Even if you're not pro-Obama, you still need to vote Democratic this year

[Ken Burch]

I know that most people weren't confused about that, but for those that might be, remember this:

If the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate are significantly reduces(as they were in 1966)everything we don't like is going to get even worse.

If the majority in either or both houses is lost, we'll be reduced to the worthless politics we had between 1994 and 2000.

And, in fact, if you want to push the admin towards the policies we all thought it would support, the best way to do that is to actually try to INCREASE Democratic strength-both in quantity and in quality(removing bad Dems in the primaries and getting the people nominated in their place elected).

It's possible for progressives to OWN this election-by finding ways to create enthusiasm outside of the party's control, and by bringing a higher-than expected turnout in November so that the party leaders won't keep saying "there IS no base-so we don't have to respect it".

That's the way we need to look at the months to come. We can take what could have been a disaster and make it a reshaping moment in the direction of this country.

[annabanana]

1. It will be those with short memories indeed that would disagree with this.

(Or those who yearn to a return to the Bush years)

(edit: I rec'd to no avail)

[Ken Burch]

2. We're on a Democratic website and somebody unrec'd a thread calling for people to vote Democratic?

:wtf:

[elocs]

4. How nice of you to give them the attention they desired,

which likely would have otherwise gone unnoticed.

[pnwmom]

13. That's why the unrec is so stupid. Trolls are free to unrec. n/t

[TexasObserver]

55. They're also free to Recommend threads.

The suggestion that trolls only use Unrec to express displeasure at "good" threads is unwarranted. They can't Recommend threads supporting War? Or foreign auto manufacturers? Or police excess?

Assuming you can define the opposition to a thread is a mistake. You only know they unrecommend it. You don't know who they are, or why they unrecommend it.

I recommended this thread because I think it is a well written piece that deserves to be read and deserves to be seen on the Greatest Page. If it had the same content, but presentation that was less cogent, I would unrecommend it.

[emilyg]

71. I'm not a troll - unrec.

[Cali_Democrat]

100. Are you going to vote Democratic this November?

[emilyg]

121. I'll tell you after I vote.

[Nikki Stone1]

124. Every time I complain about the unrec feature, I get a letter from a mod

So just be careful about how much you talk about it.

[old mark]

3. Actually, the current crop of republicans make Bush look progressive.

Allowing them gain power would be a real disaster. OUR country is at stake here, not just our egos, and they would certainly try to destroy what progress has been made.

mark

[Oregone]

5. Sure, ya know, because people are already entitled to my vote

They don't even have to earn it. I'm sure politicians will magically start legislating for those with old Democratic ideology once they automatically accumulate their votes in the next election.

[pnwmom]

14. When they feel the numbers are on their side they respond. As it is, people like

Bush and Reagan get elected because we have a huge population of voters in the middle. Want to change that? Then get your progressive friends to vote. Consistently.

[AlphaCentauri]

64. if they get the numbers what can we expect?

insurance reform for example?

[diamidue]

91. You got it.

Once again we are faced with a choice of two evils at the polls. I'm not playing that game anymore.

[Silent3]

6. We haven't punished the country and the planet enough yet...

...for not living up to our progressive values. We definitely need 4-8 years of a Tea Party President, a Tea Party Congress, and having Glenn Beck appointed to the Supreme Court in order to show Democrats that they'd better be more progressive, damn it, if they want our votes.

[socialist_n_TN]

27. IF you get 8 years of Tea Party power......................

trust me, you won't EVER get another free election in this country. That's whats at stake here. If the CURRENT incarnation of the RW gets back in power they won't give it up outside the barrel of a gun.

[Silent3]

54. Who cares if the country is trashed?

Dammit, we have to stand up for our principles! I mean, gee, what's worse? President-for-Life Palin (or President-Until-She-Quits Palin, then Vice President Wurzelbacher takes over), or feeling like DLC Democrats aren't respecting you enough and they're taking your vote for granted!?

[Ken Burch]

58. The OP was CALLING for Democratic support in November

Why the diss?

But your attitude does illustrate why a lot of people are having trouble getting their heads around voting Dem this year.

You can't just DEMAND loyalty and show none in return.

[Silent3]

72. Um... yeah... I got that the OP was calling for Democratic support

As for "why the diss", it's because a lot of people say things that are pretty damned close to my parody, and if their words were carried out rather than just being blowing off steam, they would have similar bad results.

As for demanding loyalty, I'm not personally demanding any loyalty. I'm pointing out the ugly alternatives, the lesser of two evils. We definitely should work to get more Democrats to support progressive ideals, in deed as well as word, but threatening to not vote or to vote third party in a general election isn't likely to help at all. Primaries are our best bet for changing things, even if the alternatives there aren't always so great or viable either.

When someone asks, "If they ignore us, then what should we do?", it's not my obligation to have a good answer when maybe there really are no good answers. Sometimes the only choices we have are sucks and sucks more. Those who would petulantly choose to help make things suck more aren't really the champions of idealism and change they think they are.

[theothersnippywshrub]

7. All that is necessary for republicans to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

If the majority in either house is lost, the political power and influence of the teabaggers, birthers and republican religious reich is going to be greater than ever. That is bad for the entire world and our country. Limiting and decreasing that power and influence should be the number one priority of every liberal and progressive, especially single issue liberals and progressives.

[FiveGoodMen]

86. The republicans are currently triumphing (getting their way) despite Dem majorities

All that is necessary for republicans to triumph is for Democratic politicians to do nothing.

And that's what most of them are doing.

And because some keep pledging their loyalty no matter what, it's going to get even worse.

[theothersnippywshrub]

88. Are you a republican? If so, identify the votes in either house of Congress

on which your party prevailed.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[polichick]

8. Progressives are stuck with the Democratic Party for now...

I can't imagine voting for one of the throwbacks on the other side - or failing to vote. imo citizens have an obligation to vote.

What we CAN do as progressives/liberals is give our time and money to progressive candidates, rather than to the DNC and other establishment/centrist/Republican-lite groups.

[Toasterlad]

21. Speak For Yourself.

[polichick]

24. How is it different for any other progressive? Obviously we have to elect...

...more progressives instead of DLC candidates.

Think before you post.

[Toasterlad]

28. Progressive Does Not Always Equal Democrat

There is no difference between voting for a non-progressive Democrat and voting for a Republican.

Progressives are not "stuck" with the Democratic Party. Progressives are free to vote for progressives, no matter what letter is after their name. And that is what progressives should do, to the point of writing someone's name in instead of choosing "the lesser of two evils", which is how the Democratic party has kept its sheep in line for decades now.

You don't get change by doing the same thing over and over. That's the definition of insanity.

[polichick]

29. Yeah, that's the definition of insanity - electing another Republican by...

...throwing your vote away on another candidate who can't win.

Smarter to take the party back by voting for Dem progressives.

[Toasterlad]

31. Find Me a Democratic Progressive, And I Will Gladly Vote For Him/Her.

Put up a corporatist with a D after their name, and I won't. It's that simple.

The only possible way to throw away my vote would be to vote against my own interest.

As a gay person, it makes no difference to me if a Republican or a DLC Democrat gets elected. You straight people want my vote? Stop telling me my only choice is a DLC type.

[polichick]

34. Please read more carefully - my posts here have all been about...

...backing progressive Dems with our time and money, not those chosen by the establishment.

There are good people, like Alan Grayson.

You may even want to run yourself.

[Toasterlad]

43. I Could Never Be Elected To Public Office.

I have far less tact than Alan Grayson, and no patience for the politcal process. You need to be a least a little bit of a slimy weasel to be a politician, and while I may occasionally be a weasel, I'm not slimy.

In any case, I whole-heartedly agree that we should back progressive Dems with time and money. I'm simply saying that, if a progressive candidate does not make it past the primary, I will not vote for a non-progressive candidate in the general. Period.

[diamidue]

92. I'm with you Toasterlad. n/t

[salguine]

98. "Throwing your vote away"? I voted for Obama...now THAT vote was thrown away. If I had

known what he was going to turn into, I would never have voted for him.

[socialist_n_TN]

30. Sorry I've got to call bullshit...............

at least on your first paragraph. In the political world of TODAY, the WORST Democrat is better than the BEST Republican. That's just a fact. I can't think of ONE Republican that I'd vote for over Blanche Lincoln. Think about that for a second. Blanche Lincoln. I'd be puking while I did it, but I'd vote for her over Romney or Pawlenty. And third party candidates on the left just help Republicans get elected.

UNTIL we primary non progressive Dems out of their jobs, we ARE stuck with the Democratic Party. Ergo, vote for socialist or even CPUSA candidates in the primaries, but if they don't win, we vote Dem or we lose the right to free elections until after a BLOODY revolution. Because if the current incarnation of the RW gets back in office, they won't allow another free election EVER.

[Toasterlad]

37. "the WORST Democrat is better than the BEST Republican."

Certainly not to me. I could name a dozen Republicans I'd vote for over Blanche Lincoln, who just recently said that gay people are demanding special rights. I'd start with Tod Campbell (http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=4660) and work my way down.

Sorry...life has not changed for us gays under Obama and the Democratic majority: we're just as oppressed as we were under Bush, except now the people who are oppressing us lie to us about it.

No more votes for candidates who do not support equality. Period.

[Individualist]

41. Agree. The only thing worse than a neocon is a neocon enabler with a D after his/her name.

[socialist_n_TN]

45. How does Barbara Boxer stand on gay rights?...................

I'm not up on CA politics living in TN, but I would think that she would be AT LEAST as pro gay rights as ANY local CA Republican and better than the Republican on OTHER progressive issues. And your right, this guy probably WOULD be better than Blanche Lincoln. BUT HE'S NOT RUNNING AGAINST BLANCHE LINCOLN, an AR Dem. He's running against a CA Dem.

Unfortunately, there's not national election of Senators. If you think this guy is more progressive than the Dem he's running (or will be running) against, then go ahead an vote for him. I, myself, don't think that a "liberal" Republican will be able to win a primary nowdays anywhere anyway, so the question is probably moot.

[Toasterlad]

47. You Said ANY Democrat Is Better Than ANY Republican

I'm aware that Blanche Lincoln and Tod Campbell are not in the same race. My point was that I will vote for a pro-equality candidate no matter what letter is after his/her name. And I will NOT vote for a NON-equality candidate, no matter what letter is after his/her name.

[socialist_n_TN]

53. I understand. It was a communications thing...................

Sorry about that. Let me see if I can make myself clearer because the point still stands.

I'm not a betting guy at all, but I would be willing to ACTUALLY bet that in apples to apples comparisons in individual areas and races, whether statewide or districtwide or nationwide, a Republican TODAY can't even win a PRIMARY without holding or at least espousing the MOST reactionary views of the MOST reactionary people in his area. Now the most reactionary views in San Francisco will be different than the most reactionary views in Montgomery, Alabama. But whatever the MOST reactionary views of the most reactionary people in your area ARE, that's what the Republican primary winner will be espousing. And the Democrat I would bet would be at least SLIGHTLY better than the Republican in YOUR area.

Nationally, as disappointed in Obama as I sometimes am, there's no way there's ANY Republican out there who would get my vote OVER Obama. Because they are ALL just that evil. And as frustrating as some of the Dem Congressional candidates are, there are NO Republicans who are trying to replace them that I would vote for. At this point in time, I'd vote for a yellow dog before I'd vote for a Republican. :) And I'll NEVER again not vote. I did that once and Reagan was elected.

I've enjoyed the give and take. Thanks

[Toasterlad]

57. And the End Of the Day, You Gotta Do What You Gotta Do

And so do I.

[salguine]

99. The worst Democrat IS a Republican.

[Hippo_Tron]

59. Ralph Nader said that there was no difference between Bush and Gore

And given that my city drowned while the Bush Administration sat on their asses, I highly resent that remark. Even if everything else between Bush and Gore were the same (and that notion is ridiculous in itself), Gore would not have been taking guitar photo ops with John McCain while a huge natural disaster was taking place. Sometimes voting for the lesser of two evils really is necessary when the greater evil is clearly unfit for the office they are seeking.

[Toasterlad]

61. We'll Never Know What Gore Would Have Done As President

However, I am currently living with Obama as president with the exact same policies on gays as when Bush was president. So I don't give a shit WHO'S running: if they're not pro-equality, they're not getting my vote.

For decades, the rest of the Democratic party has told gay people to wait, wait, wait. We've had a Democratic president and a Democratic congress for over a year, and I still can't get married or serve in the military. Fuck waiting. From now on, the rest of you fuckers are on your own.

Give me a progressive candidate, or kiss my gay ass.

[Hippo_Tron]

63. Gore would not sat on his ass while New Orleans drowned

If you really think he would have then we have nothing further to discuss.

[Toasterlad]

65. Never Said He Would. I Said I Don't KNOW What He Would Have Done.

And neither do you.

Not that this is in ANY way relevant to the current situation.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. Yes I do know what he would've done

Because I know that only a complete buffoon like George W Bush would've sat on their ass while a major city was drowning. It is incredibly relevant to the current discussion because sometimes elections are about more than picking a candidate who agrees with you on the issues. Sometimes they are about keeping somebody who is either incompetent or dangerous or both out of office.

[Toasterlad]

67. If Al Gore Wants To Run For Senate In PA, And If He Is Pro-Equality, He'll Get My Vote.

Otherwise, he is completely irrelevant to what is happening NOW.

[Hippo_Tron]

70. No it's not irrelevant

If you're refusing to vote Democratic because you don't agree with them on the issues and down the ballot there is a lunatic teabagger running as a Republican it's not irrelevant. DLC Democrats suck but they're not dangerous. The radical right wing is extremely dangerous.

Look I'm not telling you the world is going to end if Pat Toomey gets elected in Pennsylvania partly because some people chose to vote for a third party candidate. But I'm saying and I hope you would agree that there are circumstances where voting Democratic is necessary if for no other reason than to keep the crazies out of office.

Part of the reason the Nazis got enough seats in the Reichstag to govern is that the socialists and communists were squabbling over their differences. In retrospect I think they would all agree that their differences were petty compared to what was really at stake.

[Toasterlad]

73. You Are Free To Vote As You Please.

I am never voting for a person who is not pro-equality again. Ever. Under any circumstances. I don't care if Hitler was running against Mother Teresa. If both of them were anti-gay, I'd write in someone else.

No more "lesser of two evils" bullshit. Ever.

[Hippo_Tron]

79. So you would be indifferent between Hitler who would imprison and murder gay people for being gay

And Mother Theresa would was undoubtedly homophobic but would certainly not take homophobia to those extremes. I can't imagine how voting for a candidate who share your positions is more important than keeping Hitler out of office could be more important, but to each his own I guess.

[Toasterlad]

80. Tell You What: I'll Make My Final Decision If Mother Teresa Comes Out Against Gay Death Camps

Because THAT'S what you should take away from the point I was making: that it's all about choosing between Hitler and Mother Teresa.

:eyes:

[Hippo_Tron]

87. The point I'm making is that the difference between a DLC Democrat and a Republican

Is sometimes the difference between whether some people live or die. Those who refuse to vote for the lesser evil in those circumstances are, in my opinion, missing the big picture.

I'm not saying that is the case with the Pennsylvania Senate Race. But I find your blanket statement that there's no difference between DLC Democrats and Republicans troubling.

[Toasterlad]

94. And I Find The Consistent And Pervasive Dismissal Of Gay Equaltiy By the Democrats Troubling

So I guess we're even.

Absolutely no votes for anti-gay politicians. Ever. And if that means that a Republican wins, it is the fault of the Democratic party for their decades of broken promises to gay people.

But you can feel free to blame us all you want. God knows we're used to it.

[backscatter712]

128. Ralph Nader's a tool.

You're absolutely right. Would the Iraq War have happened if Gore was President? Would 9/11 have happened if Gore was President and kept Clinton's anti-terrorism measures in place? Gore definitely wouldn't have sat on his ass and said "Heck of a job, Brownie!" during Katrina.

Nader is one of those people who has no idea when he's helping and when he's being counterproductive. He's just an attention whore.

[HughMoran]

103. We'd fall to right-wing control if we all thought like that

Wow - TG most people disagree with ceding power to the right-wingers who want to kill us.

[Toasterlad]

112. Yes. Republicans Want Nothing More Than To Kill Every Living Democrat.

You know you sound as loony as the most Glenn Beckified tea-partier, right?

[HughMoran]

113. You should know

It's clear where your sympathies lie.

[Toasterlad]

116. Ah, Yes. I Remember Third Grade Well. Thanks For the Memories.

Meanwhile, shouldn't you be looking at your picture of Obama and touching yourself?

[HughMoran]

117. .

[Toasterlad]

119. A Brilliant Retort. Worthy of Limbaugh.

Kudos.

[HughMoran]

120. Nice one

[eridani]

9. At least we should first try to get better Dems in primaries n/t

[Raineyb]

33. You mean the folks that the party leadership will ignore in order to

help the incumbent even when the incumbent works against you :cough:Blanche Lincoln:cough:

That is helpful. Too bad the party actively works against such plans. Still, when it succeeds, and the sore loser doesn't go third party :cough:LIEberman:cough: (and have Dems actively campaign for him against the Democratic nominee) that is a step in the right direction.

[eridani]

78. An effective ground game can beat that.

Left Dems are far more capable of doing that than any third party I've seen. (Esceptions of course for states where fusion voting is allowed.)

[Ken Burch]

56. I had that in the OP.

We do need to get rid of the "bad Dems" in the primaries.

[dmosh42]

76. You have the correct solution! n/t

[sea four]

10. The democrats are a joke.

I'm staying home if the progressive candidate (Jennifer Brunner) in my state doesn't win the primary. Why? Because voting for the elite DC democrats only encourages their bad behavior. It sends the message that they should keep doing what they've been doing. I refuse to vote for them anymore.

The main difference between those bad democrats (AKA the ones in favor of corporate rule, not liberal at all) and republicans is that republicans stab you in the chest, and the democrats stab you in the back. The republicans are in your face, while the democrats are two-faced and sneaky about it.

Of course that doesn't really apply to progressive democrats. But they are a minority in the party, it seems. And the leadership is not even slightly liberal.

Seriously, I am so SICK of suffocating under this right-wing dominated political system, and sick of being told to keep voting for them when they do nothing at all for me. Just the other day, I was watching Obama do an interview for the today show, and he spent virtually the entire interview praising the right. What is up with that? Why are democrats so fond of right-wing ideas and policies?

It's because they are working in a system which is almost entirely controlled by corporations. Which forces right-wing policies (because corporations are naturally supportive of capitalist policies) on the whole country. The democrats have to be economically right-wing to get donations. And they need donations to win elections.

And that is really what I hate about these kinds of threads. Don't tell people to vote for democrats and just end it there. That will not fix the problem, though it is one part of the solution. The real solution is systemic changes to our political system. Publicly financed elections, multi-member districts, proportional representation, media reform, etc.

Only after those kinds of changes will progressives ever be able to get real power in the USA. Unfortunately, you need politicians to pass laws to make those changes. I have an idea how that might be done, but it requires doing much more than voting for democrats, and it requires getting the teabaggers to support those kinds of ideas...

Sorry for ranting. But I just can't stand this anymore. The problem is much deeper than "not enough progressive democrats" in the Congress. It is much bigger than that. The system is basically set up to encourage conservatism. I just think that people need to start waking up to that fact. Because if we don't, we will always be powerless.

[muffin1]

11. +1

Welcome to DU!:hi:

[polichick]

12. It's good you have a progressive candidate to work for and give to...

The more Grayson types we can draft and elect, the quicker the party will remember what it stands for.

As you already know, the system is set up to discourage third parties.

[pnwmom]

15. Not voting sends the message that you don't care about the outcome.

You're probably right that the system is set up to encourage conservatism. Not voting is your way of acquiescing to the system.

[Toasterlad]

18. Actually, Not Voting Sends the Message That You Don't Like Your Choices

[polichick]

25. And that you don't mind screwing over the country even more to make a point. nt

[Raineyb]

32. You mean the same way the party willingly screws me over to get a "win"

:nopity:

I'll vote my conscience.

[polichick]

38. It's nuts to cast a vote that will put Republicans back in power...

Much wiser to take back the Dem party by electing progressives and ridding ourselves of DLC Dems.

[Raineyb]

42. I don't operate under the delusion that the party is entitled to my vote. If they don't

earn it they won't get it.

Considering the number of Dems who are no better than Republicans using the Republicans as a threat is frankly tiresome. And it would be nice to have more progressive Dems running and when they run in the primary I vote for them. Too bad the PARTY would rather keep their club intact than support people who are actual progressives. But as they will back a corporatist DLC stooge in a primary against a local progressive it's hard to believe that the party itself is remotely interested in anything progressive.

[diamidue]

93. Me, too.

And MY conscience says no votes for warmongers, D or R.

[Toasterlad]

48. It's Not a "Point". It's My Voice In Government.

I fully intend to use it, even if I have to write in a progressive candidate. But I can certainly understand someone who refuses to vote: that's their right. And if they don't have anyone worth voting for, that's not THEIR fault, that's the Democrat's fault.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

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

[Toasterlad]

62. You'll Be the One Stomping and Whining In November

When the Democrats failure to look after their base costs them big.

Oh, the whining you'll do!

[TheKentuckian]

77. Why is someone portrayed as having a tantrum because they want their vote to matter?

What a douche!

The entitlement attitude toward Democratic voters from our pols is part of why we are in such a mess now. Everyone's vote should be earned not granted out of fear of something worse.

I'll be voting for my rep and the Democratic candidate for Dumbings seat but I'll tell ya straight that Obama will have to earn it by 2012 because at this stage he has pretty well burned up my patience and Yarmouth will have to keep it by not participating in anymore giant corporate welfare deals, I'm giving him a pass for being a freshman and because I know where he stood before he was elected to anything.

[Ken Burch]

60. I wasn't saying "vote for democrats and leave it there"

All sorts of other work needs to go on, and the admin needs to be made to respond to progressive pressure from below.
I'm just saying that abstentionism can't accomplish anything. And, in fact, it can make things much much worse.

The Republicans took over Congress in 1946 almost entirely as a result of Democratic(especially labor-Democratic)abstentionism. The result? The rise of McCarthyism, the Taft-Hartley act, and the beginning of fifteen years of reactionary politics and repression in this country.

[AlphaCentauri]

68. That reminds me of Gonzalez vs. Newsom in SF.

what a show was that, the real progressive was left in the dark by the religious democrats

[uponit7771]

130. So dems and reps do about the same for you while in office? Nothing? Come on....

[KharmaTrain]

16. The Downside Of Being A Majority

The Democratic party isn't a "liberal" party...nor ever really was. It's been a party of many diverse groups that aren't welcome in the rushpublicans. It's a party of labor, the party of blacks, the party of Hispanics, the party of cities, the party of intellectuals and so on. A diverse group which is represented by a broad coalition...one where there are some basic core values, but each group has its own special needs and interests. With the rushpublicans becoming an insular party it's enlarged the Democratic coalition and also extends to many "independents" who also have been rejected by the unhinged dogma of today's GOOP.

You are right...this election offers tremendous opportunities for liberals and progressives to get a bigger voice at the table by helping support and elect as many as we can. Even more important is to protect those who do share common values and interests and, yes, work to maintain a Democratic majority in both houses to prevent the great unhinged from any levers of power that could create gridlock for the next two years and even worse beyond that.

I'm optimistic that the GOOP got caught up in their own corporate media press clippings and have peaked too soon...now it's our turn to be heard and do it at the ballot box!

Cheers...

[bigtree]

17. rec'ed

good advise

[Tailormyst]

19. The Democrats for the first time cannot count on my vote

perhaps they should start behaving like Democrats with a fucking majority. They still have some time left to win back alot of people who are disgusted with them. I will NOT assure them that whatever they do, however right they move, that I will be a good fucking soldier.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Tsk. Tsk. You want politicians to earn your vote??? How silly of you.

But, you are in good company.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[Tailormyst]

52. Smart men

Unfortunately our country grew to big for their vision to work well. Our form of democracy only works when congressional districts are small enough for a man to be held accountable to his neighbors.

[Toasterlad]

20. I'll Be Voting For a Progressive Candidate. If That a Democrate, Fine.

If not, that's fine, too. I will not vote for anyone who does not represent my views, and I will not let anyone yelling "Republicans! Boo!" scare me into voting for a non-progressive candidate.

If a candidate supports gay equality, they get my vote. If not: well, as a gay American, I can assure you that life for me hasn't changed much at all under Obama from what it was under Bush. If you're gay, it makes no difference whether a Republican or a DLC Democrat is in charge.

If you guys want my vote, stop withholding my rights.

[joeybee12]

23. Hmmm...getting enthused and voting in big numbers certainly worked well in 2008

didn't it? I mean, yeah, the base turned out and we're certainly being taken seriously now!


Oh...wait...

[mike_c]

26. this is the same nasty rhetoric progressives hear EVERY election....

When are we going to hear: "You've helped us out year after year, voting for our half-assed centrist candidates and helping to put them into office where they repeatedly failed to represent you, SO NOW IT'S TIME TO PAY YOU BACK-- this year the centrists will work for progressive candidates!"

Instead, every election that I can remember, all the way back to the 1970s, it's been "THIS year is too important for us to vote our conscience-- maybe next election, but this time progressives MUST support the mainstream centrist candidate for the good of everyone!"

Meh.

[socialist_n_TN]

36. That's because revolution....................

(and that's what taking government away from entrenched corporate interests IS-a revolution) by election is a glacially incremental process. And we suffered a 30 year setback beginning with the election of Reagan. We're just now BEGINNING to counter the "Reagan Revolution". Primary the Hell out of center/right Dems, but the WORST of those is better and the BEST Republican in the general.

[mike_c]

44. it's too late for that as far as I'm concerned, or maybe you're just more patient....

Token resistance, followed by grudging acquiescence, has been the progressive voter's order of battle for generations now.

Those times are past. Nowadays, I do not vote for candidates who will not represent my interests. Period. The lesser evil is still a waste of my vote.

[socialist_n_TN]

51. mike........................

I do feel your pain. :) Maybe being in your late 50s (like me) does give you more patience. I don't know. Honestly though, as left as I am, I'm not going to be intellectually dishonest and say that progressives have EVER been a majority in this country. They haven't. But as left wing as I've ALWAYS been, I HAVE also always been a political pragmatist. And that's the way I look on this debate. Pragmatically. Primary the Hell out of center/right Dems, but I'd be willing to BET that the WORST Democrat in your state, is better than the BEST REpublican. If your guy loses the primary, I think you should vote Dem and try to unseat him in the NEXT primary. Keep on with that and EVENTUALLY you win as the CENTER gets pulled leftward.

[leftstreet]

74. +1

[VMI Dem]

35. Nope, this bullshit is not going to work on me any more.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Sure. If they're the most progressive, anti war, candidates on the ballot, I'll vote for them.

I don't waste my votes on candidates who I don't agree with.

[blindpig]

40. And these 'politics' aren't worthless?

Low bar.

Might as well abolish the government and just let the rich and their corporations run the country and dispense with the dog & pony show. Bet ya couldn't hardly even tell the difference.

[tom_paine]

49. I agree. K & R

[Orsino]

69. Yep. Be down on the Democrats all you like...

...but admit that the GOP should not be trusted with any more power than they already have.

Any Democrat over any Republican. I wish it could be different, but it's not.

[MyNameGoesHere]

75. why oh why

do i have to keep voting for ineffectual leaders that sell me out? Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is insanity. I am only voting for PROVEN progressives or not at all. I choose to waste my vote on an idea from now on, not broken promises.

[gleaner]

81. I agree ...

I'm looking toward the Democratic primaries and hoping for some vigorous and viable candidates to replace incumbents who have lost touch with why they were elected in the first place. That includes 2012 when I hope that someone like Grayson will run. I think he could provide a positive change and garner a lot of wavering support. He has made some very strong and effective public stands in favor of the things progressives voted for when the elected Obama but did not get. I will not vote for a Republican but I will not vote for Obama again under any circumstances. He has done significant damage to both the Democratic party and its goals. A man who made a delivery to my house yesterday was so furious about the offshore drilling that he listed all of the reasons he will not vote for Obama again. It isn't the first time I have heard that from a stranger either, and I doubt it will be the last.

[The Straight Story]

82. So if Jeb bush switches party I have to be a good boy and vote for him?

Sorry, I think for myself.

[socialist_n_TN]

84. Like that's going to happen.................

:)

[alarimer]

83. The Democrats are in trouble because they have no spine, because they sell out.

Once they get some, I might consider voting gain. It does no good to keep putting the same stupid people in office that continue to betray true progressive principles.

I am anti-incumbent more than I am in favor of Democrats or any other party. The real problem is that incumbents are rarely challenged when they so richly deserve to be. I think term limits look better and better.

[depakid]

90. I think you reflect what a LOT of people think

Who gets all fired up to volunteers and GOTV for some of these sad sorry sacks?

Ironically, the best thing the Dems have going for them is the "enthusiasm" stirred up among the batshit crazies on the right.

[backscatter712]

85. I'm with you on this, as are most progressives...

regardless of what the purity trolls and despair trolls would have you believe.

[Toasterlad]

95. I Seriously Doubt You're a Progressive.

You certainly don't speak for us.

[HughMoran]

106. The official spokesperson for progressives speaks

:rofl:

ludicrous!

[Toasterlad]

115. Nothing Official About Me. I Just Know What the Term "Progressive" Means

And Progressives don't use terms like purity troll and despair trolls.

[Unvanguard]

96. Excellent post. K&R. n/t

[JoeyT]

97. I'll vote for any Democrat as long as they pass a few minimum requirements.

Pro-union, pro-equality(for women, minorities, and gays), and pro-social justice(including schools), and pro-environment. They don't even have to be foaming at the mouth about all or even any of them. I'd take lukewarm support for them. Centrists? Hell I'd be thrilled with a centrist. It would certainly beat the right wingers we keep getting.

Anything less and they ARE a Republican.

[Mike 03]

101. Major Rec, although I am not sure I did what you are advising.

I gave more than I could reasonably afford to my Dem Rep. She is under fire from Sarah Palin. She voted for Health Care Reform.

[omega minimo]

102. Sometimes the battered spouse turns around and says "FUCK YOU"

or superglues the dick to the belly.

I'm not seeing where this contingent of identically themed OPs are coming from, what they're reacting to... yours is rather well framed, aside from that bullshit about the 1990's .... but :wtf: and whythefuck is this being peddled now?

The only reasonable response of reasonably sane people at this point is ENOUGH!!!

[ShamelessHussy]

104. why? what's the difference, besides the rhetoric?

i don't like casinos since i know the game is rigged against me, and after clinton, and now obama, i believe i have better things to do with my time, than to encourage or legitimize an organized racket via my patronage.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

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

[ShamelessHussy]

108. thanks for illustrating my point

only thing that's different is the rhetoric, the rest is all drama, mane calling and demonizing.

after bush & cheney, the marketers are gonna have to come up with a much better line/strategy/scare tactic than that.

:eyes:

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

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

[Toasterlad]

118. The Repubcans Is Comin'! Lock Up the Chillins and the Livestock!

Vote for the DLC or SARAH PALIN BECOMES QUEEN OF THE UNIVERSE AND IGNITES THE APOCALYPSE!!!!!!11!!!1!

[harun]

111. I am having a hard time convincing myself otherwise.

[MadHound]

105. What one needs to do is to vote for the person who most closely represents your insterests

That is, after all, how a democratic republic works.

[NorthCarolina]

109. If the candidate is Liberal/Progressive that candidate will get my vote

If, on the other hand, they are DLC New Dem, or Blue Dog Dem...no vote from me.

[Fading Captain]

114. I need to vote for who best fits my ideology

If it's between a DNC'er and a green or independent, I know which way I am going.

[Ardent15]

122. +a million

[slay]

125. self-delete

woops wrong reply spot - like what you said though. :)

[hulka38]

123. No one needs to do anything. Do what you think is right.

If Democratic candidates have earned the progressive vote, they will be rewarded. Aside from the individual races, the onus for general enthusiasm and turnout is squarely on the party leaders and the people making policy decisions. Attempts to shift responsibility for the outcome onto progressive voters will backfire. The base should always be respected. To the extent that it isn't, the party will suffer. We will see how pragmatic our leaders are come November.

[slay]

126. Agreed

The day the Dems can take our votes for granted is the day we become ignored. They will either earn my vote, or maybe a 3rd party will. Remains to be seen. I'm done voting for Dems just cause they are "the lesser of two evils". Fuck that. I don't want to vote for evil at all! If I weigh all possible options and outcomes I may vote for a Dem, or maybe not. Sometimes I can tolerate a semi-crappy Dem like our new senator Kay Hagen cause it was to get rid of Elizabeth Dole who was just terrible - but Hagan will not get my vote next time most likely. It seems to me honestly like the only way to break the vicious Dem/Repub stranglehold on our politics is to go 3rd party - guess I'll assess the situation locally closer to election time - but indeed - nobody should feel like they HAVE to vote Dem - sometimes Dems suck - I'm looking at you Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln.

[backscatter712]

127. Those of you thinking of voting Green or not voting are simply wasting votes.

I hate the two party system as much as everyone else here, but that's what we've got, so learn to work it.

If you want to make things more progressive, and actually get things done, you need to support progressive candidates in the primaries, like Bill Halter. Support progressive members of Congress like Alan Grayson. Join some interest groups like ActBlue or Progressive Democrats of America, or Health Care for America NOW. Pick a group or six - there's zillions of them out there, you'll find some that fit your views. Volunteer, donate, push the system that way. That's how you get things done.

If you vote Green or sit out, thinking you're "teaching the Democrats a lesson for not being progressive enough", you're tilting at windmills, and you're being counterproductive. The spoiler/Naderization effect is real, and until the two party system is changed, you're helping the enemy when you vote third party.

[uponit7771]

129. FUCK FACTS !!!! /sarcasm