the Iraq war.  That's why the wait was 2-1/2 hours long.

I appreciate your perspective and I think you're right. :)  Tipped and rec'd.

of time to deal with Climate Change. But we don't.

In that scenario, anything but figuring out how we can practically double turnout for D's--from say 25-27% to 50-55% so we can take back both chambers and gain control of environmental, energy and commerce policy is not a winning strategy.

I will not be involved in any such thing next election, because I'm focused on the timetable Climate Change is dictating, not the catastrophic one the Party leadership and many of its inscrutably complacent supporters seem comfortable following.

I think you need to re-think 2016, because it's going to be different from 2012.

Perhaps our primary contribution to climate change is our excessive dependence on privately-owned motor vehicles. Driving virtually defines the middle class.  The middle class has consistently fought every effort to invest in a modern mass transportation system necessary to reduce traffic.

it's the fuel they run on. We have the technology in place to convert most of the nation's private and public fleet of gas-powered vehicles into alcohol-powered vehicles.

This would do two very important things, as well as several others:
1. Stop pumping old carbon back into the atmosphere. Yes, there would be short-cycle carbon released, but a lot less prehistoric stuff.
2. It would also reduce the effects of transient oil prices on our economy. The current abundance of American oil is happening only as long as the Saudis allow it to. They can easily reduce the price and make expensive fracking oil uncompetitive -- they are already starting.

Alcohol tech also promises to lift up other nations that can produce any number of alcohol feedstocks, and reduce the strategic vulnerability of oil-dependent nations to global instability.

www.openfuelstandard.org

because it's rather difficult to get from "here" to "there" as there is a freeway dividing the two, and not enough ways to get over or under it.....in fact there's a second freeway branching off the first one, and I live between the two.  To get to my doctor's office would take about an hour by bus, and I can drive it in less than 10 minutes.
I can grocery shop at a store only 3 blocks away, but can't carry things home (being kind of oldish and not strong) so it's drive or take my electric scooter on a nice day.  But I also need to go to another store for special foods for my medical diet needs, too far for the scooter and too long on a bus (and still a two block trudge home with bags of food.)
I lived in Los Angeles years ago, and relied on the good old streetcar/bus system for the most part.....it had a grid system that worked rather well.  Streetcars are long gone, and I don't know how the bus lines work out.  Of course, back then I could manage a 5 block walk to work (kind climate here, so no snow to worry about!)
I don't think the middle class has fought efforts toward a really good transportation system, but I haven't seen too many of those being pushed forth in many cities.

pools to take care of its middle class commuters.

fuel with renewable energy to mitigate global warming in time.  
I wonder if someone like Tim Steyer (mutual stock fund manager--one of former New York City mayor Richard Bloomberg's billionaire buddies) could negotiate a settlement with our too big to fail fossil fuel firms that would include buying at least our remaining coal reserves from them as mineral rights to get them off the market.  We have over 100 years supply of coal left.  $30/metric ton of CO2eq = $100/short ton carbon content of fossil fuel which is generous for coal but inadequate for gas and oil.  $85/barrel oil = almost $600/short ton carbon content.  About all I can see offering oil firms is to get them started on mass-producing whatever sustainable cost-competitive substitute US Navy's funding of R&D comes up with.

Kiss that goodbye for the next two years, at LEAST. Sure, the right is all gung-ho on the military as long as they're shooting at somebody, but the rest? Not so much (e.g. - military base closings.)
 And R & D, that would cut into Big Oil's profits? Oh, you kid.

brilliantly.  (And brought me a welcome degree of comfort.) It's scary to be living in these times, when there are so many critical issues impinging on our survival as a species. And this election puts us at least two years behind in addressing the most crucial issue: devastating climate change.  Your "reality reminder" hit the spot.

...it doesn't help the way I feel or what I see coming.

I'm saw, mad, even embarrassed (if you haven't guessed, I'm from Texas) in my fellow humans, because they all just voted for the biggest screwing yet.

The RepubliWhores will gut our government even more than they have so far; they will set back freedoms and rights and make us wish we lived during the Dark Ages. And they will totally eviscerate the political process.

I predict that, within a decade, we will be a single-party Totalitarian oligarchy. Just like the old Soviet Union.

And we will pine for the days of the Black Death...

You state, accurately I think, "If the media reported on his (Obama's) accomplishments fairly his approval rating would be in the high 60's."

Further, the media has systematically misreported Republican obstructionism in Congress, has allowed Republicans to hide Obama's victory in Libya, has underreported voter suppression, has in general failed to keep the public properly informed.

The question in my mind is WHY the media has been so systematically against the Democrats.

Or at least the media outlets.  There's no such thing as a local newspaper anymore, and there's not anybody who can compete in the 24-hour noise cycle that isn't able to write a 10-figure check (that doesn't bounce).

Having answered that question, which party has its collective nose in the crotch of people who can write 10-figure checks (that don't bounce)?

Once you answer those two questions, consider the market place that media outlets operate in.  Forty years ago, in the days of rabbit ears, TV stations -- even network affiliates -- were locally owned and operated.  Newspapers and radio were as well.  The owners, management and staffers were your neighbors and had to be able to look you in the eye if they ran into you at the A&P.  Now?  cable/satellite "news" stations operate in a 24-hour a day din where the only way to stand out is to be sensational.  And the owners?  Not even flesh and blood people, but media conglomerates that don't shop at the A&P.  McClatchy? Time Warner? Clear Channel?  Are they ever going to have to look you in the eye?  Spoiler alert:  No they are not.  Media outlets have become tax dodges and playthings for the uber poweful, and there is one party willing to fellate that class of people in order to collect campaign funding while still in office and a fat lobbying job afterward.

It's really not that hard to follow if you just follow the money.

have done to keep from losing.  There were ALWAYS things they could have done to avoid losing, they just didn't do any of them.  It's not a question of couldn't but wouldn't.  And we were not helped by the D voters who decided they were just too upset to vote and stayed home.  I certainly didn't - I went out of my way to register and vote.  There's no excuse for not doing so.

Green as a  protest.

Well done and a little common sense after Tuesday won't hurt any of us...

The leadership of the dems should have been yelling and screaming at the top of their lungs about the economy, health care, tax cuts for middle class, etc., etc.

They should have also been countering every single lie the repukes told with the truth AND making them out to be the obstructionists that they are.

Instead, they allowed the liars to demonize the president, filibuster every single bill, and blame everything on the democrats.

I couldn't agree more. I have been a voter for forty years and abortion has been an issue every year I have gone to the polls. That just doesn't make sense when you consider how many more important issues we have faced in the last four decades. In a parliamentary multi-party system (I recommend both changes), a simple no-confidence vote quashes the issue of impeachment (and conviction/removal) and right-to-lifers would be isolated in to their own small party and elect their handful of representatives in each election, which would allow the rest of us to focus on what we really need to address.

What's a tip jar?

think.  The two party system is almost surely a major contributing factor.  There are also almost surely other contributing factors too.  Much of the Democratic base feels somehow betrayed by Democrats turning to donations from big business to pay for advertising.  The most likely way I can see to avoid that is to cut way down or even eliminate media ad budgets and stick as much as possible to get out the vote tactics.  Feeding poor voters can work for Democrats--same as feeding the hungry worked for the Salvation Army to attract crowds and get them to listen to the after dinner speaker preach the gospel.  In Connecticut, much of get out the vote is on voter registration before the election and follow up on election day.  Call, ask if you have voted yet, If yes, then thank you.  If not, then would a ride to your polling place and/or babysitting help you get to vote.  Democrats need to keep their total budget low and rely more on volunteer help in getting voters to the polls.

well-thought out diary. Thank you very much for your take. It certainly does seem to put things into better perspective. It's a lot more rational than some of the post-election analysis so far (including some of my own post-election rants). Thanks for this.

courage to risk the depression.  You're a good person.  It was a bad outcome, but it will be better in 2016.  We just keep trying our best.  Take care.

we had a tough landscape, and sixth years usually go badly. but the key is that it went so much worse than was expected. the clues will be in the demographic breakdown of who didn't vote, and it already seems clear that there was a dropoff in latino voters, and the reason for that seems obvious: putting immigration reform on the back burner.

i see two big lessons: one is that democratic voters comtinue to underperform in midterms. it's inexcusable. the other is that the party needs to give voters reasons to vote. and that does get to the lack of a compelling vision.

you're right that 2016 looms large. dems turn out in presidential years, the gop has a particularly tough landscape that year, and two years of gop crazy will make it tougher. and we could have a presidential nominee with coattails. but it's going to be a tough couple years. the gop is already drooling to pass kxl through congress and dare obama to veto it- which he must!

I see that as the demographic problem to address.

active on the left for the last 50 years. I'm not ready for the ice floe yet, kiddo.

Sorry, but our demographic is where the majority of problems lie in USA electoral politics today (I even wrote about it earlier) - which means that it's partly our responsibility to push back on our peers.

I didn't say that the entire content of that demographic needs to go, but that it needs to be addressed.  That means figuring out how to either alter the political effectiveness of the mysogynistic, racist and/or fearful greed-heads in our older, white male group or to somehow work on messages and policies that will minimize their worse behaviors and hopefully bring them over to our party by shunning the rich-loving, environment-destroying (i.e., future generation-threatening) Republicans more often than not.

As much as I loathed neoliberal Bill Clinton, he did say one thing that is true: "It's the economy, stupid." It's not a middle class crisis; it's a poverty crisis. This trumps every other factor. The longer we ignore poverty, the wider and deeper it grows. One bit of data that demands consideration: When Reagan was first elected, launching the decades-long campaign against our poor, the overall quality of life in the US was rated at #1 among all nations. By the time Obama was elected, this had plunged to #43, a truly alarming deterioration. The policies against our poor have powerful consequences that "trickle up," pulling more into poverty, bringing an end to the US as we knew it. People are simply going to have to dig up enough audacity to legitimately address this issue.

I am a 67 year old white male. I voted Democratic in 1968 and in 2014 and in virtually every year in between.
I see it as in my best interest and the best interest of my age group to vote for the party that stands for strong Social Security and Medicare systems.

Of course, whenever changes to those programs are proposed, they are always supposed to kick in 10 or 15 years down the road, so that favoring those "reforms" is not perceived as voting against one's self -interest.

it was even a comic book, about "the history of man," I read it a million times, and I remember just staring away at this picture of an emaciated elderly person on an ice floe, younger relatives on the shore (looking rather unconcerned, I must say), and the caption solemnly intoning that this was what primitive cultures did with their elderly thousands of years ago....I was highly impressed, I must say, in a horrified sort of way.  I tried to ask my mom about it, and she took one look at the picture and changed the subject.

I'm NOT the problem.  But a bunch of my demographic is.  WAY too many old white guys are a complete embarrassment.

There, I've said it.  I have no problem with any non-white, non-old, non-guy saying it too.

The problem we face is that many of us don't. Even more don't in the midterms. Simply put, much of "our" demographics stay at home.

We can attribute that to distracted students hard to energize. And Latinos who opt out because of immigration, perhaps thinking it was Democrats who torpedo reform. And the politically self-defeating notion that in non-Presidential election years, nothing worthwhile happens. And the incredibly lack-luster campaigning styles of several of our candidates.

We cannot reasonably or fairly attribute Democrats' election shortcomings to the other party getting out its voters.

Everyone should vote.  I just have a problem with the WAY that my peers vote.

And I've been saying (in other threads) that a part of the problem is that a significant part of the problem is that no one fears the liberal base, not just because it may or may not be smaller than the wingnut base, but because it's so UNRELIABLE.

On the other hand, every grouchy old guy (and NRA member) shows up when there's election.  So we're in agreement on that.

... on the unreliability of the liberal base is very inviting.

Why is our base unreliable? That would make for a heckuva interesting diary!

anything they can rely on, perhaps?

Why is our base unreliable? That would make for a heckuva interesting diary!

I don't see the logic of pushing people to vote if they aren't well-informed about the issues and the candidates. The problem with the liberal base is that there is little consensus. Media have the strongest voice, and judging by what they say, protecting the advantages of those already in the middle class all that matters. Well, it matters to that shrinking demographic of the better off, those who are (by definition) middle classers. In reality, as our own modern history shows, we can't save (much less, rebuild) the middle class without shoring up the poor. Think of 2014  from this perspective: The masses of poor, and those who get how/why unrelieved poverty is sinking the US,voted for Obama in hopes that he could launch a legitimate discussion about our poverty crisis. He tried, Dems and lib media aren't interested, and 2014 was a reflection of this. (Note to clueless: You can't buy a loaf of bread with promises of eventual jobs.)

On a psychological level, about 80% of this country considers itself "middle class."  That would include the near-homeless and people earning $600k/year.

So that's where you start.  Then the media has no interest in appealing to poor people- their advertisers don't want that.  You might have noticed that you can't have too many shows geared to the highest slice of the income ladder, but no one has an interest in broadcasting to a poor audience, no matter how large.

Everything in America is geared towards those in the middle class, both on policy and in the media.  From this perspective, the poor are a problem to be dealt with as cheaply as possible, and to be kept away from the "rest" of us.  Pretty much no one is interested in helping them just out of the need.

Personally I would chalk it up to the mentality of the Dems. "its not like their going to vote republican". You need to invigorate and drive your base to polls, plain and simple. The republicans are doing that using hate and fear. What is the Democrats equivalent, maybe we'll do something if it doesn't piss off the republicans too much?

Relying on your base to hate or fear your opponent enough is not a winning Dem strategy.

while it does work for conservatives, they feed their base 3 squares a day.

As a person in a demographic that should be an easy D vote... I voted pure third party.
But I'm political, if it didn't matter so much to me that I vote, I wouldn't have bothered

... votes for third parties achieve as much as they give up in not supporting the party most likely to be favorable.

Sure, centrist Democrats don't excite a lot of people very much. (That's why I strongly favor Elizabeth Warren.) But I think you're more likely to catch the attention of a Democratic campaigner or office holder if you can say you'll vote for them - as contrasted to assuring that you'll vote against them if ....

Test: Will Hillary go more left if you threaten to vote for, say, Bernie Sanders? (I very much like him, too, but he ain't gonna be President no matter how much we like him.)

I think we need him where he is, to do the things that people in Congress can do and should do.  If we have enough like him, we'll surely have a better country, and whoever is president can't make the difference without good people working for good results.
I also like Elizabeth Warren, but I think the same thing applies to her.  She can do good things without being limited as much, but later I would think she'd be an excellent president.

solidly blue.  I wouldn't have dared vote 3rd party in a purple state.

We need to adopt a system such as instant-runoff voting or single transferrable vote, so that one can vote for independent or "minor" party candidates without fear of throwing away his or her vote.

I can think of no better way of making the major parties, particularly the Demorcats "shape up or ship out".

     In my not very humble opinion, given how close the first Malloy-Foley race was, voting Green was irresponsible.

And, if you look at a town--town map of CT voting, blue is not the dominant color. Malloy won because his job performance apparently gained him more votes this time in most of the red suburban towns. And, of course, Foley kept demonstrating what an arrogant, unfeeling SOB he is.

In a democracy you have to work with the voters you have.  The Dem "leadership" have been terrible at winning over the majority of Americans who vote.

It's really that simple.  Dems are not losing elections because of Fox News.  Fox News' "success," such as it is, is a symptom of Democratic Party weakness.

People won't believe the lies on Fox if they BELIEVE Democratic leaders are telling the truth.  

Obama made people believe.  Then he betrayed that trust by abandoning most of what he said he believed in.  

And most of the Democratic Party leadership has been even worse at "leading."  But with a really weak leader at the top it didn't really matter how bad the rest of them were.

The end result of that weakness and political ineptitude is losing elections when you actually have the majority of Americans behind you.  That takes an epic amount of fail.  And our "leadership" has proven they have it.

The issue isn't that this crop of Dems "failed to win over..." It's that Dems and liberal media have spent six years alienating the masses who voted for Obama -- the poor, and those who get why we can't save the economy unless we shore up the poor, putting the rungs back on the proverbial ladder out of poverty.  2014 was a repudiation of the right wing of the Dem Party.

that is a registered Republican and I'm (mostly) not the problem either.  While I did not donate money nor did I phone bank or canvass I did vote straight Democratic party ticket for the second straight election.

Ok, we have a problem with a certain demographic but it's deeper than that. For those of us that live on the margins of the margins, voting will never change anything. We're due for a revolution and it's not gonna happen at the polls.

Revolution happens when people tirelessly protest the Ferguson police and the statehouse in Wisconsin.

That's my belief. Did it matter that a Kennedy or Johnson or Nixon was in the white house during the civil rights movement? What mattered were the boots on the ground.

Mattz, you have a very astute political insight and I completely agree with you. This democracy we call legit is bullshit. As long as America sux we are doing this pointless political dance. Only thing that's going to legitimize our two party system is the people standing against corruption...together.

Anytime someone talks about a "revolution", they're in trouble.

You're correct on this- politics follows rather than leads.  So it was a nearly 20 year activist civil rights movement from people who weren't in politics that changed things.

But what was the crowning moment?  When legislation passed the Congress and then was signed by the White House.  At the end, it becomes pretty political.

And you're totally wrong in that these Republicans are going to definitely make things WORSE for the next two years, which means even MORE political capital will have to be spent to just get back to where we are NOW.

It's easy to be cynical about the entire political system, but I don't see where anyone got anything but NOT voting at all.   I understand that's your belief, but to these eyes, the "system" is not reacting in any way you want in WI and Ferguson because they're getting more VOTES from the other side.  That walking POS known as Scott Walker just WON, for crying out loud.  He and his cronies are going to take that as a green light to run roughshod over unions and public workers, and what can you say?  "They'll be protests in the streets"- THEY DON'T CARE.  They don't get OUT-VOTED.

And it wouldn't be the first time that the people had to push back (1930s, 1960s). Unfortunately, the right wing  learned from history, and implemented a long range plan (1980s/Newt Gingrich agenda) to "divide and conquer the masses." During similar times in the past, when the richest took control of politics and policies, the "masses" ultimately united to push back -- the poor and middle class, workers and the jobless, to everyone's benefit. That can't happen this time.

They lost because "it's the political economy, stupid" (no personal offense intended). The trend in the distribution of wealth and income in favor of the top 10% at the expense of the rest of us has consistently intensified since about 1970 under both legacy parties and has gotten particularly worse during Obama's tenure. (There was an exception: the Clinton blip but then his policies made sure things would get much worse after he left office).

See the "chart of the the year" in the article Midterms 2014: The Red Wedding for Democrats

early on election night, by a victorious Repug candidate, was (IIRC) 'First thing we're going to do is cut the corporate tax rate..."'

Did ANYBODY but a very few vote for THAT???

Bait and switch...

...more than a few of whom are actually HOSTILE to poor people in general and nonwhite poor even more so....SHOWED up and voted.  Lots of poor people did NOT.

And those Old White Guys tend to side with the party that is exacerbating that economic divide, so that hurts.  Now, a fair amount of those Old White Guys could be helped by a liberal economic policy, but that's not how it works.  Thanks to right wing propaganda, these Old White Guys believe that they are being robbed blind by poor folks in the ghetto, while it's the corporate overlords that's doing it.  And thanks to right wing propaganda, and in some cases out-and-out racism, they think they're just like RICH Old White Guys and go along with policies that hurt everyone else, including themselves.

I know that the stagnant income is hurting everyone outside of the Top 10%, irregardless of the other economic stats.  But when the house is on fire, you don't call the guys that bring the fuel truck (GOP).

tiny plurality of the potential electorate. The largest plurality is non-voters (>40% even in high turnout years) and they lean very heavily to the left (Pew). A truly progressive agenda that  credibly offered hope and change , which most Democrats do not, would crush a party relying on old white right wing guys as their base.

"Old white guys" -- including seasoned leftists -- aren't the problem. What is the message from today's "left"? "Stand in Solidarity to protect the advantages of the better-off alone, the middle class!" That's actually to the right of even former Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon! The poor, and the masses who get why unrelieved poverty is sinking the US, voted for Obama in hopes that he could launch a legitimate public discussion about our poverty crisis. He tried. Libs and Dems aren't interested.  And as old white guys know (and our own modern history shows), it's impossible to save (much less, rebuild) the middle class without shoring up the poor, putting the rungs back on the ladder out of poverty.

Please refresh the readers' memories on exactly how he did that. Specifics are helpful. Thanks!

voted for Obama in hopes that he could launch a legitimate public discussion about our poverty crisis. He tried. Libs and Dems aren't interested.

Fact- the liberals actually fight for anything that goes to the poor.  Please compare it to the record on the right that BRAGS about taking away any government aid.

Fact- the Democrats are the ones pushing for an increase in the minimum wage.  This isn't over whether they're all for it, or how far they've gotten.  At least SOME in the party are saying it and doing it.  Meanwhile, some of the Republicans are proudly questioning whether the minimum wage should exist at ALL.

What you're saying is not matched by the facts.  You want to shake your fist, direct it towards the right and the media that has no interest in poor people whatsoever.

How do you know what percentage of eligible poor voters actually voted? Of those who didn't, do you know why? Think a minute: Republicans represent the rich.  Today's Dems have spent 6 years stressing that they represent only the middle class (albeit with an occasional pat on the head to the working poor).  For whom should the poor vote -- working poor, or worse off?

On those "old white guys" -- too much stereotyping. These "old white guys" include those who fought for our former progressive era that ushered in a time of shrinking poverty, significantly increased opportunities for minorities, women, the poor, etc. Those old white guys fought for and enacted those policies, from FDR to Reagan, that took the US to its height of wealth and productivity. By the 1980s, the next generation began stepping up, taking the lead, bringing us to this point.

Thanks.  I also fully agree with your point about it being the economy.  Did you read this diary on the same site (Nomi Prins: Why the Financial and Political System Failed and Stability Matters) which I also found very interesting?  

that bail them out are in cahoots with them.

Thank you Wolf10, Thank you Paradigm Change!

Think about it: Another six years were devoted to waving the Middle Class Only banner. By definition, how many are still in the middle class? How did we (as a nation, a people) devolve to the degree that we believe only those who are of current use to employers/the corporate state are deserving of the most basic human rights (per the UDHR) of food and shelter? The question Democrats and liberal media will twist themselves into pretzels to evade: Not everyone can work, and there aren't jobs for all who need one.  What should we do about them?

much in favor of BIG BUSINESS as Republicans.  Most Americans KNOW economy sucks and are pissed off at both major parties as being equally to blame.  Only difference is Republicans are less two-faced about it.

The older white guys demographic today also includes a few million non-rich, truly progressive people who have been around long enough to see how we reached this point. Interestingly, a good share of those "old lefties" are more progressive than the young who have the Progressive banner -- again, because they've seen how we reached this point. Could you have imagined seeing a day when the call issued by "liberal" media was: "Stand in Solidarity to protect the status quo of the better-off," the middle class alone? Good lord, this socioeconomic message is well to the right of Eisenhower and Nixon.

I'm an older white female. A younger co-worker told me yesterday "knocking on doors doesn't work." I've spent four campaigns knocking on doors (two pres, one gov recall, one gov) so I took it a bit personally. But it's not personal, we just need to figure out what to do next.

60's. There are a lot of us out there and I think we are the ones that have been voting. I try to convince younger people to vote and let them know how good it feels to have your say but many decide other things like tweeting, texting, sexting, facebook and selfies are much more important.

of the voters Tuesday. We carried less than 40% of the total white vote according to the report Kos put up.

Whites make up less than 60% of the registered voters. It is not an older white guy problem. It's the other 40% who don't vote who are the problem.

BTW it looks as if one old white person is worth 2 or 3 under 30 voters who didn't bother to vote as the former WILL vote.

You want to blame, blame the purported dems who couldn't be bothered.

This current crop of dem politicians has written the over 65 group off to their dismay.

And I am an old WG. Always have voted dem unlike even this site's founders. Never even beat off to Reagan and Bush like some here have.

But, the hardcore troglodytes who keep voting in these idiots are directly causing pain.

The non-voters are indirectly causing pain.  We can work on the non-voters, but we've never tried to re-educate the white subgroup who has seemed lost to their fears of everything that's non-white and not rich.  Those assholes need a wakeup call, too.

Nah , shiver is correct.

their devoted, older, white male base of voters hurt us in this election.

Getting non-(older, white males) to the polls is part of the equation, but it's only part of the equation.

We lost to older, white males in this election - they share equal blame with those who haven't voted.

The 2014 election is (another) repudiation of the right wing of the Dem Party. The poor, and those who get why/how unrelieved poverty is sinking the US, had no representation. For whom could they vote? America has a poverty crisis, and the last 6 yrs were devoted to an ongoing pander-fest to middle class consumers and campaign donors!  If you're still in the middle class, by definition, you're doing great! Many fellow Americans aren't.

Republicans nationwide, this week?

It's an easy answer.

And, as I said, it's only part of the issue to address.  But, I think we should address it in the open, for a change.  No more running away from the idiots in our midst who consistently enable these election results to occur.

Accepting that we should attack racism, mysogny and blind voting for the enablers of 1% (i.e., the core values of demographic I'm attacking) doesn't mean we ignore the other facets of message and voter motivation in our overall efforts.  It does mean that we unflinchingly address those points in the clear and taint such "values" implicitly and explicitly in our party planks+overall belief system.

No more meandering to the right for votes.  Attacking their supposed values attacks their beliefs, which forces them to look at themselves after the initial reactions die down.  Turn the rest of society against the cavemen.

It's like the right wing of this site never even saw 2008 happen.

A tad condescending, aren't you? Would you expect the poor to vote for a Dem who supports only the middle class, when the middle class decided that our poor are undeserving of survival? Today's middle class has responded to our poverty crisis by putting locks on dumpsters. I would suggest that it is whatever remains of the middle class that needs re-education. These are the ones who looked at the policies and programs implemented from FDR to Reagan, which took the US to its height of wealth and productivity, and chose to do the direct opposite.

His policies and programs began this decline.

who couldn't get 60% of the voters to polls.

Give people something that sounds worth voting for, they show up in droves, as we saw in 2008.

Give them a pile of broken promises and excuses, and they stay home.

However good it feels for Boomers to get pissed and rant against voters, that ranting has never motivated a single person to register or vote.

What do you do when you don't like or trust your party's candidate but the only other choice is someone you won't vote for on general principle?

Sure you could write in an amusing choice or leave it blank, but unless there are other important issues or more palatable local candidates on the ballot why bother?  If you just don't show, you're not supporting the shifty one or the evil one.  Win, of a sort.

However foolish this may be(and is) there is a certain logic to it for those with nothing to vote FOR.  It wouldn't surprise me if a similar calculus came into play.

Not race or age. The majority of poor are white, young. That said: We have two viable parties at this point.  The Republicans represent the rich.  Today's Democrats explicitly represent the middle class (with a pat on the head to the working poor).  For whom can the rest of the country vote, when no one represents them?

I used to stop in at a local diner for coffee or lunch but but it became so painful I now avoid it like the plague.  Lots of older, retired guys sitting around and solving the problems of the world and every solution for a very long time now goes back to punishing Obama for everything wrong in the country.
For a lot of older, white, retired men the day is spent socializing in the diner, on the golf course, at the bar and while it's never been my thing I overhear the conversations and it doesn't surprise me that this is a reliably republican vote.  I guess what does surprise me is how wrong the reasoning and logic is and how little actual knowledge of the issues there is.  Never a mention of how we got here, just animosity that we're not out of it.
Whatever, it's a powerful bloc.

not having our judgement questioned, in some ways.

So, some of us stop actually learning much from other influences over time and just get set in their habits, such as feeling "right" about what they proclaim is the truth of any given situation.  They assume part of some entitled, leadership group within society, perhaps.

Far from being a perfect and highly intelligent person, I'm truly embarrassed by many of my demographic peers (much as you described them).

A Middle-class White American Male

I live near the top of the food chain; I'm almost invisible; I have to be careful what I wish for; Things appear, like magic

I live in a completely alternate reality that caters to my every whim

I have always wielded power, secure that I held the high ground in every instance

Dominion and abundance is my birthright...

--------------------------------------------------------------

Raised in this 'reality,' is it any wonder so many of us McWAMs lose our way...

I have to consciously surrender my 'privilege' at every turn if I expect a just society

A rising tide floats all ships

This concept is, just plainly and simply, lost on the greater number of McWAMs

too, right?

That white women also voted for Romney, and we don't even need to add "old"?

and I never in my life voted Republican.  Why any of us would have voted for Romney is beyond my understanding.
I voted for Democratic candidates again this time, and am happy to say our congresswoman won reelection against a Republican man whom I must admit is a fine man.....he just isn't right for "us".  Our Julia Brownley has done a lot of good things during her first term, and plans to do more for our area and the entire country.
I wish more of the ones I know were good representatives of their constituencies had won, but unfortunately people do fall for a line at times.  Then there are others I really have to wonder about.....like the Scotts, Walker and Rick, both of whom were not good for their states first time around and won't be this time either.  Big sigh!!

Almost all of my friends and those of my generation I've met, after a long career up & down the east coast, are older, white, and RADICAL left wingers-  like myself.
And I don't mean just under today's standards either.

Of course Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower would be called a "RADICAL left winger" today... and THAT's the problem. We have FOX news with its court- fought and won license to LIE, and people listen to it. No one I see posting online seems to know any definition of politicoeconomic terms except the FOX reedefinitions (always then immediately attributed to "Obama.")

With Democrats running AGAINST the sitting Democratic President(who isn't even one either, see:PPACA) for local office, there ARE only Republicans to vote for, whatever the -letter after their name.
Even "-D" is followed by "-ALEC"

Being retired in WV, it looks to me now there definitely has been 'something in the water' the whole time - it's Benzene (or any of the MANY other coal tar byproducts.)

dumbass and redneck males.

vote whatever way their husbands tell them to. I know a few of those. They don't even think, they let their husbands think for them.

about the drop off in latino voters...if something is truly near and dear to your heart, why would you just let the guys who will never, ever, give it to you win?  Why not, even if you're a little mad at the other guys, vote for them so as to have at least a chance to get what's near and dear to your heart.  Don't vote...don't get nuthin.  Also, I just saw the diarist's argument on Rachel's show.  Historically, the opposition party wins during midterm elections.  Why is there such a tantrum going on over it? It puts us in a very good position for 2016 guys.  With a congress like this one...whose approval ratings will be going even further south...it's a no-brainer.  

some potential voters felt no one was really representing them. people don't like being told that their dreams and aspirations are but political footballs.

it doesn't matter what people claim to support or oppose....but that it matters what they actually offer support or opposition too.

Huh.

Go Figure.