Is there a significant difference between these two statements?

[Skinner]

People on Democratic Underground spend a lot of time talking about what "the Democrats should do," and that is to be expected since this is a discussion forum dedicated to the discussion of politics. We have always permitted constructive criticism (and some not-so-constrictive criticism) of Democrats and/or the Democratic Party here on DU, and rightly so. If the leaders of our party are making mistakes, we should be able to discuss it.

With this in mind, I would like to ask a fairly simple question. Is there a significant difference between these two statements?

STATEMENT A:
    The Democrats should do "X" if they want to win my support.

STATEMENT B:
    The Democrats should do "X" if they want to win the support of the American people.

Getting to the point: If something is good for me, is it also good for the Democratic party as a whole? Do my interests coincide with the interests of a majority of the voters, and does it even matter?

[XemaSab]

1. The problem with this approach

is that the majority of Americans don't believe in evolution, supported Bush after 9-11, believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, and hold many other beliefs that aren't mine.

I think many Democrats have tried too hard to please all the people all the time, and that's a losing policy.

Similarly, I'm not going to support a candidate who blows in the wind. I want someone who represents ME, so I think Statement A is a winner, and Statement B is potentially a giant loser.

[JuniperLea]

9. I don't believe they are the majority

They just puff themselves up to look big and condemn others for original thought.

[Skinner]

13. Your post seems to assume...

...that the only question here is whether the party (or its candidates) is going to pander to you or to the majority opinion of the american people. I would suggest that there are probably more options available than that.

[XemaSab]

27. I think most people are willing to take a buffet approach to issues

For example, I'd support a pro-gun candidate if I felt I was getting something I totally agreed with, like a common-sense energy policy, in return, and I suspect that's how most of us think.

But too many democrats seem afraid to take a strong stand on anything at all. I'm forgetting who said it, but someone said "When you move to the center, that says that all the good ideas are on the other side." I'm a big fan of Lakoff, and Lakoff makes the same point: we on the left need to hold our ground.

I'm not saying I want a candidate to pander to me personally on every issue. There are very few positions for me that are deal breakers as far as political opinion goes, pro-life being an example of a deal breaker. I'm just saying I want a candidate who strongly believes in the same basic things I believe in, and who isn't ashamed to admit it.

In the 2004 elections, many Democrats tried to pick the "electable" one, but Kerry still didn't seem to connect well with a lot of middle Americans. I think the lesson there is that trying to pick someone "electable" is a nonstarter. I'm a proud California liberal living in a heavily Republican area, and I don't presume to know what my neighbors want in a candidate. :shrug:

[Skinner]

30. I agree with this.

It is my opinon that the biggest mistake that both Gore and Kerry made was that they were both afraid to take a strong stand on anything at all.

To be clear: My post was not intended to suggest that "X" meant "move to the center", although I will readily admit that there are instances (a particular issue for a particular candidate in a particular part of the country) where it is wise to do so.

[XemaSab]

37. Winning the "support of the American people"

is the tricky part.

I think trying to solidify this mystical support is where many candidacies go wrong, and that's where my misgivings lie.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

109. One dangerous option is that "the party" as it stands today...

... would pander to whomever promises/provides the most benefit to individual members. Whether it's the serpentine whisperings of {constantly failing} "strategists"; baksheesh from powerful lobbyists/corporations; or even tempting treats from the Republican party.

Wouldn't it be nice if one's party rose above all that and truly represented the people. Can the current Democratic Party do this?

Does the tone of the posts on DU really affect this issue much (no offense to the actual activists here)? One thing's for certain, they shouldn't pander to me: I'm not an American.

I expect the responses to your post to swing between "ask not what the country can do for you" altruism and "if they want to fight dirty, we'll fight dirty too" political expediency -- with all hues of special interest in-between. Oh, with a sprinkling of random junk like this ;-) Just another day on DU, right? I'm not sure what you are going to do with all that, but it will be a cracking read!

[Catch22Dem]

2. That's the beauty of it

We're all so diverse in this party. We rarely walk in lockstep behind any single leader, and I like it that way. I don't mind the subtle differences between the two statements, and I think they each have their place. We're all very personable here, so if we want to discuss what's important to us as individuals, that's perfectly fine with me. It's also important to discuss what's important for our party.

Where I get irritated is when we talk about replacing Dems with non-dems. I don't care if we replace DINOs with genuine democrats, but don't advocate replacing a DINO with a 3rd party candidate. This is DEMOCRATIC Underground! I've been saying this for about 4 years here, if you want to advodate for a 3rd party candidate, start a new website.

[catmother]

6. i agree with you. if someone wants a 3rd party, start a new

website.

[acmejack]

7. No free speech around you, I take it?

This is not a very democratic Democratic Underground in that case, it would seem. Just an observation, no offense intended.

[Catch22Dem]

16. offense taken

Nothing to do with free speech and the implication of such is plain ignorant. I don't go to the microsoft developer's forums and discuss sewing, ya know? I'm saying there's a place for everything, and DU is NOT about removing democrats from office. There are forums for discussing getting democrats out of office. I think they call if FreeRepublic if I'm not mistaken.

[acmejack]

36. Sorry to offend with my ignorance

As one who hangs out at the Microsoft Developers Forums it must be quite difficult to condescend to communicate to mere mortals in the first place. That fact adequately explains your difficulty in maintaining what most would consider a civil tone.

Thank you for explaining the intents of both DU and the Free Republic to me. I find it considerably more gracious of you than was informing me of my plain ignorance. A failing I have went to great time and expense to remedy, unfortunately not to your satisfaction, for which I apologize.

[Catch22Dem]

41. Oh please, I didn't call you ignorant

But the implication that I was somehow against free speech was complete crap, and you know it. Bottom line, I think it's been made clear, this isn't a forum for promoting 3rd party "pipe dreams."

Nuff said and I wish you well.

[Skinner]

17. I know you weren't talking to me, but...

No offense taken. This is not a democratic Democratic Underground. And yes, we expect third-party pipe-dreams be explored elsewhere.

[Catch22Dem]

19. Which is all I'm sayin' (n/t)

[MADem]

32. The rules state pretty clearly that you need to support progressive

causes, and not advocate the defeat of any Democratic candidate.

Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

[Massacure]

35. Hopefully George Bush doesn't register as a democrat.

:evilgrin:

[sui generis]

51. isn't that the real test

this thread is focused on "fringe" and "single issue" voters, and there is some browbeating already about people who won't just knuckle in and support the remaining democratic candidate no matter what.

I wonder how bad "no matter what" has to be before the "middle" figures out they've been had. Ultimately we're democrats, and there is a lot of good to be said for that, but those of us who are questioning are not "single issue" voters, but voters with standards.

The self-proclaimed middle would be well advised to remember that.

[catmother]

3. there is a significant difference. i would like the democrats to

be more liberal, but my feeling is if someone runs on very liberal ideas (s)he may not be electible. i think most of us on DU tend to be on the left. but the left scares a lot of voters. they hear liberal and they think socialism or even communism. now, to me personally i would like for the country to be a socialist country.

okay i don't want to rant. i think right now the important thing is to take back congress this year and the white house in 08. if it has to be a moderate -- someone to the center -- then so be it. if we can take back the country they maybe we can push our more liberal ideas on our elected leaders.

[BigYawn]

107. Oh puleez, being a good democrat is not becoming a socialist

I lived in a socialist country for 20 years,
and I could'nt stand it. Which is why I escaped
to USA.

[catmother]

112. i didn't say that a good democrat is a socialist. i like social

programs such as universal health care, equality for all, a decent living wage. the poor should be taken care of. i think the disabled are entitled to a decent standard of living. maybe you can enlighten me. isn't that what a socialist government does?:shrug:

[BigYawn]

113. Here is how it worked....

First I agree with some form of federal health program
for everyone. Health is just too important to be
commercialized.

As for equality, there is now more equality in this
country than most except scandinavian countries. There
is no way to abolish personal prejudices re: race or sex.
There needs to be strong anti-discrimination laws on the
books, and I am satisfied with what we have in this country.

Disabled definitely must be given a decent & humane life
in a rich country such as USA.

But getting back to the socialist country I lived in, the
government owned and operated Airlines, Banks, Insurance,
Telephones, Steel, Cement, Railroads, and ofcourse the
post-office. The result is that everything runs at the
worst possible efficiency. Corruption is rampant. If you
need to make an airline reservation, you need to make
several trips to the ticket office and stand in lines. No
one answers the phone or it is busy. The government workers
have a lifetime job, so no one cares to move their butt.

And I can go on and on but you might get the drift.

Ideally, I want all services, manufacturing, education,
health services to be faced with COMPETITION. That virtually
eliminates corruption & sloppy service & products.

I think sales tax is regressive and should be eliminated.
Taxes should be strictly based on income. Higher incomes
paying higher rates. Corporate taxes should be abolished,
be cause those taxes reward the inefficient outfits and
punish those who provide good services and products. Also,
every corporation is owned in the end by some individuals
and the tax is always collected. There are a lot of small
fry stock holders who get charged their share of corporate
tax which should be charged to those who own most shares.

I hope I shed some light on your question, and thanks for
reading.

[catmother]

124. thank you so much. i had no idea about the government

running everything. i know what you mean. dealing with any government office in this country is a joke. it's the same thing -- a job for life. at one time i worked for the city of new york. my actual work took maybe 1 hour. when i was trained i asked "what else do i do?" i was told "call your friends; read magazines". i actually resigned after 1-1/2 years of boredom.

thanks again for clearing this up.

[JuniperLea]

4. They should be the same... but...

Not everyone thinks in terms of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.

You hit on a crucial point. In order for the Democrats to win votes this election, they need to concentrate on Americans as a whole and cater to their needs/desires. Special interests are going to be under the microscope for sure, and the backlash would be severe.

I think we all need to take a step back and think in more altruistic terms.

[Botany]

5. Define X

If you are saying that X = Good for me and that X = Good for the Country .....
Support of X = a winning election issue you are right but with the traditional
media under the control of corporate interests until X makes money for the corporations
the issues will framed by God, Guns, Gays, and the war on terror. And when the
numbers do not add up after the election .... the talking heads will say that the "faith
based vote and protect America vote" swung the election @ the last minute to the repugs.

[Skinner]

20. For the purposes of this exercise, X does not need to be defined.

But you are welcome to fill in the blanks yourself.

[OKNancy]

8. I know that what I want, most Americans are not ready for, just yet

First, I'm a Democrat and I identify with the goals and history of the Democratic party.
Democrats will always have my support with exceptions for nutcases like Zell Miller.

I realize that what I want Democrats to do may not be the best thing to win support for all of the American people. I suppose most Americans are not ready for single payer health care, but we, as Democrats can chip away at the current system and given time I think it will happen.

Although I'd like to see this war end tomorrow, I know that this is not possible or logical.
So for Democrats to win support for all the American people, they will need to offer a logical alternative.

Personally, I'm willing to give up a lot of my "issues" to get Democrats elected. Democrats are the only real alternative we have to turn this country around.

[catmother]

15. i agree with you.

:toast:

[Walt Starr]

10. You asked, so I'll answer. There is a huge difference between them!

That does not alter the fact that each vote is a personal decision.

Some people can go years and years never questioning the candidates presented by a party after the selection is made, but simply vote the party line. Democratic candidates need not worry about pandering to or impressing this group of people, and quite frankly, most of DU falls into this category.

The people who make differences in elections are those who do not feel bound by any party labels or descriptions. The votes of those people ALWAYS fall under the first statement and never the second statement, even when people who vote along these lines may say that they believe their stance is what's right for the American People.

The only way Democrats will win is by getting more of the people who are making demands based upon the first statemetn rather than the second, while saying they are seeking votes based upon the second statement rather than the first.

[bananas]

11. Statement C: Dems should do X if they want the support of MSM

on edit: I'm not advocating Statement C, just saying it's another alternative. People tell me they never heard of Kerry before he ran for president, don't know what the Dems stand for, etc.

[Brazenly Liberal]

12. Yes, there is a very significant difference

If something is good for me, is it also good for the Democratic party as a whole?

Not necessarily.

Do my interests coincide with the interests of a majority of the voters,

Not necessarily

and does it even matter?

Only you can answer that. Look, your interest might be a superspecial interest. Perhaps you are a widget maker. A tariff on imported widgets would be good for you, indeed. But it may or may not be good for the party or the nation. Or you may be the only known American sufferer of Blorknatz Disease - a mythical but tragic disease that makes you look like Barbara Bush when as soon as you hit puberty. It's not fatal or even debilitating, but My God, let us have some compassion here! $3 billion budgeted for research into curing it would be in your interests. Would it be in the interests of a nation that has AIDS and various cancers still uncured? Would it be in the interests of a political party that wants votes from people whose beloved grandmothers look like Babs?

In the end, you have to fight for what you truly believe is right. Perhaps you really believe that widget tariff will ultimately make life so much better for so many people, you can't support anyone who doesn't vote for it. Or perhaps you fondly and reluctantly let it go, feeling that there are other issues more important to the world if not to you.

So there you go! A pompous gasbag of an answer to a simple question. Be glad you didn't ask something more complex.

(edited to remove the bizarre insinuation that people who like Babs might vote Dem)

[Skinner]

25. Not pompous at all.

I would agree with this. I guess the next question is: How many make-or-break issues are reasonable people entitled to expect?

Imagine if our hypothetical Blorknatz sufferer also happens to make widgets. If one candidate supports free medical care for sufferers of Blorknatz Disease, could the sole sufferer of Blorknatz Disease demand that the candidate also support a widget tariff in exchange for their vote? Sure, they could demand it, but at what point do the demands become unreasonable and/or counterproductive?

[sui generis]

33. varies by user

tarriffs, taxes, changes in programs that benefit all Americans, those are temporal and part of our ethic as a country. Are we protectionists, are our social values that Americans should be healthy and happy, or that Americans deserve whatever happens to them and the government has no responsibility.

Where are your values on that continuum, and how hard are you willing to work to change them? Are you in physical danger or at risk of your health or possessions because of these policies? I think it's valid to push strongly for those kinds of issues that affect Americans disproportionately, to help raise all of us up.

The real litmus test is, is your candidate afraid to even bring an issue up? Blorknatz Disease is a healthcare issue, among others, and if you are for expanding access to healthcare, and for national healthcare, it is something that you wouldn't be afraid to address.

But if the paper turns red instead of blue, and you find you can't support equal rights openly because it's not a popular topic among people who don't see a need for it, then you have a class of people you are disenfranchising as a potential representative.

Why vote for someone who doesn't represent you? Why vote for someone who isn't canny enough or clever enough to frame the issue meaningfully and then bring you in to support the party rather than shut you out because of that issue.

A "single issue" voter has to have lost faith that the "good majority" will throw a rope down after they've climbed out on our shoulders. If that's the problem, then that's the problem that needs to be addressed.

[Walt Starr]

39. The number of non-negotiable issues depends upon the individuall

And what's reasonable would depend upon the individual as well.

I personally have 4 non-negotiable issues that I will not compromise on even a little bit. To some, I am completely unreasonable, but I happen to feel they are not only reasdonable, but are also self evident. I further believe that most of the problems with the Democratic Party today has been a consistent willingness to compromise on core values.

Your mileage may vary.

[Brazenly Liberal]

50. I don't know that there's a number.

I don't think there's a specific number of issues. For one thing, which issues they are makes a big difference. You can easily accommodate 10 make-or-break issues if they're ones the party is reasonably unified on. But only one or two of the thornier issues would be enough to make you a pain in the ass to people on the other side of them.

It's a damn shame that we've become so used to conventions that are more coronation than conversation. We not only accept, we expect a candidate to emerge months ahead of the gathering. Months of time that could be spent getting to know the candidates a little better is gone now. One or two primaries and they're dropping like flies. If the crocuses bloom before we have a likely frontrunner, there are endless screeds bewailing the fact that the party is falling apart and we're "eating our own." Why did we allow that to happen?

While I like to think that my noblest self wants the best person for the nation in the job, the truth is I'd vote for a warthog if that's what was running against the GOP this year and in 08. I have a couple of make or break issues for the Democratic primaries, but whoever gets the nomination will have my full support, even if it's that warthog. It wasn't always that way, but we weren't always free-falling into dark times.

When GWB was appointed Pres in 2000, my immediate reaction was great disappointment, but my second reaction was "Eh, how much harm can he do in four years" (the likelihood of a second term being unthinkable). Well, we can all see just how wrong I was about that! If anyone had put out a list like the one in the "What are republicans proudest of" post in 2000 as a prediction of things to come, that person would have been thought a raving paranoid.

[Brazenly Liberal]

52. Dang it! I went on and on so long, I forgot to make my point.

which was this:

I'd like to see everyone fight for the issues that are important to them. A roiling, broiling, free-for-all brawl right up to the convention. Let everyone fight for what they want. Let them work their butts off for their guy or gal right up to the end.

But we can't do that. We can't do that because if we don't have that candidate when the crocuses bloom, the GOP smear machine will be there, calling us a disorganized mess that can't be trusted with something as important as running the country. It would be laughable if it wasn't so damned effective.

[MadMaddie]

90. Bwaa...ha...ha...

we all do that every now and then....losing our train of thought....

Welcome to DU:hi:

[MadMaddie]

14. This is a great question...

My thoughts....

If everyone has the belief of Statement A "To win my support" and you multiply that by however many people...if their desire is not met and they choose not to support the Dems than that hurts the overall Democratic cause. We are fighting among ourselves and we never move forward.

The weakest link in Team is Me

If everyone follows Statement B it is all inclusive and to me it implies that all interests have come to find common ground..(I am not saying we must be in lockstep on every issue)and there is room for everyone and we can move forward as a force to be reckoned with.

Just my two cents..(Hell I don't even know if I what I wrote makes sense)

[catmother]

21. your two cents makes sense.

[MadMaddie]

88. Thank you catmother...Thank you....

:hi:

[BootinUp]

18. Sure there is a difference and

both are valid criticism. I wouldn't want either to be restricted. Good question though.

[AtomicKitten]

22. Statement B must supecede Statement B in a democracy.

I think the problem is that some people don't really support a democracy in that they are unwilling to compromise. They harbor one-issue deal-breakers and will not yield. Politicians are here for us, us in the collective sense, and in this sense the majority of us. We can work hard to bring to the limelight issues that are really important to us. But we cannot function within a party and within a nation if we are unwilling to compromise. We must seek out that which connects us.

[sui generis]

23. loaded question

I think what matters is that we stand for something that is easy to repeat and easy to prove.

If we are against the war, then the party line should be a rational statement of being against the war. If we are for choice and equal rights, whether or not many Americans agree or even understand, we have to be able to say so with conviction and respect. But many of us are not, and there IS a harmful schism in the party.

A party has to have some kind of overall definition so that people who evaluate who they're voting for have some criteria to use in casting that vote. We have seen that most Americans think that equal marriage is bad for them, without questioning that thought. So a platform that promises not to support equal marriage or equal rights will attract more Americans, and that means more Americans can deliver a mandate to change social programs and the direction our country is headed, for heterosexuals. That may sound like a crackpot idea, but I suspect we're seeing some politicians willing to play those numbers - that the net loss of gay voters will be made up for with an overall gain of voters who despise gay issues.

Fortunately I really don't believe that is a national party line, or at least not yet.

Those "should be's" that we look for in politics are whether the party resonates with us personally, whether we understand the message and believe it and therefore want to support it.

I fear that the democratic party cannot define itself by merely being everything that's not republican. We have to have some core principles that you can tick off on one hand, and a plan for achieving them.

When we bellyache about budgets and security, we need to step up to the plate with our own 3000 page budget, our own security plan, a solution for every complaint we tender. I would like to see some firmness and conviction in our approach. I would like to see a little more uniformity in how we speak about our core principles and have a clear definition of who we are, rather than who we are not.

What's good for me and my gay traditional family is good for the country. If I'm happy I won't be firing heterosexuals for their sexual orientation, if there are no protections for sexual orientation.

To answer the question it does matter because what's good for the American people is defined by the American people, and sometimes that is a mob, and not a people. I'm not sacrificing my family for the greater good. I'm willing to pay more income tax and raise the minimum wage and support social programs for everyone, not just heterosexuals, but only willing to support "what's best" if "what's best" includes me and mine.

My vote IS important. It is not free. In a representative government, my family has to be recognized and represented too.

[Lefty48197]

24. There is a significant difference

Statement A would generally come from a one issue voter, one who generally isn't even a Democrat. These actions would attract the "fringe" voters.
Statement B is what a dedicated Democrat would say to try and help their party regain power. These actions would attract the "moderate middle" voters.

[sui generis]

26. I thought my answer was pompous

but you win. ;)

There aren't enough "moderate middle" voters to win without "fringe" voters to back us up. Defining the fringes does not by definition define the middle. And most importantly, we can't win with a bare majority. We can't win by not losing.

Our message has to be less judgemental of "fringes" and "middles" and more to the point of saying who we are and what we stand for.

[Lefty48197]

31. Oh bullsh*t

Every political scientist will tell you that it's the voters in the middle who decide elections. If you can't convince them to vote for you, then they won't.

[sui generis]

34. lighten up

but hey, if you feel like calling equal rights supporters fringies and then browbeating us into giving you money and our vote, you will lose. And that's not bullshit. And you know it or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Lefty48197]

38. Sorry, but you're talking to an "equal rights supporter"

try again.

[sui generis]

42. you're talking to one yourself

why the hostility here? Sorry if I'm the cause.

We don't all believe alike about whether and how to use our vote. That's clear too. But if you believe that the gay community is just going to give the democratic party a pass this time you need to get out more and understand the screamingly fabulously landscaped street.

We have a choice, and we want to be wooed this time, instead of taken for granted. We are really NOT single issue voters, or the fringe, whatever that is.

But there are people in our own party who believe we are a liability and expect our vote anyway. If they can't talk about us and get elected, they can't talk about us and stay elected. They're not gonna throw a rope back down, or at least I haven't heard a compelling reason from anyone here to believe that they would.

So we're in an odd position this time. Are we being dumped? What is the official democratic party position on us and our "issues"? Can you say?

[sui generis]

44. and another thing

some political scientists apparently get it wrong half the time. Just an observation -

if the middle keeps readily defining the fringes as people whose issues they wouldn't support in order to win, then the middle won't be very big.

[Douglas Carpenter]

118. do you consider Republican policies centrist or middle of the road?

And if so do you think that is the reason why they came to dominate the political landscape of America?

[Lefty48197]

126. Good point.

No, I don't consider their policies to be centrist. They've used another method to "win" elections. Instead of appealing to the center mass of voters, they have tried to inflame fear, they've lied, they've mislead, and they've stolen elections.
No, appealing to the mass of voters is not the only way to win elections, but I don't want to be involved in the things the Republicans do to "win" elections.

[blondeatlast]

43. Self-deleted (replied in the wrong place). nt

[mtnsnake]

28. The difference is bigger than the Grand Canyon is deep

when it comes to doing what's good for "me" or doing what's necessary to win the support of the American people, IMO.

For example, the ONLY reason I'd ever consider supporting someone like Mark Warner is because I think he could have a shot at emerging as that kind of person who could "win the support of the American people". However, he'd actually be one of the LAST people on our list who I'd want if we're talking who I'd want from what I feel in my heart.

I'm all for keeping our heads separate from our hearts if it means winning the next election. Once we're in, then we can start tugging at the heart strings.

[Dhampir Kampf]

29. I think of it this way..

Where will America be without me?

-Still here, I'm not that significant.

Where would I be without America.

-Nowhere, America is everything to me.

I'd be willing to sacrifice my personal feelings or wants, for the better of America as a whole.


So I think that has a lot to do with the question. Just me supporting a Democrat doing "X", doesn't mean that, that democrat is going to win, but if they have the support of America, they will win.

But that's just me.

[melissinha]

40. B all the way

As others have expressed, we are a community and really that IS the essence of the Democratic party, its not about me and mine, its about everyone, particularly the least among us. I know that getting the support of the American people is essential to the actual future of our Democracy, so Democrats should really cater to that PERIOD, too much is at stake.

Sure I am pro-choice, pro-gay marriage.... But to ensure the safety of those two things, Democrats must regain power, and allowing them to be our main messages cuts those efforts and the many important Democratic ideals short if our elected Democrats have no power.

I think the true message that we need to convey to the DNC and DLC is that we need for them to shwo Unity, it gives an essence of conviction that the Republican Party has exploited.

Unity--->Conviction---->Respect---->Victory


Too much is at stake. I know Unity is hard, but we will never truly succeed, I'm not talking lock step here, but we need a take charge unified message.

We need to call Republicans on their voting records and Democrats need to show us a good example.... We can't show a bad voting record up with some compromised Democratic voting record.

[The Magistrate]

45. In My View There Is, Sir

And your closing comment lays it out.

The person saying A may or not be at all reflective of the general run even of Democratic Party voters, let alone of the electorate as a whole, and if that is the case, the course urged as the condition of support could well prove disasterous at the polls.

Of course, the person stating B may not be accurate in their perception either of what the people of the country would in large part support, and if that is the case, following their advice could similarly lead to disaster. But there is, in statement B, no implied threat from the person making the statement, that if he or she is not heeded and followed, that person will refrain from supporting the Democratic Party, and indeed mught well work against it in some manner as a result of not getting their way.

[blondeatlast]

46. In another time, both would matter. But facing the crisis before us,

"B" must take precedence--for ME as a voter.

I don't feel I can choose for anyone else, though.

As for a significant difference--oh, hell yes--huge difference, though I won't say that those who subscribe to "A" are necessarily on the wrong track.

[papau]

47. Does not matter - voter choses a party's candidate, party does not sell

to voter via a list of we believes, or via a list of what we have dones.

To be credible there must be such a list of we have dones and believes. But what exactly is on it is not that important.

The self confidence is obvious, leader that knows his own mind and has principles, whose face we can stand seeing on TV for the next 4 years, can be packaged with whatever combination of "The Democrats should do "X" " ideas - and the people if they see a packaging will reject the candidate as not having principles.

Indeed that is the point of the current Rove run at Hillary - to get Dems talking as if she has no principals and will bend to any political wind or pressure group. Phase two is the make the alternative to Hillary look like a fellow that has already bent to a pressure group to get as far as they have..

If the Dem candidate has a set of did and will do's that you see as worse than the GOP fellow's - then vote GOP. If not, vote Dem.

Third Party can only give the election to the side they least like, as they will split the side closest to their viewpoint.

Staying home because my pet cause is not number one likewise gives the election to the side you least want.

Indeed the "If something is good for me" should only be part of the decision making - the other part being will this combination of dids and will do's in this candidate get elected and make something I want happen.

But we will be into "I will be heard" mode pre and post election - and only with God's help - or luck if you prefer - will we get all aimed in the same direction and actually win an election.

But that is just me not being optimistic because it is late in the day.

Tomorrow morning your question will matter and we can have a long discussion on just where is the proper split between what I want and getting it promised, and just helping to defeat the GOP.

:-)

:toast:

:-)

[Rowdyboy]

48. There's an enormous difference.....

As a gay man, I would like Democratic candidate to support gay rights/civil unions-gay marriage-gay adoption.

As a mature Mississippi Democrat I realize that to support those positions would be political suicide to any Democrat running in the state.

I knew I was a Democrat seven years before I admitted to myself I was gay. I became a Democrat because they supported labor, jobs for all Americans (Humphrey-Hawkins), medical care for the poor, civil rights, adequate education funding, and progressive taxation. None of those things stopped mattering to me when I realized I was homosexual.

While many elected Dems don't support gay issues nearly as much as I'd like, they still represent a better alternative for our greatest problems. I know many people reject the "lesser of two evils" but, as a life-long resident of Mississippi, I've had little opportunity to cast any other sort of vote. I envy those with the luxury of being in more enlightened areas.

[Catchawave]

49. Your opinion matters,

my opinion matters. I just hate it when my opinion brings on freakzoid head banging from the "C" group :(

[leftstreet]

53. Both parties have been hijacked by social issues

So it's difficult when the politically vocal minority, committed to the "win," keep tossing around an X that probably doesn't have shit-all to do with what American people would like to support.

There's a reason almost half the country doesn't vote. Many people have a hard time understanding what abortion, gay marriage, or school prayer could possibly have to do with the price of gas.

[KoKo]

54. The "Devil" lies in the "midway" between your two statements...it would

seem to me. Most times when I voted I felt I was voting with the "will" of the American People. It's only since "Selection 2000" that I've felt adrift in a sea of difference where I was holding onto a log while waiting to drown in a sea of Repug Fundie Corporatists.

I see what you are saying...but think it's more nuanced than two choices. :shrug:

[Aaaargh]

55. You're just putting up a straw man in order to knock it down

It's not at all difficult to grasp the concept that politics in a democracy is necessarily focused upon winning elections. Therefore, it's only reasonable to assume that most people who take an interest in politics understand this, and that when someone advocates that the Democratic Party should follow a certain course, that they believe that doing so will result eventually in electoral success for Democratic candidates -- IF they're being sincere, and UNLESS they specifically state otherwise.

What I see advocated daily by dozens of contributors on this very troubled forum of yours, Skinner -- sometimes through obviously organized efforts, because multiple posters will make the same points over and over in the same wording -- is the contention that the Democratic Party can only succeed in winning elections in these times if they abandon most of what we've known since the Depression era at least as the traditional Democratic Party agenda, and instead peddle a watered-down version of the traditional Republican agenda of pandering to moneyed interests at the expense of the working- and middle-classes in our country.

Some who advocate this course may be gullible and foolish enough to be doing so in complete sincerity. But it's clear that this advocacy originates with Republicans and those who benefit from their successes. In a representative system built to favor two major parties, the best way to disarm opponents is to take over the opposition party, so that voters' viable choices are limited to candidates who offer two mildly-differing versions of what's essentially the same corporatist and imperialist program.

In my experience of partisan political discussion boards on the internet, I've not encountered another forum where the preponderance of opinion expressed is so far to the right, and so much in favor of capitulation to Republicans, as DU -- and this position is nearly always advocated in the name of "compromising" in order to win votes among what is insistently described as an ever-increasingly conservative electorate.

In fact, polls which survey voters' stances on political issues in detail do NOT bear out this claim, at all. The majority not only of Democratic voters, but of all American voters, relate to what amounts in sum to the same traditional Democratic Party, pro-middle-class agenda which was offered in varying degrees by FDR's administration and all the presidents following him, including Republicans Dwight Eisenhower and even to some extent Richard Nixon, up until the Reagan era. President Clinton returned to that agenda in some ways but not in others, and now we're back in Hooverville with President George W. Doofus and a Democratic Party whose Beltway leadership is dominated by sellout corporatist stooges of the DLC and their ilk.

To assert, as you do, that some Democrats need to wise up and focus on what the American electorate wants, rather than what THEY personally want, is vintage DLC propaganda, the type found every day on DU, pitched by numbers of contributors which are 'way out of proportion to the presence of DLC supporters on the rolls of registered Democratic Party members throughout the country. It's the same bogus line about how voters are really terribly conservative, and that in order to keep Republicans out of power, 'we' Democrats have to mimic the Republican line. That premise is entirely out of sync with the reality around us, which is why it has to be propagated so heavily to convince large numbers of people that it's so.

This forum, administered and moderated to allow for an unending infestion of trolls and operatives of dubious intent, as you know it is, stands today as, if anything, a detriment to the Democratic Party agenda as Americans have known it for two generations, and for the prospects of the views of the majority of Democrats and the majority of Americans being effectively represented by elected officials.

[BootinUp]

56. This one is good

What an artist, I just stepped back from the twilight zone. lol.

[Skinner]

59. Not a big fan of the DU, I take it.

My impression is that people see what they want to see. This is a big community with lots of different people who hold lots of different opinions. Some of 'em are DLC fans, others... Not so much. I think any non-biased observer would recognize that the DLC is not held in high esteem by the majority of participants on this website.

For what it's worth, my post did not make any claim as to what the majority of America wants, nor did I believe the path to victory for the Democrats is to mindlessly pander to whatever it is they think they want.

And you figured it out... We deliberately administer DU to allow for an unending infestion of trolls and operatives. Our hope is that once all the good Democrats get fed up and leave, the DLC will finally cut us that fat check they've been promising us all along.

[welshTerrier2]

64. heh heh ...

will there be any "sharing" of these DLC funds with us trolls and operatives ??

[Douglas Carpenter]

119. I always figured as much

:eyes: "We deliberately administer DU to allow for an unending infestion of trolls and operatives. Our hope is that once all the good Democrats get fed up and leave, the DLC will finally cut us that fat check they've been promising us all along.":tinfoilhat:

[rinsd]

128. "the DLC will finally cut us that fat check they've been promising us all

I KNEW IT!!!

[mtnsnake]

66. The preponderance of opinion on DU is "so far to the right"?

"In my experience of partisan political discussion boards on the internet, I've not encountered another forum where the preponderance of opinion expressed is so far to the right, and so much in favor of capitulation to Republicans, as DU..."

Are you serious? If anything, I thought prevailing opinion here was just the opposite of what you describe. And here I was just about to make a suggestion to Skinner to consider changing the name of the forum to LU, short for "Liberal Underground" or to PU, short for "Progressive Underground" because I thought the forum reflected views that are quite the opposite of what you're suggesting. I think I'll reconsider, though. LOL

[CrispyQ]

57. We are the party of community.

Ever notice how the word community is based on the word unity?

First we need to remove the many DINOs that have infiltrated our party & replace them with true liberals. Only then can we convince the American people that our party more closely reflects their values.

Republicans give lip service to family values, but the only family they care about is their own. Democrats make better neighbors because OUR family values include YOUR family. We want to see EVERYONE to succeed, prosper, have a job, have health care, whatever. We are, to a degree, a "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" party, or put another way, "we're all in this together."

Not to hijack your thread, but the March book club is discussing "Crashing the Gate" & there is an excellent chapter in that book regarding the one-issue voter, or what they call "cause first, party second." They give exapmles of how considering candidates with such a narrow focus can harm the progressive movement. This is something I have been guilty of & am glad to have the downside of it pointed out to me.

[Lerkfish]

58. I think the problem is that there doesn't seem to be a lot of polling of

what american democrats want.
There is a lot of polling to see if they'd prefer candidate Z over candidate Y, which if you think about it, doesn't really address what the people want in terms of issues, but becomes a sort of popularity contest apart from the actual issues.
From this well comes the idea that its ok for a candidate to ignore the majority dem opinion on certain issues, if the general opinion is that they are in aggregate more "electable".
The reason this is bad is it appears to give a "mandate" to an incidental issue instead of recognizing that people like certain candidates, even when they disagree on the issues.

For example, if Dorflinger is antigay, but is a strong candidate otherwise, and Mudflinger is pro-gay, but weak on other issues, a majority of people might elect Dorflinger. All well and good, EXCEPT when the party then starts extrapolating from that and telling us that AS A PARTY, we need to start abandoning gay issues because Dorflinger got elected. That's transferring positive regard for a candidate to meaning that people have a positive regard for their stand on all issues.

This is dangerous because it puts the party in the position of telling its members to CHANGE who they are or what they care about in order to win elections. Instead of the party REPRESENTING the people, it becomes the party DICTATING to the people what issues are winnable, worthwhile, or unimportant.

Now, let's think about how Republicans win. They identify how a majority of people feel strongly about certain issues, and then change their strategy accordingly. Of course they lie and mislead to rise to power, but instead of telling joe sixpack he needs to change himself to stay in the party, they campaign to make the party sound like joe sixpack.

Democrats are supposed to be the big tent party, where we value and welcome all stripes and concerns. Skinner, the questions you ask are good ones, but you can't get there from here.
When you use terms like "pander" to describe if the party should accept your issues, that's a semantic qualitative judgement that assumes its a bad thing for the party to FIRST find out what its members want and SECOND find a way to address their issues. When the party considers it PANDERING to address concerns of its members, we aren't finding out what people want, we're chiding people to agree with us, to get with the program, don't be such a lone wolf, etc.

The idea of PREVENTING primary contests within the party is not the disease, its a symptom. When we intentionally limit choice to only those candidates WE approve of, and criticize anyone who doesn't like our selection, then we need to stop and ask OURSELVES (meaning those in power) whether we are serving the people or ourselves.

THAT is the question you should be asking, skinner. NOT whether members of the party need to examine if they'll conform to the ruling elite class. That's lookign through the wrong end of the telescope.
As citizens, we are NOT REQUIRED to get in line behind candidates or issues. our REPRESENTATIVES are duty bound to represent us in the process. IF our leaders no longer wish to listen to us, that is a much larger problem than whether "left wing fringe" people who support gay rights or whatever should abandon their beliefs for the good of the party.

at that point, the party is more important than the people. Is that what you want?

[Skinner]

67. I was actually using the word "pandering" in a very specific way.

I was not saying that addressing the concerns of members or voters is pandering. When I used the term pandering I am referring to a specific type of political activity: Cynically telling people what they want to hear. Take a poll, regurgitate the results back to the voters. Sometimes it works, but I don't think it is a particularly wise strategy if we have any hope of regaining power.

I am starting to think that the point of my post was not clear. It is apparent that some people are reading between the lines and assuming that I am advocating for some kind of DLC-style mushy middle approach. That is not the case. This might be hard to believe, but the point of my original post wasn't to advocate any specific political strategy.

The point of my post was to make a point about the type of discussions we have here on DU, and how our ideas are framed.

Whether someone supports a more progressive agenda or more centrist agenda is not relevant to this topic. That's why I used the non-specific "X" in my OP. What matters is why they are advocating a particular course of action. For example:

If someone advocates a centrist agenda, is it because they believe that is the way to win? Or is it because they are centrist and they want the party to closely mirror their own viewpoint? Similarly, if someone advocates a progressive agenda, is it because they believe that is the way to win? Or is it because they are progressive and they want the party to closely mirror their own viewpoint?

I believe there is a pretty important difference there.

[welshTerrier2]

71. two points ...

one: i did not at all think your OP was advocating either choice over the other ... I thought your question was posed in a very neutral manner ...

two: i think, however, that in this recent reply you haven't provided a valid choice ...

you asked: "Similarly, if someone advocates a progressive agenda, is it because they believe that is the way to win? Or is it because they are progressive and they want the party to closely mirror their own viewpoint?"

perhaps it is more my inference than your implication, but what's at issue, at least for me, is advocating what i believe is best for the country ... when you use the term "win", it seems to imply that someone with a progressive agenda might not have that agenda for the purpose of "winning" ... it seems to me that the whole point is to fight for, and win, what one believes in ... the mere idea of providing an alternative purpose to "winning" seems dismissive by implication ... and on that same theme, the second option was "closely mirror 'their own viewpoint'" ... again, perhaps by my own inference, the phrase seems to suggest a degree of selfishness without a more noble objective of wanting the party to closely mirror their own viewpoint because that's what they believe is best for the country ...

i'm not saying you necessarily implied, or subconsciously implied, that meaning ... still, it's a view prominently held by many on DU ...

[BootinUp]

74. I would define winning

as the result being significant changes in policy or laws in the right direction. How many changes or how close each change is to the ideal version is not really part of the equation.

losing is the opposite.

[welshTerrier2]

76. i agree with that ...

so, if a given party, rather than fighting for, to use your words, "significant changes in policy or laws in the right direction", chooses to do what they believe is more popular, we return to the question posed in the OP ...

just for the record, i don't believe i mentioned the word "ideal" ... and even there, i see nothing wrong with any individual carefully weighing the issues and casting their vote based on their beliefs ... if an "ideal" is their standard, so be it ... if they're more flexible and they're willing to settle for "significant change in the right direction", that's fine too ...

i think we do little more than alienate potential voters when we tell them how to vote and think ... if some have deeply held beliefs on one or more issues, i think it's better to respect that and hopefully work toward common ground ... it doesn't mean we have to agree with their voting strategy but we should respect it ...

[Skinner]

80. All fair points.

I pretty much agree with this. I think that most DUers do advocate what we believe is best for the country. That is as it should be, and it's what makes this place so great.

I can understand why you would consider the talk of winning to be dismissive. It is unseemly to boil the issues down to whether they help us win or not, as if issues are no more than tools that can be used at the whims of candidates and parties for their own selfish purposes. Ultimately, the whole point of politics is (or should be) to be able to implement the policies that we feel are best for the country. We care about issues and we care about politics because we care about the direction of the country and we want to put into place policies that we agree with.

But when we are talking about "what a political party should do", rather than talking about the country as a whole, I believe that it is only natural to talk in terms of winning and losing. Because political parties exist primarily for the purpose of winning elections (or otherwise winning political control). They are by their very nature political. It is certainly possible for a party to influence national policies without winning elections, but it's a little easier to do so if we win. Of course, if we win elections and stand for nothing, then there is little point in winning.

In many ways, we have the worst of both worlds right now, we're not winning (enough) elections and we don't stand for much.

[sui generis]

87. goddammit skinner

I'm too old to have your love child, among other considerations. ;)

I really think you've got your finger on the pulse and nuance of this fault line of political expectation though, and it is of greatest value to question why we think what we think now, because the political values we explore today help shape the kinds of candidates who will be in our leadership positions later.

[Skinner]

96. I'm flattered.

Alas, I'm married.

I'm trying to post more these days. I enjoy a good discussion, and I think they tend to be less flamey when I'm around. Go figure.

[Minnesota Libra]

102. You go buddy, keep us thinking but kind to each other........

.....but anyway my comments are much further below. :hug:

[Walt Starr]

117. "In many ways, we have the worst of both worlds right now,

we're not winning (enough) elections and we don't stand for much."

That pretty much says it all when it comes to the Democratic Party. Unfortunatley, when you stand for nothing, you will generally fall for anything (c.f. IWR, USA PATRIOT Act, CJ Roberts, Alito, etc. etc. etc.).

If the Democrats ever find their lost moral compass, they could do great things. I think it went missing some time after Watergate and nobody has even bothered looking for it lately.

Too bad they don't have another FDR, or Harry Truman, or JFK, or RFK, or somebody of equal stature. Unfortunately, in today's political climate within the party, I suspect many of the above would be raked over the coals.

If they'd just show some damned leadership! Just one of them, for cripe's sake!

[Lerkfish]

75. my bad for misunderstanding, then.

I think your point of:

If someone advocates a centrist agenda, is it because they believe that is the way to win? Or is it because they are centrist and they want the party to closely mirror their own viewpoint? Similarly, if someone advocates a progressive agenda, is it because they believe that is the way to win? Or is it because they are progressive and they want the party to closely mirror their own viewpoint?

makes a distinction, but I don't know if the distinction is always the point....

For example, I'm against torture. I'm against torture on principle...I don't think there is ever a justification for it, there are not shades of grey...I cannot condone redefining torture to make it more palatable.
Now, to me, that issue is nonnegotiable. Does that mean I want everyone to adopt my way of thinking? no, it means no matter what everyone else thinks, as a human being I think torture is wrong, and will continue to be wrong whether I"m in the majority or not. In fact, I'll still think its wrong even after I die. In other words, its irrelevant to me whether that's an electable issue or not. In the grand scheme of things, if I have to vote for a candidate who avocates torture in order to win an election, then I don't view that as winning the election, not in the long run.

I think shaving percentages to win elections is ok, if the issues involved are like how best to adjust a tax base to increase revenue, whether the zoning laws are stringent enough, etc. etc. THEN shaving percentages is ok because no one is getting hurt, at least not greatly. The issues are debatable and a difference of opinion is expected and reasonable.

But look around you. What we have is the complete annihilation of diplomacy on a monumental scale. Wholesale genocide and corruption, cronyism and trampling of the constitution. Shaving percentages is not going to address this problem. Only making principled decisions and standing on them is going to do anything.

So while some people are chasing their own tails on what amount of bending is required to be electable, I'm of the opinion that some issues should not be bent: like looking out for the rights of everyone, not just people that are like me.
That's a CORE reason for the democrats to even exist. If you shave that core principle a little bit here and little there, then what is the point?

I think I view that as being principled, but you seem to view that necessarily as being whiny.

[Skinner]

86. I sure hope I never called that whiny.

I do not view it that way. As I read my quote you've posted back to me, I realize that I was careless with my words. What I should have said was:

If someone advocates that the party should run on a centrist agenda, is it because they believe that is the way to win? Or is it because they are centrist and they want the party to closely mirror their own viewpoint? Similarly, if someone advocates that the party should run on a progressive agenda, is it because they believe that is the way to win? Or is it because they are progressive and they want the party to closely mirror their own viewpoint?

In other words, there is a difference between discussing what is right and what is a winning strategy for a political party or candidate. An obvious example would be: I support gay marriage, but I don't expect a Democratic candidate running in rural Utah to publicly declare support for gay marriage.

The example you cite, torture, seems like a no-brainer to me. It seems like a very appropriate issue for us to show how we're different from the other guys. I happen to think that this one of those cases where we can do the right thing and win. I mean, c'mon, we're talking about torture. It just goes to show how feckless and scared the leaders of our party have become, that we aren't effectively capitalizing on an issue like this.

I mean, Bush has fucked up so many things, it really shouldn't be that difficult for us to find a whole bunch of issues like that.

[BootinUp]

89. one comment

I think you over estimate the usefullness of the torture issue in the Red States, which after all is the states we have to start winning to become a majority again. Some people here will say, its not torture and the Geneva conventin should be altered or who cares. Some will say, war is hell and whatever it takes. I work with these types every day. Its sad I know.

[Skinner]

94. It's true that this is a tough sell in some places.

But in many of the more "purple" red states, I think this issue could be an opportunity for us. I see is as one of those issues where we might actually be able to persuade people. Perhaps I am naive. But one thing is for sure: People aren't going to come to our side on this issue by magic. They aren't going to be persuaded if we are afraid to make the case.

[BootinUp]

97. Let me tell you where I made it

to my boss and other co-workers in the conference room about a year ago.

[Skinner]

99. Excellent.

You never know... Even if most people seemed to be on the other side, there might have been one or two quiet people who were open to persuasion.

[democrank]

60. Hope this doesn`t sound foolish, but

I think the Wal-Mart issue is a good illustration of the potential quandary in aligning with either statement A or B.

In a perfect world, I`d like everyone to boycott Wal-Mart and force them to offer health care to their workers and agree to offer as many American-made products as possible. In the real world, I know that many, many people have no choice in the matter. They simply must shop where they get the best bargain. Long story short, my empathy for the "little guy`s" plight trumps some idealistic notion I hold dear.

If we could figure out a way to develop a Democratic Party platform that truly honored diversity and the value of compromise, we wouldn`t have to worry about "herding cats" because they`d be lining up at the door.

When I was raising my children, I showed a deep respect for their individuality, but when push came to shove, what mattered most was the sum of all parts....our family. Same goes for this nation. In general, our common denominators should have more weight than our differences. Should there be issues we refuse to bend on? Of course. Torture is one of those issues for me, but there are other issues on which I`m willing to compromise, just for the sake of unity.

[welshTerrier2]

61. many sad responses so far ...

i am truly saddened by many of the responses in this thread ... i don't believe i saw even a single mention of respecting the beliefs of each individual ... i don't think i heard much admiration for the idea of deeply held beliefs ... there seems to be a bit of a herding instinct with an undertone of "we must sacrifice ourselves for the 'greater good of the Party'" ... and i also kept seeing posts about people "refusing to compromise" as if Choice A meant there was absolutely no room to negotiate (rigidity) and that it was OK for the Party to take any position whatsoever without a commensurate responsibility to negotiate ...

my short answer to the OP question is that there is a huge difference ... Choice A implies not selfishness and rigidity but the values of one individual on one or more issues (not necessarily a single issue) upon which they place the greatest emphasis ... i make no criticism of Choice A in the abstract ...

and Choice B implies doing what is "believed to be" more popular ... it suggests that what is popular is to be valued more than what one believes is "right" ... it does not preclude the possibility that what is popular may also be "right" but it suggests that the individual's belief for what is best for the country should be subordinated to what that individual believes is more popular ... they could be wrong in both cases ...

i see a major problem with American democracy in both major parties ... both parties do a very poor job communicating and really listening to their constituents ... too often, points like this end up in moronic, hostile discourse talking about the political spectrum ... "you lefties this" or "you DINO that"; that badly misunderstands the problem ... and it's unnecessarily divisive ... instead of working toward common ground via better communication, we end up just making a bunch of very unproductive noise ...

again, we see way too much of that here on DU and even right here in this thread ... instead of trying to "force lefties to comply" or "get people to subjugate themselves to the majority", we would be far more effective to at least start with a mindset of respecting the views of those who disagree with the Party's leaders ... frankly, we should honor individual thought; not reject it ... the Democratic Party will never be able to satisfy everyone but I think the gap between the leadership and the masses is growing wider and wider and wider ... it's a very rare thing to actually see most Senators holding FREE, public forums back in their districts ... that's absolutely unacceptable ... and it's terrible politics ...

perhaps those with a very different opinion on key issues, given an opportunity to exchange views with their Dem Senators and Congressmen, might then find a bit more tolerance and understanding ... and perhaps, hearing the concerns from the public, those elected Dems might make adjustments to their positions on key issues ... absent this communication, we're stuck asking the kinds of questions raised in the OP ... we need major reforms in our Party and we need to restore the ideals of democracy so that our most likely supporters will feel included rather than excluded ...

i don't accept the idea that the Party lays down a platform and we either take it or leave it ... it shouldn't work that way ... so i say, let's honor the Choice A crowd and do a better job engaging them in a meaningful exchange ...

[sui generis]

79. well the problem with the responses

is that we're talking hypotheticals. I can give concrete examples ad nauseum, but I have to agree with Skinner's later point as well.

Ask yourself why you support the party the way you do -

It comes back to context (our own lives) and how we view the relative importance of our individual and collective voices in the political process.

I've stated in another thread that I think base voters (people who unquestioningly support the democratic candidate no matter what) are like the frame of a bicycle. But it is a bicycle with squeaky wheels, and you gotta put air in those bicycle tires for the whole contraption to get down the road. Without a frame to put the tires on, they're useless too.

It takes all of us doing our thing and keeping interested and participating in the political process to shape the political outcome. If nobody ever told a candidate they thought their issues were important, candidates wouldn't need to represent anything and this would just be a dictatorship.

If nobody ever voted for any candidate except the one they liked the best for their pet issues, we might as well stop electing and start rolling dice.

It's going to take all of us working together to get down the road.

[welshTerrier2]

121. "all of us working together"

that's exactly the right objective but there are huge problems with its implementation ...

let's take a simple model, badly overstated, that the left is pissed off because the centrist Clintonistas have total control of the Party ... the left calls them DINOS; they call us purists ... they see us as political immature, selfish whiners ... so, against this backdrop, we're at an impasse ...

the left does not control the Party's levers of power (yet) ... we can demand a voice; we can threaten to not support the Party; we can fight for change or we can leave - but we cannot ultimately force a dialog ...

in my view, the change has to come from those currently controlling the power ... they have to be willing to "share the power" if we are truly concerned about Party unity ... yes, the left has to be willing to compromise ... but before we can expect anyone to compromise, there must be dialog ... those with power must demonstrate that they are willing to negotiate and to compromise ... that's what is NOT happening at all right now ...

to demand that alienated voters "just get on board" is a dead-end ... that will not heal the wounds of a divided party ... as always, the solution is very simple ... if you want more votes, do a better job representing more voters ... and to do a better job, we must reform our processes and find a way to communicate more effectively ... before we can all work together, we have to create forums for a real exchange of ideas ... we're failing very badly doing that right now ...

[sui generis]

122. the best part of a long dialogue here on DU

is that we get to distill the consensus -

I love the way you put this:

"if you want more votes, do a better job representing more voters"

Ultimately I think that is the solution. My SO reminded me again last night that if we have two democrats in office, one who supports choice, and one who is against choice, we have effectively canceled our vote. So if half the elected democratic leadership is at odds with the other half, even if we have a supermajority, we could still be playing minority fiddle to the conservative agenda after all is said and done.

How we craft who we are now has great impact on how effectively we can use that political power later. From my point of view that means we do have to take strong stands on the issues that impact us as a people and as a party, and reject the idea that we can win by not distinguishing ourselves from our opponents. That's not purist thinking or whatever moniker is popular this hour - it's just practical.

I know I've bellyached significantly about equality issues (ad nauseum in fact), but I just want to know where we stand overall as a party on those issues, with clarity. I would rather give my wholehearted support to the democratic party if it can have a cohesive view on these issues such that it's not canceling out its own votes in the next democratic congress, and if it has determined that the only way it can win is by dropping support of those issues, I'd like to hear that as well, with clarity.

One of the things that keeps political "outsiders" from committing to us is the seeming lack of a strong, compelling, clear voice on these issues, the seeming lack of clarity. I would rather be called immature and selfish than to give my vote to someone who claims that my rights are to be overlooked or compromised every time, for the good of the majority, and that it's alright to be ineffective legislators on top of that by having polar ideological differences within our own party. It's frankly not a good investment of my vote if it comes down to that.

As much as I love Bill Clinton for 95% of his views, he gave us DOMA, and he gave us don't ask don't tell, and he actually set us back to "compromise", when he had nothing to lose anyway. I can't participate in that again if I can see from clues today that it might happen again tomorrow.

So my SO and I participate here and in our own community - we are on Dean's short list, personal friends with half a dozen senators, congressmen, and other highly placed government people and we are finding that there really IS a cooling of our issues within our own party, without any promises or IOU's for the future, and that is what breeds the discomfort I have today. Every elected official thinks if they can just get or stay elected this term, they'll eventually get around to taking care of equality issues more effectively, but the fact is support of equality issues has never been a demonstrable reason that anyone didn't get elected.

We need stronger leaders if they're that frail today, and the only way to achieve that is to tell them what we want and to participate in the process as long as we're being recognized as vital to the process.

[welshTerrier2]

123. tactics, marginalization and idealism ...

how's that for a title??

first, let me say that i don't think it's appropriate to refer to your resolute advocacy for "equality issues" as "bellyaching" ... when it comes to issues of human liberation, there is no room for compromise ... granting someone "some rights" reinforces the perverse notion that you or a society has a right to decide how many other fundamental human liberties other people should have ... which leads perfectly into the topic of tactics, marginalization and idealism ...

we have become a house divided against ourselves ... we have fallen prey to the myth of the political spectrum ... the Party plots its political strategy on this paradigm ... if you view the political spectrum as a scale from 0 to 100, Democrats "own" from 60 to 90; republicans "own" from 0 to 40 and the battle is for those on either side of 50 ...

in the context of human rights, this underlying belief leads to some very abhorrent policies and tactics ... for example, it offers a "don't ask; don't tell" compromise to gays in the military ... of course, if you "tell", because you're obviously not as worthy if we "find out about you", you're immediately identified as an "undesirable" and you get kicked out ... that's the marginalization that results from the tactics of political compromise ... gaining a little makes it much more difficult to gain a lot ...

the underlying tactical approach is that we'll fight for crumbs which is, after all, better than nothing ... and we're more likely to meet with some success if we're flexible and don't ask for "too much" ... you're asked: "don't you want to win?" ... "can't you see this is better than what the republicans are offering?" ... "if you stick to your purist beliefs, you'll wind up with nothing" ...

implicit in these tactics is the misguided belief that by achieving a small gain, you are not hurting the broader objective ... the truth is that you are absolutely reinforcing the discrimination by fighting for crumbs ...

such tactics are justified by the fallacious argument that they are politically necessary ... their proponents see themselves as the pragmatists while you are the head-in-the-clouds, rigid, naive, immature idealist ... the belief is that it's easier to achieve a little than a lot ... some would even go so far as to call it common sense and call it obvious ...

but it's neither ...

the objective of idealistic thought is to offer a vision, a concept, a paradigm, a model, a "could be", and a simple distinction between right and wrong ... it need not be inflexible or black and white or intolerant ... but idealism, as a tactic, should start with the premise that we will say what we believe is right and fair and we will fight for it ... idealism need not turn its back on political realities; not everything can be achieved with one election ... but nor should we fear saying what we believe our society should aspire to ... we should not accept the myth that we will be punished politically for doing so ...

the Democratic Party has been taken over by political technicians ... they are so focussed on pulling the strings on the puppets that they've forgotten what the play is about in the first place ... in the end, idealists need to destroy the myth that issues like reform, issues like restoring the ideals of American democracy and issues like fundamental human liberation are "leftist" issues; they are human issues ... until we destroy the myth that such advocacy is not politically viable, we will fail, our Party will fail and our country will fail ...

[depakid]

62. winning the support of the American people

requires standing up and fighting for something- and if history is any indication, that something would be traditional Democratic values.

As long as there are high profile DINO's in the party undercutting those values- legitimizing and enabling far right policies or worse- crossing over and voting with the Republicans, the Dems are destined to remain the minority party.

I can't tell you how often IRL that I hear outright disgust heaped at the Dems. I mean, serious contempt- from people of all persuasions, due to what they perceive as spinelessness.

[BootinUp]

63. The spine meme strikes again n/t

[depakid]

68. People actually do use that word outside DU

not everyone or even most people, of course- but it's the basic sentiment.

Sometimes it's even worse. You should have heard one woman go off at the pub where we had out February DU meet up. Granted, she'd had a few beers- but damn. She hated Republicans, but by the same turn, had nothing but scorn for the Dems.

I suspect that's a much more common sentiment in the world beyond the beltway than the party leadership would like to believe....

[BootinUp]

70. Where I currently reside

That is never an issue that gets mentioned as to why the Dems are consistently losing.

And it seems to me that only far lefties would even see lack of spine as a party problem. It implies lack of character and that is typically brought up with regard to particular candidates/politicians in my experience as both parties have some of these types.

Its like Skinner says in a recent post, is somebody proposing centrist or to the left policy becuase its what they believe or because its what they think it takes to win? Or both? The same applies to candidates.

edited to clarify the first sentence.

[depakid]

92. No idea where that might be

but I hear this stuff everywhere I go on the West Coast, and I heard similar things while I was in North Carolina for a family reunion. And as I mentioned- it wasn't just from progressives.

And you're right- spineless it does imply something about character. That's unfortunate- but not necessarily innaccurate in many cases.

Bottom line is that a good many people have lost faith with the Democratic party, and considering their actions over the past 6 weeks (or even the past 6 years) it's not very hard to see why.

And the way to get that confidence back isn't through some talk out of both sides of your mouth "centrism" (whatever that is)- but by appealing to the same values and supporting the same policies that gave the Dems control over Congress for most of the last Century.

[BootinUp]

95. I don't want to hijack

Skinners thread. But if you think that winning states we are currently not able to win is only about "spine" then I must disagree. I don't care how big we win in CA, OR, NY, etc. I care about winning OH, FL, WV, NC, LA.

[sui generis]

81. yes and I would add that it's a big world

outside of DU. Not everyone has an agenda for the few words of the human language we all share.

If I don't like somebody and I can conclude that they did something ignoble and cowardly and can give examples, then "spineless" is appropriate vernacular to use. Of course there are a lot more good politicians than bad in our party, but it would be counterproductive not to call a spade a spade when you've been dealt one.

[karynnj]

65. Very interesting comment

The question is willing should we be to give up on 100% of A, to get a candidate who does X. In a way, isn't that always the problem with winning both the primary where strategy A works best and winning the general election where Strategy B works beat.

There are some issues that likely overlap - in fact per the polls in 2004 - more people agreed with the Kerry (which were pretty standard Democratic) positions than Bush's except on national security. This might mean that on most things we can get a large part of what we want without losing the issues.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

69. You may be making some false assumptions.

Many, if not most, of the things I support would benefit me personally not one whit- or only peripherally.


STATEMENT B

Reagan was well-supported by the American people and it started the recent period of ruin in this country. So screw that angle.


STATEMENT A

Absolutely. Everybody thinks their opinion is the right thing to do or, presumably, it wouldn't be their opinion.


If something is good for me, is it also good for the Democratic party as a whole? Do my interests coincide with the interests of a majority of the voters, and does it even matter?

Putting the Party on the same level as voter's welfare is absurd to me. You'll find three groups of voters: Me voters, Us voters and I Don't Care Enough to Care voters. The Me voters have already cut themselves off from the group by their very status as a Me voter. So, fuck them (for now). The Us voters don't care which vehicle is used as long as they get their wish: Equality (Social, Political and Financial). The IDCETC voters don't care so fuck them (for now). Presuming that the vast majority of Democrats are Us voters, the answer to the the question "Do my interests coincide with the interests of a majority of the voters, and does it even matter?" the answer is unequivocally YES. Because we want the same thing for everybody, regardless of what type of voter they are. Voila! they become unfucked.

I don't care whether anything is good for the Democratic Party as long as the ideals for which she presumably stands are put in place. The Party is a vehicle that takes you to a destination, not the destination itself. If that vehicle breaks down, you fix it. If you can't fix it, you get another ride. From the smoke coming from the tailpipe, it looks like this vehicle has blown a couple of rings. Do I want to junk it or fix it? This is where we are. And hell yes it matters because we're a long, long way from our destination.

[Walt Starr]

73. Well said!

As far as the car analogy goes, I pulled over, put it in park, got out,and started walking because I determined there was no other choice but to abandon the vehicle.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

77. I'm gonna wait and see what the 2006 model has to offer.

The 2004 model I'm driving, as I mentioned, has blown a few rings and a thrown rod is a distinct possibility. I'd like to jump in my 1934 roadster but all the tires are blown. Maybe the Michelin Man will run this year...

[Walt Starr]

82. Eh, my 2004 model was running on less than half the cylinders

and I'm sure the head gasket is blown too (there's anti-freeze in the oil, not good).

I viewed it as unfixable or rather, not worth attempting to fix.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

101. I'm aware of your renouncement.

It just seems like common sense to get that extra few miles out of the beast before you start walking. Especially if you're going to shitcan it anyway. Hell, you might as well floor it!

(Visual)

Walt stomps on the gas, the faulty tranny clunks and goes into reverse.....

(End visual)


All the new models come out at the end of summer. That's when I'll be walking the lot.

[mdmc]

72. there is a significant difference

while taking a "kick their ass, take their gas" iraq war position might help get dems easily elected, it has nothing to do with what is good for the country, or what i think is good for the country.

while taking a pro drug war stance will make it easier for dems to get elected, I oppose the drug war and believe that it makes America less safe and secure.

If something is good for me (like ending the drug war), it does not necessarily mean that it is good for the usa or for the dem party.

It does not matter whether a poster's opinion "coincides" with what voters think is in their best interest.

[Neil Lisst]

78. I want the party to win a majority, and my beliefs will fit that.

I want to WIN, and forging a winning platform and ticket means doing what it takes to get the party acceptable to 51%.

[Minnesota Libra]

83. OMG Skinner, I've tried to made this point in a variety of ways......

......and always gotten shot down for it.:shrug:

For better or worse the majority of Americans are simply not as far left on the political scale as some may be here at DU. For example, I am considered a bit more conservative than most here at DU. Yet, I can go to visit other message boards, definitely not republican boards, and am labled a "bleeding heart liberal". So it's all in the eyes of the beholder.

The bottom line is that what it takes to get the Democratic Party vote is one thing. What it will take to secure the vote of the majority of Americans is not necessarily the same as for Democrats/liberals here. Many do not see that though.

[Armstead]

84. Some of it stems from people feeling like they're not getting anything

I think it's possible that the "they had better do this to get my support" often is a result of "last straw" frustratioin.

If people feel that the majority of their concerns are being addressed by the leadership, they are more likely to overlook the times when they are not. They are also more likely to accept compromises for what might be the greater good.

But if the ledership has pattern of either ignoring or acting contrary to people's concerns, they are more likely to draw personal lines in the sand, where they might not otehrwise.

For example the Alito nomination. A lot of us were getting all worked up and demanding a fillibuster, and threatening not to support the Democrats -- or particular Democrats -- if they didn't.

In retrospect, that was probably being very unreasonable. What really mattered, after all, was how they voted on him. The fillibuster was less important.

BUT, I suspect a lot of us would have been more reasonable about that if it had not been the latest in a long line of capitulations -- on Roberts, the Patriot Act, etc. etc. etc. If there had been more consistent opposition from them all along, a lot of peopel would probably have been willing to overlook something like the fillibuster.

But that had a last straw feeling to many people. So they did take "You'd better satisfy me and fillibuster on this one, or that's it."


I dunno if that answers your question or not, but I gave it a shot.:)

[Walt Starr]

85. I disagree

I consider the filbuster demands not only reasonable, but also mandatory. It is, as you say, a last straw issue and was the final straw that pushed me out of the party.

[Armstead]

91. Ah but you just called it a "last straw"

Obviously I can't speak for you, but you might not be disagreeing with that sttement as much as you think.

I was one of those who got rabid during that time. I was calling Congresspeople, signing petitions and posting constantly and emotionally on DU.

Later I realize why. It was because I had reached a point of cumulative frustration that finally boiled over. So my feeling was "Look. This time you people in Congress had better stand your ground, because I'm fed up with your wishy-wshiness."

I'm fairly certain that I would felt differently about a fillibuster and not have seen it necessary for them to prove something if Democrats had stood tall against the Patriot Act, Iraq, voted in unison against CAFTA, had filabustred Roberts (or at least all voted No)_and fought hard against him.

If they had such a track record, it's possible you might not have been so frustrated over the Alito fillibuster either. You may have been more inclined to accept them voting against him without that.

[Walt Starr]

114. If wishes were horses then beggars would ride

They don't have such a track record. They have rolled over time and again to such a point that when they show even the slightests amount of spine everybody gets raucous.

I can't buy it any more.

[sui generis]

93. on equal rights issues

with only 65 democrats voting against DOMA I have to say that I don't think that compromising and winning democrats into office would have made any difference to us, since most of them voted for DOMA anyway.

It's not the straw that broke the camels back - it's the whole haystack. There are certainly some issues I'm willing to compromise on, but equal rights are long past the last straw. We are dying in the military just like everyone else, to bring "freedom" to the world.

We're being good little policemen, and firemen, and janitors and CEO's and judges and prosecutors and yes, even hairdressers, but we're being treated like children unable to decide what's best for ourselves. The happiest days of most people's lives are their engagement proposal and their wedding day. We are shut away from that, told that people "disagree" with our existence. We're not the fringe. We're everywhere, and we deserve to be supported openly and with conviction, and you will have overwhelming support and money from us.

It's that simple.

[bvar22]

98. The American People want THIS:

In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a REAL Democratic party:

1. 65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

8) Over 64% of the American People believe that Invading Iraq was a mistake, and that troops should be withdrawnwithin one year.

I believe that the Democratic Party should give the American People what they want.

[Skinner]

100. Those are great numbers.

It really makes you scratch your head and wonder why the leaders of the party are so afraid to take a stand.

[bpilgrim]

105. it makes me think they are in on it... capitulated

thank GORE, he 'invented' the INTERNETs ;->

btw: have you seen 'No Bravery' yet? It is #1 on google :hi:

peace

[bvar22]

108. Here is the link.

http://alternet.org/story/29788/

I also saw the same polls on the Jim Hightower site.

[Neil Lisst]

103. Those are great Unifying Principles for the party.

I've been thinking about this very issue.

We must develop in the next few months some unifying principles for the party for 2006 and 2008.

These data you provided are very helpful. We all know these things in our heart, but it's good to have support in poll form.

Let's do it!!

[bpilgrim]

104. zactly, we are the majority

time to get VOCAL :bounce:

peace

[sui generis]

120. Are these just the first eight items

or the only eight?

I like what's on the list, it's what's absent that makes this American taxpayer believe it is incomplete.

The American Majority is saying (by omission) that some of us are not part of the majority, which I find absurd.

I can spell it out but I've probably already beat the horse long past dead.

[SnoopDog]

106. I think we are at a stage of existence that..

the most important 'x' is to sustain life in our country and our earth. The most important 'x' for me is to drink pure water, breathe clean air, eat safe food, and sustain a higher understanding. This is not a 'me' thing - not a Dem thing, and not even a Repuk thing. It is what we need to do to survive as a creature.

America and the world are at new crossroads.

There are those in government who think Mutual Assured Destruction is desirable while we think the complete opposite.

[flaminbats]

110. yes..although Nazis believed the two questions were always same

Nothing can be worse than a political society with voters who equate what I want as what society wants. That is why we have polls..reality and perception are often different.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

111. Not the same...

I know that I'm more liberal that most of the country. I also believe that if I can get half of what I believe through the legislature, we'd be better off. So when I draw distinctions between what I like in a candidate and what I think will work with the general electorate.

So there's a difference between what I want and what I think will resonate with the American people.

[JNelson6563]

115. The REAL Difference

IMO those who have their specific demands to be met in return for support are not involved in real world politics and are not generally interested in becoming so. They have no clue how things really work and, I suspect in many cases, for every demand met another would surface. There will always be "good" reasons for with-holding support for the many who prefer a role as a keyboard commando.

It takes a lot of guts to "get out there" and try to affect positive change. Additionally, it takes a lot of good sense to be willing to light a candle instead of cursing the darkness.

Julie

[LWolf]

116. I guess it depends on "my" interests.

If "my" interests include things like:

peace

universal, single-payer, not-for-profit health care

protection of the constitution and civil rights

election reform

environmental health

social and economic justice

A healthy, vibrant, thriving system of public education

worker's rights

I'd say that "my" interests are good for the American people as a whole, and should therefore be good for the Democratic Party as a whole.

[Stephanie]

125. ooops wrong thread

[crispini]

127. I'm going to take issue with the FIRST part of BOTH statements.

"The Democrats." I HATE THIS PHRASE. :banghead:

Who ARE "the Democrats?" In your statement, "The Democrats" is, I think, shorthand for "The Democratic leadership in Congress, i.e. our elected officials, and maybe any future candidates for President."

That's fine, but that is but one PART of the Democratic party. For example, there is also the permanent party (the DNC), your state party, your local party, local elected officials, activists, etcetera.

And all the time you see people on here say things like, "The Democrats should do X, and when the DNC called, I told them they weren't getting any more money until they do X." Or "When the state party called I told them blah blah blah." I am SO TIRED of this confusion about who does what. If Harry Reid does something you don't like, take it out on Harry Reid's office, not on your state or local party. They have about as much to do with our Democratic leadership as they do with the man on the moon!