How about we stick together this time?

I know there are progressives, liberals and dems out there that are not happy with Obama and some of our democratic representatives in Washington.

But instead of voting out our side again as a protest vote and voting in the worse republicans who will try to roll back any progress & power we achieved, why don't we try to see it from the point of view of our democratic representatives we elected?

Suppose we give them the benefit of the doubt? From a politically strategic point of view, there may be good reasons to move slowly and carefully on changing things:

1.) We have an enemy political party that, despite the beating it has taken, can still summon some power and pressure through its constituents. I mean, isn't like half of the country still conservative? Wouldn't it be better before making changes toward the left to diminish and convert the republican base some more? Get more of them on our side?

2.) We don't know how our political enemies would react. We've all seen them. They're freaking crazy as it is. If we push too much left too soon their heads might explode and who knows what they would do. They could get violent, even stage a coup. We don't know.

3.) Maybe the Obama administration, the Dems in congress and the senate know all this and that's why they are slow to move on our agenda? Not because they are phonies but because they want us to win. They want to implement the Left's agenda but they know it's important to retain power doing it. Why?

4.) Because if we lose power to the republicans THEY ARE GOING TO GET IN AND WRECK EVERYTHING. Why are they wrecking everything? To put the Left's agenda so far back they either have to start all over once they get in again or waste time dealing with some stupid war the republicans started so it SLOWS the Left's (OUR) agenda. I think this is what the Bush administration was doing. They wrecked everything because they knew it could help stall the Left when we got into power.

5.) After the beating they've taken, coming so close to practically breaking apart, if we vote the Republicans in again they just might try to wreck the country beyond repair or start a major war so the the next time the Dems get in we will never be able to push through our policies because we will be dealing with the shit the republicans created.

6.) The more consecutive times the Democrats are given power in Washington, the weaker the Republicans will become. Each time a Democratic administration is elected we are saying to Republicans "We don't want you". If Republican politicians see the Left is the wave of the future, they will start abandoning the party and the ideology.

This is why I am for voting in Dems no matter how much it looks like they are not moving our agenda forward. We need to shrink the Right down so our representatives in D.C. don't have to deal with them or worry about losing power to voter backlash. Then they can finally act with conviction on our agenda instead of piecemeal.

I think we as Left voters are misidentifying what is going on in Washington and in the heads of our representatives. We think they are betraying us but, in fact, we've been turning our backs on them when they most needed us by voting against them every time they don't make sweeping changes.

I know some will say I'm wrong or they don't care but what if there is a strategic game being played and we have been working against our own agenda?

And beyond that, what's the worst that could happen if we consistently stood behind democrats? Maybe taxes would get so high they would be forced to find a sustainable living model solution to bring down the cost of government support programs? We'll never move forward if we keep going in circles and making our party start over from square one every time they regain power.

Please be joking...lol

Welcome to DU.

And thanks for reading.

:shrug:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:+

But it is okay for people to bully me into voting the way they want me to vote? This concept of bulling someone's vote is completly inconceivable to me. I hold MY vote very sacred and dear to my heart especially as a woman. Women had to fight for decades, centuries to have the freedom to vote only to give their vote away because someone tells them who to vote for. To me that is not democracy. That is not freedom. I am free to vote for whoever I want. You are free to call me all kinds of names. I don't care. It will not affect who I vote for. You know I have to wonder if this whole idea of bullying somone's vote came from caucuses. I went to my first and last caucus in 2008. I got to hear people dump all over my candadite and then they wanted to try and "convince" me to vote for their candadite after they get done dumping all over my candadite.

:rofl:

Although I have been insulted many times for my opinions I will not return the favor. I respect people's freedom to vote for whoever they want. If you want to vote democrat I encourage you to do so. I will vote for whoever I want whether you encourage me to do so or insult me for it.

Sorry to hear about you caucus experience. They are kind of rough and tumble.

I understand your idealism and treasure your right to vote for whoever you want.

I am not big on your attempts to influence other democrats to follow in your footsteps.

I just told someone that if they wanted to vote democrat then I encourage them to do so. I also encourage everyone else to vote the way they want to whether it is for a democrat or not. I will not however give up my freedom to vote for who I want and I will not give up my freedom to say I will vote for whoever I want. I can see that there is a fraction of democrats that believe in bullying people's vote and insulting those who don't vote the way they are told to. If that is the future of the democratic party I want nothing to do with it.

:rofl:

Absolutely they need criticism.

But this group can only see bad, and very often don't even have their facts straight. Anything good Obama and the congressional dems do, they twist into a negative and a "betrayal".

And as far as I can tell they are almost obsessed with talking about how they are going to vote third party, and encouraging others to be demoralized.

The teabaggers are going to be out in full force. I only have to look at Arizona and Oklahoma to know what is going to happen if we get more right wing republicans in our government.

I apologize for directing the comment at you -- I don't know your posts at all, so I was out of line.

Best Regards,

and that is okay with me. Like I said before it will not affect my vote. I do encourage those who want to vote democrat to do so. I also encourage those who want to vote differently to do so also. Every person should vote the way they want. That is freedom and that is democracy.

I wish they wouldn't exercise it as much as they do, but I will always support their right to it.

They have moved to the right on every single issue and now they want a border control immigration bill instead of a comprehensive immigration bill. They have moved to the right one too many times for me.

win in 2012 to "show them"


:shrug:

My vote is my vote and I will vote for who I want. You don't like it. Tough. You can vote for whoever you want. I don't care who you vote for.

I won't see you on here bitching about what they do then right?

They thrive on misery. They don't really want a progressive agenda. They just want to be able to bitch about being no where near it. And to feel superior for being so far ahead of their time and just too good for the rest of us and our messy politics.

Or I think that's how the argument goes.

Rather than the incremental and progressive changes that the freedom of this country and its constitution allows.

They'd prefer rioting, revolution and death.

Evil exists not only on the far right.

This beating up fellow Dems because they believe they should be LISTENED to, rather than forced to march in line -- it really truly smacks of the same mindset of *the crazy train* you claim to fear. It's the same authoritarian attempt at beatdowns the pukes use on their own.

I for one really have to wonder about the allegiance of supposed Dems who take to this sort of fearmongering with glee. How about thinking outside the box and working to get NEW blood into the party, rather than abuse the members?

Or would you rather continue with an old stale meme that doesn't work in this party?

What's more courageous -- working for new and better? Or attempting to scare people into line?

Get ready for the abuse you're going to take for that stance, though.

BTW, I couldn't agree with you more. My vote has to be earned, not taken for granted. As for donations, there's a reason all those letters in my mail end up in the trash.

I'm not that self centered. I don't think the politicians I vote for owe me anything. I just want them to do the best they can.

Is that what you were thinking when you posted #6?

Splinterists want all the attention and none of the responsibility.

That tone sounds so right wing.

But I still remember Bush, and Obama starts to look a lot better when those Bush memories come flooding through my brain. I do think Progressives, lefties, liberals, etc. have a place in the Democratic party. We push you half-steppers to think of how much better things could be!

LOL

evils of being too black and white in looking at things and the realities of this country having tons of wingnuts still in it. And that being too self centered and wanting it your way in a country that has 48% idiots who would still vote for Republicans is self defeating.

:rofl:

Let us weaken the republicans some more for them and see if they still push Right policies. I don't think they would.

If, as you say, the Left is Right and the Right is Right, what do you have to lose voting Left again? Nothing. You know for SURE the Right won't push your agenda,. That you can count on. But you are less sure of what the Left will do. So what do you lose voting Left? Nothing.

Are they ready to accept the responsibility? Let's see them get out and vote the next election?

This is my first thread here so hopefully that's a sign this idea has legs.

and the constituents who voted against them.

I'm sick of going to the polls for the sole purpose of voting AGAINST somebody.

You aren't entitled to LIKE the choice on election day. The choice exists whether or not it "suits your fancy." It is your responsibility as a good citizen to vote for the viable candidate that best matches your views. Voting for a non-viable third party/not voting is choosing to abdicate your responsibility as a citizen to make this choice. Such an abdication of civic responsibility because "you don't like the choice" is called denial. You don't get to live in the world you want; you get to live in the world you have to work with.

I don't know why so many people here think such an abdication of civic responsibility is somehow acceptable or reasonable.

However, I am not obligated to vote for a choice that I don't like. If I choose to vote for a third party candidate named Joe Blow whose positions match my own, that is my right. Nothing says that I have to vote for one of the "viable" candidates if I don't agree with him or her.

I might not get to live in the world I want, but I am allowed to work toward the world I want.

Democracy is about governing. More specifically, it is about voting for someone who actually has a chance of governing. In a winner-take-all system, a third party does not have such a chance, and voting for such a candidate does not work toward getting him elected. It does work to make you feel good about youreself, and it does work against the viable candidate with views most closely aligned with your own, but it does not in ANY way work towards the third party getting elected.

If you really wanted to work towards the world you wanted, you would work for Constitutional change. There is simply no way to have third parties matter in the slightest (other than to change the relative probabilities of the two major parties winning) unless the winner take all system is gone. Instant runnoff voting, proportional representation, and other systems would allow third parties to actually matter. But we don't live in those systems. The only way to allow third parties to matter is to amend the Constitution.

Because I don't feel like living under teabagger rule.

I believe that everyone should vote his or her conscience. That's not voter suppression in any sense of the term.

until getting all crazy.

I don't give a shit if their heads explode.
Let them go on a trigger happy rampage then they can spend some time in our privatized socialist jails. Some of us progressive dems keep arms too for that very reason. I have been beaten near senseless, harass by cops, had my car and home vandalized, not once but repeatedly as I have said on here before.

They are not conservative, they are selfish idiots who are like a bunch of damned divas mememmemememme first, only, ever.

Im really sick of them, the greed, the lies, their kreestian assaults on a womans choice, my choice to marry my long term partner, etc.

I have even cut off relations with family because of it.
I will vote for a progressive with some kind of record, but Im not for enabling incumbents to continue to feed at the tax payer trough, unfortunately they get retirement pay even if they are a sorry ass employee.

i just don't want them kidnapping my president or who knows what else. if they dared that, i'd be standing right there with you, friend.

i know it's hard when your family is split like that politically...i can see myself eventually breaking with some of my family if they don't come to their senses. rush limbaugh really wrecks a family.

On the Internet people can say all sorts of attention-whorish things like threatening to vote third party and pay very little social consequences for them, so it's a magnet for the kind of splinterist trolling that you are trying to fight. It's a place where people can whore for all the attention by saying something and take little or no responsibility for it. There have been people on here trolling for years this way - and when I say "trolling" I do not necessarily mean they are conservative, just that they are playing games and being manipulative - and show no sign of changing. In real life, you may be able to get several people who don't even vote or see how politics affects their lives to vote Democratic by the time the election rolls around, while the splinterists on DU are still at their games months from now.

Yeah, that's never happened.

May as well be right wingers and should be treated as such.

often times gratuitously- while on all too many policy matters, pandered to Republicans and their interest groups.

That's not exactly a prescription for unity in the fall.

Best thing the Dems have going for them are the teabaggers- though louder and nuttier they they get, the better the turnout's going to be.

People lament the fact that elections are a choice between the lesser of two evils as if this is somehow "news" or "recent." Elections are ALWAYS a cohice between the lesser of two evils. THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF AN ELECTION. You don't get to be coddled into LIKING the choice you have. You just have to man up and make the choice. There are other ways to affect the pool of possible candidates (primaries, caucuses, etc). So what if those processes produce candidates that don't suit your fancy? Denialism/not voting doesn't change the fact that there is a choice, and that everyone else is going to be making it, and you not making it simply gives more weight to everyone else in making the choice (a pool that is by definition more conservative). It doesn't make the choice disappear.

with promises (or a record showing) that you will advance their interests.

Fail to keep those promises- or worse, gratuitously take smacks at them, while pining to "work bipartisan" with groups opposing your constituencies interests- or worse, willfully making policy choices that side against their interests (see e.g. the unpopular and dysfunctional tax on health benefits as opposed to a popular and effective surcharge on the wealthiest) -and your individuals in "your" groups will grow cyncical.

They won't volunteer, donate, nor GOTV.

That's just human nature- and all your sorry, albeit rational pleas re: "lesser of two evils" won't amount to a hill of beans.

I fully agree that there are non-intelligent people for whom rationality doesn't apply. There will always be such people.

That is not what I am taking issue with. Some people on DU are arguing that can somehow be intelligent (and not incredibly stupid) to vote for a non-viable third party. So I am arguing that is, in fact, always stupid to do so, and that this should be so obvious as to not have to be debated.

You can rail against politicans who "gratuitously take smacks at them" etc. etc. etc. The problem with your argument is that most people don't agree with you. Constituents of both political parties have primary elections. If people actually believed one iota of anything you said, they would vote out the incumbant in the primary. If there were no other primary alternative, they would run themselves and win.

The problem is that the constituents really don't believe you. They disagree with you, and vote to renominate the incumbant. Voting for a non-viable candidate/not voting in the general election is simply a sore-loser response to losing the primary.

Indeed- I would say that they're looking longer term than you, and saying "enough's enough" and "decline's decline."

The trouble with your theory is that it doesn't subscribe to any sort of accountability among politicians- which is precisely the process that over time has led the Democrats to essentially become 1970's Republicans and abandon their traditional attitudes, beliefs and values. This is why your nation is in an inexorable decline- you embrace poor public policy, under the impression that less poor is better.

It would also seem that the Obama administration and some Senate Democrats cynically subscribe to this as well, and thus squandered a once in a generation (or a lifetime) opportunity to enact meaningful, if not structural change to one major set of problems (and processes) after another.

Some "change" cannot by it's very nature be done incrementally- it has to involve a paradigm shift, or it simply will not occur.

And this is the sort of change that like or not was expected- if not expressly and explicitly promised. Moreover, this was the sort of expectation that was created- and reinforced throughout the campaign. Once again, it's human nature to be disappointed- and some of that's inevitable, but it's never wise to take constituencies for granted, much less repeatedly insult them, while creating the perception that you're bending over backwards to work with (an for?) their opponents or advancing their opponents issues.

Doing so creates a vacuum- and politics, like nature abhors a vacuum. Create one and someone or some party will come along and fill it.

Perhaps successfully.

Witness the Liberal Democrats in Britain or the Greens in Tasmania.

Obviously, structural impediments to that in the archaic US system (and to some extent in Britain) make gaining power very difficult, but don't mistake that difficulty with the underlying dynamics of the in the socio-political processes.

Want to win? Advocate- STAND FOR and be perceived as fighting for popular progressive values and policies- and for the groups that back you.

Want to lose? Pander to the right and focus on the ephemeral center, which to paraphrase Jim Hightower, is the realm of dead armadillos.

If the person was really a backstabber, he would not be renominated.

As for your "long term" thinking, that doesn't work either. The premise of the "long term" argument is, better "teach" Democrats a "lesson" now and have Republicans win in the short term, because that will produce better Democrats in the long run.

Unfortunately, this is completely divorced from reality. In reality, the lesson Democrats learn is to move further and further to the right. Why? It is MUCH easier to get independents by moving to the right than to get irrational Democrats by moving to the left.

One reason for this is that an independent who changes their vote from Republican to Democrat is really a swing of 2 in the margin of victory, whereas a vote from a third party candidate to a Democrat is only a swing of 1. So by moving further to the right, self-interested politicans get twice the "bang" for their "buck."

Another reason is that irrational Democrats will always eventually come around. When there are Democrats in power and third-party voters don't know how good they have it (relative to Republicans), it is easier for them to screw the Democrats. But once Republicans come into power, reality hits the irrational squarely in the head. There's only so much they can take before they become rational again. For example, in 2004, 90% of Nader's vote share vanished (compared to 2000), even though Kerry was either the same or more conservative than Gore on almost every issue.

And as for your position on "transformative" vs "incremental" change, it also does not correspond to reality (at least in terms of American history). While there is certainly time for transformative change and time for incremental change, historically, most major movements were very incremental in their nature. The Civil Rights movement is probably the best example of this, as the product of decades of planning/protesting/grassroots organizing/court cases/legislation.

In the states, that can either happen during a primary- or in a general election. Either way- in the long term view- it'd more effective to get rid of the cancer in the locker room.

Keeping them on in the primary through party and party politician support (which is the general party orthodoxy foolishly embraced yet again by the administration- as it was with Obama & Lieberman vs. Lamont)- create the cynical (and unpersuasive) choice of evils, buttressed only by the weak "but we're not Republicans" argument. Not so bright, in an anti-incumbent cycle.

Thus- a party that cannot win in key races in key districts without enthusiastic grassroots volunteer support chooses to alienate what could produce that very thing- and they do so through the same tired, old disproven conventional "wisdom."

That's what the evidence in elections over the past 16 years points to. Create the impression that you stand for nothing- and back away from a fight, and very few are going to come out and work for you.

Apparently, many missed the take home lesson from 1995- from 2000, 200 and even 2004 (and btw: you're either being disingenuous or fail to grasp the nature of socio-political perceptions. In few if any would consider Kerry 2204 "more conservative" Gore's campaign 2000, when viewed in context.

As to transformational vs. incremental change, you're just plain wrong. Historically- major changes have occurred both incrementally AND through fast- often abrasive paradigm shifts. The New Deal- and Brown v. Board of Education weren't incremental change, mate. And incremental efforts wouldn't have done the job. There are of course many other examples.

Bottom line: You're advancing a failed set of arguments- and projecting on others your very own disconnection from reality.

In doing so, you echo many failed Democratic "strategists" from the past 16 years.

Going right down the same ally- and- what's most astonishing to an objective, now outside observer is that in so doing, ignoring all the warning signs and lessons- the party is staring down a huge defeat to about the most pathetic, offering nothing bunch that that ever walked the halls of Congress or addressed the people in the mass media.

Wow. Do you even realize that by "doing the peoples business" -as DU poster The Kentuckian might be wont to say, that we could have relegated Republicans to the fringe for a generation?"

That fact alone should tell you something. But then again, it's human nature not to want to make an inventory of one's own flaws and failures- but rather, to blame them on someone else- like the "unintelligent" independents or the Greens or anyone else who doesn't particularly appreciate having their issues and interests tossed aside for some Quixotic quest for bipartisanship.

You have NO CLUE what you are talking about. NONE.

Brown vs. Board of Education and its progeny are perhaps one of the greatest examples of how incremental steps bring about change in ways that sweeping steps don't. The road to Brown vs. Board of Education was carefully crafted by the NAACP and other civil rights lawyers for DECADES. They started in earnest in 1935, and thought it strategically prudent to start with law schools. After all, white laywers and judges clearly knew the extent of the inequality of law school accommodations among the races

They started by challenging separate but clearly unequal law schools, and established precedent requiring their equalization. They gradually moved towards demanding that black students be admitted to white law schools after showing that equalization was failing and impossible. All along the way, they incrementally established major Supreme Court precedents (such as Sweatt v. Painter) that could later be used to strike down segregation as a concept altogether. They also established a multi-decade factual record of how equalizing never happens.

Finally, in 1954, armed with evidence and precedent borne out of the prevoius 20 years, they challenged public school segregation head-on as inherrently unequal (even if the accomodations could be considered equal in and of themselves). They were able to win because the precedents they helped craft in their long hard fight lead inexorably to that conclusion.

What would have happened if they went straight for "transformative" change in 1935, and challenged segregation head-on then? The Supreme Court most likely would have issed a unanimous decision affirming Plessy vs. Ferguson, which would have set back the fight against segregation for a generation or more.

And you are the one telling me that I am advancing failed arguments. What a joke. I would open a history book and read a few pages before you decide which of us is actually spouting failed arguments. In the future, if you are trying to cite an example of "transformative change," make sure you don't accidentally cite one of the biggest incremental and long-fought battles of the century.

One that required courage (and had some unfortunate language in it, vis: "all deliberate speed.").

You think that because people and dynamics were working in the background, that the profound change Brown wrought was somehow "incremental?

Come on. That's a laughable proposition. The deals you cite are always working in the background.

Not sure what history books you may (or may not) have opened- or which portions of the world they covered, but one thing that's for certain, you've demonstrated almost no understanding of the development of American law- nor how broader concepts like incrementalism, paradigm shifts or "muddling through" work via public or private administration.

So yes- we've run into a wall where I'm prepared to call you not only utterly clueless- and as partisanly disingenuous as many Republicans, and further- utterly and incapable of learning or adapting to the 21st Century.

As I implied in the previous post- your views are basically CW dinosaurs.

Sooner or later- they'll be weeded out- by one process or another.

If your staring down an impressive loss to a party that's damn near certifiable at this point won't teach you to have a look at that introspectively, then perhaps nothing will.

That is more than people "working in the background." There was indeed a battle as far back as the 30s -- whether or not to bring segregation to the front and center immediately, or to spend decades building precedent and methodically building a legal and factual record that made its end more and more likely. There were people speaking back then as you do today -- let's go all in now. No incremental steps -- let's just go for one big ruling. In 1935. And those people LOST the battle. THEY were the ones shoved into the dustbin of history. They were weeded out, and those with the correct strategy prevailed. Frankly, Brown vs. Board of Education was possible when it was partly BECAUSE people with your views were ignored.

That is precisely why those on the forefront of the gay marriage legal movement were shocked when Ted Olsen and David Boies sought to bring the question of gay marriage to the Supreme Court soon. Their preferred strategy was to first get many state court decisions in their favor, as well laws where the courts wouldn't do the job. Then, with precedent and much of state law on their side, they would take it to the Supreme Court for the final battle. As opposed to going for broke now and having a precedent-setting decision set back the movement for a generation.

So while you may be able to throw around big words like "utterly clueless" and "partisanly disingenuous" and "CW dinosaurs," that's really all you can do. From what I have seen, you are the one that knows very little about American history and law (let alone the broader concepts behind it), and very little drive to actually learn more about it.

While you continue to have a "look at that introspectively", the rest of the party (85%+ of which approves of Obama despite your views) will continue on. Obama will (unfortunately) have to move to the right as much as unenthusiastic non-participating liberal non-voters force him to, just as Clinton did. Your proposition I'm assuming is that Obama's unfortunate moving to the right in 2011 will be his downfall (as opposed to a landslide re-election as Clinton had after he moved to the right, with the full support of previously unenthusiastic liberals). Time will tell who is right and who is the dinosaur. Good day to you.

Some will never learn- no matter how compelling the evidence might be.

And- in consequence, the nation will continue to decline- and you'll rail against those who tell you to stand up (for a change) to deals like:

Media deregulation, which has left your citizens unable to agree on even the most basic of objective facts;

Financial and accounting deregulation and utter FAILURE to hold the vast majority accountable for their crimes (that would be errr... too confrontative);

Energy deregulation- opps- Enron, et al.

Democrats -and not just Republicans did that- because they followed your sort of "strategy."

Welp, the worm's about to turn with tweedle dum and tweedle dee, just as it has been in the other places in the world that I cited above.

Oil drilling is "safe" -despite what was written and ignored right here: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/seafan/3886

Have a look- because that was where the luck ran out- where your so called "mainstream/centrist concede before the debate starts" became a bridge too far.

Not only have you already lost many independents- who see your ilk as pathologically weak and standing for nothing other than political expediency- but you've deflated our key constituencies- who you in your grade school way, will blame for not turning out to support your sorry attempts at triangulation.

Ironically, what that's left as our best bet is the teabaggers-

It'll surely be interesting to see where it goes from here. Someday, not that many generations down the line, someone may well write a tragedy about this. In the vein of the classics.

Funny how some of you never expect the ones in DC to move the slightest bit Left but are insistant that Liberals move right instead. Why is that?

who here is VOTING right? not me. that's what i hope to avoid.

no matter what you think, the dems will never be as bad or as Right as Republicans.

afaic, they are my only logical vote.

You are somehow arguing that it is the Dems in DC's fault for you pulling the lever for a Republican (or a non-viable candidate, which has the same effect). Last time I checked, people are responsibile for their own actions. If a voter is going to contribute to a Republican winning over a Democrat, that voter is fully responsible for their behavior. Not some "Dem in DC" -- the voter. Just because the voter doesn't like the choice in front of them doesn't mean they don't have responsibility for the outcome of their choice.

for not being Christian. So go ahead and lecture away.

You go try voting for Republicans in 2010. I'm sure you are perfectly able to. The real question is that after having reality hit you in the head for a few years, whether you will continue to vote for Republicans in 2012, 2014, and 2016. I really doubt it.

Sometimes, people need to really see the consequences of their actions up close and personal to get it. If you did indeed continue to vote for Republicans for years or decades (or aid them by voting third party), I would definately admire your persistance. But I just really don't believe that you will, regardless of what you say now. Reality is the ultimate check/balance for irrational voters.

I know I will NEVER ever vote for any pol of any party that is anti choice. Period. For some of us winning isn't everything.What we win is also important.

This is our family activity here

exactly, we beat on our own but nobody else better!

No more black eyes for me.

not trying to change your mind. vote as you wish. personally, i will never vote republican.

I am not very excited about living under teabag rule.

Are you including homelesspeople, who are never mentioned, let alone HELPED?

Are you including people who have been disabled, and can't get their disability, some who are right here on DU, but ignored?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8260778

Look, you can either castigate people and try to shame them into doing what YOU want them to do, or you can work for the good of all, so that we will WANT to vote as you wish.

Guess which method works the best.

Guess which method is in the tradition of liberalism.

Your choice.

I don't use my vote as a "protest". I vote for the most progressive, anti-war, candidates on the ballot...even if I have to write one in.

:applause:

to not voting, which in turn helps the Republican at the expense of the Democrat (given that you could have voted for the Democrat).

Voting is not an exercise to make you feel good. Its purpose is to not make you feel warm and fuzzy inside. Instead, its purpose is to give people a choice about who they would like to govern them. The choices are Democratic and Republican (whose candidates are determined by primaries). No one said that you have to like the choice. In fact, no one said that you even have to not hate the choice. They just said you have to make the choice. That is a civic responsibility. Choosing to vote for some candidate that can't be elected to govern is simply not choosing, no matter how you try to color it.

I believe, that I'm exercising my "civic responsibility" when I refuse to go along with a corrupt system that tells my I only have a choice between two corrupt candidates.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

:patriot:

I understand your idealism, but it can have unexpected consequences. If you want an example of teabag rule check out Arizona and Oklahoma.

They won't be deleted every time.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

The reason we only have two choices has to do with the development of our two-party system, which wasn't very well developed in the late 1700s. Were they alive today, I highly doubt they would have the same sentiments. The fundamental reason why there are only two choices is the winner-take-all election system in this country, combined with the development of the two parties throughout the course of history.

You act as if there is somehow more than two choices. That is delusional. Just because you think you are somehow "refusing" to take part doesn't mean you actually are refusing to take part. In a winner-take-all system, every action you complete maps to one of the two choices. Not voting for a Democrat when you could have? That maps to helping the Republican. Voting third party? That maps to helping the Republican. Writing in your own name? That maps to helping the Republican. Voting for the Democrat? That maps to helping the Democrat.

This is NOT the case in most parliamentary systems. In most other systems, you can vote Green or Lib Dem or whatever you want, knowing that they will form a coalition with the other left parties. In those systems, voting further to the left actually helps increase the chances that government will be further to the left.

But in THIS system, voting further to the left helps ensure the government will be MUCH further to the right (in the short and long term). They aren't comparable at all.

I think that Jefferson and Adams wouldn't have abandoned their principles so easily as you assume. George Washington warned of the dangers of political parties in his Farewell Address.

I see political parties, of whatever stripe, as means not ends. If they fail to bring about, or move in the direction in substantial way, of what I believe in, I can see no reason to vote for them.

I've been a Democrat since 1965 and have seen the party move right (with the brief exception of McGovern) ever since in a vain attempt to capture the mythical "middle" by watering down their principles in favor of "practical politics". They have no problem in kowtowing to the right to garner votes and rely on the "nowhere to go" apathy of the left.

It's a fixed game. Some of us refuse to play.

Not only is your "refusal to play" equivalent in every way to voting for the Republican, but you are forcing Democrats to go even FURTHER to the right to make up for votes.

There is never a shortage of votes in the middle to go after.

If your action somehow made it more likely that a viable third party could emerge, then it would not be equivalent. But that isn't the case. You are doing nothing more than actively participating in the two party system, while deluding yourself into thinking that you somehow aren't.

If you ACTUALLY wanted to work to change the system, you wouldn't actively participate by helping Republicans win (notwithstanding the delusion that you aren't participating). You would instead work to achieve Constitutional change. Unless the winner-take-all system is changed in the Constitution, NOTHING will get rid of the two-party system. Pretending it doesn't exist and you can somehow "not participate" certainly won't.

As it is the 2 party system is both corrupt and dysfunctional as is shown by both the polls and by many citizens seeing no reason to participate in it. The Democrats are on the verge of losing seats, not so much to Republicans, as to voter indifference to what they see as a corrupt system of government that is becoming unable to function.

Politics are becoming irrelevant to the average citizen who vote on whim or not at all.

"Unless the two winner-take-all system is changed in the constitution, NOTHING will get rid of the two-party system." And, who is in charge of changing the constitution? The politicians of the two-party system. Catch-22.

So, I'll continue to vote for the most progressive, anti-war, candidates on the ballot or write them in.

As a "free moral agent", as Jefferson put it, I refuse to participate in a charade. And, I'm too old, and my nose is too worn out to hold for unprincipled politicians who sell out as soon as they get their first whiff of power.

Any shred of evidence? Any at all?

I know you have the ability to CLAIM that it changes the system. You have made that ability abundantly clear in your many posts. But that doesn't mean it ACTUALLY changes the system the slightest bit. You have not presented any evidence to me that "refusing to participate" actually changes anything at all (let alone being the "only way" to change the system).

If anything, the reverse is true as the two parties have evolved into what amounts to one party with two wings. I'm not refusing to participate to "change the system" by not voting or voting 3rd party. I'm voting for what I stand for.

then expecting them to vote in the approved manner.

where is THAT logic?

who will let MORE die? (Or aid Republicans by voting third party?)

I'm afraid it is your logic that is off, not mine. (I also don't buy your premise, but my logic is true regardless of whether you buy the premise or not. You don't solve a problem by voting for people who will make it 10 times as large.)

You claim "logic", and show absolutely no heart.

Maybe when one of YOUR family is in my position, it will matter to you.

Or maybe you are so hard-hearted that even that won't get through to you.

In any case, you are as caring as any Reaganite, so you go have fun at my expense.

Ta-ta.

You seem to be implying that we are only allowed to vote for a candidate with a D or an R next to his or her name. If you read the constitution and the election laws, you might be surprised to find that is not the case.

As for me, I'll vote for whomever puts forth positions that most closely match my own. Unfortunately, it is almost impossible for a third party to get on the ballot here in Oklahoma, so I likely will not vote in the 2012 presidential race.

is it for sale?

I can't imagine being this self centered, I just can't. I vote for politicians, if they do the best they can, I'm happy. I don't live in this fantasy land where they have to answer to ME. I know I'm just one person and that this country is still heavy with freakin' Republicans!

If they do the best they can?

Like selling their votes to their corporate sponsors? Like playing it safe and shunning their alleged principles to get re-elected?

I don't sell my vote, or principles, for promises of being "not as bad". Nor, will I waste it on those that do.

But if you insist, the Democrats at least "sell out" in the name of keeping jobs, not in the name of starting new wars.

You do not get to be above it all, because if you are, the Republicans (who are never above anything) get more power. That's just the way it is.

If the Democrats do better than the Republicans, it is better they be in charge. In the present day US you are not going to get a pure progressive - and if we did, I'm betting on you finding them still not good enough.

This is not being self-centered. It's simply voting for the person we think would best recommend our interests. Voting for the lesser of two evils still lands evil in the office.

As I said in another post, I am sick and tired of going to the polls just to vote against someone. I want to vote for someone who will fight for things that I believe and will help the working people who pay the taxes to keep this country running. I would also like to hear a candidate say "Homelessness is an abomination, and we are going to everything we can to eradicate it."

depending on what team's jersey they wear.

I would, also, love to see one say something about homelessness and a desire to eradicate it.

And then entitled to see Republicans in office. Reality, this is not a market. This is a political process. It means you have to deal with the fact other voters exist and vote, in spite of their not being as pure as you. Or in the case of Republicans, actively going against the public interest.

How many Republicans and Palinites are there? They vote too. And they will vote even if the R candidate is not far enough to the right.

No they are not trying to "earn" the vote of each person. That would be an unrealistic and stupid goal.

Just small enough to drown it in a bathtub... :evilgrin:

I vote Democratic in EVERY election. And, as always, I am-


LIBERAL TILL I DIE, MOTHERFUCKERS!!! :headbang:

As I always have been.

She fought for the public option in the healthcare bill, but I'm not sure what her record on importing prescriptions from other countries is. I've heard that she has voted against importing prescription drugs, so I'm still not sure if I will vote for her or not.

before I have to make a decision.

I use to vote right down party line but now I do my research first and I have to say it makes me feel good to be an informed voter.

You have described well the trap we are all in.

I would question whether accepting that trap, and urging everyone else to accept it as well, is the solution to the problem of being in this horrible trap.

What is the worst thing that could happen? That we find no way out of the trap, as the society collapses around us.

People are not going around in circles, they are probing the walls of the cage looking for a way out. If we relax and make the best of living in that cage and accept it, the only place we will be going is wherever the rulers want to drag us. I don't think that is going to be a good thing for most of us.

For if they compromise, they "betray" their constituencies. And if they do not compromise, they accomplish nothing.

This is a very difficult time to serve the American people.

:rofl:

I'm happy to "stick together" when I see a liberal agenda. Wars,The Patriot Act, Nuclear Power, Offshore Drilling, Bank Bailouts, Constitutional violations, when the Democrats stop supporting these things and start supporting things like Gay Rights, repealing DADT, sustainable energy, then I'm on board.

Frankly I'm tired of people asking me to "get with the program". Your program sucks. Will things be worse with a Republican in office? Probably. But I'm not going to be EXTORTED into voting for some Republican light because it's the "lesser of 2 evils". I will vote for people I believe in or I won't vote at all.

And yes it will be my fault if Palin becomes President. But at least Palin will fuck me over right to my face, I'd rather see it coming then take another on in the back.

cycles? There are some worth supporting without a doubt but if they are working for a policy the administration does not agree with they are ignored here just as they are on Capital Hill.

Turned our backs on them? How many elections do they have to win before we can expect them to represent us?

It will all make much more sense...

I'll keep posting this until people get it.

1980...1984...1988...1994...2000...2004. We never seem to learn.

Every time a weak, center-right Democrat loses an election we hear the same things over and over: "lesser of two evils", "purity police", "you're probably happy we lost", etc, etc, etc. And every time, we go right back to the same losing strategy.

Take 2000 for example. Sure, you can blame the Florida felon's list or the butterfly ballot. You can even continue to blame Ralph Nader and the few people who voted their conscience. But none of those things cost us as many votes as an anemic, middle-of-the-road candidate and his sanctimonious tool of a running mate. Gore's come a long way in 9 years, but in 2000 he wasn't exactly a progressive crusader. Failure to learn this lesson led directly to the Kerry candidacy of 2004 and another close, steal-able election against the worst president in history.

I thought after 2006 and 2008 we had finally figured it out: you run attractive candidates that excite the base and you win elections. You don't even have to excite them that much -- Democrats and Democratic values have always held the true majority in this country -- you just need to give them a reason to come out and vote.

But here we are again. We've lost two races with unpopular candidates: one, a corporate pirate and another who tried to out-teabag his opponent. And here come the posts begging us to "not lose heart" or to "hold our nose and vote" -- just as if the last 30 years of national politics never happened.

It's not going to work. It's never worked. If we keep nominating weak candidates, if our national leaders keep running to the right under some vague smokescreen of "bipartisanship", then Democrats will lose. And if, somehow, Republicans manage to field even crappier candidates than we do (see 1992), *we* -- as in "We The People" -- still lose.

I'm not sure what the right solution is, but I do know that this continual reliance on weak, incremental change and candidates just a little less appalling than their opponents is a proven failure. Even if we manage to eek out a few victories, we've already seen how one committed, radical Republican can undo decades of Democratic incrementalism.

It's time we stopped settling for less.