Imagine if, rather than blaming the "far left", (whatever you think that is),

[guillaumeb]

or blaming the Greens, or blaming "Bernie or busters", imagine that the Democratic Party asked the one question that is not being asked.

Why did 48% of eligible, registered voters decide to not vote in 2016?

What constitutes the "far left" depends of course on your own position on the political spectrum. As a Democratic Socialist, I understand that my positions on most issues are to the left of many of my fellow citizens. But when polled on actual issues, rather than polling about labels, many voters actually are in favor of far left ideas like single payer, free college, far higher taxes on the rich, a lowered age for Social Security benefits, and freedom to unionize.

But corporate America is opposed to all of these things, and politicians who court corporate America tend to follow corporate positions. So we are left with incremental solutions that are more Band-Aid than solution.

And Greens are not really a significant force politically.


But what if the Democratic Party actually asked why the 48% of non-voters did not vote? There might not be one universal reason, there could be many reasons, including voter suppression, but it seems to me that courting the same older, white Reagan democrats
is a failed tactic that only pushes the Democrats to the right.

What if the Democratic Party could convince these apathetic non-voters to make a choice?

Thoughts?

[nycbos]

1. The far left is an issue.

I could go one day here during the primary without hearing how Hillary was a warmonger.

[guillaumeb]

4. How big do you feel this amorphous "far left" is?

Do you feel it is a significant sector of the population?

And what of the 48% who did not vote?

[Squinch]

22. It's not how big, it's how LOUD. And they were very, very loud. They were staunchly

against us, and they convinced many of those 48% that "both sides are the same" or "both candidates are terrible" or "Meteor 2016". That shit had a lot to do with that 48%.

You think Sarandon, with her very visible platform, didn't convince any of that 48% to stay home? You think the BoB's didn't? You think the endless criticism about her didn't affect any of them?

Then you live in a different world than I do.

[guillaumeb]

39. Speculation.

And if that is your feeling, I respect that analysis but I do not share it.

[Squinch]

43. And your position is no less speculation. But I don't really see how you can deny that those

messages were everywhere and they were designed to make people feel like it didn't matter who they voted for, resulting in many who didn't vote.

[Hortensis]

180. Squinch is correct. And OP, 42% didn't vote. 58% of 200M registered voters,

the largest number in history, voted in what, for this country, was a high turnout. As for who to blame for those who did not, let's first and foremost put that blame squarely on them.

I'm not their babysitter. It's not my fault for not getting them out.

The far left and far right spread irrational degrees of dissension and malcontent, and of course lies, against Democrats, but it's not primarily their fault either.

Ultraconservative billionaires built giant right-wing media networks and infiltrated MSM to blanket the nation with their lies against Democrats and "the establishment," the ones pushed by both the far left and far right of course, but its not even primarily their fault for this.
These same people have been engineering the theft of elections and using a variety of methods to keep citizens from being able to vote on election day, but before we blame them entirely for those they succeeded in blocking, let's first remember and pay respect to all thsoe who were blocked and fought to get back on the rolls and, of course, the millions who stood in line for several hours to be able to vote.

In a democracy we all have need and duty to vote, so of course first and last it's the fault of those who did not vote. And large numbers of those didn't because it's not in their nature to care about voting -- unless they have to. And for that, they need to be hurt in a motivating way. Hurt to other people is not enough because most nonvoters are poorly informed, or not at all.

[KPN]

192. Hortensis, he recognized (gave respect) to

voters who were suppressed in the OP.

All of us agree that the GOP is criminal when it comes to elections and that this played a huge role in 2016.

That leaves Green Party and Bernie. We've been over this one a gazillion times here at DU with one side blaming them for 2016 and the other basically saying you can't force people to vote the way you think they should when they've consciously and deliberately decided to vote differently. That stuff's old hat and not worth more time.

What about his basic question re: the 48, 42 or whatever it is percent?

[mcar]

52. And the media covered them, during Obama's years as well,

as if they spoke for the Democratic Party..

[Squinch]

104. But 1) Obama had not been successfully and completely baselessly smeared as "crooked."

and 2) there simply was not as much of it in any past elections. This was volume. This was continuous. The Bobs and the Greens etc picked up every vile Republican smear and ran with it.

[mdbl]

85. The "both parties are the same" BS came up way before Susan Sarandon ever said it

You had some DINO's in congress that were pretty anti-democrat. That's when those feelings started. I am not using that as an excuse, only an observation that some of those democrats didn't really try to tow the party line. Zell Miller was a good example, and Joe Lieberman was another just to name a couple of well-knowns. The Paul Wellstones have been been pushed out leaving this Democrat wondering what we were all about for many years. Again, I'm not advocating voting for republicans or third party candidates. I have always voted straight party ticket and urged others to do the same - but you have to understand the "they are the same" stuff started a lot longer ago than 2016.

[Squinch]

94. Bullshit. When it started is not the point. It was a battle cry in this election. It was constant

And it didn't come from the right.

[lark]

226. Russia pushed the rw memes hard, so yes, in a way it did.

A lot of the BS came directly from Russia, masquerading as far left. FB even said quite a few of the Bernie ads were paid for in rubles. Stein was nothing more than a Russian plant and Sarandon a useful idiot. Anyone pushing Bernie after the convention is also suspect. Me and quite a few of my friends voted for Bernie during the primary but were firmly on board with Hillary after she won. That's what true American left wingers did.

[sheshe2]

117. Interesting point of view.

mdbl (3,337 posts)
85. The "both parties are the same" BS came up way before Susan Sarandon ever said it

You had some DINO's in congress that were pretty anti-democrat. That's when those feelings started.

As a Democrat shouldn't your "you" be we?

[radical noodle]

134. Good catch! n/t

[melman]

222. No it's not

you had = there were

[Lunabell]

29. You forgot corporatist.

My words, yes.

[whathehell]

70. Non-voting is an issue

and if people want to talk about the 'far left, it really needs to be defined...With the possible exception of Jill Stein, who got a tiny
percentage of the vote, I didn't see a "far left" person in the race.

[JHB]

92. There is no "the left". It's not a singular thing. They are the left(s).

Clusters of interests that may support each other, but not so much when their own group's pet subject is at stake.

"That (meaning: YOUR concern) is a distraction, what we REALLY need to do is..." (MY thing)

[marble falls]

110. The primary is over and the abuse was universal. Shit was thrown at Bernie supporters, too ....

Lets start dealing with 2018 and get the 2016 primaries and election behind us and lets fix Congress and jettison that traitorous PoS in the White House. I'm radical left and I suggest that if the DNC quit trying to be reasonable to so-called conservatives who were never going to vote for Hillary Clinton and tacked to the left, Hillary Clinton would be President today and things would be so much better today.

[Ken Burch]

120. Bernie's supporters are STILL owed a collective apology

For the despicable insinuation that they didn't care about racism, sexism, anti-LGBTQ prejudice OR about what women, people of color or LGBTQ people wanted.

[marble falls]

122. Yeah but its not going to come and any retribution will only hurt us all. 2018 it the real objective

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

124. Sad, but true.

[Ken Burch]

136. I don't want retribution. Just an acceptance of the fact that Sanders supporters are NOT the enemy.

And that they have a legitimate place in this party.

Let the war be over already. Keeping it going helps no one but Trump.

[marble falls]

142. Bernie is still working hard for us all. But some of us here will never own up to their abuse ...

all you and I can do is soldier on and keep pressure on the Trump and the GOP.

[guillaumeb]

220. Well said, and agreed. eom

[Skidmore]

236. Just. Stop. FFS. nt

[Me.]

208. You Mean Identity Politics

as so identified by Senator Sanders? Your hindsight high horse-ism is rather amusing.

[Ken Burch]

229. No, I don't mean that, because I've never defended what Bernie said there

And have made it clear that I don't think he should run again.

Sanders supporters were not to blame for that remark.

[Me.]

230. But Yet According To You

a majority of Dems should apologize because their very beings and concerns were dismissed as being unimportant and they spoke up, dissenting against being kicked to the curb. As to the supporters, when it counted I didn't hear them speaking up or disagreeing with the Senator. In fact, his more ardent supporters were fierce in their support of his policies.

[Ken Burch]

231. What I'm saying is, make a distinction between Bernie and his supporters.

His supporters are just as anti-racist and anti-oppression as HRC supporters

If there was any dismissal, it was solely by Bernie the individual. And I agree with you that HE got it wrong.

They couldn't be held responsible for what he said after the election was over, for God's sakes. At that stage, there was no longer a campaign.

And what they defended was his commitment to economic justice. A lot of them(and before Philly I was one)were pushing for the campaign to speak out more strongly on social justice. They couldn't just break with him in March and give up on getting economic justice issues into the campaign at all. It was almost impossible to communicate with his campaign HQ in the period when such communications would have made a difference.

It's time to move on as far as the supporters themselves are concerned.

[Me.]

233. You Mean Separate The Child From The Parent?

They're a family and let's be clear, identity politics was very much a part from the beginning. There is no separation.

[Ken Burch]

243. There is.

People who supported Sanders as a candidate were people of the Left. anti-racism and support for anti-oppression politics was simply always part of their belief system.

As they saw it, he emphasized economic issues because nobody else was dealing with them.

For '18 and '20, we can take it out of the polarity of '16.

We can move on to the synthesis we should always have had...the social justice/anti-oppression positions the HRC campaign spoke of, COMBINED with the economic justice/anti-corporate dominance agenda of the other campaign.

Those sets of issues can easy be blended...they have never been in intrinsic conflict and there was never any need to choose between them, no matter what any candidate might have said.

So let's take it OUT of the question of any particular candidate and join forces with each other for what we are united in backing as people no matter what any past candidates might have done.

[Me.]

248. Of Course We Can Move On

But denial of what was will hinder that and, feeling an apology is needed from people who rightly identified the shortcomings of the message is like asking them to aid and abet something that is harmful to their well being.

[Ken Burch]

287. The shortcoming of the message from a now-ended campaign no longer matter.

Only the candidate and his advisors were responsible for those shortcomings.

I don't deny the flaws in the primary message, and I condemned the post-election "identity politics" speech, as did a LOT of people who stand with the economic message from that campaign.

The supporters don't have those shortcomings and the party needs to work with them, and to give them the benefit of the doubt that they, the supporters, have shown themselves to be anti-oppression.

[Me.]

288. Perhaps You Missed The Ongoing Message

And if the supporters didn't agree w/it, there wouldn't be such a heft to support the message both here on DU and elsewhere.

[Ken Burch]

290. What they support is the economic justice message

They DON'T support the "identity politics" speech.

And they'd probably support somebody else for 2020 if we had somebody else who incorporated the economic justice aspect...wouldn't have to center it...but acknowledge the validity of it and simply make it fully part of who we are.

That's why what I've argued is that the best way for this party to unite us all and move past that is to simply add the economic justice message TO the social justice message-adjusting it to account for historic oppression. No "takeover"...just a blend of the best ideas.

We could just call it justice, admit that all rank-and-file people of the Left ARE anti-oppression, take this out of personality politics-WHO we nominate is less important than what we stand for-and put the past in the past.

[Me.]

293. Here's The Problem With Your Insistence

Where's the proof beyond your say so? Where are the articles and speeches saying we don't overall agree with his message per se, cause ....you see...followers usually do support the message of their leader. And to the contrary, Our Revolution has a stated interest in voting for the Cons. The only proof of your point will not be apparent, if it exists at all, until the next presidential election. So you have a long wait ahead of you unless proof in the form of the written or spoken word suddenly comes front and center.

[Ken Burch]

294. "Our Revolution has a stated interest in voting for the Cons"?

Uh no...that isn't true in any universe.

They want the Right out of power.

And they want that as much to fight bigotry and oppression as to fight greed

The proof of that is that these are people of the Left-if you are on the Left in THIS century, anti-oppression activism is simply part of your DNA.

[Me.]

309. This

NT: I don’t think it is our job nor our obligation to fit in. It’s their job to fit in with us. But the overwhelming majority of registered voters in this country, I think it’s 53 percent or maybe 54 percent, identify as independent. Now, we know independents lean one way or the other but they identify as independent so that means that both political parties need to do some soul searching. I’m certainly willing to sit across the table with almost anybody if we gonna work towards the collective good, but it is not Our Revolution’s job to fit in with them.

CM: Will the group be endorsing non-Democrats?

NT: You know what, yes. We are open to it. And for me, I’ve also heard the senator say this lately too: Let’s put the political affiliation to the side. If there is a Republican or a Libertarian or Green Party person that believes in Medicare for all, then that’s our kind of person. If there’s somebody that believes that Citizens United needs to be overturned, that we need the 28th amendment to the Constitution that declares that money, corporate money, is not speech and that corporations should not have more speech than Mrs. Johnson down the street and Mr. Gonzalez around the corner, then that’s our kind of people.

www.thenation.com/article/nina-turner-it-is-not-our-job-to-fit-into-the-democratic-establishment/

[Eliot Rosewater]

311. Yeah. I remember hearing about this I think. I know I have seen it alleged and now we know it is

true.

Thanks for proving this to be true for ALL to see.

[Me.]

313. ...

[sheshe2]

314. Woah!

[Gothmog]

315. Great facts

Thank you for posting

[Ken Burch]

316. Since no Republican or LIbertarian would ever take such a position...

...that quote proves nothing at all...

It's the equivalent of vegans saying they would eat at a Sizzler if the place went meatless.

[sheshe2]

317. Yet it is in fact a quote.

Perhaps they should be more careful how they frame things.

[Ken Burch]

318. I agree that they shouldn't have said it.

My theory is that they figured people would realize this was an absurd example.

To recover and beat the Right in the coming elections, we're going to need the votes and volunteers involved with Our Revolution. I don't like our odds if we decide that that group needs to be proscribed and treated as an enemy organizatino.

They've said some dumb provocative things. Dumb provocative things have been said about THEM. It's time for both groups...OR and rank-and-file Dems(most of whom are more or less with OR on economic justice issues)) need to get into dialog and work to end the conflict-NOT keep up the sniping at each other.

[Me.]

319. Nice Try

OR is not an organization I'd count on for votes, just like Sarandon. And isn't it time we believe people rather than trying to twist them into who we want them to be.

[sheshe2]

321. Aahhh

My theory is that they figured people would realize this was an absurd example.

Your theory? I am sorry, your theory does not work for me. They said it. In an interview. They could have retracted or qualified their words at some point. They did not.

To recover and beat the Right in the coming elections, we're going to need the votes and volunteers involved with Our Revolution. I don't like our odds if we decide that that group needs to be proscribed and treated as an enemy organizatino.

Well, not if they are going to primary seated Democrats with Republicans. That does not sit well with me.

[lapucelle]

324. And this...

Cosmo :You've said before that Our Revolution is more interested in endorsing candidates based on beliefs, rather than endorsing along party lines. Does that mean Our Revolution could endorse a Republican?

Nina:Our grassroots affiliate organizations nominate [candidates] up. I can give you real examples — they have nominated Green Party members and we have endorsed Green Party members. But, for the sake of argument, if there is a progressive Republican out there that seeks their endorsement [from] Our Revolution, and they go through the local affiliate, there is a strong possibility that they could be endorsed...

Cosmo: But it hasn't happened yet that you've endorsed a Republican?

Nina: Not yet. But listen, any day now. It could happen.

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a13107999/nina-turner-womens-convention/

[Me.]

325. That Is Even Better THan My Example

Kudos to you

[lapucelle]

326. ,,,

[Cary]

244. Ken, if you don't let it go then you can't expect anyone else to either

I don't spend any time blaming Sanders supporters, unless people bring it up like this. If you're going to ask me I will give you an honest answer. I think we would have been better off, probably enough to tip the razor thin margin, without Sanders supporters.

You aren't going to change that so I suggest you move on.

[NurseJackie]

247. Well... at least you tried. And you were thoughtful, sincere and kind about it, too.

But no matter what you say, or how nice you are, or now persuasive you may be... it will never make any difference. At this late date, most people would have learned that if one continues to pick at scabs and then it's totally unreasonable to complain that the wound won't heal.

[calimary]

251. DAYUM, NurseJackie - that's a great one!

"At this late date, most people would have learned that if one continues to pick at scabs and then it's totally unreasonable to complain that the wound won't heal."

I couldn't agree more. A keeper for sure.

[Cary]

267. I have decided to take the high road and just speak my truth

Shooting fish in a barrel gets old. Speaking one's own truth is eternal, even if not always popular.

"
But ooee it's a game 
Sometimes you're cool, sometimes you're lame 
Ah yea it's somewhere 
And if you don't know where you're going 
Any road will take you there"

~ George Harrison

Where am I going?

VOTE DEMOCRATIC!

[Me.]

320. Wow

[moda253]

289. I have no idea why he is allowed to peddle his garbage here.

I am tired of reading about the butt hurt Bernie folks or even Bernie himself. I am sick and tired of us having to coddle that group of people. Want to end it??? Stop giving them a home and let them realize that they have exactly one vehicle to stop the oppression that they are facing. The Democratic party. i

As long as we give them a pulpit they will bully atop it.

[Cary]

292. No argument here

If you have read my posts I advocate for an end to the blah blah blah. Keep it simple. Shun the "both sides do it."

VOTE DEMOCRATIC!

<shrug>

[R B Garr]

334. So true! He should be calling out this endless divisiveness,

so it makes you wonder how much he needs it for his brand.

[NurseJackie]

237. Oh, good lord! Stop it.

Move on. Look forward. No need to rehash the primaries. No need to pick at scabs and open up old wounds.

I think as reasonable people, we can all agree that solutions to today's challenges are NOT going to be found in the PAST.

[guillaumeb]

277. Amazing response.

Truly amazing.

[NurseJackie]

286. Aww... thanks very much! Very sweet of you to notice.

[Eliot Rosewater]

254. speechless

[Ken Burch]

256. I condemned the bad things some Sanders supporters said a LONG time ago.

The vast majority, who were simply antiracist progressives who also thought economic justice mattered, NEVER deserved to be blamed for the worst things a candidate said, especially those said AFTER the election.

Most were simply idealistic young activists and committed to working for all forms of justice.. The small number labeled 'bros you can say what you want about.

Sanders supporters, as a group, are just as anti-social oppression as anyone else on the progressive side of the spectrum.

And NOW, we all need to be on the same side, so all of us, from here on in, should be given the benefit of the doubt. Take anyone's feelings about any past candidates out of it and just deal with each other as people, people who are far more in agreement than not.

Is that really too much to ask?

[NurseJackie]

261. LOL! (If only!)

As if!

[sheshe2]

323. ;)

[LanternWaste]

272. You're confusing 'insinuation' and 'inference of questionable accuracy' again.

You're confusing 'insinuation' and 'inference of questionable accuracy' again.

[Gothmog]

284. I disagree strongly with your claims

The real world is a nice place. I like working in the real world

[Squinch]

145. So you SAY "Let's deal with 2018" but then you pop right on to refighting the primary. SMH.

I do love all these "Let's move on, but you all suck because you did it all wrong in the primary" posts.

[marble falls]

150. Reread. I said abuse was tossed from both sides. I said the primary is over. I said waiting ....

for an apology was wasted. I said the election in 2018 was very important. I said Bernie's working in the Senate for us all. I said Hillary and the DNC should have tacked left to be more inclusive that voters are not even mostly conservative.

What I never ever said was, "Let's move on, but you all suck because you did it all wrong in the primary". What I did say was that was then and this is now and what we needed to do was get past 2016 and work together.

I put my vote where my mouth was and voted for the candidate who actually had the experience necessary to be President in aces and spades, Hillary Clinton who I had NO problem voting for when my candidate, Bernie Sanders didn't get the nod. Hillary Clinton would have been a good President and I and a lot of Bernie Supporters enthusiastically supported her in the election so put away your whiny broad brush and get down to the work that's in front of us all. Stop this continual bashing of people we need to get behind fixing this mess.

The ones who seem to be posting these primary reruns are Bernie Bashers, not Hillary Bashers. I alert on any Hillary basher OPs I find because this who's fault shit is the stuff of divisionary politics and all it gets us is Trump and a slightly majority TeaPublican Congress.

Lets get a decent inclusive and more diverse Congress and then you guys can go sit in a bar somewhere and whine about what went wrong with the primary/election of '016. It was a whole lot more than an imaginary conspiracy of Sanders supporters.

[Squinch]

153. .

"The ones who seem to be posting these primary reruns are Bernie Bashers, not Hillary Bashers."



And I understand you really believe you are not refighting the primary, but you are.

[marble falls]

157. None so ignorant as the wilfully ignorant. I got better things to do. You keep on refighting 2016.

[Squinch]

160. Then do get on with them and stop refighting the primary.

[KTM]

178. Look in the mirror.

Its ALL you do.

[Squinch]

183. I said nothing about the primary except to point out the rehash of it. I don't do the rehashes.

But I WILL point them out when I see them. Especially when they take the form of, "You people have to move on," followed by rehash, rehash, rehash.

[KTM]

185. Again, mirror.

You maybe don't see it, but from over here it seems "rehash, rehash, rehash" is your mantra.

[Squinch]

204. Link to any post where I have rehashed.

[marble falls]

332. Reread my post. 'There was shit thrown by both sides. Get past it and start dealing with what we...

got to get done: 2018.'

If you think thats rehashing the primary .... welllllll .... it just plain is not. I fucking hate all this primary shit and I am so done and over it. I'm concentrating on 2018. Period. Done. End of question.

[Demsrule86]

331. No...the shit was aimed at Hillary by the left left (green riffraff), Republicans and Russians...

and anyone who says the parties are the same has been proven wrong with Trump...saw today that tips will now go to the boss...I am not going to restaurants if this goes into effect. I won't support the greedy owners.

[David__77]

181. I voted for Clinton and opposed her foreign policy.

I didn’t support her position on Syrian no fly zone, for instance. I supported Obama’s opposition to further intervention. The factional focus on “far left” will do no favors to the Democratic Party. A lot of people support reduction of US military spending and intervention abroad.

[tomp]

189. you think hillary's vote to attack iraq is insignificant? nt

[nycbos]

196. She admitted she made a mistake.

John Kerry and Joe Biden voted yes as well. They never got the kind of flack Hillary did. There is a problem with sexism on the left.

Bernie Bros are not a "seamer against progressive" I went to the University of Vermont. I know EXATLY who these types of people are. Mainly because at one point I was almost as big an asshole as these people.

[tomp]

200. oh, please!

She admitted a mistake after allowing an illegal president to attack a country that had not attacked us, the evidence for which was so obviously trumped up that anyone with two neurons to rub together would know. You are right that she got more flak than others but that doesn't mean she didn't deserve what she got.

As far as you having Vermont experience, that doesn't hold any water for me. The sanders supporters were nationwide. sanders developed a legitimate movement and you know EXACTLY nothing if you think your experience at UVM gives you special knowledge that others should bow to. .

[nycbos]

223. She got more flack then others because she is a women.

I never saw the venom directed at people like Kerry and Biden. Ask why.

And from what I saw of the Sanders moment it is disproportionately high with white men 21-25. That is the base of "our revolution."

The left has a big problem with sexism.

[tomp]

240. Bulls**t.

If "the left" gave more flak to krry and biden would you then say her war vote was insignicant? You're grasping at straws to defend hillary's record in a poorly-veiled attempt at an attack on the left who criticize dems on anti-war grounds. If you want to be consistent you have to say all three are guilty of supporting bush's illegal war. Of course, you pointed out the pro-war records of kerry and biden during their campaigns, right? Or do you simply not criticize dems who vote for illegal wars in general?

[LiberalLovinLug]

245. "The left has a big problem with sexism"?

Wow
So 'the left' was responsible for years, decades, of fighting for, of dying for things like a women's right to vote, AA right to vote, the 40 hour work week, Social Security and medicare, and many more issues. But now, we must blame them for sexism because they were too critical of Hillary's Iraq war vote? That it must be because she's a woman?

How about the majority of white American women voters casting their ballots for the Groper in Chief? Its not their fault i guess, best not be too harsh or that would also be sexism right?

[yurbud]

296. maybe people were trying to tell her something that would have helped her win.

she lost the primaries in 2008 to the candidate who was perceived as more anti-war than her.

Which of the countries we have invaded, instigated, or approved of coups is better off today than before our involvement?

What Americans are better off because of destabilizing Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Honduras, and Ukraine?

Sometime during the Iraq War, Americans figured out the same thing they did at the end of World War I: the wars serve the 1% not the rest of us.


By sticking to that agenda, Hillary also showed how much she was going to listen to her constituents on other issues as well.

[LongTomH]

2. I'm with you friend, another Democratic Socialist, proud Progressive here!

[guillaumeb]

5. Thanks LTH

I believe that many voters agree with us, but concerns with what is politically possible tend to be listened to far more.

As Bernie Sanders illustrated, as many progressive politicians illustrate, people are hungry for real solutions.

[sheshe2]

24. Perhaps those hungry for real solutions

should have read the Democratic Platform, not hard to educate oneself if they really wanted to be informed.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

Yet many voters...and many young voters are to damn lazy. They refused to do their homework. Must we read it to them line for line and pause each time to ask questions if they understood? Are voters that naive to listen to a sound bite and never follow up with research. The answer is yes.

[guillaumeb]

40. Yes, and yes,and yes,

and no, voters must take some initiative and read for themselves.

The success of Trump and Reagan show how many voters are naïve.

[sheshe2]

50. Yet Democrats.

Our Party... is blamed for not reaching them. You cannot not reach one that refuses to reach out to seek the facts/truth. That is on them and NOT the party. The facts are so easy to find, yet they seem to just want to rely on a few short cuts.

[guillaumeb]

59. We cannot win by chasing the same voters who happily vote for the GOP.

President Obama showed how inspired voters turn out. The stunning electoral results in Virginia showed how inspired voters turn out.

The problems of gerrymandering and suppression can only be overcome by large turnout, as happened in Virginia.

And yes, the facts are there, but bumper sticker slogans and appeals to race hatred motivate the uninformed, and there are a lot of them.

My reson for this post is to suggest that we recognize what unites us. Publicity seekers like Sarandon and Stein do not, in my opinion, influence that many people. Closure of polling places in Milwaukee, Wisconsin had a large enough suppressive effect to give the state to Trump.

[sheshe2]

227. In that case +1000

I loved the stunning results in VA and the Diverse Candidates that won. I have never been for going after those that voted GOP, ever. I want to go after our base ie black men and especially black women.

[guillaumeb]

263. Agreed.

Sanders main shortcoming, in my opinion, was his failure to connect racial and sexual equality with economic equality, and a failure to see the interconnectedness.

[ProudLib72]

51. Ok, that's the problem. What's the solution?

I totally agree that a lot (if not the majority) or voters are lazy. But forcing information down people's throats is not going to persuade them to vote Dem. Obviously, they do not want to read, so they are getting their information from TV, social media, and water cooler discussions. The Republicans figured out how to control all three (yes, even water cooler discussions are controlled by Republican narrative). How do we wrest control away from them? Is it just a matter of throwing more money into advertising? Does it include hiring brilliant marketing people to develop and deploy memes at just the right time in just the right place so those water cooler discussions center around how good Dems are?

Even if we went in for all the high tech data mining and subtle influence techniques that Republicans used last year, I would feel weird about winning seats in this manner. There must be some way to get people excited about politics without resorting to trickery.

This is a very sad state of affairs.

[guillaumeb]

61. The GOP has successfully framed the narrative since 1980.

Forcing the Democrats to play defense.

[ProudLib72]

74. But see what I'm getting at here?

People just aren't interesting in educating themselves about politics. Republicans have taken advantage of that and moved on to promoting fake news on TV and social media. If we do that as well, we could win some seats. HOWEVER, we would be giving in to the general political apathy common among voters.

I am not arguing the "go low, go high" point. I want to know how to show voters that politics affects them, they must pay attention, and Dems are not going to play the same games as the GOP.

It's kind of a catch 22 situation. If we play the same game, we win seats but do nothing to address the underlying apathy. If we try something to address the underlying apathy, we risk failing and losing seats.

[guillaumeb]

77. We are losing seats for a variety of reasons.

Gerrymandering, suppression, apathy, and others. In my view, the first 2 are the most critical.

[ProudLib72]

79. Good point

I should not be assuming apathy when it is quite likely down to gerrymandering and suppression. Take care of those first.

[rpannier]

88. We've been losing seats (and states) rather consistantly since the mid-90's

When we controlled states, we were losing them. You can't just blame that on Gerrymandering and suppression
We lost a lot of seats and states in 2010, in states where we were majorities prior.
Again, you can't just blame Gerrymandering and suppression

[guillaumeb]

203. Thus my statement:

Gerrymandering, suppression, apathy, and others. In my view, the first 2 are the most critical.

[sheshe2]

80. I do not have the answers.

If people/ Democrats refuse to get off their collective asses when they see their safety nets fall to negative zero. Their moms and dads having to go to them for 24/7 care...do you have a clue what home care will do to your own health? I do. Heath care providers/ the children at times die before the parent...it is that stressful.

I am doing it for a second time now. Even now, before your parent can receive much help they have to become indigent. That means they must have less than 3K to their name for Medicaid to kick in.

[Sophia4]

121. So right you are. Thanks for pointing this out.

[Sophia4]

119. Yes, it's up to us to make sure people vote.

Must we read it to them line for line and pause each time to ask questions if they understood? Yes. That is the job, the duty of an activist. explain. explain. discuss. Repeat that cycle until the potential voter understands why and how and what for he or she MUST vote.

Are voters that naive to listen to a sound bite and never follow up with research.
Yes, yes, yes. Get out and talk to non-voters and voters, It's astounding.

And -- remember. If Californians enjoyed the equal right to vote, if there were no electoral college, and the popular vote decided who won the presidency, Hillary would be president.

[Fiendish Thingy]

132. actions speak louder than words

I don't think anyone has taken either party's platform seriously since 1968.

They are generally filled with platitudes to placate the base, and just as often as not, don't translate into actual legislation or "lines in the sand" that will be vetoed. It's the candidate's history of actions, their votes, as well as their acceptance of donations and fees, that mean something to me as a voter. I suppose speeches and commercials influence many too.

it is unrealistic to think that the 48% who didn't vote would actually care to know what is in a party's platform- they are paying attention to what the party's and candidate's history, reputation, and actions.

[guillaumeb]

211. Excellent observations.

Actions speak far more than words.

[wasupaloopa]

55. We talked about idealists vs pragmatists

quite a bit here.

I feel idealists do not vote if their issues are not front and center. Being pragmatic and voting just to get back in power does not appeal to them. Nor does voting against the enemy.

[guillaumeb]

69. An excellent distinction.

One should, in my view, be both idealistic and pragmatic. The proportion varies.

[radical noodle]

135. Being an idealist

who doesn't vote for the person who comes closest to representing their ideas makes the idealist foolish, particularly if the opposing person is so far from one's values. No candidate will be everything everyone wants... EVER.

[DeeDeeNY]

3. Wise words

[guillaumeb]

6. Thank YOU. oem

[HopeAgain]

7. +100

[guillaumeb]

8. Thank YOU. oem

[billh58]

9. Democrats:

When we get out the vote, we win. We can get out the vote if we promote Democratic goals and values.

[guillaumeb]

12. Agreed, but not all voters are as enthusiastic or informed

as the typical DU poster. The Democrats must motivate the unmotivated and the apathetic. One is to offer a clear alternative to the GOP lunacy. And to promote this clear alternative at every opportunity.

[billh58]

17. The clear alternatives

are the Democratic values that you mentioned in the OP: "single payer, free college, far higher taxes on the rich, a lowered age for Social Security benefits, and freedom to unionize."

We must get past the "both parties are the same" bullshit.

[George Eliot]

35. Your list is a Sanders' list

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/robert-reich-how-clinton-and-obama-failed-defend-middle-class

Clinton advocated some late as did Obama but acting on them . . . ? Nothing is simple and blind loyalty achieves nothing.

[lapucelle]

86. The Clinton that Reich is talking about in that article is Bill, not Hillary.

How insulting it is to conflate a woman with her husband as if she has no separate identity.

According to OnTheIssues.org, Bill is a populist-leaning liberal while "the missus" is a hard-core liberal. BS (like HRC) is also rated hard-core liberal.

[aikoaiko]

224. Not when 2 for the price of 1 is a offered as an asset.

How soon people forget.

[tomp]

253. This characterization of the clintons is bogus.

Only two little blocks away from as left as you can get?

That's just plain wrong. They are centrist moderates at best.

[lapucelle]

259. Some prefer to rely on data and professional analytics

like that employed by On the Issues.org rather than on random Facebook and internet "punditry".

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/candidate_map.asp?a1=1&a2=1&a3=1&a4=4&a9=1&a16=5&a10=5&a5=5&a7=4&a8=5&a14=1&a15=1&a17=4&a19=4&a18=3&a6=1&a20=4&a11=1&a12=4&a13=1&i1=1&i2=1&i3=1&i4=1&p=80&e=5&t=21

http://www.ontheissues.org/Bill_Clinton.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/VoteMatch/candidate_map.asp?a1=1&a2=1&a3=2&a4=2&a9=1&a16=2&a10=4&a5=5&a7=2&a8=5&a14=1&a15=2&a17=1&a19=5&a18=4&a6=1&a20=2&a11=1&a12=2&a13=2&i1=1&i2=1&i3=1&i4=1&p=68&e=23&t=16

[guillaumeb]

36. Both parties are not at all the same.

But some politicians from both parties share certain assumptions about the world, and the US role in the world.

[George Eliot]

10. Wonder if people will respond ... seems anger and blame provoke responses over thoughtful posts

The "far left" is simply FDR policy which no longer seems to be in vogue. Americans today are centrist-left/right with many having moved from the older center to center-right without realizing it and Republicanism seems to have won the day. Scares the hell out of me. Nothing like the corporate media "left" telling people what to think to keep the status quo.

[guillaumeb]

44. Anger and blame have their places,

but analysis is also needed. And the key is to motivate the apathetic, not pursue older, racist whites in an attempt to recapture the Reagan Democrats.

[George Eliot]

63. Odd response. Apathy due to what exactly? Who are these apathetic voters?

You seem to discount older Reagan voters. You don't want racists - who does? So just how would you describe this apathetic voting block? The young voted for Sanders massively.

[guillaumeb]

66. The young voted in large numbers for Sanders,

but many in my age bracket (60+) did also.

And the vast majority of Sanders' voters voted for HRC.

[mdbl]

83. Reagann democrats

now there's an oxymoron

[guillaumeb]

202. Or a recognition that the Democratic Party is not of one mind on everything. eom

[mdbl]

270. Collectively, it would be nice if we found common ground again

No one has to be of one mind, but we can still aspire to truth, justice and fair treatment. Oh, I guess that's just too much for some?

[Squinch]

106. No, it's not FDR policy. It's the wing of the party that has one issue and that takes its ball

and goes home if people say there are other issues that are equally important.

No one is disagreeing with FDR policy.

[emulatorloo]

130. +1

[betsuni]

140. +1

[George Eliot]

154. Your response is inflammatory and I can't figure out what that "ball" is...

be more specific please.

[greeny2323]

11. Everyone who advocated not voting for Clinton is to blame

That's Stein and the Sarandon types.

We've been through this before in 2000 with the Naderites.

[guillaumeb]

13. And the 48% who did not vote?

Blaming Stein and Sarandon ignores the 48%, in my view.

[Steven Maurer]

250. We blame them for listening to the a-holes saying not to vote for Clinton too

But the kook-left who did their best to suppress the left vote take most of the blame.

[George Eliot]

15. Simplistic thinking. How explain the Trump win when so many Republicans advocated not voting Trump?

[Squinch]

143. Not after the primary was over. Once Trump(R) was the candidate, they did what

they always do. They shut their mouths and went on TV and told everyone how much better he was than Hillary. Even the ones who hated him.

And I notice that most of your posts include a personal insult about the person you are responding to. Is that intentional?

[George Eliot]

151. personal insult? Let me know what you regard as an insult please

Like who? George Will, George Bush, GHWB . . . voted Clinton if you can trust their views and words which I have no reason not to. It has been clearly shown that many democrats in the rust belt voted Trump. George Will no longer has a place at Fox. William Cristol is on record as anti-Trump. Who is the "they" to which you refer? Me, I would have preferred not to worry about republicans voting republican but democrats who voted republican.

[Squinch]

155. If you don't know when you are insulting people, that's yours to fix, not mine.

[George Eliot]

171. Ah...

[NCTraveler]

14. Tom Perez is working to reach out to them.

As are so many others.

Doing some reading in this area would help. It’s clear you are not informed from your abuse of a broad brush attach that is not only faulty, but deceptive as well.

Is this your attempt at it? Just more attacks on Democrats. That’s all this is.

[George Eliot]

16. Perez is wrong person to reach out. He is exactly what blue collar voted against. Do your hw.

Start here: https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/robert-reich-how-clinton-and-obama-failed-defend-middle-class

[NCTraveler]

18. .

[George Eliot]

23. Yes. Kicking, screaming and tantrums trump reading & info every time.

Ah. We will not survive if you continue tantrums over intellect. Truly.

[Squinch]

144. You know this makes no sense whatsoever, right?

[George Eliot]

148. what? that little cartoon kicking and screaming? haha

sorry you don't get it

[Squinch]

149. No, I get it fine. It's just that you, superior though you think you are, are making no sense.

Sorry you don't see that.

[George Eliot]

159. You are too emotional to see it. Reason is futile when emotions take over.

[Squinch]

161. I see you George. I know. Your slip has fallen.

[George Eliot]

164. ???

[Squinch]

165. This is complicated.

[NCTraveler]

167. Seriously.

That was your reply to attack Perez with and you spout intellect. Actually some good stuff in there. I have read it before. Very limited value in it as a reply to my post and an attack on Perez. I’m assuming you simply think people won’t read it.

I have no clue what you are talking about a kicking and screaming tantrum. More deflection. Not one thing in my post fits the bill for that. Simple baseless attacks clearly laced with projection.

[Squinch]

170. It's actually a tactic used very consistently.

Seems like the purpose is shit-stirring, insulting DU posters and trying to get them angry using these bizarre non-sequiturs.

Hmmmm.... whatever could THAT mean?

[stonecutter357]

177. whatever could THAT mean? it means lots of RWNJ's and russian trolls.

[Squinch]

182. Ayup.

[George Eliot]

174. Quite the contrary. I hope people read it. It expresses the disappointment in the current policies

of the party and Perez was intentionally chosen by the party establishment to protect the policies and priorities of establishment Dems. You don't have to agree. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/10/tom-perez-dnc-shake-up

My post was met with a kicking and screaming tantrum throwing icon. If the poster of that icon wishes to be thought of as a tantrum-throwing whiny kid, I'm happy to oblige. I would never represent myself that way.

[lapucelle]

268. I think that is an ROFL icon.

https://www. democraticunderground.com/ emoticons /rofl.gif.

If you copy the link with the bolding removed, you get this:



I'm so glad I looked this up! I would never want to represent myself as someone who doesn't understand basic iconography.

[mcar]

54. What blue collar?

This article is nonsense.

[bettyellen]

216. The racists. They don't like Perez- shocking!

I guess we need to find some white men to make them confortable? LOL.

[Wwcd]

305. Make that Old white men.

Apparently that's who those 48% are waiting for..next time around.

[emulatorloo]

131. You clearly know nothing about Tom Perez

A strong advocate for labor and civil rights for years.

[stonecutter357]

176. fail...

[bettyellen]

215. "He is exactly what blue collar voted against" - yeah they loved "The Wall" and hated DACA-

So Perez isn't going to go over well with them. Hikarious that a year later people are still pushing the meme it was mostly about economics. That was debunked so many times.

[guillaumeb]

45. Your position is also clear.

As to your implication that I am ill-informed or uninformed, you have the right to an opinion on this. But my post is not an attack, far from it, it is a recognition of what is obvious to many of us.

[bagelsforbreakfast]

97. Thanks - too many purposefully deaf .

[NCTraveler]

168. I was stating the obvious.

It’s actually not opinion. It’s fact that Perez is going after them. Fact/opinion are not interchangeable and you seem to confuse the two words.

Let’s go fifty state strategy. I know you have a serious issue with Perez bringing it back but you should give him a shot.

Donate to the DNC today. Try supporting Democrats instead of relentlessly attacking them. Let’s beat Republicans.

[guillaumeb]

207. You were obviously framing.

All 3 of your paragraphs do not reflect what I actually wrote.

And electoral history from 2000 on refelcts that there are problems. One can ignore the problems and blame
the voters, or
the far left, or
Jill Stein, or
Susan Sarandon,
but that is far too simplistic.

[George Eliot]

175. Those who judge will never understand and those who understand will never judge

A quote I read by someone named Wilson Kanadi. I don't know who he is but I sure like that quote! From my perspective, it fits. Perhaps we've disagreed a bit but I think the essence of your post is spot on.

[OilemFirchen]

19. Why did 48% of eligible, registered voters decide to not vote in 2016?

Last edited Sat Dec 2, 2017, 10:17 PM - Edit history (1)

A myriad of reasons, including the confusion, spite and apathy crafted by the hipster "progressives" like a fine kale IPA.

It's all about the bitter, innit?

[George Eliot]

25. You can do better.

[OilemFirchen]

31. Not for this crowd.

'Taint worth the effort.

[lapucelle]

328. This was the first presidential election since the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/opinion/the-voters-abandoned-by-the-court.html

[George Eliot]

21. Thanks from an FDR Democrat!

[DangerousUrNot]

26. Thank you thank you!

Fingers can be pointed at all directions. You damn right I’m going to fight for my “far left” comrades. Lol. Not saying they are completely innocent but they get too much blame.

[elleng]

27. THANKS, guill!

[guillaumeb]

47. You are welcome.

Blame is not enough, we need recognition of the obvious. That if 48% are unmotivated, we can ignore them or attempt to understand the why behind the apathy.

And if we understand the why, will we change direction in response to that why?

[elleng]

57. Exactly.

[applegrove]

28. Because they never do.

[guillaumeb]

48. But why?

Do they feel there is no difference?
If so, why?

[applegrove]

75. They are made to feel apathetic by not having their issues solved. But

darned if some rich person wants a tax break on sending their child to private school they'll get that.

[guillaumeb]

78. True.

The GOP was always seen, in my time in the US, as the party of the rich.

[MuseRider]

30. Agreed and thank you.

A lot of quiet reflection is required to do that but these days the typical response to anyone who does not do what you like is, "fuck you" every day, every single damned day. Maturity and doing the actual work to do better than that is not seen much around here anymore.

[George Eliot]

37. +1

[Lunabell]

32. This!

I'm the far left and I vote Democratic.

[BadgerMom]

42. Me, too.

I’m (sadly) the most liberal person I know. And I know many liberals. I think liberal ideas need to be embraced. Voters like them. We lose trying to be Repubs lite. (Pointing no fingers here. I voted for Hillary and was pleased with her positions.)

[Lunabell]

46. I also voted for Hillary

Though I disagreed with several of her positions. She was the MUCH better candidate. I can happily report I have never voted republican in my life. Or even independent. I still have faith we can progress in the Democratic party.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

33. what

a concept!

[oberliner]

34. It's not easy for some folks to take off work

Or get to a polling place and possibly wait in line for many hours.

For some folks, it's quite literally impossible.

[guillaumeb]

49. True. There are many reasons.

Apathy is only one.

[rpannier]

89. Register absentee

That's one way
I work overseas (non-military) and vote absentee
Why aren't we making more strides to get people to register absentee?

You are right about the long lines and the time. It's why I oppose the caucus system

[oberliner]

112. Voting should be made as easy as possible

Unfortunately many on the right are working as hard as they can to do the exact opposite.

[rpannier]

127. Agreed

[Willie Pep]

38. I agree that we need to get more people out to the polls and motivated.

I also agree that the Democrats are not perfect and have problems with trying to motivate people and part of this is the image that we are too close to corporate America and not interested enough in working-class America.

However people like Jimmy Dore, Susan Sarandon, Jill Stein and a huge number of websites sent out the message that there are no differences between the two parties and I think this had an impact on depressing turnout especially among young voters who get most of their information from online sources. For example, on the Naked Capitalism website the thread on the GOP tax bill is full of comments blaming "Clintonites" for what happened.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/12/gop-tax-bill-even-worse-think.html

You can go to many lefty spaces online and see the same thing. I know the Internet is not a good gauge of the population as a whole but I suspect that the "both parties are the same" argument hurt Clinton although I don't think it was the biggest problem she faced.

[Progressive dog]

41. That question is asked after every loss

and will continue to be asked as long as people have the choice of voting for no one. If loud voices keep telling the potential non voters that there is no difference between the parties then there will be fewer voters. That's what the far-left has done since there was a far-left.

[NNadir]

62. Well said. They are a very self-important group, the far left, assuming that they, and only...

...they are so inspiring as to motivate the unmotivated.

However, if the unmotivated were in fact motivated by the far left, the far left would be the center and would win something.

From where I sit, Susan Sarandon and her ilk aren't that inspiring. They're just nuts.

It is often assumed that the political spectrum is line shaped, but my son recently suggested that it's rather horseshoe shaped. There's not much distance between the mind sets on either end.

[stevenleser]

111. You beat me to it. OP doesnt realize that they are part of the problem

not the solution.

[chwaliszewski]

53. +1

I think part of the problem is just human nature. It's easier to blame others instead of ourselves. Personally, I feel like had Bernie (love him!) not ran in the Democratic primary, Hillary would've kicked Donnie's ass. But after our primary, people who would've normally voted Democrat in the general perhaps thought that there should be more than the standard two choices of either Dem or Repub and decided to make a statement by not voting or whatever.

I agree with the OP, we need to find out how to fix this before the next election.

[elleng]

56. Too damn much squabbling here, folks.

Clearly not your intention, guill, but it seems many here just can't help themselves, break into 'us' vs 'them' even when we ALL are US.

PAY ATTENTION, folks, and work on getting out the vote and supporting progressive candidates.

[brooklynite]

58. Probably the same reason they didn't vote for decades previously...

America has rarely had a high voter turnout.

[GaryCnf]

114. While true

We are sticking our heads in the sand if we keep living in denial of the fact that (when looking at the Blue Wall states in what I call the pre-WTF states where the polls were either closed or would close in an hour when PA was called for Trump) our centrist campaign was a dismal failure in inspiring black turnout, or turnout among any oppressed group for that matter. (60,000 less votes in Wayne Couny, Michigan) The irony in that is that the campaign which CLAIMED to be centered on social justice lacked any credible message for oppressed constituencies. The tragedy is that the privileged political class that inhabit message boards would rather blame those constituencies for not reading our platform than our campaign for refusing to talk to them in front of its white suburban "Clinton/Reagan Democrat" supposed "friends"

[Cary]

60. Oh please

Anyone can go around and around and obfuscate and accuse and sow discord and discontent.

I recall my grade school principal giving a speech about being a good follower being an under rated skill. That means one enables leaders. The radical left wants something? Ok. Stop being obnoxious and odious. Stop sowing discord and discontent. Do positive works. Make good things happen.

It's not that difficult, guillaumeb. Do you know why the radical left sows discord and discontent? The radical left left sows discord and discontent because they want to sow discord and discontent. Period.

I don't want discord and discontent. I want Democrats to win. Does blah blah blah help is to win? No. Blah blah blah does not help us to win.

[guillaumeb]

65. Illustrative of the issue that I attempted to address.

I understand this is your opinion, and some share it.

I too want Democrats to win, but I also want a recognition of the many reasons why Democrats are losing.

[Cary]

108. Yawn.

[guillaumeb]

206. Yawn if you will, as Democrats lose seats.

And as the GOP remakes the political landscape as some insist on blaming "the far left" and other assorted and imagined villains.

[Cary]

210. So you're claiming superiority?

Excuse me but your posts just have not impressed me. Nor has your agenda and we are not just talking about this past cycle. If you have all the answers then why are you always playing catch up with this "do as so say or you will lose" mantra?

Sorry, I don't believe you. Not only do I not believe you, but from my perspective your positions are detrimental to your own causes. That's based on observation.

[guillaumeb]

217. You are entitled to your opinion.

And the non-voters are actually expressing their opinions in many cases by not voting.

I do not claim to have solutions. There are so many obstacles, including a money disadvantage, a SCOTUS that values money over voters, a GOP that is unconcerned with voting and is concerned only with winning.

And in my view, most Democratic politicians avoid talking about gerrymandering, and voter suppression.

[Cary]

235. Gee, thanks

I wasn't asking for anyone's permission. I was pointing out reality, as opposed to ideology.

People, generally, aren't ideological. Whether I agree with you or not is irrelevant. Most people aren't going to care about your ideology and most people will tune your ideology out.

If you don't want "conservative" you must understand that reality. You cannot win with your ideology but you can add to things like irrational loathing of Democrats. That irrational loathing has a constituency.

Look at this tax scam. Susan Collins, Jeff Flake, and John McCain voted for it proving that they have limited integrity. The Republican Party is corrupt. The Republican Party is evil. It is time for that Party to die.

I dedicate myself to that, and I look at what you're saying through that lens. I ask whether you help that evil Party, or add to the effort to hurt it.

You tell me.

[guillaumeb]

264. What you call reality is your opinion of what constitutes reality. eom

[Cary]

269. I'm correct.

But that doesn't matter to you. Does It?

Be honest. Your ideology is your priority. That's the difference between us.

[guillaumeb]

274. I understand your viewpoint.

And given that, I understand the motivation behind your response.

[Cary]

276. My motivation is to defeat Republicans and elect Democrats

Period. End of story.

Spin that any way you think you need to. You have my permission, if not my respect. FYIW you get my respect if you're acting to defeat Republicans and elect Democrats.

[OilemFirchen]

68. 👍

That sounded a bit Lenny Bruce-ish.

Maybe just the "blah blah blah" part. But good enuf.

[Tavarious Jackson]

64. What's wrong with incremental solutions?

Some progress is better than REGRESSION... Once you recognize that, you will know the power of incremental change and sometimes it's the only way we can accomplish anything..

Also, I never even heard of Reagan democrats. I was a kid in LA when he was president and he cut the school lunch program. At the time, in L.A it was the only meal some kids ate. I remember activist giving out lunch sacks to kids at local parks.. He was horrible. In my opinion, democrats need not to court older white voters. I think we need people of color and women. I'm ok with single payer and free college but I also recognize that even the current k-12 public school we have lacks funding and struggles so how do we get it done without incremental change?

[guillaumeb]

72. FDR pursued large change.

He pursued it because voters insisted upon it. He pursued it because of a growing and aggressive union movement.

[Tavarious Jackson]

82. It was a different time

I see no such movement. I wish I did, but I don't. Why didn't this movement you talk about rise up and take to the streets against this tax scam? Instead, they went to protest Hillary's book signing..Why? She has admitted not ever running again so why? The left, and I mean all of us, myself included needs to band together and accept one another. ALL spectrum's of the left.

[guillaumeb]

205. I agree with you.

The unionized workforce has been a target of the right wing since the FDR Administration. Thus the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act to weaken labor.

[lapucelle]

93. Large change in limited sectors

with nary a reference to marginalized peoples.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29595

[thucythucy]

98. FDR was able to pursue "large change"

to the extent that he did because a third of the nation was unemployed, the economy was dead in the water for three full years, the banks were facing universal collapse, and the Midwest was facing the worst ecological disaster in our history thus far (the Great Dust Bowl). I don't think we'd want to live through another era like that, would we?

Then too, he had the support of white Southerners, who were Democrats solely because Lincoln was a Republican. The "Solid South" was a greater Democratic bastion then than the west coast is today. Since that time all the southern white racists have crossed over to the KGOP. Should we try to get them back?

Also, many people today assume that the social safety net that FDR helped install is something inevitable and permanent. They won't know it can be destroyed, until it is. Same as younger women who just assume that abortion will always be legal. Until they need one and it isn't.

BTW, the "far left" of the 1930s considered FDR little better than a racist reactionary war monger. Folks like Pete Seeger and Woody Guthrie wrote editorials about how FDR wanting to reinstate the draft (in 1940, in response to the Nazis taking Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, France) was inciting war to "enrich the ruling class." This was the standard Communist Party line, and the USCP had quite the following then. It wasn't until the Soviet Union was attacked in June, 1941, that this hunk of the US far left finally started to support FDR's foreign policy.

I hugely admire FDR, as I do JFK, but I think there are a lot of people on the left today who view them both through rose colored glasses. The far left HATED FDR--some still do because they blame him for "saving capitalism." The far left HATED JFK as a Cold Warrior, Joe McCarthy supporter, and civil rights equivocator.

As for why so many Americans don't vote?

Voter suppression

Election Day on a work day, and many workers can't get off work, arrange child care, or whatever else they need to do to stand in line for hours

Crappy weather--having our elections the first Tuesday in November made sense in 1788--when most people were farmers and couldn't take the time to vote until the harvest was in, but makes ZERO sense today

gerrymandering

bread and circuses (especially the circuses, i.e. professional sports, NASCAR, etc.)

AND, finally, celebrities like Sarandon and provocateurs like Stein and Nader who spend their time running around shouting "There's no difference, they're all the same, what's the point" who get a huge amount of attention because....well, because they're famous, and many people in this country are swayed by that.

Addressing ALL those problems will do a lot to change things. Constantly beating up on the Democratic Party won't.

[JI7]

103. The country was in different shape then and those who benefited were mostly white

[rpannier]

91. I'm fine with your targeting idea

Now, get the targeted groups to vote in off year elections -- most governor races are in the so-called off-year
Older people, especially older whites vote in every election.
We're also beginning to find ourselves in a bad political construct as far as the senate goes.
With younger voters moving to the cities and out of rural states, we're likely to see more Wyomings and Idahos in the next 30 years. Which means, while we may get the House seats we want, we'll continually be unable to take control of the senate.

[Tavarious Jackson]

95. I see the opposite happening

I see us taking the Senate easily in 2018 but not the house unless we get out on grassroots level right now and with all the power we can muster.

[Tatiana]

67. Part of that 48% was people who thought Hillary would win because she was "inevitable."

Many people stayed home because they thought she had it in the bag, but would likely have taken the time and effort to vote (for Clinton) if they had realized the urgency. Indeed, part of the media's abdication of responsible reporting during this fiasco was projecting the image that Hillary was inevitable which motivated wingnuts to get out and vote, while suppressing the Democratic vote. People were laughing at Michael Moore's prediction that Trump would win. The so-called mainstream media didn't take him seriously until the day after the election.

The biggest thing we can do is stress to our voters that they need to take the opportunity to vote seriously and vote like it was the last time they would be able to do so.

When we regain power, we need to make election day a national holiday.

[guillaumeb]

73. Recommended.

A national holiday indeed.

[Spider Jerusalem]

71. That, and "what can we do about voter suppression?"

and "why did a majority of white voters in almost every demographic vote for Trump, and what can we do to do better?"

[guillaumeb]

76. True.

Voter suppression should have been an urgent issue for the Democrats since Bush stole Florida in 2000. But it was not.

[stuffmatters]

262. Agreed. Voter suppression plus misrepresentation via the Electoral College

It's been obvious since Bush Gore, Democrats' votes in the US are not fairly represented either at the polls because of Repug voter suppression and then in the Plantation era, Slave Owner relic of the Electoral College.

We've lost the Presidency THREE of 5 elections even though we won the popular vote, despite blatant suppression of our Democratic voters.

[George Eliot]

81. I agree but that will require change in the policies/priorities of the party.

Give them something to come back to.

[leftofcool]

84. Imagine that I don't care why they didn't vote

I don't care who didn't vote, who wrote in Bernie, who voted for Stein, or who voted for a Gorilla. Elections have consequences and now they can pay for those consequences. I have sympathy and no fucks left to give.

[seaglass]

90. Voter turnout in 2016 was 60%. Other than 2008 (61.6) and 2004 (60.1) we haven't had a Presidential

election over 60% since 1968.

http://www.fairvote.org/voter_turnout#voter_turnout_101

I agree with at least one of Fairvote's solutions - a national popular vote.

This is a structural issue not specific to the 2016 election

[Scruffy1]

96. The term far left is a right wing meme.

I have had the pleasure of working with communists, anarchists, many shades of Marxists. I mean some real far left types. They are so small in number to be inconsequential and usually vote democratic. Whenever I hear the ter "Far Left " to describe progressives I cringe. Figure the person talking wouldn't know a Troskyist from a Maoist. It's just a right wing meme popularized by Billo.

[zentrum]

100. Yup.

[leftstreet]

113. +1

[George Eliot]

152. +1 CNN debate had Cruz calling Sanders "socialist" as often as he could fit it in.

Watching the CNN televised debate between Sanders, Cantwell, Cruz and Scott, reliably, Cruz called Sanders "socialist" many times. That's the name-calling meme on the right. Sanders lets it go.

[LongTomH]

201. +1000

The term 'far left' is an example of Loaded Language:

Loaded language or prejudicial language is language intended to produce an emotional response in the mind of the audience, in order to directly affect their views on a topic.

The use of loaded language confers certain qualities to a statement that often amount to an emotional appeal. "Liberal", for instance, may be (and often is) used among Conservatives in the United States as an insult, implying that the person so-labeled disregards normal moral standards. The true meaning of such a term often becomes obscured due to the prevalence of the coded meaning.

[zentrum]

99. Keith Ellison

....agrees with you and thinks the party needs to get more clearly progressive.

"Far Left" attacks are so not helpful and IMO, tone deaf to what much of the country--especially its young people are calling for.

Thanks for posting.

[JI7]

101. Why don't those who complain and attack the democratic party get those votes ?

Why doesn't the green party get those votes ?

[Squinch]

105. Excellent question.

[George Eliot]

169. Did it occur to you that those who are green are pretty smart people and knew that if they

voted green Trump would be the next Pres so they voted for the next best candidate? Not every voter sees everything in black and white. Working for your candidate of choice in the primary is called "democracy" but you vote the best you know when the candidates are set.

Had every progressive actually voted green - not that every progressive is a green - may have handed trump a clear majority and in my opinion few progressives or greens wanted that. Greens are closer to Dems than Republicans. Don't fall into that trap of blaming everybody but the purist Clintonite.

[mountain grammy]

102. Thank you from this lefty.

[rickyhall]

107. Voting

I've always thought that if everybody voted the lying criminal repug party
wouldn't stand a chance.

[denvine]

109. Thank you!

There is so many posts blaming the far left, what ever that is, but not admitting that the Democratic Party was becoming more corporatist ever since Bill Clinton. That is when the lines started blurring. Before you attack me, a corporatist Democrat is by far better than a Republican but for those who may not be politically involved or informed they saw blurred lines. They saw nothing changing for the middle class or poor and the richer getting richer and the lobbyist in control, Democrat or Republican. If we as a party refuse to see this and not listen to what the people or saying but instead blame them for the downfall, we will continue to lose enthusiasm for the Democratic Party as it has been perceived. Listen to what the people want as opposed to wanting to keep the status quo because that is what you want.

[Snackshack]

115. Imagine all the people...

Oh wait...wrong reality.

It is easier to blame the so called far left since there is a tangible target to focus that blame on than to admit that the Democratic Party needs to make some hard choices and changes in order to revitalize apathetic voters.

[guillaumeb]

214. Very true. Far easier to blame than to fix.

Especially if one refuses to admit that things need to be fixed.

[Adrahil]

116. Fairly simple really...

Bread and circuses. For many viliters, they just dont care about politics, sonlong as they can still watch "keeping up with the Kardashians, or whatever. They are kept distracted, and thinking and caring takes effort.

[Stonepounder]

118. I could consider myself 'far left' - about as far left as you can go.

My feelings are much more socialistic than most people.
I voted for Bernie in the primary and campaigned for him.
When Hillary got the nomination, I campaigned for her and voted proudly for her.

Why don't people vote? My own suspicion is that they are a disgusted with out government as I am and don't feel like either Dems or Rethugs give a Good God Damn about the voter. They only care about a) doing the bidding of their big doners and b) feathering their own nest.

And you know what, I think that by and large they are correct. The Dems aren't quite as rapacious as the GOP, but the Dems can't sell their ideas and we allow FOX to spread the word that Libs are a bunch of intellectual elites who care only for their ivy league buddies. And that the GOP is the party that cares about the 'working man'. <sigh>

The first thing we need to do is pass a Constitutional Amendment effectively repealing Citizens United and prohibiting lobbyists and Corporate lawyers from actually writing legislation.

Maybe, if we could convince tuned-out voters that the people they elect actually give a damn about them we might get more folks out to vote.

[Squinch]

146. You are saying both parties are the same. You are saying that today, in this moment,

in the face of the mountain of proof that we face to the contrary every day.

There is no end to the ridiculousness.

[George Eliot]

172. That's interesting.The party has become the party of professionals. At least that's the slant I've

been reading lately. A huge new class of people including techies. I wish we had a more representative system like the Canadians.

[NanceGreggs]

123. Sounds good on paper

… but the truth is that some people will never vote, and no amount of coaxing, cajoling, lecturing and/or belittling will change their minds.

They don’t “get it”. They don’t see its importance, or understand its impact. I’ve known people like this, and their reasons for not voting vary – but are, to some extent, similar: ”I’m not interested in/don’t follow politics – so I leave it to those who are interested to make the decisions. I don’t understand how the government works, so I can’t make an informed decision about who should be elected. All politicians are the same, so why should I have to choose among them?”

The fact is I don’t want the uninterested and uninformed voting, for the obvious reason: if they did vote, they’d be voting based on criteria that has nothing to do with a politician’s history, policies, or goals. Instead, they’d vote based on who “looks” good, who “sounds” good, and who appeals to them based on how they’ve been portrayed in the media – or things like being of the same religion, the same ethnicity, the same background as they are.

It is that kind of thinking that gave us Trump. We know that the uninformed vote Republican simply because they are uninformed. They are easily manipulated into voting against their own best interests because they can’t be bothered to look behind the rhetoric, and investigate what lurks behind it.

What we need is informed voters. We need to appeal to those who are already interested enough to vote in the first place. Trying to appeal to those who aren’t interested in politics is like trying to convince people who aren’t interested in sports to follow basketball or hockey – it’s just not going to happen.

That doesn’t preclude reaching out to those who can become interested, or trying to educate the young about the importance of being involved. But we should be realistic enough to recognize that the 48% who don’t vote includes people who – if literally forced to do so – would cast their ballots based on things no educated, well-informed voter would even consider relevant.

Do we really want people who have “no interest in politics” – for whatever reason – to be part of the election process? Do we really believe that the majority of those people would vote Democratic, when they can’t be bothered to learn the difference between the two parties to begin with? Do we really want to just assume that the staunch non-voters among us are going to wake up to a reality they have refused to acknowledge all along?

I’m all for the Democrats reaching out to those who understand WHY we vote, and the consequences thereof – whether they are first-time voters, or have voted their whole lives. What I am NOT for is trying to convince the proudly can’t be bothered ill-informed to vote based on the ignorance that led to their lack of interest in the first place.

[mvd]

125. Good thread. I really felt Hillary would win, and I wasn't thrilled..

about her candidacy. But I wish now that I was more involved. The blame game doesn't help, as it's about 2018 and 2020 now. As far as Stein goes, I agree that she never was serious about building a base of support. She's one of those 3rd Party candidates that just shows up for the election. It happens almost every time so we should be prepared for it. We can't expect everyone to stay out.

We should have won easily. I think the country went absolutely insane with the Trump voting. Part of that is on us - not many are as politically astute as those on DU, and we need to find a way to reach those voters.

[The_Casual_Observer]

126. I belong and support the DSA

I voted for Hillary. Nothing else made any practical sense. I intend to volunteer next year to oust the last remaining republican assholes out of congress in the local districts.

[caraher]

128. Right on!

Capture 10% of disaffected voters and their votes swamp those of the "far left"

[brewens]

129. I think real liberal candidate will win. Not some "progressive", or just enough to not

be as bad as the republicans. Single payer and economic justice is where I'm at. And guess what, the more conservative democrats will vote for a liberal, just like I voted for Hillary.

[Squinch]

147. Single payer and economic justice do not make a "real liberal." A REAL liberal

understands that racial justice and gender justice are as important as economic justice.

[George Eliot]

162. Arguing for the sake of arguing. Racial justice and gender justice depend on economic justice.

The 1964 civil rights act was a step toward economic justice as well as racial and, it turned out, gender justice. This is complicated.

[brewens]

179. I'm all for that too. If a candidate does not want single payer and economic justice. I'm

not interested.

[Squinch]

184. And if a candidate does not equally prioritize racial and gender justice, I'm not interested.

The "all boats rise in a rising tide" bullshit is bullshit.

[ucrdem]

133. RW myth. In fact, Nov. '16 turnout broke records. In CA it was 75.27%.

It was high everywhere else too by early indications. Had other states bothered to count all their votes the results would no doubt have reflected that. Clearly, the ones reporting final tallies on the evening of Nov. 8 didn't count all their votes. In any case "Dems didn't turn out" is a RW myth that we shouldn't keep repeating.

http://www.pe.com/2016/12/20/novembers-presidential-election-broke-records-in-california/

[George Eliot]

163. Thank you. Trump did motivate a group of people that were looking for economic help. Many were dems

They will be sorely disappointed.

[ucrdem]

197. Yes, that was semi-official meme 2.0, after the low-turnout meme was exposed.

The WWM cohort who switched from Barack to Trump because of economic uncertainty. There might have been some of that but my point is it wouldn't made a difference if the votes had been counted accurately. As best I can determine early and provisional votes in key red states were ignored and election-night tallies were electronically manipulated to game the EC.

[George Eliot]

246. Do you have evidence for that? I can believe it but would like to see some evidence.

[ucrdem]

258. Screen-shots: Wisconsin vote totals don't match ballots cast

Lots more where that come from which is my DU journal.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/12512620889

[joshcryer]

137. This assumes no voter depresion by the Republicans.

When they specifically targeted the white vote.

[JHan]

138. nah I'm good critiquing forces which only serve to further supress votes, or lead to bad outcomes

on top of voter suppression from the GOP. Wherever those harmful efforts exist I will critique them.

And too often there is confusion over having a message and whether that message is able to pierce through Trumpian noise or the way Media frames issues, and the evils of bothsidism - the stupid idea that both sides are the same. On this site i see nonsense about Democrats being "GOP -lite" .

Just this year, when Dems announced "A Better Deal" slogan you couldn't stop the naysayers and doom and gloomers shouting it down, despite the fact that it is basically what was in the platform in 2016, which progressives had a hand in ..and what amused me about the whole thing was the fact that people forgot that in 2006, Dems swept into Congress with “together, we can do better.” or some such thing- . Read this and tell me it isn't a mirror image of convos happening right now: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2005/10/24/159298/-

[betsuni]

141. +1

[JHan]

241. Imagine you have malcontents on the left blaming Democrats for the passage of the tax bill.

I am supposed to keep quiet and not ridicule the idiocy of these people?

[jimlup]

139. Bravo!

[JustAnotherGen]

156. What happened

To the votes in Michigan? You gotta ask that.

Will black people be able to vote? Ask that.

Then note - Doug Jones was on the ground in Talladega AL yesterday. My oldest Aunt (93) was at one of those events with several other family members.

Wiki Demographics:
The racial makeup of the city was 48.7% Black or African American, 47.7% White, 0.3% Native American, 0.5% Asian, 0% Pacific Islander, 1.6% from other races, and 1.2% from two or more races. 3.4% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race.

My family is of significance in that small city. If every non-white votes - he wins that small city.

IF they CAN vote they win. There's something rotten in Talladega that hasn't been there since the black folks were solid Republican and my grandfather and his brothers and cousins went to the polls as a group - and armed.

I held a calling event in my home in NJ yesterday and of the seven of us, we had five voters (black) who've learned they were recently unregistered.

It was fun saying so and so was my grand daddy and I'm last signature on all things pertaining to our agribusiness/working farms - but my last call was one of those.

It's heartbreaking to know that all of those safe houses, bails paid, and gun cover my grandfather provided in the voting rights space of the civil rights movement was for nothing.

I'm stating clearly - the left needs to cut the babes in the woods act and trying to blame black folks for not coming out to vote. The voters are being thrown off the rolls. See, when we CAN vote we will - lock step and goose step Democratic.

The best thing the Democratic party has going for it to oppose the stereotype of the "White middle aged and older Republican man" is black women 18 to 118.

Secure that vote - in every single district.

Put that in the top five of the so-called "far left" agenda and don't ever allow a "far left ally" to attack black voting habits. That no attacks call needs to come from the "far left leadership" with absolutely no caveats.

[GaryCnf]

257. First off

At least you will talk about us not turning out. I'm saddened that you stopped with voter suppression when you were talking about the reasons why because that isn't the main thing that happened in Michigan and elsewhere in the upper Midwest and it is far from all that is happening in Alabama. I just got back from my second trip to Montgomery for Jones and the folks I talked to were almost desperate for him to talk about them (and ecstatic when he did just now). I am hopeful. He started with credibility so even a nod makes a big difference.

I am not sure what you mean about the far left commenting on our voting habits. I'm getting multiple alerts for saying we weren't turning out because the party won't talk to us in front of white people and the responses I'm getting are from folks whitesplaining binary elections to me like I was dropped on my head the same way they lecture leftists.

Anyway thank for the real-ness.

[GaryCnf]

260. One more thing

This post, as I hear your posts often are, is inspiring.

Thank you for that too

[democratisphere]

166. The far left provides the same results as the far right.

Nothing good for Democratic Party.

[George Eliot]

173. How could the Democratic Party fix that?

[honest.abe]

187. "why the 48% of non-voters did not vote?"

Because so many believed the lies and misinformation spewing from RW media that there was little to no difference between Hillary and Trump. Furthermore, many who claimed to be Democrats did not work hard enough to denounce those lies and in fact in some cases embraced the lies. It's no wonder many didn't make the effort to vote.

[guillaumeb]

218. Welcome to DU, and the discussion.

I agree that this was one factor, one of many.

[KPN]

188. My thoughts? You are 100% dead on

and expressed what many of us have been trying to masterfully. Thank you.

[tomp]

191. cross-posted from another thread:

If one looks at the history of the u.s., recent or remote, and comes to the conclusion that the problem is with people not voting for democrats all the time every time, one is is suffering from some sort of mental handicap or is a democratic party hack trying to blame others for the failure of the democratic party to attract sufficient numbers of votes.

The democratic party has a long way to go before it can absolve itself of blame for our current troubles. In other words, it's not just about the last election. Our current troubles are of long standing (like the last century plus, at least) and the democratic party is not uninvolved.

The idea that one must vote for the democrat because the republican is worse robs people of their right to their political principles based on observation of historic realities. that, to me is fundamentally unpatriotic. In fact, voting democratic no matter what could be considered as part of the fundamental problem.

I know from personal experience that leftish democratic voters have been lobbying for the party to move left for many decades (at least since the time of Roosevelt) to no avail. What we get is Rahm Emmanuel lecturing us about ponies and obama's cat food commission, and then you all blaming us for all the problems (in other words, we got rightward , corporatist movement). I have always voted democrat even though i have no love for the party with its entrenched leadership and increasingly rightward leanings (among other things). I vote democrat but i advocate for a third party because the party has abandoned me and my kind. I believe many young people see this as well. You can yell about it and cast blame all you want but you are not convincing.

I also don't appreciate young people (or anyone else for that matter attacking "boomers" (of which i am one) and their purported consumerism. Boomers like any other generation are a mix of things. Broad-brushing is wrong.

Third parties are not necessarily a problem in an of themselves. Bill Clinton may have benefitted form Perot running in '92 (there is debate about this, but there is less debate about clinton winning by tacking to the right). But overall, offering the voting public more choices rather than fewer seems just overall more "democratic." The real object of this post is the ongoing suppression of the ideas of the leftish wing of the democratic party. Other threads (and the jist here) have referred to us as "the far left." This is McCarthyite talk and it is part of why the democratic party loses votes from the left. This should be obvious.

I believe Hillary won the election and there are a multitude of reasons why she did not actually gain the office. Attacking the left wing of the party for correctly summing up the history of the democrats is just asking for more trouble.

[CrispyQ]

198. Careful.

Suggesting the dems had any blame in this current clusterfuck will get you labeled a far left purist. I, however, completely agree with you. The dems have played nice for 40 years. Iran-contra, the Clinton witch hunt, the theft of the 2000 election, the WMD lies, the questionable results of 2004, the loss of almost 1,000 state house seats, getting gerrymandered out of the House for a decade, the stolen SCOTUS nom. I thought we were the smart team? The GOP keeps pushing the boundaries, cuz they know there is no one who will push back. If the dems had been a true opposition party for the last four decades, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.

Is there a difference between the two parties? Sure there is. But when are the dems going to fucking fight like there is? My guess, if they ever gain influence again, they will look forward, so as to not create more division in the country, & the rot that is the GOP will fester, & next time they'll get someone more devious than the Con. Assuming we even survive him. Today's GOP have absolutely no morales or scruples.

[tomp]

213. i'm thoroughly familiar with such labeling....

....and the alerts that go with them at times. One always treads the line here in criticizing the democratic party for anything (or more specifically, the entrenched leadership of the party).

The rightward swing of the party leadership is obvious, as a result of the leadership's inability to counter the framing of issues by the repubs, and instead choosing to act more like repubs. Sure, there is a difference between the parties: the repubs are more open about their corporatism than the dems. The democratic party entrenched leadership is almost as pro-corporate, but it's role is to NOT SEEM like it is. It's role is to APPEAR progressive, in order to compete with the repubs for corporate favor. They are the bone-throwing, scraps-from-the-table party. I have long felt that the entrenched democratic party leadership would actually rather lose elections than to actually BE progressive.

We also must remember that the democratic party was not the so-called pro-people party prior to it's latest recent rightward swing. Even Roosevelt had to be seriously threatened by communists and socialists attacking capitalism's failed policies from the left before he got interested in any "new deal." That's why it is so important to defend "the left." Without the constant push from the left the democrats would be exactly like the republicans. The stronger the left, the better off the majority of americans will be. From the posts I see on this board recently, democratic party hacks and flacks are out in force opposing any leftward movement of the party. The media is right there with them.

[Fresh_Start]

193. Want to solve the turnout issue? have another civil war or a mandatory draft....

Apparently only that type of threat gets people off their asses to vote.
Now that seems too big a price to pay for me.

So instead of pretending we can do anything to get those who aren't interested to vote...maybe we should stop splintering our own alliance

[guillaumeb]

219. Essentially write off a large percentage of the electorate?

Leaving us in a contest for the Reagan Democrats?

[CrispyQ]

195. I've said this all along.

Instead of focusing on the undecided voter, which for many years was where the attention went, put the time & energy into the bigger pool of non-voters.

An aside, in 2004, a kid came into our office for Halloween & his front side was decked out in Kerry campaign stuff & his back side was decked out in Bush campaign stuff & he his name tag read, Undecided Voter. I gave him the best candy.

[xmas74]

199. Many will never vote unless forced.

For those Election Day could be a national holiday and they'd still find reasons not to vote. They find politics to be uninteresting and refuse to pay attention.

I don't know. Turn it all into a WWE cage match and allow them to vote like a tv talent show? Let's face it-we've entered an era where our society is imitating the early days of Idiocracy.

[Sancho]

209. There's good evidence of why people don't vote...

and it's not just eligible voters - young people don't vote at near the rate of older people. If the problems are not solved, then the rate of voter participation will remain dismal.

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/4-reasons-why-many-people-dont-vote

1) Registration takes work
2) Education
3) Two parties may not be enough
4) Apathy and burnout

http://www.zencollegelife.com/the-7-reasons-most-americans-dont-vote/

1) They think their vote won't count
2) Too busy
3) Registration requirements
4) Apathy
5) Lines are too long
6) Don't like the candidates
7) Can't get to the polls

Most studies over the last few years parallel the above. To summarize:

-Registration is a nightmare (ID, birth certificates, etc.) and in our mobile society, who can re-register every few years. If you don't answer your mail or miss voting in an election, you may be dropped! If you are registered, you have to serve on jury duty. 25% of people in Florida were born outside the US - if you register they can find your illegal relatives. REGISTRATION is a big issue.

-If you are registered, voting is a nightmare: changing polling locations, ID requirements, long lines, confusing ballots/DREs/machines.

-Primaries already eliminated your favorite candidates!! Why bother?

-You can't trust the voting system anyway!!! DREs are hacked, butterfly ballots don't make sense, half the ballots are tossed out, there's no verified recount.

[guillaumeb]

212. An excellent addition.

But election access is not a "sexy" issue, and the Democrats mostly ignore the issue.

[Sancho]

238. I agree that the DNC, local Democratic candidates, etc. don't put election processes at the top.

The repubs have focused much more on affecting and manipulating elections over the last 20-30 years than the Democrats.

[Martin Eden]

249. +1

There are many reasons for not voting, and making it more difficult has been a deliberate strategy by the party currently in power.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

221. A very large percentage of non-voters would vote Democratic if they did vote. . . . . nt

[Blue_true]

225. You see.

Sorry, your OP is dripping with cluelessness. First, even though most people want social democratic policies, but won't vote for them unless they see them actually work in THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. So far, we don't have working models here. Second, the country is so divided politically that 1.5% of knuckleheads voting Green or writing in WILL result in us losing elections that we should win. Lastly, any candidate for the flag of a political party should be a full fledged member of that party and actually participate in the actual internal mechanics of making the party better, and not expect to parachute in at his or her convenience and expect loyal party members to just fall in line with 100% of everything he or she want.

[pnwmom]

228. Voter suppression through new and onerous ID laws,

and through the cutting back of days and hours of voting.

Voter suppression through the successful efforts of some to make people believe that there are no differences between the two major parties -- so no one's vote really matters.

[heaven05]

232. none on this, this

Last edited Sun Dec 3, 2017, 06:50 PM - Edit history (1)

divisive OP..."Reagan democrats"? No mention of voter suppression, usually in heavily populated AA districts, nothing about russian meddling and how deep that ran in our electoral policies. GET REAL!!!!!!!!!!and nothing about those so out of shape they voted for jill stein, bernie sanders and when that didn't come to fruition, sat out the election, a large section of your 48% and helped the repthugliKKKan running your country now. YOU ARE REFIGHTING THE PRIMARIES. Now is all that matter and the rest with apathy, if they're not awake now...they never intended to be

[Me.]

234. +1

[Locrian]

239. thank you for this thread

We need a strategy and we need to stay in the game.
We're rehashing the "blame game" like it's a football game from 1963.
We need to stop fighting like it's calvary vs tanks, britsh soldier vs rebels, etc.

>>What if the Democratic Party could convince these apathetic non-voters to make a choice?
YES

Anything else is giving up and going home. Thing is - this is war. And you can't go home and still win because they are coming for us. The millions of dollars they spent on spear campaigns, social medial trolling, research, anti-this, anti-that, DISRUTPION, etc - worked. It divided us, put barriers up and allowed them to control us by our emotions.

It's tactics and strategy - but also honesty and conviction. And it needs to translate to VOTERS and that means not just the "choir" but the entire population.

[left-of-center2012]

242. Many "lefty haters" are like a dog gnawing on a bone

Woe to those who would stop them

[Martin Eden]

252. "What if the Democratic Party could convince these apathetic non-voters to make a choice?"

HOW to do that is the biggest question we all should be asking.

Getting souls to the polls takes a lot of effort from a lot of people from the grassroots up, but ultimately I think the real key is fairly straightforward:

Develop strong principles and policies that will be effective in making our country better for all its citizens and future generations, then enlist strong articulate leaders who tell the truth and don't back down and keep pounding away at our core message over and over and over again. Be civil but be forceful. Be sure of your facts and call a lie a lie.

And do not unnecessarily alienate voters, whether you think you can persuade them or not. Just keep doing what is right without being snarky about it. In the long run you will gain trust, and votes. Some will never come around. The truly deplorable are a fact of American politics. Do not feed the trolls, and slowly their numbers will diminish.

More to the point of the OP, it is entirely counterproductive to demonize the "far left." The vast majority of them share most of our values, and are potential allies for the Democratic Party.

Let's focus on defeating the oligarchs and neofascists.

[guillaumeb]

265. Excellent points.

The real struggle is getting from analysis to an action plan.

[Martin Eden]

266. And acting upon it

Where to start?

[guillaumeb]

273. In my view, the Democratic Party, and Democratic voters

must first recognize all the components of the problem. If Democrats do not recognize that GOP voter suppression is a major component of the problem, the problem will be ignored in favor of attempts at messaging.

Included under the title of voter suppression I would put suppression itself, as well as closing polling places and restricting voting hours, as well as legal obstacles to registration such as unreasonable requirements for actually registering and restrictions on organizations helping people to register, as currently exist in Texas.

That would be a start.

[Martin Eden]

283. Agreed

Some attempts at disenfranchising (like racial gerrymandering & voter ID) have been struck down in the courts, but other means of suppressing the vote really are in the hands of state governments controlled by Republicans. It's a bit of a Catch-22 in having to win elections before we can win elections.

[Lil Missy]

255. Doesn't change the fact that the "far left" and 3rd party voters are an issue. Which they are.

And, trying to appeal to the "far left" is just as much a waste of time as trying to appeal to the "far right". There are far more votes in the middle, that CAN be reached.

3rd Party got us:

george the lessor
donald trump

and Bill Clinton (ross perot siphoned votes from poppy bush)

[Demsrule86]

271. There have always been those who don't vote...if you are implying that it has to do with our message

or our party, it doesn't...the far far left is a problem (Greens =stupid people)...when Gore ran we got Bush who enacted United, started two wars, killed thousands of POC during Katrina and caused and economic debacle. Now they gifted us Trump who is now packing the court with righty judges...all the courts. This will have a chilling effect on the progressive agenda for decades no matter who is elected,pushed through a horrible tax cut that will hurt the poor and the middle class...and now they turn their attention to Social Security, medicare and medicaid. Chip is now defunct and thousands of children will die. It took care of many really sick kids. Those who were involved in Trump's election...by not voting, spreading lies about Hillary Clinton (Russian lies and right wing smears),voting for Trump, voting for Stein (same as voting for Trump)...should be deeply ashamed. They literally have blood on their hands...as far as I am concerned such folks who enabled Trump are no better than those Alabama voters apparently about to put Roy Moore in office.

[guillaumeb]

275. So non-voters are unreachable?

I disagree. The difficult part is reaching them.

[Demsrule86]

295. It depends. Some can't vote. Some are unreachable...and I think it is a waste of time to target them

We need to get our vote out.

[guillaumeb]

299. I feel that we need to do both. eom

[Demsrule86]

327. We don't have the money...you ever notice how many people don't give to the DNC these days.

Acorn is gone...we have all sorts of crazy laws about voter registration too...we need to turn out our vote...use our limited resources for that. All the running down of the party has had an effect on support for the party.

[BoneyardDem]

278. What if the exreme lefties (they often admit they are), voted in a manner that didn't help Trump?

wouldn't that have been awesome?

[guillaumeb]

280. How do you define the extreme left,

and how large do you think this extreme left actually is?

Larger than the 48% who did not vote?

[BoneyardDem]

282. as I'd already said in the post above...they often call it themselves.

and now that you've give me the chance to expand, I will. Those extreme lefties includes those that are breathlessly vocal in their labeling of those that are not left enough.

[guillaumeb]

298. I asked 2 questions.

The 2nd was: how large do you think this extreme left is? Is it as large as the 48% who did not vote?

[BoneyardDem]

310. your second question implies a premise that has no baring on a win or a loss

Dems did not need the entirety of the missing 48% to win in the end. I will state that there enough non voters, or voters that went to Stein, write ins, or who outright gleefully voted for Trump, to have made a difference.

[guillaumeb]

336. I disagree.

Far more were prevented from voting by the GOP.

[LanternWaste]

279. Imagine if we solved problems rather than simply point at them

Imagine if we got out from in from in front of a message board and on our own and without fanfare or self-aggrandizement, struggled with those problems rather than exploiting them in a disingenuous attempt to consistently re-fight an ideological battle that was already decided last year.

[guillaumeb]

281. Hundreds, thousands, of posts would have not been posted.

And some of us are actually involved with electoral politics, by phone banking, precinct walking, donating, and speaking out at union meetings and in letter to the local papers.

And that is my story.

[FSogol]

285. Imagine if, instead of trying to divide and bicker on a web forum, that someone actually

went to their local Democratic HQ to volunteer. They would probably discover that the party spends a lot of time, effort, and money registering people to vote and getting them interested. They might even realize that all their high-horse posturing wasn't worth the electrons it took to type the claptrap. Imagine if....

[guillaumeb]

300. Imagine reading #281, located directly above at this time. eom

[Blue_Tires]

291. The river flows both ways

If the BoB/Greens/whoever weren't always trying to start shit or going on Fox News regularly to piss on "establishment" Dems, I wouldn't feel compelled to give it back to them in spades...

And instead of relying on the party to do something guillaumeb, why don't you tell us what you're doing to get eligible disenchanted people to vote?

[guillaumeb]

301. Imagine reading #281, located above. eom

That is what I do, and have done for many years.

[Blue_Tires]

333. Fair enough, and I do the same

(aside from talking to unions, since I'm a state employee)

I stand by my other stuff, though

[guillaumeb]

338. Good for you, and what you do.

And yes, many, including here Sarandon and Stein, simply criticize.

[Downtown Hound]

297. I can ask that question and blame the idiots that voted for Stein

The two are not mutually exclusive.

And, I refuse to call them far left. I consider myself a proud, Antifa supporting, civil disobedience loving, Trump bashing, member of the far left. The people that voted for Stein are not far left. They're useful idiots of the right, and they're too stupid to realize it.

[Eliot Rosewater]

302. Vote in November and for a Democrat, NO MATTER WHAT. Any democrat on the ballot will do.

[guillaumeb]

303. And the first word is VOTE, and vote in every election.

Part of the problem, a huge part, is the fall off in numbers of people voting in non-Presidential elections.

It explains 2010, and the subsequent gerrymandering by the GOP.

[Eliot Rosewater]

304. My recollection is people were pissed Obama didnt fix the entire health insurance problem in less

than 2 yrs, didnt give them a public option.

So they showed him.

[guillaumeb]

306. People expected President Obama to be a Superman,

and they stopped voting and stopped pushing their politicians to get things done. One person cannot work miracles, it takes a village to raise a consciousness.

[Wwcd]

307. Imagine not blaiming the Democratic Party for all the damning one-liners the Kremlin told voters to

..believe about them & their 2016 candidate.

Imagine being that united a force for good vs Kremlin evil.
The Wall St Oligarchs are now sitting in the White House, btw.

Don't buy the Kremlin lie.
1st rule.

[guillaumeb]

308. And imagine a media that was actually informative and unbiased.

Imagine a non-corporate, non right wing media that focused on real issues rather than personalities.

Imagine a media that presented the real Donald Trump rather than creating a mythical successful businessman.

[Wwcd]

312. And imagine that media presenting a sound & solid policy platform from each candidate

..for voters to choose from.
That never happened, even though its what voters deserved to hear.

We had one candidate that came prepared with a solid & future forward, complete policy plan that was completely & intentionally ignored by the media.
Instead voters got an intentional & well cooridinated, well funded smear campaign, a character assasination of that candidate from day 1 until the end.

Media drove the message.

Imagine if we were all united in the understanding that this is what really took place in 2016.

Imagine if we could unite for the future elections knowing & accepting that America was bull-shitted into a coup.
The admission of that reality would stop the next coup attempt.
Imagine that. 🇺🇸

[guillaumeb]

337. True.

It is difficult to imagine it of the US right wing, corporate media..

[R B Garr]

322. Wow, the divisiveness he brings is what the Russians

targeted him for. That he doesn’t call this out is truly pathetic.

[lapucelle]

329. This was the first presidential election since the gutting of the Voting Rights Act.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/09/opinion/the-voters-abandoned-by-the-court.html

[betsuni]

330. +1

[guillaumeb]

339. An excellent response. And all part of the suppression of which I spoke.

Suppression that, oddly enough, is not part of the political dialogue.

[lapucelle]

343. The demise of the Voting Rights Act and the Citizens United decision

were brought to us by the Robert's court which was brought to us by GW Bush who was brought to us by Ralph Nadar with help from Susan Sarandon and the Purity Patrol

because they duped voters into thinking that Al Gore was the lesser of two evils and that both parties are the same.

[Trumpocalypse]

335. You ignore the obvious.

One of the reasons why that 48% didn't vote is because of the extremists on the left who said Clinton was the same or worst than Trump.

[guillaumeb]

340. It is obvious if one accepts it as correct.

But what of the 40 plus % who rarely or never vote in Presidential elections?

[Trumpocalypse]

341. Sounds like you're desperately trying to

absolve people like Jill Stein and Susan Sarandon of any responsibility.

[guillaumeb]

342. It sounds to me as if you misread the post.

But you have the right to your opinion.

[Trumpocalypse]

344. Didn't misread your post.

Those who stayed home or voted for a third party have to take responsibility for their actions and for the situation that we are now in.

[Wwcd]

345. Yup. Stump speech one liners. The bull shit was deep & everyone jumped in the same pool

We heard it from evèryone with a keyboard .
Trump was their choice.