DU impact on public opinion.

[Jed Dilligan]

I am interested in how many people here give weight to the idea that DU must have "credibility" or "message control" in order to impact the electoral process.

My response to these posts has always been that DU's impact on political opinion is negligible and it is more valuable as a free speech zone than a consensus-building and party-recruitment tool.

So the question is two parts:

1. How many people do you think have been turned away from the Democratic party because they saw "extremist" statements on DU? /

2. How many people do you think have been turned toward the Democratic party because they saw "moderate" statements on DU?

Choices are in the following format:

answer to q. 1/answer to q. 2

"Negligible" and "significant" are according to electoral impact.

[chat_noir]

1. What is the non-DU traffic on this site?

……….


www.awolbush.com




DESERTER: THE STORY OF GEORGE W. BUSH AFTER HE QUIT THE TEXAS AIR NATIONAL GUARD http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm















$10,000 reward was never collected




Cheerleader action doll hahahaha

[mcscajun]

2. Reporters, RightWingnut Pundits, Freepers, Trolls, and curious

visitors who may or may not continue to lurk here.

Not everyone who reads what we say is a DUer. We get quoted quite a bit, not always favorably, either.

[orpupilofnature57]

3. I've goggled my DU before ,words misspelled ,punctuation fowled up

we should consider it a complement.I just did it again ,no matches this time.

[mcscajun]

4. I google my DU name from time to time.

When you get quoted at FR or the site that shall not be named, you know you've arrived.

But when you get quoted in the Corporate Media (as have some here) then you're Famous!

[Jed Dilligan]

5. In terms of page views I have no idea

I was a non-member lurker for a long time before I started posting. My political opinions haven't changed, but I feel more informed.

[LWolf]

6. DU is not now, and never has been, a free speech zone.

The rules are clear, and so is the message here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/mail/hatemail_26.html

Still, within the parameters set in the rules, it should be a place to speak freely about progressive and/or Democratic principles, issues, ideas, actions, etc., and to explore a variety of povs. Formal consensus building and party recruitment should fall within the sphere of groups affiliated with the Democratic Party.

[Jed Dilligan]

7. I should have said

"relatively free speech zone"

No speech is really free.

on edit: I think the rules exist to bar certain people (ie freeper trolls and maniacs) from posting, not to control the message to the public. It's more like a dress code than a limitation on expression.

[Warren DeMontague]

8. Hmmm. That's a convoluted poll question, no offense.

And although I know the phrasing of polls is tricky, there are some implied assumptions and dichotomies in your poll that I fundamentally disagree with. I realize, of course, that is part of the intent of the poll...

However, a couple points:

The assumption that the way for the Democratic Party to bring in "more voters" is through "moderate" statements, I think, is incorrect. First off, "moderate" versus "extremist", how? I happen to think arguing that womens' bodies should be the property of the state- that Bill Frist or Pat Robertson should have more say as to what goes on with the the sex lives of 300 million Americans, or inside 150 million American womens' Uterii, than the individual citizens themselves- that, I think, is a very "extremist" position. The idea that fertilized eggs should have rights under the 14th amendment, or that the birth control pill should be criminalized- those are extremist positions. The idea that the government has any business whatsoever telling terminally ill cancer patients (or any other consenting adult, for that matter) what plants they can smoke; that, to me, is an incredibly "extremist" position. The idea that it's anybody else's god-damn business if two consenting adults of the same gender want to get married- yeah, that's 'extremist', too. Taking a shit on the first Amendment, foisting nonsense about this being a "Christian nation", shoehorning bullshit twaddle about "intelligent design", creationism and a 6,000 year old Earth into public school science classes- those are VERY, VERY, VERY EXTREMIST positions, in my book.

And yet, according to some, the way the Democratic party is supposed to display "moderate" stripes is to attempt to woo so-called "values voters" (all twelve of them) by soft-pedaling our positions on reproductive choice, the Separation of Church and State, and equal rights for gays and lesbians. THAT is supposed to be the way to win elections, according to certain party pooh-bahs and a Corporate-Owned Mainstream Media that has NO interest in real Democrats returning to power.

Meanwhile, we are told to avoid "extremist" positions, like opposition to the war in Iraq- a view shared by a majority of Americans. We are told to be quiet about being pro-choice; again, a view shared by a majority of Americans. We are told the only way to gain votes is to ape the GOP in the WORST way possible- namely, by cheap Jesus pandering while simultaneously displaying the most idiotic instincts with regards to a mis-waging (as opposed to an intelligent waging) of the "War on Terror".

I happen to think that the way to split the GOP- and bring in new voters, rather than endlessly pursuing "left behind" pinheads drunk on their weird, monster truck version of Scripture, is to go after the LIBERTARIAN wing of the GOP, and the millions of Socially Libertarian, educated, urban voters who can't figure out which party has more control freaks. We stand up strong for the right of consenting adults to make their own damn decisions about their own bodies. We say, yes, there are SOME THINGS that taxes can accomplish; like, for instance, a SPHC system -because 45 million Americans with no Health Insurance is a moral travesty- (this can bring in Greens and "values voters" who may not like Gay Marriage but like having no health insurance for their kids even LESS) -but that said, WE are the party of Fiscal Responsibility, unlike the crony-pony free spending goons who have driven the deficit through the roof while giving away literally duffel bags full of cash to no-bid "reconstruction" contractors in Iraq.

WE are the party that wants government out of people's bedrooms, bloodstreams, and END OF LIFE DECISIONS. Remember how Terri Schiavo bit the GOP on the ass? That's because they bought their own bullshit about just how powerful these "Values Voter" waterheads actually are.

I suggest it's about time we stand up for sanity abroad, and the Constitution, freedom, and and civil liberties at home. Clearly.

And I don't think that's an "extremist" statement at all.

[Jed Dilligan]

9. Nice post--I agree with all you say.

That's why "moderate" and "extremist" are in quotes in the OP. I've never heard someone who shares are opinion rail at a "moderate" for embracing the GOP's "extreme" views. The pro-"moderate," anti-"extremist" argument always comes from DU's right wing.

I've been saying elsewhere that there is a gross mismatch between opinions and parties. The Democratic party isn't as anti-Bush or as anti-Iraq War as the electorate-at-large, who in turn do not support the party to the degree that they are against Bush and his war. The real "fringe" are the "moderate Democrats" who embrace Bush and/or Bush wars to a certain extent, but follow the Party because of the relatively obscure other policy differences.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. I agree. If I wanted to write a playbook for our party to crash and burn

It would start with, "don't take any clear, inspiring stands... instead, equivocate on the important issues and weakly imitate GOP positions".

And if I had five bucks for every time someone here tried to stifle discussion here with the old "but we're alienating so-and-so!" I could buy a lot of brie and lattes. If So-and-So is basing their entire political decisionmaking on what is said at DU, they have bigger problems than who to vote for.

I'm not worried about what "they" will think, whether "they" read DU or not. I'm more concerned with our leaders standing up for what is right because it's the right thing to do- and I'm of the opinion that if we go there with our heads held high, the votes will follow.

[BeFree]

13. Deserves it's own thread, it does

Indeed, the extreme positions in this country are those that allow government to withold inherent rights from the people.

Our government has no power to tell us how to live, who to marry, or what to do with our bodies. It is extreme to believe otherwise and anyone supporting government power freaks who would assume those powers is to be roundly criticized.

As for DU being influential, it is if we all take what we learn here and use it in our own communities. It has happened in my little burg, it can happen in yours, eh?

[Jed Dilligan]

14. Very true

I've brought so much political consciousness from here to my "face to face" network... They bring it to their networks... You wouldn't believe the changes that have happened. People get especially pissed off when they find out news stories relevant to their lives have been buried by the MSM. The broad connection between the dis/dysinformation and the conservative regime has a lot to do with its plunging popularity IMO.

[Sammy Pepys]

10. I don't think what goes on here...

...gets much play in the "outside world", for lack of a better term, to make much of a difference in areas like that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. Should we censor what we say because the RW doesn't like it?

I think not.

[Jed Dilligan]

12. I don't think so either,

but post anything "anti-capitalist" or critical of law enforcement (for instance) and people will come out of the woodwork to tell you that you are spoiling the party's chances of winning the next election. I'm sure you've had this happen!