How do we tap into the millions of Democrats that don't vote?

I heard Luntz the other day talking about the huge well of Democratic voters that don't vote. He said it's twice the size of Republicans that don't vote. Luntz suggested that Rove was good at squeezing out as many Republican voters as possible.

If Democrats can just bring out 5% more voters we could win every election. How do we tap into that huge well of people who don't vote?

That's where I'd start.

Give Working Americans something to vote FOR!
NOT more of the same.


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

Slap down the Corporatist and stand up for the working people of of USA.

we need to show them that voting makes a difference in *their* lives.

Thats exactly what Luntz said. The type of people who don't vote are not the types people are talking about on this thread. Even though we are all upset with the Dems 99% of us will still vote for them. While I agree the Dems are wimps and that is some of the problem, much more has to do with getting the poor and single moms out to vote.

chance I get. they could sweep the Dems into power with no trouble

to watch the news but, that also care. They need a nudge.

noticed when Nancy Pelosi said the congress was opened "for children." She said it more than a few times as in this congress is for children, it's for children. I remember my wife and I saying oh well guess we aren't going to be considered, since the congress is for children.

Twenty-some percent approval is not going to bring them out.

y'know what I'm talking about?;)

It seems to me that party leadership can't be bothered with non-voters, instead devoting their attention to "moderate undecided fence-sitters," despite it's being repeatedly proven a failing strategy. Has Dean been able to change any of their minds, or is he still neutered by the right wing of the party?

they stand for but I don't think they ask the dem voter what they want.

How better to represent people than to define what their constituents want for them?

Funny, as diverse as we are, "big tent" and all, I thought we were pretty much all on the same page with what we wanted when we voted the current Congress into existence. Good thing they've told us we were wrong, in actions if not in words.

Yeah.

"Vote for me because I'm the lesser of two evils" doesn't cut it.

By that, I mean the Wall Street Democrat corporatism, anti union, pro free trade without fair trade, anti worker policies that have held us down almost as much as every hideous GOP administration has? Remember, Clinton did nothing to topple Reaganism. He expanded it via NAFTA and GATT. Wealth concentration increased much faster under Clinton than it had under his two predecessors. His increased taxes were too little on the top 0.5% and too great on the 19.5% below them.

Working people are just plain sick and tired of pro business Democrats who talk like corporate executives. They haven't had anybody to vote FOR since Johnson, and he failed spectacularly by escalating the unwinnable war his predecessors dumped in his lap.

Candidate need to study Gov. Brian Schweitzer's campaign book. Schweitzer easily won the governorship in one of the reddest red states in the country by plain spoken progressive populism.

Congressional Democrats also need to do the groundwork by acting like an opposition party for a change, by being less afraid of being called names and by standing up to the bullies.

The conservative experiment has been a failure. Democrats need to campaign on that and keep hammering it home. We all know it's been a failure. We're all hurting. We just haven't been given hope for anything but more of the same for many decades.

Wall St. corporatism/Brian Schweitzer

That way, you can try to be all things to all voters without being held accountable for what you say. That's the ticket.

...

NOTHING is more important than dry powder. I don't know why; it just is.

it won't fire. If you want to use it. And you have the courage to piss any more.

millions of Democrats across the country won't vote.

when they turn out in significant numbers, the repukes steal the election and the "democrats" just roll over, show their bellies and grovel a little. When the repukes fail to steal the election, the elected "democrats" get to DC, roll over, show their bellies and grovel a little. Why vote, unless you are in favor of the repuke agenda?

If that doesn't work, have their 18 year old nephew shipped off to the middle east and come back without a limb, or sanity.

Or, we could bomb Iran.

Not sure if you do that in your state, but we do. We have a target # of new dems to register by the 08 cutoff and if we do it, we will win, for sure.

Yes, the party should grow a spine.

I think Dems who vote against our platform should have some kind of sanction against them. All you have to do is put a D after your name? I think not. Support them when they are good, make noise when they are lead stray, register ten new people per month each, and there's your permenent majority. And now to repair the damage...oh man.

:evilgrin:

Vote in the General Election and get a 12 month deferment.

Am I missing something?

TC

Everybody knows that all those people who don't vote would show up in droves if we nominated the most left-wing candidate who's running. This would happen in spite of the fact that none of them show up for the primary to vote for that same candidate.

_{NOTE: This post is sarcastic.}

I'd like your thoughts over here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3326785

I've always voted -- every single election since 1972 -- but I'm seriously considering giving it up as an exercise in futility.

The MIC and corporatists run this country, and it is they who get catered to by Dems & Repugs alike. I'm sick of crumbs, I'm sick of "lesser evils".

As my non-voting but good-hearted liberal friends say, "We don't vote, it only encourages them." Worth noting is the fact that they WERE prepared to break their personal "no voting" rule for the first time ever in 2002, in order to vote for Paul Wellstone. Unfortunately, his untimely death put an end to that.

Short answer: Give us more Paul Wellstones and kill the DLC.

sw

You could try bullying them into voting by aggressively blaming them for another republican win before the first primary ever happens. Good luck with that.

You could campaign on fear, hoping that enough people will show up at the polls and hold their nose that you can then disregard as "fringe" to make the difference for you.

Or you could nominate a candidate that would bring all those people to the polls. If so, your going to have to look beyond the corporate/media favored darlings that turn so many potential voters off.

a lot of them just get tired of politics and are quite happy watching soaps and see no reason to vote.

An end to the Iraq War.

*Off the top of my head* I can think of a some steps our party can take to address core issues of the American public. Some are pretty straight forward, some a little less so, but in an attempt to be forward looking and contribute to a solution discussion:

Iraq.

Realistic, clear and above board end to the Iraq occupation. Withdrawal that protects personnel while finalizing our presence there. Involvement of regional neighbors, Arab, Turk and Iranian alike. UN re-involvement/oversight to the transition. Turn over of the country's day-to-day functions to the Iraqi government.

Health care.

Move toward universal coverage. First steps ought to focus on affordability and access. Raise income/asset limits in the federal/state Medicaid partnership to allow access for working poor, singles, single parent families, etc. - those that routinely fall through the cracks at present.

Increase investment in prevention programs, including pre-natal care, pediatric care and geriatric care. Document expected cost savings to overall expenditures for health care that prevention represents.

Medicare.

Rework reimbursement standards for providers to reflect real time cost-of-living, cost of doing business, including physicians, hospitals, and elderly care programs.

Social Security.

Raise the contribution cap above the current $97,500 limit. (Even a mere increase to $125,000 would realize $1,700 annually, per individual and employer, each, @6.2%).

Education.

Invest in the future by increasing federally funded low-interest loans for higher education. Make information on federal loan opportunities mandatory at all state funded institutions.

Labor.

Amend Taft-Hartley. Peg minimum wage to cost-of-living index.

NAFTA, et al.

Amend to include environmental/fair labor standards.

Budget.

Increase contract monitoring on public/private funding partnerships, including health care, public works, etc.

Increase oversight on Defense spending, require open bidding on contracts and increase contract monitoring.

Require defense appropriations to follow the standard budget procedures. Limit 'emergency appropriation' to immediate, clear stated needs, with reference to documented budget shortfalls.

Set a funding cap on so-called 'earmarks' to require full disclosure beyond an established limit.

Tax US-based corporate income as a whole regardless where it's generated or held. Tax US citizen individual income as a whole regardless where it's generated or held.

Federal regulatory oversight.

Require a balanced participation of non-related participants in all federal regulatory agencies, programs. Require full disclosure.

Overhead.

Establish guidelines for administration costs of federal programs in a per cent of budget format. (Non-profits are routinely assessed at this standard).

I would just add that we need real organization and election ground troops to get those who don't vote to do so. Perhaps a wedge issue or two would help as well.

We need to get the word out and work from the bottom up. There *are* real alternatives out there and it's not the end of the world. Additionally, we need to counter the Republican reliance on impending doom with some concrete, if small, steps toward a future for us all.

I'm not fond of wedge issues, though I know they are somewhat effective.

Thanks for your reminder and your post.

:thumbsup:

Since 85% of health care expenses are incurred by the sickest 15%, it doesn't matter diddlysquat how clean the rest of the population lives. Preventive health care measures in the case of people with genetic tendencies toward Type II diabetes and heart disease merely allow people with lousy genes to live long enough to join the most expensive health care demographic.

Not knocking prevention here, but its main effect will be raising the overall average quality of life (a very worthy aim in and of itself), not reducing costs. Early treatment is an entirely different kettle of fish, of course.

to diabetes or heart disease doesn't preclude the benefits of prevention (which includes early intervention), in health care costs, as well as quality of life, as you note.

And, assuming that these efforts will 'merely allow people with lousy genes to live long enough to join the most expensive health care demographic' runs counter to our established standard, from the Declaration of Independence -



Thanks.

I have a family history of Type II diabetes. When my grandmother was my age, she'd been dead for 8 years. When my father was my age, he'd been dead for a year and a half. Because I belong to a consumer-owned HMO, ever since I turned 50 I've been told by GP and endocrinologist alike to never mind trying to define when I'm "officially" diabetic--just start acting like I am. I've been on metformin for awhile, and I have the class privilege of a health club right in my employer's basement. My a1c values have yet to go over 7. Which of the three of us will have the highest lifetime health care expense? Me, obviously.

That's why I say that prevention improves our overall quality of life--it does not save money.

Preferably more? That would be a great incentive for potential voters.

It worked in NH in 2004! ;)

As a poster asked earlier, has anyone from the Dem party bothered to ask the non-voters why they don't vote. Of course not. Apparently no one in the Dem party has ever taken Marketing 101. And it's a damn shame!

Get busy, volunteer!! ;) .. :P

Marketing does work, I agree. That IS what it's all about and education!

Knocking on doors! ;)

American Idol...:shrug:

:(

:hi:

We need to mobilize more on a grassroots level, not for any particular candidate, but just talking to average people about issues that affect them, i.e. healthcare, poverty, labor, taxes. Dispell some of the myths about the democratic party, and let people know why it DOES matter who they vote for. That, and elect congressional leadership that will respond to the demands of voters. we can't exactly show the nation what democrats can do if we don't actually get anything accomplished, can we? ;-)

like HRC and Obama? Just a guess here, but I think I may be on to something.

...will actually be counted. Convince them that getting off the couch and going out to vote is not just one more exercise in playing We the People for fools!

Or...do what Golde Meier did (kind of): Give them a refrigerator (or maybe an iPod) if they vote. Of course, that would not be kosher, but who's watching?

FYI: The last paragraph is a joke...kind of!

could it be that many Democrats can't find Democrats to vote for.