The Role of Spite and Magical Thinking in Elections

[MineralMan]

It's almost Election Day in 2010, and the country's in a mess. Economically, we're struggling to hold our own. Socially, we have a pile of problems, and there's a large group of angry right-wingers screeching loudly. We have a President who has a real problem getting the programs he'd like to get enacted because the Democratic majority in the Senate is handcuffed by a stupid rule that allows 41 Republicans to squash anything at their pleasure. It's tough times, as we approach the elections in November, but that's how it is.

So, what do we see? We see a group of disgruntled folks on the leftmost end of the Democratic party who are out working to use their only tool to disrupt this election. That tool? Spite. We saw it used in 2000, when many of the same group abandoned a reasonably progressive Democratic presidential candidate for a strange, unelectable man named Ralph Nader. Some argue that that spite led to eight years of George W. Bush as President. Others say it didn't make a difference. That's not what this post is about.

This post is about the use of spite in elections. How it works is this: Dissatisfaction leads some to vote for a third party candidate. Or, it leads to people staying away from the polls. It also causes people who have strong political views to shun the campaigns for local candidates for Congress in favor of futile activism for unattainable issues. So, the party loses its always tenuous hold on Congress, which can shift from one party to another in a single election. Spite.

The spiteful minority, and it's always a tiny minority, manages to shift one or two or even five percent of the vote away from Democratic candidates or away from the polls altogether. Since many Congressional Districts swing on that small a percentage, control of Congress, as happened in 1994, can suddenly shift, crippling a Democratic Presidential Administration even further. The Spite Party wins by losing, or so they think in their magical thought process.

What happens next? Well, the Spite Party says, "We told you so! See how you like things now!" And here's where the magical thinking comes in. Some members of the Spite Party are so unclear on how politics work in the United States that they believe that spite will force the Democratic party to unite in some way and vote for their choice of candidates in the next election. "See what happened? You didn't vote for our choice, and now you get the Republicans!" Never mind that the voters will never vote for their choice. Never mind that the government has suddenly shifted to the right. Never mind what happens. They say, "The stupid voters deserve what they got." Magical thinking. It's always magical thinking to assume that the majority will agree with a fringe position. It never happens. It never will happen. What does happen is that we swing to the right and it becomes even harder to make progress. We are set back once again, with all the negative results that come from that.

So, if you want to continue progress, incrementally as it inevitably goes, the only answer is to get out there, get out the Democratic voters, and either maintain or increase the Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. There's a Democratic candidate in your own Congressional District who needs your help. Even if that candidate is a sorry-assed excuse for a progressive, you may want to note that there is also a Republican Candidate in the same District. Imagine that candidate winning, because that will be the result if the Spite Party has its way. There's no magic. Having a Republican win out of spite isn't going to change things in a progressive way. It's not going to get a better Democratic candidate two years from now. It will just get another Republican elected. That's a bad idea every time.

Vote No on Spite! Vote for Democrats! Help Democrats get elected! Anything less will result in certain defeat and help put Republicans back in control. There's no magic solution in failure. Spite accomplishes nothing. It never has. It never will.

[flamingdem]

1. No spite = Democratic might

or some such slogan. Well done MM!

[kctim]

2. Vote YES on MinMan advice!!!

[quiet.american]

6. Seconded. nt

[JTFrog]

3. K&R

[NJmaverick]

4. K & R!

:patriot:

[MineralMan]

5. Thanks for the kicks!

[BrklynLiberal]

7. EXCELLENT post! Thank you.

[LongTomH]

8. K&R

:kick:

[JNelson6563]

9. Fired up! Ready to go!

:toast:

[Pab Sungenis]

10. If we just accept what we are given, without demanding more

then we will continue to be given less and less.

[MineralMan]

17. Who said anything about not demanding more? This is not about

that. We should always be demanding more progress. This is about spite and magical thinking. It has nothing to do with what our goals are. We should always be pushing for progressive goals. It's just that we can't get any of them unless we elect people who are on our side to at least some degree. If spite causes conservatives to be elected, how does that advance our goals in any way?

[Pab Sungenis]

34. But until some of the DINOs start dying off

(and I'm not saying to not vote for them) they'll keep shunning those of us who want more because of the idea that we have nowhere else to go. Unfortunately for them, we go. It's called a third party or just staying home.

If they start worrying that we might stay home, then maybe we can make some progress.

[MineralMan]

43. One of the problems with that is the regionality of

the electorate. Every Congressional race is a local one, and local regions often have their own quirks. In fact, we have enough Congressional districts that can swing on a few percentage points to shift control from one party to the other. In those districts, neither a strong left Democrat nor a strong right republican can get elected. Only a centrist with a bias on a couple of issues can win. That's the system we have, and that's the system we live with.

Here in my Congressional District, We have Betty McCollum, who is a strong progressive. She has no problem getting elected here, in this inner city district. In Minneapolis, we have Keith Ellison, our only Muslim congressmember. He wins easily. On the other hand, the district next to mine is Michele Bachmann's district. I can walk to that district in ten minutes from my front door. There, neither of those two Democrats would have a prayer. The Democrat, Tarryl Clark, who is running against Bachmann is not a strong progressive at all. She's a middle-of-the-road centrist. She has a chance to defeat Bachmann. Should progressives not support her? Should they ignore that race? She'll vote on the Democratic side on most issues, but will probably disappoint progressives on others. But, nobody more liberal than her could possibly win in that district. That's guaranteed.

So, there's the problem. We can help get Tarryl Clark elected or we can blow that district off. Now, we might lose. But we have a solid chance to win the district for the Democratic Party. A solid chance. Whether we do or not is going to depend, largely, on how many people turn out to help get every last Democrat in the district to the polls, and on convincing some percentage of moderate Republicans to vote for Clark. If we succeed, we get a centrist Democrat into the House and get rid of a right-wing loudmouth.

What do you think a strong progressive in Minnesota should do? That's the question being faced in swing districts all across the country. What people decide will dictate what happens. You make a choice and you deal with the results. I'd rather lose while trying than lose because I didn't try. That's the bottom line in 2010.

[Pab Sungenis]

47. Maybe give us a little more than lip service?

If Tarryl Clark at least listens to us, or tries to forge a compromise, then she deserves our support. But if she takes us for granted then she doesn't deserve to win.

She doesn't have to support us on the most controversial issues, but we expect at least SOME progressive votes out of her.

[MineralMan]

59. Well, you can certainly visit her campaign web site. She has

a number of position papers you can read. Thanks for your interest in her campaign. I do hope you can help her in some way.

[phasma ex machina]

deleted

[Political Tiger]

11. K & R! n/t

[jaxx]

12. What a post! The truth is a welcome relief from the BS.

:applause: :woohoo: :applause:

K&R

[mzteris]

13. K & R

:kick:

[pintobean]

14. Some of it is certainly spite.

Mostly, I think, it's a matter of principles. People need someone to vote for rather than against. They tend to take some responsibility for the results of their vote. If I vote for a winning dino, I am partially to blame when that person acts like a dino. Leaving a choice blank on the ballot means I have no choice.

[MineralMan]

19. The principle is that Democrats advance progress. Republicans

do not. There is your principle. People who do not get elected advance nothing. If you vote for someone who has no chance of being elected, your vote is thrown away, and does not count for advancing progress. It advances nothing. It is a vote for spite.

Even the Dino votes correctly much of the time. He or she may not on some specific issue, but you know that the Republican running against that Dino will vote against your principles every time. The same applies to sitting out an election. If your non-vote, along with the non-votes of others who make their decision out of spite, ends up meaning that the Republican gets elected, you lose again.

There is no ideal candidate. There is no candidate who will vote according your your principles on every issue. It does not happen. There are only candidates who will vote, if they win, mostly on the same principles you hold or against them all of the time. I prefer the one who votes the way I believe most of the time to the one who votes against my principles most of the time. It's almost always that simple.

You have only to look at a Congress member's votes on all issues to see what I'm saying. Yes, an individual Congressperson may have voted in a way you don't like on a couple of issues, but with you on dozens. The Republican will vote in a way you don't like on dozens of issues, and not vote your way on the ones the other voted against, too.

In one case, you get some issues going in your direction. In the other case, you get none.

I want a filet mignon for my dinner tonight. I will get hot dogs. If it was a Republican making the decision, I'd get nothing and go to bed hungry. I think I'd prefer the hot dogs.

[pintobean]

29. spite

–noun
1. a malicious, usually petty, desire to harm, annoy, frustrate, or humiliate another person; bitter ill will; malice.

It's a pretty nasty accusation to make against some of your fellow DUers. How could you know what is in someone's heart? I would think the spiteful voter would check the "R" and make twice the impact. I know I would if I were to vote with spite.

We may all share a lot of the same principles, but we very likely all prioritize them differently. We are each our own judge in the voting booth.

[MineralMan]

30. I'm not talking about DUers specifically.

DU is not the only place where people gather and express their opinions. Think about Firedoglake, Huffpo, and other sites, too. Don't assume that my world revolves only around DU. It does not. I could give you examples of the Spite Party right here in the Minnesota DFL. They didn't get the candidate for Governor they wanted, so they're huffing and puffing and threatening to vote for the Independent. There are examples everywhere...not just on DU.

[DevonRex]

35. The "vote for rather than against" is illogical in our system of elections and govt.

In attempting to deny political parties any formal role in governing, the founding fathers unintentionally set up a system in which only 2 parties would control political discourse, party platforms and which candidates run for office. In a 2-party system there will always be voters who vote against one party's candidate in an attempt to avoid the worst case scenario from occurring.

These are the facts and it's best if people learn to deal with them.

[Davis_X_Machina]

15. Read Mark Ames'

classic 2004 column Spite the Vote here...

[MineralMan]

20. Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen that.

[HughMoran]

16. Point made.

:thumbsup:

[Beetwasher]

18. Yup

:thumbsup:

[readmoreoften]

21. Uh. Who gives a fuck about Ralph Nader? I haven't seen one DUer tell anyone to vote for Nader.

I haven't even heard that the guy is running. Nice bogeyman.

[MineralMan]

26. Nader is just an example, you see. You may have not read

through to the end. Nader is not the subject of this post.

[Kahuna]

28. That's a good description of Nader, a bogeyman. He sure scares me.

:scared:

[Scurrilous]

22. K & R

:thumbsup:

[inna]

129. K&U

:thumbsdown:

[EFerrari]

23. Why do you think beating up on Democrats is a good idea? It's pretty spiteful, actually.

Maybe you should take your own advice for once. Unrec.

[MineralMan]

25. Democrats vote for Democrats. That's how they get their name.

You appear to have missed the point. I'm hardly beating up on people who vote for Democrats.

[EFerrari]

134. You certainly are beating up on Democrats. It's divisive, not to mention, stupid.

If you have a case to make, make it. Simply pulling a scapegoat straight out of your backside doesn't get out the vote.

[DevonRex]

32. First clue that a person is NOT a Democrat is that he/she doesn't vote for Democrats.

Pretty simple.

[EFerrari]

133. That addresses his straw man but not my question. Even simpler.

[inna]

130. no kidding.

[DevonRex]

24. Very well said.

The question is whether spiteful voters are capable of listening to reason.

[suzie]

27. +1

[MineralMan]

31. I sure hope they are. We need every vote in November.

[DevonRex]

33. On a good note, here in my state the independents are lining up strongly

for the Democratic Senator. They aren't feeling spiteful at all. I'm assuming that the registered Dems will actually vote and vote Dem when they do. Otherwise they're not Dems anymore in my book.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. You should look at this from the Political Science POV

of VOTER UNIVERSES.

I am sure a few of the advisers understand this. But people need to become more sophisticated about this.

By the way... I like you, but you will ALWAYS see a few ON BOTH SIDES that will cast protest votes. Live with it... that's the way it is.

IN reality the US needs a few reforms to the system, because it is NOT working.

It needs to make voting mandatory, and to have PROPORTIONAL representation.

It will not happen, because BOTH major parties have a lot to lose on this. Oh and both require amendments.

But the Constitution has a few weaknesses... one of them is the default position to two major parties... John Stuart Mill was born seventy years too late.

Oh and I am an INDIE, a Social Democrat, and will vote for the dems at a national level and gubernatorial level because of the special brand of crazee... and my local city council, you know what? They are supposed to be NON partisan, we all know better. But if you think I will give to the national party a bloody cent you are wrong. I give and support progressives who HAPPEN to run as democrats, not BECAUSE they are democrats.

See about Voter Universes...

And I am tired of this marginalization of the mythical commies lefties, Marxists that truly do not exist in this country. You are doing, to a point, the same thing I see on the check out counter... OBAMA IS A SECRET MARXIST... who is also a secret MUSLIM... RUN FER THEM HILLS!

[MineralMan]

40. In my opinion, Political Science is neither Political or Scientific.

You see, I'm a socialist, philosophically, and believe that real socialism would be the ideal system. I also know that it's not possible in a country as large and diverse as the United States. Why? Because it would never have the consent of the people...not even half of the people. So, I had to give up that dream as soon as I gained a little practical wisdom.

The United States is divided almost exactly in half, politically. It's a big freaking bell curve. Sometimes, the center line shifts from right to left and back again, but the curve doesn't change. We have this awkward system of voting that pretty much assures that will remain the case. We cannot change that voting system without altering the Constitution, and altering the Constitution was made very, very difficult, by design.

Those are the realities of American politics. Now, 100 years from now, long after I'm dead, we may find ourselves with a different system. I don't know, but I'm absolutely certain it isn't happening anytime soon.

So, I promote the shifting of the center line to the right, putting the majority on the left side of the line...as far as it can possibly go. Right now, it's not far, and we're still stuck with it almost exactly in the middle. So, it doesn't take much to move that line the other way. We've been watching that, now, just about for my whole life.

I can't change the system. I can't change much of anything. I can only try to get people to vote for the left half of the spectrum. That's the very best I can expect. When that happens, progressive ideas have a chance of being enacted, at least partially. We're in that state right now. We may lose that position in November, unless everyone pulls hard.

I'm not marginalizing. I'm encouraging those on the left edge to take a longer view and examine consequences. I'm on their side when it comes to what I see as the ideals. I'm not on their side when they take a hike and the center line through that curve moves the wrong way. Right now, I'm not much on their side, since many are threatening to pull away, rather than pull together. That trick has never worked, and it won't work now.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking I don't understand Political Science, such as it is. I do.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. I am not making that mistake

the OP speaks for itself. You are doing all you can to berate people for NOT voting for the chosen ones...

A few people have told you that.

As to it being science, it is a SOFT science... but it does have it's place and has a LONG history... going back to at least Socrates... in fact to my mind Solon. And their observations are valid even today.

[BlackHoleSon]

54. Take one for the team.

That's what I hear you saying and I'm OK with that. But to think there is ANYTHING approaching enthusiasm among Progressives for this Democratic Party is being just as naive and shortsighted, politically, as you are accusing the Progressives of being.

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. Bingo and welcome to DU

:hi:

After having to prepare some material and having to look at this at distance... it was obvious to me that there was more than the binary thinking we see often.

[pipi_k]

37. Thank you!!! You said it way better than I ever could n/t

:fistbump:

[scheming daemons]

38. That's why the "see why we voted for Nader?" thread was a complete idiotic joke

Did you help progressive causes by voting for Nader?

Or did you help Bush advance a neocon agenda?



The true answer is the latter... but they'll never admit it to themselves. They can't see the forest for the trees.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[MineralMan]

42. No. Actually, I'm calling for people to pull in the same direction.

Why? Because I know what will happen if they don't.

Thanks for your thoughtful input, though. Really.

[Raineyb]

45. No you're not you're lecturing once again and berating as you usually do.

It's not at all persuasive to tell someone that if they don't vote the way you think they should it's because they're just spiteful. It is the opposite of trying to get people to pull in the same direction.

[MineralMan]

46. My dear Raineyb,

I'm posting my opinion. You don't agree with that opinion. Both of us are well within the boundaries of DU discussion. I believe that both of us should be free to post our opinion and let the rest of DU judge them. Thanks for participating in this thread.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[MineralMan]

50. I'm afraid I don't understand. Here you are, freely posting in

my threads and offering your wisdom and wit. As I said, thanks for stopping by and sharing your thoughts. You're certainly welcome to visit any of my threads and comment. That's why I post them.

But, if you have no more to say, I bid you good afternoon and Godspeed on your journey.

[Raineyb]

116. You don't understand? Are you playing coy? Two of my messages on this thread have been

deleted. It is exactly as I said. Some opinions are more equal than others.

[MineralMan]

118. I saw that they had been deleted. I suppose they broke some

stupid DU rule, eh? As I've said many, many times, I do not ever alert on any posts in threads I start, so you'll have to ask someone else. I like everyone to be able to read all the posts in my threads. I'm so glad, though, to see that you have returned to this thread to continue our fascinating discussion. I was afraid you had forsaken me for another. :hug:

[NJmaverick]

58. Your comments suggest you don't plan on voting for Democrats

is that correct?

[Raineyb]

115. If you think that then I would suggest brushing up on your reading comprehension skills.

Because I am not wasting my time on you.

[h8okra]

41. Too True ..N/T

[gulliver]

48. Wonderful post!

Thanks for posting it!

[Kat45]

51. K&R

I see that behavior as as cutting off your nose to spite your face. If the republicans get control of any branch of the legislature, we are screwed. They will work to undo any good things that have been done and take things backwards as far as they can. And sadly, the Democratic losses will be blamed on their being "too liberal," which will cause the party to move even further to the right, fleeing more from progressive ideals. I just hope that enough voters realize that a major reason the economy still sucks is because of the republicans saying no to any positive moves, including extending unemployment benefits and helping veterans. I hope they do not blame the Democratic party because "they're the ones in charge." (Yes, the blue dogs have also been saying no to things, but I'm stating it in the black-and-white manner that people are accustomed to believing.)

[ecstatic]

52. very well stated! kr nt

[Odin2005]

53. Gee, first we were "Fucking Retarded", then "Are On Drugs", and now we are "Spiteful".

New month, new insult. :eyes:

[NJmaverick]

56. In my humble opinion if you are not voting Dem in November

you have nothing to complain about

[phasma ex machina]

61. +1 Cynicism is not the answer. nt

[Odin2005]

65. I will not vote for "Dems" that vote like Pukes.

I vote for REAL Democrats.

[NJmaverick]

67. Ironic use of the word "real" as in real politicians have to deal with real politics

and don't always vote how you or anyone else wishes.

[MineralMan]

71. Voting for REAL Democrats™ is very good.

I highly recommend that action. Perhaps you could give us all a list of the REAL Democrats™, so we'll know exactly who you support. It could be a guide for the rest of us, who may have lists of our own. Thanks in advance for your efforts.

[pintobean]

83. Alvin Greene

[MineralMan]

92. LOL!

:rofl:

[pintobean]

99. Only a spiteful Democrat would leave that one blank.

:rofl:

[MineralMan]

122. That one's sort of a special case, isn't it? I'll never quite understand

the politics of that state, but it's not a race I get to vote in. Very odd turn of events, there. Very uncharacteristic.

[MineralMan]

57. Did I use those other two terms you placed in quotation marks?

I don't remember the threads, if I did. I also don't remember calling anyone in particular "spiteful." I'm very confused right now. I think you'll have to spell things out for me. Perhaps I'm less able to understand these things at my advanced age.

If you can find where I used those words, please send me the links. I'm fearful that I'm slipping slowly away. Or...perhaps, you're conflating me with someone else. That seems more likely, somehow.

I'd certainly never call you "Fucking Retarded." You write quite clearly and even spell well and use proper grammar. I assume you aren't "On Drugs," either, although I have no actual knowledge of any medications you may take. But, the same coherence in your writing seems to indicate that you are thinking clearly and not fogged by those toxic chemicals.

If you feel insulted, I certainly apologize for that, since I didn't think about you at all when I wrote this OP. In fact, I can't remember ever thinking of you as I wrote.

Thanks for replying to my post. It's always interesting to hear what other DUers think.

[Odin2005]

64. It's called a pattern of namecalling from those who want us Progressive to shut up.

I'M NOT GONNA SHUT UP!

[MineralMan]

68. Well, I'd certainly not tell you to shut up. So, I'm not really sure

why you're putting words in my mouth. I don't believe I've called you any names, either. Maybe you replied to the wrong post. I don't know. But, I appreciate your comments on my thread. I know you appreciate my comments in your threads, too. It's all what makes DU such a great place, where we can all write our opinions for everyone to read.

I do wish, though, that you'd be more careful not to imply that I have said things I have not said. I write plenty of words from which you can choose to quote. Thanks a lot, there.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

55. Thank you for your well-stated thoughts.

I tried to say more or less the same thing in another thread -- though far less eloquently -- and I was summarily chastised for being insufficiently progressive and selling out to The Corporatists. Oh, well. Illegitimi non carborundum; keep up the good work.

[MineralMan]

60. Thanks for your feedback. And thanks for supporting

Democrats in 2010! :applause:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

70. I will always support Democrats.

My Congressman is Keith Ellison, so I won't even have to hold my nose when I vote for him. But if I lived in Tarryl Clark's district I wouldn't hesitate to support, contribute to, and vote for her even though she's not as "left" as Ellison. I might send her a few bucks anyhow. It isn't even a "lesser of two evils" situation; it's really a matter of batshit crazy industrial strength evil vs. not as good as many of us would like. I think stopping the likes of Michelle Bachmann trumps ideological purity any day.

[MineralMan]

77. I agree completely. Defeating Michele Bachmann is a high

priority for me.

[Bonobo]

62. Because it's "spiteful" unless you vote for "my" guy. Check.

Forget about voting in your self-interest or for someone who represents you (representative democracy anyone?).

"Spite Party". LOL.

[Fumesucker]

63. Unrec for yet another attempt to absolve politicians from all responsibility..

We voters have damn few choices and damn little input we can make into the political process.

I'm heartily sick of constant and ongoing attempts to blame all the ills of this country on the voters and absolve the politicians of all responsibility for grotesquely misusing the immense power they wield.

[NJmaverick]

66. You must have mixed up posts, because there was nothing in this OP

that absolved any politician of anything. Although there was a reasoned look at the real world though

[MineralMan]

75. Wow! Did I do that? I don't remember absolving anyone of

anything. Maybe someone hacked into my post and added things. Wait...I'll go look....

Nope. Nothing about that in there. No absolution for any politician. Looks like you wasted a good unrec on the wrong thread. I suggest that, in the future, you actually read an OP before waxing eloquent about it. It can help prevent embarrassing mistakes.

[Fumesucker]

79. You blame it all on anyone who doesn't blindly vote for Democratic candidates..

You even had to drag your vote-for-Democrats-or-it's-all-your-fault politics into my recent strictly non-political post on the Science forum, you ruined what was an enjoyable exchange for me and made me feel dirty and used.

I'm tired of being guilt-tripped as a voter, I loathe the Republicans with every fiber of my being and am coming to despise the weakness and fecklessness of the Democrats.

You just can't seem to understand that some of us are weary unto death of always voting the lesser of two evils, we long for someone to vote for rather than against. I have grandchildren and tremble for the nation and the world that they will come to inherit and yet the only influence I can exert is vote-for-the-lesser-evil.

[MineralMan]

82. I guess I'm lucky. I get to vote for Al Franken and Betty McCollum.

Why is that, do you suppose? In case you don't know the answer, I'll give it to you: I get to vote for them because I helped get them nominated. That means participating in the DFL organization as a precinct chair and attendance at every caucus, convention, and party meeting. It also means meeting the candidates and talking to them about their beliefs and plans. Then, it means working at campaigning for them and helping them get elected after we helped get them nominated.

You don't seem to understand that some of us are not just whining about poor candidates. We're working to get better ones. Then, we're working to convince people to show up and vote for them.

So you're wrong when you say "the only influence I can exert is vote-for-the-lesser-evil." There's much more you can do, but you have to be willing to do it. You can't just post on forums like this one. That has absolutely zero effect on the candidates you can vote for. To get that, you have to sign up, volunteer, and work to get good candidates nominated, then work to get them elected.

I did not mean to make you feel dirty and used. Why would I do that? I just pointed out that we could have been the ones to be working on the Higgs Boson, instead of some European lab. But, since we didn't get Democrats elected and let the Republicans gain control of Congress, the funds were cut for an accelerator that was already designed and construction underway. Remember? We were talking about basic high-energy physics research in the thread you're dragging into this one. Why are we not the leaders in that field? Because we let Republicans decide not to spend that money. We didn't get Democrats elected.

You cant seem to understand that "some of us are weary unto death" of people defaulting and letting Republicans control what is done and what is not done. Some of us are damned tired of that crap. Some of us are annoyed at those who would rather vote for a third party candidate than support a moderate Democrat who would vote for most progressive legislation. Instead, we get Republicans who won't vote for any progressive legislation. We let them run the country through our inability to vote for Democrats who can be elected in tough districts and get a strong majority in Congress.

So, if you want to influence your grandchildren's world, there's most definitely something you can do. But will you do it? Or will you withhold your vote and allow the Republicans to regain power? It's sort of up to you. Here in my area, we've already done it and we're not going to look back. Now, it's up to you to do it in your area.

Thanks for your post in this thread.

[Fumesucker]

88. I don't like your chiding manner..

I don't like being guilt-tripped.

You have no idea of my situation in life and what I am or am not at liberty to do.

And I don't live in Minnesota, lucky you. In my state a triple amputee Vietnam Vet was successfully challenged in a Senate race by a chickenhawk lower life form that ran TV ads morphing him into Osama bin Laden.

Just a little while ago at the dinner table I got to listen to a Fox-News induced, semantically content-free rant from a family member and had to bite my tongue because I know from bitter experience that the slightest disagreement will trigger far worse.

Then I come here on DU and have people telling me I *have* to vote a certain way or the fall of western civilization will be my fault, these people never ever blame the politicians for me not wanting to vote for them.

I know you didn't mean any harm by your comment in the Science Forum but please, some of us really, really need to get away from the political guilt-tripping sometimes, leave the politics in GD or GDP or go to the BOG if you have to do that.

[MineralMan]

90. Quite frankly, I'm not concerned whether you like my manner or

not. It doesn't concern me at all. I don't like your fatalism. But that's your decision, not mine. I have nothing to do with your family. I have an in-law like that. He's no longer welcome in my home. I don't tolerate such crap.

I can't tell you how to vote. I wouldn't if I could. I can tell you the consequences of not voting, though, or for voting for third party candidates. That's easy. We've all seen it happen.

I also can't "lay a guilt trip on you." I don't have that power. Any guilt you feel comes from inside yourself. You're free to reject anything I say, and I'm not talking directly to you or anyone else in any original post I make here. You can ignore me, and you'll never even see another of my posts.

As for the science thread, everything I said was true. We are not leading in that field of research because Republicans cut off the funding for it. So, if you enjoy reading about high-energy physics, you won't be reading much about US research, since there's no money left for it. Why? Because we elected George W. Bush in 2000 and again in 2004. We did it. The Republicans didn't do it without our help. Everything is political, from scientific research to the health care you receive. Everything has politics involved. So, if I'm in a science thread, you can count on me to bring up the sorry state of our research funding in pure research.

Democratic Underground is primarily a political forum. That means that politics are part and parcel in every sub forum here. Politics appear constantly in the Science forum. Politics influence everything in our lives. Don't tell me I can't bring up political issues on Democratic Underground. I will not fail to mention politics in any forum, since politics affects every forum. I don't Post in GDP or the Barack Obama Group, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning those.

If you do not wish to see any of my posts, there is a simple thing you can do. Ignore me. Either that or skip my posts. I will, however post as I please on DU. I will not make personal attacks. I will not break DU rules. I will post, though, wherever and whenever I see fit. Thank you for understanding.

[MineralMan]

94. "And I don't live in Minnesota, lucky you."

I moved here. It's one of our rights as US Citizens. We have freedom of movement. It's a choice you can make.

[Fumesucker]

96. As I said, you have no idea of my situation in life..

Did it possibly occur to you that the place I'm living in does not belong to me, that I'm the one who is a guest?

Not all theoretical possibilities in life are actually achievable, I'm trying to change my situation but any tangible results are months away and more likely years given the state of the economy.

[MineralMan]

120. You're right. I don't have any idea. How would I?

I read the words you write and treat them the same as I treat all posts I read. If I agree with them, I will say so. If I disagree, I will say that, as well. That is the interchange of discussion. If you think your situation is pertinent to the thread, then you can post that information and I'll read it, too. I don't theorize on how people live. If they want me to know, they will tell me. If your experiences will help to inform people of why you are posting what you are posting, then sharing those experiences will probably add depth to your posts. Thanks for participating in this thread. I assume, by your continued participation that you don't plan to ignore my posts, so we'll probably have additional chances to chat on DU. :toast:

[Fumesucker]

138. Why then would you give advice that you have no way of knowing whether or not I can follow?

It comes across as condescending, or rather it actually is condescending..

[ShamelessHussy]

108. no one could blame you

it is very over the top, and seems designed more to push buttons than to engage in real dialog.

:hi:

BTW: I do appreciate your posts, that take advantage of these opportunities to present another perspective on the issue at hand, it is what makes DU worth coming to. :toast:

[Electric Monk]

104. +1 nt

[ipaint]

69. I've voted the lesser of two evils for 35 years and the elite finally took every last cent I had

this recession. Frankly as a working poor person there really isn't much difference between the two evils except in the speed of descent.

Our financial system is infested with criminals and fraudsters and no one investigates and prosecutes. They've infested government and until they are purged once and for all it will get worse.

Magical thinking? I've done 35 years of it- voting while holding my nose. Massive fail.

[NJmaverick]

73. Way to toss the Muslims and many other minorities under the bus

I am sure that Muslims fearful of life under a President Palin would take little comfort in your incorrect claims of little difference. I know since all Americans count of the Supreme Court to protect all our civil liberties an SC packed by Republican choices is a pretty frightening prospect. Still you haven't perceived any personal benefits so I guess we will all learn to live with out those rights.

[BzaDem]

74. Things can get much worse for you, as you will see if today's Republicans take power.

Your biggest mistake is assuming it can't get much, much worse. Eventually, you will see this. The only question is how much political pain you will inflict on yourself until you do.

[ipaint]

78. Sorry the empty threats, smears and scare tactics don't work.

I know better. Your mistake is thinking it won't get much worse regardless who is in office. And those of us at the bottom with nothing to lose know "the haves" made plenty of room for all of you down here.

[HughMoran]

81. Twisted

I can't imagine giving up on life and then bringing that misery upon other people. Double negative.

[ipaint]

102. Yes, I used to think that too but after 35 years

of voting for the less evil choice of 2 corporate candidates while watching the elites steal everything from the lower classes and now the middle class, including hoarding all profits on productivity increases in the last 35 years, I grew up.

No more magical thinking, no more propaganda, no more bogus bipartisanship and cowardly baby steps. The facts are in. We have a captured government. After 35 years of voting as the OP and others suggest we are much worse off despite that much touted incremental change being squeezed in temporarily here and there. What a scam.

I didn't trust your theory back then, although I went along with it and now i know why. It's bogus. The results have been horrendous for workers and especially those with lower incomes. The criminal fraudsters at the top do well no matter who is in charge.

Don't worry though, I'm sure you'll convince another whole generation to waste their energy and votes by scaring them silly and telling them how drawing a non-negotiable line in the sand around justice, the rule of law, civil rights and economic democracy is but a pipe dream, magical thinking for the politically immature.

You can then all negotiate yourselves into permanent poverty wage slavery.

[HughMoran]

103. Have a pleasant life

:hi:

[inna]

132. What's "twisted" is your despicable way of constantly attacking people.

"I can't imagine giving up on life and then bringing that misery upon other people."

What a totally fucked up post and what an ugly and low insinuation.

Fucking disgusting. :puke:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

80. ...

[rusty fender]

140. Yup, I'm definitely voting

for the lesser one; at least it'll do less damage than the larger one. It's the only sensible thing to do.:rofl:

[jpak]

72. Naderites are idgits

yup

:thumbsup:

[MineralMan]

76. This post is not about Nader. I merely used him as an example

in a larger context.

[depakid]

84. You don't get it- and probably never will

This is why you lose- time and again.

Rather than learn, you toss out screeds like this that do nothing but browbeat and further alienate those you might otherwise persuade.

[MineralMan]

85. Do I lose? Really?

Al Franken. Betty McCollum. Look 'em up. Al's my senator. Betty's my representative. If you have a problem with either, then you're not looking for progressives. As I said to Fumesucker, above, they got elected because they got nominated. They got nominated because people like me showed up at the caucuses, conventions, and party meetings. They got elected because those same people worked their asses off to get out the vote and to campaign.

I don't count that as a loss at all. If you do, then you're welcome to be alienated. Enjoy your misery. I'm busy getting Michele Bachmann tossed in November. I can help with that. With all the others who are helping, I think we'll do it.

What are you doing to get someone elected in your area? Do tell. Oh, wait...I forgot. You're in Australia, so you don't actually have any US candidates to work for. Never mind...you can just ignore my post and enjoy your freaking vegemite, mate.

[depakid]

93. Actually, I worked for Jeff Merkley in 2008

A progressive up and coming leader that the corporate right "Democrats" have repeatedly double crossed- along with Mainstreet. I also vote in American elections (at least for a few more years).

You on the other hand can't seem to get beyond the petty feet stamping, and so cannot reflect on THE REASONS WHY YOU'RE ABOUT TO LOSE. AGAIN. During a redistricting year no less!

Nor can you figure out why (or even accept that) your party squandered a once in a generation opportunity for bona fide structural reforms changes that would have rallied the American people behind you and relegated Republicans to the fringe for decades.

Some of have been warning folks on this very board for well over a year what would be coming is the Democratic "leadership" continued to behave the way they have.

Commentators, strategists and other observers (including folks from Merkely's office) have written about it -sometimes dircetly to the administration and others in positions that might make a difference.

To no avail. They, like you- arrogantly refuse to learn. Or worse- continued to insult and backhand key constituencies.

And now you're fucked.

Deservedly so in many people's opinions.

[MineralMan]

95. I'm not "fucked" at all.

And good for you on the Merkely election. He's an excellent Senator, one of whom I heartily support. I wish we had more like him.

But I'm not fucked. I'm still working toward the goal of progressivism.

[Number23]

86. Rec'd! This is great

[MineralMan]

87. Thanks very much for your support. Every single person makes

a difference!

[Warren Stupidity]

89. Another attack another day.

If there was anything of interest past "So, what do we see? We see a group of disgruntled folks on the leftmost end of the Democratic party" I wouldn't know.

Do you really think that attacks like yours are helping?

[MineralMan]

91. Are they helping? I don't know. I post what I want to post.

It's not an attack. It's a discussion, based on my perception. You're free to skip my threads. I will post as I choose. Thanks for understanding.

[Forkboy]

97. My next vote is magical, indeed.

[Kat45]

98. Did you see Eugene Robinson's column today?

It's called "The spoiled-brat American electorate." He's pretty much saying the same thing you are. Check it out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/02/AR2010090203992.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[MineralMan]

111. Thanks for the link. I'll go read that. I heard a reference to it

on MSNBC, but haven't had a chance to read it yet.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[ShamelessHussy]

105. insulting folks who have legitimate grievances will probably have the opposite effect of uniting

unless that is what you were going for.

fyi

[Fumesucker]

107. That's pretty much my take on it to..

MM is far from stupid and I'm starting to think the effect you mention might just be deliberate.

[NJmaverick]

113. I am thinking your actions are not helping to unite people

so why attack MM for not uniting?

[Fumesucker]

137. I am thinking your actions aren't helping to unite people either..

So why attack me for attacking MM for not uniting?

[NJmaverick]

112. Attacking folks for making a point, by feigning insult doesn't work either

[MineralMan]

114. Well, as I said in the post, I'm going for getting Democrats

elected and preventing a takeover by the Republicans. Isn't that a worthwhile goal? If the Republicans regain control of Congress, we may not get it back for another decade. I'm sure we'll not be better off at the end of that decade. Letting personal grievances stop a person from preventing that from happening seems like a negative thing to me. Better for the country if we increase our majority, not end it, it seems to me.

[ShamelessHussy]

127. Insulting, and belittling folks you are trying to attract, isn't a winning strategy

Just some kindly advice to help you with your noble goal.

:hi:

[Hekate]

106. Very interesting. KnR. Took quite awhile to read through this long thread, but well worth it

You express what I believe extremely well, MinMan. I don't know how close in age we are, but it may have something to do with how well our experiences and observations mesh on this subject.

I recently offered "truce" in a certain thread on a certain contentious subject and was told by several DUers that that would mean "compromise" and that none was possible. Now THAT's sad.

We all have so very much to learn from each other here that it's a shame to have anyone -- in this thread for instance -- declare that they feel "attacked" by a thread such as this one and that they will not discuss further.

Must run. Someone in RL is reminding me that I have an implicit promise to make dinner.

Hekate

[coti]

109. That's great that you're getting your personal politics in order.

Interpersonal conflict is a terrible thing, especially when it's something as minor as opinions that is getting in the way of progress- especially the monetary kind!

And we all know that IMPLICIT, unsaid promises are the most important promises out there!



Yeah! I don't see why you've haven't had more influence on DU up to this point!

[Hekate]

110. Have we met?

[hedgehog]

117. Too late to rec, but at least I can give you a kick!

[MineralMan]

119. Thanks! Recs and Unrecs don't matter, anyhow.

Over 1800 people have read the thread so far. That's the real measure. I appreciate your taking the time to read what I wrote.

[Bluenorthwest]

121. Why is the mean and petty namecalling stuff always a part of the

wayward centrists awkward campaign methods? Is this a tactic that is actually taught? It just gets so old and so tired. And arrogant. I've never missed a single election. The Democrats I support are liberals, progressives, and that is how it is.
I've never voted for a Republican. Have you, Mineral Man?

[pintobean]

123. They keep doing

the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

[MineralMan]

125. I'm just an optimist, I guess.

Perhaps it's a flaw, but I can't seem to give up optimism. Thanks for continuing the discussion.

[MineralMan]

124. You know, I never have voted for a Republican. I can't imagine

why I would. I have always voted for Democrats, since 1966, when I was first able to vote. Sadly, the voting age wasn't lowered to 18 until years later. I have never missed an election, either, from local school board elections to Presidential elections. I consider it a singular opportunity to have my opinion counted, and can't imagine why anyone would ever miss that opportunity.

As for my pointing out the spite vote or non-vote, I do so because so many people here and elsewhere have indicated that's what they plan to do in 2010. If you don't plan that, then I wasn't referring to you. Thanks for reading my post.

[Bluenorthwest]

126. Your post was a major turn off

I also worked on the Merkley campaign, and because you have been so nasty to so many in this thread, I'll go so far as to tell you that I know Senator Franken from the real world, and many who also know him, and he would never in a million years speak to Democrats in the fashion you do, or anyone else for that matter.
But good luck with the gruff and the mean. It is just not a style I need to employ, nor would it work if I did.

[MineralMan]

128. Well, a number of people apparently disagree with your

assessment. But, there are many different styles of debate. As I said earlier, Merkley is an excellent Senator. We need more like him, and we can get them if we work for it.

[NJmaverick]

131. Oddly enough the only "name calling I could find was

"wayward centrists awkward campaign method":shrug:

[katandmoon]

135. And in contrast, you, of course, are the most sensible of Democrats!

Unrec.

[LWolf]

136. Dissatisfaction is not spite. nt

[NoPasaran]

139. Kicko

:dem:

I'll be voting straight ticket, even the gooberheads.

[Scurrilous]

141. Kick

:kick: