Let this be a lesson to those who don't think you have to motivate voters:

[F4lconF16]

https://twitter.com/chicanisima/status/585553171214368768

Teresa Puente, @chicanisma:

Latino voter Salomon Villalobos, 55, last voted in 08 for Obama. "I don't get involved in politics but I have to vote for Chuy." #chuy2015

When you run candidates like Rahm Emanuel, you will not win elections. When you run pro-corporatist, pro-elite, anti-working-class politicians, you will not motivate voters. One of these elections, you will lose because of this. And we will all suffer the disastrous consequences. Democrats need to fight for the people--we know when they won't.

[NYC_SKP]

1. This is why I think Warren would have a better chance than Clinton.

Even with lower funding.

[F4lconF16]

2. And Sanders.

I'd vote for either, but Sanders more directly calls out TPTB. Warren isn't quite as strong on all the issues. Also, I can't see her running at this point, unfortunately. I think we need to rally behind Sanders, and hard.

[NYC_SKP]

3. I'll take either.

I think Warren would retain any voters who are really excited about the first woman in the white house, but either are far better than what we've had the past 30 years.

[Autumn]

10. I saw Liz is on Conan tonight

[valerief]

11. I'd HATE to lose Sanders or Warren and even Brown or Whitehouse from Congress.

I say Barney Frank for prez.

[NYC_SKP]

12. We need oodles more good citizens to come forward to serve in the Senate....

So that we don't have to face that dilemma!

[valerief]

14. We need oodles more billionaires to buy GOOD senators.

Cuz we don't elect them. They're bought.

Where can we find GOOD billionaires?

[NYC_SKP]

17. It's as if the two terms were mutually exclusive: good and billionaire.

Never heard of this group:https://prospect.org/article/meet-billionaires-backing-team-blue-megaphone-only-money-can-buy

Buffet, Gates, Soros, Turner, Winfrey?

Richard Branson?

Spanx Billionaire Sara Blakely???

[F4lconF16]

18. Yeah, unfortunately they are not for the working class.

Buffet and Gates sound nice, but their policies are not. They are to the Kochs what Hillary Clinton is to Rove.

[NYC_SKP]

20. They aren't, you're correct.

Hart to find them.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. Spanx made someone a billion dollars?

Fuck. I'm in the wrong line of work.

[dreamnightwind]

31. Check out Tom Steyer

He spends a LOT of money on progressive causes. I don't know a whole lot about him, what I've heard has been very positive.

[NYC_SKP]

36. Thanks!

We should post these in the group we have that I'm a host of but the name escapes me now.

About reforming the party.

Damn.

Wait.

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1277

Would you mind starting a "List your progressive millionaire/billionaire here" thread, please?

[dreamnightwind]

45. OK

Gotta run right now, I'll check back when I get my kid in bed, if nobody has made such an OP by then I'll do so.

Also, just noticed this OP by Omaha Steve, about Steyer:
'Green' political donor vows climate agenda push in 2016 U.S. race
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141060561

edit to add oops shoulda looked below before posting, this was just covered...

[NYC_SKP]

48. You posted first!

Good job!

[dreamnightwind]

58. Here you go

List your progressive millionaire/billionaire here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12775574

[appalachiablue]

38. This is the only good billionaire I know, Tom Steyers. He's pledging to support candidates

who work for climate change in the 2016 election. There's an OP on this now in LBN (Latest Breaking News) by Omaha Steve titled, 'GREEN POLITICAL DONOR...' Yay!


http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/06/us-climatechange-election-donor-idUSKBN0MX1J120150406

[Thinkingabout]

4. There was 64% of unmotivated voters who did not vote in 2014. What is the result, a Republican

Congress who is doing everything in their power to remove or severely limit the programs which helps poor people and give tax breaks to those in higher incomes and giving tax breaks to corporations and allowing corporations and people to move things off shore so they are not responsible for taxes the rest of us pays. If this does not motivate 64% to get up and vote then they really don't care how many problems people of lower incomes suffer.

You may not be excited about the candidates who are running but you must like the candidates getting elected more, a no vote helps the GOP, plain and simple. I don't vote for republicans and I do vote.

[F4lconF16]

5. Wrong.

The entire reason there are 64% of voters not voting is because of candidates like Rahm. You're right, they don't care. They don't care at all if it's the Democratic Party or the Republican Party doing the screwing, because they get screwed either way. They won't vote because they don't have a choice to vote for a candidate who won't work against them.

The Republicans will be worse argument is true, but beside the point. It's not going to get people to the polls. You don't get people elected to get people to vote; you get people motivated to get people elected. This is something that the Democratic Party has not understood for decades (or, in reality, understood but ignored).

If this does not motivate 64% to get up and vote then they really don't care how many problems people of lower incomes suffer.

That statement was so elitist that I'm having trouble responding. You do realize a huge chunk of those people are struggling financially? That the lower-income you are, the less likely you are to vote? But sure, they don't care.

[Scootaloo]

9. Careful there!

if you keep pointing out thinkingabout's detached, dismissive elitism, you'll get them so upset that their monocle will pop out and splatter into their tray of caviar.

[Dragonfli]

16. I see a lot of that here "elitism", usually telling me financial issues aren't important

so I shouldn't be concerned about a Dems love of Goldman Sachs and corporate trade deals, being well off all they care about as Democrats are social issues and pretend those of us that care about financial issues don't care about social issues.

Interesting tact when one of them now claims to care about that stuff, usually they expect me to choose either social justice or economic justice because their corporate dems only care about social justice while stabbing us in the back on economic justice. (a false choice anyway, because there isn't any such economic justice only option and really shouldn't be anyway)

I being a Democrat think you can't have one without the other, but I am also poor, so, I guess I don't understand politics as well as well off Democrats do. They are just fine with third way policies. Including the poster you responded to.

Those of us that do not have stock portfolios have been ignored and abandoned for so long now it is just expected that all we should dare expect is help on equality issues. I care about that, but am not looking forward to becoming homeless because Hill likes rich people, there has got to be a better way to champion social justice than voting for people throwing 99% of us to the wolves for bribes and kick-backs from the vampires sucking us dry.

[Thinkingabout]

22. I did not state it was because of candidates like Rahm. I said

"There was 64% of unmotivated voters who did not vote in 2014." Yes probably the larger percent of the non voters are lower income for we know if the upper 1% did not vote and we removed that number it would still be 63% and if we remove the 91-99% it would still leave 56% who did not vote. Here lies the problem, there is enough people who did not vote who could have changed the results.

I think one reason why we don't get more candidates to run is some of the trashing I see right here on DU, no one wants to go through the hassle of running for office because times the families

[jeff47]

25. If you are such a delicate flower that you can't handle getting "trashed" on DU

Then you have no business running for office. Republicans, Fox and everyone else will do far worse to you.

[jeff47]

7. Candidates are not entitled to votes. Candidates have to earn votes.

If a candidate does not earn enough votes, that is the candidate's fault.

When you give people the option of going to hell, or going to hell slightly slower, you will not earn many votes.

[Scootaloo]

8. Maybe democrats should sell themselves on more than having a letter next to their name

I know, it's a concept you can't fathom, this notion that politicians are not owed votes and instead have to earn them. and no, simply registering as "not republican" isn't putting in the time to earn those votes. especially when you campaign like a Republican and write policy like a republican.

[bvar22]

21. As far as getting your voters to the polls,

LEADERSHIP must inspire the voter.
If the voters don't turn out, it IS a failure of leadership....nothing else.
It may feel good to blame the voters, but that won't fix the problem.
It is the JOB of LEADERSHIP to motivate the troops.

"We're not as bad a Republicans" is hardly motivational.


Nothing has changed since Harry Truman laid it all out perfectly.

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

QED:2010[/font]


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


When was the last time you heard a Leadership Democrat mention FDR and the New Deal?
THAT is what built the modern Democratic Party.


You will know them by their WORKS.

[Thinkingabout]

24. Except for a few offices where there are age requirements and in the case of the presidency which

requires a natural born citizen the offices are open for young leadership, get people to run. We can't blame others for the lack of leadership unless we are willing to be the leaders.

[jeff47]

27. Well, when we tried to

we were told to shut the fuck up about what we wanted and only work on Social Security. And tax cuts. And ending welfare.

It doesn't take very long to figure out where you aren't wanted. And back in the 1990s, we weren't needed. Older boomers and FDR Democrats were enough to win. So with no political traction, young GenX gave up.

The same pattern is repeating with the party and their attitude towards Millennials. What do they want? Who gives a fuck. Vote for anyone with a D after their name or the SCOTUS will fall!!! And keep passing tax cuts! We can only do a half-assed stimulus bill because the beltway will say unpleasant things about us if we do what is really needed, so you'll just have to suck it up and work at Starbucks. Good luck on those student loans.

And then you have the gall to turn around and whine about "the kids" not showing up.

The Democratic party is not entitled to votes. The Democratic party has to earn votes. And you will not earn votes by complaining that you are not receiving the votes to which you are entitled.

[Thinkingabout]

41. Let me say this, I am not going to live to see the young folks get to my age. If I did not care

about the younger generation I would not be pushing to hold on to social security, I could say I have my social security and I don't give a damn if the younger folks gets Social Security or not, I understand why we need to continue to fight for social security to continue. If I did not care I would say I don't give a damn about whether the minimum wages are increased. If I did not care about the future of our young folks I would not care about the judges who will be nominated and confirmed, I do care and do not like some of the rulings coming out of SC when Citizens United was given, now those with money are threatening to withhold their money if their issues are not met.

I have voted in many elections, my candidate did not always win but I continue to vote. There was at least 54% of the people in the 90% who did not vote in 2014. Are the 54% happy with the decisions made by Republican candidates? If they are not then they will get a candidate and put in the time and effort to get the grassroots out, the 54% can control who is elected to offices.

[jeff47]

63. Already did it.

If they are not then they will get a candidate and put in the time and effort to get the grassroots out,

Did it. Multiple times. Over and over again, the people in charge of the party attacked.

We were running "purity contests". The candidate was "unelectable". The candidate had to run against both the Republican and the Democratic party. Because us attacking the third-way-style candidate the leadership wanted was "fracturing the party", but them attacking the candidate we wanted was somehow not doing the same thing.

And when your generation is much smaller than the one that came before, you don't have the raw numbers to overcome what the previous generation wants. It does not take long to figure out where you are not wanted.

However, time passes. And now we are needed, since the FDR Democrats are all but gone. That means having to reconnect to people who were alienated and pushed away by the party. Half-assed support for their issues will not do that - they have been burned by pretty words too many times.

So to get younger voters, the party is going to have to shift very significantly to the left. And not just in speeches, but in actual bills and Sisyphean efforts that will not work in the short run. It's going to be a long, drawn out effort. After all, we spent 40 years screwing up our party by following the DLC playbook. We're not going to undo that in two years.

What will absolutely not work is demanding "the kids" vote, or berating them for not voting. "You didn't vote and the person who got elected sucked! Are you happy now?!" just continues the decades of driving them from the party.

We will lose lots of elections while this shift happens, because change is hard and the people in the party's leadership are scared. There will be a great deal of pain over the next 10-20 years while the old guard is displaced. But coming out the other side of that pain will be a far more liberal party. We'll see if it has the same name.

[PoliticAverse]

6. Rahm is currently the mayor because he won an election. n/t

[F4lconF16]

13. Well gee, that makes him wonderful.

So did the republicans, no?

Edit: big money makes a difference. He is as corrupt as they come. Also, he may cheat: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026471254

[PoliticAverse]

15. It doesn't make him 'wonderful' but it does question your claim that...

"When you run candidates like Rahm Emanuel, you will not win elections."

He ran, he won. And he'll probably win reelection.

[F4lconF16]

19. Then pick from a litany of corporate dems.

If it hadn't been for money and endorsements from our current political elite (Obama and the Clintons are certainly part of that) they would not have succeeded.

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. Correction: Rahm is still mayor because he won TWO mayoral elections

Freddie Stubbs has a good summary of his other electoral wins that make this OP super weird. For what it's worth, his hand-picked successor in the House, Mike Quigley, can probably hold that seat until the second coming, plus two additional terms.

[F4lconF16]

43. You'll note that I said

"One of these elections", not "this election".

But I get it, words and reading are hard. You clearly haven't listened to a thing I'm trying to say.

And I'll tell you, I understand how the youth around here feel pretty damn well. I'm more involved than they are, much more aware, but I know exactly why they aren't. You ignore us at your own peril, because when you don't have our votes, you can't win. And when your precious little politicians with the Ds after their names lose, you will be stuck with someone who is literally insane.

Have fun with that. I don't really care. I'll be doing what I can to get a revolution started in my community when we get there.

[alcibiades_mystery]

47. Um, OK

You're clearly the type of person who works well with others and builds effective coalitions.

Good luck with your revolution.

[F4lconF16]

49. Thanks!

Oddly enough, people like me just fine. Have a nice day!

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. "When you run candidates like Rahm Emanuel, you will not win elections"

Except in 2002, when Rahm Emanuel was elected to Congress.

Or in 2004, when Rahm Emanuel was re-elected to Congress.

Or in 2006, when Rahm Emanuel was re-elected to Congress.

Or in 2008, when Rahm Emanuel was re-elected to Congress.

Or in 2011, when Rahm Emanuel was elected to Mayor.

Or in 2015, when Rahm Emanuel was re-elected Mayor.

[alcibiades_mystery]

32. As I noted above, Rahm's hand-picked successor in the House, Mike Quigley

can hold that seat until the second coming, plus two additional terms after that.

Has Rahm ever actually *lost* an election?

[F4lconF16]

39. Let's see...he was an incumbent mayor

He outspent his opponent 5 to 1, got an endorsement from the president, ran against someone who was hardly known up until now, apparently cheated (unsubstantiated at the moment, but there have been reports fron Chicago), and still managed to pull barely half the voters to him.

Yeah, my OP has no point at all.

By the way, Rahm contining to fuck people over is reeeeally gonna convince them to vote Democrat next time, yessirree!

You all refuse to listen. It will catch up to you. Young voters hate this shit with a passion. They hate hypocrisy more than almost anything else, because they've grown up being lied to their entire lives, living in a state where the media is obviously corrupt, the politicians make no response to them, half of them are thrown in jail, their futures are bleak, and they're in a state of perpetual war as the environment grinds on to destruction.

You don't address their concerns (which are really all of our concerns), you will continue to lose them. They've already basically lost me, and I'm happily talking to everyone I know. I only advocate for the people that won't stab me in the back. At some point, and it might not be this election or next, you will lose them entirely. And then we'll really be fucked.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

56. You're trying to cite an election Emanuel won as evidence that he can't win elections.

Yes, some of your subsidiary points may have some merit. But, frankly, they get lost in the absurdity of your central tenet.

[Major Hogwash]

57. Well, that's it then! F4lconF16 will never work in this town again!

[F4lconF16]

62. I never said Rahm couldn't or wouldn't win.

Actually, I specifically didn't say that in the OP.

When you run pro-corporatist, pro-elite, anti-working-class politicians, you will not motivate voters. One of these elections, you will lose because of this.

But that would require reading it, and not just skimming and replying to a strawman.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

67. "When you run candidates like Rahm Emanuel, you will not win elections"

You may not have meant that - I can see how the rest of your post could be interpreted as an attempt to walk it back - but you certainly said it.

[F4lconF16]

68. "Like Rahm Emanuel". Not Rahm Emanuel.

That was a call out of corporate politicians, not him specifically. You may read it that way, but grammatically and structurally, I did not say that. This is simply a way to derail this thread, intended or not, so I am hopping out now. Have a nice day.

[FSogol]

28. This OP is best read before the polls in Chicago close.

[jeff47]

29. Yeah, sitting mayor in the first runoff ever

And while he wins it's still just over 50%. Clearly there's no point whatsoever in the OP now.

[F4lconF16]

42. I swear, it's like talking to a bunch of fucking five year olds.

They stick their fingers in their ears and scream that they won, the side with the D won, and clearly there's nothing else that matters.

Thanks for getting it.

[FSogol]

59. I didn't win and don't live in Chicago. Luckily, reality is malleable enough for

you to find a silver lining even when the evidence doesn't match your thinking. Enjoy your bubbles.

[F4lconF16]

64. Reality for me is not malleable.

Reality is watching my future slip away bit by bit. Unlike you and many people on here, I will be here in 60 years. I will be alive to watch the environment burn. I don't have the time to watch politicians screw around, and listen to the Democrats tell me "Not yet."

So no, there is no silver lining for me. I just watched a group of people work really, really hard to elect someone that would actually fight for them. There was a huge uprising behind Chuy. And then I watched the Democratic Party flood the area with money and endorsements, and do everything they could to prop up a corrupt asshole who has been a horrible person the left wing. And then I get to listen to people on this board calling the Chuy supporters lazy, telling me they should have worked harder if they wanted to win.

Yeah, I'm glad that your reality changes to make you happy. I don't live in that world. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that what just happened was okay. I'm pissed, and don't you dare tell me I shouldn't be. Don't you dare tell me to enjoy my bubble, when the only one ignoring and reshaping reality is you.

[Warren DeMontague]

33. Didn't Rahm just win the election?

Your statement doesnt make sense.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Didn't Rahm just win the election?

Only at the ballot box.

[Warren DeMontague]

37. I want to know how the Heartland Cafe voted.

Seriously, their veggie burgers used to be the bomb.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

53. Mm mm Bison Burrito from Heartland

[F4lconF16]

40. Read post 39.

My OP is still relevant.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. Certainly if we start talking about Rahm for a national position.

I know a lot of people in Chicago- many of them the Millenials you speak of- and yeah, I also understand not liking Rahm Emmanuel.

A good chunk of that is his own fault- he's abrasive and has been downright nasty regarding the base or other more progressive wings of the Democratic party. I have no interest in apologizing for that.

Only thing I would say is, the presidential primary process is the bigger prize and field of play that i think you are looking for- that is when we as a party can and should hash out what we stand for. Some people seem to want to fast forward through that, nominate the "inevitable" candidate, and bypass meaningful (and long overdue) conversations about party direction.

For committed and dedicated young folks such as yourself, that is where i would focus my energy. Rahm is almost beside the point.

[F4lconF16]

46. Thanks. I agree with most of what you say.

But I would say Rahm is exactly the point. He is emblematic of the problems with the Democratic Party as a whole. Hell, he was endorsed and pushed pretty hard by Obama. If we can't fix the Rahm Emanuels of the party, we have no chance at fixing the higher-ups.

I think we need to really focus on our own communities, figuring out what we can do locally. While the Presidential race is important, it's the senate and house races just as much so. If we can elect local people in a huge wave or two in the next couple years, we stand a decent chance at securing some real gains in 4-8 years. Admittedly that is far too late, but at least by focusing local we can build strong community, making support networks and helping each other through the rough spots. Sponsoring and pushing programs like this are exactly what I am talking about:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10247830
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10247834

We need to be willing to abandon the Democratic Party and do this stuff ourselves if they will not listen to us. I'm already past that point--my involvement with the Party is limited only to candidates that are actually going to change something. Otherwise, my time is better invested in helping people and raising awareness locally. I can change a lot more in my own area than I can by helping elect a shitty Democratic candidate.

[BainsBane]

50. The problems with the Democratic Party are the problems with American politics

namely, campaign financing and the incredible influence of money in politics. The only solution is public financing of elections, and thanks to SCOTUS that now requires a constitutional amendment.

I agree that focusing locally is key. If you do that, you don't need to abandon the Democratic Party. The local level is where you can impact not only the party but local and state issues, like minimum wage, worker rights, etc... This endless fixation on the presidency here on DU is counterproductive because it diverts people's energies to where we can have the least influence. People need to organize around issues. Endless arguments about particular members of the political elite amount to nothing and change nothing.

As for fixing Emmanuel, that is up to the residents of Chicago, not you or anyone else who doesn't live there.

[F4lconF16]

51. This is where I have to be careful what I advocate for here.

I will pm you about this.

[upaloopa]

52. You don't vote you get worse people running

things. People motivate themselves. You sit on your ass waiting for Prince Valiant you lose plain and simple .
Quit trying to blame it on others!

[F4lconF16]

54. Yes, and we vote, and we vote, and oh look

Now Obama's describing himself as a moderate Republican. That worked really well.

This isn't blaming it on others. If you've read much of what I post, you'd know that I am a huge advocate of community activism. Voters worked their asses off to try and get Chuy elected, people turned out all over.

Wanna guess what happened?

Oh yeah, the Democratic Party gave them a big ol' fuck you, dumped money and endorsements in the race, and propped up yet another corrupt Democrat who will happily screw the working class.

So no, unlike you, I won't blame people for being lazy despite clear evidence to the contrary. I'm going to blame the Party for happily attacking a good candidate. They worked, they got out, and they got told their voices weren't worth shit if they didn't have the money. This is why Democrats don't turn out: at every step of the way, they are told they aren't wanted.

So screw your imaginary Prince Valiant, and the horse he rode in on too.

[upaloopa]

60. Sorry I have no empathy for that.

Life is not what you want it to be. You should have learned that by now.
If Rand Paul or Cruz being President is not enough reason to vote, I think you should just quit now and just let what happens happen without your input from here on out. There will be no real progressive running in 2016.

[F4lconF16]

66. Who said I was quitting?

Who said I wouldn't be voting? No one.

I'm pissed, and when I get pissed, I work harder.

Also, thanks for the ageist statement there. Really appreciate it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

55. Wait a second - "When you run candidates like Rahm Emanuel, you will not win elections."?

You are aware that that statement has just been empirically disproven, aren't you?

If you want to draw a more evidence-based conclusion, it's "When you run candidates like Chuy Garcia, you will not win elections".

[MineralMan]

61. But Rahm Emanuel DID win his election.

So, I'm not sure that your statement holds water. Was Chuy not sufficiently progressive? Was that why he lost? It's easy to say that only progressives can win elections and that "candidates like Rahm Emanuel" won't win. But, as we see, he did win. I believe I saw that he won in every ward in the city.

I'm not understanding what you're trying to say here, I guess.

[F4lconF16]

65. See post 39.

My post still has relevance. And you may also note that I never said Rahm couldn't or wouldn't win this election.