If you have "no place to go," come here!

A matter of emphasis

Bowers writes (emphasis added):

"There is nothing we can do to turn out the base."

But I think he's got the emphasis wrong:

"There is nothing we can do to turn out the base."

And that's a good thing. Anything that causes the money flow for "progressive" access bloggers to dry up is a good thing.

No votes yet


vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Demographics are to blame. Move along, folks, nothing to see here.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

really is, how could he do anything to turn it out?

No, younger voters are NOT the base. They came out for Obama ONLY and by and large, did not vote down-ticket. OFA was MIA in Massachusetts, and has been so for all the special elections.

The Democratic base is women, LGBT, African-Americans, the elderly, the poor and the lower middle class.

Bowers also fails to note that all of us were told, in no uncertain terms (Donna Brazile: "Message to base: Stay home!"), that we were not needed in 2008.

Yes, it's a mystery that people who were told to fuck off by the Democratic Party, are not enthusiastic about voting for more Democrats. I'm sure the two things are totally disconnected.

Submitted by lambert on

They're getting screwed over as much as anyone else -- and if you consider diminishing life prospects due to permanently higher NAIRU, more so. It's amazing to me, or not, that Bowers, no doubt on behalf of his potential or actual clients, simply throws up his hands in despair and abandons them.

john.halle's picture
Submitted by john.halle on

Incidentally, I suppose it's worth noting this OL "Quick Hit":

(And the FDL discussion it links to.)

The bannings are in some ways reminiscent of the black listings of "Red" trade union activists in the 50s. Having purged and/or intimidated the most active and committed sectors of the movement, they were easy pickings for the Reaganite backlash when it came later and what was required was a principled, not merely "pragmatic" commitment to labor.

I would be inclined to describe Bowers et. al. as stupid in this respect, but they are nothing of the kind.

Deeply cynical and opportunistic is more like it.

Submitted by lambert on

Since their business depends on access, they necessarily need to filter views that the people who grant them access would prefer not to have heard. Hence the censorship and shunning of single payer advocates. It's just business, "hahahaha."