Let's face it: exhorting a disillusioned base to "stick with the team" has NEVER worked.

[jgraz]

Repost from a few months ago. Thought it might be useful today.


1980...1984...1988...1994...2000...2004. We never seem to learn.

Every time a weak, center-right Democrat loses an election we hear the same things over and over: "lesser of two evils", "purity police", "you're probably happy we lost", etc, etc, etc. And every time, we go right back to the same losing strategy.

Take 2000 for example. Sure, you can blame the Florida felon's list or the butterfly ballot. You can even continue to blame Ralph Nader and the few people who voted their conscience. But none of those things cost us as many votes as an anemic, middle-of-the-road candidate and his sanctimonious tool of a running mate. Gore's come a long way in 9 years, but in 2000 he wasn't exactly a progressive crusader. Failure to learn this lesson led directly to the Kerry candidacy of 2004 and another close, steal-able election against the worst president in history.

I thought after 2006 and 2008 we had finally figured it out: you run attractive candidates that excite the base and you win elections. You don't even have to excite them that much -- Democrats and Democratic values have always held the true majority in this country -- you just need to give them a reason to come out and vote.

But here we are again. We've lost two races with unpopular candidates: one, a corporate pirate and another who tried to out-teabag his opponent. And here come the posts begging us to "not lose heart" or to "hold our nose and vote" -- just as if the last 30 years of national politics never happened.

It's not going to work. It's never worked. If we keep nominating weak candidates, if our national leaders keep running to the right under some vague smokescreen of "bipartisanship", then Democrats will lose. And if, somehow, Republicans manage to field even crappier candidates than we do (see 1992), *we* -- as in "We The People" -- still lose.

I'm not sure what the right solution is, but I do know that this continual reliance on weak, incremental change and candidates just a little less appalling than their opponents is a proven failure. Even if we manage to eek out a few victories, we've already seen how one committed, radical Republican can undo decades of Democratic incrementalism.

It's time we stopped settling for less.

[Captain Hilts]

1. It works for Republicans, but not for Dems, sadly. nt

[jgraz]

4. Nope, it doesn't work for them either

See 2006, 2008.

[Orsino]

38. It works fine for them.

Their agenda doesn't require Republican majorities.

[jgraz]

49. And the Democrats' agenda does.

Why else would they be playing the minority party with the White House, House and a 60-vote Senate?

[tblue]

118. Yeah...Why are Dems so effing helpless?!

They need to pass some freaking progressive legislation by any means necessary.

[Wapsie B]

247. +1,000,000

[tblue37]

252. Hi, cuz! I would rec your post if I could! nt

[Ken Burch]

175. You really start to wonder why our leaders WANTED to win a majority

n/t.

[defendandprotect]

196. To block more progressive, liberal Democrats . . . ????

Put corporate-DLC in charge of White House and block a Democratic Party

Platform?

[Ken Burch]

202. It could just have been about getting nicer offices and more staff, I suppose.

That and it helps keep Harry the hell away from Nevada!

[JVS]

7. They seldom try it. They love feeding red meat to their base

[rucky]

48. We're not authoritarians

and we don't respect authoritarianism.

[closeupready]

78. We're also not cowards. Nor was FDR.

n/t

[Ken Burch]

204. Our leaders are only authoritarian towards those who elected them.

n/t.

[rucky]

220. Yeah, I was addressing the OP

There are many legitimate reasons to fight. Blind loyalty to a disconnected leadership is not one of 'em.

[Ken Burch]

221. Sorry, misunderstood. Will edit previous post if possible.

n/t.

[Eric Condon]

170. Ever notice how everything seems to "work" for them and not us? nt

[bvar22]

176. Everything seems to "work" for The RICH (Corporate Owners)....

...without regard to which "Party" is in power (Democrats or Republicans) for the last 40 years.

No wonder "they" had to kill Wellstone.
"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[AnOhioan]

2. If I could rec this 1000 times I would

as it is...a mere K&R

[BeatleBoot]

3. Yeah, We're Toast

:rofl:

[jgraz]

9. Soooo missing the point.

:shrug:

[Moochy]

157. BeatleBoot

Licker

[Ken Burch]

205. Why would you laugh at the thought?

You know perfectly well that last night was a disaster for the whole "pro-business" party leadership.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. K&R from me too

[ProSense]

6. Every time Dems lose an election, it's always the end.

Just Shut Up!

[jgraz]

8. If Dems continue to be unteachable, they are headed for disaster this fall.

Keep whistling past the graveyard. You're only helping the GOP.

[Codeine]

10. the only people helping the GOP

are Democrats who vote for them, or who don't vote at all.

[jgraz]

11. Wrong. Very, very wrong.

Did you not read the OP? :shrug:

[Codeine]

17. I did. I think you're wrong.

Whiny little pissy-pants spoiled children who withhold a vote because everything is't going 100% their way are the most destructive force in American politics today, are destroying the party I've been a member of since I was old enough to vote, and I am sick unto death of them.

Politics is fucking incrimental! Things happen in stages and steps, and refusing to move forward one step because you'd rather move five is stupid. We had a start, a beginning, a plan that would help some and get things moving. But it wasn't perfect, and the fucking bullshit Purity Police couldn't cope with that.

Hell, I'd love to have France's system today, but the electorate just ain't there, man. Delude yourself all you want, but it just isn't what the voters want. So guess what -- I'll take what I can get and try for more tomorrow.

The Saggy Diaper Brigade can't take "yes" for an answer, and they're eating my party alive.

[jgraz]

19. So do you plan to call every disillusioned Dem and scold them?

Seriously, the Democrats are losing voters. And you think the solution is to blame the *voters* for not settling for less? How fucking ridiculous is that?

[Codeine]

21. If they vote for Pukes

or withhold votes they aren't fucking Democrats in the first place, now are they?

[jgraz]

22. No. In the real world, with limitations of time and space, what is your strategy?

All the sanctimony in the world won't win elections. What is your practical advice to avoid another disaster like tonight?

[Codeine]

23. Simple.

Run a better candidate. Obama didn't lose, some boring-ass person named Coakley did. HCR didn't lose, Coakley did.

This was a state election. HCR, Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama, Wall Street, and the bailout were not on the ballot. two people were, and the boring one lost.

[jgraz]

30. And how did Coakley become the candidate?

:shrug:

[Hannah Bell]

173. +1

[ima_sinnic]

90. "run a better candidate"--I think you're starting to get it

that was the whole point of the OP -- DUH

[spiritual_gunfighter]

253. I am not convinced the poster even read the OP n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

191. Like hell those things weren't on the ballot.

There's a bunch of polls coming out that demonstrate that.

[placton]

166. pardon me, Codeine

I am a real democrat, and I refuse to vote for those who are not, just because they claim the Dem party as home. I suppose that, in the past, you would have supported voting from Strom Thurmond and a host of other Dems (who later turned GOP) because of their party label. Get real.

[placton]

167. pardon me, Codeine

I am a real democrat, and I refuse to vote for those who are not, just because they claim the Dem party as home. I suppose that, in the past, you would have supported voting from Strom Thurmond and a host of other Dems (who later turned GOP) because of their party label. Get real.

[kenfrequed]

208. Annoyingly wrong

Most of us progressives continue to hold our nose and vote D. It is the people on the edges that long for and look for a truly progressive alternative as an opposition to the status quo of ceding to the rich and powerful control of this nation.

The DLC sorts and the corporatists within our party serve similar if not the same masters that command the Republican party.

In terms of voters we have given up populism for Insurance money and big bank money and populism works. Had we started with a strong healthcare proposal and put it out in front we would have easily countered and thwarted the idiocy of the tea parties. But we cooled our heels while Baucus and his crowd negotiated away even the appearance of incremental change in the name of phoney bipartisanship.

So the Tea parties captured media attention and since they were the loudest vote they gradually eroded our numbers. Populism requires a bit of boldness. Giving up the field and creating infinite cover for political poltroons to hide out and collect money from poltroons might have made sense to Rahm but the big win requires vision and accomplishments, not merely depriving the opposition of a little pharmacuetical and insurance money.

We are losing because we keep figuring we can still win a race with a rabid dog by feeding it our toes.

[Hello_Kitty]

189. Well yeah, because god knows we musn't criticize President Lieberman or VP Nelson

Or Lincoln or Landrieu either. I mean, it's not like those poor dears have a vote in the Senate or anything. It's not like they held up the bill until they could hack it up and strip it of everything the public liked.

Nope, blame the dirty fucking hippies for not pretending it was awesome.

[kenfrequed]

210. "I do believe in faires"

Or am I merely supposed to applaud to make the bill rise up on gossamer wings and magically transform into a single payer universal system (or at least a sturdy public option)

[Hello_Kitty]

215. Sorry but ponies and fairies are for Lieberman and Nelson. eom

[kenfrequed]

234. Aww dang it.

You know someone who threw that pony thing around quite frequently on this board also tried to claim health care activists ought to be called "Veruca Salt Democrats." I rather angrily tore into that person.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

25. 100% my way? I'd settle for 50% or even 25%

I'm getting about 5% at this rate.

[laughingliberal]

75. +1 nt

[laughingliberal]

69. Brilliant! I think calling the disillusioned "whiny, little pissy-pants spoiled children..."

is exactly the way to get them back to the polls to vote for our candidates.

[ima_sinnic]

93. lol! the nerve of those whiny little pissy-pants spoiled children not voting the way they should!

:crazy:

[Moochy]

180. Scatalogical, Infantilization, Paternalistic hey it's DLC talking point BINGO!

That's why the scolding is not working like it should be, wha'ts more infantilizing than to claim your opponent just pooped his pants?

I think that the New Democrats should fore go urine related taunts, and upgrade to calling the Left "Poopy pants".

[bvar22]

178. I agree.

Who could have predicted that letting Joe Lieberman and Olympia Snow write the HCR Bill would piss off so many Democrats? :shrug:

[Hello_Kitty]

188. Wow. That is a truly magnificent talking point ya got there.

Very persuasive. :eyes:

[laughingliberal]

67. And the solution to getting disillusioned Democrats to vote?

Call me crazy but "STFU," "You just want a pony," and "You must want Palin for President," doesn't seem persuasive. Policies and legislation that actually help the average person out here who is suffering in this economy would seem more persuasive. But that's just my opinion.

[fascisthunter]

156. maybe this person shouldn't help dems campaign

"Hi, who do you plan on voting for?

"not the corporate tool!"

"Are you a liberal ninny?"

**Punch**

[kenfrequed]

213. The "pony" thing was really galling

Considering what we wanted was healthcare for the poor and the underinsured to be accused of crying about "I wanna pony" to be disgusting at best if not horribly stupid on the level of papa Bush being confused by a grocery store scanner.

[AdHocSolver]

33. Every time Dems lose an election, the American people lose.

Where were you during the period January 2001 to January 2009? Obviously not paying attention.

[Ken Burch]

203. You've linked to something that has a "Seat Scott Brown NOW!" ad that's paid for by David Vitter

And when has "shutting up" ever lead to anything good for this party?

[Goldstein1984]

12. Nicely written. Not enough Recs in the world.

We depend too much on the fact that we've had "the worst president in history." Democrats (and democrats) must stop relying on not-as-bad-as-the-other-guy candidates. Americans are getting tired of accepting less than they deserve simply because it isn't as bad as the alternative.

If the Democratic Party is every going to stop being Republican Light (Neoconservative and militaristic), then we must move away from the political center, where a simple flip of a coin is all the consideration a vote really merits. We must move decisively to the progressive left. We can't succeed with the Democratic Party of Bill Clinton, or even, it appears, Barack Obama. We need a democratic party synonymous with civil rights, not NAFTA, GATT, assassination, repeal of Glass-Steagal, and USA Patriot Act.

Democrats must:

Stop catering to Wall Street's and deliver jobs to Main Street;

Cease using fear of terror, drugs and disease to manipulate citizens;

End the illegal wars and stop sending the children of the poor to die killing other children of the poor;

Return to due process, ending extraordinary rendition and the imprisonment of the accused without counsel or trial;

Pursue a non-imperialist foreign policy and reclaim our respected place in the world community;

Investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by a rogue administration; and

They will be elected.

To borrow a line of thought: If we build a worthy party with a worthy platform, they will come.

[laughingliberal]

80. +1000 nt

[Stumbler]

200. Yep, fully agree.

It's been said before: When Democrats run & govern on Democratic principles, they'll win every time. But when they run or govern as Republican-light, voters will choose the real Republicans. It truly is as simple as that.

And to jgraz, great OP. Thanks.

[treestar]

13. this "base" is too easy to disillusion and disappoint and is never satisfied

With this base, we can never get anywhere.

[jgraz]

16. Good point. Why don't you call every Democrat and convince them.

:eyes:

[euphoria12leo]

154. My Senator is a Blue Dog

she will not budge. At least not with single payer. Public Option, questionable. About calling Democrats, hell that's what we've been doing. Making calls, signing petitions, donating money, talking with people we know.

[donco6]

57. The floggings will continue until they come around.

There's a winner!

[GreenPartyVoter]

160. Please, may I have some more sir?

[PVnRT]

62. Well, then, start purging them from the party

That's what you centrists want, isn't it?

[defendandprotect]

195. Rather we should be tossing Rahm Emmanuel and DLC out of the party -- !!!

Rahm has run another election into the ground --

Corporate-DLC is poison to the party --

[JDPriestly]

We actually think. What a horror!

[ima_sinnic]

106. wow, it's still "the base's" fault--damn that easily disillusioned base not settling for crap!

keep talking, Internet poster train wrecks are so much fun ...

[kenfrequed]

216. Well...

If you give up on the party platform you can be rid of them once and for all. Then you can win forever!!!!

I'm right arent I?

[yurbud]

14. Rahm, the DLC, and sadly apparently Obama would rather be corporate compliant than win

[closeupready]

79. That's what I think - many of them probably don't care that we lost a seat;

they are mostly concerned with keeping their own seats, and think the key to that is campaign donations from wealthy interests.

[laughingliberal]

83. Yes, the CofS definitely thinks campaign contributions trump the base

In fact, he believes the base is a myth. I guess the mythological base staying home isn't a problem. That said, I don't think more Republicans in the House and Senate bothers them one bit. It allows the acceleration of the move to the right that has been underway in the party all along.

[yurbud]

165. and getting the bucks and jobs from wealthy when they leave office.

[closeupready]

169. That too; of course their health care is taken care of for life once they take office in Congress.

Since lifetime healthcare coverage at taxpayer expense is a benefit of being a member of Congress, and starts from day one, and continues even if you serve only one term or one day.

[leftstreet]

15. K&R

[TomCADem]

18. Ever Notice That Fox News Never Features Democrats That Support The President?

I think that Democrats are generally pretty happy with the President according to most polls, even those in Massachusetts. Yet, it seems like the only way you can get on TV as a liberal or a Democratic is if you attack the President. Do you ever see Bernie Saunders on Fox News? No. Just Evan Bayh. Do you ever see Jay Rockefeller on the Sundays News channels? No. Just John McCain on endless loop. Why?

Yet, if you attack the President, like Jane Hamsher did and make common cause with Grover Norquist, BOOM! You are a celebrity and are appearing on everything.

If Republicans were Democrats, you would have McCain only featured when he has something nasty to say about Olympia Snowe.

[DisgustedInMN]

37. You watch Faux News?

Bernie Sanders isn't on Faux News? Well, no shit? Repuke Propaganda Central won't give a venue to a self-labeled Socialist? Whoooooodda thunk it?

Are you fucking serious?

Do you even have the first clue as to who has ownership of virtually EVERY media outlet?

Good grief!

[slipslidingaway]

20. knr nt

[LostInAnomie]

24. A lot of the "base" acts like spoiled children when they don't get their way.

Somehow they are dumb enough to think that cutting their nose off to spite their face is a viable strategy.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

A lot of DLCers act like abused spouses and forgive repeated insults

and believe all the promises that it will be better next time.

:spank:

[donco6]

60. I see the TPM is out now.

Theme for today: ridicule the "base". (And don't forget the quotation marks)

[laughingliberal]

84. Yes, and I think calling them "spoiled children" will definitely get them to the polls!

Brilliant!

[LostInAnomie]

246. If they are staying home, fuck them.

If you don't vote you don't matter when it comes to influencing policy. Feel free to keep electing Republicans though, that will get you the change you're looking for. :eyes:

[ima_sinnic]

108. you forgot "whiny" and "pissy-pants"

is "spoiled children" the latest message discipline?

[laughingliberal]

128. Lol +1

[LostInAnomie]

248. No, you're right.

I also forgot to include "useful idiots". If they are stupid enough to stay home they might as well work to elect Republicans. Because that is all they are effectively doing.

No feel free to drone on and on about the DLC, Rahm, corporate whores, etc.

[ima_sinnic]

254. whatever. get back to me when there's someone worth voting for--

someone who'll be different from a Republican.

[bkozumplik]

192. I think it is viable

Instead of laying on your back and letting your own leaders do whatever they want, you let them know if they dont perform they lose their job. They are supposed to work for us, not us for them.

Obama has tacked left recently specifically because his base is dissatisfied. The people who loudly proclaim that anyone not 'on board' is 'cutting off their nose to spite their face'
have a underperforming strategy, and are willing to accept anything as long as its incrementally better than what a republican would bring.
Unless you are content with republican rule +%1 left, you tell our leadership that they haven't been performing well enough.

I think the real issue here is whats "good enough" performance for our party? This poster I am replying to would seem to be ok with the war decision, the constant pathetic unnecessary reaching for bipartisanship, and the horriffic advisor choices we have seen in the past year. Probably his logic is "Its better than Palin" or something similar. I hear a lot of "change takes time" as well, but change taking time doesnt explain the cabinet choices, or the war decision, or the failure to regulate the financial markets. If we saw incremental progress in those fields, then that would be a valid argument, but we have seen 180% direction from where it should be going, so that argument is moot.

Our party needs a leash yanking, and thats exactly what's going on. They will definently get it, regardless of what is said in these posts.

[LostInAnomie]

251. You're making a lot of idiotic assumptions about me.

You can take that "would seem to be ok with the war decision" and shove it up your ass.

You want to talk about an under-performing strategy let's talk about staying home. Do you honestly think that electing Brown in place of Coakley was an effective strategy? How is empowering the Republicans ever a bright idea? All this childish pouting the Mass. Dems did only served to make sure that NOTHING positive in regards to HCR happens in the next 25 years. I'm sure all the people that die from lack of coverage will be comforted in knowing that they aren't helping DLCers and corporate whores though.

Do you really think the Dems are going to tack to the left because of Coakley's defeat? Either you are a complete novice to politics, or you have no grasp of reality. The Dems are going to take this as a sign that they need to tack hard right. They are going to make this assumption because they know that self defined liberals can't be counted on to vote. If you can't be counted on to vote, you have no value to politicians. If the policy you want is seen to be connected to a group that pouts and stays home on election day, there is no way in hell a politician are going to support it.

Our party does need a leash yanking, but that is what primary challenges are for. Sitting out special elections is moronic.

[kenfrequed]

218. Of course...

Because the "base" has been given so much over the years... right? I mean if your "spoiled children" thing was correct metaphorically speaking than the progressive-liberal-left wing base must have been given sooo... much.

Like Nafta? Oh yeah we totally asked for that. The end of Welfare? DADT? DOMA? Medicare part D? The Patriot act?

Come on, tell us something where the base actually got something vaugely resembling something that it asked for.

[amborin]

26. K&R

[upi402]

27. The battered wife honey moon will resume in short order

I always bet on our short memories and the TV propaganda machine to spoon-feed lazy Americans bullshit.

[JamesA1102]

28. I blame Ralph Nader for taking GOP money

and using it to run ads that lied about Al Gore. I blame Nader voters, not for voting their conscience, but for still not taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

[jgraz]

29. I didn't realize Nader was running in MA

Seriously, it's been almost 10 years. Get over it.

[JamesA1102]

36. Get over it?

That's just another dodge so Nader voters don't have to accept responsibilty for the consquences of their actions.

[jgraz]

40. It's been almost 10 years. Pigeons learn faster than this

You've had almost a decade to learn the real lessons of the 2000 election, yet you continue to stew in your bitterness. Wake up.

[JamesA1102]

41. Not bitterness but reality.

Why can't Nader and his voters simply take responsibilty for the consquences of their actions?

[jgraz]

42. 300,000 Florida Democrats voted for BUSH.

Does that not tell you something?

[JamesA1102]

44. Non-sequitar

So 300,000 DINOs voted for Bush. So what? That doesn't mean the 97,000 shouldn't take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

[jgraz]

46. It's "non sequitur". And it's not.

By any independent count, Gore won Florida. If he had simply called for a statewide recount instead of trying to finesse the results, he'd have been president for the past 8 years.

If he had acted like a real Democrat and run on Clinton's economic record, he'd have been president for the past 8 years.

If the DNC had contested the Florida felons list before the election, Gore would have been president for the past 8 years.


Are you starting to get it? (I'm guessing not.) If you keep believing this ridiculous myth that Nader's votes were somehow "owed" to Gore, you will continue helping the GOP win elections.

It's really simple: Gore lost because he couldn't convince enough people to vote for him. And, btw, he didn't really lose.

[JamesA1102]

51. Never said that they were owed to Gore

Just that they should take responsibility for the consquences of their actions.

And Gore did offer Bush a statewide recount on Noverber 13th but Bush refused. What you're spouting is a GOP talking point.

Plus the felons list purge was done in secret and didn't come to light until people went to the polls. There was no way for the DNC to know about to contest it before hand.

[jgraz]

52. You can say it over and over again. That won't make it true.

The DNC *did* know about the felons list -- it was circulated openly starting in May of 1999 when the purge started. They chose to do nothing.

In the end, Gore lost the election due to his own ineptitude as a candidate and his party's ineptitude at running a national election. And, btw, he didn't lose.

[JamesA1102]

53. That still doesn't mean that Nader voters shouldn't

take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

And voter purges are done in many states. That's SOP. No one protests that. The extend to which is was being done in Florida to knock legal voters off the rolls was not known until after the election. There was no way for the DNC to know what was going on.

[jgraz]

58. You can say it over and over again. That won't make it true.

[JamesA1102]

77. You're right.

It was true whether I said it or not.

[Raineyb]

89. Responsibility for what voting their conscience? They were entitled to

vote any bloody way they chose. And you have no right to scold them for it. If the Democratic party wanted those votes then they should have done something to earn them. Otherwise the only people the party has to blame is themselves.

[JamesA1102]

99. I'm not saying that they shouldn't vote their conscience

But they should take responsibility for the consquences of their actions.

[ima_sinnic]

110. unbelievable

keep whipping that dead but totally irrelevant horse.

[JamesA1102]

135. That's like saying that the 8 years of Bush's presidency

are totally irrelevant.

[jgraz]

137. In the sense that both phrases use many common English words

Otherwise, not so much.

[JamesA1102]

142. That's just denying reality. nt

[Raineyb]

179. As far as this argument is concerned, it is.

Nader is not to blame for 8 years of Bush. Bush voters are and that includes a hell of a lot of Democrats. (And I don't think those people are calling themselves progressives.)

[kenfrequed]

268. Indeed

It is the squishy moderates, Blue dog Bastards, and powder-dry Dlc dipsticks that went along with the Bush regime. Progressives, who this guy seems to be equating to Nader voters, fought him tooth and nail.

[JamesA1102]

271. I'm not equating anyone to Nader votes.

That's just another example of projection.

[kenfrequed]

272. Then why the hell bring Nader up?????

This post had NOTHING to do with Nader. You were the one that hijacked this thread to bring up his name.

[JamesA1102]

274. The OP mentioned Nader in 2000.

I made one post stating an opinion. If no one responded that would have been that. I'm not the one 'hijacking' this thread as you put it.

[walldude]

174. Here let me make this easier on you... I voted for Nader. I accept whatever

consequences you have made up in your small mind for my actions. You think it's my fault Bush won? Fine, Gore told me it was his own fault.BUt no reason to listen to him.
You think I should have voted for Gore? Well I would have had he made an appearance. When I spoke to him years after the election he told me the guy running in that election wasn't really him but the guy his handlers wanted him to be.

You can fling your pathetic blame around like little balls of shit, eventually they will hit the fan and it'll be back where it started and where it belongs, all over your face.

You got a problem with Nader voters? Take it up with Gore. He'll tell you himself it wasn't their fault.

[JamesA1102]

181. That's because Gore is a man of honor.

He takes responsibility for his actions, unlike most Nader voters.

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

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

[JamesA1102]

193. Wow you really like to let the nasty insults fly nt

[Name removed]

199. Deleted message

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

[JamesA1102]

206. Wow more insults nt

[kenfrequed]

224. So....

Gore owns up that it wasn't Nader's fault and he is a man of honor that is taking responsibility for his actions.

But somehow it is still the Nader voters fault that Gore lost and they are failing to take responsibility for voting for him?

That doesn't make any sense.

[Raineyb]

225. You're going to give yourself a headache trying to make any sense out of that one.

I can't even get him to own up to what his definition of "taking responsibility" is vis a vis Nader voters.

[JamesA1102]

231. Gore is taking responsiblity and not blaming anyone else.

Nader voters should also take responsibility for their actions. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

[Raineyb]

236. And you are blaming Nader and nobody else. n/t

[kenfrequed]

245. hmmph

And you are blaming voters for voting.

[JamesA1102]

259. I'm not blaming anyone.

I'm just saying people should take responsibility for the consquences of their actions.

[kenfrequed]

223. Repetition

Does not equal accuracy. And the funny thing about your repetition is that it is a dead end. It doesn't matter what anyone states or replies you can still make the accusation that these Nader voters (the majority of whom were first time voters or non voters).

And this is all in response to what? Democrats failing to excite the base? I suppose you aren't in agreement with the progressive base or the activists of the party so you don't really care if the base is activated. I imagine that must be a great strategy which is why the GOP Never tries to rally its base in a shameless show of Faux TV commercial rallies.

Of course had Gore won we could be through the first year of President Lieberman! That would have been totally awesome wouldn't it!

[JamesA1102]

233. Since so many fail to understand it needs repeating.

Everyone should take responsibilty for the consquences of their actions whether they are Bush voters, Gore voters, Nader voters or Buchanan voters. It is a simple truth. I don't understand why it is such an alien concept or why some are getting so defensive about it.

[kenfrequed]

239. "A simple truth..."

And yet you have failed to explain how it addresses or concerns the original thread subject. Seriously this is extreme non sequitur/red herring material. You are turning this statement into something akin to proverb or catch phrase. You may as well answer a serious question of strategy with "A Penny saved is a penny earned."

[kenfrequed]

219. You keep repeating the same nonsense

The real question you should be asking is "Why did people vote for Nader?"

Your convenient and cavalier disregard for democracy and issues in favor of empty Dino partisanship indicates to me that you either don't care about the answer to that question or that you do not care about the issues that drive voters.

[JamesA1102]

235. That's a good question too.

I have no problem with that. Why do you have a problem with people taking responsibility for their actions?

[Ignis]

116. No True Scotsman? Yawn. (nt)

[Raineyb]

87. Amazing isn't it that after nearly a bloody decade there are still

jackasses who will blame people who voted for Nader but give a pass to the assholes who voted for Bush. Apparently, the party is only entitled to the votes of the left leaning voter (who must in their opinion vote for the Democrats no matter how often the party screws them over and stabs them in the back) but the right wingers who the party spends so much time bending over backwards to attract can vote for the right wing Republicans and get a pass.

And nearly a decade later they still haven't learned a god-damned thing.

[JamesA1102]

101. Not giving a pass to anyone.

Bush voters should take responsibility too.

[jgraz]

111. And what about the Gore primary voters?

You know, the ones who chose that pathetically weak candidate?

[JamesA1102]

133. They too should take responsibility for their actions.

Never said that they shouldn't.

[jgraz]

136. Yet your first target is the tiny number of Nader voters

That's some fine strategery you got going on... :eyes:

[JamesA1102]

141. Not first. I never said that they were first.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth.

[jgraz]

145. Seriously, your first reply is, like, right up there ^^^

I mentioned many factors in Gore's loss: the butterfly ballot, the felon's list, Gore, Lieberman, etc, etc... Your first reaction to that post was to blame Nader.

That's your *first* reaction. Not "putting words in your mouth". Just counting to 1.

[JamesA1102]

182. Nader took GOP money and then ran ads that lied about Gore

I do blame him for that.

[jgraz]

185. Aaand we circle back to the beginning

:crazy:

[Raineyb]

119. Really? THen why the hell are you blaming Nader voters when it's the people who voted

FOR Bush who are responsible for putting him in office? Oh right because it's easier to blame the smaller number of Nader voters than it is to blame the people who actually voted for Bush.

I know damn well that Bush voters wanted Bush in office. You cannot say the same for Nader voters. So you should put the blame where it belongs and stop bashing anyone who voted Nader.

[JamesA1102]

134. Never said I wasn't blaming Bush voters.

They too need to take responsibilty for their actions. But so should Nadar voters.

[Raineyb]

162. You only talk about Nader voters and you only mentioned Bush voters

when *I* pointed out the rather obvious flaw in your theory. So spare me the backtracking bullshit. You are a Nader blamer and it's stupid to blame a man for doing what he is entitled to do by law. Democrats are not ENTITLED to anyone's vote. Until you learn that simple fact you will find yourself enraged by people who dare vote their conscience.

[JamesA1102]

183. No backtracking.

Bush wasn't part of the discussion. And I never said that the Dems are entitled to anyone's vote. Just that Nader voters should take responsibilty for the consequences of their actions. What is so objectionable about that?

[Raineyb]

187. You cannot have it both ways. You can't blame Nader voters for Bush

and claim they should take responsibility while claiming that you don't think Democrats are entitled to votes. Either they have the right to vote for whomever they chose and you have squat to say about it or they are to blame for withholding their vote from the Democratic nominee. You have already said that they should take responsibility for their vote which means you're blaming them for not voting for Gore which means you think they owe their vote to the Democratic party.

And as it so happens, you are wrong. The Democratic party is not entitled to anyone's vote and if they want the votes they'll have to earn them and they will not earn them by being Republican lite. So if people who call themselves progressives choose to vote for the Green party it is because the Green party has offered them something that the Democratic party has failed to offer them. The correct lesson to learn is not to take progressives for granted and to earn their vote rather than declaring that they have nowhere else to go. They clearly told the party that they do. That you and others like you refuse to listen will only doom this party to lose more seats.

[JamesA1102]

197. They do have the right to vote however they want.

But they also have to take responsibility for the consquences of their actions. The same is true of Bush voters, Gore voters, Obama voters, Coakley voters, Brown voters, etc.

[Raineyb]

201. And what the hell is that supposed to mean? They did their civic

duty and voted. They don't owe you shit.

[JamesA1102]

207. Never said they owe me anything.

Just that they should take responsibilty for the consquences of their actions.

[Raineyb]

211. In other the words "take responsibility for the consequences of their actions"

is just some bullshit phrase that doesn't actually MEAN anything.

How about you figure out what it's supposed to mean and get back to me when you have an actual argument instead of some trifling phrase that makes a lot of noise but means nothing.

[JamesA1102]

214. It means something if you understand the concept. nt

[Raineyb]

217. Considering you don't understand the concept you've got a lot of nerve

So I'll have to extrapolate before I rip you a new one, it would appear by your rather tedious and unpersuasive attempts at making an argument (which by the way repeating the same stupid phrase ad infinitum does not an argument make) that you are under the impression that those who voted for Nader ought to prostrate themselves for flagellation by you and your ilk for daring to commit the sin of not voting the way you think they should have voted. And those who voted for Bush, need not bother to subject themselves to your sneering self-righteous scolding for voting the way they wished to. Apparently in your world, the "left" should only vote for Democrats even if the Democratic party, ignores them, actively pursues policies that the person is against and then takes their vote for granted.

You have a really ballsy sense of entitlement there. And you can repeat the same tired sound bite over and over again but your piss poor argument boils down to one lousy thing: Nader voters are to blame because they had the temerity to withhold their vote from the Democratic party. You need to get over your overblown sense of entitlement.

[JamesA1102]

230. None of that I ever said.

You're just projecting. Anyone can vote for whomever they like. It's their choice. But they should then take responsibility for the consquences of their actions. It's simple truth. And like all simple truths you don't need a load of spin to defend it.

[Raineyb]

241. Projecting no. I'm extrapolating. Of course you could just answer the

question as to what it is you mean by Nader voters taking responsibility for their vote but that would mean you'd have to actually think about what you said, what it means and attempt to make a cogent reply, something you're either unwilling or unable to do.

And you STILL haven't answered the question. Vague assertions to taking of responsibility does not an argument make.

[JamesA1102]

260. Extrapolating?

ex•trap•o•late \ik-"stra-pe-'lat\ verb ex•trap•o•lat•ed ex•trap•o•lat•ing (1874)
verb transitive
1 : to project, extend, or expand
(C)1997, 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved

[Raineyb]

262. I'm EXPANDING based on what you said not projecting what I feel onto you.

Thus extrapolating.

[JamesA1102]

266. Now you're just playing semantical games nt.

[kenfrequed]

269. err...

Whiping out a dictionary and selecting and arguing about a definition, rather than explaining your argument and percisely how it applies, is the very definition of semantics.

It seems you accuse people of non sequitar and semantics when you seem to be the chief practitioner here.


You have done everything BUT explain or elaborate on your argument.

[JamesA1102]

270. I made a simple statement of my opinion

No definition is needed it speaks for itself. If you can't figure it out, that's not my fault.

[kenfrequed]

273. My opinion then...

"A penny saved is a penny earned"

I suppose I could just post that again and again and again and again and ignore demands to explain HOW it applies to a given argument or discussion or tell people 'figure it out for yourself' but then I would be an idiot.

[JamesA1102]

275. I posted one statement.

The one statement I made is pretty self explaintory on it's face. I'm not the one dragging this out.

[kenfrequed]

276. A content free statement

Your not letting facts, reason, logic, or proper argumentation get in the of your one, decontextualized and meaningless statement either.

Grats! Keep fighting the good fight for vaugeness and pointless prattle!

[JamesA1102]

277. No a pretty clear statement.

And you're the one who keeps this going. To quote Shakespeare, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

[kenfrequed]

278. Uhm

That is absurd.

Are you at all literate?


Using a quote like that would suggest that every post I have put to you has somehow been free of content. I would suggest that rather than pitily misusing a quotation, why not answer ANY of the challenges that have been put to you.

[JamesA1102]

279. Challenges???

There are no challenges. I think that people need to take responsibility for the consquences of their actions. Either you agree or disagree. End of discussion. But some seem to be very sensitive and defensive about this very simple concept (which was the point of the quote).

[kenfrequed]

280. I have never ignored anyone on this board before.

I have argued with bluer than blue -blue dogs, DLC stooges, pro corporate tools, and people that were later identified as freeper trolls, but I have never ignored anyone.

Despite the fact you do not fit into any of the above categories I am going to ignore you. Your obstinance when it comes to answering simple questions or challenges to your ridiculous statement are too much for me to bear. You don't even counter argue or disagree you just repeat the same nonsense repeatedly and I cannot take it anymore.

Congrats on being the first person I have ever ignored here.

[JamesA1102]

281. I'm honored.

However, I still don't think that anyone taking responsibility for the consequences for their actions is ridiculous or nonsense.

[JDPriestly]

102. Nader and his voters are either not voting or voting Democratic.

The problem is not the activists of the left in the party. The problem is that our leadership panders to a "center" that would rather have staunch Republicans who say clearly what they think that weak Democrats who sound and act like weak Republicans.

Remember when you were in high school, there was always some awkward kid who would do anything, accept any humiliation -- just to be able to hang around on the fringe of the popular kids?

That's what the DLC does. They awkwardly try to show that they can be just as free-market, welfare- and entitlement-cutting as any brutal Republican just so that they can hang around on the fringe of the voters they think are centrists.

It doesn't work. Don't blame those of us who are strong Democrats for the losses of the namby-pamby, wishy-washy DLCers. They are phony and everyone sees through them. That is why they lose. Even Obama had the common sense to run as a liberal. Now if he just would have governed that way, we would have kept the Massachusetts seat.

He should have said, among other things, we will prosecute the criminal actions of the Bush administration. That would set the record straight on where Democrats stand on human rights and adherence to international war crimes laws. He should have said that he would sign no bill without a public option. Then the voters would know where he stands. He should have said I will stick to my campaign promises about how I will fund Social Security and Medicare as we begin to pay benefits to Baby Boomers. He should have refused a mandate for health insurance unless a public option was available. He should refuse to sign any bill that taxes the negotiated health care benefits of union workers. He should reform Wall Street and banking and defend and protect consumers not exploiters and gamblers.

Obama must take the blame for the loss in Massachusetts. He has not been willing to stand tall for Democratic principles and he is causing the center to distrust him and the Democratic Party.

[TheKentuckian]

198. Homey, while I think you have a little bit of a point, you seem comfortable

ignoring the millions of Democrats that actually voted for W (some dolts twice, even), the millions that voted for Poppy, or the untold gobs that voted for Reagan.

Sure, a few on the left contributed to the mess but the right wing of the party has screwed us hard for thirty years and NEVER, EVAH takes any heat.

You can only harp so long and hard on that statistical handful while ignoring the elephant looking donkey in the room, you just rationally can't.

Not a damn single Raygun, Poppy, or shrub voting Democrat ever in history takes responsibility for their actions nor do they get blame from "centrists" nor the moderates that are heavily inclined to listen to their "wisdom", which has pretty much an utter failure of a record of being right about anything.

The moderates even accept the "centrists" are generally wrong but fall for the old "bridge too far" routine and settle into supporting utter crap.

[JamesA1102]

209. Not at all.

I think they should take responsibility too. Just as the Dems in Mass. who voted for Brown will have to take responsibility. Anyone who voted for Bush whether a Republican, Democrat or Indepentdent has to take responsibility. Or anyone who was eligible and failed to vote needs to take responsibility.

[Raineyb]

222. And you STILL haven't answered the question. What do you mean by

"take responsibility for their vote". Until you define it's a meaningless phrase.

[kenfrequed]

227. Agreed!

That would be good. I want him to tell me what "Taking responsibility for you vote" means and what it looks like. Explain it to me. Explain what it means and how you do it and how these supposed Nader voters have failed to do so.

Frankly I think you are using 'Nader Voter' as a pastiche for progressives, liberals, lefties, union folk, and the special interest democrats that the DLC rails against. But prove me wrong about this if you can. And try to do so in more than your own private talking point

[JamesA1102]

238. As someone who grew up in a Union household I think you are wrong.

Instead of trying to project motives on me, why don't you explain why anyone regardless of who they voted for should not have to take responsibility for the consquences of their vote.

[Raineyb]

256. Define or shut up. Spamming the thread with your non answers doesn't cut it

You can't filibuster here.

[JamesA1102]

258. Then why do you keep responding?

You're the one that is keeping this going, not me.

[Raineyb]

263. I'm waiting for an answer to my bloody question.

That you're too stupid to answer it matters not one whit.

By the way. Define "taking responsibility" in the context of Nader voters.

[JamesA1102]

267. Again you resort to namecalling

And the concept of taking responsibility should be obvious to any intelligent person.

[JamesA1102]

237. It means to take responsibilty.

If you don't know what that means you should look it up.

[Name removed]

242. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

244. Deleted message

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

[Raineyb]

255. No. You made the claim back it up.

The phrase can mean any damn thing depending on context. You brought it up in this context it's up to YOU to define it. You've defined nothing. Nebulous claims of "taking responsibility doesn't cut it. So put up or shut up.

Oh, and btw, crying because you don't like the replies to your non answers is fucking weak sauce.

[JamesA1102]

261. I made no claim

I just stated an opinion that people should take responsibility for their actions and for some reason you have a problem with that concept.

[Raineyb]

264. Because you refuse to define what taking responsibility means vis a vis

Nader voters.

And you still haven't answered the bloody question. Stop playing games, spamming the thread with nonsense and answer the bloody question. That is assuming that you can actually answer the question which I'm thinking is not the case at all. If you think having a discussion entails you repeating the same idiotic phrase with no meaning in context to the conversation then I'd suggest you go back to school there's something seriously missing in your so-called education.

[JamesA1102]

265. I love the way you always resort to namecalling.

And taking responsibility is self explanatory.

[Smashcut]

31. "We've already seen how one committed, radical Republican can undo decades of Dem incrementalism"

That one sentence says it all!

[HCE SuiGeneris]

32. Can we get ever be rid of the Bohemian Grove Dems,and the loser, capitulating

apologist candidates that keep us eternally mired in this corpro-fascist quagmire? Dog, I hope so...

I am so sick of this BS.

[jgraz]

34. Not if we keep voting for them.

[golddigger]

35. K&R

[lonestarnot]

39. Never settled.

[treestar]

43. It works for the Republicans

Or, they do not get disappointed and disillusioned very easily. They are still at it, and managed to get TK's seat. I can't imagine our weak and easily disappointed base would stick with it and keep at it as hard as it takes to get the representatives and Senators they would need to get what they want. apparently they don't really want it much. they are even willing to sit back and let Republicans win.

[jgraz]

47. No, it doesn't.

See 2006, 2008.

[Marr]

68. You think the Republican base would support a president who

governed like Obama's mirror image...? If he went out of his way to support unions, bring a war to a close, advance gay rights, etc. for a year-- you really think they'd keep cheering for the guy just because he's a Republican?

They were completely enamored of Bush, but when he advanced his amnesty plan, they jumped off him like flees off a dead animal. A small blip in a long string of practically fascist policy, and many of them abandoned him.

[OnyxCollie]

100. Conservatives approve inequality.

Makes 'em feel strong.

Can't have amnesty. Gotta keep those brown people down. Same thing with gays. Conservatives think equal rights means "special" rights.

[jgraz]

117. Just look at the NY-23 race to see what happens when Republicans are disillusioned.

They tanked the election rather than vote for someone who was slightly less rabidly conservative than they were.

[kenfrequed]

229. Hmmph..

Republicans also toss their free market fundamentalist mammon worshiping pseudo christians some red meat once in awhile.

[Toasterlad]

45. Speak It, Brother.

No candidate - Democrat, Republican, or otherwise - gets my time, money, or vote without a proven progressive track record.

[jgraz]

50. Yep. It's the only way.

Besides taking off and nuking the site from orbit. :D

[OnyxCollie]

107. God damn it, that's not all!

Because if one of those things gets down here then that will be all! Then all this - this bullshit that you think is so important, you can just kiss all that goodbye!:toast:

[ProSense]

54. For those interested in the

facts

[jgraz]

56. .

:rofl:

[ProSense]

59. Are you laughing because your

OP is spin?

[jgraz]

63. .

:rofl:

[PVnRT]

64. You must be dizzy from all that spinning

[donco6]

65. I.e., nothing to learn here. Happens all the time. Move along. Eom

[Marr]

70. You seem determined not to learn anything.

I suggest you put your emotions aside and look at this pragmatically.

[freddie mertz]

71. Links to a list. So tell us, what does this list MEAN?

Does it predict a nuclear upset in Massachusetts, putting a Naked Truck Driving Repub State Senator into Ted Kennedy's seat?

I think not.

[jgraz]

73. Wait, you expect ProSense to actually *read* one of the links she posts?

:rofl:

[freddie mertz]

81. I thought I'd give it a try.

I suppose it's just another tin of spam, spam, spam, spam...:silly: :crazy: :dunce: :spank: :nuke:

[ProSense]

85. The left learned nothing from the Mass election

All the "I told you so" and "if this person were in charge" posts are simply more passive complaining.

Anyone who believes this is going to have an impact is delusional.

You are never going to be satisfied with any solution, especially on issues like the economy, that the administration can realistically put into effect and you are going to simply continue complaining.

[jgraz]

94. .

:rofl:

[laughingliberal]

112. The unleft seems to have learned nothing, either

Insulting the left does not get them to the polls. Not sure why that should matter to those who think the "left" is irrelevant.

[freddie mertz]

172. Not that insults from that particular quarter add up to anything anyway.

I think the spam machine is breaking down from overuse.

:banghead: spank: :grr: :nuke: :

[freddie mertz]

171. So, that table of statistics tells you THAT and you call that FACTS?

That is beyond absurd.

The rest of your response is just random, scattershot ad hominems.

I thought you'd have more than that.

[kenfrequed]

243. Feh

There has not even been the feigned appearance of any progressive solutions having been considered so far. I have no idea why we aren't jumping for joy.

[Lorien]

55. The right solution is to nominate candidates with spine who STAND UP for traditional

Democratic positions on the issues. If they don't show the world that liberalism and Democratic ideals are something WORTH fighting for, then the fence sitters won't think that any of our positions are worth much at all either.

I once asked a friend who seemed fairly liberal why she was voting for repugs. She said "Because they stand for something. Democrats just complain but don't give us anything better to vote for." It didn't seem to matter that the GOP position was against her and our best interests-that it was downright anti-American- all she wanted was a party who stood by their platform and was willing to fight for it tooth and nail. I don't expect the Dems to change anytime soon; I've been waiting 30 years for them to organize and stand up against the far right extremists, but just look at this board; ever WE are not lockstep on a single issue. Not even war.

[laughingliberal]

114. "I've been waiting 30 years for them to organize and stand up against the far right extremists, ..."

I am sooo there with you!

[Romulox]

61. Do you notice that the rich get richer regardless of who's in power?

The horserace (like the "culture wars") is itself an illusion--a diversion that allows the looting to continue apace, no matter which party holds the reins of power at the moment.

[jgraz]

66. Everyone notices that. Which is why a populist message can be so powerful

Even from an obviously fake populist POS like Brown.

[Romulox]

76. The problem is, since the purpose of gov't is to serve the rich,

a populist message will ultimately and inevitably prove to be in contradiction to the reality of governance.

Witness President Obama, e.g.--whatever populist trappings he's adopted (e.g. for the Ohio primaries) were thrown off like soiled undergarments only days later. Populism is a long term loser in the age of Youtube for a politician whose ultimate intention is to serve the interests of multinational corporations and the wealthy.

Portraying one's self as a "bipartisan" figure, or a "New Democrat", or a "centrist" provides better cover. When one shovels money to the corporations and the war machine, one can then make an argument that doing so is perfectly in line with one's beliefs--but not for the reasons for which you assume!

Thus tax cuts for the wealthy are meant to spur investment, and bailouts of multi-national corporations hqed in London or Bern will eventually "trickle down" to the working slobs stateside. This is the schlock that guys like Plouffe and Axelrod sling, and will for the foreseeable. It's the most internally consistent rhetoric that the corps are willing to bankroll. :shrug:

[freddie mertz]

72. K & R. But it is anyone listening?

[jgraz]

74. If they're not listening now, they never will.

[freddie mertz]

82. I guess we can hope. Axelrod et al still seem clueless in public.

Hard to believe they were able to win the election so decisively, then stumble on almost every challenge since.

[change_notfinetuning]

95. As a Chicagoan and a political animal, I can assure you that what these guys

do best is win elections and promote the interests of business. If they ever do something that benefits the average person, it's totally coincidental.

[Raineyb]

92. No they're not listening.

Apparently they are either incapable or unwilling to learn from their mistakes. I'm deciding if it's just stupidity or blatant arrogance although I'm wondering if I really need to choose one.

[scytherius]

86. THeir problem this time is Obama got our hopes up . . . WAY up

We didn't expect him to come in and change the world, or America, all by himself. Unlike the teabaggers, we know that can't be done, we know the Executive can't, etc. But we DO know that a leader can make a difference. Obama has lead us nowhere and has, actually, reverted to Bush policies. And then there is Reid *puke*.

But Obama got us to the point of saying, "my god, we finally made it, change is FINALLY here after decades." The about face by Obama and the Dems, the ineptitude of governing, the inability to do anything with an 18 vote Senate majority, etc., has come as cold water in the face while one sleeps. We will no longer support the lesser of two evils.

You wanna do this to us Dems? The GOP can have America. I'll just go to the movies.

[jpak]

88. The Base disillusioned itself and believed all the Obama/Dem demonization bullshit spewed

by naderites, larouch nut cases and fringe malcontents that never suppoted Dems or Obama anyway.

and we have no HRC!

woohoo!

[jgraz]

91. And that snotty kid is to blame for the Emperor being naked!!

:eyes:

[ProSense]

96. The day before the Mass election and what happens

FDL post "Grow the fuck up."

The day afer the election and it's back to the perfect solution: complaining and spinning everything as a negative.

Meanwhile, elected Democrats are working to push through their agenda with what amounts to a significant majority.

[jgraz]

109. .

:rofl:

[laughingliberal]

123. I'm willing to bet that way less than 1% of any Democratic voter in this country ever heard of

FDL.

[Raineyb]

98. We didn't have HRC to begin with.

And no one needed to be told that when they can see it with their own two eyes.

Still blaming Nader for the Democratic party's shortcomings? Be ready to lose more seats because continuing with the same old bullshit and expecting different results... Well you know how the rest of that goes.

[jgraz]

155. Isn't she Secretary of State?

:P

[Raineyb]

163. LOL Oops pesky letters on that keyboard.

I'll just go back to calling it the Health insurance profits protection act. No acronyms to mess up that way. :P

[donco6]

148. You forgot the quotes.

But, hey, flog that base! They'll love you for it.

[fascisthunter]

158. that's what happened in your head

but not in reality. Keep up the delusions, you'll lose more votes that way. Stop using the word "fringe" because on this people like you are the fringe.

[liberation]

97. It is not "we" who need to learn, it is "they" who need to get a f*cking clue.

And by "They" I mean the DLC.


These are the geniuses who think that the best approach to politics is to throw your base under the bus, in order to cater to the interests of the conservative voting block.... a block which is made of people who would rather pull their finger nails one by one than actually vote for a Dem. So yeah, what could possibly "go wrong" with such an approach, eh?

It however makes perfect sense; conservatives tend to be dumber than a bag of rocks. So it is no coincidence than a block of granite and the combined DLC membership have similar IQs. Generally people should be weary of a contingent who is interested in "leadership" even though they have no accomplishments to justify such entitlement to lead, and ironically they have nothing but actual contempt for the ideology of the party they are trying to "lead."

So basically the DLC are a bunch of jagoffs who are too chickenshit to register republican, and who are so incompetent that they could not even hack it at the GOP (which is saying something). It also speaks volumes about the Dems which are not only catering to such motley crew, but they are putting them in positions of power.

[jgraz]

105. You forget that a few of "we" DUers support the DLC and their agenda.

Note some of the responses to this thread.

[tblue]

124. Yup. And your tagline is the best! Lol!

I am so tired of the self-proclaimed "pragmatists" telling everybody else to shut up and fall in line. The pragmatists own this loss, far as I'm concerned.

[Individualist]

103. K&R

[change_notfinetuning]

104. Your OP is spot on. I hate to see you waste all that time arguing with the

people who . . . I probably shouldn't say what I was going to.

[OnyxCollie]

113. K&R. nt

[ProSense]

115. Mass: 46% of voters said their vote was mainly to show support for health care reform

Exit Survey Of Massachusetts Voters Confirms Lack Of Enthusiasm Among Progressives Hurt Coakley

An exit survey of Massachusetts voters confirms that “decreased turnout among constituencies that historically have voted for progressive candidates,” combined with a strong Republican performance among independents, delivered Scott Brown the margins he needed to win.

<...>

But even despite the depressed progressive turnout in yesterday’s election, a majority of voters (51%) still felt Obama and the Democrats are . Issues, while important to voters, split along partisan lines: Coakley won health care voters, while Brown won among jobs and economy voters and tax/spending voters:

– Forty-six (46%) of voters said their vote was mainly to show support for health care reform rather than to show opposition to it (35%).

– Independents sent a clearer signal on the issue, with 44% stating their vote was mainly in opposition to reform and 30% saying it was mainly in support.

– Coakley voters were stronger in their support for reform (80% said their vote was mainly in support of reform) than Brown voters were in opposition to it (65% said their vote was mainly in opposition to reform).

– Coakley won among voters who rated health care reform a “10” on an importance scale (Coakley 53% to 47% for Brown), Brown won among voters who said the same for jobs and the economy (Brown 55% to 44% for Coakley) and won bigger among voters who highlighted taxes and spending (Brown 70% to Coakley 29%).

Brown, who supported Mass health reform, ran on protecting Medicare. Independents were opposed to a bigger government role in health care.

Summary: Republicans' confusing spin won.

[jgraz]

120. .

:rofl:

[ProSense]

127. I'd be laughing too after writing this

I'm not sure what the right solution is, but I do know that this continual reliance on weak, incremental change..."

Incremental change is so bogus.

[jgraz]

129. .

:rofl:

[Mithreal]

143. .

[ProSense]

130. Here's another lesson for you

Obama v. Reagan

[jgraz]

131. .

:rofl:

[Marr]

164. edit

[laughingliberal]

126. “decreased turnout among constituencies that historically have voted for progressive candidates,”

There's the problem-decreased turnout among constituencies that historically have voted for progressive candidates and it will be the problem in November if we keep on looking the other way at the lack of support for progressive policies.

[Ignis]

121. K&R

Keep trying to yell out the truth, no matter how much it causes people to hide their heads in the sand.

:thumbsup:

[icee]

122. This was a brilliant post. And maybe people will listen to your

message this time. The only exception I take is that depending on who you are referring to as a "weak candidate", I have to cut the voters some slack here. Bush was a disaster and many Democrats were totally devastated.

[jgraz]

132. Doubt it.

It's not really my message. Progressives have been saying this for years -- decades, in fact. At some point, we have to consider the possibility that the Dems actually want to lose.

[icee]

138. To atone? Yeah, maybe...Too deep for me. We Pandorians

don't like to think that hard.

[jgraz]

140. No, because it's much harder to sell out to corporations if people actually expect you to lead.

In the minority, they can cut whatever deals they want without having to produce results.

[Marr]

168. Absolutely. Remember the contortions Harry Reid had to twist into

to "lose" on big issues after 2006? Lots of procedural bullshit that always seemed to put the corporate, establishment options center stage.

I've heard it said a billion times that Reid and the rest of the Democratic leadership were "outmaneuvered" or that they "lack a spine", but they've always seemed incredibly agile in finding ways to "lose" when they want to and shouldn't be able to. It also takes quite a spine to kick your base in the teeth.

[ima_sinnic]

125. rec'd--can't add to that (nt)

[Mithreal]

139. True. How many of my friends and family must be sacrificed

to the corporate high priests of the DLC and New Dem coalition?

When will they be sated?

[Jefferson23]

144. Centrists really do suck, and so does our system to finance political campaigns.

[Mithreal]

147. True and should be OUR life work to change. Cannot depend upon politicians.

[Jefferson23]

249. Agreed, I'm disgusted, but I will not stop fighting back. n/t

[Mithreal]

250. .

:hug:

[Greyhound]

146. As true today as ever. n/t

[DevonRex]

149. Hey, you should be happy. You got what you wanted. nt

[jgraz]

150. Just for the record, I did not pay Devon to post this.

From my OP:
Every time a weak, center-right Democrat loses an election we hear the same things over and over: "lesser of two evils", "purity police", "you're probably happy we lost", etc, etc, etc. And every time, we go right back to the same losing strategy.

Seriously. If anyone accuses me of hiring someone to prove my point so conclusively, I'll deny it.

[DevonRex]

159. You sure didn't hire me to say it. And it only proves that you're on the defensive.

Wonder why.

[jgraz]

161. OK, Devon. If you want your bonus, you're going to have to stop posting weak shit like this.

Just sayin...

[glitch]

151. You can't both work for the people and get corporate money. They are diametrically opposed.

They sell us out either because they simply are sellouts OR they aren't necessarily sellouts but they don't trust us to have their backs.

[Starry Messenger]

152. Thank you. n/t

[bridgit]

153. I'll tell you what else doesn't work & that's recruiting people for work they are unable to perform

[Name removed]

177. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Renew Deal]

184. Yes, it only when the team stuck together.

:shrug:

[pleah]

186. K&R

[defendandprotect]

194. America is a LIBERAL nation -- overcome by right wing political violence over decades...

Responding to it now after so long is going to be a BIG job --

And, unfortunately, in Rahm Emmanuel in the White House -- DLC controlling

the Democratic Party -- most of Congress bought out by corporate money --

the options are narrowing.

Time to get serious --

[asdjrocky]

212. Here's a K&R!

[Political Heretic]

226. We're not scared by the threats any more. Tackling corruption in the Democratic Party may mean.....

...some Republicans win seats amidst the chaos of the battle for the Party's soul.

That's the price we must pay if we are to have any hope of rebuilding a people's party with the power and the unity to challenge corporate politics and a system of structural injustices that we shouldn't tolerate any longer.

We understand that there will be some dark days before the dawn. And you don't scare us or weaken our resolve with your fear-tactics. We may lose some elections in the short term by finding the guts to confront what's rotting inside the Democratic Party. But if we DON'T confront it, we'll lose more than just a few elections. We'll lose the future.

[David Zephyr]

228. Honored to be #157, jgraz

It's time we stopped settling for less.

[Geek_Girl]

232. First smart post I've read about the Election in Mass.

Thank you

[jgraz]

240. Heh -- and it's not even about the MA election

:D

[yankee2]

257. the only real solution is strict campaign reform

The only real solution to government corruption, i.e. failure of government to support and protect working Americans, in favor of corporate interests, is strict campaign reform. The way it stands today, corporate money controls who gets elected to every significant office, how long and if they stay in office, and what they do when they get there. No political leader can obtain or hold office long without corporate money, and without "playing ball."

It's essential that we detach American government from corporate influence. How can it be that, in a Democracy (so-called), a few thousand corporations routinely overpower the interests of 320,000,000 American voters? The answer is, because we DON'T live in a democracy! Every major political candidate has run a virtual gauntlet, to reach that point in his/her career, such that every single one is a dedicated supporter of the Capitalist system, and Capitalists, right or wrong. The VOTE is just window dressing. It is far more accurate to say that we live in a Plutocracy, run for and by huge multinational corporations. It might be just as accurate to say we live under Corporatism, aka Economic Fascism, where government effectively works for corporations and corporate interests, often against and regardless of the effect on the people.

I think we should require every candidate for major public office, besides incumbents perhaps, to qualify for an election by raising a certain number of signatures, then provide each and every one with a fixed, modest amount of government campaign money, which would be the only funds candidates would be permitted to use. Candidates would be required to campaign either in person, or via the print and radio media exclusively. That would promote focusing on and discussing the issues, rather than grandstanding and showmanship, while keeping costs down. And most importantly, it would sharply limit corporate influence at both the election and policy-making levels.

Then perhaps, finally, we might create and enjoy true democracy. Rather than corporate interests and political support driving the election process and government policy, it would be service to the majority community, and the People's votes.

Wouldn't that be refreshing? Wouldn't that be wonderful?