Is it really all about winning or is it about getting policies we want?

[HereSince1628]

I think it's important to realize that for us little blades of grass out here in the lawn of the democratic party that for us it's more important that the policies, programs, and practices get put in place that we as individuals hope for.

We live in a ridiculously polarized society. We are taught that we must hate our political opponents first and discount their arguments mostly out of hand because, they are, after all, our OPPONENTS dammit!

But for us little blades of grass we really don't want an electoral win. We want water, fertilizer, mowing to discourage weeds, recognition of the value we add to the property, etc.

Even if our candidate wins and goes to Washington, our candidate will be likely be in a minority inside our own party's caucus. We and our candidate will still have to convince the party, and members of the other party, that our cause, our policies, our programs are meritorious.

Winning an election isn't an end. Losing an election isn't an end either, even if it rachets the bar a whole lot or just bit higher. It's only about the candidates and winning for the professional candidates and those who will get a candy appointment if that candidate wins.

For the rest of us it's about pushing for and getting adequate sunlight, water, fertilizer, weed and traffic control, and protection from the neighbor's dog burning us to death with a toxic fecal nitrogen dump on our heads.

Dear, fellow blades of grass, I propose that it matters less who owns the house than that they don't pave over the lawn.

[mattclearing]

1. You can't do one without the other. n/t

[HereSince1628]

6. I submit to you that we can hardly do one WITH the other.

This winning is everything is bullshit. Winning matters most to the politicians who get the political positions and the consulting businesses, then to the folks who get political appointments from the candidate.

It doesn't matter to the political consultants. They leave Illinois and go back to their day jobs, or find another campaign to milk.

Regardless of who gets elected, the grassroots must still turn yellow and scream to be noticed. Winning is only somewhat helpful, it is a guarantee of little.
The difference is the difference between a campaign promise and passed legislation.

[mattclearing]

11. Winning is the difference between Al Gore and George Bush.

The difference between Paul Wellstone/Walter Mondale and Norm Coleman.

The difference between a Congress that passed budget reforms that balanced the budget and a Congress that passed a 1.9 trillion dollar tax cut.

It matters a lot more than you seem to think.

[HereSince1628]

12. Not quite right, Wellstone couldn't stop them alone and the

surviving politicians, may Paul rest in peace, even the politicians on our side, are more concerned with how they position themselves than pushing for programs the base supports.

How can 60% of the American people want Iraq to end, and the Congress ignores it?
How can 63% of the American people want NSA spying investigated and Congress ignores it?
How can 68% of the American people want Bush impeached -IF- (My God!!!) he lied us into war and Congress ignores it?

BECAUSE THE ELECTED OFFICIALS IGNORE THE PEOPLE! We, those ignored people, must always jump up and down and cause a ruckus to get noticed. And even then mostly we are ignored until they need a campaign contribution and a vote.

At that point we DON'T get relief. Rather, we get a freaking campaign promise, something as quickly forgotten as the delay getting seated at a K-Street restaurant.

Even if our candidates win, and they won't always win, we, those people who need and want our elected officials to look after our liberty, justice, and equality we can never put our effort to bed. Rather we must brow beat, cajowl, arm twist, suck-up, and plead with those who ostensibly work for us to keep a fraction of the promise they made when trying to pick our pockets.

Our current dilemma has less to do with winning, and more to do with the capacity to be ignored once any of them has won.

[MadMaddie]

2. At this point it's about saving America from falling into a Theocracy...

We have to save America from the Facist path it is on!!

[Sammy Pepys]

3. I think we need...

..to get our prinicples and priorities a little bit tighter for the wins to come our way. On a lot of things, we seem to be all over the map.

[bullimiami]

5. THE LAW IS FOR EVERYONE, RICH OR POOR, WEAK OR POWERFUL.

NOONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

one principal. this would fix our election system, our government and our behavior toward the rest of the world.

[dmkinsey]

4. We can't get our policy if we don't win

May not get it if we do but we have to win to find out

[HereSince1628]

8. Campaign promises or passed legislation? Which is important?

If you live in a precint, ward, district, or state without a blue elected official do we give up? No.

Do the elected blue officials give up on promises just because they are "politically risky?" Yes.

We win ONLY when the policies we want are implemented into legislation and regulations. That might be easier if someone who shares our view is elected but that alone will guarantee nothing.

Too many votes for and too much faith in people who believe only in winning elections is ruining our party.

We need someone to take some risks for us. We are dying of neglect out here in the backyard.

[porphyrian]

7. Yes. - n/t

[LunaC]

9. It's not about Repugs vs Dems but Hawks vs Doves

Strip down to the core:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x726466

[baby_mouse]

10. I agree. NT

[regnaD kciN]

13. Which is more important: outscoring your opponent, or winning the game...?

:eyes:

[walldude]

14. For me it's neither

for me it's about stopping the slaughter of innocent people. 50-60 civillians a day in Iraq. How many are women and childern???