GOTV Enemy #1: "The Democrats must earn votes."

[gulliver]

Imo, the idea that the Democrats have to earn voter turnout from left-leaning voters needs to be demolished. It is one of these "easy-to-get-backwards" ideas that someone should catalog some day, like trickle-down economics, or requiring payment for higher education, or the drug war. The idea that voter turnout should be earned is somehow so apparently obvious that people don't question it. They keep chugging the rotgut and blame something else for the blindness that follows.

If there is more Democratic power, there is more Democratic power to go around. Create the power, then your share of it will grow. It really is that simple. Vote first. Vote always.

But how do I trust? How do I get past the hopelessness and feelings of pointlessness? How do I get past the hopes of easy escape, and the cozy, upright, and proud feelings I get when making my stand for inaction? How do I get past the anger and disgust?

That stuff is all complete and utter bullshit. It's the Zeno's Paradox of the motivation-afflicted. There is a subtle difference between standing your ground and resolving to stay in bed under your warm blankies. If farmers only worked when circumstances made them feel like working or only did the chores they enjoyed, we would all starve. Farmers just get it done.

Always vote Democratic in every election for every office. Do that once in 2014, and the bullies will back down. Do it twice, and we get Roosevelt-era, human-centered governance. We need to get this right, because it is all that is keeping us at a fifty-fifty standoff with the Koch's payola and the brutally misguided folks on the right.

[Le Taz Hot]

1. One of the stupidest threads ever.

Truly.

[gulliver]

2. It hurts when I get bullied like this.

But I take it as part of the price I have to pay for speaking my viewpoint.

[Le Taz Hot]

4. So, after starting an obvious

flame-bait thread YOU feel bullied? M'Kay.

[VanillaRhapsody]

8. the truth hurts?

ow ow ow!

[bluestate10]

78. Bullying is an act that people who truly don't have a better idea

take.

[TheKentuckian]

134. I used to take beatings daily until I fought back and kept fighting back

I have been harassed and faced ostracism for my race.

I have been mocked over and over for not having the right clothes and shoes and for being seen at the store paying with food stamps.

I have had cruel chants about the texture of my hair sang at me by assholes in a circle over and over.

I have had my ass kicked and property stolen.

Somebody on the internet stating that you wrote is not bullying, it is expressing an opinion you don't like about an opinion you expressed.

[bluestate10]

72. It is a very good OP. I think progressives that wax for something

to happen when conditions don't exist for that change are fucking morons. The push in 1968 to dramatically remake America brought us Nixon. In 1984 Mondale got wiped out and ushered in almost a decade of republican rule that the country is still recovering from. When the choice is extremism from republicans, only a damned fool will not show up to vote for the Democratic alternative, even if that alternative is a bluedog. No same person will give up 75% agreement in favor of 100% disagreement. The OP is exactly correct.

[HereSince1628]

94. You overlooked Carter's loss in 1980 it ushered in 12 years of Republicans.

But that's not worth noting I suppose because it doesnt' fit the history of the rise of the DLC.

[Ken Burch]

138. Electing the "lesser evil" however, never ends up CREATING the conditions for change.

And the Democratic Party exists to be the party of CHANGE, the party of advance.

When we run as the "almost as conservative" party(as Carter did in 1980, and as Mondale arguably did when he put "fighting the deficit" ahead of all traditional Democratic policy objectives in 1984) gets us hammered.

Even Clinton's showings in 1992 and 1996 don't disprove this.

In 1992, after essentially purging the left from the party, Clinton got 43%(a LOWER share of the vote than Dukakis received in 1988), and lost seats in both houses of Congress. In 1996, after officially abandoning labor and the poor through his support of NAFTA and "welfare reform", Clinton STILL only got 49% and couldn't even get close to retaking the U.S. House(and retaking the House should have been a "gimme putt" after Newt's shutdown).

Had the GOP been able to find an attractive, articulate candidate in either race(even if they'd managed to repeal term limits and renominate Bonzo)we'd have been hosed in 1992 and probably 1996 as well.

Do you really believe that we need to go back to the idea that labor, the poor, peace activists, greens, and labor have no right to ask ANYTHING from this party? If so, why? None of those groups is all THAT unpopular these days...at least not among anyone who'd even think of voting for us.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. I vote policies and principles over party and politicians.

"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.

In a democracy it's the politicians responsibility to convince voters to vote for them. Demanding that people vote for anyone that the party puts forth is destructive to democracy.

[gulliver]

7. The quote doesn't support the argument.

Jefferson is not saying anything about politicians being responsible for convincing voters to vote for them. I'm thinking he probably regarded voting as a privilege and duty.

I agree with Jefferson and have great respect for him. And I'm not saying (and never would say) that one should vote Democratic just to ally with the party or run with a creed. I take it as obvious that voting Democratic exclusively and in overwhelming numbers is the surest route to the success of my individual, strongly left-leaning principles.

As I said, if we create more Democratic power, there is more power to go around.

[enlightenment]

25. Umm . . .

Rephrasing that word salad, it appears your are saying that one should not vote Democratic because of the party - just that they should vote Democratic. Always and exclusively.

Which is the same as voting for the party and the "creed".

Big "D" Democratic is a political party, not a principle.

[treestar]

76. Look we are tired of begging you

Don't vote then. The rest of us who do will govern you. We will choose who makes the rules you live under.

[enlightenment]

101. Get over yourself.

I have voted in every election available for me to vote in since I was eighteen - which is probably longer than you've been alive.

If that little screed was your take-away from what I wrote, you really need to work on reading comprehension.

[treestar]

206. don't vote D then

we will not beg you. Vote third party then.

[AgingAmerican]

184. Begging?

Browbeating is more accurate.

[AgingAmerican]

187. When a corporate owned politician with a 'D' beside his name

...looses an election, it's his/her constituencies fault!

Well, that sounds like a winning campaign slogan!

[treestar]

207. Don't be browbeaten then

just vote third party. You are welcome to it. We aren't beging you any more. YO will never be satisfied, so vote for whatever idealist is running.

[AgingAmerican]

208. This is a perfect example

of what I am talking about. You insult, you attack, you browbeat, you chase people off, all in the name of GOTV. You do the opposite of what needs to be done to win an election, and you seem to do it intentionally.

It's just bizarre.

[sabrina 1]

82. Well, if politicians know that the people's votes for them are guaranteed which is what you are

saying they have ZERO incentive to work for the people. They will then work for those whose 'votes/money' have conditions.

Big Corps eg, won't just rubber stamp candidates. They expect something in return. It's quite an incentive for candidates to work FOR those they KNOW they have to please in order to get, EITHER THEIR MONEY OR THEIR VOTES.

So, if people follow your advice, just let them know, 'hey, no matter how you screw us you will always have our votes' there is virtually know reason at all for them to work for us.

They are then free to try to please the Corps which IS what has been happening.

No one should ever take votes for granted. It is the ONLY leverage the people have.

Sorry, politicians have to earn votes just as they have to earn Corporate funding. Let them choose who they need to please more.

This is the worst advice to give voters, good for politicians and corporations though.

[gulliver]

86. It is when people don't vote that politicians don't have to be responsible.

It is when people don't vote that corporations and the wealthy have excessive power. Those folks will do anything they can to keep people from voting. That should tell you something. If voting were bad for Democrats, Republicans would allow people to vote at the grocery store when they buy stamps.

It's not about earning votes. There are essentially no Democrats who don't merit election over their Republican opponents. Most people agree with Democratic policies, so if we just get "everyone" to the polls and make voting as easy as possible, Republicanism goes down the drain in short order. Republicans would be forced left. Democrats could afford to act further left. They wouldn't have to hedge bets.

You are confusing general election and primary politics possibly. Democrats who are guaranteed votes in the general are strengthened.

[sabrina 1]

110. Who said anything about not voting? Sorry, but I wouldn't treat a child that way. 'Hey honey, no

no matter how badly you behave, mommy will buy you whatever you want'. Unbelievable, we've been listening to this advice AND following it for years now.

Something HAS to change and the first step is to get the money out of politics. And we sure won't do that when politicians, like spoiled children, can go the Corps and say 'Not to worry, I'll be elected because the voters are too scared NOT to vote for me, so WHAT CAN ID DO FOR YOU'.

Nonsense, elections are about getting the best people for the job they are seeking. NOT a handover of votes out of fear.

You do as you please, but an awful lot of people are not going to allow their Reps to represent Corporations, on Education, on the Environment, on Labor, on War or anything else, they are going to let them know 'if you want MY vote, you need to be representing ME.

And guess what, if we had done this long ago, things would not be where they are today. A whole lot of people might still be alive eg.

[AgingAmerican]

185. Democrats who are guaranteed votes

...can follow the money with no regard for those who put them into office.

[840high]

105. ...^ that

[Ken Burch]

139. Not if it meant voting for DLC Dems.

Nobody's "left-leaning principles" had any real success under Clinton, for God's sakes(and none would under HRC, since she STILL backs "free trade" and a militarist foreign policy).

[DonCoquixote]

26. and what happens when

the vast majority of human beings are too stupid not to vote GOP, do we help the GOP sink the ship, as if we would not go down too, or for that matter, that we are not assisting the GOP to go to war and kill millions that do not have our luxury of voting?

If I could, I would say "OK, all those who do not want to vote, trade your voting rights with an Iraqi!" I know the Iraqi will show up.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. I'm voting against the ship going down, no matter whose driving.

[DonCoquixote]

65. that worked well in 2000

like it or not, sometimes we have to choose between a wound you can heal from, and one that will kill, and pretending that does not happen is not a sign of nobility, but of folly.

And again I say, the people who WILL be put in harm's way really will not care to hear that we Americans allowed them to die because we had to have things our way.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. How's that worked on the Drone wars and the dead and crippled by them?

And, how will that work if Hillary gets the nod. Hillary, who supported the war in Iraq and voted for it. And, who now condones the drone wars.

[DonCoquixote]

68. It will work better

Than some GOP that will push wars into overdrive, especially that war with Iran that the Zionists have been demanding for years.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. And, no few Democrats. Would you vote for them?

[Martin Eden]

59. Which Republican policies do you prefer over Democratic policies?

In some areas there may be little difference, but there are distinct differences. Under what circumstances in support of which policies would you rather see the Republican candidate in office? Also, do you think it's important for the Dems to retake the House and hold on to the Senate?

Is it your intent to vote 3rd party, or not at all if no candidate meets your standards?

I don't believe that any progress can be made while the R's control the House.

In some local elections there may be decent R candidates, but we've seen what happens when they control a state legislature & governorship.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. None that I know of. I have no problem voting 3rd Party or writing in a candidate.

I hope the Dems take the senate and house in lieu of a progressive party candidate.

I also know that my vote will not effect the election in any way unless it comes down to one vote. So, with that in mind, I will vote for the most progressive/anti-war candidate on the ballot or write one in. or skip that part of the ballot.

I also have the archaic idea that my vote belongs to me. Not to any party or candidate.

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

[Martin Eden]

70. "I also know that my vote will not effect the election in any way"

You are mistaken about that. If your vote doesn't count, then nobody's vote counts. If thousands shared your belief and voted 3rd party in a close race the election will be affected in a BIG way, like Nader voters in Florida 2000. You are not alone in the way you think, and your vote DOES make a difference.

Of course your vote belongs to you. I hope you, and thousands of others who are disappointed in some of the current crop of Democratic candidates, will vote wisely.

Our electoral system needs many reforms, including Instant Runoff Voting so we can make an Independent candidate our 1st choice and the Democratic candidate our 2nd choice so we don't inadvertently put the worst choice in office.

But until that day comes, I see very little choice. Control of the House or Senate can hinge on just a few very tight races. If the R's retain power due to folks on the left voting for 3rd party candidates with no chance of winning, real harm will be done to real people. Our government has been terribly dysfunctional since the 2010 mid-terms.

I am not a loyal Democrat. I am loyal to the people of this country who are suffering under trickle-down economics or dying from the toxins big polluters like the Koch brothers spew into our environment.

I vote on principle, every time. My first principle as a voter is help produce results that are good for the people of my country.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

71. In reality, it doesn't.

I have voted in every federal election since 1966. I can guarantee that the elections turned out the way they did regardless of my vote.

Your principles, and mine, differ in regard to what's good for the people. I think it's not particularly "good for the people" to have democracy limited to two parties that are both in thrall to Capitalism and all that goes with it. Are there differences? You bet there are. But, "not as bad" doesn't mean good, or even acceptable. I usually vote for Democrats. But, there are lines which I refuse to cross when it comes to policies and principles. e.g., Any candidate, of any party, who is against a woman's right to choose will not get my vote no matter how "not as bad" he/she is than the opposing candidate.

Our electoral system needs many reforms, including Instant Runoff Voting so we can make an Independent candidate our 1st choice and the Democratic candidate our 2nd choice so we don't inadvertently put the worst choice in office.

I don't see that happening until the people demand it. Either by voting 3rd Party or not voting because of a lack of real choices.

[Martin Eden]

89. In reality, it does.

Sorry to contradict you, but you couldn't be more wrong about that ... unless you never voted for a candidate who won an election.

Because you're not alone. Multiply your attitude times a million voters (or only a few hundred sometimes) who think their vote doesn't count, so they toss it away on a candidate who has zero chance or they stay home. That's how elections are won or lost.

I understand everything you wrote, and sympathize to some extend.

But I just want you to understand that if enough folks on the left feel and vote the same way you do, it will not be good for the people.

[VanillaRhapsody]

159. Agree....

can you believe this nonsense?

[Scuba]

5. I miss the unrec button.

[VanillaRhapsody]

9. thats okay...I recc'd for you!

[City Lights]

16. Me too.

The "rec" button is useless without it.

[LWolf]

6. Fuck that. The harder you work to demolish the idea that my vote is earned,

the harder it gets to earn my vote. You can't demolish democracy or my right to cast my vote as I see fit in your fervor to force my vote.

All you do is earn my disrespect and distrust.

My vote is earned. I always vote. I never sit out an election. But what choices I make on my ballot are mine, and candidates earn them. Or not.

The reality is this: If you want the vote of the left, earn it. Or acknowledge that you don't need it enough to actually put left-of-center candidates on the ballot, and deal with YOUR choice. Setting up the left to be your scapegoat is despicable. To say the least.

[gulliver]

12. " I always vote."

I see this a lot. People say they always vote, then right away imply that they might not vote for particular offices.

My whole thing is this. It may be impossible to get full voter participation when the country is so deeply in the grip of a kind of cancer of "I get mine, then you get yours." Disrespect and distrust are the mother's milk of Republicanism, and those feelings should be fought whenever they occur.

But you hit the nail on the head.

[Art_from_Ark]

212. I always vote... but I probably will not vote for a particular office this time.

And you know why? Because the only candidates in the race are the incumbent Republican and a Libertarian challenger.

[VanillaRhapsody]

17. or what? You are going to vote Right?

[Scootaloo]

33. And there's the main selling point of shitty Democrats

"Oh yeah? What're you gonna do about it, vote Republican, HAW HAW HAW!"

if all you've got is "vote for me so he doesn't get your vote!" then that's not a fucking winning strategy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

41. So when does YOUR campaign start....just because current crop of Democrats do not meet your

idealistic expectations....do not mean they are just "shitty".

But the REPUBLICANS are definitely shitty....


So when are YOU running....its one thing to demand better Democrats...you have to do more than just that!

So when are you running?

[Scootaloo]

84. You're not improving your argument

The double-down is a shitty KFC sandwich inspired by a youtube joke, not a valid means of making an argument.

Sadly I am not independently wealthy, nor am I tied into the structure of corporate funding that fuels the campaigns of either political party - or many of the third party options for that matter. Had I the funds, I would.

Tell you what. You want to pledge? I'll put up a Kickstarter.

[VanillaRhapsody]

90. So that leaves one big ol hole in your theory.....the Republican version of that "shitty sandwich"

is laced with lead, arsenic and ptomaine poison....


And since you cannot afford to fund your own campaign....then I guess you are going to have to settle for the candidates that the rest of us HAVE funded and worked to get elected.....but you want to have your cake and eat it too....You don't HAVE to do the work and expense of getting someone elected....when all you have to do is become a hater of ALL the candidates...Just proclaim them a "shit sandwich"....now that saves you time and expense! Kudos....so clever of you....and you can just rant and rail...gnash teeth and rend garments that "these candidates suck"! "this party sucks...." "I hate every thing they have accomplished because dammit its just not enough!!!"

easy peasy!

[Ken Burch]

150. That's an unfair line of argument

You know perfectly well that most of us can't actually run for office ourselves. To demand that a person do so as proof of their own commitment is unreasonable.

[VanillaRhapsody]

151. then you have to go with who every one else worked to get elected....

Well who you got then? Otherwise it is just whining for the sake of hearing your own voice. Some people just HATE all forms of government and just want to stand on the sidelines and hurl attacks at any politicians....If you think you can get someone elected then be our guest. You can't just stand around and yell for better candidates and think you are part of the solution now can you?

[Scootaloo]

162. That's kind of funny...

You can't just stand around and yell for better candidates and think you are part of the solution now can you?

First, it assumes that I'm "standing around yelling." What the fuck are you doing, then?

Second, even if i were "standing around yelling," that has a higher chance of inciting improvement in the situation than your method, which appears to be accepting whatever shit is shoveled to you so long as it claims to be a Democrat. New winning strategy for the tea party; run as Democrats, that way you'll not only carry the crazy conservative base who are in on the trick, but also Loyal Democrat Voters like Vanilla Rhapsody. After all, party over principle!

Third, you're mistaken my desire for the Democrats to embrace liberalism as some sort of political nihilism. What the fuck is up with that?

[VanillaRhapsody]

163. So you took this to mean specifically you?

Why?

[Scootaloo]

166. "So when does YOUR campaign start?"

Wasn't exactly subtle, you know. Caps, and all that.

[VanillaRhapsody]

169. then when does YOUR campaign start?

because you are going to have to find and fund and support all these new far left liberal candidates to pull off your champagne dreams and caviar wishes! You can't just complain....you gotta do something....

[Scootaloo]

172. I am, thanks.

Always looking, VR. Always ready to campaign, fund, and vote. It's cute that you try this shitty deflection as a response to me pointing out how Democrats could win more. it's like you're saying "FUCK YOU, i'd rather they lose than be liberals!" which... I guess is kinda what everyone expects fro myou at this point.

Have a nice night. Enjoy your ice cream

[VanillaRhapsody]

173. You have to do more than "look"....

that is your problem.....you are just "looking" and complaining....

[VanillaRhapsody]

174. I am working on them winning by the way....not just complaining that the Dems aren't

fringey enough for me! Because you know...not worrying about the mushy middle low information voters wins elections! And as I said Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren do not even measure up to YOUR standards because they SUPPORT Pres. Obama AND the Affordable Care Act.....

So whatcha gunna do? How are you going to find candidates even further left than they are????

Pssst...I think Ralph Nader and Lyndon LaRouche are available!

[AgingAmerican]

211. Anything to the left of Reagan

Is, "Far Left". This is late 80s GOP rhetoric. Really attractive as a GOTV strategy...

[VanillaRhapsody]

215. No that would be what is left of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders....who both

support President Obama AND the Affordable Care Act...

There is some space between Reagan and Bernie Sanders though huh?

[AgingAmerican]

210. Abuse and insults

...as a GOTV strategy. Fucking bizarre.

[VanillaRhapsody]

216. Wow....nope no abuse and insults from the anti-Obama clique AT ALL is there?

[AgingAmerican]

224. Good luck on your quest

[treestar]

79. It is

Bury your head in the sand.

Did the Rs earn your vote? No

The Ds ? No

So you'll have To vote Green or Socialist.

Some lower offices wont even have that.

And if the winners didn't earn your vote, surely you don't expect them to care what you think. It wouldn't be fair to demand they serve you. They didn't earn that right.

[Scootaloo]

85. Fortunately my Democrats ARE liberals

I'm in Seattle, after all.

Point being, however, that simply selling yourself as "not Republicans" is not a strong point. Especially if the only measurable difference is that you say you aren't one.

[treestar]

87. One is only going to try that sell to people who keep saying

they aren't going to vote for Democrats who didn't earn their vote by not being progressive enough.

If you suddenly moved to a red state, you'd vote for a Blue Dog or the Republican, and likely you'd have to settle for the Blue Dog. At least you'd be contributing that way.

You're in essence saying you live in a blue progressive area and that Democrats in red states aren't doing enough to make those states bluer! Pretty judgmental when you are not surrounded by right wing nut fundies.

[VanillaRhapsody]

153. Depends on where you live....try being a Democrat in South Carolina....

Easy for you to say where you live...

[Scootaloo]

161. Clyburn seems to pull it off, with a strong liberal record

Are you saying he's an anomaly? That aside from him, SC Democrats have to run as weak Republicans? i admit I'm unfamiliar with South Carolina's politics - closest I've come is living in the wild woods of north Carolina when i was a little kid - so you tell me.

I'm saying Democrats would win more, if they took stronger, more pronounced liberal positions. not just "more liberal than Republicans," that's allowing the republicans to set and frame the issues. but honest to god liberalism.

Do you argue?

[VanillaRhapsody]

164. You are saying you want THESE Democrats to do that....well that ain't going to happen....

You have to herald in new candidates to measure up to your standards....so when are YOU going to run? You want far left liberal policies faster...YOU are going to have to find some new candidates...

BTW....Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders BOTH support this President and the Affordable Care Act...so you are going to have to find some even more "liberal left" than even they are....good luck we are pulling for ya~

[Scootaloo]

167. It's interesting that you take deep, personal offense to liberals

And respond with such mockery and aggression.

Why is that, VR? Did a liberal eat your ice cream when you were little?

[VanillaRhapsody]

171. No you just don't understand the difference between being a realist and an idealist....

but you trying to paint me as a non-Liberal....that's amusing! I also know the difference between Liberal and Libertarian!

[treestar]

77. Who earns it?

The Green candidate? What about offices where only a D and R get on the ballot?

Don't vote then. If nobody earned tours then you have no say. Why should anyone listen?

Nobody is going to beg you for your vote. They will ignore you.

[LWolf]

91. Whoever has the best positions and record on the issues.

I don't need you to tell me not to vote; YOU aren't the decider of who votes, who doesn't, and whose voice/vote counts. I'm not asking for your blessing or curse; your opinion, as far as my vote is concerned, is irrelevant. Unless you are going to be on my ballot, of course.

Begging and earning are two different things; acting as if they are the same is either disingenuous or stupid.

[VanillaRhapsody]

112. as was said...if you were in a Red state and your choice was a Republican or a Blue Dog...

you would vote a Blue Dog...or would you not vote at all? It is a pretty simple concept.

[LWolf]

117. I don't live in a Red state.

Your hypotheticals are meaningless as well as simplistic. I'll be voting for Jeff Merkley, who is NOT a blue dog.

I vote for the best choice on my ballot based on issues and record. Every damned time. If there are no choices on the ballot I can live with casting a vote for, I'll write a better choice in. That's a rare occurrence, though. It's only happened a handful of times in 36 years of voting.

Still, there are always choices beyond "blue dog or not at all." One firm, permanent choice: nobody, and I mean NOBODY, bullies me into voting the way he or she thinks I should. That's what I see most of the demands on DU to be: partisan bullying instead of working to make sure there's something worth voting FOR instead of AGAINST on the ballot.

[VanillaRhapsody]

118. NO not a hypothetical for millions of Americans...

but somehow you just can't imagine it....

LMAO!

[LWolf]

119. You didn't ask "millions of Americans."

You asked ME. So yes, it was hypothetical, and it was simplistic.

And, were it not hypothetical, my answer would have been exactly the same.

[VanillaRhapsody]

120. Still NOT a hypothetical....BUT you think its all about YOU!

it is VERY much the reality for millions of voters.....but YOU just cannot imagine yourself EVER being in that predicament. You just cannot relate for some damn reason....I think I know that reason however...

[LWolf]

121. A perfect illustration of my point.

You couldn't have done better had you planned it.

Serious denial, semi-literacy, or just lacking some needed neural connections.

[VanillaRhapsody]

122. NO you are the PERFECT example of MY point...

Your inability to even consider that possibility exemplifies what kind of voter you are...


denial is not river in Egypt...YOU cannot imagine having to make that choice that many DO have to...and thank god they are not as short on those connections as some are for where the fuck would we be right now without them!

This is my personal thank you to those that make that choice year after year who have no other choice...



When are you running by the way? Since you think you know best....when are YOU going to run?

[LWolf]

124. What kind of voter I am...

I shouldn't bother to repeat it, but I will.

I always vote. Always. I vote for the best candidate on the ballot, unless the offering is so unacceptable that I can't. Then I write it in.

I don't get in line because some partisan blowhard, here or anywhere else, tries to bully me. I do participate in primaries, and cast my vote for whatever candidate has the best positions and record on issues.

That's what kind of voter I am. Don't like it? Get over it. I don't vote to please you.

Running? Since when did this become about running for office? I have enough politics to deal with on a daily basis at work.

Again, you perfectly illustrate THIS:

"partisan bullying instead of working to make sure there's something worth voting FOR instead of AGAINST on the ballot."

Go on. Get yourself worked up some more. Let the spittle fly. Keep trying to make it about me, instead of about getting out the vote, which IS what this thread is supposed to be about, or about appropriate ways to do so, which do not include your incoherent, nonsensical rants. You're well beyond any actual point and into trying to "win" a virtual cyber battle, which is simply not possible. But go right ahead. At least you aren't out there talking to actual voters who might give a shit what you have to say.

My strategy to GOTV? Give people something worth voting FOR. Don't pull out the personal attacks, the team cheerleaders, the excuses, or the lesser evil canards; they exhibit weakness. Don't try to turn a sow's ear into a silk purse for campaign purposes; it's dishonest and feeds distrust and disrespect. Find a REAL silk purse in the clutter of crap somewhere, and try to attract POSITIVE attention for whatever you are campaigning for.

Or not. Just keep ranting and making a vote for anything you have to promote seem embarrassing. I'm sure that will do the trick.

[VanillaRhapsody]

125. Well then again I ask you WHEN are you going to run since you seem to have all the answers...

You don't just get to demand better candidates.....they don't just magically appear you know....so


When are you going to run?

[LWolf]

126. I'm not going to run.

I'm already doing an important job; a vital job. I'm needed where I am.

And this thread is not about me, and not about running, but about GOTV. Why try to change the subject?

[VanillaRhapsody]

127. then where are you going to get your magic candidates from?

they don't just appear out of thin air do they? So where are YOUR candidates?

[LWolf]

128. They are on my ballot, of course.

Where did you think they were?

When there is NO candidate I can live with on the ballot, I'll write one in. A real politician who has really campaigned for office.

I'm lucky enough to have plenty of good candidates on my ballots with the exception of an opponent for my house Rep, who wins convincingly election after election, decade after decade. So my efforts in that area go to finding and supporting someone to run against him, which is not easy. Not that many people want to invest in losing, and nobody comes close enough to give his opponents any hope.

I encourage, support, and campaign for his opposition every damned time. It's the only way the rest of the state knows that he HAS some opposition over here.

[VanillaRhapsody]

130. Yes like Ralph Nader....I get it...

Lyndon LaRouche maybe?

[LWolf]

180. That would make you happy, I'm sure.

Then you could peg me into a little stereotype to suit.

Unfortunately for your powers of perception, I've never cast a vote for Nader. Neither do I cast aspersions on those who have; I understand why they did, and would like the party to solve the problem of hemorrhaging votes on the left, instead of attacking, blaming, and further alienating them. I know it's a novel concept for some: want the votes of the left? Earn them.

LaRouche? Surely you jest. He's never been on my ballot, but being there wouldn't earn him the vote.

[VanillaRhapsody]

183. No I don't jest.....

who are these above reproach candidates?

Who are your lefter than left candidates...do not include Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren...they BOTH support President Obama and the Affordable Care Act....so you are going to have to go further left than thay are....


Please let us know....

[LWolf]

186. See, there is your problem, right there.

Your limited ability to interpret, to comprehend, to see degrees, is keeping you from seeing outside the false meme of "earning the vote means candidates have to be perfect." Either that, or your efforts are simply disingenous, practicing for more gullible people elsewhere.

During election season, the misguided and cognitively limited often express it as "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Ignoring the fact that it's not "perfect," but good that people are looking for, and that, for some with very low standards, "good" is anything not "R," no matter how bad it actually is.

I never said a candidate had to be perfect, or a custom fit for me, to earn my vote. That would be ridiculous; no candidate could do that. You just can't see outside that very limited range of lesser evil vs "perfect."

I settle for less than ideal candidates all the time. I just have a different line in the sand than you. I don't vote for candidates that are traitors to the issues that drive my vote. To earn it, they don't have to be perfect; they just have to meet these 2 requirements:

1. They have to be the best candidate on the ballot on issues.

2. If nobody is great on the issues, they can't be clear enemies of said issues.

NO candidate is "above reproach." And ALL elected officials SHOULD be reproached when they've earned it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

189. I don't have a problem.....I vote for the Democrats....

I am not the one looking for Leftier than Left candidates....I don't claim "both sides are the same"....


Please tell us when you are going to run YOUR candidates since our Democrats fall soooooo short of your expectations....You don't like ours....then please please please show us what you are holding...


You can't JUST talk the talk....you gotta walk the walk...

[LWolf]

190. Who the fuck is "us?"

And please post a link to anything I said about "leftier than left..." ever, in my 11 years on DU. Or "both sides are the same." You won't, because you can't.

It's dishonest to pretend otherwise.

I don't run "my" candidates. I don't have personal candidates; I deal with what's on the plate like everyone else. Which, no matter how many times I've repeated it, you don't have the integrity to acknowledge.

"Walking the walk?" You make my point for me. That's how to GOTV. Put candidates on the ballot that do so. That's how votes are earned. Thanks for recognizing that, even if you didn't mean to.

Anything else you'd like to say to bolster my point about GOTV, or about ineffective vs effective ways to do so? Please. Keep those talking points coming.

[VanillaRhapsody]

191. Us as in all of DU....all of the United States for that matter....

When are you going to reveal your Leftier than Left candidates....other wise you are just blowing smoke...

I remind you...they have to be to the left of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren because they both support President Obama and the Affordable Care Act.

When you have your candidate that can magically make Single Payer happen....please let US know...

[LWolf]

193. Interesting that you should

exclude me from "us" when referring to DU, as I've been here about a decade longer, and "all of the United States," as I am a U.S. Citizen.

Still...you cling to the fiction of "leftier than left," when, after you've been bluntly called on it, simply becomes blatant falsehood; a weak argument that reflects very poorly on you.

Then you throw specific Democrats, single payer and the ACA mix into your spew, which I did not. I simply disagreed with the premise of the OP, which was not YOU, and said that if you want the votes from the left, earn them. Trying to bully them into your line is counter-productive.

The rest is all you, working yourself into a lather and now reduced to throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, at ME, as if I'm the problem, hoping something will stick. Except it doesn't, because I'm not the problem. As already mentioned over and over and over and over, I always vote. You've made it personal, and about me, finally reduced to petty adolescent attempts to draw lines around "us" with me on the outside, instead of getting out there with something that will actually convince reluctant voters to vote.

In other words, you look less coherent, more divisive, and more the problem with every post. But please. Keep going. You're doing so well at modeling the problem.

[VanillaRhapsody]

194. are you a US citizen? Are you on DU?

then how am I excluding you?

Please present candidates to the left of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders or just accept that the ACA IS supported by the Left and US!

[LWolf]

195. You are the one who talked about "us"

as separate from me. Nice of you to correct that. Sort of.

What do Warren, Sanders, or the ACA have to do with getting the left to vote this November? Isn't that what we are supposed to be talking about? EARNING the vote?

Why would I be presenting candidates that aren't going to be on ballots? Shouldn't you, if you are so concerned about GOTV, which is what this thread is supposed to be about, finding something the actual candidates did to EARN that vote?

As for what the left supports or doesn't, I wouldn't be quite so casual about speaking for them.

[VanillaRhapsody]

196. Yes...us as in DU...Us as in the electorate that you would have to get to vote for your

lefter than Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders who DO accept the ACA...


Please present YOUR candidates...WE are the ones that will have to vote for them are we not?

Or are you just a curmudgeon that just likes to rail against ALL politicians....we do have those on DU too.

[LWolf]

197. What "lefter" candidates, on whose ballots?

You seem to have taken a play from a standard political propaganda book; keep repeating things that aren't true and that don't address the point over and over and over and over and over and over and someday the weak-minded might forget and take them for granted.

Is this about trying to GOTV for Warren and Sanders? If so, you need to address your thoughts to those whose ballots they will appear on. The ACA will not be on the ballot. It's no talking point; it's one of those things that make a candidate less than perfect, and pretending that insurance is the same thing as care simply makes those doing the pretending look stupid. Not exactly a way to convince the reluctant.

Isn't that what getting out the vote means? Convincing the reluctant, the fence sitters, to join you? Campaigning on those very things that make them fence-sitters is not an effective way to do so.

What are you doing to GOTV for actual candidates on ballots?

[VanillaRhapsody]

198. My point is....if you are not satisfied with the current crop of candidates and politicians

please show us better ones....ones that can pass Single Payer for example...


When you can find them...please let us know...I won't hold my breath until you find some...

but I hear Nader and LaRouche are available!

[LWolf]

199. Where did I say I wasn't satisfied with the current crop of candidates?

Please post a link.

And look above for comments about Nader and LaRouche, which don't fit your suggestions.


Again...what are you doing to GOTV for the current crop of candidates? What are you doing to prove to reluctant voters that they have earned a vote?

[VanillaRhapsody]

200. No crickets here...I have been posting right along....

how about the Affordable Care Act...THAT is going to convince some reluctant voters...I can tell you that...and YOU don't support it...even though Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren do along with President Obama by the way...


So other than those 2 please name the current crop of politicians that you support and that can get us that Single Payer tomorrow that is being demanded by some!

[LWolf]

213. Posting right along,

but never addressing the point. As already pointed out, throwing out other stuff because YOU CAN'T.

I support authentic affordable care. Campaigning on the ACA is a losing proposition. If "we" want to GOTV, the ACA won't do it. Why? Incontrovertible fact:

The more "affordable" insurance is, the LESS affordable actual CARE is. People who've been fighting with insurance companies all along to get care understand this. People who couldn't afford insurance before, and now can, get to join in that fight.

That doesn't mean they are getting actual CARE. If more people are getting care than before, then I'm glad. I'm FOR that. When you've got a large segment of the population ready to use the ACA as a weapon against the Democrats, though, and another segment discovering that insurance does not equal care at all, let alone "affordable" care, the ACA is not a strength to campaign on. And I know way too many people, probably way more than the average citizen, because I work in public service, who are still not getting the care they need to pretend that the ACA solved their health care problems. That would be dishonest.

What any particular politician "supported" or didn't is beside the point. I'm not a cheerleader, and politics is not a team sport. When a politician is right on an issue, they have my support. When they aren't, they don't. When a politician is right most of the time, they have my overall support, as well. When they aren't, they don't, and when they work directly against a vital issue, then they lose my overall support. Pointing out what politician supports the ACA is meaningless to getting out the vote in November, unless your listeners are sheep who don't think for themselves. I'm guessing that you characterize most voters that way. That's a shame.

Meanwhile, what are you going to do to convince those reluctant voters to go to the polls this fall? Isn't that what GOTV is all about? What are you going to get them energized and excited about? At this point, it looks like all you've got is the ACA, which, frankly, isn't all that exciting when you are trying to figure out whether to pay the rent or a medical bill, or whether to take on debt to get care because your "affordable" insurance has deductibles and copays too high for the regular budget.

Please tell me you have something more.

[VanillaRhapsody]

217. Your "points" have been addressed....you just don't like the responses....

that's not the same as crickets...

[LWolf]

219. No, they haven't.

You've offered up one single idea to persuade reluctant voters: The ACA. A weak idea. Convincing voters means energizing them; getting them excited about voting. You haven't done that. You've spent a couple of days trying to make it personal, make it about me, make me your enemy, but you haven't come up with a way to GOTV. THAT arena is still full of crickets.

Hint...pouring your energy into making enemies is counter productive. For me? I'm not at work. I DO have a life, so can't sit here and immediately respond to every post, but coming back to play some more has been mildly amusing. Better than mopping the floor, but not as satisfying as cleaning the barn. I don't need to convince you of anything, and your posts have zero effect on my political life, so it's not costing me anything but a few more checks on my tedious "to do" list.

You DO realize that the primary reason I've responded at all was to see how far into the land of ludicrous you'd go in your passion to put me in my place, right? It's cheap entertainment.

You DO realize that every single post you've made reinforces my original response...that people who attack the idea that we ought to hold politicians accountable for our votes ARE a big part of the problem, and that the backlash often happens at midterm elections when some are simply sick of hearing rationalizations, justifications, and flat out excuses for poor performance...don't you?

Speaking of a life, I'm going to go do some living. I'm sure I'll find, when I return, that you haven't grown enough brain cells to stop throwing yourself against a wall that is taking no harm, and indifferent to your efforts, just to provide others with entertainment.

Or will you? Only time will tell.

[VanillaRhapsody]

223. I am not the one bashing Democrats am I?

That's called making "enemies"

You know the line...."don't make the good the enemy of the perfect"? Perhaps you have heard of it...

[LWolf]

225. Yes, you are.

I am a Democrat. You've been doing your best to bash me, although your wet noodle approach is more like an annoying gnat than any actual bashing.

I think you just used a line from my post, responding to you a couple of days ago:

You know; the one where I said this:

During election season, the misguided and cognitively limited often express it as "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Ignoring the fact that it's not "perfect," but good that people are looking for, and that, for some with very low standards, "good" is anything not "R," no matter how bad it actually is.

I never said a candidate had to be perfect, or a custom fit for me, to earn my vote. That would be ridiculous; no candidate could do that. You just can't see outside that very limited range of lesser evil vs "perfect."

That's from post # 186, in THIS THREAD, replying to YOU. But it's good you noticed it enough to try to quote it back to me. Too bad you can't, or won't, acknowledge the context. Instead, you just keep tossing out the limited "talking points" generated by group think that DON'T GOTV in midterm elections. Instead, you are doing your pathetically weak best to alienate an actual voting Democrat...

Go you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

226. BULLSHIT I am bashing your bashing...

If you do nothing BUT bash them....then you deserved it.

[LWolf]

228. Again:

Please. Find me a post where I am bashing a Democratic Candidate. Please. Look through the archives. Go back 12 years. Post 'em all.

Except you won't, because the only time you'll find me "bashing" a Democratic candidate is during a Democratic primary, when I'm promoting ANOTHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE.

Stop lying. It's embarrassing for you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

230. Please show me one where you are saying positive things about them...

[joshcryer]

170. The OP is about GOTV, not you voting.

You can vote or not, if you don't GOTV you have no business pretending to be party of the political process beyond that one vote.

[LWolf]

181. That's right.

Want to GOTV? Earn the votes. Give those who don't vote a reason to. A reason beyond fear of the "other."

[VanillaRhapsody]

202. So your solution is to STOP the vote? You seem to be bragging about how YOU vote on a GOTV

thread....so are you suggesting not voting for others? Because that is the antithesis of what DU is about!

[LWolf]

214. That's right.

Because "giving voters something to vote for" is STOPPING the vote.

What a dumbass idea.

[VanillaRhapsody]

218. Are you familiar with ALL the voters in this country?

apparently not...YOU are not going to convince the mushy middle with your rhetoric....but you found a way to call me a "dumbass" but with plausible deniability I suppose....typical of you!

When you've got nothing else....

[LWolf]

221. Typical of me!

Nothing else? Nothing else is needed in this case.

I see you've expanded, rather than contracted, your epic battlefield. I'll think I'll restrict myself to the original; I really DO have things that matter on my plate today.

[VanillaRhapsody]

222. Yeah and bashing all the Democratic candidates is not a winning position...THAT is what wins

the mushy middle....they vote for the party that looks and acts like "winners" Bashing fellow democratic candidates (and even accusing them of not being Democratic) is NOT looking like a winner is it? Ask the Teabaggers on the right how that works...

[LWolf]

227. Because

that's what I live for. "Bashing all the Democratic candidates!!!!!!!!!"

Please. Find me a post where I am bashing a Democratic Candidate. Please. Look through the archives. Go back 12 years. Post 'em all.

Except you won't, because the only time you'll find me "bashing" a Democratic candidate is during a Democratic primary, when I'm promoting ANOTHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE.

[VanillaRhapsody]

229. that IS what you are here for right?

please show me where you have written anything positive about Democratic politicians...

[LWolf]

231. Find it yourself.

Do a search. I'm not going to do it for you. Most of my posts are about issues, not politicians, but you can find some talking about politicians in campaign-related threads. Not much in my journal; you can search for what I have to say about my own Senators and House Rep, or for Democrats that I've supported in primaries. Or you can read a post about how to REALLY reach those who may not vote for Democrats in upcoming elections.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022966687#post7


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023519959

[VanillaRhapsody]

232. because they don't exist....check!

A good democrat could produce them EASILY...someone who does nothing but bash them on Democratic Underground....not so easy.

[LWolf]

233. I can sit inside and say that birds don't exist

because I didn't want to look out a window or go for a walk; doesn't make it any less a lie. Again.

Don't make claims you can't support because you're too lazy to look it up. YOU want the info. YOU do the work.

Shit, the first link I posted for you was me being positive about an elected Democrat: Jeff Merkley. You could find a lot more just by looking for threads talking about him. That, if you can't figure it out, is evidence of your lie.

But you'd rather post lies; quicker and easier.

[VanillaRhapsody]

234. You cannot prove that they exist if you can't produce them

simple as THAT. Prove me wrong why don'cha!

My criticism of you stands....

[LWolf]

235. I don't have to prove anything.

You're the one with accusations that you can't back up. I didn't accuse myself of not writing "anything positive about Democratic politicians." I know better. It's true, of course, that saying that I'm glad to see my (Democratic) senators doing their jobs isn't a highly emotionally charged, lengthy post of gushing poesy, but it IS positive, and they ARE Democratic politicians. That's all I'm willing to put out for you; you want more, find it yourself. I told you where to look.

You're the one with the accusation; YOU back it up. Or just keep the baseless accusations flying, proving, yet again, that you don't know how to make any kind of political point.

You seem to have plenty of time to spend at DU; you might as well spend it trying to back your attacks up before you embarrass yourself further.

Or not.

[VanillaRhapsody]

236. and neither do I....criticism stands.....

until you PROVE otherwise....not ONE word of praise for Democrats can you find...


ahahahahahahaha

[LWolf]

237. Criticism is based on reality.

Telling me that I don't praise Democrats, when the evidence is there and you just don't want to acknowledge it, even after having been presented with concrete evidence by me, is not criticism. It's lying. When you have to resort to lying, and then punctuating your lies with "Ha!" you've reached a new low. But go ahead.

You've lied. You've ignored evidence. You've tried attacking, to no effect. What next? What, really, is your goal here? Do you even remember it? Wasn't it supposed to be your goal to support the idea that Democrats don't have to earn votes? Which is a damned stupid goal to begin with, but still...do you even remember what you're supposed to be proving? Or have you just devolved to attempting to put down one lone DUer?

Please, do tell.

[whatchamacallit]

10. Lol

[VanillaRhapsody]

11. Yeah because a repeat of 2010 sounds just peachy keen to some on this thread already...

No need to play defense for them AT ALL!

[bluestate10]

74. Those are the same people who will look at the results a few years

down the line and become enraged that nothing has changed. Nothing will change when they help provide republicans with legislative majorities. That crowd are the same one that become red faced when it is pointed out to them that their idiotic votes elected Bush in 2000, they prefer to look past their idiocy and blame the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would have been rendered irrelevant if thousands of fucking know it all idiots hadn't insisted that they were right when warning bells were going off all fucking around them.

[VanillaRhapsody]

111. You are right as rain...

[ecstatic]

135. +1,000nt

[TheKentuckian]

140. You are all about repeating 2010 or worse because you insist on maintaining the exact same formula

that got us there except that you apparently now think if you can heckle, hector, and harass liberals enough the independents that your corporate aka Centrist policies are supposedly pursued to attract will come back, that the kids and minorities that show up in Presidential years will show up in off years, and that the bloody TeaPubliKlans will ratchet down the resistance so that the bipartisanship of the Age of Aquarius can begin.

Well, you can scream and make stupid accusations until the last star goes cold and it isn't going to get one soul to the polls and talking about how awful the opposition is will only work so long especially when the actual politicians refuse to make any such argument while their opponents have no shame in calling them everything but a child of God and parrot and agree with many of their wrongheaded ideas repeatedly proven not to work.

You can't even run on lesser evilism when you flat refuse to even call the other guy evil.

You can't run on avoiding criminal governing when you insist that there are no criminals or crimes committed.

You cannot effectively argue an effort was forced to be more conservative than you wish due to the influence of someone who didn't vote for it and get traction.

[VanillaRhapsody]

141. Right the Teabaggers had NOTHING to do with it....

racists will turn out to vote....

“I don’t buy the argument that you make that we lost the election (2010) because of health care,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.) said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” this morning. “We lost the election because of 9.5% unemployment. It would have been 15% had Congress and President Obama, under his leadership, [not] passed the Recovery Act, auto rescue and other initiatives. But if you don’t have a job, you don’t want to hear, ‘it could be worse.’”

Nancy Pelosi

but you knew that....

[Ken Burch]

144. "playing defense" is just another term for giving up.

Especially since "defense" doesn't even seem to mean fighting for "No lost ground" but just "slightly less lost ground".

We'll probably never undo the damage that was done,for example, when Clinton signed the welfare "refom" bill(and accepted every slur on the character and morality of the poor without the slightest challenge) and when Obama met the Tea Party more than halfway on cuts in social spending during the shutdown.

It's NEVER worth fighting for just "less damage". All cuts are the same and all damage is the same.

[VanillaRhapsody]

146. Who said that was the case...you are saying that all we have accomplished is

not cutting things....

MALARKEY! Joe Biden says you are full of it! the Affordable Care Act....Its a Big Fucking Deal....


but that can't be the case since the Republicans have tried to repeal it 51 times (so far)....It cannot possibly be something we want to hold that line on can it? If they hate it that much....shouldn't YOU as a Democrat rethink your "minimizing outlook"?

[Ken Burch]

148. I'm talking about since 2010.

And if the administration keeps accepting delays and dilutions of the ACA, it won't matter soon if it survives in name.

GOTV is about firing up the base...about admitting that people who aren't big donors matter...we can only win in '14 with a passion-based "us vs. them" campaign.

The OP sounds like it could have been written by Rahm-and there's no excuse for any Dem ever sounding like Rahm again.

[VanillaRhapsody]

149. You did not couch it.....

you are not backpedalling

What we have to do is STOP letting these haters keep minimizing the impact of this legislation....we run on the Affordable Care Act because they ARE going to run against it....make no mistake about that.

[Ken Burch]

145. playing defense is the same thing as giving up. Defense now doesn't lead to gains later.

Especially since "defense" doesn't even seem to mean fighting for "No lost ground" but just "slightly less lost ground".

We'll probably never undo the damage that was done,for example, when Clinton signed the welfare "refom" bill(and accepted every slur on the character and morality of the poor without the slightest challenge) and when Obama met the Tea Party more than halfway on cuts in social spending during the shutdown.

It's NEVER worth fighting for just "less damage". All cuts are the same and all damage is the same.

[sufrommich]

13. I don't think there's a big "earn my vote"

block of voters,that premise is grossly exaggerated on DU. The problem is people who don't really pay much attention to politics and are prone to believing negative advertising in elections,those voters tend to buy into the fear mongers of the republican party or don't vote at all.

[VanillaRhapsody]

18. Exactly! They vote for whomever is sounding like the Winners...

Right now the Rightwing is at war because of their internecine disagreements with each other...this makes them look like losers. We won with Barack Obama because we were a united front...a force to be reckoned with....Based on Democratic Underground right now...how would we appear to them? If we are still fighting amongst ourselves about the Affordable Care Act....does that make it sound like it is a "winner"? And that is just for starters...If we cannot get it together and become a united front...a force to be reckoned with...we are going to again pay the price at the polls at the midterms which is ALWAYS the bane of our existence. If we truly are a movement back to the left side of the compass....we cannot allow them to bring the ball back into our territory! This is what worries me...and it is up to US to decide to hold that line or not.

[Tippy]

29. Well said...thank you

[sufrommich]

34. I agree. The democrats have been punching

themselves in the face for so long that it's been normalized,they let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[gulliver]

20. I agree.

The vast majority of DUers are probably big time voters.

One thing that some DUers and others do say (and presume to be true) is that the Democrats need to persuade the non-voters to vote. That puts an impossible burden on Democrats, and is the reverse of where the burden should be in a Democracy. The burden of running the Democracy is on the voters, not the leaders.

The fact that it seems kind of crazy and hopeless to see it that way is kind of indicative of where we are right now as a country.

If Democratic politicians could look at a sea of certain votes, then their job is a lot easier. Do most people want a higher minimum wage? Yes. Done. No need to do a fancy calculus-based model on who shows up based on advertising, mood, trend, and weather.

There is no excuse for not voting, and in the case of left-leaning policy advocates, no excuse for not voting for every single Democrat for every single office.

[VanillaRhapsody]

38. its the same in any countries elections that aren't forced to vote....

I don't know of how that every happens..You are always going to be courting those on the fence...its just logistics and both perspectives have to deal with it. If the Rightwingers cannot win them then we do...

They have voted 52 times to eliminate the Affordable Care Act....it is obvious they are going to run on it. To win against that we have to be a united front defending it.

[gulliver]

45. I agree.

And I think we are getting close to a tipping point on the ACA where we can go on offense. Right wingers have family, and no one is going to be too far removed from the good the ACA is doing. Even a completely walled-off, let-em-die Republican is going to have a cousin they see every year at Christmas who was saved by the ACA. The Republican Party and Kochs are going to have to shift to trying to destroy it using the word "reform" like they do with Social Security and Medicare.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. Well the first thing that has to happen to signifying that peak....

is people on DU have to stop trying to trash it or wistfully imagine what would happen should it meet its demise...In fact I am having one of those conversations with a DU'r now whining about having to defend it because "it is a Republican Idea". Regardless of the fact that it is NOW the Democrats plan. Regardless of the fact that virtually the ONLY similarity to the Heritage Foundations plan is the mandatory part.

[Ken Burch]

152. You'd have voted for Lester Maddox, then?

He was the Democratic nominee for governor of Georgia back in the day.

[gulliver]

204. That particular exception proves the rule.

Your exception is an especially nasty case from the past. It only further establishes the rule that voting for Democrats (in the present day against Republicans) is essentially always the right thing to do.

[Maedhros]

203. "in the case of left-leaning policy advocates, no excuse for not voting for every single Democrat"

I will vote for the best candidate. Sometimes, that might even be the Democrat.

You don't get to decide what my best interests are.

[VanillaRhapsody]

147. EXACTLY! +1000

[Autumn]

14. Yes we should vote. But we should look at who we vote for

I won't vote for someone just because they say they are a Democrat, they have to be one.

[gulliver]

23. We should not be using "austerity" as a tool to control the Democratic Party.

It doesn't work.

The case you are talking about is exceedingly rare. There is essentially never a case where voting for a Democrat against a Republican will not be the right thing to do.

[Scootaloo]

31. Except in the case where neither candidate is in the voter's interests

You realize that people vote by their own personal and local interests, instead of out of attempt to fill a seat in hopes of their garbage candidate being a useful cog in the Capitol machine?

[gulliver]

35. That's rare though.

The Democratic candidate, no matter how bad, is always better than the Republican candidate. Close enough to always to be considered always anyway. Not voting for the Democrat is voting for the Republican.

[Scootaloo]

37. As I say upthread

If all you've got to sell your product is "We're not the other guy," then that's not a strategy. That's a concession.

As I said, people aren't going to vote for a Democrat that is openly against their interests, just for hopes he'll be useful at the national level. They'd rather stay home, or throw to a third party.

If the Democrats want to win, the party needs to start holding their endorsements for strong liberal candidates, not just any Arlen Specter motherfucker who comes along and says "I'll run, where's my check?"

[VanillaRhapsody]

39. No that would be called Defense...perhaps you follow sports and know that is often the "strategy"

Offense is not the ONLY form of strategy...

[gulliver]

48. It's not a product. That's the problem.

Once we make liberal politics a product, we hand its fate to marketing. That is devastating. Sure, we need to persuade and use marketing, but we need to get our attitudes wrapped around the idea that voting is required of the respectable. When we do that we will be a force to be reckoned with.

We voters are not consumers of a product but leaders taking action at the polls.

[DJ13]

132. It IS a product

Obama (2008 campaign) Wins Ad Age’s ‘Marketer Of The Year’

Every year hundreds of the biggest marketers, agency heads, and all manner of people involved in advertising get together at the Association of National Advertisers’ annual conference. And every year, they vote on the best advertiser of that particular year. This year Barack Obama won with a pretty substantial 36% of the vote, beating out the two runners-up Apple and Zappos.com. Nike, Coors and Sen. John McCain filled out the bottom of the vote.

“I honestly look at [Obama's] campaign and I look at it as something that we can all learn from as marketers,” said Angus Macaulay, VP-Rodale marketing solutions “To see what he’s done, to be able to create a social network and do it in a way where it’s created the tools to let people get engaged very easily. It’s very easy for people to participate.”

Linda Clarizio, president of AOL’s Platform A, said of Barack Obama, “I think he did a great job of going from a relative unknown to a household name to being a candidate for president.”

But some people weren’t particularly happy about getting politics involved in the voting. Mark Kaline, recently appointed global media director of Kimberly-Clark Corp., said. “Quite frankly, because political advertising kind of goes against a lot of what ANA stands for, I don’t think it belongs in the voting. … A lot of political advertising is false and misleading, and marketers at this conference don’t expect to see that kind of stuff.”

http://www.adsavvy.org/obama-wins-ad-ages-marketer-of-the-year/

[VanillaRhapsody]

154. Everything is about marketing...its WHAT the Republicans are good at....they can't lead....

they just sell....and they kick our ass at messaging.

And yes we are consumers of that market....like it or not.

[Autumn]

83. To your way of think that at may be true. To my way of

thinking I will vote for whom I chose to vote for. I have never voted for a republican but there has been one instance where I have left the ballot blank rather than vote for the Democrat.

[TheKentuckian]

15. Crazy talk, there is no such dynamic. If you are an automatic YES! then you

not only have no power there is no reason to even involve you in any conversation.

No matter how many cows you bring to the table the milk and the beef is always going to be free so there is no power.
You don't even understand what power is to make such a far out statement. Perhaps you mean influence, which is slightly less nonsensical but still far from applicable beyond the edges (and even that obtained usually under threat, showing a bit of marginal power not saying YES!)

No matter how useful the implement, it remains a tool.

[Savannahmann]

19. Pfui

The liberals and progressives will vote. Where we have to earn the vote is with those who are or lean democratic. For them, you have to earn the fucking vote. This isn't rocket science, it's pretty simple. If your main selling point is that yes, your party sucks, but the other party sucks worse, so vote for me, then you're going to lose eventually. If your main selling point is that all Republicans are Tea Party nuts, and so any vote for any Rethug is a vote for the lunatic fringe, then you're lost much sooner.

You have to give the people something to vote for. You have to show that you're going to fight for them. Blaming your core constituency because the less active don't vote is both asinine, and a guarantee of failure on election day. Because we progressives and liberals are getting pretty fucking tired of being blamed when Democrats can't figure out how to win elections where the Rethug doesn't say something stupid.

Try figuring out that we are in a tough fight to keep the god damned senate for one. How many of you realize that losing control of the senate is a very real possibility? Now you can blame the liberals, but I'll bet money that they go and vote, and volunteer, and donate. You have to get those who are less enthusiastic to the polls, and shouting at those who are showing up that they're not doing enough is bullshit. Try running on some core beliefs if the party has any left. We won't see that, because running on core beliefs means admitting that the economy is crap and we have 55 million people out of work that we aren't counting because it would screw up our propaganda message about how awesome we are.

So shout at Kos who has declared that his website will no longer support candidates just because they are Democratic. Party purity must be maintained, and majorities can go to hell.

Shout at the party that won't deal in reality about unemployment and the economy and allows the issue to go to the Republicans who take maximum advantage of it. That's why the Republicans tack "Job Killing" on every issue. The Job Killing Minimum wage. The job killing obamacare. The job killing daylight saving time. Because the fucking Republicans are reading the polls and realizing that jobs and economy are the number one issue that the people are concerned about. So what do we do? Oh we have a photo op and a call from the President that business's need to hire more people, and he's done, he's pivoted to the economy and he's done his part. Moving on now.

Nobody, and I mean nobody in the Democratic Party has proposed one fucking plan to tackle the economy. Because how do we do that while we're patting ourselves on the back for what a great job we're doing?

So shout at the people here claiming it's our fault that we lose. Shout at the Liberals and Progressives because they're not fired up enough. Because just like the propaganda concerning the economy, it's everybody's fault except the people in charge. Guess what, we're going to lose the senate with that plan, and who will be to blame? That's right, according to the experts and pundits, it will be our fault that our party ran on a continuation of ignoring the problem. Because you know, if you ignore a problem, sometimes it goes away all by itself.

[Le Taz Hot]

21. Great response.

Much more eloquent than mine.

[Savannahmann]

24. There was a larger turnout in 2010 than in 2006

These are numbers, real number compiled by George Mason University. 2006 totals where we took control of the House and Senate? 85 million.

Now, those 2010 totals where we lost control of the house because the Liberals didn't GOTV? 90 million.

Now, I didn't take common core math, but by my basic understanding of it, 90 million is bigger or greater than 85 million. So GOTV apparently wasn't the problem. It was convincing those who turned out to vote Democratic instead of Rethug. Well, if our party platform is that those guys really suck and our campaign is not about what we believe in and what we stand for, but how awful it is that those guys believe this or that, no wonder we lose.

These threads claiming it's "your fault" we lost remind me of Stripes where the Captain is standing there banging on the door and turns to the other soldiers who are also prisoners. "It's your fault I can't get out of here." Capable of blaming everyone but himself, and sadly, that seems to be our party leadership.

[gulliver]

28. But don't excuse eligible voters who did not vote.

Last edited Sat Mar 22, 2014, 02:42 PM - Edit history (1)

Left-leaning policies are the best policies. If we want them to succeed, we need to win, and we need to hold everyone accountable.

Enemy number one of the GOTV effort is that we presume that eligible voters need to be "sold" on liberal policies. We assume that we have to offer dramatic, exciting, bold ideas. We have to give people something to "believe in" and "stand for."

And so we do. But the very first thing they need to stand for is that they need to vote. There should be no respect for those that don't, and that includes blaming Dem leaders for low voter turnout.

Voter turnout is a first principle, not a consumer product. Arguments that weaken that principle are bad arguments.

[TheKentuckian]

142. Hold everyone accountable except the handsomely paid folks with legal authority

and power of office. Those folks are entitled to a stringless rubberstamp of any and all they do as long as they deign to allow a D next to their name and magically and without impetus will do as we desire.

It is the "small people" that must be kept in line and made to be accountable not the poor souls they pay who beg for the honor of representing them.

[Maedhros]

205. This article covers this very nicely:

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/23/the_hope_diet_would_the_tea_party_fall_for_this/

Democratic politicians don't give promises, they give "hope." Clinton, Gore, Obama all used the rhetoric of Hope in their campaign platform. But how effective is building a campaign on platitudes of "hope?"

Because this particular platitude is not harmless. After watching Clinton and Obama theorize on the virtue I concluded it is positively injurious. To describe politics in terms of “hope” fundamentally misrepresents the situation we are in, and by misrepresenting, gets the Democrats off the hook time and again. It is hope that allows them to sell us out over and over.

I say this because our relationship with elected officials, here in the 21st century, shouldn’t really be a matter of hope. When a young person with lousy life chances thinks of his future as a kind of lottery, that is the appropriate terrain for hope. Tell the young to read “Think and Grow Rich,” and to buy a scratch ticket while they’re at it. Why not?

But with politics it’s different: We form groups, we strategize, we donate, we plan how to best advance our collective interests. This is not the lottery. When we elect public servants, the deal ought to be a little more of a sure thing.

Recall, in this connection, one of the most annoying invocations of “hope” ever to cross a politician’s lips, John Edwards’ vice presidential acceptance speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention. His tag line, which he repeated many times: “Hope is on the way.” Not “help,” mind you; “hope.” Edwards had lots of good, practical ideas, but this phrase rubbed me the wrong way. What it seemed to suggest was not that the candidate was actually going to do something for the suffering, hard-working people he described, but that, by the strength of his presence, he was going to give people a chance that someone might do something for them. We give him the vice presidency, he gives us a Powerball ticket.

"Vote for us", the Democrats say, "and we might listen. Maybe. Eventually. Unless something comes up."

“Hope” also sets an extremely low standard for judging Democratic politicians. Hope is, by their definition, something they bring with them, or a place they come from, or a poster they are (literally!) the illustration for; ensuring that this fanciful substance flows our way doesn’t require them actually to, you know, enact anything we’re hoping for. On the contrary, they can do things (like Clinton’s deregulations or Obama’s spying program) that actually harm their constituents, and then tell us, as Barack Obama tweeted after the 2012 election, “The definition of hope is you still believe, even when it’s hard.”

This is the opposite of accountability. It means, just keep waiting, and just keep voting. If you think good thoughts long enough, maybe someday you’ll get that million bucks, or that single-payer healthcare system.

We need to make demands of our elected officials and hold them accountable when they fail to meet those demands. Right now we're doing the opposite: giving in to their demands that we vote for them, or else the other guys win.

[rhett o rick]

42. I second the "Great Post" and wish it was an OP. What we need to do is convince

the Lieberman Wing that we will not support their DINO's. Their argument that a conservative Democrat is better than a Republican has run it's course. That's what got us where we are today. The PTB give their support to Republican-Lite Democrats and the centrists just go along because of the damaging "best of evils" meme.

We need to make it clear to the Lieberman Wing that if they dont want another Bush, they best not support Clinton-Sachs. She will certainly not get the ambivalent voters out. Sen Warren or Sen Sanders can get them out.

If you nominate Clinton-Sachs, dont blame the outcome on the Left.

[VanillaRhapsody]

155. And how do you change that? BTW 2010 eliminated half the Blue Dog Dems...

Hillary Clinton IS a Liberal by the way....

[rhett o rick]

179. I see that someone that I am ignoring has responded to me. Sorry but I am tired of your

lack of substance. Go harass someone else, plez.

[gulliver]

22. The biggest misunderstanding of this thread is that...

...I am shouting at the liberals for not voting. They are very sensitive to this kind of thread, because a few of their flakier members drift into threats of non-voting.

I am not talking about the voting habits of liberals and progressives per se. Naturally, I chide any of them who don't vote firmly Democratic against any Republican in every election. But I am talking in this thread about the voting habits of the eligible non-voters...the independents and the unreliable, unmotivated left leaning demos.

I consider myself to be liberal and progressive, but I don't make the argument that Democrats need to persuade the unmotivated and low-information voter to the polls. That argument is persuasive on its face, and that is what makes it so horrible and self-defeating. That arguments invites us to excuse non-voters (wrongly) and blame Democrats for not being good enough sales people and leaders (wrongly). It's backwards.

The burden and duty of voting is on the voter. Their vote needs to be certain. The only question is who they vote for when they vote, not if they vote.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

52. 'So shout at Kos' is nonsense.

That post was taken largely out of context. In the ever ongoing battle on DK between centrists and leftwingers, Kos explicitly put his marker down on the 'more Dems will lead to better Dems' side of the fight recently. Those of us who were on the 'Better Dems will lead to more Dems' side of things found out we were the minority voices on site.

[Savannahmann]

80. Nuts.

We see it here after every election. Some Blue Dog loses his/her seat to a Rethug. We turn our heads up and snort good riddance. We blast them during the cycle, asking what the difference is between a Rethug and a Democrat that votes rethug? Well, we know what the difference is. With a Democrat who votes moderate, we get the majority, and the lead on the Committee's, and we get the speakership in the House. Without those Democrats, those disgusting damned blue dogs, we get minority status, and we get to complain about how awful the Rethugs are.

After 2006, we declared the Rethugs in trouble. When McCain lost we danced and declared the day of the Rethug as over. Now we've already given up on taking the house, and we're looking at losing the senate and what are we doing? Instead of looking at the voting public, and finding out what they care about, Democrats release statements about how awful the Rethugs are.

What Democrats are saying is they don't give a shit. They don't give a shit about the 55 million Americans who are unemployed, and uncounted, because that would screw up the propaganda about the strength of the recovery, and take away one of our "accomplishments". We don't give a shit about any problems with the ACA (Obamacare) because we've gone from Pass it now and fix it later to any fixes are bad because the legislation is perfect while the President implements changes by selective enforcement. We don't give a shit about unions and workers because we want all the authority to negotiate another bad trade deal.

Well here is the thing. I'm a guy, so forgive the analogy if it is inappropriate to you. Let's say I have a girlfriend. I ignore her, treat her badly, and expect her to put out whenever I'm in the mood. How long will she put up with this before she abandons me for someone else? I bet it won't be long. So we now demand that people get out and vote for us. Well, we've treated them badly. We've ignored 55 million unemployed and flatly said they don't count. We've pissed on the unions telling them that trade and the additional unfair competition is the new normal. We piss on most of the groups who put us in power, and then turn to them on election years shouting if you don't vote for us, they'll fuck you even worse.

The problem is that the internet lets people read and learn what is going on, and the people are disgusted. Sure the Rethugs have a horrible name recognition. Guess what, ours is not much better. Democrats are roughly speaking slightly more popular than Herpes. So what is the answer? Demand that everyone defend the ACA as perfection. Re-write history so that we didn't lose the Florida Special Election, it was not that our candidate did a weak job selling herself as a good choice, it was that the Koch Brothers bought the election, or that the Candidate ran as a RW loon, which she didn't, or that the voters are stupid.

Who is stupid? The CBO comes out with 55 million unemployed and uncounted, and says that the minimum wage hike would result in half a million lost jobs. What is the Democratic answer? Oh well, we don't believe those numbers, and even if those people lost their jobs, they would be better off if they did.

Jobs and the economy is the number one issue to people right now. We should be putting out grand plans, no matter if they can get through congress or not, put them out and get people talking about our plans. Instead, we're saying asinine things like the people would be better off unemployed? That is the blue blooded asinine answer that we claim the Rethugs are saying in code, and we come right out and say it? Are you shitting me?

So look down your nose at the Moderate Dems, and realize that you'll have fewer of them to deal with come January when they step out of Congress and into a job as a think tank pundit or lobbyist. When we see Harry Reid as the Minority Leader, and you read rants on here and Kos and all the other pundit sites blaming the voters for not GOTV, ask yourself this. What the fuck did the Democrats do to earn that vote? So far all we've done since 2012 is blame the Rethugs. While they are reading those polls and know that the economy is important. That's why they keep vowing to fight the job killing this and that. They are winning the argument in the minds of the voters, and we are left hoping that the Rethugs self destruct because we've got nothing else to offer.

So GOTV, because in 2010, five million more people got out and voted than in 2006, it's just that they voted for Rethugs. If we were being honest, we would be trying to suppress the vote, but if we were being honest, we wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

[gulliver]

95. The Democrats are the only ones who do give a shit.

If the Dems thought there was any hope in formulating and announcing grand plans, they would do it. Obama would do it. He's as bold, intelligent, and caring as they come.

Your anger and suspicion toward the Dems is common, and springs, in my opinion, largely from an overestimate of the power they have. If it were in the power of the Dems to save the economic lives of the millions of people you are talking about, then they could fairly be called callous or "corporate owned" or whatever for not saving those people. They could really be accused of screwing their voters and supporters over. But you are wrong about what the Dems have the power to do, and that makes you wrong about their intentions and motivations.

The level of unpopularity the Dems get is not fair. For the most part, it is just a case of people being mistaken or misled by Republicans or the ever-hero-seeking media. The Republicans just lie, while the media compares the Dems unfavorably to the West Wing. Too many people just snooze through the whole thing as usual and feel what they are told to feel.

A bare majority, even if it is in all three branches of the government doesn't have dictatorial power. It has to behave itself, or it will be destroyed in the next election. We sacrificed our majority in the House to get the ACA passed. Nancy Pelosi is extremely underrated as a stateswoman. She pulled off something historic.

The idea of putting forward a grand plan in the hope of inspiring some kind of voter movement strikes me as fantasy, unfortunately, and you are far from the only one who thinks that is what we should be doing. The grand plan idea is missing one big item: the grand plan. There isn't one. But even if such a plan existed and it were the best plan ever framed, it would be shot down and the Dems with it, because it would be misunderstood by the people, "equivalenced" to death by the media, and deliberately lied about by the Republicans.

The group that has the power to change things the way you (and I) would like to see them changed is the voters. The eligible voters who don't vote Dem are the ones not using their power to help people. They are the ones doing the screwing they complain about. If you want the Dems to exercise power to achieve the levels of change you want, you have to give them the kind of reliable power that comes from reliable voters.

[Savannahmann]

107. Fantasy?

I was going to give you a long reply. I actually typed it out. I gave historical examples of what I am talking about working, both Democratic, and Republican. I typed personal information, my friend from school who is living in his elderly mothers basement because he is out of work, and forgotten. I typed information about my family, and how they have been affected by this new normal. Then I deleted it all. Because you don't give a shit either. You are a cheerleader of the party, and you don't want to know how the party is failing millions. Nobody wants to talk about it, because if we deal in reality, we won't be able to celebrate our phony success.

http://bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm

Look at our success. Look at the millions who are out of the workforce. Look at the millions who are studiously forgotten as we celebrate the low unemployment numbers. Tell me again how the party cares as they list the great economic recovery as one of the accomplishments of The President. If that is what you are offering the voters, don't cry when they either don't show up, or vote Republican. Because at least the Republicans pretend that they care with thier "job killing" tag on every objection they make, while the Democratic Party pretends that they don't even exist.

[Number23]

129. Interesting. Thanks for that clarification

I also liked the way that you framed the issue: 'more Dems will lead to better Dems' vs 'Better Dems will lead to more Dems'

That's excellent.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

209. It's the way the fight on DK split out

based on the site's original proposed mission 'More and Better Democrats'.

That split out into more democrats vs better democrats onsite, which was largely a tactical difference. The supposed outcome is the same, but one faction thinks that simply going after 'more democrats' means absorbing people like Arlen Specter into the party in red-purple districts or states, and thus actually drags the party ever farther right, while the other faction thinks that simply winning majorities means we will pass legislation worth having. The first faction thinks legislation passed by majorities containing folks like Lieberman will be full of poison pills that end up damage the party brand. So yes, we got the ACA, which already does help people who needed help, but it's been political trouble that may result in electoral losses, and potentially even a loss of the Senate. The argument from faction A is that a much stronger fight starting with single payer either potentially could have resulted in at least a weak public option in the current ACA, or that even losing strong fights on principle lead to greater voter turnout for strong, principled candidates, such that we could have won the House back in 2012 along with more Senate seats, and simply passed a better ACA in the last year or two, that would both be better for people, and better politically, without all of the crap inserted to try and get republicans to vote for it. We wasted many months making the ACA ever worse, trying simply to get votes that never materialized, which led to a vote AFTER the death of Ted Kennedy, which meant the ACA wound up even worse again, as we scrambled to get a vote to replace his.

Especially in off-year elections, you need base turnout. And you get base turnout with better candidates. So maybe the compromise should be to work on 'better candidates' in off-year elections, to rouse the base. But don't stress about simply 'more candidates' during presidential election years, if you can't get 'better' then.

[Calista241]

88. Awesome post n/t

[polichick]

27. Just posted this elsewhere but it's perfect here:

There's a growing number of voters (all ages) who aren't going to be manipulated into voting for corporate servants anymore - who aren't going to respond to the usual fear mongering. If the Democratic Party wants to win, it needs to support principled candidates who are there for the people.

[gulliver]

32. Manipulating people into not voting against Republicans...

...is apparently much easier than getting them to vote for "corporate servants." But they amount to the same thing.

[polichick]

36. Trying to get people to vote against RepubliCons is fear mongering...

That's an old tactic that's lost steam.

And trying to get them to vote FOR corporate tools has also been done.

Time for something else.

[Eleanors38]

133. I agree. Like it or not, Democrats better start earning those votes.

Our successors won't necessarily cotton to our since of valor, patience and brand loyalty if conditions get worse, or even fail to improve.

[VanillaRhapsody]

157. they haven't improved?

where have you been....we are on the upswing now....

[Eleanors38]

177. Mmm, no.

[Doctor_J]

44. DC Dems and other idiots like the OP don't seem to grasp that simple concept

"we're in favor of Big Insurance mandates, Big Pharma, All Of The Above, fracking, KXL, TPP, the Bush education plan, and chained CPI - now vote for us, godammit"

[polichick]

46. Really - it's beyond absurd!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

64. Awesome! It'll be such fun canvassing on those issues.

Wish I could at least throw in legalization while knocking on doors, but no Dems in NC seem to be taking a pro-weed stance. (Note to the NC Democratic Party: THAT is a winning issue. Trust me.)

[Raksha]

100. You're right - it's not gonna happen this time.

"we're in favor of Big Insurance mandates, Big Pharma, All Of The Above, fracking, KXL, TPP, the Bush education plan, and chained CPI - now vote for us, godammit"

I can't believe I fell for that b.s. as long as I did, but I'm cured of it now.

[woo me with science]

108. [phone]

I thought the OP was satire at first. Jaw-droppingly illustrative of the mentality we are dealing with in corporate rule.

Why not just assign every citizen to the Blue or Red team at birth? That way we won't ever have to worry our pretty little heads about what policies are actually being proposed. We can focus on the important things, like buying team-colored pom poms and seat cushions for the pageants...er, debates.

[polichick]

115. That authoritarian mindset is bad enough in RepubliCon circles...

but to find in among Dems is really creepy.

[joshcryer]

168. Yeah right. When Hillary wins in a landslide...

...I'll look forward to people championing this "growing number of voters" who "are going to be manipulated into voting for corporate servants anymore."

[Scootaloo]

30. It's not "earning" it's MOTIVATING

You're not going to scoop in the liberals with Right-Light. You're not going to get the independents or undecideds with it, either - if they want right, they'll go with Republicans. The only people the Democrats scoop up wit their usual vacillation strategy are the voters who are so dedicatedly Democrat that they would put Rush Limbaugh in office so long as he put a (D) next to his name.

[phantom power]

40. That whole premise is a joke

Democratic politicians haven't behaved like they want to earn anybody's vote in at least 20 years, unless it's trying to earn Republican votes. You're proposing that everybody ought to "stop" doing something that nobody is actually doing.

[tabbycat31]

43. As someone who's job it is to turn out votes

I will tell you that that campaigns divide voters into 'universes.'

Without looking at individual voter files, I would assume that the people on DU are considered the 'base voters' (always vote, always vote D). Campaigns (general election, not primary) are not going to spend their time and money reaching out to these people. Any communications from the campaign this group of voters will get will be for fundraising, volunteering, or invitations to events.

The next universe of voters would be the 'swing voters.' This includes people like my parents, unaffiliated voters who never miss an election. These people are going to vote, it's up to the campaign to persuade them to vote Democratic.

The final universe is the GOTV universe. These are voters who will vote Democratic if they vote at all (demographically, they tend to be younger and minority). They typically only vote in presidential elections.

[MineralMan]

49. Yes. I'm in the same group.

I work with the last two groups during campaigns. My strategy is precinct walking and door knocking. I try very hard to talk to as many people in my precinct as possible during the 60 days prior to an election. I knock on every door in the precinct during that time, and return to the doors where nobody was home.

For the first group, if they're Democrats (DFL Party in MN), I know they'll come to the polls, so I tell them I hope to see them at our precinct polling place on Election Day.

If they're Republicans, I ask them a couple of questions pertinent to the election and see from their answers whether it's worth my time to try to convince them to change their opinion. I manage to convert a few in this group, at least for one race or another, but most will vote conservatively. I don't hope to see them on Election Day, but I don't say that.

For swing voters, I ask them what concerns them in the election. I try to find their pain points, and then I explain how the DFL candidates on the ballot will help them with those issues. I know, because I have studied their campaign literature and websites. If they want, I'll give them campaign brochures, because I have those with me at all times. I ask them to consider carefully and to come to the polls on Election Day and vote in ways that will make their lives better.

For the last group, I get them registered if they are not, and give them as many reasons as I can to turn out and vote. I remind them that their vote is needed for every DFL candidate on the ballot, even if they only care about one. I give each of them a page with directions to the precinct's polling place the hours and date of the election and a statement about how important every vote is in every election.

In 2012, we turned out almost 70% of registered voters. In 2014, we will turn out 60% or so, because the Governor's race is on.

That's my election activism. It works.

[tabbycat31]

54. I wish you lived where I worked

I really do. Most field staff would salivate over having someone like you on their team.

[MineralMan]

61. I'm pretty much on my own in my efforts.

I live in a very DFL heavy area in St. Paul. It's taken for granted by the party, because it has regularly elected excellent people to office. Because of that, candidates often believe they needn't spend much time or money here. I'm involved in the party, as a precinct chair, and I do talk with all of the candidates and find out where they're coming from. I work to help candidates get party endorsements if I believe they would be the best candidate for that position during the caucus and convention system.

However, after the conventions, I'm pretty much on my own. I can drop into candidates offices and pick up literature and so on, but I"m not a part of any particular campaign. My precinct walking is done on a freelance basis. I've tried recruiting folks in the precinct, but the politics of the area are so DFL-heavy that nobody seems to be motivated to get out there and get out votes when our district and local candidates are sure to win.

This year, I'll be out there because our Governor, who won in a recount with just a handful of votes, is vulnerable. He's the big selling point for me in getting out the Democratic voters this year. If he loses in November, it will be a bad thing. And I can show people just how important our precinct's high turnout was for Governor Dayton in 2012.

I'm a good speaker and good in individual conversations, so what I do is pretty successful. But, I'm pretty much on my own. That's OK, though, because I enjoy it a lot. This year, my beagle/basset, Dude, will be along with me. He'll get lots of votes out.

[sufrommich]

53. The young and minorities who vote in presidential

elections but not mid terms. These are the voters we really need and frequently fail at getting to the polls. It's not really about liberals not showing up,it's about getting the groups who are historically unlikely to vote.

[tabbycat31]

55. But the liberals in the first group are the vols needed to get the young and minorities to the polls

A former chair that I worked with said this at an event with a packed house of Democratic committee members and it sums it up perfectly.

"Am I preaching to the choir? Yes, but as the choir, it's your job to get out there and sing."

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

47. No. ANY politician who wants my vote has to earn it.

There simply is no other way to have a 'democracy'. A vote given away is a vote that moves the party ever more to the right, that rewards the Liebermans, the Baucuses, the Landrieus, who demand that we have crappier, Republican-lite legislation.

[NaturalHigh]

56. Wow, you're right!

The party is entitled to my vote!

Trashing thread with extreme prejudice.

[Maedhros]

57. I'm a left-leaning voter.

I will not vote for a right-leaning candidate. Period. I don't care what letter is after his/her name.

Democrats want my vote? Give me liberal policies or STFU.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

58. Ludicrous. We had complete control in early 2009, and the bullies did not back down.

Obama and the Democratic Party blew it by not focusing on a massive jobs/infrastructure program, and by not nailing Wall Street. Jobs and the economy are what voters most care about, and if the country were on its way back to fat and happy (not just those at the top rungs), there wouldn't have been as much resistance to Obamacare.

The numbers in the following article are from a Third Way study -- the Third Way, which is a huge part of the problem. No one knows what the Democratic Party stands for anymore. Indies are supposedly pro-weed, pro-equality, and anti-regulation. The Democratic Party is failing if it can't convince voters why deregulation is not working.

"More voters choose indie label, buck Democrats and GOP"

....

The latest update in Third Way's annual look at the electorate shows a jump of nearly 11.2% in independent voter registration from 2008 to 2013 in 24 states and the District of Columbia that keep partisan registration statistics.

Democratic registration is down by 1% and .04% for Republicans during that period, Third Way's analysis showed. The group provided USA TODAY with an early look at its report.

....

Since states collect and report voter registration in different ways, it is unclear whether the growth in independent voter registrations comes from new voters, changes in party affiliations or from people who have moved into a state. But Diggles believes all three are factors in the rise of independents.

Third Way's analysis reinforces a Gallup Poll released last month that showed 46% of voters consider themselves independents. The voter registration analysis also comes amid record low job-approval ratings for Congress and President Obama, and as lawmakers try to overcome voter hostility sparked by the rollout of the Affordable Care Act and a partial federal government shutdown.

....

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/12/11/independent-voters-registration-third-way/3988351/

After 8 ruinous years of Bush/Cheney, THIS SHOULD NOT BE. Americans needs a serious history lesson, starting with at least with the Reagan years. Why are rock star Obama and the Democratic Party not doing that?

[JoePhilly]

102. on what dated was Al Franken seated?

Hint, it was not early in 2009.

[elzenmahn]

60. I'm not with you, Gulliver...

This is the mentality that brought us allleged "Dems" like Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln - they had a (D) next to their name, but were in all essence corporate-creature Republican-lites. There's a saying that if given a choice between a fake Democrat (who is really a Republican) and a true Republican, people will vote for the Republican.

The Dems need to remember that votes are not guaranteed from those of us on the left. This is exactly how you push them leftward - remind them that there are alternatives, either outside of the party (Greens, Peace and Freedom), or within with people like Warren and Grayson.

If you want me to get excited about a Democratic candidate, then that candidate needs to be a Democrat. By that, I mean pro-union, pro-single-payer health care, pro-investment in this country - in it's people and it's infrastructure. No more settling for half-loafs like the Clintonites and the Third-Wayers would want us to do.

[Lars39]

109. Good post.

[JoeyT]

62. What hurts GOTV even more is entitled attitudes.

We don't have to EARN your vote, it's supposed to be ours by default!

Being indignant when people don't vote for politicians that don't represent them doesn't accomplish much more than making us look stupid. There's already a group that regularly votes against their own interests. They're called the Republican base.

Failing to convince the average American that free trade, pro-fracking, etc politicians have their best interest at heart isn't a failure of the voters, it's a failure of the politicians. Tell them to stop being bought-off fuckups and GOTV will be a lot easier.

[seveneyes]

67. A party that is not busy trying to earn your vote

Is busy trying to rule you.

[fascisthunter]

73. Votes Should Always be Earned

If they aren't, you no longer have representation and therefore that democracy is just a marketing term.

[treestar]

75. Recced

It is assigning a value to a vote that it does not have. And ignoring the value that it does have.

Our one single vote is worth little and it's withholding punishes no candidate. It just means we let the others who vote be the ones to govern us. We can get somewhere only in combination with other voters

[Marr]

81. It's not surprising that someone who defends NSA spying would feel this way. /nt

[whatchamacallit]

92. yep

[VanillaRhapsody]

160. Wow how to brilliantly show you just lost the argument!

[Glitterati]

96. So, which republican would you suggest I vote for since

there's not a single Democrat on the ballot? Since, you know, it's a REQUIREMENT that I vote and all.....

Qualifying for the May 20 primary ended Friday with no Democrats qualifying in Forsyth County. That means all the local races will be decided well ahead of the General Election in November.
http://www.forsythnews.com/section/1/article/22820/

[gulliver]

98. I don't know.

I guess they won't hold the general election anyway to account for the right to use write-ins? If they do, write yourself in and Twitter your friends. You might give some deserving Republican a case of heartburn anyway.

[Glitterati]

99. Nope, sorry. GA has the most restrictive 3rd Party and Write-In

regulations of any state in the US.

If not a legitimate "Write-In or Third Party" candidate who was officially allowed on the ballot by collecting thousands of signatures on a petition, you are throwing your vote away. It won't even be counted in the state of Georgia.

[neverforget]

97. 2010 was a wipeout for Democrats because the Independents voted Republican 55-39 percent

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010-midterms-political-price-economic-pain/story?id=12041739&singlePage=true

GOP candidates scored better than they have in decades among some key demographic groups. Consider:

Women voted 49-48 percent for Democratic vs. Republican House candidate -- the best for Republicans among women in national House vote in exit polls since 1982. Obama won women by 13 points in 2008.

Democrats and Republicans were at parity in self-identification nationally, 36-36 percent, a return to the close division seen in years before 2008, when it broke dramatically in the Democrats' favor, 40-33 percent.

Swing-voting independents who, as usual, made the difference, favored Republicans for House by a thumping 16 points, 55-39 percent. Compare that to Obama's 8-point win among independents in 2008. It was the Republicans' biggest win among independents in exit polls dating to 1982 (by two points. The GOP won independents by 14 points in 1994, the last time they took control of the House.)

Sixty percent of whites backed Republican House candidates, the most in exit polls dating back to 1982. (In presidential rather than House vote Ronald Reagan won more whites in 1984).

[JoePhilly]

103. They think not voting will create more progressive candidates.

[joshcryer]

165. +1

[Sarah Ibarruri]

104. I AGREE. The only way to demoralize the right wing, is to FIRST crush them

THEN start doing the necessary work.

[Agnosticsherbet]

106. GOTV is a question of power. Do you want Republicans in power, or Democrats. It is simple as that.

I long ago realized that the worst possible Democrat is better than the best possible Republican. It think that is a terrible statement on the nature of contemporary American politics. But it is accurate as I see it.

The group in power sets the agenda. Many felt that Democrats didn't earn their vote in 2010. How did that work out? If we had elected terrible Democrats, the would have been about 48 fewer attempts to repeal "Obamacare," and maybe those votes would have been replaced by votes on jobs bills and some would have helped the middle class and poor in a few ways.

[DebJ]

113. More attention needs to be focused on primaries, where the real choices are. GOTV in primaries,

for all offices, not just for Presidential or Senate elections.

[Enthusiast]

114. Unrecommended completely.

[TheKentuckian]

116. A fantasy by folks who actually don't want to stand for or do anything

Just keep voting for us and eventually we'll do what you want in some unexplainable (aka phony) dynamic.

If "Bob" always will have my vote then "Bob" only must concern himself with those who are not in the pocket and it cannot be any more plain. Nobody makes concessions to you had me at hello.

My automatic yes is giving "Bob" my measure of power to use as he wills, not any path to greater power of my own at all. "Bob" doesn't have to do anything but wake up breathing to be assured I will swallow whatever is served and keep on coming back for more no matter how I whine about it.

[ljm2002]

123. So votes don't need to be earned?

WTF? I thought that earning votes was a bedrock principle of democracy.

So you're saying that we need to vote for Democrats simply because they're Democrats. Would you have made that same argument back in the days of the Dixiecrat South, BTW?

IMO votes do need to be earned. I don't care how that plays out on the Republican side of the aisle, since I never vote for any of them anyway. But when it comes to Democratic candidates and incumbents, yes I will exercise my right to bitch and moan about them if they do not represent me, and yes I reserve the right to withhold my vote rather than holding my nose and voting for a clown or worse. Although admittedly it would take a lot for me to actually withhold my vote, particularly in the Presidential election, given the importance of judicial appointments.

You seem to think that leftists with strong views are "bullies", while centrists are not, as a matter of definition. Do you remember when the ACA was being debated in the halls of Congress, and single-payer advocates tried to get a seat at the table -- and were hustled off to jail for it? Were the single-payer advocates the bullies there, or was it Max Baucus and the rest of the "centrist" DLC types?

Pffffft.

[Silent3]

131. Exactly! You can't think of your vote as some kind of reward you bestow upon a politician.

To repeat what I'd said on this same subject before:

A better, more informed, more activist electorate would look at votes as something they owe to themselves, not to the candidate. Thinking of the vote, or the office a vote possibly leads to, as something the candidate is working for like a prize, a reward, or something earned isn't the best way to think about voting.

It should be (or at least half-way should be) the voters thinking about what kind of government they're going to earn for themselves when they cast their own votes, and when they encourage others to vote.

If you can't be bothered to vote because a candidate just didn't wow you enough, didn't get you psyched up enough, well, that might be partly the candidates fault, but it's also your fault for acting like it's all about you rewarding the candidate for impressing you, and forgetting that it's ultimately about what kind of government you end up with, and if, unimpressed by a particular candidate or not, you wouldn't have been better off with a lackluster politician than his or her opponent.

[bluestateguy]

158. Very tru

It's not the responsibility of any politician to inspire me or make me feel all tingly inside.

This is politics and government, not a Dr. Phil episode.

[Ken Burch]

136. Doesn't work, though, when the Democrat you vote for is a bland centrist. n/t.

(I'd do that anyway out of "lesser evilism", but electing NON-progressive Dems never actually leads to a swing to the left, since a Dem elected as a centrist will always STAY a centrist, and will always keep progressives out in the cold. Rahm Emmanuel proves this).

Just saying you need to be a little more realistic in your last graph there.

[Ken Burch]

137. This is what we call a "do what you're told and know your place, peasant" thread.

We ALL want GOTV to work, but trying to silence people and make them accept a submissive, powerless form of politics just doesn't work.

It's what cost us the House in 2010.

Learn from that.

THE BASE MATTERS...and yes, there IS a "fucking base".

[TheKentuckian]

143. These folks just know that there is no intention of earning votes and considerable desire to do

things most likely to alienate them but the desire is to do so without any blowback, no promises made, no policy demands or expectations. Just brand loyalty, team following, donations, and open slates for folks to run so they can serve the "stakeholders" unfettered.

[bluestateguy]

156. They'll always get my vote b/c the alternative is too scary

My money? My volunteer time?

THAT has to be earned.

[riqster]

175. This:

"Always vote Democratic in every election for every office. Do that once in 2014, and the bullies will back down. Do it twice, and we get Roosevelt-era, human-centered governance."

Damn straight.

[grahamhgreen]

176. Cuz issues don't matter???? I call horse hockey.

[rock]

178. Correct

One does not vote for a candidate. One votes for their self.

[AgingAmerican]

182. God forbid the Democrats ever did something

...so stupid as to earn the support of their own party.

[Demo_Chris]

188. This is ludicrous. Seriously. nt

[Orsino]

192. The Democrats must earn votes.

The GOP gets a lot of free votes from their captive media. Some Dems share in this, but the balance is not in our direction.

The Dems must earn votes, but that includes us. We are also responsible for getting out the vote.

[PowerToThePeople]

201. Nader, 2016!!!

[DrDan]

220. YOW - don't believe I could ever vote for the likes of Marion Berry, Weiner or Blagojevich

sorry - but yours is a lame idea

[Xyzse]

238. My GotV reason is to try to stop the crazies.

Other than that, I can't really speak for much else other than myself.