which is more important? which is the priority?

[SwampG8r]

Poll question: which is more important? which is the priority?

to you as a DU member.
which of these will make it so that positive changes are most likely to happen in your life?
if both were to happen it would be ok with me, but i am voting congress.
which of these is most likely to improve the lives of average americans?

[HappyMe]

1. Both. nt

[JVS]

2. We did both in 2008

[SwampG8r]

4. do you see that happening in 2012?

i dont see the cohesivness needed to make it happen

[HappyMe]

6. No, right now I don't see it.

I am hoping that will improve. I'm going to do what I can.

[SwampG8r]

14. same here

and same here and same here

[peace13]

3. After working my butt off for both over the last ten years...

I would say the most important thing is to work to federally fund elections. The rest is an absolute waste of time, unless you have millions to donate to campaigns.

[Tesha]

8. That won't happen.

The duopoly that controls Congress is very happy with
the way elections are run now; after all, *THEY* got
elected and the power of incumbency now runs in their
favor.

And even if a miracle occurred and Congress voted for
changes, the Supreme Court would overturn the changes
as infringing on the rich's right to more speech than the
rest of us combined.

Tesha

[tblue]

12. Bill Moyers says campaign finance reform is the single most

important issue. We may not get it in our lifetime, but we have to work toward it with dedication, just like the abolitionists did with slavery.

I really respect Moyers and I just know this is true. It colors everything.

[Ineeda]

5. I say both, also.

If the legislative branch is is strongly Democratic, that would be great, but if President Obama is not reelected, the rethug obstruction would continue unabated. Any bill a Democratic Congress passed would be vetoed by the rethug in the WH. There's also the matter of Supreme Court appointments nominated by the sitting president. So the only solution is to regain control of the House, strengthen the number of progressive Democrats in the Senate, and retain the White House.

[JoePhilly]

10. Correct.

[scheming daemons]

7. The two are intertwined.... one doesnt likely happen without the other

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

9. Electing progressives to both the White House and congress.

[liberal N proud]

11. Both

You have to look at which one you have the most probability of winning and concentrate on that.

We have to have a good solid control of one of the branches to stop the teabaggers from totally destroying everything this nation was built on over the last 250 years.

But to get anything done, you have to have control of both!

[tblue]

13. In '08 we had Weiner, Feingold, Kennedy, Grayson with

a majority in both houses and the WH. Plus enormous political capital and an unmistakable mandate. And it still wasn't enough.

Those priceless progressives are gone now (and I really want to thank the Dem leadership -- Pelosi & Obama --for putting the nail in Rep. Weiner's coffin. How'd that work out?). We blew that experiment and look where we are now.

So I am fresh out of ideas. Yours?

[SwampG8r]

15. i have to put my money

on congress
otherthan that no i am about out of ideas

[RC]

16. besides the election of dem majorities in both houses of congress,

If we can primary Obama and get a Democrat in the White House also...

[jwirr]

17. Although the election of BO comes in a close second unless we want

everything the congress does vetoed and all the new SCOTUS candidates to be far right. If we cannot give BO a big majority we are going to have another term just like this term.