Pick Your Heads Up, Democrats

I’ve seen commentary from Democrats on this blog and on Twitter in the days since the election, declaring the Montana election results to be some sort of abject and tragic failure on the part of Democratic candidates, the party, and so on.

That is simply not true.  We did as well as could have been expected.  All of the post mortem commentary leaves one thing out: Democrats in Montana essentially won every race that was winnable. The federal contests never revealed themselves, in pre-election polling dating back 12 months, to be winnable races.  Even though she ran a good race and fought the good fight and generated some buzz, Amanda Curtis never had anything but a highly remote  statistical chance at becoming senator, a miracle required.  It was almost the same for John Lewis.  In a big Democratic year and with a full year or two to campaign, things might have been different. But Amanda was always behind by at least 15 points and Lewis 10, and even if she had lit some type of rare fire and started to tear down Steve Daines, he would have unleashed another three or four million dollars against her, as would the Republican party.  Daines and Zinke were solid Republican candidates in a Republican year in a Republican state. What Lewis and Curtis were each looking for was a monumental upset.  It is not a failure that they did not achieve one.  This was an impossible year for Democrats to send a person to Washington.  It’s just that simple.

The same can be said about our local races–we won what was winnable and we are one of only five states in America where democrats gained legislative seats.  That’s a pretty impressive thing in my view.  And the most important winnable race of all, we won big–the Supreme Court.

So that’s the first point.   The second point is that I would caution people to be careful about simply accepting all of the theories being pushed out there about why Democrats lost.   Because the main and most simple theory is most certainly the correct one:  Montana will not send a Democrat to Washington in a year in which we have a democratic (not to mention black) president at 28% in the polls, in a midterm year, who is fairly inept at articulating what he stands for or believes.

For those who believe that the Democrats should unabashedly come out against the Keystone pipeline, or unabashedly for a pro-immigration position, I have news for you: such positions are extremely unpopular in states like Montana, and very polarizing too. The greenlighting of the Keystone pipeline, for example, is supported by 85% of Montana voters.  Coming out strongly against it, and shouting it from the mountaintop, provides no electoral benefit.

Nationally, I’m not sure that the analysis is much different.  The election was a platform for voters to make an anti-Obama statement, and there’s not much a democrat can do when that’s what an election is about.



65 Comments on "Pick Your Heads Up, Democrats"

  1. Keystone XL will play out all by itself. With the drop in oil prices etc. it may lose its allure.

    Immigration is an issue, but hardly a pressing one that demands immediate action, and especially Executive Orders.

    I harbor no illusions that there will be a breakthrough and the GOP, the Democrats and the POTUS will all have a beer together and get to work.

    Best for now to do as you suggest, accept that the Democratic Party ran shitty campaigns in many States and start to re-tool for the 2016 election.

    And one word to anyone who is listening.

    No more dynasties.

  2. I would respectfully disagree with this commentary. Democrats didn’t win the Supreme Court race. It was nonpartisan. Big Money tried to buy it, and would have succeeded if a lot of Republicans, as well as probably most Democrats, didn’t reject the bid. The Democratic Party, both nationally and statewide, don’t win because in most peoples’ minds–both progressive and conservative–they don’t stand for anything substantial in these substantial times. Energy industry debacles such as Keystone pipeline and Otter Creek coal are the dinosaurs in the room eating our future, and Democrats who run from that simple fact lose elections, quite simply. No, it’s not a sure way to “win” elections either but Democracy only works with a relatively educated electorate. When Democrats sound like Republican-Lite they pass on the golden-megaphone opportunity to educate and the huge segment of the electorate whom Democrats should really be trying to motivate just give up. If both candidates are OK with tearing our planet apart limb from limb, the only difference being how quickly the deed is done, why bother? You and I can tell them why, of course, but we’d be talking without the moral backing of the party we’re asking them to vote for. It’s profoundly confusing to sensible people who, for a lot of good and bad reasons, aren’t paying enough attention, and it’s infuriating to those of us who try to rally these folks and then get cut off at the knees by…the Democrats! Look at RomneyCare (let’s call it by it’s real name, please) The whole country was hopeful for a path toward universal coverage and Organizing for America sends operatives to Montana communities with active Single Payer movements and squelches them! Outrageous, and with that internecine blood on the water spilt, the Tea Party moves in for the kill, and they did and we suffered personally in those communities. Look at Tester’s “Wilderness” bill and the Bullock administration’s undemocratic backdoor deals for logging roadless areas. In all these cases and many more, sitting Democrats shut out their motivated base because they figure the motivated base has to vote “democrat” no matter what. And true enough they do, but they sure aren’t motivated to work as hard as they did to , say, elect the first non-white president who promised true healthcare (not health insurance) reform and a speedy exit from endless wars. This is how you lose elections. You don’t represent your base and notwithstanding the many courageous people who run as Democrats in spite of all this, this is why the Democratic Party find itself in itself deplorable condition.

    • “Democrats didn’t win the Supreme Court race. It was nonpartisan.” Officially, yes. But unofficially, there was a partisan aspect to it. Mike Wheat joined the Bullock-Tester-Curtis-Lewis-Hollenbaugh GOTV road show in Kalispell on 2 November. That was a partisan affair, and Wheat showed poor judgment by being there.

      We shouldn’t elect members of the state’s supreme court. There’s no perfect system, but appointment by the governor with confirmation by the legislature would be much better than elections.

      Nationwide, the voting eligible population turnout was the lowest since 1942. In Montana, the VEP turnout was 46.6 percent, the lowest since 18-year-olds started voting. In MT in 2006, the VEP turnout was 57.1 percent. Jon Tester must stand for re-election in 2018, another midterm year. If these turnout trends persist, he’ll be just farmer Jon again come 2019.

    • I also respectfully disagreed with the analysis of why Democrats lost in the recent election. I very much agree with Mr. Conner’s analysis and would like to add that President Barack Obama is not in articulate, but rather, Democrats followed hook, line and sinker the Republican meme that the election was about the President’s failed policies, rather than looking at the facts: improved economy , health care that at least begins to address the health care crisis, improved employment, no terrorist attacks and more. We are certainly better off than we were in 2008-Dems just refused to state those facts. It is hard to win when you don’t see the improvements your Party has instituted. Many of those who ran did not embrace what Dems have accomplished and turned off the base completely. What a shame.

  3. Testerbullaucus took control of the party in 2010 through present. Results speak for themselves. BS had control 2004-2009 and the results speak for themselves. Tester has a 40% Job Approval rating. Bullock probably not far behind. It was always wellknown that sharp political instincts in Democratic Montana could be found in the BS camp. BS cashed out and is worrying about President. Poor Dems.

  4. Democrats should feel nothing but shame over this cycle.

    Not only did Democrats lose huge, Democrats deserved to lose huge. From the illegal corruption for John Lewis (which cost MDP the elected Chair in a corruption coup) to John Walsh proving he has zero honor, it was an unmitigated disaster.

    The corruption needs to end. We aren’t going to start winning again until Democrats stop the corruption.

    Those dumb enough to volunteer and support Dems despite the corruption shouldn’t hold their heads high, they should have their heads low in shame. They got suckered, they are fools, and their lack of integrity is what is wrong with Democrats.

    Luckily, the Baucus Culture of Corruption is over. That was the good thing about this election. Unfortunately, now we’re just in the Bullock/Tester Culture of Corruption. Which is just as bad if not worse.

    If Dems don’t reform the corruption, voters need to keep voting against Dems. Just because some party activists are insane doesn’t mean anyone else should go along with MDP’s corrupt insanity.

    • Explain your ‘corruption’ charges in detail, facts or ‘close to facts’ please.

      • Ahem, Tester, 2012, lost his progressive voters, was down at 48%, $1million in dark money rolled in and saved him. Baucus, 2009, accepted a bill written by the insurance industry (AHIP), called it ACA and marshaled it through Congress unchanged, calling it “health care reform.” Your party leadership virtually steamrolled your voters by placing John Walsh in office without having received one vote, only to find him morally incapacitated. Your party, when seeking his replacement, opted to ignore the primary and tap an untested small timer, conceding the election.

        The Baucus era is over, and there is a chance to clean things up. But I do not see any impulse to do that. Just whining about people not turning out for your sorry ass party.

  5. Cowgirl, the fact that Obama is a black man has far less to with his unpopularity than his neocon agenda. The fact that you and other Democrats derive moral superiority from his race and are oblivious to his policies might speak in part to the distance between you and voters.

    Most of the country is anti-neocon. Where, oh where is a political party for us?

    • So you and Cowgirl agree that we don’t need leaders, just pollsters? God help us if public opinion is ever wring about something.

  6. 74 percent of montanans favor Keystone according to MSU Bollings poll. Also, 45 percent of Montanans believe Obama eats only watermelon and is from Kenya. So cowgirl is correct on both points, and In4it is wrong.

  7. Dear Cowgirl,
    XL Keystone Pipeline explained;

    See Warren Buffet
    See Warren smile.
    Warren is the second richest man in the world.
    See Warren be a shrewd investor.
    See Warren invest in Barrack.
    See Barrack become President.
    See Warren invest in a railroad.
    See Warren’s railroad haul oil.
    See Canadians try to build a pipeline.
    See Warren invest in Barrack’s reelection
    See Warren wink at Barrack.
    See Barrack wink back.
    See Barrack say, “Environment.”
    See Warren make money hauling oil.
    See Barrack say, “Environmental Study.”
    See Warren make more money hauling oil.
    See Warren invest in Republicans.
    See Warren invest in Democrats.
    See Republicans dance and scream, “Jobs, jobs, jobs.”
    See Democrats dance and scream, “Environment, environment, environment.”
    See Warren chuckle.
    Warren loves political theater.
    See Warren make trainloads of money hauling oil during the show. See Canadians scratch their heads in wonder.
    See the XL Pipeline never be built while Barrack is President.
    See Warren smile.
    See Warren be a shrewd investor.

    John Marshall

  8. In off years, the governor typically raises some money for helping legislative candodates and does things lime make radio ads for targeted races. Apparently that did not happen this year.

  9. It’s the small amusements in life that are the most satisfying. For example, the commenters here and elsewhere who truly revile the Democratic party giving such ‘heart felt’ advice to save it from it’s obvious and inevitable doom. “Change” they cry, but always changing in a way that would solely please them. “Ignore polling and do what I want” is the mantra, showing that they have a pretty dim idea of what “democracy” might actually mean. “Democrats are CORRUPT, deceitful and they masterfully manipulate you! They have such awesome power to stop you from following another party!” they personally chide you in the very same breath they insult you by bemoaning how incompetent these masterful deceivers are. As if he’s the lead character in a sit-com laughing at the viewer, Brigham has the iron balls to pretend that he’s one of “we”, just after he tells ‘we all’ how stupid “we” are.

    The Democratic party isn’t going anywhere except to minority status for a bit. If it’s really the same as the Republicant party, then there is no loss had. No harm no foul. People are leaving the D brand for the R brand and it won’t matter a bit. If, as some suggest, the D’s only exist to thwart the growth of third parties, then it seems obvious that they are very good at what they do, and it’s the third parties that suffer from incompetence at getting agreement. If being a Democrat means willfully ignoring what the people want in order to save them from themselves, then yes, the Democratic party is doomed and damned well should be. Of course the I-know-better-than-you-so-shut-up-and-do-what-say Party just doesn’t seem real viable to anybody in this country.

    All of these ‘Democrats suck’ folk seem to have really prescient advice on ‘how to win elections’. Their theories are pretty nice, but rather strikingly unproven. So, if’n you want advice on how to win elections, take a look at the ones who do. Convince people that government doesn’t serve you, it’s actually your enemy. Prove the point by shutting the whole damned thing down. Then convince people that only your folks care and only your folks can ‘fix things’. That’s worked for Mitch McTurtle, John Boehner, Steve Daines, Ryan Zinke, Scott Sales, Art Wittich and countless others. The supporters of “we know what people really want, and more important what they really need” don’t have such a great track record at the winning part. Bob Brigham, pretty much every Libertarian ever, Ralph Nader, Steve Kelly, most ‘progressive’ candidates outside of Missoula, and the list goes on. Democrats aren’t losing because they aren’t supporting the right causes. They are losing because, very much like progressives, their message isn’t as seductive as the one that says ‘we can make things work or we’ll break them again’. People would rather be in bed with the mob than they would support Prohibition (on oil and coal and guns the other things they can make money on.)

    If ‘the Democrats’, or any third party philosopher kings, want to win elections again then they must convince the people of what Lincoln, a RepubliCAN, once so famously said. It is government of the people, by the people for the people. Demilitarize the police. End the “war on drugs”. Reform health care instead of repealing the small reforms already done. Allow Unions to have a powerful voice again, and quit listening to the wailing of the environmentalist butthurt until they recognize that organized labor are their greatest allies in the control of energy production. Recognize labor as a human right, alongside ‘clean air’ and ‘gender equality’. Make America inclusive with comprehensive immigrant reform. TAX the fuckers who benefit most from our taxes, corporate bosses, hedge fund owners, energy companies, banks (most especially banks) and large take religions. Simple pop quiz. Which do you think more people will support: 160 hours paid vacation time or corporate subsidies? Public funded elections or 6+% student loansand low interest rates for corporations? The KXL pipeline or a return to Montana Power? Notice please that wolf hunting and bison range and ‘roadless lands’ don’t even fricking register on most people’s radar. So, to those of you intensely concerned that voters will favor environment over other possible Democratic concerns, you’re being pretty myopic and not actually concerned about ‘winning’ at all.

    • Republicans and Democrats are both oligarchical parties representing the people who fund their campaigns. There’s no intent to represent any but those people. The problem is not that they are representing public opinion and progressives don’t like it. It is that the Democrat Party leadership, more so than Republicans is tasked to fool the people into thinking they are something they are not. So they are better liars, more deceitful, more cynical. They are, as I have said for years, the problem.

      Again, if you are interested in where public opinion lay, check the Council on Foreign Relations, who have been polling us for decades. The two parties are far to the right of the public on virtually everything. That is documented, not imagined.

      The problem is that at election time, people feel an impulse to vote, and even when there is no real choice manufacture differences in their minds between the parties. It’s an illusion. We encourage people to vote, chide them when they don’t but do not offer real choices.

      And remember that Lincoln’s Republicans were a third party.

      • Well said, In4it, with exception of the part, in my opinion, of saying the two parties are to the right of us.

        That buys into the whole left/right dynamic, which is part of how entities like the CFR (which strongly includes Hilary, by the way, and agree with somebody earlier, maybe you, who said dynasties are bull) and the rest of the entrenched power structure keep our eye off the ball.

        That’s why I left the Dems. The Republicans ARE right about some things that the Dems completely eff up on. The Democrats ARE right about some things about things the Republicans eff up on. But people, often especially those of a prior generation, are naive enough to still think one party has a serious monopoly on vision and virtue. No they don’t.

        People here rant about the Tea Party this and that. That’s bull. Sure some of them are as crazy as their counterparts on the far left – but if you look at the issues really, a lot of them are not that different from the Occupy Wall Streeters and the rest of the Occupy movement. They’re BOTH trying to blow the whistle on many of the same scams. But idiots on BOTH sides fall into and indulge in the the boogeyman demonizing. And we still don’t on either “side” I think yet know the full scale of the manipulation, don’t realize how fully we’ve been had, don’t yet see that the technique is divide (polarize) and conquer.

        Wouldn’t it be cool if we did? Be the change.

        • I am not merely speculating about the two parties beings far to the right of the public, but offering strong evidence to support that. See link below to CFR. They do not study public opinion for any reason other than to spy on the enemy, by the way.

          Just a couple of points however:

          There is no great wisdom in public opinion, quite the opposite. The public is easily fooled and bamboozled (one hour of talk radio, right or left, should serve to demonstrate this). TV is hypnotic, not an information medium, but rather a means of distraction, lies, distortion and control. But certain general tenets are strong and do not change over time. These are things like use of the UN to settle international disputes, support for the right to form unions, public health care … Election campaigns merely serve to cloud issues, marginalize them, replace them with wedge politics to, as you say, divide and conquer.

          What you call “far left” is far closer to mainstream thought than the policies of the two parties. But branding and perception management are used to marginalize maknstream views. The majority of public opinion is an anathema in the minds of the elite. It is discouraging to hear you repeat that notion that mainstream = far left. We are are marginalized. But concentrated wealth, which is generally supportive of extremist policies, has co-opted the word “mainstream” to describe itself, and can do so due to its control of TV, the parties, the news media, and entertainment, which is where most people derive their attitudes. (Movie stars like George Clooney have far more influence than scientists or academics or politicians, which is why Hollywood is kept under strict lock and key.)


      • I’m not certain which is more odd, Mark. The fact that just agreed with me while trying to disagree with me, or that you actually can’t see that you agreed with me. You must REALLY hate Democrats (just as Kelly does, since we didn’t elect his happy ass to anything) to be so blind to the fact that they are not a monolith of unchanging nature. They are a political party, made of people, just like the Greens and the Libertarians and the Rebublicants. They just have a name that extends back a piece further than those.

        If you read my comment through, you’d see that I actually support the findings of the CFR and suggest that Democrats can *win* by following suit. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, has done so. Bernie Sanders, an Independent, has done so. The funny part, for me, is that you can’t let go of Nader’s defeat in 2000. Didn’t he follow public opinion? Didn’t he advocate the right things? Maybe, just maybe, he was the wrong guy at the wrong time. But rather than actually question that, you have your vendetta against Demonrats! and will continue to council for others to do what you yourself won’t do, and continually predict the worst of outcomes.

        You got your wish, buddy. The Democrats got spanked, it’s Obama’s fault and everyone hates that guy. Democrats are toast. So now what? You feel better for pointing out the obvious and mistaking the unreal? You pose and propose no challenge to the Oligarchs whatsoever. You simply celebrate a victory that you don’t even see as a victory? Come on, Mark. Why wouldn’t I find that amusing?

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | November 11, 2014 2:44 PM at 2:44 PM |

          Jeff Merkley in Oregon did quite well too. He is a true Dem, and he spanked the hand picked Kockh woman. (the fact that she was crazy didn’t hurt either) It was fun to watch. And Oregon is not that dissimilar than Montana. We go back and forth with ease between these two states. Oregonian, Montana, same same. If they can run a guy like Merkley, and win big, I think we can too. We just gotta get outta the Baucus, paddy wms. mindset. Mansfield, Metcalf, T. Walsh. Melcher, now THOSE are the kinda guys we USED to send.

          Hard to believe that now we have creationism boy! Come to Montana. We’ve even DUMMBER than texass!

          • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | November 11, 2014 2:58 PM at 2:58 PM |

            Ever see a Montana Dem do a commercial like this? HEADS would explode among the christofascist crowd! Merkley truly is an amazing fellow. Really, really bright and educated. AND, a very caring and compassionate man. I liken him to the late Mark Hatfield and Tom McCall, both great Oregon politicos Oregon can still produce outstanding candidates, and I hope that Montana can too.


            Google Merkley some time and read. He’s one of the best senators the Dems have right now. I think that guy would make a great president too, SO good in fact that the CIA would have to shoot him!

        • Not the first time, Rob, that I read your response and find that when I read your responses you are not saying what it appears you are saying, and then you chide me for not seeing what you say. Perhaps you could try being succinct.

          You’re difficult to deal with in that I have to keep it at one single layer. You look at Nader 2000 and see he lost, and nothing else. Can we go deeper? No. Not with you.

          I’ve tried to explain to you how in an oligarchy we are limited to two parties because three major parties, a more natural number, allows leverage for minorities. You come back with well, Democrats have been around for a good long time and are diverse. That’s opaque.

          Good night.

          • Actually, Mark, this is obviously another case where you have read whatever you wish without paying attention to what was written. I wrote not one thing about the diversity of the Democratic party, nor did I laud it’s longevity other than it still has the same name after all these years. What I *did* write, is that just like any other political aggregation, it’s made up of people, people who can be swayed to worthy actions just as they can be convinced to jump ship for the R brand. The Democrats of today are not the same as the Democrats of Jefferson; we have flush toilets and the Internet. The only thing I see as consistent about the Democratic party is the core principle of individual rights over those of the State, though the interpretation of those rights as altered radically over even the last hundred years. Hell, I would argue it’s altered radically over the last 40 years. To those of us less smart-like and unbothered by weighty nuance (/sarcasm), that might be a fair explanation for why Citizen’s United is such a horror. But I digress …

            Regarding the same discussion we’ve had a hundred times now, the one who seems burdened by the mythology of Nader is not me, but you. He did lose, and every time you move the goalposts of what his run in 2000 accomplished (or didn’t) you keep alluding to some deeper meaning of his candidacy as if to shield yourself from the fact that he lost and lost big. Every other ‘layer’ that you and I have gone circles around has nothing to do with the fact that I can’t see beyond his loss, but rather that you can’t see it for what it was. It was a loss in a winner-take-all system. You can blame ‘gate-keepers’ and Democratic Sheeple and oligarchs all you want. The only outcome of that that mattered was that Bush won the election fair and square by a vote of 5-4. The only things your ‘layers’ allow you is justification for the fantasy scenarios you create about ‘what if Gore had actually wooed the left’ and ‘he would have been no different than Bush’. Given the overwhelming power you afford the moneyed interests there is no deeper layer to explore, other than that THEY used the Supreme court, electoral chicanery and the self-righteous fervor of Nader voters to get the outcome they wanted.

            Hyperbole, accusation and distrust aside, we still find ourselves with the same disagreement. You believe that the 2-party system is corrupt and rigged, and I to some level agree. But you constantly argue that the people are the problem and, because power is so Illuminati-like, offer next to nothing as the solution, your ire firmly focused on Democrats. I think that the only solution is the people, and that change can happen within the party structure, as we’ve seen often through history. The parties are not monolithic, they are dynamic and change with the will of the people who support them. People are not supporting Democrats right now, and for their own reasons some shouldn’t. For all that either you or I know, the Libertarians will be the next great party (if they can let go of Randian delusions.) The one thing I am certain of is this, change is inevitable, to struggle is an option.

            You’ve never expressed your great fear, Mark. You happily tell your online peeps what you are not afraid of, but you’ve never, not once, expressed what you really see for yourself as a result of the dire predictions you tend to make. I have expressed my deep fear, and history bears me out. It isn’t the Chinese, or Ebola or even global warming. It’s that the income inequality will grow so great that violence is the only solution. You keep talking about “organizing”, something you can’t really describe. I can. Mobs. There’s much more to say but I’ve typed enough for now.

  10. John Lewis had plenty of time, but didn’t follow the Max election game plan of spending early in the campaign. Why wait until after the primary when the Republicans were getting press on their candidates and issues during the primary. The only thing voters knew was that John had worked for Max and he was a Democrat. Democrats ran a poor campaign. Republicans didn’t do much better either, but when you hate Democrats and Obama what other choices are there?

    • Easy to scream and shout ‘hang the black man’ alright, but now GOP (and the clattering teabaggers) must
      propose SOLUTIONS, not just anti-Obama hate rhetoric. Will GOP defend working class or continue
      to suck on the Koch machine?

  11. Denial is not your friend, cowgirl. It’s not about picking up your heads, it’s about USING them. You didn’t before, and you don’t like like you’re about to start.

    You make such hay about Curtis getting 40%? Cowcrap. In my county a dem I never heard of got on the ballot – just put the name on, didn’t run, didn’t spend all the bucks Amanda did, didn’t do ANYTHING – and ALSO pulled 40%. Why? For no better reason than she had a (D) after her name. That’s it. Amanda couldn’t even top that.

    I TOLD you here that Curtis was going to get skunked, and the bleeding hearts dumped on me. Just think, with a little humility, they could have had a shot instead. It was NOT inevitable. Hell, even machine-boy Walsh, without that plagiarism stupidity, would have had my vote. I didn’t want to vote for Daines. But look who they picked – and dipsh__ dums gave me no choice. Cause; effect.

    It’s not rocket science, Cowgirl. Amanda WAS a constitution-dissing gun grabber. Who respects that? I talked with one of her door to door people and at least she admitted it but blamed it on the brother thing. That’s more honesty with self than most other MT dems can manage. And you could see this worker knew I was right. Well I admire that, going door to door for people you know aren’t very smart. But it’s still a waste of time.

    And I said here, correctly, Curtis was a ditz on economics, pretending she could go on spending money we don’t have to enrich her already bloated public union buddies on the backs of the rest of us. Not fair, anti-populist if you were honest about it, but who cares. So validate that tax-and spend-label. Great centrist position, right? And others here noted the far-left taints of her Wobblies connections. Yeah, it was this, it was that, but it couldn’t possibly have been the candidate.

    Did anyone listen to the obvious? Did anyone take it seriously? Cowgirl even? Naaah. They just blamed the Kochs and creationism and the usual excuses.

    Until the Dems stop trotting out PATHETIC excuses like well, it’s because Obama is black and all Republicans are racists – and your comment above is not really more sophisticated than that – you’re going to go on and go on and go on getting your @$$es pasted like you deserved here and will deserve again. You could have paid a nobody like me half of what you paid your high-power consultants, and had more votes to show for it.

    You ditzes CAN NOT WIN WITHOUT THE CENTER. Clinton got that. Schweitzer got it. Baucus got it. The knee-jerk party apparatchiks? Nope. Curtis? HAHHAHAHA. Hell nope.

    Please tell me you’re not really stupid enough to think you could rerun her like someone here suggested. Please? You can’t possibly be that dense, can you? Or did you answer that for me already? I saw at least one true believer on this site who drank the koolade and predicted Amanda was going to kick Steve’s butt. And of course refused to take his medicine afterwards and admit it.

    THAT’s the party’s problem. Not lack of heart. Just an absolute lack of humility. Total unwillingness to learn. There are indeed none so blind as those who will not see. I admire much that you do and some great reporting, but that would still be yours and you, Cowgirl.

    I gotta run, but I can pretty much predict no party types, with possible exception of someone like Tester, would think outside the box and get it. You didn’t before the 4th. And if you just go on not listening and consoling yourselves with the same lame excuses, karma will be a byotch again.

    So sorry, but wrong, Cowgirl. You Dems WERE told what the problem was – and you went into denial and pretended it wasn’t the truth. You refused to listen. THAT’s the problem. Hell, even many Republicans crossed over to Obama when their own guy stank badly enough, and it got him over the top.

    You can’t get that? Make your candidate not stink. I’m sure she had guts, but on the issue, Amanda stank. Surprise: defections result.

    Good luck getting it, but you Dem track record at that is not a good one. I don’t care, I gave up on the whole BS 2-party duopoly anyway. But this is like counseling an alcoholic. It seems like they never hit so hard they can’t be tempted to crash even harder. But at least most of those know they can’t claim they didn’t have friends who told them.

    • No, Mar-butt kisser. You have absolutely no idea what the “center” really is.

      • Typical libtard answer, just like the conservatards. I AM the center. I agree with the left on some things, with the right on others, with a synthesis of the two on others – and most importantly, with NEITHER where they are a monolithic arm of the corporatocracy, CFR, and Wall Street.

        Never kissed Mar-butt in my life. Time for your rectal craniotomy.

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | November 11, 2014 6:05 PM at 6:05 PM |

          No one said you KISSED Mars-butt, lil’ fella. Just gelato’ed the dude’s gun! BIG difference! You into gelato, cupcake????

        • You are the great! You are the CENTER! YOU ARE GOD! Or you are just an asshole. You appear to have proven the last …

          • I proved something all right. That wasn’t it, however.

            • There is no “left” in thei country, but rather right, far right, and libertarian.

              Ergo, if you claim to be in the “center” you are amidst the libertarians and right, making you part of the far right.

              Mainstream public opinion, which is marginalized and ignored, might well constitute what in Britain is the Labor Party, but we are unorganized, and those issues and opinions have no representatives in political office.

              • Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Jon Tester if you would pull your head out enough to consider who he *represents*.

                • You’re kidding, right? You included Tester?

                  Sanders seems real enough. Warren is up for grabs, not sure what to make of her, as you have to watch what they do and ignore what they say.

                  But a Tester, man, that is child’s play. He’s cloaked Republican all the way, a Baucusite.

                  Troubling how easily fooled you are, but I do have a bridge if you’re in the market.

                  • ‘Not kidding at all, Mark. The greatest failing you seem to have when discussing anything online is your myopic view that precludes those who just consider things a different way from having a point to make. Tester represents Montana very well. That doesn’t make him a Republicant. Are you certain that it’s ever been me who engages in “black and white” thinking? ‘Cause truthfully, if we’re gonna review what people do as opposed to say, that would be you, not me.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | November 11, 2014 3:07 PM at 3:07 PM |

      “And I said here, correctly, Curtis was a ditz on economics, pretending she could go on spending money we don’t have to enrich her already bloated public union buddies on the backs of the rest of us.”

      Huh? What the hell does THAT mean, Mar-butt kisser? Is it just public unions you’re against, or all unions? ( I suspect you would prefer xtian madrassa schools to public schools, right?)

      Seems to me that it actually MAKES sense to pay a worker a decent wage so that they can SPEND it to create even MORE jobs! (and pay taxes for all the things we need in common) What’s so bad about that, dinkwad? Keeps the money in circulation, thereby improving the economy for everyone. NOW, the kockhs and the billionaires do NOT spend any money! What are they gonna buy? And that is basically the problem. Nearly ALL money is at the top, and none circulating anywhere.

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | November 11, 2014 5:22 PM at 5:22 PM |

        p.s.s. Ol’ Mar-butt kisser View from the Puke better drain EVERY last drop outta ol’ Gayr Marsbutt’s GUN while he still has lips with some PUCKER power, for them days are comin’ to a close, or as View from the Puke might say, CUMIN’ to an end! Yes. YeS. YES! Marsbutt is CUMIN’ in lil’ View from the Puke’s pie hole!

        I love guns as much as any redneck. Hell, I AM redneck! An ekyoomcated rednekc! (thanks GI bill. Viet vet!) But what I DON’T like is some inbred organization like the NRA pickin’ my WINNERS for me! Can I tell you sumthin’? FUKC THE NRA! We are workin’ men and women in Montana, and we DON’T need no fascist Kockhsuckers like the NRA pickin’ our politicians for us!


        We’re comin’ for ya, inbred NRA Marsbutt kissers! We got your number NOW, fascist bastards!

      • Curtis showed on her blog she was dense enough to believe in the absurdest forms of Keynesianism, meaning if you stick your head in the sand and simply print the money you spend, you can indulge all your left-wingnut spending of money you don’t have, same as the right-wingnuts.

        Basically yes, it’s mostly the public unions because they’re not accountable to anyone and are completely willing to screw the masses for their own naked interests and refuse to care if the money well dries up or not. Many or most unions are corrupt, chiefly the bosses, the same way many or most corporations are corrupt, but public versus private sector would be like comparing General Foods to Halliburton. Not a tough concept.

        And Larry, I keep trying to get along with you, but I don’t think your belt goes through any loops at all. I am not a fundie, I have no use for them, and I make fun of the hypocrites who earn it probably more than you do. You never got it and you never will.

        No argument on decent wages, but it starts with what the rest of us can afford. I remember the stagflation of the late 70s that that kind of delusional pseudoeconomics got us into. I have no problem with soaking those in the upper strata who ain’t paying, I agree with that. Straw man argument by you, you fail again.

        I see my prediction that none of this would sink in, and everybody would prefer to manufacture boogeymen and the usual bull excuses instead of learning from history (Cowgirl potentially excepted, as we have not yet seen her weigh in), was correct. Not that it matters to us ex-Dem independents, but shame all the same. Luego.

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | November 11, 2014 6:23 PM at 6:23 PM |

          “No argument on decent wages, but it starts with what the rest of us can afford.”

          Really? No answers to what I asked? You’re full of bullshit, and it shows. Give me your take on unions in general. F*CK what you can afford, dink. Let’s talk about what the KOCKHS can afford!

          • Answered all that already. You’re no longer worth the time, Larry.

            Just gelato’ed the dude’s gun! … Slurpy SLURPY! Ummm. Good to the last drop!

            Yeah, Jesus and Buddha fan to the core all right. Jesuits are proud of you.

            Pearls, swine. Time to turn the other cheek and simply walk away.

        • Unions/labor are the “masses”, moron.

  12. Brad Johnson……….

  13. Or are we possibly experiencing the maturation of the oligarchs’ plan Clinton/Blair originally introduced as the “New Way?”

    “When the masses have been properly conditioned through protracted contention, fearmongering and a myriad of crises, the “higher level of truth” will be found to be a merger of ideological extremes into one group of ruling elites. At the critical moment, the Power Elite will lay down their weapons and present themselves to the world in a public display of “reconciliation.” Few will be the wiser, most having failed to recognize that the Religious Right, New Right and the Radical Left have been collaborating to this end all along.” http://watch.pair.com/thirdway.html

    Social Security, Medicare, and any and all remnants of the New Deal are never safe from Third-Way politics. Collaborate at your own peril.

    • Too funny, Steve.

      Every week, I post online my predictions for the outcome of NFL games. I base my prognostications on matchups, strengths, history and the intangibles (weather, home field support and ‘my gut’.) If I’m wrong, it’s readily apparent and I have to face the facts one week later. You (and Mark), on the other hand, keep making predictions that NEVER pan out, like never. It doesn’t matter to you, though. You just make another prediction that somehow is supposed to explain why your earlier prediction didn’t quite pan out, BUT IT WILL BE WORSE! BOOGA BOOGA! Be afraid, political peasant!

      What you don’t have to do, ever, is fess up to the fact that you have no idea or authority to predict the future of people’s lives any more than they do themselves. Instead of ever having to examine what might be slightly off about your analysis, you simply push the goalposts further out. Oh yes, woe is coming, just not as quick as you thought it might. But it’s coming. DOOM! That, in itself, is not a problem. It’s just amusing theater. It’s when you council people to join you in the “do-nothing” corp to help further your predilection for chosen disaster, yeah, that’s a problem.

  14. Booo hooo, the lefties lost! Why didn’t you get Frontline to concoct and run just before the election another “excrement expose?” Couldn’t the Montana Democrat establishment fund a Libertarian candidate like they did in ’12 to squeak out another win? Good gracious your idol, Saul Alinsky is very disappointed in you Montana lefties. The fact is Obama’s policies were on the ballot by his own admission. People didn’t just reject Obama they rejected the policies of liberalism/progressivism. TTFN!

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | November 11, 2014 1:42 PM at 1:42 PM |

      “People didn’t just reject Obama they rejected the policies of liberalism/progressivism.”

      Oh really? Would you mind being a wee bit more specific, Nubbins? For you see, you’ve got gummint TIT sucker writ large all over you! WHICH of them hated liberal gummint programs are you PERSONALLY gonna reject? Social security? Medicaire? Weekends off? Holidays off? Public education? Public lands? Child labor laws? Minimum wage? and on and on! ALL those hated librul programs that you hate! Are you REALLY an island unto yourself, Nubbins, or just a rock?!

      You see, Nubbins, there are ONLY two types of Pubbies, rich guys and suckers. And I THEENK I can surmise that you ain’t rich!

  15. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | November 11, 2014 2:38 PM at 2:38 PM |

    Truth is that the Pube party has simply been a criminal organization ever since the Kennedy coup. (The Bush Crime family was right IN there! Kockhs too!) And they will use any means necessary to stay in power! And the Dems have been very slow to react, for it’s dangerous to do so. Couple that with a truly amazing propaganda machine built by Murdoch, and the limitless influx of darky money, and the results of elections now are kinda like a foregone conclusion. The Dems will never be in control again until they admit that they’re dealing with criminals who are NOT interested in democracy at all. And believe it or not, the Pubbies succeeded in making fascism attractive to a large percentage of the population who have NO sense of history. And they call it patriotism! Look at Nubbins above! The dude is a perfect example! He hates liberal/progressive policies, but he really can’t explain why. He just does. Fascism for him is patriotic. It’s his American value!

    And I agree with Cowgirl. Montana did pretty well considering. But the demographic in Montana is changing rapidly. We’ve had a huge inmigration of inbreds from down south and other places. They have shifted the balance to where now I believe we are more of a red state than blue. (Just look at our Lege. Made up of inbreds from all over!) There are vestigial outposts of blue around, but the state in general is gone. And the chirstofascist propaganda here is hugely formidable. This I can’t believe. I mean, we’re freakin’ Montanans! Who falls for this shit? That’s southern inbred stuff. But it’s alive and well here.


    Dems can only fight back. They must LOSE they pretense that if they’re somehow civil to criminals, the criminals will be nicey nice to them in return! Don’t work that way. Let’s face it. There ARE some things worth fighting for. And the country is just as much ours as theirs! We need folks like Amanda Curtis who was NOT afraid to fight for what she believes in and let the chips fall where they may. For you see, once democracy has been completely replaced by fascism, it’s gonna be damn hard to get back!

    • Wow! There’s a lot of cynicism out there! And who can blame us? The Dems did like the party does too often: they rung their hands and let the Republicans set the ‘agenda’ (which was, obviously, NO agenda) running away from Obama and a record, that while not ALL that we liberals and progressives would want, is certainly one that is far superior to anything the Repblicans have had to offer. Let’s not lower ourselves to their level by turning this into something it isn’t. The Republicans won nationwide because, 1, The Democratic party let them, and 2, Democrats didn’t vote in many of those places because of voter suppression. If there is truly conspiracy, it is that.
      In Montana the demographics may well be changing and we just might be turning red. But, our greatest strength has always been our fair-mindedness, and our’ live and let live’ attitude. Historically we have always been that way. We elect somewhat conservative folks, but say yes to legalizing pot. We say yes to registering and voting on election day and get really pissed off when outside money and influence inject themselves into our politics.
      All of us have conservative friends. We always have, and we’ve probably engaged each other in political discourse. And, I would bet that during the last few years things have gotten more heated. I’ve stopped discussing politucs with many people. What has changed? First, we have a Bkack President with a weird name and while most Montanans would never characterize themselves as anything but ‘colored blind’, the fact is they aren’t, because, secondly, far too many Montanans (and Americans in general) get almost all of their news from right wing news sources. And, last, but not least, there is too damned much money invested in our politics. Yes, Democrats take it, too, but how can we deny that most of it is directed at getting us all to vote Republican?
      I would love to see a Democrat get as mad as Christie did the ither day. It would be so damned refreshing.

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | November 11, 2014 4:48 PM at 4:48 PM |

        “If there is truly conspiracy, it is that.”

        No offense intended, but your naïvete and ignorance of history is NOT charming! Get educated, dude. Ignorance is kinda what makes it hard to get our democracy back! Some of us old farts actually LIVED through this shit.

  16. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | November 11, 2014 4:56 PM at 4:56 PM |

    p.s. I just heard that Jaysus is callin’ Judy Mars home! DAMN! Karma is a BEEHATCH!

  17. There is no prediction.

    Not everyone is laughing at the $716 billion Medicare cuts in the ACA. It already happened. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/14/romneys-right-obamacare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/

    …and there’s this… “In fact Obama made sure to repeat this point. From the transcript:

    The proposals that I’ve put forward during the fiscal cliff negotiations, in discussions with Speaker Boehner and others, are still very much on the table.

    I just want to repeat; the deals that I put forward, the balanced approach of spending cuts and entitlement reform and tax reform that I put forward are still on the table.

    I’ve offered sensible reforms to Medicare and other entitlements and my healthcare proposals achieved the same amount of savings by the beginning of the next decade as the reforms that have been proposed by the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson fiscal commission.” http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2013/02/05/obama-says-medicare-and-social-security-cuts-still-on-the-table/

    NFL is the new opium of the masses. Bread and circuses has long been a sound political strategy for TPTB. Go Oakland.

    • As always, Steve, you finish with a dismissive Ad Hominem. That is the arrogance of the progressive mindset. You chide Democrats for not leading the Sheeple into a better way and assert your own authority to do the same for us ‘lesser folk’.

      You don’t like the ACA. We get that. It should be better, like Switzerland’s insurance based universal health care, or better like Canada’s single payer. You’re right. And what the fuck does an arrogant fool like you do? Urge people not to vote (excuse me, ‘participate in the system’) so that the party that does control the direction of the ACA can make it worse. Here’s the funny part to those of of us who’ve paid attention: The Republicants can’t and won’t repeal the ACA. The Insurance companies, having been allowed to enter an incestuous relationship with finance, won’t allow this guaranteed revenue stream to die. They don’t actually give a crap where the revenue stream comes from, taxpayers or private parties. They aren’t going to give up their cookies. Many, such as yourself, advocate for repeal of the ACA such that we can get sumpthin’ better. Uh, nope. With the Republicants in charge, and thanks for not voting, we will get an increased burden on our taxes to pay for this revenue stream at no risk to the Insurance industry and at greater risk to each individual. And all the while, profit taking will be enhanced and the people will be more on the hook for it, while giving the media a greater narrative for repealing the ACA and replacing it with something, shall we say, more Objectivist? Certainly, citizen, have your Insurance with a $10,000 deductible and restricted payout, paid for by your state (hello property taxes). There are lots of ways that the ACA can get better, and even more how it can get worse. Now which do you think the people you urge not to ‘engage in the system’ would prefer, Swami?

  18. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | November 11, 2014 5:09 PM at 5:09 PM |

    “NFL is the new opium of the masses. Bread and circuses has long been a sound political strategy for TPTB.”

    Steve, are you a Buddhist? Me too. Jesus was a Buddhist to you know. That’s why I like him.

    btw, have you read Touching My Father’s Soul by Jamling Tenzing Norgay? Great read. I am currently reading/savoring this book.

    And have you ever read the Psyche Side of Sports? He says exactly the same thing.

    • I actually have that sports as the true opium of the masses bumper sticker.

      Look, religion and politics were never meant to mix, but Larry, you are not a Jesus fan, or you would practice the golden rule and learn to turn the other cheek. If ye love me, keep my commandments and all that. I have no use for churches and dogma, but I have still less use for hypocrisy either. Just sayin’ what needs sayin.

      And having studied it and done retreats, I see there’s little true Buddhism in you either. Start with the four noble truths. I do not know anyone online more attached – sankara – than you. In addition, Gautama would never have evaded real issues like you, certainly never maliciously reveled in anyone’s cancer like you and Larry Kurtz, and never have covered up complete intellectual failure with sexual taunts like you. I suspect Norgay wouldn’t either, or the Dalai Lama or any of them. Truth and worth considering. Even the Jesuits could figure that one out. They would have failed you right out of school right there.

      I hope the book is a good read, but it’s about practice, not theory. Without practice, theory is nothing.

  19. Much puffery from the pillagers!

  20. I think it’s odd so many Republicans end up with gut cancers-they spend so much time with their heads up their ass you’d think they would spot it a little sooner. But, I guess when you spend so much time trying to insert your Government into other folk’s vaginas it all gets to be a blurr…

  21. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers | November 11, 2014 10:29 PM at 10:29 PM |

    What the Faaaaaaaaaaaa…………! A tax on spankin’ the monkey?! What will the inbreds think of next?!


    How ’bout we just tax rich assholes like the Kockh bros?! Inbreds are some seriously f*cked up dudes!

  22. This thread is even funnier than all the ‘Why Amanda Curtis will win’ discussions were.

    The ass-wooping continues this AM as the Dem Senator in Alaska just lost his job.

  23. Again Larry and Larry. seem to pick this up better than Most here. Democrats ran away from their accomplishments…. including the first black president. Worst DNCC thinking in years. We actually caved to stupidity and let the GOP run against a fictional Obama instead of real Opponents. Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb!!!! http://bullspit.businesscatalyst.com/partisan-politics-101.html

  24. It is hard to understand why voters would want to rebuke President Obama, but it is even harder to understand why they would chose to do it by voting for Republicans. Look at how the parties have performed on jobs for example. If the voters want to send a message that they don’t think the government is creating enough jobs, wouldn’t voting Republican send the exact opposite message?

    • Good point, but a bit off the mark. People didn’t express values by voting for Republicans. They did so in the most counter-productive manner possible. They simply didn’t show up to vote. At this website and others, that has been discussed at length, usually in partisan fashion blaming everything from ‘the other party’, to voting restrictions to the fricking oligarchical Illuminati. Here’s a thought. If we distrust our politicians and the parties so very much, why do we keep electing them? The answer is pretty simply, because we don’t vote differently or at all, allowing the frightened and manipulated to make out choices for us. When the people get to choose policy themselves, sans legislative filters, they tend to take a stand, agreeable or not.

      I figured out some time ago that I am not wasting my distrust on politicians. We’ve known, pretty much all of us, for quite a number of years that politicians can not be trusted. They can be bought by lobbyists, and now by ‘Dark Money’. No, to distrust the faithless, as a class or general grouping, is spending energy needlessly. I’ll make up my own mind about each individual, thank you. What energy I have to spend on ‘distrust’ is aimed rather directly at those who tell me, preach to me, cajole me or attempt to bully me into giving up the one power I know I have. I don’t distrust people who tell me to vote Republicant. I don’t distrust those who rather transparently tell me to be afraid of Republicants and so VOTE TEAM D! I don’t distrust folk who tell me to vote Libertarian or even for Ralphie Nader. Those people at least tell me to vote, to exercise a power I know clearly that I have. No, the ones I distrust are the ones who try and tell me that I have to prove that I am worthy to vote. The ones I distrust are the one’s who tell me that it’s useless to vote. The ones I really distrust are the ones who tell me *NOT* to vote. They are the ones who really want me to send their desired message, that I’ve given up and am willing to be a slave to the will of others, including them.

      • If we distrust our politicians and the parties so very much, why do we keep electing them?

        Because we are monopolized by two corrupt parties, we have no other choices. So when people are fed up with Democrats, where do they turn? Either to vote Republican, or since such a thing is unpalatable to most, to stay home.

        The problem is money, course. The very idea that politicians depend on moneyed sectirsto stay in office, and yet opt to serve the common people is absurd on its face. People do not behave in such an illogical manner.

        So the remedy to our ailing pseudo-democratic system is to attack the problem of money. It cannot be done within the party structure. You know this.

Comments are closed.