Has The Democratic Party just given up on trying to attract new voters?

[Greyhound]

It seems to me we are going to spend all of our time and $$ searching for the right compromise and spin to sway the ~10% "swing voters" that do not share our beliefs and values, while ignoring the huge numbers of the apathetic that simply don't participate, but do agree with our purported positions.

Why?
:patriot: :hi: :patriot:

[The Magistrate]

1. What Leads You To Suppose, Sir

Those who do not vote agree with the positions you hold?

[Greyhound]

9. Sir, popular polls that have been taken over and over, year after year,

show that the overwhelming majority (depending on the issue the numbers are in the 65%+ range) support the "backbone positions" of the DNC (i.e. reproductive rights, social programs, civil rights, health-care access for all, progressive taxation, etc.). BTW, these are not my positions, but those purported to be the Democratic Parties positions.

If we have ~300,000,000 million citizens in this country then we subtract the under-aged, say 50,000,000, that leaves ~250,000,000 million potential voters. We currently have about 100,000,000 registered, leaving 150,000,000 million unregistered potential voters. Of the 100 million, a little more or less than half will vote in this mid-term, so 16% of the population is deciding that we should all become indentured servants to our corporate masters, and is the principle reason Re:puke:s try so very hard to discourage voters, they know their crackpot notions of social rule are just that and no thinking person would ever advocate them.

[Betsy Ross]

2. Don't impugn the thousands

of Democrats who hit the streets every day registering new voters.

[Ken Burch]

26. Actually, the OP wasn't impugning them(us)

It was impugning our leaders(other than Dean, of course), who don't want us going out and registering new voters, but would rather see us try to appease the slightly-less reactionary wing of the existing bigoted idealist-hating, life-hating white suburban electorate.

[Greyhound]

43. Not impugning the dems in the trenches at all, and if I gave that

impression, I apologize. I am referring to the Democratic Party as an organization. We are told over and over again how we can't win with a populist message, that we have to compromise our principles and abandon many groups because they're "too controversial" in order to attract the "swing voters". These are the same voters that support such "democratic values" as institutionalized prejudice against gays/lesbians, denial of black peoples voting rights, womens right to determination what they are allowed to do with their own bodies, etc.

The "leaders" of our party seem to believe that if we just become more republican in our positions, they will magically change their minds and vote democratic, all the while ignoring the fact that the real silent majority that don't vote at all because they believe that nobody is speaking for them.

[madfloridian]

3. Listening to the media "Lapdogs" again?

That is what they tell you about the party. We have to quit falling for it.

[Greyhound]

10. Don't know about the lapdogs as I am generally unaware of what passes for

media in this country. What I do see here and elsewhere, is a constant drum beat of why we have to abandon or compromise our principles in order to attract the votes of people that simply don't agree with us, therefore we either lose, or get re:puke:-lite, a la Clinton.

[MrBenchley]

13. Is THAT what you see?

Funny, I don't see any call for anyone to abandon their principles....

What I see is a daily demonstration that some people's "principles" consist of spouting rubbish like "corporowhores" and "jackals"....

And if there were any votes to the far left, the Green Party would be a roaring success, not scraping along trying to stay ahead of the Maharishi Party and the Christian falangists at the battom of the ballot box.

[ruggerson]

17. Thank you for brightening my Sunday

:toast:

[MrBenchley]

40. Whatever this sorry melange of venom and self-pity is

it isn't "principle" by a long shot.

[Ken Burch]

51. and when it comes to a "sorry melange of venom and self-pity"

Our Benchley is the go-to-guy.

[Ken Burch]

27. There's no principles involved in supporting the Bush-Clinton version

of "free trade". No humanity either, since "free trade" always means the imposition of brutal austerity programs on the developing countries that are forced to agree with it.

And the majority of the American electorate were always against this kind of "trade". It's just that they weren't allowed to have the option of voting for a candidate who agreed with them on this.

BTW, the last three electoral cycles prove there's no appeal to centrism, either.

[MrBenchley]

39. Peddle it walking, Kenny.....

The American people long ago rejected this whiny leftist gibberish.

"the last three electoral cycles prove there's no appeal to centrism"
Sez you. Say, how did that Kucinich juggernaut do in the polls, anyway?

[Ken Burch]

45. Now you're just recycling slurs, Benchley

At least try coming up with original abuse.

And the polls have always shown the people opposed to NAFTA and CAFTA, so it isn't just "whiny leftish gibbeish" and it HASN'T been rejected.

[Bjorn Against]

52. The Green Party is a really bad comparision...

Remember our government is set up as a two party system, it is designed to make it extremely difficult for third parties to succeed. People may agree with David Cobb's or Ralph Nader's positions more, but most of them are still going to vote for Kerry because they know he had a chance and Cobb and Nader did not. If there was not the spoiler factor I am sure the Greens would get far more votes.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

4. I agree. I used to be one of the apathetic...

I was uninformed and didn't think voting really counted. Most of my friends who didn't vote thought the same way, and most of them are more liberal than me. I've never met a conservative type person who doesn't vote.

Then I saw the chimps mug on TV in 2000 and realized if he was elected the country would be worse off. Little did I realize HOW MUCH WORSE it could get. :(

[Jed Dilligan]

5. I agree

I was one of those apathetic voters in 92 and 96, the first two elections I could have voted in. I think I made a half-hearted effort to fill out an absentee ballot in 1992 but never mailed it. I was a teenager and a flake.

I definitely held more liberal views than conservative ones all my life. I protested Gulf War I. I want welfare back, I want public health, I want less cops and more schools. With Clinton and the Repugs, I really couldn't see the difference. They were suits and I don't trust suits. With Bush I saw the difference and went to support Gore. But it was mostly a lesser-of-two-evils thing.

"Likely voters" are the only ones that get campaigned to. Until you start campaigning to me, you'll only get me out to vote when the Repug is a true monster like Bush.

[Greyhound]

11. Thank you so much for your reply. You are exactly what I'm talking about

swaying "political junkies" like myself and most of the members of this board are already aware and have made up their minds on the issues, debating is largely a waste of time with us. It is the uninvolved that just don't see relevance to politics in their lives and therefore, are not encouraged to come out and make their wishes known (or at least gives the "representatives" cover to ignore those known issues).

Again, thanks. :hi: :patriot:

[Jed Dilligan]

15. I would hit the campaign trail for any candidate who said:

"You know, this war on drugs is really a bunch of crap. Prosecuting people for marijuana, come on. Let's get a grip."

"We can bring back the family farm by strengthening organic standards and stopping illegal subsidies to large farms."

"Derelict property holders are letting the cores of our cities rot. We need to use eminent domain to get these properties into the hands of people who will make them bloom."

"Let's focus the military on defending our homeland and re-focus government spending on strengthening our society."

"A public college education should be free for all qualified citizens. There must be relief from existing student loan debt."

and of course

"It's time to raise the federal minimum wage!"

[BigYawn]

34. That was basically McGovern & Gene McCarthy patform, and

you know how that election turned out.

[Jed Dilligan]

35. Before my time but

Nixon beat them, right?

[Ken Burch]

37. McCarthy wasn't nominated, so he can't truly be called a sure loser.

The polls throughout the summer of '68 showed McCarthy running a stronger race than Humphrey.

And as to McGovern, once Nixon went to China, ANY Democrat was probably doomed to a 49-state defeat. Scoop Jackson would have gotten creamed too.

[enough already]

47. It really is this simple

Show some balls and run on what we believe in.

[itzamirakul]

6. I agree with your premise that Dem leaders spend most time and

$$$ on trying to reach those mythical 'swing voters" who never really seem to appear. If the Party had any real interest in winning the WH, they would have been fighting tooth and nail about the stolen votes from both 2000 and 2004.

There was no major outrage because apparently our leadership would rather concede the race than defend the voting rights of African Americans, from whom the greatest number of votes was stolen.And to this day, Democrats continue to ignore this fact...the REAL problem.

[Ken Burch]

28. our leaders are so afraid of being seen as representing

"special interests"(which is DLC for "anyone who isn't a life-hating, hope-hating war-loving heterosexual suburban white man with terminal hemmorhoids like Al From")that they repeatedly abandon the progressive majority of the party, the country and the world. They are obsessed with getting big checks from corporate boardrooms, despite the fact that the only reason those boardrooms write the party checks is to pay to get the party to stop disagreeing with conservatism. Which is why we got a Democratic president in the Nineties who agreed with Newt Gingrich on everything but a few trivial side issues.

It's like getting the money is more important than getting elected with these guys.

[itzamirakul]

32. Exactly! and the sad thing is...the ordinary people who call themselves

conservatives and Republicans cannot even see how the corporations are using them. It's not conservatism that the boardrooms are supporting...it's "corporatism."

Unfortunately, the middle and under classes of Republicans have fallen for the hype and they have bought into the corporate lies that the suits in the boardrooms are promoting through the big mouths of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, etc. The ordinary Repubs mouth off their support of the very people who are fcuking them in the azz without grease.

[LoZoccolo]

7. If people didn't vote in 2004, why would they in 2006?

Why go after people in the hopes that they'll finally do something that they haven't in years? How do you know they'll show up?

[bobbolink]

14. Simple. Actually talk about the issues that really affect them!

Lakoff has given many clues about how to do this. Others have discussed it.

Molly Ivans and Helen Thomas have recently said some strong things that would result in more votes, if followed.

As I mentioned elsewhere, once again being the party of labor, poor folk and working poor (AND making certain they could cast ballots and their ballots counted!), would greatly enlarge the number of votes cast for the Dems.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

48. Don't forget the middle class!

The middle and even upper middles are getting SCREWED by the Bush tax cuts. Democrats in Congress need to pledge to get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax, which is starting to hit families making 50 to 100K hard. These are the people who really drive our economy and it's estimated that by 2010 or so, nearly half of them will be getting a huge tax increase while millionaires and billionaires enjoy the breaks. Most of those folks vote Republican under the misguided belief that the tax cuts will benefit them. Definitely not the case. Rolling back the cuts on the wealthy and providing real tax relief to the middle class is a win-win.

[bobbolink]

50. I hardly think anyone has "forgotten the middleclass"!

That's what all efforts are directed towards!

As far as the middleclass is concerned, many, many polls have shown *exactly* what interests the voters. ONe thing that springs to mind is that the majority want Universal Health Care, even if it means higher taxes. Yet, where are the Dems on this? AWOL, that's where.... It's a winning issue, if they only care to engage it.

What I was talking about is people who've given up voting, because they were ignored. We can complain about the numbers of people who don't vote, and leave them as easy pickins for the RW, or we can approach them and find out their issues, and speak *TO* them.

Quite a simple concept, and one the Dems used to be good at.

[BigYawn]

69. Looks to me like "middle class" is fat and happy with their 401-k's

and their cheap imported gadgets from China. But if the stock
market is down 15 to 20% by November, then the middle class will
have a rude awakening and drag their fat butt to the polling booth
and vote for a change.

[Ken Burch]

30. Why settle for the existing voters when you know

the life-hating war-loving white men will never vote for US? To hell with the 'burbs, we'll never get those evil bastards to change their minds by promising to be just barely non-Republican.

Why stay with what we know doesn't work?

And people didn't vote in 2004 because Kerry didn't give them any reason to vote. The man nuanced himself to death. If he'd said "hell yes, I'm a liberal and this criminal war has to stop now" Kerry would have taken it in a walk.

[PsycheCC]

8. It's a good question. I wonder if part of the reason is that we tend

to run on more positive, less fear oriented, issues? I haven't given this a lot of thought, but it does seem that Republicans are often talking about the need to vote for them out of fear of something, i.e. terror, loss of "family values" whatever that really means, a bad economy, etc. Even if there is no truth to the claim, they repeat it from the same talking points memo so many times that voters react out of fear of what they'll get if they don't vote for them.

Kerry and Gore, it seemed to me, were trying to point to a better future under their leadership, not trying to scare voters. But based on numbers of registered voters and voter turnout, I think you're certainly right that Dems are more apathetic.

[ariellyn]

53. What numbers are you referring to that show Dems are not turning out

They turned out in record numbers in 2004. The media downplayed that surge of support and now you bring it here as if it were fact. Provide some facts or put the lies aside.

[PsycheCC]

55. "Put the lies aside?"

Republicans turned out in record numbers too. As a percentage of registered voters, Democrats turn out less than Republicans. This trend is long-standing. Asking why is certainly valid. Take a breath.

[ariellyn]

56. "Dems are more apathetic"? Bullshit.

"based on numbers of registered voters and voter turnout, I think you're certainly right that Dems are more apathetic."


How can you prove that fewer Dems turned out or voted in 2004? Especially when it is well documented that registration drives were set up to trash Dem votes, that those who showed up were not allowed to vote either due to ridiculously long lines or provisional ballots/non votes?

I'm tired of people like you trying to denigrate the Democratic Party. Your comments are as meaningless as the always-handy propoganda phrase: "some people say"...oft used by what I'm guessing are your heroes.

[PsycheCC]

57. I'm tired of people like you yelling at me.

I didn't say fewer "Dems turned out or voted in 2004." Get a grip.

[Greyhound]

65. The proof is in the Whitehouse. n/t

[bobbolink]

12. A Resounding "YES"

Per a discussion on another thread, the Democratic Party gave up on poor folks many years ago, and just assumed they'd keep voting for the Dems.

Here's an example: Many inner-city poor had to stand in line hours in order to vote in the last election. What's being done BY THE PARTY to correct that? What is being done BY THE PARTY to reach out to those poor folk who DID stand in line hours, and advance proposals to improve THEIR lives??

We badly need another Bobby Kennedy! Because of him, thousands and thousands of people voted who otherwise wouldn't have had any reason to.

List after list of "important issues" leaves out poverty, yet we keep expecting poor folks to vote Dem. Or.... just don't care whether they do or not?

This is a huge constituency that's being ignored. I submit that it's ignored because, in years past the DLC in power wanted to appeal to those with $$$. Those without $$$ were considered expendable. So, here we are, and yet it doesn't change.

How important are those votes to Dems?

[madfloridian]

16. I guess you are not aware of the times they have spoken out on this.

Dean has been passionate about this issue of long lines, and suppressing the vote.

He had said it on TV over and over, it is posted at the DNC, they are very concerned about the long lines and suppression.

AND have you read about the new way he is trying to build the party? By small donors? Democracy Bonds, 15 or 20 a month, to take the power back from corporations?

I doubt enough people pay attention for us to make a difference. Here is the DNC site, if you are interested.

www.democrats.org

I just posted a post called Lapdogs, and it is in this forum. It is being loudly ignored. It is about how the media colors our perception of our party, and how we let them do it.

[bobbolink]

18. I said, BY THE PARTY, yes?

What has been done to assure this won't happen again? Words are nice. What has the ACTION been?

Great for small donors --that means muddleclass as opposed to wealthy. What about those who have NOTHING left over at the end of the month, say, like the people in New Orleans who were dumped at the Superdome and Convention Center. How much do you suppose they are able to contribute? I can assure you that *I* don't have money to contribute... no, not even a "small" donation. IN fact, I've recently gone hungry. Does that matter? Or, am I just discounted if I can't contribute? What about those of us who have NOTHING?

You see, while I understand your complete support for Howard Dean, not all issues are about Dean. And, no, I don't hang on his every word. I'm glad he won the spot as leader, but there is much that isn't being addressed. If you truly want the party to increase, there MUST BE a reachout to those who don't have money to contribute, yet whose votes are needed. Dean is about raising money. There is much more than that that needs to be done.

Or.... maybe the Dems really don't believe they need to increase the votes????

Please don't make this a personal issue with you and Dean. Nothing I've said is a slam against either you or Dean. It is larger than that. And, please, don't come at me because I see something different from what you see. I have a different perspective, and it could be that my perspective is actually complimentary to yours, if you are willing to actually discuss what I see.

Oh, and thanks for the welcome. Appreciated. ;-)

[madfloridian]

19. Well, well, well, well. You asked, I answered. Must have other motives

If you want to know and not go around spreading things not true, you need to research at the site I gave.

[bobbolink]

21. My goodness.

You seem to want a fight.

That's not why I'm here.

Y'know, there really is truth to the statement that you get more flies with honey than with vinegar.

I see this as related to why there aren't more people who bother to vote.

Might be worth thinking about.

have a good evening.

[madfloridian]

25. You got the answer you asked for.

It was not what you wanted.

You asked what the party was doing, I pointed you to the site. Then I began to realize the terminology about me...said oops, welcome to DU.

and I winked.

Been a very busy day here at DU tearing our party down.

[bobbolink]

44. wrong place

[madfloridian]

20. Never mind....I got the terminology down pat. Welcome to DU.

Wink wink

[bobbolink]

23. Thanks for the hospitality.

[Greyhound]

67. And it is the poor and disenfranchised that are the traditional strength

of the Democratic Party. You are also correct in your statement that the Democrats abandoned them to pursue the much more lucrative corporate/government/corporate revolving door.

The idea seems to be along the line of, "so what are you going to do about it? Vote republican?", and we have seen the results of that.

BTW on a very closely related topic, look into who founded and ran the DLC through the mid-nineties, who they are, where they're from, and most importantly, what they are doing now and who they're hanging out with. (here's a name to get you started; Michael Steinhardt, chaired the DLC board and the DLC's Progressive Policy Institute). I think you will be shocked. Lieberman and From are just continuing the tradition.

[Mark E. Smith]

22. Nobody Loves Me, Everybody Hates Me...

... I'm going to eat some worms.

Remember, there was a difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush after all.

The big Green lie was just that. A lie.

[Ken Burch]

29. Ok. But, in fairness, Gore abetted that lie

by acting like he agreed with Bush on everything that mattered. Will all you DLC'ers at least agree that the 2000 result proves, once and for all, that "hugging the bland center" doesn't work and will never work again?

[Mark E. Smith]

33. Bullshit

Stop lying about Al Gore.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

31. So you're endorsing the bland centrist "change nothing" approach?

Why? we know centrism doesn't work and will never work again. Why not try something else? Why not try to whip up enthusiasm and idealism and hope for a change? Why not try actually getting people EXCITED about what this party could do?

Al Gore knows he blew it in 2000. The way he talks now proves he knows. You should learn from him.

[AtomicKitten]

24. The Democratic Party IS attracting new voters.

Just like they did especially in 2004 when the GOP was caught destroying new Democratic voter registration applications.

Republicans are jumping ship and Independents are declaring as Democrats to fight the good fight. One would have to be dead to be apathetic in today's political environment. Normally complacent people are outraged at any of the plethora of felonies committed by this administration.

The malcontent within the party at DU and on the internet is not epidemic, it's just loud and dramatic, although I expect that assessment to be vilified here by some that don't venture out in the real world and confine themselves to like-minded venues.

The stumbling block to victory remains electronic voting machine fraud.

[Daylin Byak]

38. The Democratic Party has re-energitize me!!!

Don't get me wrong, i'm not a person that has jumped ship from Repuke to Dem since i have been a lifelong Democrat, but since the '04 election I have woken up from my sleep and started to become intrested in politics thanks to our party. Since then I have grown a love of politics and the democratic party cause in my mind it is a party than i can be proud. Also I have been campaigning for my state rep, donateing $15 a month in a democracy bond from the DNC and when i get paid next week donate money to three PA congressional campaigns.

By the way, democracy bond do you actually get a bond in the mail or is that a clever title?

[NoPasaran]

49. I actually got a bond-like certificate in the mail n/t

[Greyhound]

42. Agreed that fraud is key to overcoming the Repuke machine.

I remember in the run-up to 2004 how we heard nearly everyday how the youth vote was really going to turn the tide. The college students were fired up and ready to take on the world and secure the future for all of us.

Election day 2004, the exact same 17% of under-25 voters showed up, just like the previous umpteen elections. Same old, same old.

[ariellyn]

54. That is not true. The dem turnout in 2004 was greater than ever

The propogandizers put the low-turnout bullshit out to dishearten those who showed up only to find long lines, etc. In fact, many who turned up were never counted as voters because they were turned away. Suppression is the issue here, not turnout.

[Greyhound]

64. The numbers went up, the percentages did not.

Voter suppression, while real and a very serious issue, is not sufficiently ubiquitous to have had any significant effect on the overall percentages. With ~100 million votes cast, we would have to see millions of voters denied, and that would be impossible for any media to hide or ignore.

All I'm saying is that they (Democratic "leaders") are wasting our time, and distracting us from any real change, by this repeated attempt to pander to the right.

[bobbolink]

46. Yes, many "disaffecteds" are turning up..........that's good....

but I'm not to first one to say that depending ONLY on those who are turning away from the RW is a losing strategy.

There are so many who don't vote who could be woowed, if only we had the will to do so.

Once upon a time, we Dems cared enough to approach non-voters, and find out what their issues are. There was a time when we cared enough to do neighborhood organizing in poor areas, and find out the needs, and get them met, which, naturally, gained us voters.

Yes, more can be done. It's great that there are former "righties" who are voting "lefty". I met some working on the Kerry campaign. But, I repeat.... we can't just leave it at that. We must make sure that other people feel heard, and let them know we want to include them.

[Andromeda]

58. I don't see too much apathy anymore.

You're so right:

The stumbling block to victory remains electronic voting machine fraud.

The voting machines are still a big problem and they haven't fixed it all yet.

[DoYouEverWonder]

41. No, it's just the GOP

are better at stealing new voters.

While the DEMS are campaigning and holding meet ups, the Repugs are working the lists.

What lists?

The lists of inactive voters. The lists of people who voted absentee. They go to the local BOE's and get these lists on a weekly basis. The DEMS never ask for them or pay much attention to these lists.

So while the DEMS are busting ass pounding the pavement, the REPUGS are sitting at home sending out absentee ballot requests. One way or another they intercept the request and register for you. One way or another they get your ballot and vote for you, or they send people around the poor neighborhoods, to help you vote.

Between padding the vote before hand and being able to tweak the machines, it doesn't matter how hard we work. We have to stop the cheating before, during and after the election if we are to ever win again.

[Jed Dilligan]

59. Yes, unless

So many new voters come out that they overwhelm the parameters of manipulation. The GOP would have given itself landslides in the last two if it could, they can only fix the vote so much.

[DoYouEverWonder]

60. They don't want landslides

That would draw too much attention.

They always try to hit that 3% mark. Enough to avoid a recount, but not enough to set off red flags in the other direction.

[Jed Dilligan]

61. Still, I don't think you could use fraud

to stop a real mandate--say 70% of the electorate or more with considerable geographic diffusion.

[NoodleBoy]

62. I think you're just talking about the DLC

alot of us on the ground do register voters, although it's a hard thing to do-- you've either got to be in public places unregistered people go, which is hard since they usually don't participate in public life by going to libraries and such, and in other places they tend to just ignore people talking to them about registering.

Also, the precinct committeemen and their equivalents across the country to hard to register the new people who move into their neighborhoods, but it's really hard. I'm a PC, and I tried to go to a newly-moved-in family to get them registered, and literally, their kids were playing in the backyard, the TV was on in the living room, and I could hear people talking, but they completely ignored when I rang their doorbell and knocked on the door.

It's also tough because the registration lists we have only show houses with registered voters in them, and so far I've called the post office and the county for just a blank list of all the addresses in my neighborhood so I could take out the ones with registered people in them and only have the unregistered ones, but they've either told me they won't do it or ignored me.

And aside from all of that, because of the super-intense voter registration drive in 2004, the people who could be registered and are even slightly interested in voting has almost completely dried up. Most other people are just content to have their tax dollars squnadered away, their sons and daughters sent to die in a senseless war, and the wall seperating church and state steadily eroded just as long as it doesn't interupt American Idol.

[Zodiak]

63. not one person has mentioned...

that the Republicans have enacted laws in some states that make voter registration drives nearly impossible. For the first time EVER the League of Women Voters will not be registering new voters in Florida because the fines for not making a deadline or not crossing a "T" will effectively defund these organizations.

The Republicans have covered a LOT of bases. Because of it, we will not likely get a fair "at bat" in any future election.

And if we have to win by 5-10% more than the simple majority to counter election fraud, then we do not live in anything resembling democracy, therefore we should not be playing by these bullshit rules that are stacked against us.

[OzarkDem]

66. Blackwell is trying to do the same in Ohio

Restricting voter registration groups by putting a lot of onerous regulations in place, such as, requiring each registrar to deliver the registrations they've collected directly to the BOE, instead of submitting them through a group.

Apparently, Dems have done too good a job recruiting new voters.

[Greyhound]

68. Well, it seems that the repukes are not ignoring the potential of

a movement of the unrepresented, too bad we are. I don't believe for an instant that if the Democratic candidates spoke to them, about the issues that effect them, that any re:puke: strategy could stop them from voting.