Only 22% of Democrats show interest in 2014 voting. Maybe "purists" need to be heard.

[madfloridian]

Of course this is an opinion piece, but maybe I am right. Maybe it's time to listen to the growing group of voices that are begging the party leaders to take firm stands on issues.

That percentage is from a recent poll by CNN/ORC International. If the poll is truly indicative, then Democrats need to be concerned. The real reason for the Democratic voter apathy will be spun by everyone on the left or right or center. We may never know.

Just three in 10 registered voters who were surveyed said they were extremely or very enthusiastic about voting in the upcoming elections, which are still nearly a year away. Democrats are less interested, with just 22 percent saying they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting. Republicans have slightly more interest - 36 percent.

But I have some ideas of my own. Would they work? I don't know. I do know one thing. The more our party tries to accommodate the right wing on fiscal policy, the deficit, cutting Social Security, cutting Medicare, dismantling public schools....the less the enthusiasm from the voters. The more our party avoids speaking out clearly on such issues, taking a stand for the people instead of the corporate right, the more it tries to be like the other side...the less the voters seem to care about casting a ballot.

There has to be a two-party system for a country to survive, and there has to be one side standing up to the radical right. Howard Dean was right in 2004: You can't compromise with extremists. They accept no compromise, they just keep pushing their own values. When they actually do lose a small battle they yell loudly that they have won.

Some thoughts:

Stop using the term "purist" to describe those of us who question party stances.

That sets me off more than any word anyone could use. It angers many, not just me. It is MEANT to anger us, to insult us. That is the worst part. It is a wedge, a warning not to be critical when our party refuses to stand up for the safety nets and for public education. It doesn't work, and it could backfire.

Stop letting a few rich men in think tanks control the destiny of our party. From 2001:
How the DLC does it.

Privately funded and operating as an extraparty organization without official Democratic sanction, and calling themselves "New Democrats," the DLC sought nothing less than the miraculous: the transubstantiation of America's oldest political party. Though the DLC painted itself using the palette of the liberal left--as "an effort to revive the Democratic Party's progressive tradition," with New Democrats being the "trustees of the real tradition of the Democratic Party"--its mission was far more confrontational. With few resources, and taking heavy flak from the big guns of the Democratic left, the DLC proclaimed its intention, Mighty Mouse style, to rescue the Democratic Party from the influence of 1960s-era activists and the AFL-CIO, to ease its identification with hot-button social issues, and, perhaps most centrally, to reinvent the party as one pledged to fiscal restraint, less government, and a probusiness, pro free market outlook.

It's hard to argue that they haven't succeeded.

If they want to get America's teachers on board, teachers whose careers are being destroyed by constant testing....they need to stop Arne Duncan's destructive policies. President Obama needs to recognize the harm his basketball buddy has done and make him step down. Arne's arrogance is surely making many in the education field have a lack of enthusiasm about voting next year. Parents are starting to speak out about the harmful high-stakes testing.

The Democrats who are running for re-election in 2014 need to stop toeing the party line on charter school formations and closing public schools. If not, harm will be done.

They need to be brave enough to stand up proudly and say no cuts to Social Security, preserve Medicare. Perhaps they would win more hearts and souls over by simply saying that the best way to "rescue" Social Security is by expanding it to include more people. The newly added people would pay into the system, thus strengthening it greatly.

I see it this way. I always felt I was a Democrat, not just by name but in philosophy. I felt I was supposed to speak out when I could see the party going down the corporate path, leaving the everyday common people behind.

When many of us did that in 2003, we learned quickly that tactic was unwelcome. Instead of defending their reasons for the rightward turning, many turned their anger on "the left", the "liberals" who were at that time against invading Iraq. Then we fought back against cuts to the safety nets, against privatizing public education. The think tanks began to use the words "elitists" as well as purists. They often used the word "fringe", way too often.

As far I as I know, the budget for next year still includes the Chained CPI, also known as the
Superlative CPI. There is no need for these cuts, and the Democrats running next year need to say so.

Those who call us purists need to stop saying so because we are not. We are questioning policy, which is what the people of any party need to do.

Get seniors and teachers on board by backing off policies that are harming them greatly.

Since appealing to the right instead of the left in the party is apparently not working that well right now.....why not try those ideas that folks like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are tossing out there. When two leaders of a small think tank attack them, let the party's leaders jump to their defense instead of avoiding the topic.

[xchrom]

1. du rec.

[GoneFishin]

156. Triangulation or "centrism" was always about chasing the money at the detriment of average

american voters. That is the Republican's job.

Winning to fight another day is not supposed to be the end game, but it has become the end game. It has become a perpetual excuse for corporatist Democrats to chase corporate money while dismissing the needs of the middle class.

I'd rather elect 5 genuine Democrats like Elizabeth Warren than 20 like Dianne Feinstein or Joe Lieberman who pretend to be Democrats but undermine us at nearly every turn.

[AverageJoe90]

2. Or maybe they need to quiet down a little and rethink their strategy.....

Don't get me wrong, Warren & Sanders are awesome. But do remember what happened in 2010.....now's not the time for purity politics, folks.

[madfloridian]

5. Yes, it is. Past time. Oops you just used the words "purity politics". Oops

You just made my point for me.

[backwoodsbob]

12. we have been hearing now is not the time since 1992

when will it be time?

[AverageJoe90]

19. We can relax once another Democrat is elected. But not yet. nt

[backwoodsbob]

20. even if it is a rw or Corporatist dem...if you say so NT

[Ken Burch]

25. by "relax", do you mean "we can fight FOR things, rather than just against things"?

If so, will those who insist on triangulation EVER admit that we can "relax"?

And how do you KNOW that we can ONLY win through defensive politics? Obama won in 2012 when he appeared to switch to offensive rather than defensive campaigning. When we went with a Rahm Emmanuel-style "all that matters is that the other side is worse" campaign in 2012, we got asswhipped.

[Veilex]

133. Defensive politics have almost never won us any ground...

We consistently win when we're aggressive and assertive about what we want and when we want it. Point of example: Unions... why is the GOP trying to dismantle them as much as possible? To take power away from the people. Why has the ultra conservative corporate friendly courts stripped the ability of college students to form a class action lawsuit against colleges? To strip power away from the people to act in an assertive manor to protect their rights.

Its all a power game... power is aggressive...it is the ability to enact change.
Being defensive nearly never causes change... it merely tries to hold onto what it already has.
It long past time for Liberals and Progressives to get aggressive.

Being defensive... might as well be passive.
Screw that.

[maddiemom]

174. What we needed starting a decade and a half back, was More Howard Dean, less Rahm Emanuel.

[TransitJohn]

31. LOL!!!

You owe me a new keyboard.

[Comrade Grumpy]

44. I know, brilliant parody, right? I think...

[stillwaiting]

76. After the Democrat is elected, it will be very important to NOT criticize them.

They will need to be re-elected, and the alternative is SO much worse!

Don't you think it will be better to just not EVER levy criticism at Democrats?

We should just be thankful for the peas (and the TPP's) they give us.

[MattSh]

134. A real Democrat?

or a former Republican running as a Democrat?

[City Lights]

170. Good one!

[JDPriestly]

208. If "another Democrat" is a euphemism for Hillary, you can forget it.

The country will just slide further and further downhill. She represents everything that people do not like about the Democratic Party. That will become more evident, the more she gets in front of the camera. I note that she is wisely lying low at the moment.

It would be so sad if she decides to run. If she had the ability to win in 2016, she would have already beaten Obama in 2008 and be sitting in the White House. She gave that run her "best," and couldn't beat a virtual unknown. She should not run in 2016. She should back Elizabeth Warren or someone without Hillary's own shadowy associations with the mistakes of Bill Clinton's administration.

The Democratic Party wins when it comes in with an exciting candidate who is willing to upset the apple cart just a bit in order to give ordinary people a better chance in life. That is what the left wing of the party is about. That's why the conservatives in the party should defer to us. It's about having a winning candidate and a winning platform and then, most important, being able to improve the lot of ordinary Americans and maybe, just maybe do something to save the planet while we are at it.

[sulphurdunn]

45. What happened in 2010

can be laid squarely at the feet of a Democratic Part in complete control of government that decided the best way to govern was to behave like the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan.

[Egalitarian Thug]

56. Exactly. They, as a group, are precisely the wrong people to achieve anything positive.

I can hear the wails and admonitions already...

[Ken Burch]

58. The lesson of 2010 is "support must be EARNED...not DEMANDED".

Our party can't prosper if the "centrists" treat the progressive wing of the party(to say nothing of labor, the poor, women, LGBT people, peace activists and every other non-centrist group)as an abuser treats his victim, shouting "you've got nowhere else to go and you'd be nothing without ME!" over and over again.

Respect means victory...abuse means defeat.

Not rocket science.

[Oakenshield]

83. We need to kick the centrists out.

No joke. Labor, the poor, women, LGBT people, peace activists, if our politicians won't champion those people and their causes then they have no business being elected.

[kentuck]

86. This is an important discussion.

No one should be kicked out of the Party but the Party should be following the majority, not a minority of its so-called "centrists". We make no progress ever. We keep losing ground. Look at the inequality in wealth. Look at the wages for the last 30 years. Look at the poverty. Look at the tax rates for the wealthy and Wall Street. Look at the military budget. Look at the political gridlock in Washington. Politicians no longer fear the voters. We cannot be content to win an election and keep the status quo. We must demand change.

[madfloridian]

91. Well said, Kentuck. No one needs to be kicked out. No one marginalized.

We need majority rule, not a few of the rich controlling it all.

[Doctor_J]

95. the Republican party that had just been completely repudiated at the polls

epic disaster

[Left Coast2020]

140. Hopefully the other "80" ott-percent have woken and now see the reality

of what happens when you stay home and not vote.

The result is you get the Louie Gomers, and Cruzes, and other assorted wacko's.

As Ed says, "GET TO WORK"!!!!!

[City Lights]

171. !

[LWolf]

73. That's right.

We always need to "quiet down a little bit," don't we?

I hear it every election season: "Shut up and get in line."

[PowerToThePeople]

89. No, I guess it is time for fascism.

Or as many here call it, third way.

[Doctor_J]

96. as long as it's enacted by Dems, it'd be fine with many here

or I guess I should say it IS fine.

[blkmusclmachine]

122. Our enemies always tell us it's "not time" for us to take a stand on the issues. Just roll over, DC

style.

[merrily]

147. If purity politics means voting what you believe in, it's always time for it.

Or never the time for it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x10585

Take your pick.

[fascisthunter]

190. you know... its attempts like this that turned me off even more from

the Third-Way, self-avowed centrists... it's not only that your politics hurt people in this country, but your personalities just suck. You all come off as arrogant, obnoxious, spoiled brats.

[Ash_F]

198. Where Dems lost soundly because they didn't do anything for 2 years?

Yes, I remember.

[AverageJoe90]

205. You mean, *couldn't*, mostly, right?

And even if that's not what you meant, that's how it was.

[Ash_F]

219. No... "wouldn't" /nt

[RedCappedBandit]

220. You know.. this is the problem right here. nt

[Octafish]

3. Gee. Add that to the 50-percent who don't vote no matter what...

...and it's clear why the pukes manage to get ahead in Congress and the state houses by driving out their tiny base via Tea Bag-Swift Boat Radio Hate.

Agree whole-heartedly, madfloridian: If the Democrats go with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders tosses his hat in with our side, there' no stopping us. If we go more of the same old same old corporate centrists crapola, we're out of luck -- just like Harry S Truman said:

[font color="blue"]"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time."[/font color]

[blkmusclmachine]

123. The Party apparatus foisted Obama and his "Change!" on us in '08/'12, knowing full well that it was

a steaming crock of elephant dung. They lied, and perpetuated a mass fraud on the DEM Base. So, why should we expect anything different from these liars, in '14 or '16 or ever? Liars lie. It's what they do. And now they're beating the drums for Hillary Roddam Clinton, the Queen Blue Dog, DLC, "New DEM," centrism-plus, the very embodiment of the STATUS QUO, a true 1%'er. Yuck.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

222. I never bought Obama's populist shtick

I thought of him as a big Question Mark, and I slightly favored Hillary Clinton, because at least I knew she was a corporatist.

With his vague platitudes vigorously expounded, Obama was exploiting people's frustrations and tacitly promising things that he had no intention of even trying to deliver.

[kentuck]

4. So long as the Repubs only get 21%, we are doing great!

Right??

[Douglas Carpenter]

6. the fact of the matter is MOST Republican politicians and professional operatives are movement

conservatives who believe in conservatism and have made it the fundamental cause of their life. MOST Democratic politicians and Democratic professional operatives are careerist with little or no fundamental convictions beyond perceived immediate and short term political expediency. Victory belongs to those who want it the most.

[Demo_Chris]

39. Well said, and I would add...

That the Teaparty has demonstrated the power of voters demanding purity. We might not like the Tea people or their agenda, but holy crap have they been effective.

[Andy823]

52. One problem

You need to realize that yes the tea party is demanding "purity" but was shutting down the government really a good thing to do? Is pushing your agenda with no compromise really the way to go? Has the tea party really help out the republican party or have they pretty much turned their party into a nightmare?

No matter which side wants to take the "my way or the highway" mentality it just won't work in the long run. People get really tired of both parties in congress refusing to work together, and since 2010 it's gotten worse than anytime in I can remember. So if making your party look like the tea party has made the republican party look is OK with you, I really don' know what to say.

[Demo_Chris]

79. Not really my point...

The issue with the Tea Party that people take exception to is not their effectiveness, but their goals. Our representatives regularly complain that they simply cannot be expected to get anything accomplished, or even vote as they promised or their voters expect, unless and until they are handed both houses of Congress and the White House. Until then, they sadly report, they have no choice but to do the exact opposite of what they promised.

That shit doesn't cut it with the Tea Party voters. They don't accept excuses. Their representatives vote as they promised or their own voters will primary them, and the Tea Party folks don't give a damn if it costs them the seat. We don't do that, and as a result we have no representation.

We can piss and moan about the 1% until we are blue in the face and the billionaires have collected the last dollar, and it won't change a thing so long as we continue to vote for people who don't actually represent us.

[Andy823]

177. But my point is

Most people want the two parties to work together to get things done, not hold the county "hostage" until one small groups demands are met. When congress fails to compromise, you know that word that tea baggers hate so much, nothing gets accomplished. If both parties had the same mentality, no compromise, what would we see happen to this country?

Yes we need new members of congress who will actually work for the "people" of this country, but as I have stated, we need to get them in place during the primaries. If "our" guy doesn't win it should not mean that nobody should vote for the democrat that did win, thus allowing republicans to once again gain control of things.

I am sorry, but allowing republicans to win for whatever reason is just not an option.

[Demo_Chris]

189. Compromise takes place when we don't seize the assets of the wealthy...

I am being extreme, but you aught to get the point. Obviously compromise is necessary, but that does not mean our party must stand firm on nothing.

[Eleanors38]

241. "Stand firm on nothing:" Nicely put.

[reACTIONary]

108. +10 (nt)

[Tarheel_Dem]

7. And a total takeover by the GOP helps you further your "progressive" goals, how?

[madfloridian]

11. Did I advocate a takeover by the GOP? No, of course I didn't.

Argue in a persuasive manner, not an insulting one...will have more impact.

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. I don't argue with you. I don't really understand you, but I'm certainly not going to "argue" with

you.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

33. You continue to argue for a civil-war in the Democratic party...

...which will only serve to elect Republicans.

So if you pretend you don't know where your "Vote for Nader, he's so much better than that so-called Democrat Al Gore" strategy leads, you're a liar.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Demeter]

36. Not a Civil War--an Occupation

by Democrats for People.

[sulphurdunn]

47. We already had a civil war

within the Democratic Party. The Republicans won. It's way past time to have another war to take it back.

[madfloridian]

51. No, I did NOT argue for a "civil war" in the party. I certainly did not. Not a Nader voter.

Geez, you got that one all wrong.

[rhett o rick]

61. And if you just want a Wall Street supporter for president, then Clinton vs. Christie is

just for you.

If Clinton loses to Christie, who will be your scapegoat?

If you want a Republican president nominate Clinton.

[polichick]

93. "ConservativeDemocrat"??? Democrats aren't conservative.

[kentuck]

94. Good point.

Someone is lost.

[MissDeeds]

194. Real ones aren't

And I don't believe the "Reagan Democrat" BS either. If you supported Bonzo's sidekick, you are far from a Democrat.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

211. Please look at this chart, and check your eyesight

The D.U. is filled with people who describe themselves as "Very Liberal". But that is only 10% of the party.
The percentage of Democrats who describe themselves as "Conservative" is 16% of the party.



I would argue (and often do to my rural neighbors) that Conservatives should vote Democratic. When all is said and done, you'll find that Democrats are the only party that actually balance the budget, respect property rights (of all but the mega-rich), and actually believe in giving our veterans the care they deserve, and don't try to screw them after they demobilize.

I know it falls flat on the hater crowd in the D.U. - most of whom sound like they've never actually met someone who doesn't agree with them 100% on everything. But if you actually sit down and talk to people, you'll find that even Republicans aren't monsters. Some can even be moved to change their minds if you give them the appropriate facts in a non-controversial fashion.

But you guys don't even want to do that to members of your own party.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Lydia Leftcoast]

224. A lot of people (Dems included) conflate the two kinds of liberal

There's behavioral liberal (for sexual freedom, more lenient drug laws) and political-economic liberal (for ordinary people against the rich and powerful).

Behavioral liberal won't fly in parts of the country, but that's what the Dems have been emphasizing in the past thirty years. They have dropped the ball so often on political-economic liberalism with their failure to do anything about the farm crisis of the early 1980s, their pushing "free" trade to the detriment of America's industrial base, continuing stupid wars, and letting the Republicans set the agenda for them to react to instead of being proactive with their own agenda.

So your rural and small town voter either doesn't care about or is hostile to behavioral liberalism but sees nobody pushing the economic policies that would benefit them. So they either vote Republican ("At least they share my values&quot or don't vote at all.

[reACTIONary]

112. +10 (nt)

[Ken Burch]

27. Not what madfloridian was calling for and you damn well know it.

Address the actual argument, not what you'd LIKE the argument to be.

Why assume that we STILL have to stick to nothing but "the other side is WORSE" as our message?

Do you really believe the country is permanently to our right on the issues? If so, why?

[rhett o rick]

62. Arguing by asking question has a name. It's a technique used by faux News.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/JAQing_off

[reACTIONary]

110. +10 (nt)

[grahamhgreen]

120. Exactly. We don't need GOP policy positions in our party.

[Aerows]

203. When have you ever heard a member of the GOP say

"You know, if we follow a less conservative party platform, it will energize our base and we will get more votes!"

You haven't, because that isn't the way it works. If you define yourself as, "Hey, at least I'm better than the other guy!", then there isn't anything to vote FOR, just someone to vote AGAINST.

It's irrelevant to have Democrats get elected if all that they do is drag the party further to the right and loudly proclaim, "Well, at least we aren't Republicans!"

[Tarheel_Dem]

215. You guys should start your own party. Oh wait....you did!

(0.36% Nationally)

(0.03% Nationally)

Unforunately, you guys rock the internet. But it's just as unfortunate that nobody in the real world really gives a shit.

[Aerows]

216. I have no idea who those two people are

and I don't think they are Democrats so that's not my party, but your snide remarks are always appreciated.

I mean, why bother to discuss the substance of a post when you can attack the person who wrote the post, right?

[Tarheel_Dem]

217. Sounds like they'd be worth investigating for you, since you guys are always pissed at Democrats.

You should go with your heart, if the Democratic party doesn't suit you. And let's be honest, you guys aren't here for "discussion". It's 24/7 trashing of Democrats you're after.

[Aerows]

218. What are you here for?

Trashing anyone that disagrees with a policy set forth or a particular vote a Democrat makes? Because that seems to be your primary involvement here.

Let me let you in on a little secret. You don't have to tell me to go with my heart, because I do. I agree with policies I support, and disagree with policies that I don't. You also aren't the arbiter of what is discussion, and you don't get to be the judge of who is "trashing Democrats 24/7" or anything else, for that matter.

I suggest that you look in the mirror when you talk about who is trashing Democrats 24/7, because you seem to be filling that position quite nicely towards fellow Democrats on this board.

[Tarheel_Dem]

231. I have absolutely nothing in common with the "trashers", and who says they're "Democrats"? You?

[Aerows]

232. Yeah, I get it.

You've got nothing.

[Tarheel_Dem]

236. Aerows has a mad. I'm crushed, but I'll try & pick up the pieces and move on. Thanks for stop'n by!

[Aerows]

237. Aerows had a LOL :)

Thank you for providing it! Oh, here - .

That should make you feel right at home!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

226. No, just Democrats who think their main job is to avoid upsetting the Republicans

I like the others.

[Aerows]

229. Excellent post

I agree with you.

[Scuba]

8. Excellent post, thanks. If the Democratic Party doesn't stand for something ....

... besides "not the Republican", we're doomed.

We should be mounting a nationwide campaign on traditional Democratic Party values ...


... strengthen and expand Social Security

... Medicare for All, including dental, optical and hearing aids

... Living wage

... Reduced spending on military and spying


These are the issues that will inspire Democrats and MANY MILLIONS OF THE 50% OF THE ELECTORATE WHO DON'T BOTHER TO VOTE BECAUSE NEITHER PARTY OFFERS THEM SQUAT!!!!!!!!!


Republican fiscal and foreign/military policy coupled with good will toward gays and other minorities not only won't win elections, it wont make things substantially better even if it did win elections.

[think]

21. Now that's a platform that reflects my values.....

[blkmusclmachine]

124. I bailed on Obama in '12 in red-red TX. The DEMS no longer represent my Values.

They haven't for awhile now, either. And I'm sure they don't give a damn.

[openfield]

9. corporate network news

Remember the source, the right wing corporatocracy is trying to spin the 2014 election season with polls, memes, and assorted bullshit. Get ready.

[madfloridian]

15. That is the gist of my post....

"the right wing corporatocracy" often includes Democratic think tanks.

[kentuck]

10. Eventually...

90% of the Party will be asked to support the 10% that keep accusing the 90% of being "purists". Something is wrong with this picture kids! Can you guess what it is??

[Scuba]

16. Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

[Bohunk68]

152. Hey, Kentuck! Fucking a' ditty big!

[MisterP]

207. if the Dems don't lose, how else can they blame their voters?

if the Dems don't support GOP policies, how else can they cow internal opposition by saying the former'll be responsible for any and all future GOP policies?

... the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

[abq e streeter]

13. Outtstanding.Thank you.

[ProSense]

14. Maybe CNN and the rest of the MSM

"Only 22% of Democrats show interest in 2014 voting."

...are pushing for another self-fulfilling prophecy.

Republicans More Optimistic than Democrats about Midterms...But Less GOP Optimism than in 2010



http://www.people-press.org/2013/12/13/republicans-more-optimistic-than-democrats-about-midterms/

Or maybe they're counting on another gerrymandering win for the GOP:

<...>

The 2010 elections, in which Republicans won the House majority and gained more than 700 state legislative seats across the nation, gave the party the upper-hand in the process of redistricting, the once-a-decade redrawing of congressional seats. The advantage helped them design safer partisan districts and maintain their House majority in 2012 -- even as they lost the presidential race by about 5 million votes. Also nationwide, Democratic House candidates combined to win about 1.4 million more votes than Republicans, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-19/republicans-win-congress-as-democrats-get-most-votes.html

It's always amazing that in the media Republicans can rebound despite the horrible shit they do. They're the one's blocking unemployment benefits (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024232195), but the public apparently loves them.
Democrats' momentum, no matter how significant, only last a news cycle, according to the MSM

[treestar]

32. Exactly.

Look how they are already starting, trying to discourage us.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

175. It's unfortunate the Malleable Middle is so easily swayed...

by CNN newsbunnies. They're a huge part of the problem.

[spanone]

55. i do not trust cnn any further than i can throw their building.

[Andy823]

57. Yep,

If they convince enough people it's not worth the time to get out and vote, add that to those who think the 2010 idea of "teaching the party a lesson" has worked out so well that they want to do that all over again, and then I guess democrats would be in trouble.

Now me, I think we need new blood, but we need to do that by voting them in during the primaries. If we get pissed off simply because the person we wanted didn't win, so we don't bother to vote, we only help the republicans, and that just isn't an option for me, nor should it be for anyone who really wants change. If we let the republican win, we will regret it the rest of our lives. Does anyone really think letting republicans run things is a good idea?

[sulphurdunn]

60. Political mass media exists to sell conservative politics.

It can only peddle its product when it determines the issues and then controls the vocabulary and terms of debate. It is unassailable when both major parties are characters in its narrative. When Sen. Warren went off script and proposed legislation to increase SS, the MSM went into full damage control mode. Whoever crafts the message controls the outcome. Going off script wins elections these days.

[think]

70. Off topic but here's some local scripting for you: "It's Ok. You can admit it"

http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/83754317/

[Doctor_J]

99. All of those charts shouldn't stop the DC Dems from energizing their voters

People who believe in corporate solutions to all of the country's problems tend to vote Republican. Thus when a Dem president believes in corporate solutions to health care, education, unemployment, underemployment, environmental issue, and so forth, he his asking for big trouble at the ballot box.

[ProSense]

166. It's always

"Thus when a Dem president believes in corporate solutions to health care..."

...interesting to see who gets excited by media spin.

Merry Christmas, and thanks to all Democrats who stood by and supported the health care law.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024227754


Real infighting: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024235165

[think]

18. Rachel Maddow has been suggesting an idea since 2010 that might be worth a try

Rachel Maddow Tells Democrats the Minimum Wage is a Key to 2010 Victory
Oct 09 2010 Published by Guest Contributor under Featured News

http://archives.politicususa.com/2010/10/09/maddow-minimum-wage.html

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/minimum-wage-hike-more-popular-than-sunshine-63285315542

Maybe she's on to something.....

[reACTIONary]

113. Minimum wage sounds like a good issue that will motivate a lot of voters (nt)

[Dawgs]

176. Not just minimum wage, but run a campaign on all POPULAR programs.

Infrastructure JOBS Program

Legalizing Marijuana

Going after Banks/Wall Street

Raising Minimum Wage

Background Checks

Increasing Social Security Benefits and making the rich pay for it

And show how these are things that Democrats are for, and Republicans are against

[Ken Burch]

22. in 1994 AND 2010, the 'pugs won by firing up their base. Dems lost by triangulating.

Those contests prove that triangulating is pointless and useless. The base is what matters in those years-there ARE no "centrists" in Congressional voting.

We can only win if we fire up OUR base(and if our party admits it HAS a base)and by reaching out to the hard-hit economically in THEIR base. That's the only possible approach. The suburbs and the comfortable aren't ours to win in such years...or in any other. That doesn't hurt us, though...because most of the voters AREN'T comfortable.

[blkmusclmachine]

125. "Centrism" is the political equivalent of apologizing for your beliefs. A give-away to our enemies..

[bvar22]

23. If the troops aren't motivated,

it is always a Failure of Leadership.
There is no other excuse.

Give The People something to vote FOR,
and they will turn out.

Simply being marginally better than the other guy (The Dem Platform for 2010/2012)
isn't going to light any fires.

Hope & Change from a blank slate won't work again either.
THAT one is used up....DONE.

A fire breathing Populist running on Working Class Economic Issues (a la Huey Long) can WIN anywhere,
but that person would have to be comfortable making enemies out of Wall Street & Big Corporate donors, and the current Democratic party Conservative Establishment.
(Extra Votes if he/she can Ride a Horse and Shoot a gun without looking like a poser)


Harry Truman explained it all so well back when Democrats were DEMOCRATS!

[font size=3]
"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman

QED:2010[/font]


[font size=3]Leadership! "The Buck Stops HERE!" NO Excuses![/font]

GAWD, but I lust for the opportunity to vote for a DEMOCRAT again.
It has been so long.


[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]

[Blanks]

200. Yes, well Truman lost control of congress too...

I believe his motto was' get rid of this do nothing republican congress.'

There were also ethical questions about his administration and his hand picked replacement lost the 1952 election to Ike.

Harry is kind of a interesting choice to put on a pedestal. He had his convictions and the democrats paid the price for it. The democrats had controlled congress since 1930 and the first time they lost control of congress was the very first election after Truman was sworn in (1946).

Seems odd to criticize our current democratic representatives for their abysmal results and point to someone who (as far as elections go) didn't do a hell of a lot better.

The problem is that the pendulum swings slowly and the American people get impatient. When we had a democratic controlled congress and control of the White House between January 2009 and January 2011, they were doing the people's work. They passed health care reform, bank reform and a stimulus package.

We just aren't as good at pointing out the glaring ineptitude of the Tea Party representatives as we need to be to get a democratic controlled congress. That's where Truman succeeded: he had a slogan, and it worked, but not until after he'd gotten his ass kicked in the midterms.

[Cryptoad]

24. Vote for your candidate in the Primaries but

but work you ass off to get out the vote for the Democratic Candidates in the General Election, who ever they are!

[mountain grammy]

64. That's where I'm at. Working for the liberal candidates in the primaries

and, once in a while, we win. Election time, vote against Republicans no matter what.

[polichick]

98. I've done that for many years, but will no longer vote for Third Way candidates.

[blkmusclmachine]

126. +1. Been there, done that. Never works.

[fascisthunter]

191. I'll not vote for corporate dems again

I've reached a threshold of disappointment that can't be quelled by the "same-old" blind loyalty to party politics.

[Le Taz Hot]

240. Nope.

Not gonna happen. My vote must be EARNED. If the Democrats can't do that . . .

[Cryptoad]

243. Not me,,,I am a proud member of the Democratic Party!

Ive been voting for 45 years and I have and will vote for whoever the Party chooses to run in the General Election.

[Le Taz Hot]

244. Well, thankfully the Creator gave me a working brain.

I do believe she meant for me to use it.

[Cryptoad]

245. Thats what the Tea Party says too.... nt

[bobclark86]

26. Here's the thing with elections (midterms specifically):

People who are pissed off vote. That's why we won well in 2006 after 6 years of George W. Bush. Coincidentally, that's why the Tea Party did quite well the last two cycles.

[reACTIONary]

114. +1 (nt)

[HockeyMom]

28. While I am an unwilling transplant to Florida,

I'll be damned if I stay home and let the Space Alien get re-elected. Yes, people, Charlie Crist is better no matter what he calls himself today. I've only lived in Florida for 7 years but can see the difference between the two. Just one issue. How many poor people are being denied Medicaid because Tricky Teabagger Ricky refused Federal money?

[madfloridian]

29. If Scott wins again we are doomed.

It will take years to bring to light all the harm he and the Scott Republicans have done.

[mountain grammy]

66. He should be rotting in one of his private prisons enjoying "food" from private caterers.

[blkmusclmachine]

127. Go, GOP-lite, cuz the DEMS can't run a viable campaign in FL or TX any more.

[treestar]

30. Why are the purists always trying to boss us around?

They seem to want power over us, more than anything. There's no proof the Democrats don't vote because they aren't in charge. In fact, they've likely heard from the purists and don't agree with them. Hey, maybe it's the purists who aren't inspiring enough?

[rhett o rick]

63. Explain what a "purist" is, please. What issues do they pursue that you disagree with? nm

[Doctor_J]

100. Stick with that attitude. You and the president might get the number into the teens

[Bluenorthwest]

155. So if 'they' are purist Democrats, and you are not, then you are a diluted Democrat?

That which is not pure is diluted, infiltrated, perhaps even tainted by that which poisons the substance to the point that the substance is inherently altered, as pure water is changed into mud when enough dirt infiltrates the supply. Yummy, yummy, impure mud.
The Democrats who call other Democrats 'purist Democrats' are clearly saying that they are amalgamated, an admixture of Republican and Democrat, not pure, they disdain pure Democratic policy and principle and desire instead those goals that are shared with the GOP, a purist is an actual Democrat, a Diluted Democrat has a bipartisan soul, thus they snarl at other Democrats to urge them to mix in some Republican policy and attitudes, to be 'less purely a Democrat' is what they seem to want for others, to be like them, part Republican and maybe also a bit Democratic, but not the liberal sort of Democrat, they are too purely Democratic and not nearly enough Republican is in their make up....
Personally, I happily seek to have not so much as an atom of Republican values or Republican policy in my make up. I am proudly and purely Democratic.
I get that you are partly Republican and despise those who are purely Democratic, but I can't go there or be that or even claim to respect such a stance.
I'm a Democrat, pure and simple every time.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

179. Because the purists got results...

a solid Middle Class. Thanks, in part, to ConservaDems, wages have been stagnant for 30 years. Jobs off-shored. Pensions gone. Threats of entitlement "reform." Unnecessary wars. How much more inspiration do people need?

(Editing cuz I'm on the phone and evidently not very good at multi-tasking!)

[treestar]

213. I'm not seeing the connection

The solid middle class started in the 50s. Even Republicans were reasonable then to a point. Democrats have been elected to office and made advances. Republicans have stopped or reversed them. Purists, meanwhile, have simply complained that the current state of affairs is not good enough. But someone reasonable has to take office and actually make it happen. And no one in office can possibly avoid some compromise. Which is how the government works.

A dictatorship of one Purist could set all right, but we don't want that. Even if we agree with that purist, the government is to be of the people, all of us, not just a few.

[kentuck]

34. Fear of right-wing control is paralyzing Democrats into standing for nothing.

...Because to stand for something may get you defeated? It is not surprising that such a huge number of Democrats are not enthusiastic about voting for the Democratic Party.

The "purists" are those fear-mongers, the 22%, that have taken over our Party. We will continue to shrink in the people's eyes so long as stand there shaking like a dog shitting a peach seed every time our Party takes a principled stand on anything...

[blkmusclmachine]

128. +1. The DEMS aren't "scared." They're BOUGHT. They're just not supposed to let everyone in on that

little fact...

[Enthusiast]

35. Recommended X 1000!

If Democrats don't back way off from austerity measures it will lead to electoral ruin.

Give us something to be enthusiastic about! Look what happened in 2010 when there was a failure to include the Public Option yet they extended the Bush tax cuts.

[blkmusclmachine]

129. I just don't think the current DEM Party is "into" us that much.

[Enthusiast]

137. I guess not.

Things must change.

[SCVDem]

37. Here's a thought

We are sick to death of hearing about elections. We just had one last year and the right doesn't give a damn about the results!

We are burned out and don't want to hear about candidates, polls or any of this bullshit until 3 months before November!

The media have their 24/7 to fill but this is not how to do it.

I am voting with my remote! Elections?

CLICK!

Give us a rest!

I always vote but at this point, I JUST DON'T GIVE A SHIT!

[Demo_Chris]

38. Nothing to vote FOR; our party has no direction or plan for anything but helping the 1%. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. Ironically, the ones who accuse us of being "purists" demand we toe the party line.

While trying to convince us that "not as bad" is really good.

[Douglas Carpenter]

42. +1000

[ProSense]

49. Apparently,

"Ironically, the ones who accuse us of being "purists" demand we toe the party line. While trying to convince us that 'not as bad' is really good."

...there are choices to be made: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024232874#post28

[Indyfan53]

41. Any dem who doesn't vote should be slapped

upside the head.

I'm voting. I'm screwed if the ACA gets repealed!

[Roci]

43. At that rate..

2014 is going to make 2012 look like a walkover. Maybe the (D)oormat party ought to just toss the keys to Gohmert and friends, and then take up knitting. I've said all along that this unhealthy obsession with 2016 and HRC is a disaster in the making. I've also long maintained that the really important election will be 2014, rather than 2016. That is because 2014 will have a direct effect on all those nice people out there who are working so very hard to suppress the vote. If these saboteurs of the ballot box are to be stopped, or even slowed down slightly, the place and time to do it will be 2014, not 2016. If the (D)oormat Democrats don't show up in 2014, they might as well chuck it in,and we can forget altogether about the America in which we grew up, and abandon any real hope for combating the forces in this Nation who want to see the good old 30's all over again. 1830's that is.

[blkmusclmachine]

130. The DC DEMS are on auto-pilot. 1830, here we come!

[Gothmog]

46. We need to increase turnout for midterm elections

Democrats have historically suffered from lower turnout in midterms. We need to get the turnout up.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

48. Questioning policy good. Drawing lines & purity tests & circular firing squads is bad.

It is great to argue and debate and hash out policy and positions. But nobody is going to adhere to every single plank in a platform unless the planks are very weak and meaningless or unless they are the author of the planks.

Devising ways to make a party smaller is a recipe for failure. That is what the Tea party purists are doing to the Republican party.

Purism and purity tests ("Either you believe X or you are not a true Democrat&quot just drives people away.

If people agree 51% with a platform then maybe they can vote for it. Making the platform so extreme that only a minority can agree with 51% of it loses elections.

Purists are more concerned with purity than accomplishing policy through legislative and executive power.

Debate is great if it is without in-versus-out exclusionism. It is great without all-or-nothing binary thinking.

Allow shades of gray and colors.

[Ken Burch]

50. We had a Democratic nominee who only agreed with 51% of normal Democratic values in 1992

He won, but

1)was he the ONLY candidate who could have won in 1992?

2)Was it really worth electing him, given how little good he did as president for working people and the poor and how much damage his term in office did to the party?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

54. So? Bush agreed with ~ 90% of Repub values in 2000. See what damage that did to their party. nt

[reACTIONary]

116. +10 (nt)

[djean111]

163. The people we are given to vote for do not intend to legislate anything like what the Dems

used to stand for. Shades of gray should not include only cutting social security and veteran's pensions "just a little fucking bit".

Has the notion of right and wrong just completely evaporated?

Do you really think cutting unemployment and food stamps is any sort of compromise? I don't.
When it comes to right and wrong, I would rather be sneeringly labeled a purist than just be a weasel and go along to get along, or do my masters' bidding.

And fuck everyone who lumps what progressives believe in into the same thing as what the Tea party wants, and calls it purist. Fuck them. The Democratic Party is turning into a Third Way center right lap dog. Not a question of purity at all.

[zeemike]

53. I watched CSpan this morning Washington Journal

As I often do...and this morning they had a Democrats only segment call in that confirmed what you are saying...and it was amazing how many of them mentioned Warren in a positive light.
And the concerns they expressed were those you have mentioned.

[HomerRamone]

59. What if it is the nominated Dems' role to PREVENT substantial opposition to the conservative agenda?

What if they *are* the Washington Generals (the basketball team who were SUPPOSED to almost(?) always lose to the Harlem Globetrotters)?

[MNBrewer]

65. I'm not extremely or very enthusiastic about voting in 2014, but you can bet that I will!

[Pretzel_Warrior]

67. what percent voted in 2010? and could it be GOP is just as disinterested if not more so?

[11 Bravo]

68. Hell yeah! Maybe next time Nader will carry Florida!

[ancianita]

69. Nailed it on Duncan and seniors is important, the two sellout issues Dems HAVE to stand up

to party leaders about. The party platform must be better distributed, and candidates MADE to PLEDGE to upholding it.

[Turbineguy]

71. Not voting is not unenthusiastic

it's self-destructive.

[TheKentuckian]

72. Mad, these folks aren't generally the pragmatists they claim, they are fundamentalist ideologues

who utilize framing and spin to disguise themselves as occupying a mystical center that they are curiously ever either nudging to the right or going on about how the time is not yet right for needs well past their time.

That moistened finger you see in the wind is almost all show, though it does serve to craft campaign speeches for the masses.
They are sure of their direction, any hesitancy is just fumbling for a way to sell the shit coming down the pipe already.

I think it will be pretty clear that folks from Flushing won't even consider your point and will stridently ramble the same old shit toward the same neoconservative and corporate ambitions as the other fuckers without the Confederacy and false religion.

These people aren't convincible, Mad. They have been using our energy, votes, and field work for their own aims, aims they substantially share with our opposition and they will press in the same direction no matter how suicidal it is because that is exactly what they want.

I hope there might be a few still falling for the bullshit that you might bring to clarity but I think most are true believers at this point.

[djean111]

162. Very well said.

The only thing that comes of the Center(-right) feeling that the Warrens and Graysons, etc. are "getting out of hand" (WHAT THE FUCK!!!! How entitled and entrenched are they?) is the usual lying campaign speeches.

[tiredtoo]

74. This is scary. NT

[Curmudgeoness]

75. When I see marriage equality moving forward

in so many states, that makes me believe that there are a lot of us out here. A liberal movement that I never thought I would see gain acceptance so quickly, or in my lifetime....and it is becoming a reality. People are ready for liberals and liberal ideas. I don't know why Democrats have allowed themselves to be afraid to speak out on campaign trails.

As to the poll, if I were asked that question, I would also have to answer that I am not at all "enthusiastic" about voting in the upcoming election. I don't have any true liberals to vote for. But if you think that just because I am not enthusiastic that I will not vote, you will be wrong. So don't take too much away from the findings of this poll. I suppose that the best we can do is convince people that they have to vote against the Republicans, and why......again.

[madfloridian]

80. "People are ready for liberals and liberal ideas."

Yes, they are.

[Curmudgeoness]

82. So why can't we sell that to the people running the party???

It should be like selling air conditioning in Texas.

[madfloridian]

87. We are not rich enough.

Bottom line.

[Curmudgeoness]

88. But, damn it, we're smart enough.

[madfloridian]

109. lol

[blkmusclmachine]

131. "People are ready for liberals and liberal ideas."

I wish the DC DEMS were, too, but alas ...

[YoungDemCA]

77. People need to realize that pragmatism is for politicians and bureaucrats...

Why should the grassroots organizers and activists agree to support the Democrats unthinkingly and unconditionally? Why set the bar so low? Have we fallen that far, where a handful of professional political operatives dictate to us what the agenda is, and we all nod in the affirmative-"Yep, sure!"

We don't need yes-men or yes-women. We need people willing to speak the truth and to expose injustice, inequality, and demand change, at all levels of the government and of society at large. I will not settle for the Democratic Party in its current state, and I know that many, many other people feel the same way.

We already have one right-wing, neo-liberal, pro-corporate, pro-war, anti-social contract and anti-democratic party. We don't need two. Otherwise, what is the point of having a representative democracy, but to have a competition of business/corporate elites-who compete to see who gets to rule over the populace ruthlessly, unchecked by silly notions like democracy or personal liberty or equal rights or social justice or economic parity.

I sincerely wish that the Democrats weren't the "lesser of two evils." I want to vote for them, proudly and unreservedly. But they sure make that really hard.

[MannyGoldstein]

78. "Who the @$!# else ya gonna vote for, chumps?!" isn't polling

well? Then maybe, after 30 years, it's time for a new party motto.

[Curmudgeoness]

90. Yep, who ya gonna vote for.

But that isn't the only answer.....if enough people are not motivated, they just don't vote. Apathy kicks our ass.

Is your new party motto going to be "who else ya gonna vote for, chumps?" I want that bumper sticker. Actually, that has been the motto for the past 30 years. Still working.

[blkmusclmachine]

132. Hell, our so-called DC DEMS can't even be bothered to fix the black box vote changers.

Makes me think that they're not all that serious about winning.

[Drunken Irishman]

81. Yes...blame the Democrats. Not the people who sit out...

Why should they be held accountable for their votes?

Vote. Don't vote. I don't really care. But don't bitch when Republicans want to slash unemployment benefits and shut down the government over Obamacare. You're the only person who has a say over who you vote for - not the Democratic Party, or any candidate. You either support a candidate or you support the opposition, either actively or by default. It really is that simple.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

103. Yeah, if your restaurant is failing, blame the people who refuse to eat there,

not your lousy food and bad service.

That's the attitude that the Democratic Establishment takes. It couldn't possibly be because they haven't taken a firm, well-publicized stand on issues that matter to the average person. It couldn't possibly be because since 1980 they have acted as if their job was not to offend the Republicans. It isn't because they have become so accepting of Republican ideas that the voters can hardly tell the difference except on behavioral issues.

[madfloridian]

111. ......

[reACTIONary]

119. So, who is failing? We've...

... got the presidency and senate. We don't have the advantage in the house, because of the gerrymandering, but in the aggregate, the majority of the votes go to dems and in the longer run that will work more and more to out advantage.

The polls being discussed here are for a midterm and the party that is out is always more enthusiastic and has the advantage in the midterm. Maybe firing up the base is the right thing to do for the midterm, but the idea that the Democratic Establishment are losers and the party is failing just isn't true.

[Drunken Irishman]

136. More like deciding to starve because the only restaurant in town isn't to your liking.

[Fumesucker]

138. The food is awful

And the portions so small.

No one goes there any more, it's too crowded.

[Drunken Irishman]

141. Then don't eat and die. But don't cry when you're starving.

You know, this is a bit bigger than just a string of chain restaurants. This is a vote that has real life consequences. It's cute some of you feel the need to trivialize such an important vote. But whatever. Like I said, vote, don't. It's your right. But please, don't bitch when Republicans wreck this country. It isn't Obama's fault. It's yours if you don't vote.

[Fumesucker]

143. Stop trying to pass shit on a shingle off as haute cusine and maybe people would be less cynical

To continue with the food references I'm reminded of Bismarck's comment regarding sausage, politics and people with weak stomachs.

[Drunken Irishman]

144. I don't think you're a simpleton. Stop with the simplistic logic.

Grow up and realize there are major consequences to your whining. If you don't like the Democrats, fine, whatever - but don't pretend the alternative is just better.

DU is a farce sometimes. I see you all bitch and moan about how Republicans won't extend the unemployment benefits. Guess what? That ain't going to change until Democrats get back in control of the House. If you don't like them, fine, don't vote ... but don't bitch when Republicans fuck you over and certainly don't blame the Democrats for YOU not voting for whomever your Democratic candidate is.

You all want to hold the Democrats accountable? You people can't even hold yourself accountable. LOL what a joke.

[Fumesucker]

146. "You people", eh?

If DU is a farce then you are just as much a part of that farce as I am.

Liberals will never be as good at shutting up and doing what they are told by authority figures as conservatives are, sometimes that's a strength and sometimes it's a weakness.

Will Rogers' quip about not belonging to an organized political party as he was a Democrat would probably fit here too.

[Bluenorthwest]

158. "You people"? You know what, Drunken? My State had record breaking 2010 turnout

and we elected Democrats and Democratic policies, including returning to office Gov Kitzhaber to deal with ACA reforms, Kitz being a physician and one of the orininators of the Oregon Health Plan, recently vastly expanded under the ACA. What State do you live in? How was your turn out? Did you expand Medicaid? We added basic dental to our free, low income health program.
So from here the 'you people' who did not vote in 2010 are folks in States outside the West Coast. CA also had good turnout, Democratic victories galore, huge. Brown over Meg, who outspent him 10 to 1. Washington State did very well also. Plenty of turn out, lots of victory for us.
What do you think was the problem outside this region. Oh, also outside the NE, which also did just fine? Oregon, Washington and CA all make it easy to vote, all present candidates who are not brilltle Republican similacrums. But what do YOU think is the reason some areas were so apathetic in 2010? I have no idea because it happened thousands of miles away...we did fine here.

[djean111]

164. The people we are given to vote for these days have no fucking intention of doing anything liberal,

maybe just a very very few of them. We are given, from president on down, Third Way and Blue Dog candidates. They do not work for us.

[fredamae]

168. Which Circles Back

around to the original Question: Who Else You Gonna Vote For?

When the candidates All Around are So Toxic to the Good of the Whole Country and mainly Focus upon the Health of Wall Street/Banks/Corps/War Makers?
What difference can it make whether we vote or not when the outcome is always the same no matter Who wins.
One party drags the country down in "Slow-Motion" while the other simply chooses to "Rip The Band-Aid" off real quick.
Either way Corporate etc Profits Soar as they "Dissolve" the Middle Class.

[djean111]

169. Yup.

And the answer from the third wayers is always, oh, get more of us in power and we will be different.
Not.
Remember when Obama was gonna unleash his inner liberal when he got his second term?
April Fool! Here comes the TPP, and if it was okay to cut veteran's COLA and food stamps and unemployment, what is still lurking in the shadows of Hey! We'll compromise everything away, we'll just do it a little at a time. but you will get some rousing speeches.

Hell, why not just introduce a bill that gives all the budget to the MIC and corporate subsidies and get it the fuck over with.

[fredamae]

173. And None of it is "Compromise"

When the consequences to "we, the people", our environment, our Rights and Liberties Are So Fkn Toxic there Is No Reasonable Compromise Out of the Gate!

I'm Not going to "Settle" ever again! I've tried it the "true Dem Way" for 40 Fkng Years along with the majority of the electorate over those years and Look where the Hell we are NOW!!

How is it that when Democrats are Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again It's Not as Crazy as We Claim the GOP is and HOW Will That Ever result in Real change?

No, This Time-I'm Changing! Which is Why I Refuse to Ever "just go along" again. Period. That argument is Old, Ineffective, Antiquated and is just as it always was-Pure BS!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

180. Then let the Dems campaign on doing things for those who are hurting economically

and telling the corporations that it's a new day.

Campaign on getting rid of things that piss people off: NSA surveillance, the security theater at the TSA, treating marijuana as if it's as deadly as plutonium. (This will appeal to both the left and the libertarians.)

Campaign on raising the minimum wage, lowering the age of eligibility for Medicare (the insurance companies don't really want anyone over 50 anyway, and adding younger, healthier people to the mix will help stabilize the system's finances), giving preference in government procurement to companies that have the largest percentage of their workforce in the U.S. (and that doesn't mean Chinese slave laborers in the Mariana Islands), and stopping the wars that are killing and maiming so many working-class and poor young people.

Remember: if you can get VOTES by doing what people need, you don't need the corporate cash. It's a golden ball and chain. It's all bright and shiny and attractive, but it ties you down nevertheless.

Democratic candidates need to go to poor and working class neighborhoods and LISTEN to the people who are hurting. Hold $5 coffee and cookie fundraisers, because someone who contributes ANYTHING is more likely to vote for you than someone who is asked to vote simply because you're not a Republican.

If the Dems keep on doing what they're doing (which is the corporations' bidding), if they continue talking a good game and then caving at the last minute, can you blame the rank-and-file voter for staying home? For believing "they're all the same"?

If you're not getting any loving, maybe it's not that all the potential mates out there are stupid assholes. Maybe it's you that needs some improvement. If have a mate, and that mate keeps promising to give up his/her bad habits and then goes right back to cheating on you, is that you're a "purist" or that your mate isn't trustworthy?

The same is true of political parties. It's not that the voters who stay at home are stupid. It's that 30 years of Democratic caving in to the Republicans and coddling the corporations has made them terminally cynical about both parties.

[madfloridian]

199. Very good post.

[djean111]

202. Oh, I'll just eat at home. There is always a third choice, and it is not the Third Way.

[winter is coming]

209. What about the people who are starving, anyway?

The people who voted Democratic in past elections, like good little soldiers, and are now jobless, homeless, hopeless?

Yes, votes have real-life consequences, and when the Third Way votes, we lose.

[fascisthunter]

192. PERFECT reply!

[fascisthunter]

193. noby is buying what you are selling anymore

find a new approach to the problem.

[madrchsod]

84. the unions are`t going to quit

we are gearing up for this election because we are fed up with the centrist democrats.

here in illinois we are facing a probable republican who could fiance his own campaign for the governorship.

[madfloridian]

101. Kudos to your union, and best of luck.

Good for you guys.

[47of74]

85. There has to be a two-party system for a country to survive?

Then how does one explain Lebanon, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and the Philippines?

[madfloridian]

92. Markos at Daily Kos. "Daily Kos will not enable those who enable Third Way"

I missed this when he posted it. It surprised me, but also pleased me.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/05/1260388/-Third-Way-s-congressional-enablers

So who else is enabling Third Way's destructive agenda? Why, let's name names!
House members
James Clyburn (Southern South Carolina)
John Dingell (Ann Arbor, Detroit's western suburbs, Michigan)
Ron Kind (Southwestern Wisconsin, La Crosse, Eau Claire)
Joseph Crowley (NYC, Bronx, Queens)
Allyson Schwartz (Northeast Philly, eastern Montgomery County, Pennsylvania)
Jared Polis (Boulder, Colorado)

Senators
Thomas Carper (Delaware)
Claire McCaskill (Missouri)
Mark Udall (Colorado)
Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire)
Kay Hagan (North Carolina)
Chris Coons (Delaware)

When considering candidate endorsements and whether we engage in a race (primary or general), we've long considered membership (or potential membership) in the Blue Dog Caucus. As of today, we're adding Third Way to our exclusionary list on our candidate questionnaire.

These electeds undoubtedly appreciate the open spigot to Wall Street campaign cash. Our job is to make sure they pay a price for their cozy arrangement.

[adirondacker]

97. Thanks for posting. nt

[madfloridian]

102. I agree with him on that issue.

Sounds good to me.

[adirondacker]

104. No argument from me. I was of this mindset back in 04. The party had total control in 08 and

Squandered it to Wall Street and the 20% (not 1% in my eyes). I went to the polls in '10 and '12, held my nose, but I sure as hell wasn't out making telephone calls or knocking on doors, as I did in 04 and 08. The party is either going to shift left at a rapid pace, or completely lose it's base in my opinion. Perhaps they can make up for it with center right republicans, but I highly doubt it.

[joshcryer]

115. Got a link to Mark Udall's enabling?

[madfloridian]

149. Yes, I do.

http://www.thirdway.org/co_chairs

[joshcryer]

150. Dang, didn't know. Udall has been anti-surveillance.

Was pushing back against the NSA even before Snowden broke the revelations.

[anti partisan]

153. I think I'd best describe him as having a bit of a libertarian streak

Which is good for some issues like his opposition to wars and surveillance, but he also seems to vote yes on most free trade agreements for example.

[joshcryer]

157. True that.

He was a tough vote but I voted for him and I was proud of his anti-surveillance state talk. He, like the Gov. of Colorado, are extreme moderates, who believe in the markets.

Fortunately the Gov. of Colorado signed marijuana legalization into law.

[cantbeserious]

105. Kick And Recommend

eom

[gulliver]

106. Democrats need to make their own enthusiasm.

The Democratic turnout goal needs to be 100% without a single thought about who its leaders are or what their positions might be. The enthusiasm and determination to vote without fail is a cause, not an effect. Do that, and you will get some people taking the lead that you like.

If you want to reverse this pathetic, Republican-inspired, teacher insulting education approach, you're not going to get it by whining and threatening not to vote. Apathetic voters lose ground for their positions. They lift the spirits and swell the ranks of their political enemies.

If you get behind people, they become your leaders. If you are waiting for someone to pop up on your television and inspire a bunch of sad sacks, good luck. Not gonna happen.

[madfloridian]

107. I did not whine, nor did I threaten not to vote. I posted an opinion.

I do disagree with much of your post though. Many bloggers and posters like me, many other retired and still active teachers, many alarmed parents are fighting back hard.

What do we get from Arne? He blasts us as "Armchair Pundits"!!!!

http://dianeravitch.net/2013/10/01/arne-duncan-blasts-critics-of-his-reforms-as-armchair-pundits/

Damn, armchair pundits?

[gulliver]

178. If Republicans were smart enough, they would have invented "voter enthusiasm"

It's one of the dumbest ideas yet to infect the Democratic universe of discourse. As with so many media inventions, it seems to cater to a lazy, entitled, consumer mentality. Our political leaders are failing to gain our favor. Goodness. A lot of people say they aren't enthusiastic about voting. Oh no! The poor precious little dears!

It is backwards. You become a prince and then you get a kiss.

Our side, the Democratic side, is right. We have the right answers. That is where my enthusiasm comes from. I'm not looking for a shining white knight (and sorry, Bernie Sanders wouldn't be that even if I were). I'm looking for tens of millions of white knights who are in it because we are right.

Get a juggernaut voting base and we will get everything we want. The leaders will follow. Right now, they have to hedge constantly because they can't rely on fickle, petulant, lazy, self-absorbed sometime voters. Witness what happened with Obama. His administration has given the left more political mileage than they have had in decades, but they sat on their, er, couches in 2010. They need their couches kicked, not catered to.

[TheKentuckian]

151. Surely your argument isn't that enthusiastic support of those pushing these policies is going to end

them? That is what the content indicates, I assume you actually mean voting is affirmative and those that show up have influence and those that stay home don't, which is not only fair but also obvious. Where it goes south is when when one is forced to affirm what they oppose either way and enthusiastic voting does nothing for ones actual position, in fact you are logically counted as supporting that which you enthusiastically affirmed in the election.

I don't see how an automatic vote gets any pull, you are even more safely ignored than a non voter, who might get pissed and rise from the couch against you. You don't have to compromise with an automatic yes, such a person requires no thought whatsoever.

Those with the ability to say "no dice" are the ones with the pull not fawning yes men.

Enthusiasm for corporate education favoring pols will result in corporate education policy, not magically the opposite as a reward to the faithful's true desire.

[gulliver]

184. You are right. That's not my argument.

My argument is that we need to go out and vote for anyone with a D, period. Everyone with a D is better than everyone with an R. If your jaw drops at the naivete and "obvious" wrongness of that proposition, then good. We are where we need to be in the conversation.

The "automatic vote" absolutely does get pull. You have to play to win. You may be assuming a too-static politics that doesn't exist in real life. An automatic, certain, Democratic juggernaut of voters wouldn't just support the "bad people" you would prefer to try to starve out. It it would create opportunity for those bad people to be dislodged by "good people."

Right now, the purer play Democrats are at a disadvantage to hedgers, primarily because potentially better leaders have to worry that people won't come to the polls. One or two "they are just like all the rest" ads go out, and the lazy and helpless might rant or cry and stay home. That's why they lose all the time. That's what history shows us.

[TheKentuckian]

204. tempted to say you are nuts but I think you are being genuine so I'll leave it at counterintuitive

There is too big a slip between the cup and the lip here, I see no connection made between being a "you had me at hello" and arriving at an aim not sought by the one you can't wait to say yes to.

No relationship works like that, if the consequence of offense is exactly the same as affirmation of support then the person will do as they please and if you happen to like it great and if you don't then oh well.

If you don't weed the garden then soon you will have a plot of weeds and no fruit will be born at all. A weed is a weed, they all have to go or we starve and the obvious fact that the opposition is Weeds R Us doesn't change that.

[Historic NY]

117. Do you think its intentional or planned......

to wear down Democrats....enough sockpuppets here starting trouble. Some keep promoting people who have said they won't run, while other strive to stave confilct with between the sex wars.....pretty f--king pathetic for an election coming in November.

[madfloridian]

118. The threats to the safety nets and to public education are planned.

Those were two of the main points in my OP. Our party should be standing firmly for Social Security, Medicare, and public education. They are not doing that.

[blkmusclmachine]

121. Let's stop fooling ourselves. The only "firm stances" our so-called DEMS take are all pre-cleared

through their Paymasters, the 1%.

[Flippertygibbit]

135. Pres @39%?? I'm hoping for change.

[Corruption Inc]

139. Put a few torturers on trial and those voting numbers would double instantly

Otherwise, everyone knows our democracy is a corrupted show for bankers and war mongers who use the intelligence agencies, courts and police against us.

Americans have been conned by both parties whom have traded civility for corruption. The voting numbers will not increase until a sense of justice has returned to someone or some party worth voting for.

[Douglas Carpenter]

172. I am very sorry to say - but the vast overwhelming majority of Americans couldn't care less about

torture. In fact as long as it is limited to Muslims and their sympathizers almost all Americans except for a very small fringe would lean toward supporting it - even if they deny supporting it. Of course - they should not have this attitude - but they do. However most Americans do care about seeing that Social Security benefits are increased rather than reduced. They do care about seeing that the government can guarantee them a decent retirement free of major worries. They do care about seeing that university and college level education is made affordable without incurring significant debt. They do care about seeing that healthcare will be made available through some mechanism for everyone without being burdened with high insurance premiums or forced into massive debt. Don't expect people to stand up for moral principle. Expect them to respond to their own interest.

[Douglas Carpenter]

142. to be affective advocates for economic justice Democratic politicians and their operatives would

would have to actually believe in it. Most don't. Whereas most, the solid majority of Republican politicians and their operatives are movement conservatives - what percentage of Democratic politicians and their professional staff are movement economic progressives and populists? Sure, most of the rank and file are - and obviously it is the only key that exist and ever has existed for creating a progressive majority - but of the professional political class of the Democratic Party? - I would guesst-i-mate 25% to 30% at best. And that is being very optimistic. Most of the rest of the Party's professional class want the Democratic Party to be the place where the socially liberally minded - pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, sushi eating, Volvo driving, latte drinking. Birkenstock wearing Hedge Fund manager who buys their soaps and shampoo at Body Shop can feel welcome at the cocktail parties and fundraisers.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

182. In other words, the "yuppie Democrats," the ones who say

"I'm socially liberal (because I want live my private life as I see fit) but economically conservative (because I like those dividends and besides, I think I'm a better breed of human being than those poor people)."

[MisterP]

210. Thomas Frank said we have two libertarian/Reaganaut factions pushing for social freedom

combined with Pinochet-level austerity: the Paulbots--and the Dems; the latte-loving yuppie may be the icon of all this, but it goes far deeper than that

PLUS there was a far-right Gleichschaltung in the late 70s that targeted everybody--elements of the military, Catholics, Protestants, atheists, academics, etc., etc. all adopted 80-100% of a sort of crusading, hippie-punching, race-baiting umbrella ideology; now it's automatically labeled "political suicide" to oppose guns or tax cuts

the Ezra Pound/Alex Jones stuff has the effect of 1) getting picked up by "oppositional" people (like how cults and Objectivism thrived during the contrarian 70s), so you get "lefties" that sound like they're living on a compound in Idaho, and 2) provides flak that makes it harder to sort the real skulduggery from the made-up "balance": had Florida 2000 failed Fox would've spent 4 years harping how this illegitimate President stole the election

[Ichingcarpenter]

145. The Sensible Liberal's guide

I'm so glad you are still fighting the good fight madfloridian

[merrily]

148. I never recommend staying home on election day, exactly

because staying home can be spun any which way.

I'd much rather see someone show up at the polls and vote their beliefs, whatever they may be.

Besides, IMO, it's the duty of a citizen to vote (or maybe to revolt, if it all seems that bad). But just staying home is never okay, IMO.

[mikekohr]

154. The reverse to the OP is also true, don't say our candidates are not "Pure" enough.

Remember the criticism of Al Gore in 2000. How'd that work out?

Remember that President Obama and Democrats were not progressive enough in 2010? How'd that work out?


-You don't have to be smart to be successful in politics, but you do need to be able to count.- Robert F. Kennedy

[merrily]

167. You seem to think your statements are self-evident. I don't.

I wasn't that thrilled with January 2007 through January 2011, either.

And I have no guarantee that Imaginary President Gore would have done much better than real President Bush or, for that matter, real President Clinton, whose love of NAFTA and repealing Glass Steagall did a lot to bring us global economic collapse of 2008. Yes, Bush contributed, too, but it wasn't all him.

[Eleanors38]

159. Clarity & Purpose are now confused with Purity.

[djean111]

165. Deliberately. To marginalise, minimize, and attempt to somehow shame into licking the same boot.

[madfloridian]

212. Yes.

Well said.

[madfloridian]

238. Begging Dems to support the safety nets, public education, help for unemployed....

is equated by some here to mean being too demanding of our party.

Standing with unions, standing firmly for the rights of women to be in control of their reproductive choices.....also interpreted as being too demanding.

A party that is failing to stand for these things is failing the people.

[avebury]

160. I lost my enthusiasm to vote a long time ago.

While I have voted for Obama, the Democratic Party just does not excite me anymore. They are too quick to cave in to the Republicans to slow to stick up for the masses. Under Republican rule, this country will die a quick death, under Democratic rule it seems like we are slowly bleeding to death. I think that Obama has tried to change things but he has spent too much energy on compromise. I don't know if will every see someone who is willing to take on system unwaveringly while capturing the support of the masses. Just like the issue of global warming, we have most likely passed the point of no return.

[Silent3]

161. "Question" party stances?

There's a lot about Democratic party stances that should be questioned, no doubt about that.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone called a "purist" for doing any of that questioning, or even for plenty of unquestioning I've-already-made-up-my-mind criticism and condemnation.

If you've pretty much decided that something is wrong beyond a reasonable doubt, and needs to be changed, you're no longer questioning. If you've chosen a particular set of tactics you intend to deploy for trying to change what you want changed, you're well beyond mere questioning.

To the extent that anyone here is calling anyone else a "purist", it's about those tactics, and it's highly disingenuous to say that this has anything to do with "questioning".

[riqster]

181. It's a bit of a leap from "very or extremely enthusiastic" to "interested".

I lost enthusiasm in 2008 after Kucinich and Biden dropped out of the primaries. But I was still interested and motivated.

[HoosierCowboy]

183. Do the math...

...and you will see why our democracy isn't. Only half of the eligible citizens are registered, and in any election, only half of them vote, and that's in a Presidential election year. Off year election turnout is pathetic.

Do the math and it's apparent that only a small portion of the population can swing the vote, which is reason #1 why idiotic fringe issues exist at all. Do we really need to explain why there is voter suppression? Most elections are won by one or two votes per precinct.

Half of 100% again divided by half divided by half means that 12.5 % + 1 voter decides the rules for every one else.

Fudge Hockey I say!

[malthaussen]

185. Goodness, the vitriol in these responses.

I agree with you.

-- Mal

[Gman]

186. Maybe purists need to get off their asses and

Get in the game. They sat on their asses for the most important election in 10 years, 2010, and gave the GOP control of redistributing. WTF else do purists want this year?

[paulkienitz]

187. less than 22% of democrats live in contested districts

[bigwillq]

188. I will be voting in 2014.

I have voted in every election on every level since I was 18.

[OKNancy]

195. Are you "purists" or are you really "dreamers"?

The way I see it, most people here would love every single candidate we put up to be totally progressive and fight for progressive causes. However, this is a totally pie-in-the-sky dream. It's a dream if you want to win.

I do agree that Social Security cuts would be good to fight, even in the most conservative areas, but no matter what.... there is no way in hell a Democrat could win where I live unless they were moderate in tone and policy.

I want to win. Winning means taking over both houses, winning means appointing chairpersons, winning mean protecting votes on the Supreme Court if one or two die or retire.

By all means, if you live in a blue area, go for it. Me... I'm a Pragmatic Progressive.

[madfloridian]

197. I am neither.

I posted an opinion post. Actually the vitriol in some of the responses makes my point far better than I did.

And...I never said I would not vote. Never even implied it.

I am a realist. I believe there are no more leaders who will stand up for public education and/or Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, etc.

I think too many have been bought and paid for by now to ever change.

[djean111]

201. Yes. And the candidates who are pushed on us are NEVER going to be liberal. Ever.

No matter what the makeup of Congress is.
The time for telling people that oh, wait until we win more and then things will be different? That's bullshit, and the time has passed.

You know what I am getting out of all of this talk? The Democratic Party as I knew it is gone. The Third Way has taken over. And I am supposed to meekly accept it. Actually, I don't think punching us hippies completely out of the party is the smart thing to do, because people who vote R will not vote D. Penis or not.
Which, I suspect, suits those pushing the Democratic Party to the right just fine and dandy.

When things like protecting the environment are sneeringly called unicorns wished for by purists? Someone has sold out, and their sheep have followed.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

221. It's certain that you won't get a lot of votes in Oklahoma running on gay marriage, but...

what about some of the things I listed above, like giving priority in government contracts to companies with the largest percentage of their workforce in America? What about lowering the age of eligibility for Medicare? What about raising the minimum wage?

I would bet that there are lot of people out there who don't care one way or another about gay marriage but who feel abandoned by both parties economically.

[OKNancy]

225. as I said in the post...

No cuts to Social Security ( and I should have said Medicare) would resonate, but the others you mentioned, probably not.
The unemployment rate in Tulsa is 4.9%.

[Aerows]

233. How about stopping the waste in the Pentagon?

We have money to throw away on buildings that will never even be used in Afghanistan, and crumbling infrastructure at home. Fixing that infrastructure would mean American jobs and stimulate the economy. Millions thrown away abroad for dubious and often pure wastefulness means less money here at home, and a higher deficit for no advantage whatsoever.

It chaps my ass that we cut Veteran's benefits, who are the people that were on the ground fighting the war, but we can't curb spending by those in the Pentagon throwing away money just so their budget won't get cut.

[harun]

196. We know we are going to get the candidates of the 1% pushed on us

We get a 99%'r, we'll stand by them.

[randr]

206. I suspect the remaining 78% do not want to express an opinion

about an election years in the future

[Aerows]

214. The definition of insanity

is electing the same people over and over again and expecting a different result.

[Aerows]

223. I think we need to hear some Democrats

speak about what needs to be done, champion it like Elizabeth Warren does, even if it isn't popular, and show some leadership.

"We don't want to cut xxx, unless we have to" isn't leadership. Leadership is "We want to implement and expand xxx, and we are going to fight to do it." I'd also like to hear "We are going to demand an audit of the Pentagon to ensure that we are getting value for taxpayer dollars and eliminate waste." We need to put a stop to buildings that will never be used, equipment left to rot, and cost-plus contracts that lead to nothing more than throwing away good money after bad.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

227. Yes, and tracking down that $1.2 TRILLION that even Dick Cheney

admitted was missing.

[Aerows]

230. If that snake was willing to admit that $1.2 Trillion was missing

you can be sure that it's probably more like $12 Trillion. Darth Evader never liked to admit ANY problems with military spending.

[RKP5637]

228. Many that I know are feeling more and more R=D=I, none are really for

we the people. The democrats have an opportunity, but I feel we will blow it. Somehow, the democratic party just does not understand the pulse of the nation. Rather than taking the issues head on, we nibble around the edges.

[Aerows]

234. Which is where failure to lead comes in

We need leaders to take issues head on, provide ideas and not be afraid to say and more importantly DO things that are unpopular with the MIC and Wall Street. Even if ultimately the best doesn't come to fruition, just making the attempt opens a dialogue and can make the nation stronger (not to mention the party!).

[workinclasszero]

235. Who defends the working class in this country?

We are praying to God for an FDR or a Bobby Kennedy or a MLK or a Mandela to rise up and save this country, and the world, from the MIC, multi national corps and the greed infested rich.

But who is listening?

99% of the ears in Washington DC are stuffed full of wall street cash. They don't hear the cry!

[El_Johns]

239. K&R.

[RBInMaine]

242. First, it's corporate SHIT polling. Next, polls mean LITTLE right now. Next, if "progressives"

haven't learned the lessons of 2010, then they DESERVE exactly what they get.