Honest question: The Progressives get their way

[prolesunited]

and Dems lose in the fall because they did not go left far enough or fast enough. They vote their conscience, make a statement, sit it out in protest...

And then the GOP regains control of Congress, paving the way to oust Obama in 2012, especially after the GOP follows through on it threat to impeach him (they'll come up with something).

So, what's the game plan? What do we do next? What is the strategy for making further gains? How do we translate GOP control into furthering the progressive agenda?

I'm really not looking for a fight. I truly want to understand. Convince me that not keeping Dems in control will benefit our causes. How?

[Ramulux]

1. If progressives do a protest vote

They dont understand politics. I have been as hard on Obama as anyone, but amidst all the criticism I give him there was never any doubt in my mind that I would absolutely be voting dem in the midterm and participating in GOTV operations. The thing is that its not progressives you have to worry about not showing up, it is people are aren't fully engaged in the political process and haven't been given enough of a reason to show up.

A big reason why we aren't doing that great is because we have lost a significant amount of the youth vote who vote only when they are very enthusiastic. Many young people see the obvious corruption and bullshit that goes on in congress and just sort of assume both parties suck. A lot of it is a messaging problem, because of the dems willingness to work with the repubs and in many cases adopt conservative positions on certain issues, they have failed in offering a clear contrast between the parties. When you allow people who you say are crazy and bad for the country to push you around, it makes you seem weak and unprincipled. I have said it before, but if the dems took a real populist, anti-establishment tone early in Obamas term we could have locked down the youth vote, but instead they lost interest.

[Scuba]

3. +1

[pstokely]

5. A lot of youth vote isn't even engaged in politics

They don't even look at the rest of the ballot in 2008

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[Scuba]

4. +1,000

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

40. +1000 for gay-insulting drivel?

Wow.

[Scuba]

42. No, my endorsement was meant for a different post. Sorry.

[midnight]

6. What exactly do progressives get their way with?

[griffi94]

7. if progressives got their way

there would be a public option, a draw down in afganistan instead of a buildup, the patriot act would be repealed along with DADT, and there wouldn't be any question of the bush taxcuts expiring or a deficit commission. there would be honest finance reform and an effort to get corporate lobbyist money out of our elections.

to say that "if the progressives get their way and the democrats lose" misses the point of what the progressives want and is a little bit dishonest.

i can't answer your question as to what will happen if the repubs retake congress because i can't see into the future. my guess is the same status quo we have now.

the message to progressives has been give us your money and your vote but don't expect us to advance your agenda because we can't risk upsetting the applecart.

a political victory that doesn't advance ones agenda is pretty meaningless.
i think a lot of voters no longer buy into the fear that if they don't vote for bad, they'll get even worse.

in 2006 & 2008 we voted for something, now that something has yet to be delivered and we're back to being told that we can't get what we voted for but we still need to vote against the repubs.
i jus think a lot of people aren't buying into that this year.

[WhiteTara]

8. if you think "status quo" then you may be

delusional. Think back to January 22, 2001. It is not that far in the past that you can't remember what happened for 8 years of pukes running the country. By the first week in the *co administration, there was a great dismantling of all that we know. We will have another Clinton type witch hunt by the pukes and any tiny bit of progress we have made in the past year and a half will be undone.
This year what you can vote for is against the pukes. I have to vote for Blanche Lincoln, but Boozeman is SO bad, that she is preferable.

I have been voting for 40 years and my candidate has rarely won and many things I as a voter have wanted and not gotten. But this year is even more important than 2008, so get on board, we need all hands on deck on the bus.

[griffi94]

10. yep 8 years of repuke rule

and we got saddled with budget busting taxcuts for the wealthiest 2% that passed with bi-partisan support.
then bush wanted to invade iraq because we weren't as broke as we could be and the IWR was passed with overwhelming bi-partisanship, the patriot act was another victory for bi-partisanship, tax breaks for corps that outsource and all th other gop crap that killed the middle class all needed support from the democrats. the one issue they didn't go along with was the private investment accounts of social security, and so we manged to avoid that particular screwing.

it's kind of ironic that obama, by executive order, appoinetd a deficit commission to look into ways SS can be tweaked, so maybe we haven't avoided that screwing after all.

then 2008 came and the democrats finally had what they needed to right the ship. the whitehouse and bigger majorities in both chambers of congress than the repukes had ever had...but suddenly we couldn't get anything passed that wasn't watered down or gutted.
the president really doesn't have very much power, the repubs are obstructing, the conservadems are the problem, and so the status quo will be maintained.

my position is that it's hard to fault people for turnng off the whole damn system. when they vote for the repubs they get screwed, when they vote for the democrats they screwed a little bit less.

[bluedave]

11. when they vote for the repubs they get screwed, when they vote for the democrats they screwed a litt

when they vote for the repubs they get screwed, when they vote for the democrats they screwed a little bit less.


I've been saying this for years

[Swamp Rat]

9. Since when did Progressives want the Democrats to lose to the Repukes?

(I assume we are talking about the 21st Century, not the 19th, and not about legitimate gripes regarding conservative Democrats who sometimes support regressive Repuke policies). Progressives and Democrats are often one and the same, or are close allies.

I have never heard a progressive person say this or wish for it or even hint that they'd like to see this happen. That simply would not be progressive behavior, but instead regressive behavior. Regressive trolls who pretend to be progressive often say such weird things.

Show me a so-called progressive who wants to return to the Bushler era, and I'll show you a troll or a nihilistic masochist.

[walldude]

25. Thank you...

Just because I am unhappy with the Democratic party does not mean I am not voting. Frankly the only think making me think of not voting at this point is all the nasty, rude, insulting posts demanding I "vote or die" by people who can't bring themselves to chastise Obama for his so far miserable record on gay rights, war, and other things.
I just posted in another thread that it is a pity I have no choice but to vote Dem because at this point I'd love to not vote just out of spite.

[unapatriciated]

34. I also thank you

I'm so sick of this shit. This op is just another call out thread telling us to stfu and sit down.

[rpannier]

12. I haven't heard anyone progressive say they hoped the Republicans take back control

But you are dealing with competing ideas

1. This is a school of thought I've mentioned here several times (and one I do believe). Part of the problem that progressives have in getting change they want is they are unwilling to play hardball with the Democratic Party. The religious reich gets the Republicans (and some ConservaDems) to fall in line, because if the repubs don't, the reich leadership gets out there and tells their followers not to vote for the person and those followers don't.
Republicans have learned not to fuck with the fundies because they mean business.

2. The competing thought which has been mentioned on this thread already is, we can't afford even two more years of Republican rule in Congress.
Working within the Party and being a team player will eventually result in the gains we desire. It will be long and exhaustive, but it will work.

Both of these thoughts have issues that need to be addressed:

1. Money. The fundies have piles of it and use it. Our side not so much. Part of making the republikkans squirm is that the fundies will get their legions of followers to not only withhold their vote, but their cash as well. They Republicans see their problem coming from a mile off as their coffers dry.
Withholding your vote without money is akin to the Whos in 'Horton Hears a Who' yelling, "We are here! We are here!" but their voices are to low, it's not felt by the Party until after the election is over.
The best solution I can come up with (and I advocate) is giving money directly to candidates you support and not to OFA, DSCC, DCCC, etc.
You could, if you choose, not vote for a Democrat you find particularly odorous.

2. Respect. Being a team player earns you some appreciation, but does it earn respect?
In politics, I would argue it doesn't. Many within the leadership of the Party believe they are entitled to our vote and will do nothing special to earn it -- short of lip service -- unless you're throwing lots of money at them.
Constantly giving them your vote and getting nothing in return is like the proverbial spaniel that gets kicked by its master every time, but rolls over again hoping for love this time around (which is never going to come).
Solution, money and time on candidates that produce. Refusing to vote for any Democrat is akin to a scorched-earth policy. And letting progressives fall because of a Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson is really silly.

3. Strong organization: No matter which side you take, organization is key.
For the religious reich everything flowed from Jerry Falwell's mouth at the beginning through the mid-1980's. Then it was Ralph Reed. Then Limbaugh. Now it's Faux News.
We don't have that. Ask most conservatives who is the leader of the conservative movement and you'll hear the same 5 names over-and-over.
Ask progressives you'll get 60-100. Part of this stems from their being fewer competing major issues within the republican party.

The Democratic Party needs to define those corp issues that separate them from Republicans. And whether people here like it or not, begin to move to the margins those that fundamentally disagree with them -- if it's Progressives, so be it. Finding a new Party would not destroy me and it might help this country if we did.

For all the talk of the many things the FDR and LBJ accomplished one factor that is often left out of the discussion is the fear that the social elite felt when a more radical ideology was taking hold (30's the Socialist Party and the 60's the Civil Rights movement).

To be honest, if the reason to vote for Dems is to protect Obama you're not going to get much movement from me.
I'm not interested in protecting a guy who has more money than me. Has better job security and has a better pension plan.
If you wanna talk about people living on the street, people struggling to avoid living on street and the like, then I will move.

At some point everyone has to accept that protecting every politician with a D next to their name is not effective.
The Democrats lack a unified message on anything because there's always one or two of them that race to the cameras to tell people how they don't support the legislation.
It makes the Party look weak and ineffectual because they're always in campaign mode, not governance mode
We had much better health reform until people like Ben Nelson decided to muck it up.
Ben Nelson opposed extending unemployment benefits.
Ben Nelson opposes ending tax breaks for people making 250k and above
Ben Nelson opposes unions and supports out-sourcing

If my vote determined whether Nelson stayed or went from the Senate, he would be calling moving companies to get estimates on how much it would cost to move his ass back to Nebraska

Are we better with Dems out of power No
Are we better off with a few Dems out of jobs Yes

[lunatica]

13. You're connecting the dots of actions and their consequences

You will surely suffer for it. You'll be branded a cheerleader before this thread is over.

[H2O Man]

14. Respectfully disagree.

Everyone should support candidates who represent their values. That is not only the right of each individual, it is their obligation. If progressives "get their way," democratic candidates who are agents of change will win elections, not lose them.

[eShirl]

15. best thing we can do going forward is get MORE involved in the party and vote in the PRIMARIES

[LWolf]

16. If progressives got their way, there would be no need for looking elsewhere in November.

In an age of accountability, should politicians be accountable for earning votes, or are they owed?

As voters, do we make our votes count by making sure they aren't taken for granted, or do we shut up and get in line?

I think it's irresponsible on the part of voters to enable elected officials to take them for granted.

If a party loses ground in an election, should they blame those who looked elsewhere, or take responsibility for losing those votes?

If keeping Dems in control does not benefit our causes, what's the point of working to keep them in control?

I am not a partisan voter. I'm an issues voter. If the party wants to earn my vote, they take left-of-center (or, even better, LEFTIST) positions on issues and they fight for them.

The real battle here, imo, is for the identity of the party. Evolving into a pro-war, anti-labor, anti-union, anti-social responsibility, anti-public, pro-privatization party isn't going to earn any votes from me.

[Howler]

17. I agree.

Me either, or from anyone one else I can influence. I'm 51 years old I am a liberal and have always voted Democratic but the party can sadly no longer count on my vote because the party has turned away from the principles i believe in .I will be supporting progressive candidates and looking for alternatives. All and I do mean ALL my liberal friends are disappointed with this administration and party.

[depakid]

18. LOL- now there's false attribution in all of it's glory

FAIL.

Come on now- seriously, you can think deeper than that.

[prolesunited]

21. Wow. Your belittling insults and avoidance of the questions

prove you're such a deep thinker as well.

Thanks to those who took the time and effort to provide well-thought-out and reasoned responses.

[Enrique]

19. here's the game plan

play it the same way it was played leading up until 2008, when we finally attained control of the white house and large majorities in both houses.

This time, however, we use that power to progressive policies which are actually more popular than centrist ones, and better policy, and then progressives can convincingly say the democrats stand for something and we will maintain our power and push corporatism to the side where it belongs.

[prolesunited]

20. I still didn't get a real answer to the questions I posed

I know WHY Progressives feel betrayed and are walking away from the party and how this action is justifiable.

I'm sorry I said they want Dems to lose, since that's a bit inflammatory. However, when they withdraw their time, money and votes, the inevitable outcome is that the GOP will be in charge. Sure, you can argue that the Dems are to blame and you're not in the least bit responsible, but the bottom line is that the GOP will be in power.

For those who say the difference is minimal, I strongly disagree. Their first order of business is to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest and begin impeachment proceedings against Obama. I know invading Iraq is on the minds of many.

So, again, back to the question, how does *any* of this further the progressive agenda? Help your fellow Americans. Do you believe sitting out will make the Dems court your harder? Give rise to a viable third party? Bring about a revolution when the pain becomes too much?

So, I ask again, what do Progressives stand to gain and what do you think the repercussions will be?

[Raineyb]

22. YOu didn't pose a real question. It was completely based on a false premise.

You can't get an honest answer to a disingenuous question.

Oh and unrec for the disingenuous OP in the first place.

[prolesunited]

26. Yes, how dare I?

Obviously I don't deserve a response.

Seriously, how does the Progressive agenda move forward? How is that not a legitimate question?

Or would you really simply attack me and the quality of the question?

[Raineyb]

29. That's not the question you asked. You pretended to be interested in asking a question

where you were actually accusing progressives of wanting Republicans to win. This is why you seem to think the answers you're getting are inadequate. People are calling you out on your dishonesty. In addition, because the question was dishonest there's really no way to answer it.

I'm calling you out for being dishonest. I don't think you really want an answer otherwise you would have phrased it as a proper question not as a (very) thinly veiled accusation in the first place. And as I don't agree with your premise there is no answer to give you that you will find satisfactorily.

[metapunditedgy]

31. Why don't you try asking the *real* question of import, to wit:

How do progressives ensure that a candidate who "runs left" will not "govern right"?

All this talk about "look to the primaries" and other BS is assuming that we can even trust the candidates we support. And history is telling us that at least some of that trust is misplaced.

That's the *real* question.

[BlackHoleSon]

28. This Congress, This Administration

won't draw a line in the sand over Bush's tax cuts, "reforming" Social Security ...
Yes the Repubs will be worse, but it's only a matter of degree.
I would argue "Democrats" implementing regressive policy hurts Progressives more than the Repubs doing it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. The votes of the left are available..if the Dems earn them.

Ironically, the "practical", "sensible", moderates consider the left both irrelevant and powerful simultaneously.

Perhaps they aren't as "practical" and "sensible" as they proclaim when they blame the left for their failures to attract the voters.

[prolesunited]

27. Actually, I identify most strongly with the left in terms of policies

I am not a moderate.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. So do I. That's why I vote issues not party or politician.

[fascisthunter]

24. your framing of this is inflammatory and dishonest

[gratuitous]

30. Binary argument

Sorry if I don't buy into it. Objecting to the policies of the allegedly Democratic majority isn't a desire to see Democrats lose in the fall. By the same token, my votes for Democratic candidates should not be seen as endorsement or validation of the candy-ass work done so far during the Obama administration. I'd much rather see Democrats shooting for the moon, even if they miss, than aiming at a skunk and hitting it. In the last two years, things have stunk, because our party leaders have settled for shooting skunks.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

33. hateful false flame-bait

[rucky]

35. False premise aside, suppose we lose the house and senate...

sending Obama to one-termership. It doesn't really matter how or why we lost. That finger-pointing will go on for years.
We're pretty much screwn because we can't pick a strategy we agree on and commit to it. Do we even have a strategy? Seemed like beating up on Wall Street and creating jobs would've been the way to go, but ask 5 progressives their opinion and you'll get 10 different answers. Cat herding.

[joeybee12]

36. Un-rec, you obviously ARE looking for a fight...

try not to be so transparent next time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Progressives will be blamed

regardless.

That is the truth. You have swallowed the meme.

If (when) we lose the House it is because of what has happened in the government... PERIOD.

But go ahead... blame the crazee commies... that really don't exist, if that makes you feel better.

[prolesunited]

38. Crazee commies?!?!

I'm not the person you obviously think you're talking to.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Ok the radical left, the professional left

the neo marxists, whatever is the name of the day.

In the end the left will be blamed. This is easy to predict, as easy as saying the sun will set in the West later in the day.

[kctim]

39. Honest answer

"how does *any* of this further the progressive agenda?"

It doesn't.
The ONLY way to further the "progressive agenda," is to convince Democrats to vote progressives into office. That has proved to be a very hard thing to do, but rather than working together, some believe the strategy of making us go through years of Republican control will force us to crawl over to progressives and beg them to represent us.

Past elections show just how well this strategy works.