The ONLY message you will be sending by not voting is that Republicans have won.

[Atman]

Period. That is all you will be doing, showing the Republicans that intimidation and fear will continue to win them elections because we're too stupid to see what they're doing. You can call it anything else you want, but it will still be intimidation and fear. They know how to play this game better than we do, because we always do this...they use their tactics to stop us from getting our ponies, so we throw tantrums and stay home. Meanwhile, they laugh all the way back to power, then we wonder why we got fucked again.

There is nothing to wonder about...we can only fuck ourselves by allowing them to continue to win with a strategy of "break them down." We don't have to break down. We really don't.

.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

1. I feel more disappointed in dems than intimidated by RWers

But I'm still voting in November and I think everyone else should too.

I'm certainly not going to sit idly by while a bunch of kooks go cuckoo. No reason to give them a free ride.

[Bryn]

2. Don't worry, I plan to vote

:)

[MUAD_DIB]

20. Damn strait!

[opihimoimoi]

3. The Cynicism and Fear the GOP uses is so debiliating and stifling... it sours our National Outlook

The Pub Party needs to be BANNED.....

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. I don't know about banned...

...but if tempers haven't settled by November then perhaps delaying elections until the vitriol has calmed down might be worth considering.

It would be hard for the GOP to say no since their own Nixon proposed such an idea.

[opihimoimoi]

53. The GOPiacs have stuck themselves on a hard reef w poor odds of

extrication any time soon....

By their own making

[sufrommich]

4. I agree, find another way to have a temper tantrum. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. I thought...

...that's what the innerwebz was for?

:D

Internet: a global electronic network for cathartic expression

[Raineyb]

16. Pot meet kettle. Quite the tantrum there stamping your feet demanding

votes as though they were something to which the party was entitled to rather than something that was earned.

[MUAD_DIB]

22. Good point. Make sure to stay home on election day.

:eyes:

The GOP really needs to get back in control of Washington and correct the problems that Obama created.
:sarcasm:

[ecstatic]

5. It will also send the message that Americans overwhelmingly prefer conservative policies

[Better Today]

35. Apparently everyone believes that's what we prefer even after we gave them

the Presidency and two overwhelming majorities last time we voted.

[ecstatic]

49. They will cater to the base. The RELIABLE base

Unfortunately, you're not the base, as you've already promised support to Nader, etc.

[Better Today]

51. WTF? I haven't promised to support anyone. Very simply, I also won't promise to

support Democrats. Our only 2010 re-electable Democrat voted 100% with Republicans so far in his two years. So I cannot support him. As for Obama and 2012, I'll decide then, I'm very unhappy with him at this moment, but I could be swayed to re-elect him depending on what happens between now and then.

[Cirque du So-What]

6. IMO, anyone who advocates sitting out an election

has no place on this board, and I find their trolling eminence deeply offensive.

[get the red out]

28. +1

I agree.

[SPedigrees]

29. It is beyond offensive, and I too wish they would find another message board. nt

[RainDog]

59. NONE OF YOU were on this board before 2007

who the fuck are you to tell people who have been on this board for years that they cannot have an opinion with which you disagree?

you are speaking as authoritarians - maybe you should go check out Free Republic. They have the same mindset.

[SPedigrees]

62. Actually I've been reading this board throughout the Bush years.

I only registered to post here in 2007, because until then I was a member of the Smirking Chimp site and posted there. When the SC changed their message format, I registered here.

I can tell you that until recently there was none of this nonsense on either board about voting for 3rd party candidates or not voting at all. Every post spoke with longing and respect for the days of the Clinton presidency.

Shortly after we elected President Obama and took back our majority in both houses of Congress, the dissing started, along with posts advocating strategies for getting these democrats out of office.

I did not join either group to listen to rants no different than those on RW groups. This is America where everyone can have an opinion, but this board is supposed to be for DEMOCRATS.

[RainDog]

66. you're tripping

I've been here for a long time and there was ALWAYS talk to third candidates and not voting at all.

you obviously do not know what you're talking about.

[UndecidedGuy]

8. Unfortunately I voted for Ralph Nader last presidential election

Even though he didn't stand a chance, I had to vote for who I think had the best ideas and principles.

[Bluebear]

10. Did he run in '08?

[inna]

34. Yep, he ran as an independent and received over 700,000 votes in 2008.

Which was almost 4 times as many votes as what Cynthia McKinney (who ran as a green) got in 2008.

[Birthmark]

11. You're entitled to your opinion.

Just be aware that it only one possible interpretation. There are others.

[Individualist]

12. I'll vote

but I'll vote for the progressive on the ballot or write one in.

[Raineyb]

13. Yawn!

So boring is this tired old story.

When Democrats put into place policies that don't differ from what the Heritage Foundation puts out it's hard to argue that the Republicans winning is that big a threat.

Besides which, the Democratic party and those who run under its banner to represent us are not entitled to our votes. Until you stop acting like they do they will continue to support things we want -so long as there's no chance in hell of it actually passing.

I'm not putting up with that bullshit. I'll vote for whoever the hell represents my interests. If they happen to be Democrats fine. But the corporatist tools of the DLC? They can go to hell. I won't vote for them.

[Bluebear]

14. To top it off, WHO is saying "don't vote!!!!1" here?

Nobody. What a ridiculous chorus, yes?

[Raineyb]

17. Indeed. I have never refrained from voting no matter how disgusted I have

been with the Democratic party. However, I have no qualms whatsoever voting third party if I feel it best. Putting the party first? That shit went out the door with Clinton. Never again!

[frylock]

27. word up

[SPedigrees]

30. I held my nose to vote for Kerry, after the MSM knocked Howard Dean out of the race.

But I'm damned if I would squander my civic obligation to try to save us all from more years of RW corporate Bushco by staying home on election day or throwing away my vote on an independent candidate with no chance of winning. It's called biting off your nose to spite your face.

[Raineyb]

47. No it's called doing the same old thing and expecting something different.d

Meanwhile the party continues to make noises about supporting things like single payer. But when it comes time to try to implement it they "take it off the table" before negotiations begin. The party isn't entitled to a damn thing from me. If they can't be bothered to support the things they say they support in order to improve the country I'll find someone who will. THAT is my CIVIC duty. I have a duty to vote for whoever I think will do the best job. The party of that person is of no import at all.

[SPedigrees]

64. The same old thing (of voting for 3rd party candidates) yields the

predictable result of splitting the vote, usually with a republican ending up in office.

[Cirque du So-What]

40. I read a thread started about that very subject here yesterday

I alerted on it, but I haven't researched whether the thread is still open (or in existence) or whether its author is still a member. Gophers may be delivering his/her mail by now for all I know.

[golddigger]

23. +1

[seabeyond]

15. agreed. nt

[Peregrine Took]

18. Sorry, that "lesser of two evils" thing doens't work for me anymore.

That's how the "Rham's" of the DLC always get us by the short hairs into doing their bidding. The Dems need to be taught a huge lesson.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. Not the lesser of 2 evils...

...more like:

really annoying person paying with pennies at the speedy checkout line

--vs--

Satan taking the boy scouts to local S&M bar

[Dawgs]

39. +1. We're just a year and half since Bush, and some are willing to vote 3rd party.

Which will surely give us another Bush.

[MUAD_DIB]

50. So you're not going to vote then? Is that what you're implying?

[laughingliberal]

21. We would not be worried about people sitting out elections if they were seeing a clear choice

I am speaking of the electorate in general. People can bash and intimidate until the cows come home on this board and it's not going to have much effect on the election. I believe the electorate, in general, sits an election out when they believe there's not much difference in the candidates. Whatever your opinion of people who choose that route, it is incumbent on our leaders to give us clear reasons to make a choice.

I was always frustrated with people who would say, "They're all the same." These days, I realize there is more truth to that than I want to believe. If we don't see some policies enacted that start translating into a real difference in the lives of real people, there is no reason to express shock if we see low turnout at the polls in November.

[theothersnippywshrub]

24. All that is necessary for republicans to triumph is for good men to do nothing. n/t

[Neecy]

25. Is GD going to be spammed like this from now until November?

Holy Christ. You people really need to be less obvious. The coordination of 'today's talking points' is laughable.

[Individualist]

31. +1

[mitchtv]

38. +7

It says "don't fuck with me", Coordinate . I intend to vote( I have a puke rep to vote against) Money is going to my local Calif Dems , Nada for the DNC DSCC, DCCC etc.

[Greyhound]

43. Yes.

They're freaking out cause they see what's happening.

[omega minimo]

56. Where's the OPs they're supposedly reacting to?

:crazy:

[frylock]

26. is this the talking point sent out by the dlc this morning?

this is second thread i've seen today. here's a novel concept; quit acting like repubs than maybe you'll have earned my vote.

this shit is NO different than DICK cheney claiming a vote for the dems will endanger the country. no fucking difference at all.

[Vinca]

32. I will be voting for Democrats, whoever they are, but . . .

I'm very sad to be voting for the lesser of 2 evils . . . again.

[PufPuf23]

33. I always vote and always vote Democratic and vote for measures

and candidates that in my assessment are progressive and fair.

I leave blank individuals that are Democratic candidates that have lost my trust and measures I do not understand.

Too bad we can't vote for "None of the above".

Until the DLC/Third Way/Neo-liberals are out of the Democratic party, my money and day to day political discourse will be for individual candidates and issue-based.

But I am old and have been systematically and purposely "dropping out" and "downsizing" to the degree possible since 2001.

The GOP and Neo-liberals support policies that skew wealth and income upwards and seek to undermine and privatize for profit any part of the public commons that works.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

36. Yeah sending messages to the Democrats has always worked swell it gave Bush & Reagan...

Anyone voting their conscience really showed them, erm. To me it appears the President is fighting our corner as far as I can see and that hasn't really happened for a generation, with Clinton held hostage by a Republican Congress thanks to being sent a message. Congress is designed to be a slow moving hard process we have the best person on Earth, in office to overcome that. He's giving 100% to produce near miraculous results, the least we can do is back him up. We can disect how it went when it's over. My conscience tells me to work and work and work, till the delightful lady sings.

[Political Heretic]

37. If they're worth voting for, I'll vote for them.

But "not as shitty as the other guy" doesn't cut it.


Like someone saying hey you can play a game where you get to choose whether you want to be murdered or raped! I'm going to just pass on playing the game at all, thanks.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

41. That IS the bottom line! K&R

[Feron]

42. I vote for the candidate that best represents my views.

If that person is third party, so be it.

[jgraz]

44. Congratulations on getting a couple dozen people to commit to voting

That'll put the Dems over the top. :eyes:

[Greyhound]

45. I guess that's why political parties are supposed to stand up for things.

Another poster I respect asked me if I will ever support Obama, and I had to answer as soon as he does something worthy of supporting.

Being slightly less heinous than the other guys isn't enough. We end up in the same place either way, and making the journey a little less painful only serves to extend it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. If the candidates want our votes, they're "message" will have to be better than "Not as bad".

[laughingliberal]

48. That is because it is the message the leaders choose to see

I think there is ample evidence the MA election was thrown to the Republican because people were disgusted by the Senate HCR bill. Not because they opposed reform but because they opposed reform that did not go far enough. The party leaders took it as a sign they needed to track to the right because tracking to the right suits their purposes. They know why people stayed home. They choose the message they want to justify doing what they planned in the first place.

[freddie mertz]

52. Nobody owns my vote.

I never miss an election and always vote for someone.

That almost always has meant a Democrat, over a period of some 38 years.

This time, I am more disgusted than usual by the rightward shift of no-PO, drill-baby-drill-ism.

If I can use the threat of withholding my vote to push a Dem or two back in the "right" direction, I will do it.

What I will do on election day is my business.

[walldude]

57. +1 How the hell do I know who I am going to vote for right now? Obama

has 3 more years to get it right. But if he doesn't, if we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan, if we are posturing with or even in Iran, if DADT isn't repealed, if Guantanamo isn't closed, if the Patriot Act is renewed again, the the Dems can kiss my ass, and people can scream all day about me "putting Republicans" in office. It won't make me wrong. What's wrong is to vote against what you believe in for the sake of "making the system work". Fuck the system, it sucks.

[freddie mertz]

58. Indeed! I have no idea how I will vite in 3 years either.

I only know one thing: If it keeps up like this, I will support a Dem primary challenge from the center-left of the party.

[leftstreet]

54. UnRec

Not this shit again

[omega minimo]

55. Horse Hockey

"because we always do this...they use their tactics to stop us from getting our ponies, so we throw tantrums and stay home. Meanwhile, they laugh all the way back to power, then we wonder why we got fucked again. "

That's a simplistic and stupid version of reality. Not enough to hang your premise on.

"showing the Republicans that intimidation and fear will continue to win them elections because we're too stupid to see what they're doing."

DEMOCRATS WON LAST TIME. If people are saying they're not going to vote (whatever it is you're reacting to) they'll be showing Dems they can't take voters for granted and keep shifting rightward.

What part of that don't you understand? Why are Dem voters expected to go along with every move rightward even AFTER voting in a Dem president and majority in Congress? That's wack, dude.

That pony stuff is fucking bullshit, too. :thumbsdown:

[RainDog]

60. my response to a similar statement by you, reposted here:

I noted:

Democrats won in 2000 and 2004. The reason republicans were in office was because of the Supreme Court and Blackwell and his voter fraud in Ohio.

the party apparently thinks this means that they should move further to the right... because the right cannot win an election honestly.

yet the party continues to pander to the religious right.

however, you respond to me by blaming GOP obstruction on Democrats' failure to govern in a way that the democratic party constituency supports.

As of 2009 only 14% of people in this nation think that abortion should be illegal. yet the HCR bill made a specific point to shit on women with a provision that said that women's health care does not deserve the same respect that men's health care does.

Stupak? Nelson? who the fuck are they? Obama would have the FULL SUPPORT of the majority of the entire nation if he had used his leverage to tell these guys to put up and shut up or they would not be the party's candidate in the next election cycle.

this is the real way politics is done. admit it. you know it's true.

there are major assholes in this nation who think they have the right to enforce their religious beliefs on others.

but guess what? There are more voters who identify as nonbelievers (15%) than there are African-American voters (13%). That number of nonbelievers rises to 18% when labels like agnostic or atheist are not involved (i.e. asking about a specific belief rather than a label... this is from the ARIS survey of 2008, btw.)

This is a HUGE voting bloc that democrats are shitting on.

Nonbelievers make up the THIRD LARGEST group in this nation - when people are categorized by religious affiliation. The two larger groups are Catholic and Baptist. Nonbelievers, studies have shown, have higher levels of education and, thus, income, on average. They have higher levels of IQ on average and have an abhorrence of authoritarian systems - like religion. They do not accept authority merely because authority is claimed.

The number of nonbelievers is increasing in this nation, or, probably more to the point, more and more people have become vocal about their non belief because of the incessant and obnoxious insistence on inserting religion into others' lives by evangelical fundies - most especially in politics.

these stats are out there in study after study of religious belief in this nation.

Nonbelievers are more supportive of equal rights for gays. They are part of the "creative class" that Richard Florida wrote about - that group that creates dynamic places to live, that draws others to those places... the liberal strongholds in major cities - including southern ones - university towns all over the nation...

so now I ask you.

why doesn't the democratic party seek to appeal to this part of the population? As Judis noted, the future belongs to progressives - to the democratic majority. Why is the democratic party stuck in some mid-1990s time warp, unable to see that, after liberals saw what conservatives did to Clinton (not that he was any great progressive, economically) then what liberals saw Bush/Cheney and the Republican Congress do to this nation... they wanted a CORRECTION and a CHECK ON REPUBLICAN/CONSERVATIVE POWER.

WHY pander to the losers?!?!?!?!?

It is a stupid strategy, to me, to suppress the support of those who have things of value to bring to the nation and the democratic party by kowtowing to the vocal yokels that are part of the republican/conservadem noise machine.

It is stupid strategy to create a platform that articulates a set of beliefs and then pretend it doesn't matter when people look at candidates to support.

It is a stupid strategy because it is mired in the past, in the negative bullshit that is Republicanism.

So, if a party employs such a stupid strategy, why should anyone think they are worth voting for? I'm not saying this as a call out to not vote. I'm saying... why alienate those who can do the most for you?

Why give away 250 million to religious idiots whose ideas for sex education are worthless? We know they're worthless because people have examined the outcomes.

I understand that politicians are not really leaders. They are not part of the vanguard, for the most part. Some of them are. They're the ones who get pilloried - but they're still working on the right things. A few pols are, apparently, dumb as a box of bricks. But I thought they were smart about one thing, and that is getting their asses into office.

To this day, so many Americans detest Bush and Cheney and all that they stood for and did - and yet Democrats cannot or will not enact the mandate they were given when they achieved a majority in the legislature and the white house. What was that mandate? To enact Democratic Party platform changes. To turn away from Republican policies.

Those conservatives who run as democrats do not represent the major population bases in this nation. they do not represent the majority opinion on issue after issue - and yet THEY get to decide what the Democratic party may or may not do? Because of a religious belief?

fuck that shit. Obama needs to locate his inner LBJ.

and the democratic party needs to know that they cannot take votes for granted. those votes will not be there when democrats do stupid things like put up anti-choice candidates for office or give in to religious hatred of women. for some people, if those are the choices, then there are no choices.

If someone betrays you enough times, you no longer want to have anything to do with them.

The Democrats have to show themselves worthy of the votes they say they must have to govern. They've had the majority and the presidency and they don't need to waste time on those in this nation who have no desire to govern, who have no answers to problems, who have no desire to deal with the reality of issues like poverty, global warming, lack of health care, financial instability...

Let Fox News throw a fit. They're going to no matter what. They're on the wrong side of history.

Democrats need to get on the right side of history.

It's not Republicans that are turning away Democratic voters. It's the Democrats.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

65. This liberal religious person agrees with you

Add the non-religious and the liberal religious together, and you have a pretty large voting bloc.

[rusty fender]

61. They have won!

A Republican, Mitt Romney type of health insurance reform that will likely only benefit the insurance cos.

Escalated war in Afghanistan.

Continuation of and a vigorous legal defense of DADT.

No prosecution of war crimes.

Offshore oil drilling.

Strong anti-abortion language in the health insurance reform bill.

A President who is against marriage equality.

I'm sure that I've left some out, but these sure look like Republican victories to me.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

63. IMPORTANT: Vote for SOMEBODY. If you don't vote, you aren't counted

If all the leftist Dems don't vote, the DLC will simply say, "See? We need to move farther to the right!"

If you have a DINO you can't bring yourself to vote for, don't stay home. Vote or write in a leftist third party.

(I have a Dem I'm happy to vote for, but many DUers are stuck with useless DLC members who would have been Republicans during the Nixon era or maybe even in the Reagan era.)

[theophilus]

67. Well, we need to pressure our "elected officials" to keep their promises.

Remember FDR said, "make me do it". Well, if you think we can just vote and get all we expected then you are pretty naive. And possibly (please don't take offense) lazy. Oh, well. My opinion.

I agree with the original post. This is not addressed to the original poster....