If Everyone Mad/Upset About Chained CPI Directed Their Energy To Getting Progressives Elected

[Yavin4]

to Congress, then that would do more to protect, and maybe enhance, Social Security than anything else. Also, getting angry at Obama is also just empty energy.

Obama is not running for re-election, and the only way to change him is to elect a Congress that wants to do what you want to do.

Everything else is just empty bloviating.

[Andy823]

1. Excellent point.

We all know what happened in 2010 when people "stayed home to teach the president a lesson", and there is no way in hell that is going to help things this time either. Republicans want democrats to stay home, it only helps them not democrats.

We would all be screwed if republicans took over the senate, and kept the house. I really hate it when I see posts on this board trying to encourage people to sit this one out for some stupid reason. A lot of people who "sat" it out in 2010 ended up with republicans running not only their states, but also allowed some pretty insane tea baggers to get into office on the national level. States like Florida, and Wisconsin for example have really paid a huge price for sitting that election out.

[TJrules]

34. they'll be lucky to keep the house n/t

[LiberalFighter]

2. We need to do an end run on the DLC.

[brooklynite]

3. You do know that the DLC hasn't existed in years, right?

But I suppose if the GOP can keep blaming ACORN...

FWIW, DLC advocated policy positions which you were free to agree with or not. It did NOT advocate primary candidates, but it did reflect the fact that there are voters out there, INCLUDING Democrats who aren't as liberal as you, and who might be inclined to support a "mainstream" Democrat over a Republican, when a "progressive" might be too much as a stretch.

Personally, I'm happy to support a progressive IF THEY CAN GET ELECTED. If not, I'd rather support a blue-dog over the Republican alternative.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Now they function under a dba Third Way. As you know, it is their conservative, half Republican

policy that is in contention, not the moniker they hang around those policies at any given time. Many dubious groups alter their title to confound, so that their supporters can sputter that because the name changed, now those right leaning agendas vanished. We all know better. The whole world is watching.
Anyone who votes for a Republican because a Democrat is too liberal is simply a Republican. Those who don't vote because the Democrat is 'too liberal' for them are lazy Republicans.
Folks who say they will support those 'who can get elected' seem to think they can predict the future. I wonder how many people 2006*2008 told Obama he could not get elected and offered up their 'reasoning' as to why he'd fail. So what you do it just decide the progressive 'can't get elected' then you vote for the conservative and support that conservative on the presumption that your prognostication is correct.
I don't believe you have powers of predicting the future. Hell, you are not even forthright about the present.

[brooklynite]

11. Third Way also plays no role in endorsing or recommending candidates.

...and while I can't "predict the future", I have to make educated guesses about it, because I get direct requests for financial support from both incumbents and challengers. And as much as I'd like to, I'm not able to support all of them. So I have to make judgements, based on their district profile, their positions and their political skills as to who can win and who can't. And my experience in doing this since 2004 has taught me that while there may be unique circumstances in any race (see SC-1) in general, a district that's more moderate to conservative (remember, Republicans and Independents get to vote too) is more likely to be amenable to a centrist rather than a progressive, and given the choice of someone who votes with me 60-70% of the time vs someone who votes with me 0% of the time, I'll go with the Centrist.

[Bluenorthwest]

14. But why frame your educated guess as some fact?

Look, you are not the only person who is solicited, who has to make personal decisions about who to support. And that's all you are doing, even now you offer 'in my experience' rather than any facts or figures. What were you doing prior to 2004? Counting my family growing up, I've been at this since 68. And yet you 'remind me' that Republicans can vote, how precious and arrogant that is.
Of course you are free to back candidates you decide are worth your efforts. But that's all you are doing, personal political choices. Trying to make your own choices seem like they are wisdom rather than just your own politics is naff. Make your choices. But when anyone stands up to explain that they can predict winners I have to laugh. Because no one can predict anything but that does not stop them. In professional politics, someone will always claim they 'know' Mitt is going to win. Because in politics, people will claim that the thing they wish for is what is going to happen. For every 'professional' who says X can't win, there are others who say X can't lose. And they all do so with supreme conviction and presumed authority. Many of them will switch predictions for a fee and present the new prediction with conviction and authority.

[LiberalFighter]

13. The reason these blue dogs are given higher consideration is because of the DLC

Even though they have dissolve doesn't mean that their beliefs aren't strongly followed and encouraged by those in politics at the top.

The problem I see with settling for 3rd best with the blue dogs is that they have led everyone to believe that only blue dogs can win. I call bull on that. Considering the major changes that have occurred the so called center that media and politicians claim is more to the right of where it really is. IMO they have been saying that the center has been 6.5 to 7.0 on a scale of 1 to 10 when it has been at least a 5.0. And based on national voting it is to the left. Possibly in the 4.0 to 4.5 range. Especially when more of the young are voting. Also with the fragmenting of the Republican Party now is not the time to wait and see.

[forestpath]

4. I thought my rep WAS progressive. He has excellent records on women's issues and

the environment.

Up until recently, he swore up and down he would fight to protect Social Security.

Now, I can't get a straight answer from his office about why whether he'd vote for Chained CPI or not.

So WTF are we supposed to do when they turn on us?

[Cha]

5. But, but, but, the ever ready pitchforks just got their

tines sharpened!

thanks Yavin.

[MFrohike]

6. Sorry, this is one of the sillier things I've ever seen on DU

Quite frankly, we'd be better served hounding the current batch in Congress to block this idiotic betrayal and bide our time until the "Great Bargainer" is off building his library. Honestly, with friends like him...

[Yavin4]

7. Yes, Because Electing Progressives to Congress is Silly

Whereas whining about the President is a good use of time.

Also, voting out the current batch in Congress IS "hounding" them.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. I've got DeFazio, Weyden and Merkley

And plenty of time to join them in letting the President know how we feel about his betrayal. What State and district do YOU live in, you who are lecturing others? How was your 2010 midterm turnout? Did your methods bring victory? We set records here. Did you? If not, why not?

[Yavin4]

18. I live in NYC, but I help other progressives in other states get elected.

And that's what we should all do. Work to get more progressives instead of the empty calories wasted on complaining about Obama.

[MFrohike]

16. Not quite

The silly part was your conclusion that somehow a left-leaning Congress could change the president. He ain't changing. Give him solid majorities in Congress, like in 09, and he'll be busy undercutting them, just like Rahm, so that he can run up the white flag. Better to kneel on the ball, run out the clock, and find someone less prone to self-destruction.

[Yavin4]

17. The majorities that he had in 2009 were not "left-leaning".

And he lost the super-majorities in early 2010 with the special election of Scott Brown. Moreover, focusing on electing a progressive congress does more to advance the progressive cause no matter who is president.

But that's not what you want. What you really want is to rant and rave about Obama, which does absolutely NOTHING to advance the progressive cause.

[MFrohike]

24. You're confused

I'm not interested in getting bogged down in a breakdown of Congress in 2009 because it's beside the point. You could have a Congress of Sam Rayburn, Paul Wellstone, and Alan Grayson and it wouldn't matter with the current president. He will use the propagandic power of the presidency to undermine them in order to put over his own personal line. I'm not saying it would succeed, I'm simply telling you what will happen. He is clearly not interested in promoting a program of FDR-Truman-Kennedy-Johnson liberalism. I'm not ranting about him, I'm arguing that we, as citizens who can pressure Congress, adopt the strategy of waiting him out because the cause is unlikely to be furthered with him at the helm.

[Yavin4]

26. You are entitled to believe in whatever fantasies you want to believe in

Good day.

[MFrohike]

27. Funny

There's nothing like a condescending reply about my fantasies coming from a guy with a username from Star Wars. Bravo, sir/madam!

[treestar]

20. Total BS

And if things are that bad, then the left is very weak and not in a position to be demanding.

If this country were that conservative, you should be grateful there is a single social program left.

[MFrohike]

21. I have a different take

The country is mostly left-leaning. Those at the top are not. It's really just the same story we've seen since at least the Roman Republic, if not earlier.

[treestar]

23. Then the voters need to start paying attention

Why do left leaning people vote for conservatives? Voters need to quit being lazy and negligent. Voting is an important duty. We should stop treating it casually and then blaming it all on the people we chose.

[MFrohike]

25. You're preaching to the choir

All I can say is amen.

[JoePhilly]

38. Sure, because Obama reads DU.

The OP is correct.

If the perpetually disgruntled focused on finding candidates that they want they'd be doing something positive.

Instead, we see them here complaining about Hillary's potential run in 2016.

And in 2020, they'll be wishing that a "real democrat" would primary her when she runs for re-election.

[MFrohike]

40. Interesting conclusions

I highly doubt Obama reads DU. I highly doubt he reads much that doesn't conform to his own preconceptions, like most people. That being said, I'm at a loss how you drew the conclusion that my comments were directed at the president rather than the people on this board. It could be something obvious that I'm missing but, to borrow from Charles Barkley, I doubt it.

As for the remark about the perpetually disgruntled, I find that funny. The most basic truth of any human system is that people will bitch. Bitching about the bitching is stupid. Bitching reflects engagement in the system and is a very hopeful sign. The real concern is when people stop bitching because they're either disengaging or sneaking up on you.

[blkmusclmachine]

8. Obama is a symptom

of a diseased "Democratic" Party. Time to kick out the DLC/Third Way/Blue Dogs/New DEMs from this "Big Tent." Let 'em go back to the GOP. And don't send them 1 thin dime!!!

[MjolnirTime]

12. Don't tell this to the Bloviators. They're a sensitive lot.

[Yavin4]

31. Do you think that they know that Obama cannot be elected president again?

Civics is not their strong suit.

[cantbeserious]

41. Watching Your Senior Loved Ones Struggle With Less And Less Makes One A "Sensitive Lot"

eom

[Pisces]

15. Exactly. Spot on assessment.

[treestar]

19. RECD a thousand times

They have been doing this since 2009 and it gets them nowhere.

[Jim Lane]

22. I, for one, can walk and chew gum at the same time.

I don't see any incompatibility between the two strategies -- electing progressives, and screaming enough to help sway some on-the-fence elected officials about a particular issue (chained CPI, Keystone XL pipeline, whatever).

If we put all our energy into electing people we think are progressives, and then give them a complete free pass once elected just because they have that "D" by their names, then many of them who ran as progressives will not govern as progressives. Why should they, if they can take our support for granted? Well, OK, a few of them will adhere to their principles out of genuine conviction. Many of them, though, will do a cold-blooded calculation of how to increase their chances of re-election. If they hear no one on the left getting angry with them, then they'll move to the right to try to pick up votes in that direction.

Of course, you're right to the extent that our outrage is wasted on virtually all Republicans and on far too many Democrats. Them we just have to get rid of whenever possible. Still, I don't see how that goal is undercut when someone posts here to denounce chained CPI.

[MotherPetrie]

28. Empty bloviating is a good description of your post.

[Ninga]

29. I say contact every f**ing one of them in addition to the President, who has the bully pulpit.

[Yavin4]

30. The "bully pulpit" is the most overrated thing in politics

The Republicans in congress don't give a damn when the president makes a speech. The only thing that works is getting more progressives elected.

[GoCubsGo]

33. Yup. Every time the president makes a speech...

...the right bitches that he's "campaigning instead of doing the people's business." The only thing to do is give the president a Congress that will work with him.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

32. Or supplementing their incomes... rather than bashing the President all day. nt

[Hekate]

35. I'm hoping they don't stay home to make a point or vote 3rd party to make a point

2014 is looming, and the real effects of the sequester are chugging down the track into view.

[creon]

36. Quite so

If you want progressive legislation passed -- a progressive majority needs to be elected.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

37. Good luck with that. All we Democrats do is sit around and cry about how awful Obama is. We're not

active like the Teabaggers are. They NEVER give up. If the party does something they don't like, they double down and find the craziest, wingnut-iest asshole they can muster up.

Democrats don't do that. We sit. We whine on message boards. We moan. We threaten not to vote, which is the dumbest thing in the world to do. The crazies on the right are galvanized by the actions of the Republicans.

I just don't understand why Democrats don't get their acts together.

It's a viscious cycle:

1. We don't vote in progressives.
2. The conservative/Blue Dog/corporatists in the party do things that we don't like.
3. Rather than getting active, making calls, getting the base out to vote, we moan and bitch and DON'T VOTE!!
4. We get MORE crazy-ass wingnuts elected to office, which means that the Democratic President and his/her party will not be able to negotiate for more progressive policies.
5. Even though it's OUR fault for failing to be active to elect more progressives to office, we get mad because there are no progressive policies.

(I never understood the logic behind #5. If we have a moderate to conservative Democratic president who is forced to work with wingnut conservatives, how can we expect have progressive policies? It makes absolutely no sense!)

Go back to #1 and repeat the cycle.

[CTyankee]

39. I know I will. I always do. I pay attention. My rep is Rosa deLauro and she's great!