General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWould Democratic politicians rather lose than risk losing rich donors?
I heard an interview with Ralph Nader last night, and he said the Democrats had a winning issue with the minimum wage and one that easily set them apart from the GOP.
Nader met with Harry Reid and said if Obama had gone barnstorming around the country asking voters to give him the Congress that would pass such a bill for him to sign, it would have made a huge difference. Reid agreed but said instead, Obama was fundraising, and the party didn't present a unified message.
This morning on Democracy Now, Amy Goodman said minimum wage ballot measures passed even in very conservative states, indirectly confirming Nader's point.
If Democrats don't run on a simple, easy to explain progressive issue that is overwhelmingly popular, you have to wonder whether keeping their wealthy donors is more important than actually winning.
I guess they figure if they side with the rest of us instead of the 1% and they lose, we can't offer the consolation prize of high paying jobs as lobbyists, CEO's, corporate lawyers, or consultants. We can only offer the jobs we elect them to do, so they can win or lose. With the fat cat 1%, they win either way.
What do you think?
5 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
YES, too many Democratic politicians would rather lose than risk losing their wealthy donors and future employers | |
5 (100%) |
|
NO, that's not a big reason why Democrats lose | |
0 (0%) |
|
other | |
0 (0%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
randys1
(16,286 posts)huge trouble.
That is what I think...
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Which gives us the chose between one party that's corrupt, ignorant, crazy, and cruel and one that's just corrupt.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)So, they do everything they can to avoid that. That means bending the way the big donors expect you to bend. As long a big money is involved in our politics, that's how it is going to be.
The Democrats could be on the side of every issue the voters want but if they are outspent by the republicans by 2 to 1, they would probably lose. Whoever controls the message controls the outcome.
But, the Democrats do need to find a message that resonates with voters. They have failed at that for some time. "We aren't the crazy ones" just isn't enough.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)Cegelis, Lamont, McKinney, Halter, Romanoff, Sestak, Grayson, Kucinich, Buono, Lutrin, Rev. Manuel Sykes, Weiland, now Davis and Grimes
how else can they blame 3rd parties/"circular firing squads"/"cutting your nose to spite your face"/progressive purges/abstentionism/not sacrificing your firstborn for GOTV?
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)I want you to be wrong.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)The Greens don't have much money. Why don't they get the votes? They are on the right side of the issues. Why don't they get the votes? Why aren't they winning offices?
You're saying the Democrats should refuse the big money right? And that will mean they will stick to principles and get the votes.
Why bother? We have the Greens already doing that.
The only reasons people Demand the Democrats stand for these things is that they have the national presence and the money.