Does anyone here really think people bashing the president will vote for the GOP in 2014, 2016?

[Logical]

I don't mean short lived trolls, I mean people who have been here for years and have 1000s of posts.

Because I don't. No way in hell they will support the GOP. Why bash Obama if you love the GOP stances???

Someone can be extremely disappointed in President Obama and the current Democratic leadership and still want progressive elected officials. Still want all the causes we believe in to be implemented. LGBT rights, No more wars, free health care for all, higher taxes for the 1%, Wall Street reform, etc.

Do you really think the people complaining here don't want those causes implemented?

I imagine some of the biggest complainers of President Obama donated more and worked harder than many of the people who are mad they are complaining about the President. And more than many of the posters who think Obama is perfect!

Some people just don't believe in the current Democratic status quo! That does not mean they support the GOP.

This is a damn discussion board. Some posts will make you angry. It does not mean the poster is going to vote for the GOP.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Well, I will state here and now that I will not vote

for Barack Obama in 2014 or 2016!

And I will stand by that statement no matter how many stupid meta diaries are posted on this or any blog!

So there



On a slightly more serious note, people on lefty boards who complain about the President complain about him because his policies and words are too often too far to the RIGHT. To think that they'd then turn around and vote for anyone even farther to the right as some sort of 'revenge' on a President who will never again be up for re-election simply tells you that the person who envisions such is delusional.

[Logical]

2. Great point! n-t

[djean111]

6. [phone]. Absolutely.

[Scuba]

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

[brush]

45. Maybe not vote for repugs but stay home . . .

We certainly saw that in 2010.

IMO the constant bashing and insulting damages our GOTV effort.

[Squinch]

58. THAT^^^^^^ is where the damage is done. And there are plenty here who are

vocal about their idiotic plans to stay home and their idiotic reasons for doing so.

So voting for GOP? Maybe not. But allowing the GOP to win in 2014?

Well, yes.

[DFW]

92. Pretty much the same thing

Like the old saying went:

Vote and the choice is yours. Don't vote and the choice is theirs.

[Auntie Bush]

232. Good point.

Sometimes we don't help Democrats get excited about voting .!.!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

65. except when the crosstabs were run, we saw that in 2010

it was not liberals who stayed home, but the same old moderates and young voters who stayed home as they do in every midterm.

You want them to come out, you've got to get them excited about things you're actually doing for them. Which means you actually have to do things for them. Not just complain about how Republicans are 'worse'.

[brush]

69. I agree with doing things to get them motivated to vote

But I don't think constantly bashing and insulting dems is going to do that.

I say we need to move away from that and figure out, as you suggest, ways to get them enthused enough to get out and vote.

Phone banking and canvassing are traditional ways, which I do each campaign, do you have any other specific ideas?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

91. It's got to circle back to involvement.

People act when they feel they have 'ownership'. That what they do matters, and that what they're doing actually effects changes they can see and of which they approve. If they feel like they might be making a difference, you can get them out to vote once, but they have to see a real change for the better to get them out a second time. Which is why you've got to 'throw them bones', at the very least.

But we've gotten to the point where the board is so incredibly tilted economically, that the traditional Democratic bones (social changes) have diminishing impact. You can give all the majority rights to as many minorities as you want, and it still won't lift those minorities out of poverty. The 99% will be united, and equal, and either unemployed or wage slaves.

Democratic candidates have to start taking on wealth inequality head on, because that's the main issue that unites almost all voters. We're all being screwed by corporations and the people for whom wealth is merely counters in a competition with the other rich. So we need candidates who actually will work to raise people out of poverty and reduce wealth inequality.

If we don't own the populist candidates... then people like Rand Paul will win more and more elections. We have to have populists, or we're going to wind up with a government of libertarians.

Backing down to the street level politics, that means more up-front investment in pulling in young voters, getting them into the machinery, and giving them some power. not just using them as phone bankers and pavement pounders, but actually honestly listening to them, and working their ideas into party politics. Getting them to OWN the party, rather than are simply being USED by the party. As a first step, it's past time that social media networks got a lot more attention as a campaign tool. Your younger voters don't see themselves as being tied down physically to a home address or phone line. You've got to get them setting up their own social media networks and 'pledge campaigns'. Maybe even 'voting parties' on polling days, where they all meet up to go vote, then head out to hit the clubs. Or parties on those days where entrance requires an 'I voted' sticker.

Something, anything, that gives them a greater sense of ownership and belonging and empowerment. But it's got to be backed up with candidates who are willing to work for what those constituencies want, not just get into office and immediately start working for the 1%ers.

[brush]

96. Good ideas

I especially like the social media voting networks and election day vote parties.

I hope you get involved in the 2014 campaign and get these ideas implemented.

We need fresh vision.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

106. We also need to get working on those too young to vote.

Rome wasn't built in a day, or however the saying goes.

If we inoculate children against hate, anger and fear, and teach them to believe in sharing, generosity, good will, they WILL vote for candidates on the left. We don't have to even be 'partisan'. Just teach them that cooperation achieves more than competition. Let them accumulate enough of these lessons, and they'll learn to reject ideas based on scapegoating 'others', and will embrace equality in reality, not inequality based in a false notion of 'equality of opportunity'. To reject the idea that we as a people should let people starve, live homeless, die of diseases we could have prevented.

The Republicans are paranoid, but they've realized this ahead of us. It's why they spend so much time going after school boards, where they can choose the textbooks that reinforce their capitalist 'survival of the fittest' worldview, and curricula that focus on competition over cooperation. We've got to refocus and pour more resources into winning school boards back.

[1StrongBlackMan]

135. While I agree with a lot of what you have written ...

The academic research indicates that people are far more moved to act to protect against a loss than to achieve a gain. That is why negative campaigning is so effective.

[Phlem]

120. Welcome to Du.

Spot on post. Hope to see more of you around here.



-p

[1StrongBlackMan]

125. The point that many may miss is ...

Yes ... The young and lesser engaged always stay home during off year elections; but the constant "Democrats=Bad" posts hardly brings them out.

[kelliekat44]

199. Well, most of the things they complained about in2010 have been done. They can't get 100%

from any candidate or party. If they stay home they are not serious citizens or just plain ignorant haters.

[JoePhilly]

77. I think its part of the GOP voter supression strategy.

The media helps them push two totally opposite memes which at the core say "Dems Suck".

The first targets the right leaning voter and is designed to make them angry. "The Dems are socialists who hate God and America. They hate you and want to kill you. They want your kids to be gay. And they want Shria law." The intent is to get those who LEAN right, angry enough to vote.

The second version of the "Dems suck" message is aimed at those who LEAN left. "The Dems are the same as Republicans. They are corporate whores, who like war. You're screwed and there is nothing you can do about it." The intent of this one is to get those who lean left discouraged so they stay home.

Figure 1% gain blocking votes, 1% gain angering right leaning voters, 1% gain discouraging the left ... 3% swing for the GOP in a close election.

The message are pushed out by the various media outlets so that they can then be transferred intentionally (or unintentionally, which is even better because then it seems authentic) out to the forums and blogs, where it can act like a cancer.

No matter which kind of voter you are, you will know one thing ... the DEMS SUCK!

[brush]

81. Great analysis

What a good way to drive it home — the illustration of 1% of voters loss in three different voters segments points out repug strategy so well.

Makes you wonder about some of the vitriol screamers here.

[mopinko]

90. ^^this^^^

just when we were so enjoying the circular firing squad on the other side for a change.

[JoePhilly]

162. Absolutely.

[AgingAmerican]

97. So the GOP is saying

"The Dems are the same as Republicans. They are corporate whores, who like war. You're screwed and there is nothing you can do about it."?

Is that on FOX they say this, or is it on Beck and Limbaugh?

[JoePhilly]

136. Read it again. Not what I said.

I said the media helps the GOP by pushing opposite memes that target voters who lean right, and lean left.

And you are close in something else but a little off. The anti dem message targeting those leaning right goes on rush, beck, fox. The anti dem message targeting those who lean left is pushed to Huffpo, cnn, even parts of msnbc.

The GOP has a long history of using dis information tactics.

[1StrongBlackMan]

139. Yes ...

It is a gop operation ... and a libertarian operation ... All pushed out by "real Democrats" and "true liberals/progressives" on Democratic/liberal/progressive boards.

[AgingAmerican]

145. Ah, I see

Sort of like Get Smart!


So traditional Democrats and liberals/progressives are secretly GOP/Libertarian operatives! Thanks for clearing that up!

[1StrongBlackMan]

148. If that's what you wish to take from my statement ...

Okay. And continue to be played.

[AgingAmerican]

149. And...

...we just don't realize it! We are being played by aforementioned GOP/Libertarian operatives! We are like unsuspecting puppets! They are mind controlling us! Please, save us!

[1StrongBlackMan]

152. Make light if you wish ...

But I suspect that you know this to be true.

[AgingAmerican]

154. I am curious

Lets say Obama did something that I do not agree with, and I mentioned my disappointment here on DU. Am I being played in this situation? If so, by what mechanism?

This is a serious question.

[JoePhilly]

159. Depends.

In many case absolutely not.

But let's say you blame the ACA for a problem that existed prior to the ACA, yet one the ACA does not address. Then perhaps yes.

If you are screaming that Hillary is awful and you will never vote for her, yet you can't name any alternative candidates.

If you've posted 100s of OPs, each of which attacks democrats, yet almost none that propose actual paths forward on that issue, or any other. Perhaps yes.

If you feel the need to spice up your criticism with "F**K YOU" ... perhaps yes.

[1StrongBlackMan]

160. No ...

But when your disagreement is based on misinformation, discredited argumentation and/or out of context portion s of larger speeches/comments, and when it is pointed out and one persists then yes, one is being played (or doing the playing).

[AgingAmerican]

190. So its just one big conspiracy

And I am potentially an operative? I will never understand politician worship.

lol

[JoePhilly]

161. Let's imagine that you think Abortion is Murder ...

... which many on the right wing do.

Now, if you truly believed that ... would you steal votes to ensure that a conservative judge beat a more liberal judge? See, lots of Republicans would. Not all of them, but plenty of them absolutely would. They think that by beating Dems, they are saving lives.

So some of them will do almost anything. Pretend to be liberals, sure.

They also put power above everything else. Which means they will lie, cheat and steal. They will pass laws to prevent people from being able to vote.

There are Republicans actually running as Democrats in a couple states.

Now, that's not most of DU, at best a tiny part, but ... the GOP knows exactly how to push the buttons of some on the left and get them to amplify the message intended to discourage the left.

Limbaugh called it operation Chaos, ironically.

[AgingAmerican]

191. Limbaugh's

"Operation Chaos" never amounted to anything more than a few puffs of hot air.

[Bobbie Jo]

164. I believe this too

If it weren't for the CONTINUOUS barrage of negativity (much of it cherry-picked and deceptive) from the same people....day after day, after day, I would accept it as valid criticism.

What we have here appears more obvious by the day.

Spot on.

[FSogol]

172. Exactly. n/t

[Skittles]

174. yes, no one is looking behind the curtain

they all....blindly follow the media

[Number23]

175. One guy in this forum plainly said that he was not going to vote. That he'd stay home and eat French

toast rather than vote for Dems because certain factions on DU were mean to him.

So this OP's really elementary contention that the Perpetually Petulant aren't going to do things that deliberately harm the Dems is not true.

[grasswire]

178. please link to that post

I'd like to see it in context, and see the profile of the poster.

Even if ONE poster did say that, you realize there are a couple hundred thousand DU member, don't you?

[Number23]

182. Find it yourself. Then you can see all of the "context" and "profile" you want

[grasswire]

184. You cited it. You find it. (If it exists)

If not, well.........

[Number23]

196. I've already found it. Hence the citation. Not surprised that point seemed to escape you.

You're not going to get anything from me. So you can waste your time responding or you can find someone else who gives a crap and may be more accommodating.

[grasswire]

211. so I guess there is no such thing, eh?

Posting nonsense again.

Noted. Noted.

[Number23]

217. The last time you accused me of posting nonsense a considerable number of people informed

you that YOU were the one that was being dishonest and lacked basic comprehension skills. So you just keep on proving them right.

[grasswire]

218. translation: you got nothing.

Noted.

[Number23]

219. Translation: FIND IT YOURSELF.

And thanks AGAIN, for proving those other folks right about your level of understanding.

[grasswire]

220. that's not how message boards work.

You cite a claim, you provide a link. Can't provide a link? Got nothing. That's the way things work.

As for "those other folks" -- I'm not particularly worried that anyone is going to care what your group of friends think.

[Number23]

221. 5 posts in and you've still GOT NOTHING

Wanna make it 6?

[grasswire]

223. No, YOU got nothing.

That's clear to all. (Except maybe your BFFs). You cited a claim. You refused repeatedly to provide a link. You erased your previous post when challenged.

It's over. You didn't win.

[Number23]

233. "You erased your previous post when challenged"

You are not in a position to challenge anything from me. I am not interested in you or your demands. You cannot "challenge" someone that has absolutely no interest in you.

I have not erased a single post in this thread or any other. But thank you for illustrating so beautifully why I have no interest in your 3rd grade "challenge" and will not give you a link. Find the link or not, I don't care. I will not give it to you and you can keep typing your absurd posts about my friends (apparently anyone that calls you on your dishonesty is a friend of mine. I get the feeling I have LOTS of friends here), that I'm making up the post or whatever helps you sleep at night.

You got NOTHING and that is all you're going to get from me. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can stop making yourself look so ridiculous.

Seven posts DEMANDING shit from me and you got nothing. That was truly an excellent use of your time.

[grasswire]

222. and now I see that you have deleted your own message in that thread.

Wow. Way to go.

[Number23]

230. You are just about the most full of it poster here. I don't delete my posts

I haven't deleted anything.

For the last time, I will not give you anything that you are asking me for. I don't like you and am not the slightest bit interested in your demands. Find what I'm referring to or not. I genuinely couldn't care less. I will not provide you with a link. Don't ask me again because you are not going to get shit from me but the same answer -- Find it Yourself.

[mrchips]

101. We'll Said

Thanks. We can't get anything close to justice for the American people until we get control of the house and the senate, not to mention we need to change the Supreme Court's right wing lunacy.

[sabrina 1]

115. And there it is again, the false statement that Democrats stayed home. If Dems had stayed home in

2010 we would have lost all the Progressive seats WE HELD (thank you DUers) in both Congress and the Senate. Are you claiming that Republicans won the Senate FOR us and that they voted back into office all those Progressives in Congress?

Who lost their seats in Congress? Mostly Blue Dogs and some Dems due to Republicans redistricting. Why did they lose, because INDEPENDENTS and YOUNG PEOPLE stayed home.

And your post is a perfect example of the Dem Party taking the WRONG MESSAGE from the 2010 election which actually COULD COST THEM this year unless they WAKE UP and stop pretending that Democrats stayed home in 2010.

Democrats will hold their noses and vote for Dems even ones they do not like, in the end.

But INDEPENDENTS who feel no obligation to do the same, and who stated 'if we wanted Repubs we would have voted for them rather than Repub Lite'.

Neither party can win without the Independent vote. Keep ignoring what actually happened in 2010 and they will stay home again.

[Phlem]

122. ^^^^This^^^^

But, but, but, the "Republicans are worse", what a stupid fucking message.

-p

[brush]

123. Are you actually contending that . . .

no dems stayed home in 2010 because of their so called "disappointment" with the president?

[sabrina 1]

131. I'm not contending anything, I am stating FACTS, facts drawn from the statistics on who stayed home

and who didn't.

Are you actually disputing what are by now, well known facts?

I sure hope the Party Leadership doesn't ignore those facts, or once again, they will lose the Independent vote.

[Union Scribe]

140. Prove they did.

Because the numbers say liberals turned out in the same percentage in the 2010 midterms as in the previous midterms. You know who did vote in fewer numbers? Moderates. Not exactly the people being pegged with these idiotic blame-fantasies here all the time by the same posters for three and a half years.

[brush]

141. Where are the links . . .

and by moderates who do you mean?

Moderate dems, of which there are many, or moderate who?

[Union Scribe]

142. Here you go!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2665204

Having now been presented the data, I trust I'll not see you repeat that scurrilous and false talking point again?

[laundry_queen]

197. They'll probably just lay low for a bit

maybe pretend they didn't see your post, then bring up the same 'liberals stayed home' talking point at some other time in some other similar thread. I've seen it happen time and time again. People posting links to facts, and other people choosing to ignore those facts because it doesn't fit into their own narrative. It's on purpose. (you probably already knew that though, since you seem like an intelligent DUer)

[Glitterati]

244. Exactly. It happens daily around here lately

Sadly, it's what DU has become.

[Spider Jerusalem]

198. That always happens in mid-term elections

and people who are politically active and engaged enough to discuss political issues frequently? They aren't the people who stay home. Most of them will turn out even if it's to register a protest vote by writing in "none of the above".

[treestar]

3. Some will

There are a few with longevity, but I still think they are Republicans. Very clever ones who can avoid getting banned.

Others will not vote at all or vote Green, socialist, etc.

The thing is they make a board for Democrats have about as much hatred for Democrats as you might see on a Republican board. And then they complain that anyone still support the Democrats and pushes back at them! Easy for the right to point to this board as a sign the Democrats are going to lose.

[Logical]

4. You really think this board is mostly about bashing democrats? And I would be 80% of the active....

members here will vote democratic in 2014 and 2016. 20% might not vote, some might support a non-viable 3rd party. But I doubt we had them in 2012 either.

People complain but know that the alternatives are always worse.

[treestar]

8. It seems like it is sometimes

At least half the regular posters bash the Democrats nonstop, at least, the main ones. And complain of or sneer at the supporters. Regularly the supporters of Democrats, especially the President, are characterized as right wing trolls.

For a board that is allegedly for Democrats and liberals, it contains a lot of really shallow and illogical "criticism." I mean surely there is criticism that Democrats might have for other Democrats. But that would sound more intellectual than F you Mr. President over something he really hasn't anything to do with or deliberately mischaracterizing something he said. Real criticism from the left would be rather wonky and long winded and intellectual.

[Logical]

9. I think some posters need to take a month break. I agree, a little (way) over the top. nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

10. Even those who might vote 3rd party for a Presidential slot

are almost certainly voting Dem in almost every other slot. There are very few third party candidates who run for the vast bulk of offices out there. (Which really is backwards, they should be building power from the ground up, winning local and state offices before shooting for national ones...)

[treestar]

28. This is a trouble with Democrats

Like herding cats, they like to think from the top down.

And with third partiers it would be even harder to have a candidate to vote of.

Republicans were smart and started at the bottom. The school boards were something they targeted.

People are disappointed with Obama and maybe Reid or Pelosi but don't know what their school board or city council is doing or who is on it. And those are the people who might rise up to the higher offices one day.

My local district for state legislature doesn't even bother to run a Democrat. The Republican just gets the seat. I should really start there! Though the state is blue enough overall. I should run as a "real progressive" and see if it's true that if we just run real progressives in red states, they are going to win anyway.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

39. I think the party is shooting itself in the foot

by thinking of third party candidates as 'enemies'. If you're a third party type on the left, chances are you're already strongly in synch with the Dem party platform in most ways already. If you're going to caucus with anyone, it'll be Dems.

Is the party simply about 'the Party', or is it about achieving the goals for the people? If you've got uncontested R seats, and you can't get a D to run, encourage the third party types. And if the party is thinking of running a candidate, seriously evaluate which of the candidates is actually better, and be willing to support 3rd party types who happen to be better in terms of support for the party stated goals, even if they're unwilling to have the D label.

One of the best politicians out there in terms of supporting Democratic goals is Bernie Sanders, who doesn't run as a Democrat. But he caucuses with them, and constantly pushes the party to be better. It would be a waste of time and resources for the Party to seriously back a Dem challenger against him. But it doesn't matter if he's a 3rd party - he's a better Dem than most of the people who do sport the (D).

[treestar]

53. A party is a collection of people

We have to work with the people we have. The people on the farthest extremes won't get anywhere scolding that they are "right" and pure. Bernie Sanders gets that. If he were a purist like some seem to be around here, then he would refuse to caucus with the impure Democrats.

Some people seem really to believe if the President would just say something, the nation is going to believe it, so if he just demanded single payer, the nation would go along with it and demand their legislators put it into being. If he just started a prosecution of Bush/Cheney, everyone would be on board and that would go smoothly and the nation would veer left.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

66. Sure, 'some people'

There are always a tiny number of people who will believe anything. But there are a lot more people who don't believe in the scenario you posit, but do believe that when you start a negotiation, you start off as far above what you want as you can, then start working downward from the counteroffer. You don't start where you want to end up, because then you end up with far less after the negotiations are concluded.

[treestar]

116. I don't believe that about negotiation.

You don't start somewhere absurd as that doesn't help. I really wonder what would have happened if the President just said he'd only sign a single payer bill. I think we'd have nothing now.

I remember when a lawyer came into a settlement conference and demanded $350,000 for his plaintiff client in a fender bender whiplash sort of case. It didn't get him anything but stares. His case was worth 15K at most. Demanding 350 did not make us willing to offer him any more. In fact we were more willing to go to trial in the face of such an absurd demand. In the end, he got 12K still and looked like a moron, to be remembered the next time he made absurd demands.

And this was even more complicated.

Even Rs agree. None of them put out a bill repealing Medicare and Social Security. Bush had a couple of years with R Congress and did not try it. Even they know there is no point in asking for a dream world as start of a negotiation.

[baldguy]

84. Third party canddates ARE the enemy - that's the way the American electoral system is set up.

If you have three candidates: A, B & C - with ideologically close Candidates A & B, splitting their supporters votes, the the crazy extremist, out-on-a-limb death-eater Candidate C wins. Every time.

Even Sen Sanders realizes this.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

95. I don't see Sen Sanders pulling out of the race if

a Dem runs against him.

M point is that rather than simply screaming 'my party or nothing!', Dems who actually care about electing people who will make changes that help people, rather than simply 'electing the guy with a D', might choose to back the best candidate in a race, even if it's NOT the guy with a D in some cases. I'm not saying if the party has a good candidate, they should cheer on a competitor. Just make sure that you DO have a good candidate. Heck, if there's a good Dem in a race, 99 times out of a hundred, no 3rd party challenger on the left will bother to run. Such challenges generally only arise when the "Dem" in question is abandoning party platform principles. Ie, if there is no 'left' candidate in any given race, one is much more likely to enter the race. If there already is a left alternative in the person with a D running, there's no vacuum to fill.

[baldguy]

110. If Sanders mounts a challenge in 2016 to the Democratic presidential nominee in the general election

He should be correctly vilified by everyone who cares about progressive issues - just as Ralph Nader was.

[JoePhilly]

167. Sanders is well established.

[MADem]

228. I do. He's taken donations from most Democratic PACS for much of his career, including HILLPAC.

He caucuses with the Dems. He gets his committee assignments from Harry Reid.

He's an old man and his health isn't great.

If he gets in the mix, it will be to drive the arguments and focus the issues, not to win any election.

And those frigging Paulbots have very little in common with Dems.

Libertarians? Bill Maher called them "Republicans who like to smoke pot."

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

231. I didn't bother to reply to the last couple

but I actually can see after several posts that what I was trying to write and how people took it was different.

I was thinking about his own Senatorial races when I wrote that, not a presidential bid, which is what everyone assumed I was thinking about, probably from the greater context of the thread.

He does caucus with Dems, and he's not about to give up his senate seat simply because a Dem might challenge him.

But I would agree that he's no Ralph Nader. If polling tells him that he's only going to grab a few percent, he would get back out. Heck, if polling tells him he would grab less than Hillary, he'd get out. On the other hand, if he were to run, and he were polling BETTER than Hillary, maybe she should be the one to get out instead.

[MADem]

246. He will not "poll better than Hillary." Most people just do not know who he is.

He has no money, no base, and probably not enough stamina to go the distance.

If he gets in the debates at all, he'll do it to push the conversation to the left.

[AgingAmerican]

100. Some think this board

...is about marching in lockstep no matter what. Problem is, Democrats don't think like Republicans. We don't live in an information bubble and take marching orders. We are like a herd of cats. If you want to get us all on the same page, you need to use tuna...not a megaphone.

[Glitterati]

245. AMEN!

And, most especially, I've never met a Democrat who believes they SHOULD march in lockstep to anything.

[Scuba]

23. Yes, including some who even go on Fox pretending to be Dems.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

59. !

[Andy823]

144. I agree

I also think there are some long time right wing trolls here who "will" vote republican, and I also believe some of the trolls are libertarians, the Ron and Rand Paul crowd who along with the right wing trolls want to divide the people here and try and get as many as possible to stay home and just give up because as they say, both parities are the same.

I have already read posts by some who say they "will" stay home and not vote so either they are trolls also or the right wing plan is working. I also think some of the Obama bashers are simply looking for attention and lots of recs, and they know that if they bash Obama they will get what they are look for!

[think]

5. I'm voting Santorum / Palin 2015!

[Logical]

7. Shit, I was wrong! n-t

[demwing]

55. Damn your blasphemy!

The only ticket is Palin/Santorum, 2015 - and all your voters are belong to us!

[BuelahWitch]

87. That election day is April 1, 2015 right?

Almost a year away!

[think]

93. Shhh!!! It's a secret! Don't forget your voter ID & a copy of your GOP RSVP invitation!

[Le Taz Hot]

11. Apparently they are.

Boggles the mind, doesn't it?

[Rex]

202. What I learned this week - I guess the next time I send in an alert and it gets struck down

I should call the entire forum haters and start making a list of people that probably don't smell as pretty as I do. Make a poll to see if everyone agrees I smell pretty.

So jurors, think about it next time someone calls the POTUS a POS UCS. Think about it when someone says ANYONE with a problem with the POTUS is a raging homophobe and also think upon Foxnews style buggery from poll fans. Otherwise GD goes full meta for a week or two and we all make lists.

3 threads and the place goes apeshit. All easy jury hides imo.

[greatauntoftriplets]

12. I think they are more likely to stay home in November or for their state primary.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

[frazzled]

13. I think the constant carping at Democrats will suppress voting

I think some people bashing the president here may themselves not vote in 2014 or 2016.* And I think their bitching and moaning could cause others to give up and not vote.

But staying at home is tantamount to casting a vote—for the other side. Because the coming elections are about nothing but turnout.

*It's possible some did not vote in 2008 or 2012 either. Sometimes the loudest complainers are those who do not participate in the political process.

[Logical]

14. I don't think anyone complaining about Obama would cause me not to vote democratic. And I have not..

been happy with Obama either. I hope people are not influenced that easily.

I have always been a "better than their candidate" type of voter when unhappy with the Dem candidate. I hope most are.

[frazzled]

16. Well, that's you. You asked a question ...

I gave my opinion. It's more than possible that people who are not you and who absorb all this sloganeering about "Third Way" or "corporate" Democrats or "piece of sh*t used car salesmen" will decide it's not worth voting.

I have canvassed over many years in several states, going door to door contacting lists of supposed Democratic voters ... and I can testify that the largest problem one encounters in getting people to commit to voting is the attitude "they're all the same, I don't vote" or "no politician is going to solve the issues I'm interested in." This is a response I've gotten hundreds of times. I'm not making it up. These are the people who, by not voting, allow Republicans to win in close races.

Anything that reinforces the attitude that politicians are all hopeless is bad for democracy.

[lumpy]

240. I agree with your opinion. The 'no use' attitude vote that 'all politicians are the same '

is quite prevalent; many are voters who pay scant attention to political issues and show little interest in what a politician has to offer.

[brush]

51. When you say "I have not been happy with Obama either" . . .

does that mean you haven't been happy with anything this administration has done, or you have some disagreements with parts of the president's policies but are in agreement with many.

The "I have not been happy with Obama either" statement is rather broad don't you think?

[Logical]

194. Overall a good president, tried cooperation too long. Nt

[justabob]

57. yeah, but the incessant calls for loyalty,

and "rah rah rah our team is less bad than their team" is incredibly off-putting as well.

[Scuba]

24. Bullshit. The carping is to help pull the Party to the left, not abandon it.

It is our DUTY to move the Party in the direction we think will best help the People.

[frazzled]

30. Thanks for cursing.

But in many red states and districts in this country this is irrelevant and detrimental. You can bark all you want about moving the party to the left by carping, but that will not help to elect Democrats in red or purple areas, where there are more conservative voters (not only Republicans, but conservative Democrats). All it does is help John Boehner retain his job and possibly get Mitch McConnell a new one, where he'll be in charge of setting the agenda and votes in the United States Senate. That moves the country to the right.

[Scuba]

36. You're welcome. When these red states start turning out 80-90% to vote for Republicans ....

... then I'll agree that moving further left likely won't help our chances there.

In the meantime, moving right means abandoning not only the left, but the half or more of the electorate who typically don't bother to vote because neither Party offers them squat.

Put some real progressives on the ballot and create some appeal for those who are currently disaffected.

[beerandjesus]

104. South Carolina is about 45-55 Democrat-Republican

And that's RIGHT NOW, without Democrats offering very much except "not as bad as Republicans".

A little good old fashioned populism plus a lot of hard work, and I believe we could bring back the Solid South. But it will NEVER happen, guaran-fucking-teed, as long as the national party keeps playing along with the narrative that Republicans are responsible fiscal stewards.

[beerandjesus]

102. Also bullshit.

I live in South Carolina. And while the narrative you're pushing there has helped the Democrats to rationalize not spending any money here in the Deep South, it's precisely progressive policies that energize the base here, not the lame-DLC-almost-as-conservative-but-just-a-hair-to-the-left crap we keep getting served.

Jim Clyburn--our only Democrat with national stature--isn't exactly the picture of left-wing purity, and moreover, I concede that the "triangulation" thing worked very well for Bill Clinton--one of the most skilled politicians this country has ever seen.

But I find it very easy to win over self-identified Republicans by talking about the sort of economic populism most of us lefties here are agitating for. The problem is precisely the opposite of what you claim: The country is moved to the right by DEMOCRATS conceding the economic argument before the debate even begins, retreating to the same old boring identity politics issues (abortion, gay rights, anti-racism, etc.), and getting killed in the election because that stuff doesn't resonate in Greenville.

Don't get me wrong, those issues are important, but the Democratic agenda is largely built around making liberals in New York and San Francisco feel good about how open-minded they are. I defy you to find someone more pro-gay rights than I am. But if you seriously want to change the direction of the country, you need a lot more than support for gay marriage. You need to tell ALL Americans how you will make their lives better.

We left-wing Democrats on here espouse that message--and we're tired of hearing about how huge swaths of the country are too stupid to go along with us, when we know the problem isn't that they're not on board, it's that they DON'T HAVE A REAL ALTERNATIVE.

[Scuba]

114. +1,000

[frazzled]

130. If you're so expert at winning over Republicans in South Carolina

I'm surprised the state isn't deep blue by now. (I know South Carolina well enough, being married to a native of that state, which we visit often).

I think you've missed the point of this thread, as well as my own point: it was a question about whether bashing Democrats here on DU will have any effect on voting in 2014 and/or 2016. First of all, DU has no real impact on anything in the real world. Yelling obscenities about "pieces of shit used car salesmen" on an Internet discussion board doesn't convince anyone of anything, and DU is no sampling of the real world. DU's little internecine fights are circle jerks.

I was not in any way saying that Democrats should not be out there making strong progressive arguments for the things we believe in--and I never have. This discussion was (and has been for some days) about "bashing"--which is not making argument about anything, and certainly no way to get people to the polls this year. Because whether you like it or not, the candidates rising up in various districts are already pretty set (or a few months from being set): you're either going to go to the polls in November and vote for one of the existing candidates, or you're not. And if you're not (because the Democrat is a piece of shit used car salesman who is not progressive enough), and you're living in a red or purple district, you're pretty much giving the advantage to the Republican. And the rest of us in blue states suffer, because for as many dedicated progressives as we can elect, it isn't worth a tinker's damn if John Boehner is going to be the speaker (which, because of redistricting, he will be.) We've seen election after election in which progressive Democrats have run and lost, and also plenty of elections in which moderate Democrats have run and lost.

The only point to be made here is that no politician wins--ever--by yelling "bullshit."

So who will you be voting for in the June as the Democrat to replace Lindsey Graham? The pro-business Eagle Scout Hutto or the entrepreneur prankster Stamper? Do you think either one of them can win? And does bashing the president or other national democrats here have any positive or negative on taking Lindsay Graham down? I rather think it helps him, because it confirms his own bashing.

The only way to get a more progressive Democratic Party is to convince Democrats, not Republicans (pro-gay Republicans still vote Republican, btw). And you don't convince people by going on crazy-ass rants or comandeering slogans. You honestly don't.

[lumpy]

241. Yes

[beerandjesus]

247. Hey, cut me a little break!

"If you're so expert at winning over Republicans in South Carolina, I'm surprised the state isn't deep blue by now."

You know that Democratic sweep in Virginia in the last election? Well, that was pretty much me. Can't be everywhere at the same time!

Check back with me in mid-November. S.C. is a smaller state than Virginia, so I'm working on turning Mississippi blue for this election cycle too.

[grasswire]

185. ^^^^^

And this is precisely why it is so damaging when Obama acts in ways that betrays certain Democratic principles and values: they are no longer useable as campaign issues.

The party is weakened with ever one of those betrayals.

[lumpy]

242. When the President is portrayed as a traitor to Democratic principles by betrayal it is damaging.

Betrayal is indicating deliberate intention to go against promise or principle. Another word would be more appropriate than betrayal.

[grasswire]

243. point taken, but some of us question the intentions.

When Wall Street appears to be valued above the middle class, doubts are raised and people feel betrayed.

But I'm not going to argue specifics.

It's time to look ahead.

[cui bono]

214. I don't agree.

In fact, it could have exactly the opposite effect. It could energize and drive out people who have given up on their district because it is red to vote if they think they might finally have a chance to get a Dem into office. And they might think that if they feel the tide turning to the left. But if it's business as usual and if the Dem Party keeps moving right they might feel like it doesn't matter much anyway.

OWS got a lot of people excited about the possibility of changing something, it energized a lot of people and gave them hope that something might actually change. I was working in NYC when it started and the march on Times Square was really something. Then look at OWS in all the other smaller towns across the nation. Look how brutally TPTB had it shut down. Why were they so scared? Because they saw the people energized and standing up for what they believed, standing up to corporate America. If it didn't work they wouldn't have been dousing the protesters with pepper spray and beating them with batons. And it did work to change the conversation in this country. It would have worked better if we didn't have corporate media and Third Way Dems belittling the movement and not giving it fair coverage.

Criticism is the way we affect change in a democracy. That's how it is meant to work.

Holding the Dem Party accountable is the only way to keep it from shifting even further right. It's already center at this point. We are sorely lacking a party that is fully committed to the people it is supposed to represent. If we don't speak up about it we will lose it completely. Democracy only works if the people speak up. So by asking us to remain quiet with criticism you are asking us to forgo our right to have the govt govern by our consent. You are asking us to make democracy fail.

[treestar]

31. Why would it work though?

I see complaints that we are not going to get people to vote, campaign by insulting them. So I don't see why the red state Democrats or the ones you think are conservative are going to be convinced by Third Way insults, disappointment, disparagement and threats not to vote at all and making fun of them for supporting the POTUS or any other Democrat.

It's not going to convince nonpolitical voters to vote for Democrats as they are. Those voters are not going to go to the left.

[Scuba]

34. It's not aimed at non-political voters, it aimed at those who are confused and think ...

... that those pulling the Party to the right has our best interests in mind.

You'll find that the progressives here who are carping about the Party's right-wing behaviors are wholly supportive of the Party when outside such "safe environments".

[Number23]

176. Since when has 'carping' achieved anything beyond ostracizing the ones doing it?

carp·ing
adjective
1. characterized by fussy or petulant faultfinding;

carp
verb (used without object)
1.to find fault or complain querulously or unreasonably; be niggling in criticizing

[Scuba]

179. "Carping" wasn't my word, but one used in the post to which I responded.

[Number23]

180. I know that, but it describes the behavior perfectly. Which you seemed to agree when you used the

same word.

[Scuba]

181. Perhaps I should have used quotation marks.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

32. I think one line in your comment is particularly important

although not, perhaps, in the way you mean it.

"But staying at home is tantamount to casting a vote—for the other side. Because the coming elections are about nothing but turnout. "

Turnout is routinely low in midterms. And turnout is indeed key. So rather than wasting time fighting with people who say they might not turn out, people who want high turnout should instead be keying in on all of those people who turn out for the Presidential races, but not midterms. Don't look to win back the angry or the disillusioned - win over the apathetic.

Last year, iirc, I read several articles that stated how phonebanking became much more effective when the word 'voter' was used, specifically, instead of 'voting', and when callers asked potential voters when they were going to vote, because it made the call recipient specifically think of themselves in terms of being a voter, and got them to specifically envision going out and voting 'before work', 'at lunchtime', etc.

[frazzled]

49. I absolutely agree with you ...

and I participated in GOTV in that way in 2012 phone banking: our "scripts" were written to say (something to the effect of) "I understand you're a voter and I'm just calling to remind you that the elections are next Tuesday; what time are you planning to vote? Do you know where your polling place is, or do you want me to look it up for you?"

And I know that one never bothers to argue with someone who is opposed to a candidate or to voting in the final runup to an election. That's taught in volunteering 101: your job is solely to convince people who have already committed to your candidate to get out to actually vote.

But we're not yet at that point, and that wasn't the question here. The OP seems to think that this amount of bashing among Democrats can take place with no consequences for the elections that will take place this fall. I don't think that's true. I think it has a demoralizing effect, and could definitely turn people off the entire process.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

74. I think we're simply arguing over first causes.

vs, for instance proximate causes.

Yes, it could be 'demoralizing' to anyone who actually reads it. But that's a proximate cause. The problem with demoralized voters always traces back to the original problem - the actual candidate. A good candidate knows his or her voter base, and knows what he or she can offer them that makes them willing to support him or her. (oh, for a neutral pronoun that doesn't dehumanize!) A bad or even mediocre candidate has to try and smear his opponent, because he (I gave up on her or she) can't simply point to anything that has enough voters willing to admit he's worth having.

(Notice that almost all Republican campaigns are based on making their voters afraid or angry.)

[justabob]

71. exactly

I get so tired of reading all this back and forth crap over a small target... the mushy middle... when there is an ocean of people out there who aren't participating at all. THOSE are the folks we need to be targeting. There's a lot more of them and it would take just a wee bit of effort from on high (national party/current office holders) to get them engaged. This isn't rocket science. If the party really wanted to get out the vote, they know what to do, but it sure seems like that is NOT what the PTB want, whether dem or otherwise.

[Roselma]

15. It may lead to discouragement

of whoever the Democratic party nominees may be and voting for third party (spoiler) candidates or not voting at all. In both cases the Republican party candidates are advantaged.

[Scuba]

25. Nope, the opposite. It stems from discouragement. It leads to a better Party.

[JaneyVee]

17. No, some will sit out instead.

[davidn3600]

18. No, but they might stay home

Which is what the youth especially tends to do when they are disillusioned and/or not motivated.

Young people don't play that "lesser of two evils" game. If they are not motivated to vote, they will just simply stay home.

[yurbud]

40. DLCers don't realize that just as the GOP is counting on their base of those who remember Jim Crow

fondly, those who will vote for anyone with a D after their name fondly remember the New Deal, Great Society, and energy policies and peace initiatives of Jimmy Carter.

People might fondly remember Bill Clinton, but it's a little bit trickier to remember the big policies that earned that fondness.

I hope healthcare reform is a big enough success that it goes in the plus column for Democrats, but on other issues, you don't earn loyalty by calling the GOP nuts during election cycles, then pushing their policies after you win.

[Autumn]

19. My Republican family members that I love can't get me to vote Republican.

Why the hell would any person on DU who criticizes Obama or any other Democrat get me to not vote for them? I have plenty of
complaints about Obama and other Democrats on things they do that I dislike and I can't even fucking convince MYSELF not to vote for them.

When they trot out that silly argument they have nothing else. If Democrats want to criticize Obama and other Democrats I believe that they have right to do so.

[GiveMeMorePIE]

20. There is no shortage of people on the right to bash.

When there's a suspicious ratio of D-to-R bashing, it's a clear effort to stymie voter turnout.

It's happening all over the Internet.

[treestar]

33. You have a point

I haven't seen a bad word against say, Boner, for the last week or so.

No F yous to Republicans who filibustered so there would be no public option. Or even Lieberman.

[tarheelsunc]

21. Yes I do, because a non-voting Democrat is basically giving half a vote to a Republican

If you don't vote, it has the same effect as giving half a vote to each candidate. Many posts here indicate a high level of apathy which would indicate we'll probably have a lot of posters staying home, thus giving the same amount of votes to Republicans as Democrats.

[Nye Bevan]

26. No. But they might vote for Ralph Nader 2.0 so they can feel special.

And we know only too well what that can lead to.

[deafskeptic]

27. While I'm disappointed in Obama for several reasons;

I can not see myself voting for for a party as irresponsible and reckless as the current GOP.

[aikoaiko]

29. No, but voting other 3rd party or not voting is half as bad.

[Le Taz Hot]

43. That's a blanket statement not applicable

in all areas.

Example: California in a presidential election year. The Democrats have an overwhelming majority so if those who are left-leaning and feel the Democratic candidate is too far to the right for their comfort and they choose to vote Third-Party, how is that "half as bad" as either not voting or voting for a Republican as it does not affect the outcome?

[aikoaiko]

48. In terms of electoral votes you are correct which is most important.

But in terms of total vote, it would still be half as bad.

I do understand that people have to follow their conscience.

[yurbud]

35. I voted for Obama but I didn't want more of DLC's "me too" neoliberal policies

like privatizing public education and continuing to carry Wall Street's water in foreign policy (by mostly covert instead of overt means).

[elzenmahn]

37. I would agree, up to a point...

...it's important to keep President Obama's feet to the fire...

...but we also CANNOT afford to depress voter turnout. That's what the Repubs are counting on, and the only way Obama will be able to get anything more significant passed is with LARGE DEM MAJORITIES in both the House and the Senate.

Hold him accountable. But show up at the polls, please.

[Marr]

38. The self-described "moderates" have already proven that they are the ones who will sit it out.

Personally, I expect we'll see lots of the personality cultist-types simply disappear once Obama is no longer in the White House, too.

[JoePhilly]

41. You seem to be looking for a serious answer? So ok.

I think some of them want the Dems to lose so that the Republicans can finish destroying the country. Then, after the associated collapse, a socialist Utopia will emerge from the ashes.

Let's go through it. I think this sentence in your post is very important.

Someone can be extremely disappointed in President Obama and the current Democratic leadership and still want progressive elected officials.

That sentence has two key parts. (1) Disappointment. (2) Progressive elected leaders.

On DU we see endless "disappointment" OPs. They absolutely dominate everything else. And hey, use the word FUCK in your OP title attacking the President and it will get 200+ recs. OPs that copy it style, same topic, same thing. Create an alternate personality so you can build strawmen to attack other DUers who support the President or Democrats, you're a hero. So DU has the "disappointment" element of that sentence totally covered.

So where are the OPs promoting these "Progressive Leaders" you mention? Good luck finding ANY. I mean, if that's what these folks really want, more progressive leaders, where are the OPs promoting these progressive candidates? There are none. I'd bet they are outnumbered by the angry disappointment OPs 100-1. DU doesn't seem nearly as interested in promoting "Progressive Candidates" as it is about airing its numerous "disappointments".

Honestly, I think the angry and disappointed folks are simply angry disappointed folks. I get the sense that they are always upset. Their outrage meter is pegged to 11 on every topic. Its as if DU is part of their anger management therapy. A release valve. At least I hope so. I'd hate to see them acting like this in public.

I'm curious, would you want to take any of these folks out to help with a GOTV effort? I can see it now ... you walk up to a house, knock, and start talking to some one ... "oh, you don't know about the ACA ... well, I'll tell you ... IT SUCKS!! ... Obama was a jerk for signing it, FUCK him, and your sell out congressman should have held out for single payer!! ... he's a corporate whore!! Ok now, remember, vote for Dems on Nov 6th."

... Or do we think these folks will be more positive in their GOTV approach outside DU? I have trouble believing that.

Back to the end of the world part ... towards the end you say ...

Some people just don't believe in the current Democratic status quo! That does not mean they support the GOP.

I agree that's how some might feel ... but they also might just want the Dems to lose the election and "learn a lesson" (I've seen that posted here many times), or they might stay home (they threaten to do this too) ... and some of them are quite honest that they won't vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination under any circumstance (which tells me its ok with them if a Republican gets in the white house).

I think some of them are so upset with what you call the status quo ... they hope for a collapse. Because afterwards (they think), the people will finally see the light and join them. So their path to seeing all those causes fully implemented, includes a disaster in which we initially lose ground on all of them.

As for how hard some of them worked for Obama ... no way to really know ... I do get the sense that some of them have a rather simplistic view of American politics. Obama was supposed to clean up 2 wars, stop a depression, end LGBT discrimination, get free health care, close the banks ... and then on his second day ... well ... the idea that Obama was going to fix problems that took 30+ years to create in under 5 years, is silly, but I get the sense some actually expected that, and they are pissed it hasn't happened.

Finally ... although I don't have much issue to take with your OP, I mean, it appears serious ... I do wonder where you saw a post on DU claiming the President was "perfect". I've never seen one.

I do see Obama supporters get accused of that here. Here's the reality. Not one of us thinks Obama is perfect. But when we agree with a particular criticism we never do so with sufficient vitriol for it to get noticed.

Perhaps if the "disappointed" folks didn't have their outrage meter pegged to 11 at all times, some one would notice that fact. You said this is a "damn discussion board" ... its tough to "discuss" anything seriously with people who are shouting at you all the time.

We now return DU to its regularly scheduled outrage.

[Bobbie Jo]

56. Good post.

Sadly, it will be completely ignored. I appreciate the effort, nonetheless.

[DanTex]

61. Yup. This pretty much covers it.

[brush]

63. What a great post . . .

so well stated and logically thought out it's what been needed around here for a while — what with all the over-the-top name calling and vitriol lately.

Everyone one of the disappointment screamers needs to read this, take a few deep breaths, calm down, and then maybe scream at in-the-way-all-the-time and obstructionists Boehner, McCain, Graham and Issa.

You're absolutely right. Where are the threads yelling "fuck you John Boehner"?

[SunSeeker]

79. Perfect.

[jeff47]

121. +Infinity (nt)

[Union Scribe]

137. Lol. Wow.

That was some Ancient Aliens-worthy speculation! Basically you're saying that a bunch of us are a doomsday cult that want some version of The Stand to come about. I've seen the President's critics called a lot of wacky shit, but this is impressive even by those standards.

[JoePhilly]

155. Note quite a doomsday cult ...

... just a bunch of folks who think that we need to end capitalism completely, and the only thing that will do that, is a major collapse.

You'll see this perspective, often with references to "TPTB". The secret group that controls everything.

Of course some of them don;t want a total collapse of everything, but having the Dems lose really badly is a major part of it. The idea is that after a huge loss, suddenly progressive candidates will emerge.

Btw ... maybe you know where the awesome progressive candidates can be found. We certainly don't find many references to them in OPs on DU.

Do they exist?

[grasswire]

186. I swear some people must be watching too much apocalyptic nonsense.

Democrats want the U.S. to collapse so a socialist uptopia can be born?

Please show me where there is any discussion of this wish. It sounds, well, just fantastical.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

203. I didn't see to much of it during the last presidential election

but if you were to look at a number of posts during the run-up to the 08 election you'd find more then enough discussions talking about how the republicans should just be allowed to win since it would drive the country off a cliff which would make them unelectable for a few decades leading to the democratic party raising the country from the ashes

[Skittles]

173. I laughed too

more proof the their utter delusion

[WorseBeforeBetter]

235. It's like some sort of loopy Rapture nonsense.

Think I'll pour a glass (or three) of wine and read it again. Maybe it'll make sense...

[politicman]

209. any low Dem turnout will be solely the fault of Dem leaders, they need to encourage Dem..

turnout by pushing Dem policies, not by continuing to kowtow to corporate interests.


Your post misses one key aspect.

If the GOP keeps the house and wins the senate because many Dem voters decide to stay home on election day, then the blame rests squarely on the Dem Party and those that will choose to vote for it simply because the GOP are worse.

How on earth can progressives improve the Dem Party if they will always vote for it because it is not as bad as GOP?

Seriously, if the Dem Leadership can count on Dem voters making the decision that the GOP is worse and thus votes for which ever candidate the Dems put up, then how can the leadership be forced to put up better candidates that will actually fight for liberal causes instead of kowtowing to corporate interests?


Yes by staying home, it benefits the GOP but it only benefits them because GOP voters are determined to go to the polls to support their politicians who always fight for their wrong causes.

If Dem Party also did this for what we know are the correct policies (liberal ideas), the Dem voters would be just as determined to get to the polls and support their candidates who would fight tooth and nail for liberal ideas.


Look its easy to get people to vote against something, but to beat that you need to give people a reason to vote for something.

If Dem Party and Obama offer up candidates and policies which don't differ that much from the GOP, what encouragement do Dem voters have to actually vote.


You have to give the Dem Party a hell of a scare by showing that you won't bother to vote if they don't fight tooth and nail for Dem policies, BUT to be able to legitimately scare them you need to be prepared to actually give them a loss at the polls if they won't heed the warnings.

[JoePhilly]

210. The blame will rest on all of us.

And when you say you want to give the Dem party "a hell of a SCARE", you're doing exactly what I described.

Actively working to create a situation in which the Dems lose NOW, so that something better will happen later.

Its magical thinking. But you did help prove my point.

[Thinkingabout]

42. I doubt the bashing is bringing in votes for the DNC members, why can't the effort used towards

bashing be used to promote the DNC unless the reason behind the bashing is to hurt the DNC.

[Le Taz Hot]

44. The DNC is their own worst enemy.

Backing only 19 out of 435 Congressional races, as opposed to using Dean's 50-state strategy which was wildly successful, would be Exhibit One.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

204. if they used Dean's 50 state strategy

how many here on DU would be happy about the fair number of blue dogs that would/could elect?

many here on DU seem to forget that his strategy also elects such candidates and not just 'true' democrats and liberals.

Addendum: I make no claims to who is a true democrat or not, while many would say a blue dog isn't one, thats just their view(i find labels to be quite foolish since pigeonholing people seldom works )

[Le Taz Hot]

46. Just for the record,

us "leftist purists" types are the base. We don't sit home on election day nor do we vote Republican. Just to try and disseminate a few of the Third-Way Talking Points of the Day memes.

[jeff47]

124. Let's say a friend asks you about the Democrats.

They're not politically active, and don't really know what's going on.

When you respond with "they suck donkey balls", that does not encourage the marginally attached voter to vote D.

That's not to say you have to be a sycophant. Feel free to say you disagree on some things. But talk about where you want to go, not the fact that we did not reverse 50 years of Republican work in 5 years.

[Le Taz Hot]

147. Interesting that you would assume

that would be my response.

You might want to re-evaluate the situation into a more earth-bound perspective.

[jeff47]

227. The question need not be literal.

They'll get the same answer from "what's up?" "I'm pissed at the Democrats because...."

For example, "used car salesman"? Thread started because he asked a trusted friend how to do something, and that friend was wrong. There was presumably no "what do you think about Democrats?" in that conversation.

Again, Republicans have been working on this since Goldwater lost. It is not possible to reverse that in 5 years. We're going to have to apply pressure for quite a while to move things along.

[Autumn]

47. Bashing Obama on DU will not get people to vote GOP or stay home, but stuff like this could

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10406095

This crap happens all too often

[JoePhilly]

67. If the main message people here is "the Democrats suck" ... Dems will stay home.

A person who just leans left, or leans right might vote, or they might just stay home.

They need a reason to vote.

The person leaning right is told that Democrats suck, and they hate the country, hate God, want to tax them to death. This is intended to anger them, which creates energy to get them to vote.

The person leaning left is also told that Democrats suck. They're corporatists, their the same as the Republicans, hate the middle class. This is intended to discourage them. That emotion does not create energy, it removes it. The goal, discourage those who lean left so they give up and stay home.

Manipulating turnout is the only chance the GOP has. So they pass laws to block Dem voters. Then work to sell one "Dems suck" message that angers people who lean right, and (with media help) another "Dems suck" message intended to discourage those who lean left.

Get 1% by blocking ... another 1% uptick in Republicans, and 1% drop for the Dems ... net 3% swing, enough to win close elections.

[Autumn]

75. If the message from the Democratic leadership and elected Democrats

is "vote for us we aren't as bad as the other guys" that's what will NOT motivate people to vote. Dem or otherwise. The Democratic Party should encourage those who lean left and those who are left by showing them that Democratic policies benefit the people where republican and corporate policies don't.

[JoePhilly]

78. Except that's not their message ... that's YOUR interpretation of it.

Its your contribution to the DEMS SUCK message.

The Democrats have made lots of progress in the last 5 years under total obstruction from the GOP ... but all the people in the middle will hear are the 2 "Dems suck" messages.

And you are helping to amplify one of them.

[Autumn]

80. Yes that is my interpretation of it.

[JoePhilly]

83. Make sure to use it during your GOTV efforts.

I'm sure it will help.

Just not us.

[Autumn]

88. How silly is that.

Attacking and insulting me doesn't work. I have always found that being pleasant and open to listening to other people works sooo much better that bludgeoning them with authoritarian sound bites . I will just wish you a happy day.

[AgingAmerican]

150. That is because that's what we are told here

By those who wish to halt any critique of the president's policies.

[JoePhilly]

163. If anything critical of the Presiden't policies is being halted or silenced in any way ...

... can you explain why OPs that are critical of his policies dominate here on DU on a daily basis?

Attack the President and tell him FUCK YOU, and your OP stays pegged to the top. Create an alternative persona, and use it to put forward straw-man arguments to attack the President, Democrats, and other DU members, and you are a HERO.

The idea that people are not allowed to be critical of the President on DU is almost as ridiculous as right wing Christians claiming that there is a war on Christmas and that they are being persecuted.

[AgingAmerican]

195. That has nothing to do with the...

"vote for us cuz we aren't as bad as the other guys" meme.

[demwing]

50. Not everyone will vote, not unless its mandatory

But some people want to vote, and only sit it out because they're discouraged.

So ask - Are they discouraged because of some complaints in a message board, or are they discouraged because the people that they elected last time either didn't live up to the hype, or are just damned liars and cheats.

People know when they've been cheated, even if they can't explain how or why, and it makes them resentful and suspicious. This is only exacerbated when the Hype Machine goes into overdrive to convince them that the reason they feel cheated isn't because they have been cheated, but because they've spent time on unsavory message boards, and have bought onto the misinformation that 2+2=4.

That's crazy talk! Everyone knows 2+2=5, and once we all accept this brand new concept (which was a well established historical fact), we'll all feel so much better, and then we can all go politely vote for the candidate that is supposed to win.

BTW- Don't know who is supposed to win? Don't worry, we'll tell you.

Now hush little prol Life is comfy and warm in the velvet cage.

[DRoseDARs]

52. That's something a RW racist would post.

Argle-bargle I can liik bootz naoh?

[Bobbie Jo]

60. Not really

Not enough slobbering rage.

[DRoseDARs]

76. There is no way on God's Green Earth you missed that lightning rod thread.

There've been some bad threads, but that's one for the record books.

[Bobbie Jo]

105. There are several that qualify

for the record books. We might disagree as to which is which, perhaps.

[iandhr]

54. Some might say home.

[Gman]

62. This attitude is EXACTLY what gave the state legislatures

To the GOP in 2010. So many wanted to punish Democrats over single payer, we weren't out if Iraq and Afghanistan fast enough and other assorted whines. They sat on their asses in their usual shortsightedness and whined and complained. In 2011 the GOP gerrymandered the shit out of their states that it may be all but impossible to undo for 20 years. Idiots.

[Bluenorthwest]

73. Meanwhile, on the West Coast, 2010 saw great turn out and massive Democratic victories.

Somehow, someway, an entire region was not part of this scenario you paint. How could that be? Oregon set midterm turn out records, no less. Oregon is very much a single payer future State, and very much opposed to the wars, and yet Democrats here voted like crazy. How could that be?
The entire West Coast went blue, bluer, bluest. CA had a 'supermajority' in the Statehouse, they defeated Meg 'Megabucks' Whitman without breaking a sweat, sent Fiorino back to the workplace.
How can any of these facts fit in with the wee vignette you create here?

[Gman]

85. Because it's the west coast

With people who somehow are more forward thinking and more conscious of important issues. Don't know why that is. It obviously didn't happen in states to the east. I'd love to be able to transplant that mindset. We'd have a ton less worries.

If that were true everywhere else, we'd have single payer, and Bush would never had been president and all that that implies.

[Bluenorthwest]

98. Thanks for the civil response. I suggest actually looking at why it is different here.

It's not the geography. It's that we have better election systems and methods, stronger candidates who are clearly Democratic and legislative issues on the ballots which people care about. People are more aware of issues because those issues are advocated by candidates and by voters.

Oregon votes by mail exclusively, WA does as well, CA has large provision allowing permanent by mail voting.

There are many things the West does to great success that other States could also do, but instead of doing those things they construct blame narratives to explain what is mostly about long lines, shitty polling hours, and candidates that try to blend in with their Republican opponents.

[grasswire]

188. as was said upthread...

......a reason to vote Democratic was provided the people, loud and clear.

When Democrats provide the people with the clear alternative to Republicans, Democrats will win.

Not just in PNW.

[Puglover]

205. I am from Minnesota.

We have two Democratic senators. The state house and senate have Democratic majorities. Governor Dayton is a Dem.

He expanded Medicaid. And we have marriage equality. So it isn't just the west coast.

[Gman]

206. Yes, any state that would elect Al Franken

or Paul Wellstone Is doing something right too. The northeast does well too. But I feel there are lots of other states like OH, IA, WI and even FL and WV that should be solid blue but aren't. Too many People there either don't vote or vote against their own interests.

[Puglover]

207. My family is down in Iowa.

You couldn't find a more Democratic bunch. And Iowa of course has marriage equality. But I think Iowa would look more like Minnesota if they had an urban area like Mpls/St. Paul.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

224. North Carolina Democrats outvoted Republicans in straight-party voting...

in 2010 and 2012, and that's in spite of the obscene amounts of Koch money that poured in. I've been on this planet about half a century and have NEVER -- let me repeat, NEVER -- met anyone who withholds their vote to "punish" Democrats. Where did that bullshit meme originate (Third Way offices on Connecticut Avenue, NW?), and why are you perpetuating it? And wanting an end to the carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan hardly falls under "assorted whines" -- what a despicable thing for you to suggest.

Obama and the Democratic Party are to blame for 2010 by letting fucking Teabaggers define the ACA. Mostly Obama though, it's HIS signature legislation.

And speaking of Obamacare, Senator Kay Hagan is vulnerable -- pony up.

[Gman]

229. OK fine. $20 donated.

I saved a screenshot of the thank you page. And I'd like to post it but I don't have a photobucker or other account for pics.

But $20 going her way. I agree her race is extremely critical.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

234. Awesome.

And I apologize if I seem cranky. But I live in this fucking state and reading DU cheerleading posts from The Swarm in their safe blue bubbles ticks me off to no end (not saying you're part of The Swarm or in a safe blue bubble...). The ACA is helping many, but ACA-hating voters have hosed this state. And if we lose control of the Senate in November, all I can say is "welcome to my world."

[Gman]

236. I'm in Texas

I know how you feel.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

238. I'll do what I can for Ms. Davis.

[Gman]

237. I often donate to other out if state candidates

Because I'd be wasting my money here in Texas. Of course this year is different with Wendy. But I've had high hopes for others over the last 15 years. Pretty much since Ann Richards lost to that blithering idiot.

[chuckstevens]

64. NO! However,

THEY WON'T TURN OUT TO VOTE IN THE 2014 MID-TERMS!

[DiverDave]

68. I would never vote for a r, never.

But, damnit, don't piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining.

And why do people just let them do it?
Beats me.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. I'd say that almost 100% of DU are harshly critical of Democrats on DU.

Some are critical of policies and statements by elected Democrats, others are critical of regular voting Democrats. But both camps are very critical of Democrats. I see criticism of politicians and policy as being part of the process and lusty discussion key to that which won 08 for us. I see criticism of voters to be foolhardy when attempting to attract voters. It might be deserved, but it is still foolish to engage in it.
I also think DU was made to discuss politics and politicians. Not sure it was intended to serve as a 'slime the electorate with innuendo and emoticons' organizational center.
But read the posts from those who claim to be 'Obama supporters' and they almost always lash out at the electorate, at other DUers, at other activist Democrats. They were the ones who defended 'Marriage is for one man and one woman, God is in the mix' and lashed out at those who objected to that bigotry. Now of course they all support marriage equality because the 'critics' won that argument hands down, the entire 'pony' shouting contingent now no longer shouts pony.

Having visited the bedsides of bashing victims, I'm not a fan of that word to describe any mere rhetoric. Because baseball bats and broken lives. But that's just me. So I'd use the word 'criticize' or even 'rail against' in some cases, but not bash.

[FSogol]

72. I work in a professional office where about half the people vote on a regular basis.

We are about 75% Democrats and 25% Republicans (I don't count the self-professed libertarian because he always votes Republican when he bothers to vote)

The majority only vote in big elections and about 25% of everyone votes in every primary, midterm, etc.

The ones that loudly complain about politics, the economy, the President, Congress, etc on a regular basis? They're the people who don't vote.

I assume the same is true on DU. The more vocal the malcontent? The more likely they don't vote. My 2 cents.

GOTV, DU.

[Beacool]

82. No, but some here have stated that if the nominee in 2016 doesn't meet their purity standards,

they will vote third party. Which we all know it means that they might as well have voted directly for the Republican nominee and saved some time.

[Whisp]

86. Sitting out because you are huffy you didn't get what you wanted, is like voting for the GOP.

Calling the President filthy Nugent names probably doesn't do much good either.

You don't have to kiss his ass but probably you shouldn't act like a Nugent. I don't know what is up with this negativity and misery spread so wide here - is it a concerted effort, a team effort? what the hell is it?

Things will be what they will be, I just thank gawd I don't have to know some of these people and deal with them in my real life.

[gulliver]

89. We don't ask whether the ten-year-old playing with matches...

...in the garage or picking on his sister is going to take out the garbage later in the day.

"But I'm working on my science class homework."

"Right. So you need to set fire to your sister's doll for science class?"

"I suppose I could use something else. I hadn't thought about it."

"Right. Well no matches, and no doll."

"So, you're saying no science class homework, right?"

"No."

[mrchips]

94. I Don't Mind Criticism

I despise the hyperbolic ad hominems launched at the president. If you want to know why we don't have a bigger success rate on progressive agenda items. You have to look no further than the gerrymandering that took place as a result of 2010. What caused that debacle? Too many progressives sat on their hands, criticized the president, sat back and let screaming bigots run roughshod over the electorate. Does it do any good to stand and yell at the president for not doing enough when obstructionists are stopping any frigging idea that a democrat would come up with, and a Supreme Court that is loaded with extremists on the right. Tell me how we win. Don't complain that the president isn't accomplishing every progressive goal we have. Yes, the NSA needs to be stopped. The drones need to stop being used without preventing collateral damage. Deportations need to stop, private prisons need to be shut down, GITMO needs to be closed down. Yeah, yeah all those things and single payer, too. Until we get rid of rethuglicans who are determined to destroy the country, we need to wage political war on the enemy, not slander the president. Anybody here that wants to launch public attacks on the president should be compelled to explain exactly how those attacks are going to help us win at the polls. If not, then I submit those critics are as much a part of the problem as any rethuglican.

[NorthCarolina]

99. Of course they don't, but they DO need to paint an impression

that those disgruntled with Obama are "trolls" who really vote GOP. The reason is simple...the DLC New Dem types around here know that they likely have pulled off the last presidency with one of their own UNLESS they can paint roses around their front-man, and portray anyone disagreeing with Obama's conservative policies as "obviously" some sort of troll, or an agitator, or a secret GOP agent here to disrupt Democrats and keep them arguing amongst themselves. In this effort to keep a conservative hold on power within the party, they must always steer discussions of topics critical to Obama conservative policies towards being a result of a "Hatred of Obama" which of course flows nicely into a "Hatred of Democrats" in general. I can assure you they will never EVER touch on, or even discuss, the matter of this really being about Progressive Democrats who have finally come to the realization that there is no longer a place for corporate Democrats in the Democratic Party....in fact, the reality of the situation is...there probably never was a reason. All contrived to render the voters powerless by creating two political parties with a singular focus.

[jazzimov]

103. They might as well. They are subverting our GOTV efforts.

If they decide to stay home or vote for a "more Liberal" 3rd party, they might as well vote for the GOP because that is what they will get.

[Phlem]

109. Wow

What a sad day when a liberal can't vote for a liberal in a liberal party. Are you working for the GOP?



-p

[jeff47]

126. Depends if that liberal wants anything done.

Our system of government is set up so that two major parties control our options.

If you'd like to vote third party, go ahead. But you should be aware that they will lose. As a result, your vote for third party is a pseudo-vote for the candidate you most oppose from the major parties.

I'd love something like instant runoff voting to break the duopoly. But we don't have that yet.

[Phlem]

143. Hmm.

"As a result, your vote for third party is a pseudo-vote for the candidate you most oppose from the major parties." I'd like to see the empirical evidence behind that claim. I've heard it too much too often.

But based on your formula I should be living in a Democratic wonderland now.

-p

[jeff47]

225. Really? It's not that hard.

I'd like to see the empirical evidence behind that claim.

Ok, no third parties:
D candidate gets 10,000 votes.
R candidate gets 9,500 votes.
Result: D wins.

Third parties:
D candidate gets 9,000 votes.
R candidate gets 9,250 votes.
Green candidate gets 1,000
Libertarian candidate gets 250 votes.
Result: R win.

While there are plenty of right-leaning people who claim to be libertarian, virtually all of them vote Republican.

But based on your formula I should be living in a Democratic wonderland now.

No, it's a defensive maneuver at this point.

Solutions are things like instant runoff voting, but that's going to be difficult to accomplish - you have to get the two major parties to agree to greatly weaken their hold on power.

[Phlem]

248. I understand the reasoning and the math but

it doesn't take into account all the DINO's and Thirdway that populate the party too. That's why everything shifted right, which doesn't really excite anybody cause the Dems have all but lost the left, the base last time I checked.

If PBO was a left leaning President I seriously doubt he'd be getting half the shit he's getting now. But when he looks up to Reagan, I have serious issues with him running a left leaning party which has all but been destroyed at this point.



-p

[Progressive dog]

107. The proud hatred of the President from some

lead me to believe that there are many on DU who will not vote for Democrats.

[Phlem]

119. God

not this crap again. "The proud hatred of the President from some", "proud? Really?

I wanted nothing but success for PBO that's why I voted for him twice. Whenever a national election came around his tune turns populist, afterwards more "Thirdway". Does that mean I won't vote Democrat? Unequivocally NO. But I want one that works for me, not corporations. I trust that most everyone on this board will.

Any Democrat that votes Republican was never a Democrat to begin with. Any Democrat that sits out the vote is not making an informed decision of the consequences and needs more education.

He won cause of his message which was populist, he has since shown his true colors and we're all supposed to be just fine with it? What a fucking fairy tale.

Populism is growing, you can here it in Sanders and Warren and you can see the effect here in DU. That's why he won in the first place, populism and change.

You can't blame the populace for being disappointed. We were walked all over during the bush years and it still feels like we're getting walked over even though we have the Executive branch and the Senate.

I will always vote for a liberal in a liberal party or anybody that works "For The People", if the party changes, that is not my or the general public's fault.

Voting "Thirdway" is the same as voting for Moderate Republicans anyway, so voting "D" doesn't necessarily fix our problems.

-p

[Progressive dog]

128. Yes, proud hatred, people who claim

they supported him in 2012 and calling him a POS used car salesman barely a year later. Those that jump on with nothing to add except their concurrence in the hatred.
The ones who claim that it doesn't help to vote D, because they support an imaginary D party that has never existed.

[Laelth]

108. No. I don't.

And the whole "demoralization/suppress the vote" argument strikes me as utterly irrational. Nothing anybody says on DU is demoralizing anyone (except those who have put themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to defend indefensible wanna-be Republican policies).

-Laelth

[Phlem]

112. huh..... check out #103

That, pretty demoralizing.



-p

[Laelth]

113. Post #103 is wild speculation ...

... about something that the poster provided no evidence showing that the alleged harm will actually happen. That's not "evidence" of anything, in my book. If the wild speculation actually came true, then yes. That would be demoralizing, but I consider wild speculation a waste of time.

On the other hand, failing to even try for single payer back in 2009, for example, is the kind of "give up without a fight" strategy coming from the Obama administration that demoralizes the base and depresses turn-out, unlike saying ugly things about the President on DU which does nothing more than advise the party insiders that the base is ticked--advice they should hear and heed.

-Laelth

[Phlem]

117. Agreed.

along with him tossing the "Professional Left" under the bus on Fox news and a host of other actions that he didn't have to do.

-p

[jeff47]

127. Here's how it damages turnout.

Your acquaintances know you follow politics. They don't. They're "marginally attached voters". They tune in just before an election, if at all. So they ask you about the Democrats.

You respond with "they're awful". And then go on a rant about how they're sell-outs, didn't get single-payer, didn't pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan fast enough, haven't raised the minimum wage, and a host of other complaints.

What do you think that marginally attached voter will do in response? Their trusted liberal friend says Democrats suck. They gonna vote Democratic? Hell no.

We already have seen what can happen. The "used car salesman" statement came from asking a trusted friend how to do something. That friend was wrong. And we've had a massive shitstorm for weeks because of it.

[Phlem]

146. That's a pretty generalized situation/response.

I certainly wouldn't say that and I have my disappointments with PBO but to blame the entire party because of a few bad apples is entirely different. I'm sure they would also ask who would i vote for and I would reply "for the Democrats, you do like you ACA insurance don't you?".

But this business of trying to promote the Democratic party because the Republican party is much worse is a hard sell. Sounds like the choice between shit and shitier.

The Democratic party have to start working for their constituents, getting them the legislation they want instead of "we can't do this but this worse scenario is doable, you know cause of bi partisanship and all.".

They have to walk the fucking walk.

Instead, they're doing backroom deals without any input from the public, you know transparency and such.

That crap is why no one is fired up, plus *being told* your choice is another Thirdway candidate end of story.

-p

[grasswire]

189. If anyone asks me what I think of Democrats, this is what I do:

I give him a copy of this:

Joe gets up at 6:00 AM to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.

All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It's noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some liberal wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.

Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to dad's; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still be sitting in the dark.)

He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

After his visit with dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.

He turns on a radio talk show. The host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn't tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day)

Joe agrees. "We don't need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

I can be critical of Democratic politicians who move to the right AND concomitantly be very defensive of Democrats and the Democratic party. It's a no-brainer.

[Tikki]

111. There are Libertarian talking points on DU from time to time…points not in the Democratic Party...

platforms, ever.

I do think some here will vote Libertarian, prob more than the few who will vote repug…

Sadly, some here think that the Libertarian candidates and a few repug candidates mean progress…they
do not.


Tikki

The hallmark of the Bush voters was that he was going to make them 'lots of money', he did make big money for
a few but his average voter suffered along with the rest of us.

[jeff47]

118. No, but they will depress turnout.

And when the attacks are based on lies, that's not a good trade.

[DinahMoeHum]

129. No, BUT, if they stay home and not vote. . .

. . .they might as well be voting for the GOP.

Remember, voting machines do not count who you vote against, only who you vote for.

[Rex]

132. I think some 'DUers' are projecting what they most want.

And the rest of us are rofl at them, because it is that freakin obvious.

[JNelson6563]

133. No. Perhaps third party or not vote.

But not without doing their very best to discourage everyone around them in regard to all things Dem, like we see here all the time.

Julie

[NYC_SKP]

134. It has nothing to do with being able to be classy and sober about it.

eom.

[Solly Mack]

138. I've been trying to recall how many times this question has been asked on DU over the years.

I'm not saying anything negative about your post. That isn't my intention. Please don't take it that way.

The OP just got me to wondering how often this same question or some variant of it has been asked over the years.

Over 13 years I'd say it has been asked during almost every election cycle. I only added the "almost" as a margin error.

So that would mean the whole 'don't say anything negative or you're as bad as the GOP/your criticism is suppressing the vote/you're giving the GOP votes when you're critical of a Democrat' has been going on for years. So has the question posed in the OP.

So, every election cycle this entire acrimonious back and forth has been going on for 13 years - more or less (on DU)

I got tired just thinking about it.

Oh, my answer is always the same whether or not I bother posting it. (No)

[Logical]

166. Your post is 100% correct. It happens a lot. But people forget. n-t

[SidDithers]

151. They'll vote for Greens, or Socialist Workers, or Justice...

or some other no-chance third party.

Do you really think the asshats who spout 'there's no difference between Ds and Rs', or 'two wings of the same corporate party' all day long, are going to then turn around and vote for the party they think is just like the GOP?

Sid

[BainsBane]

157. which is the same as voting GOP. nt

[pintobean]

168. No, it's the same as not voting

which works in the GOP's favor, but it's only half as bad as voting for the GOP.

[pintobean]

169. +1

[Number23]

177. Nailed it, Sid

Do you really think the asshats who spout 'there's no difference between Ds and Rs', or 'two wings of the same corporate party' all day long, are going to then turn around and vote for the party they think is just like the GOP?

Exactly.

[blahdeblahblahblah]

193. You've got it...

That's the problem with political purists. They're useless in real elections and they're useless in discussions of real life politics as opposed to the fantasy elections and fantasy life politics they prefer.

Beyond that, their endless shrieking, finger-wagging and holier-than-everyone bitching is boring as hell. Unfortunately, there's not much to be gained by complaining about them or pointing out the error of their ways. They've been doing it for years, long before the internet existed. What they get out of it has nothing to do with politics or issues and everything to do with personality problems.

As for the GOP/Libertarian fake-progressive shit-stirring trolls, they're real enough. I've never been able to differentiate them from the personality-challenged people I referenced above and neither can anybody else. The personality-challenged people may resent that fact but it's the reality of what it's like to deal with them. If they want to make a different impression, they can start any time.

[joshcryer]

201. You give them too much credit.

Democrat detractors likely don't even vote, much less canvas or campaign for their supported candidate.

If they do vote, it'll be based upon the polls, if Clinton is winning, they'll vote for her simply so they can feel vindicated that they voted for the winner. Then they can feel legitimized that their pathetic criticisms are relevant. "I'm only questioning and putting their feet to the fire! I voted for them! They completely misled me!"

[LynnTTT]

153. The fear is they don't show up

I think Dems will show up in 2016. Obama is not on the ballot.
But I am worried about the 2014 mid-terms. Democrats don't get out at the mid-term elections and we could lose the Senate. Which means even if we win the WH in 2016, we could be stuck with a President with no power.

[BainsBane]

156. Some will

because they have always voted Republican. Others may vote third party or not vote at all. Some have already admitted to the latter.

[dionysus]

158. probably not vote GOP, but it seems for some to is a mission to make as many other DUers as pissed

off at all the dems as they are.

and the you get your rolling flame wars...

then there's a few who do it purely for personal attention.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

165. Do I think they'll vote for the GOP? Yes, either directly or INDIRECTLY by voting for

unelectables.

[noiretextatique]

170. Joined the Green party when Clinton was President

I voted for Gore, and would never, ever vote republicon. That is not enough for some.

[Skittles]

171. no, unless they are real repuke trolls

they'll just be voting against someone and not for someone, as usual

[pnwmom]

187. Some will vote for 3rd party candidates, allowing the Rethugs to divide and conquer.

[flamingdem]

216. yep, the ole bit nose to spite face

like last time

[Zorra]

192. I suspect many of the Third Way types will vote republican if a progressive

Democrat is nominated. After watching them shred Kucinich for his common sense democratic ideas and ideals, I have no doubt about it.

They'll take a hard core republican corporatist over a 99% supporting Democrat every time.

Real lefties would never even think about voting for a republican, vote republican.

[joshcryer]

200. Many DUers will not vote for Clinton.

This goes without saying. I think even you, the OP, will not do so or openly admit it.

Myself? I'll probably do so with trepidation. I will not, however, caucus for her election. I will caucus for Reich assuming I even care about changing my affiliation from unaffiliated to Democrat (and assuming Reich runs as a Democrat, of course).

[truebrit71]

208. That would require logic and not knee-jerk responses from the "You're anti-Obama" brigade...

The irony that the shit-slingers and name-callers in the swarm used to laugh and joke when FR did the same thing is truly staggering to behold. They used to say that they were 'lemmings' as they obediently followed every word and policy dictate from Lt Awol and they absolutely WOULD NOT TOLERATE any deviation, or criticism from that party line. Now, these same people are doing THE SAME THING here, some suggesting that the TOS be changed to make it a ban-able offense to criticise a Democratic president, others stooping so low as to accuse those they disagree with of being racists, without a blush of embarrassment that they are simply being the Democratic version of that which they once ridiculed.

I don't know if it's sad or just pathetic. One thing I DO I know for goddamned sure is that there is no way on god's green that I would EVER support a republican for ANY office (including dog-catcher) but that doesn't mean I won't criticise those in office who are supposed to represent US and not the Corporations and Banksters if that's what they do.

[Andy823]

239. You can criticize all you want

I think everyone has a right to criticize policy they don't like, but I also think some here go far beyond that and that's the problem.

When things turn nasty and people start calling the president a POS, or say F you mr. President, then for me that's crossing the line.

I believe the vast majority here will vote for the democrat, not the republican, but I also think we have some right wing trolls here along with a bunch of libertarian trolls, and I am pretty sure they won't be voting for the democrat on the ticket.

[Hippo_Tron]

212. It's the same way I have to explain it to my "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" friends...

They say to me "I'm conservative on fiscal issues but liberal on social issues", to which I respond "you should vote Democratic because on fiscal issues the Democrats are equivalent to if not to the right of the mainstream right wing party in every single industrialized nation except for this one". The Republican positions on fiscal issues (not to mention social issues) are just fucking looney tunes. I wouldn't entertain the idea of voting for them for a second.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

213. Yes, I think some (not all) will vote Repub. n/t

[Bobbie Jo]

215. Oh, you Better Believe It. nt

[MADem]

226. Some trolls aren't "short lived"....You'd better believe it, too! nt

[MO_Moderate]

249. On DU? No

In the real world? Yes.

That is why we must work our butts off.