I have noticed that Democrats, especially the leadership and its apologists, are stuck in the 1990s. Paraphrasing what one commentator said of White House Chief of Staff Rahm, he's "an old general fighting old battles." I think that will be the party's epitaph if it does not heed the wake up call. We are no longer fighting the rise of Reaganism. We are at Reaganism's, or neoliberalism's, end.

I should point out that in writing this I am not claiming that the GOP has better ideas or will easily capitalize on progressive ideas coming into popularity. What I can say is that Democrats will remain static if they do not heed the call. Now, this outcome, a party that is perpetually not quite strong enough to pass progressive policies, may be a feature rather than a bug, but let's pretend for this diary that they really do want to pass progressive policy. Let's also assume that the real issue is that they are living in 1994 rather than 2009.

Well, here's 10 signs that 2009 is not 1994:

1. Triangulating right does not equal a rise in the polls.  See Creigh Deeds of Virginia. However, if you wish to dispute this, check out the polling numbers for Senator Plutocrat Baucus:

"U.S. Sen. Max Baucus' approval rating dropped significantly this year over two years ago in a Montana State University Billings poll released Monday.
Just 44 percent of those polled approved of the job that the Montana Democrat is doing. Forty percent disapproved of the Montana Democrat's job performance.

That's a big difference from 2007, when more than 64 percent approved of his job performance."

http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/ar ticle_18a3dd5c-d30b-11de-b6ec-001cc4c002 e0.html

Given the Republican gains in 1994, I did not feel the need to look up polling comparators.

2. Hillarycare (a conservative bill that the conservative Democrats and Republicans destroyed) had less support than the House bill (a mostly liberal bill).

"As in previous polls, a majority supports a government-sponsored heath insurance plan to compete with private insurers, although the percentage supporting the general idea has slipped slightly over the past month to 53 percent. Support for the scheme jumps to 72 percent when the public plan is limited to those who lack access to coverage through an employer or the Medicare or Medicaid systems."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2009/11/17/AR2009111700021_ pf.html

Hillarycare did not have nearly this level of support:

"The responses to this series of questions were not particularly discriminating in finding one key reason for Hillarycare's demise. A majority of voters thought four of the five factors tested were a "major problem." Even the laggard, that "Clinton's plan was just too complicated," was judged a major problem by a near-majority, 46 percent of the voters polled. Two factors tied for being the biggest problem, each seen by 56 percent of Americans as a major problem: "special interests and lobbyists did not want healthcare reform legislation passed" and "Clinton's plan had too much government involvement." The former of these two biggies may not be as influential this time around, as stated already, but the second one stands to be a crucial factor in public perceptions again."

3. We were not in middle of the worse employment market since the Great Depression:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/16 /bernanke-speech-to-the-ec_n_359369.html

4. Clinton had not yet deregulated the banks, and the crash of 2009 that nearly took us into the economic abyss had not yet happened. My favorite story during the election as a black guy who grew up down South was hearing about a white woman being asked who she would vote for, and she said, after the collapse, "I am voting for the n****r." This was about how much last fall was a transformative moment for some.

5. Jobs were not fully being lost to globalization like they are now. NAFTA was but an infant.

6. The demographics are different.  Read a book called "The Emerging Democratic Majority." Read also the following:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2 009/07/538_interview.html

Check out also Chris Bowers series:

http://www.openleft.com/diary/13208/elec torate-becoming-increasingly-lgbt

He discusses gay voters in this particular one, but also includes links to other demographic shifts. His thesis: Reagan Democrats are decreasing, and the base of the Democratic Party (or the potential base) is increasing.

7. We have had 2 successive Democratic wave elections.  1994 was a Republican wave election consolidating the party gains in the South, etc and amongst certain Democrats.

8.  Triangulation (read "bipartisanship) was a new  move. Now, it is old hat.  With that comes ritualized dances that the GOP can use against us.

9. Bush-shit happened!

10. Seriously, America elected a black dude. If that does not tell you that 1994 is not 2009, then you don't remember Sister Soulja or any of the other things I do. So, please, let's stop trying to use the past to limit the present and future.  For some, that choice was about, in part, believing that black=progressive.

There are a lot more reasons. I do not expect the true believers to change their arguments here, but, I hope these 10 points randomly picked (there are more) will convince you to see things a bit differently.