Any blue state that votes a Repub into office loses all whining rights.

[MoonRiver]

I don't care how liberal the Repub is. I don't care if he/she is "likable" or you know him/her personally. I don't care how much name recognition he/she has, or how long his/her family has lived in your state, or how beloved the family is. By voting any Repub into Congress it just helps to enable *'s agenda. So, Rhode Island are you listening?, just plan to STFU if you stick with your liberal Repub Senator or Congress critter, and then don't like the continuing meltdown of our constitutional rights, international status, environment, and, yes, safety.

p.s. I'm not addressing individuals who vote Democratic in blue states. Just ranting about states overall. I certainly believe that DUers understand what I'm talking about. I just cannot understand how liberal states can put our country at such risk by for their likeable Repub.

[rox63]

1. I don't know what MA did to deserve Mittens as Governor

But we're really good with electing Dems to the Senate and the House. And we're working real hard to fix the Governor problem this year.

[MoonRiver]

5. Mass is doing great!

I bet you can fix that governor problem soon. :)

[Warpy]

2. Anti incumbent fever may well replace some DLC Democrats

this election. People are unhappy with the way things are going in Washington and Congress has some of the lowest positive ratings ever.

That is not a sign that both parties will keep their seats. It's more a sign that seats held by both parties will change hands.

Don't punish the states. It's a losing strategy.

[MoonRiver]

4. I'm not punishing anybody. These are facts.

Certainly anybody who voted for a Democrat can't be faulted even if the blue state he/she is from decides to vote otherwise. But the fact is that by voting a Repub, even a liberal one, into office gives or helps to give the radical Repukes more power. I don't understand how folks in the liberal states couldn't figure this elementary principle out. Hopefully, they have and we'll see results this November.

[filer]

16. Certainly some DLC Democrats need replacing.

Aren't they really just Republicrats? I still have a problem with Dems who voted for the war and haven't repented.

[William769]

3. What about the Bi States?

[MoonRiver]

6. What do you mean?

Bi?

[William769]

8. Sometimes Blue, sometimes red.

You know switch hitters.

[MoonRiver]

9. I don't know. It makes somewhat more sense then.

What I cannot fathom are the solidly blue states that don't get how important it is to rid our government of as many Republicans as possible. Sometimes they seem to understand, but think their state is the exception, cause they have such a great Repub running!

[William769]

11. The only good Repub is a out of work one.

[MoonRiver]

12. Yeah. The logic is simple.

[Ravenseye]

7. Who shuts up? The State?

The democrats in the state who didn't vote for the guy? They can't say anything? The state? What does that even mean?

You say 'by voting any rebub into congress' but i'm assuming you don't mean the house. I think most states have at least one republican congressman. So are you talking statewide offices only like Senator which participate on a federal level or are Governors also applicable?

If just Senators, are you saying that people in North Dakota which has two democratic Senators, can complain, but people in say Oregon or Minnesota which have split Senators need to shut the fuck up? Or even worse in states like Pennsylvania where we have two Republican Senators, though hopefully soon only one, we can't say anything either?

What magical blue only wonderland do you live in which allows you to speak your mind and tell other people they can't?

[MoonRiver]

10. It really depends on if people want *'s agenda to continue or be stopped

cold. Of course people who vote Democratic, even in blue states that vote for a Repub, are not to blame for their state' terrible error. They still get to whine! :D

[Ravenseye]

14. Well to address your 'ps'

"I just cannot understand how liberal states can put our country at such risk by for their likeable Repub."

That seems to be the root of what you're saying. I think the answer is that while there are a few 'liberal' states and a few 'conservative' states, most states are purple. Actually most cities are blue, and rural areas are red, with purple mixed in.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Gastner_map_purple_bypopulation_bycounty.png

So if you look at a state like Pennsylvania, it may be a 'blue' state that voted for Gore and for Kerry, and Clinton, it also voted for Reagan twice, and Bush's father. Heck, even Massachusettes voted for Reagan twice. Anyway, my point is that there aren't may states that are heavily leaning one way or another, and the ones that are most famous, the swing states, are just that.

a 'liberal' state like Pennsylvania is only such because of it's cities. Pittsburgh on the left, Philadelphia on the right, and Alabama in the middle, is the old joke. All those people vote in statewide elections and much of it comes down to which candidates can energize the most voters. Also there are a fair number of moderates in the middle who prefer 'their guy' who has been there awhile. They're not thinking of the balance in the Senate itself, and probably never have. Maybe Pennsylvania isn't a liberal state, and like most of America is a 'moderate state', that has recently tended to vote for a Democratic President. We'll have to wait and see which way it falls.

Anyway I dont' think there are that many 'liberal states' which so dominate their political landscape that they have that kind of control. I think for the most part you're thinking of moderate states which can go either way, and in which the swing voters don't vote along party lines, but for the individual candidates.

[MoonRiver]

17. For me, this is a black and white issue.

And I virtually NEVER think in black and white.

Let me put it this way, any state, but especially a blue one which should know better, that votes to put Repubs into either the Senate or House of Representatives, shouldn't complain when the * agenda is allowed to forge full force ahead, and people in those states don't like the results. The time to have thought about that was when they were voting.

That's all. I think it's pretty simple and obvious.

[Ravenseye]

18. That's a bit too simplistic

Again you saying 'any state...shouldn't complain'. I'm still unclear what you mean by that. You backpedeled and said that people who voted for the democratic candidate aren't who you are talking about, but then who? The people who voted for the Republican? You should say that then. If you are saying that people who have a republican representative can't complain, then I wonder how you expect people in those states to change their representatives if they're not allowed to participate.

I agree that people that vote for Republican candidates, not just for President, but for the house or senate, shouldn't complain when the Republican agenda hurts them. It's the height of idiocy when someone says "oh well MY GUY is ok." I agree that's stupid thinking. You might like Chafee for instance, and he might be as good a Republican as you can get, but he's still a Republican. He still gives them a majority, and that keeps control in the wrong hands.

What's not obvious to me, is who you are talking about. The moderate independents who make up the majority of the voting population in a supposed 'blue state' like Pennsylvania? Are they, who aren't thinking of the big picture? The way you are phrasing your statements makes it sound like liberals and democrats are crossing over and voting for the Republican candidates in some of these elections, when it's the non-affiliated moderates who find them more appealing.

If you're saying that people who vote 'red' in this election need to not fucking complain when the situation doesn't get better, then I agree with you. There are no good crossover candidates this time around. Control of the house and senate is imperative to halt the continuing damage done by the Bush administration.

I just think your language keeps lumping a bunch of us into that group that needs to be quiet.

[MoonRiver]

19. I avoided saying "people" on my initial post,

because I didn't want to offend people on DU. So I used the generic "state". I now understand that that is too general, and so I qualified it, stating that I only intended it to reflect on those who vote for the Repub.

My simple point is that if people want to stop the * agenda, they must vote Democratic, regardless of how much they like the Repub who's running. I think all this nuance just obscures a basic reality. Repubs put out simple talking points that people relate to. Here's a talking point that is effective I think.

If you don't like the * agenda, vote Democratic.

People in blue states should know this better than anyone. Because they are more liberal than the red or purple states, they are probably more incensed over the * agenda. It seems like very simple logic to understand that continuing to vote for their favorite Repub gives the Repubs a majority and keeps the * trainwreck in motion. If they don't get it, and continue to vote in people like Chaffe, then I give up on them. Maybe I'm not seeing a big enough picture, but the end result is really all I care about.

[exlrrp]

13. Whining Rights are not cancelable!

I live in a blue State by choice but there's Republicans here to give it balance.
We have a Dem Governor, one Dem Senator, 5 out of 6 Dem Congressmen (and women)
The Repubs have one senator, one congressman, control one side of the bilateral legislature.
This is gives a nice balance--the Dems holding power with just enough Republican influence to keep them honest. (not that I think Republicans are honest--but they hold the Dems feet to the fire here and keep them honest)
The Bush administration has been a huge disaster to OR (along with everything else) theyre selling off our forests and cranking up our power rates. Portland Gas and Electric is still feeling the crush of prior Enron ownership.
We'll just keep our whining rights, thanks, even if there are a few Republicans around here

[MoonRiver]

15. Well they lose whining right to moi!

I have lost patience with the situation. Hopefully, we'll take back one branch of Congress and can stop the * trainwreck. But if we don't because liberal states continue to vote in Repubs, then I give up. If people who should know better don't get it, how can folks in less advanced states? And, yes, I am primarily talking about the Senate, but I believe House of Representatives is also an issue.

[Love Bug]

20. You might want to keep your rant to take out again when McCain runs

I know people who otherwise vote Dem (and I live in a blue state) who get all soft and gooey when McCain is mentioned. I then have to bitch-slap them to remind them that McCain is as big an enabler of bush's agenda as Tom Delay (well, maybe without all the criminal activity).

[MoonRiver]

21. Sometimes I really wonder.

With all that has happened over the last 5 years, some still think voting Repuke is acceptable!

I'll keep this rant in my journal. If I'm still a functional activist come the 2008 election I might pull it out. But if we don't take back at least one branch of government this November I think I have to take a long rest from all this shit. You know those old sayings we keep throwing at the Pukes: "What's the definition of insanity?" Answer: "Doing the same thing over and over and getting the same results.", and "When you're stuck in a hole, stop digging." Or something like that. Anyway, I think it's time that we follow that other saying: "Physician, heal thyself."

:banghead:

[Love Bug]

22. Boy, do I hear you

I came thisclose to chucking it all in when Kerry "lost" 2 years ago. I was so sure Kerry would win big because there was no way people would be stupid enough to vote for the shrub again. Well, fool me once and all that. This is why I am not even optimistic about this upcoming election. If the dems don't at least win the House I'm going to have to take a break.