Will losing votes from the left force the Democratic party to move left?

[redqueen]

Or will it just cede more power to the corporatists that have already taken over the GOP?


IMO, the Dem electorate already tried that gambit in 1980. Reagan was elected with the help of tons of Dems and did it move the party left then? Doesn't seem like it to me... seems to me it moved even further to the right.


Thoughts?

[Skittles]

1. they're corporate whores

they'll move where the corporate masters tell them

[redqueen]

2. Many are... most even, perhaps... not all, though.

Anyway... that's why I won't withhold a vote in protest.

[timeforpeace]

75. There are never repercussions from taking for granted your most myopic supporters.

[redqueen]

78. Nice... insults.

I shouldn't be surprised, really.

[LooseWilly]

143. I think that response sums up my opinion on the matter as well.

If one doesn't require some sort of commitment from a politician to follow through on liberal/progressive/commie pinko campaign promises as a pre-requisite for another vote, then one finds oneself, for example, reading a defense brief for DOMA equating the legal basis for DOMA with the legal basis of denying the validity, in some states, of the marriage between an uncle and a niece. And does one then give that politician another vote anyway?

Obviously there are a variety of mitigating factors to consider one way or another. The pre-decision that withholding a vote is next to never an option seems to be a recipe for one's views being taken for granted.

[redqueen]

164. I think that's a simplistic way to look at it.

There is no pre-decision... the OP is a question.

Whatever one's views, there is progress, and then there is lack of progress. We get to have a choice, which is more than a lot of people in this world get. Yes, it's very sad that we don't live in a country as progressive as some others, but what good does all the posturing and drama do? IMO it's embarrassing... at least we have a chance here. Some would say that chance is illusory... but if so I'd wonder why they waste their time here, if they truly believe it's all a set up and a game.

[Enthusiast]

4. Ding ding ding. Correct answer, Skittles!

You win the privilege to live in a corporate dominated society for the rest of your days!

[redqueen]

17. No, by voting for Dems we won the privilege of not having McCain.

The same thing applies to congress. I'm puzzled by all those pledging to do their part to hand congress to the GOP... I assumed there was some master plan, in which this would somehow force Dems to the left. Maybe it will work again... it has in the not-too-distant past. If so, I'd just like to see some of the reasoning behind believing it, that's all.

[Mystayya]

21. The " he isn't/they aren't as bad as ~insert repuke name here~ arguement" no longer works.

There comes a time where they need to be held accountable.

[redqueen]

24. I don't see how ceding power to the GOP holds Dems accountable.

It seems more like cutting off your nose to spite your face, to me.

If you can get a more liberal primary challenger in there and vote them in... now that is one way I would consider holding them accountable.

[LooseWilly]

54. The question is, is there a difference?

This is a question that I think we all have to answer for ourselves. For many, if a Democrat wins and then behaves just like any other corporatist whore- then there's really not a whole hell of a lot of difference. In that case, if the Democratic candidates see that rightward tacking beyond some point or other actually costs more votes from the left, than it gains by "reaching out to the center (which was once the right)"... then ballot-calculus might lead future candidates to tack more leftward.

And, before you begin the "There's a shitload of difference you imbecile" lecture, remember that W was an anomaly. HW governed not altogether that much differently than Clinton. Reagan was a little psychotic, but the general business of government and life seemed not so terribly different than under HW or Clinton. It wasn't until W came into office that presidential behavior advanced from eliciting a shake of the head to a drop of the jaw. For me, in any case.

I've voted for Cthulu (as well as Nader) before. Depending on what the politicians do, I may well do so again (well, not for Nader, that guy's batshit insane these days).

[redqueen]

58. Like you said, it's a judgment call.

If you think they're so very similar, then I can see why you wouldn't mind handing congress over.

[Mystayya]

93. That would be my first course of action

Looking to support more progressive candidates in the primaries. The incumbants need to know they CAN be replaced. They aare sitting a little to safe right now. They fear Corps more the the people.

[redqueen]

109. It seems to me that that is changing...

which makes it even more important to force them to change instead of staying home or jumping ship. Just MHO of course.

[Mystayya]

110. But they need to know we CAN and will if they continue to work for the Corps.

To pat them on the hand and say "you do whatever you like because no matter what we will vote for you" will do nothing to force change, in my opinion. This really is my personal line in the sand.

And thank you for having such a polite discourse on a topic we disagree on. Sometimes I am afraid to speak my mind here for fear of being called a RWer.

[HillbillyBob]

27. because the damn fools we elected are acting just like

the godam rpigs and doing what they want, not what we want.

[redqueen]

30. So you don't think it would be any worse under Republicans?

I disagree that they're acting "just like" the GOP... I agree that they could be doing a lot more... but this mantra that they're just as bad... or worse, that the fact that they're not as bad is somehow meaningless... holds no water for me.

[Mystayya]

112. At one point do we get to vote for something besides the lesser of two evils?

At what point do I get to vote FOR something, instead of just against something else? I want to believe, and I want to not have those beliefs shattered as soon as the elections are over.

For a reference: I am a member of the GBLT community, an anti-war activist, working class single parent and I have no healthcare. Who represents me?

[redqueen]

121. When we get a parliamentary system would be my guess...

or at least public financing.

That day is a very long way off. Generations.

[bobbolink]

70. The AFLCIO just pledged not to support any congresscritter who didn't work for the public option.,

And, a challenger has announced a run.... the upshot... Sen. Bennet this morning declared that he will fight "tooth and nail" for the public option.

Which action swayed him?

Or both?

Given all the name-calling here in the past for "Leftists" who say they won't continue to support those who they feel betray them, I'm really not inclined to reply to a question of this type.

[redqueen]

74. I bet it was the challenger... not the "I'm staying HOME!" whiners.

There's some namecalling for you.

[bobbolink]

81. And the name-calling earns you a spot on my ignore list---again,

Peace.

You can learn it.

Really.

bye.

[redqueen]

82. Well even though you can't see it, I'll say sorry...

but that victimhood stuff got to me. Mea culpa.

[Enthusiast]

98. If we are betrayed by

a corporate controlled Democrat how is that preferable to being abused by a Republican?

[redqueen]

101. *sigh*

Everybody whines and complains about hearing it... but apprently you keep needing to be reminded.

Because the abuse is worse under the GOP.

[Enthusiast]

107. Democrats still must be

held accountable. Ignoring their abuses doesn't correct their behavior.

[redqueen]

108. I agree.

What I disagree on is the method of holding them accountable. I don't think staying home or voting third party does anything to hold them accountable. Seems to me only finding and supporting primary challengers does that. Obviously that's just MHO.

[QC]

7. Thank you. n/t

[abumbyanyothername]

37. If you want to escape the corporatist society

you need to stop patronizing the corporate machine.

Shopping for food direct from local farmers is a start.

[Mystayya]

3. I don't know

But I do know I am not ready to sell out every last one of my principles to supposedly keep up the party numbers.

[redqueen]

6. Not to keep up numbers, to keep the power from the GOP.

Unlike some here, I do think things would be much worse if they had the WH or more control in congress.

[Mystayya]

20. There is just a certain point I am unwilling to pass

Certain things I am unwilling to stop fighting for. If that means backing other liberals in primary races or having to go third party then it is indeed something I am willing to consider. Before the last 2 years I never would have even imagined saying this. I am also FAR more upset with congress then I am the President. He is one, they are many. I am getting discouraged with the whole lot of them though. There comes a point in time where you have to take a stand.

[HillbillyBob]

26. I hate the gopers witha passion , especially after the shit

they have served on our citizens over the last 30 years.
I am also just as pissed at the spineless sell out dems.
I m tired of their lilylivered cowardice. I have come out to vote in every election since 1980 and no i did not vote for runnyraygun, I voted dem everytime except slick willies second term since the sob sold us fags out with dadt and doma.
Frankly Im so pissed that I may not come out to vote next time around if Kay Hagan does not vote for universal care I sure as hell will not vote for her, I may not vote for her opponent but I won't vote for her.
This country is going to hell and I have served her armed services. I m so disgusted with the whole mess that if I could afford to I would pack up and leave it to gut itself and go down in flames like Nero watching Rome burn while he fiddled.
I have been discriminated against for my whole adult life and have reached the point that the next somebitch that tries it will get way more than they bargained for.
Im pissed about being told is not the right time for you to have rights well fuck you!to those that think my rights are a bargaining point.
Its ok for the US government to discriminate against me when I have done all I cant to serve and be a good citizen. I have been pissed on for the last time.
i will not vote for sell outs.

[redqueen]

34. Glad to hear you weren't conned by Reagan's lies...

I'm sorry to hear you've past the point of no return... as for me, I see the strength in people like Kucinich and Feingold and Weiner and believe there's a reason to keep pushing.

[LooseWilly]

63. What about the likes of Feinstein?

Vote for Mukasey (who proceeded to refuse to honor subpoenas issued by congress), a vote for telecom immunity, etc. etc.
What point is there in voting for someone who behaves like a Republican whenever there is any pressure? And if the whitehouse decides that even the "public option" is something to be bartered away, and instead supports mandatory purchase of health insurance by citizens, while setting up co-ops that are designed to behave like any other health insurance company... what then? They ignore GLBT issues, in order to save up their political capital for that? And they think that is going to hold support from the left?

We'll see what comes out of the whitehouse. They'll do their political calculus... and then they'll pursue their policy agendas. At this point though, I'm no longer excited, I'm cringing and waiting for the other shoe to drop.

[redqueen]

69. She needs to be treated the way Lieberman was, IMO.

Primaryd out, and if she is elected by republicans, so be it. That, IMO, is a reasonable way to lose control of congress... as opposed to staying home or voting for a hopeless third-party candidate. It actually sends a strong message.

[LooseWilly]

91. I guess I'm willing to go a little further than you are

I'm willing to vote for third party candidates when neither of the two Major party candidates is palatable. If enough people were willing, then the two party stranglehold on politics might finally be broken.

Of course, the odds of enough people bothering to do so are slim. I can live with that.

[redqueen]

102. If you can live with helping the GOP get more power...

then that's of course completely up to you.

[LooseWilly]

141. If the alternative is a Democrat whose behavior and vote pattern

requires careful examination in order to determine the difference... why not?

Baucus or the GOP, I can't say as how I'd feel a twinge of conscience were I in that sort of position of choice. And I'm not sure Feinstein is much better than Baucus.

[redqueen]

165. I'm glad you mentioned Feinstein.

That's the kind of situation where I think we really should focus on trying to make a change. In some states, perhaps where Baucus is, it might actually be very difficult to get enough progressive Dems to vote to unseat him... however there really is no excuse in CA.

[CrispyQ]

35. Sure it would be worse under McCain.

But that's what they count on. They count on our extreme distaste of politicians like McCain/Palin, to keep voting democratic, even though they no longer represent us. I feel like they're playing me for a fool.

[FiveGoodMen]

51. There will NEVER be Dems who do the right thing if people follow your advice

No one gets my money, my vote or my support if they refuse to do what's good for Americans (as opposed to the corporations).

It doesn't matter what you call the party if they behave badly.

I'm completely done with the extortion of 'the other guys are worse'. There doesn't seem to be much difference now and what difference there is will evaporate if we keep patting them on the back for selling us out.

Fuck it.

(Go ahead: tell me several more times that the other guys are worse; I'm sure I'll change my mind on the 18th or 19th pass...)

[Individualist]

53. The "not as bad" meme is BS that fewer and fewer people are falling for.

[redqueen]

57. It's not a meme, it's a fact.

If some Dems prefer the GOP to the Dems, then that's their call.

[Individualist]

59. More BS

"You'd rather have McCain". Those memes are obsolete!

[Eric J in MN]

5. The Blue Dogs are mostly in swing districts, while House Progressives are mostly in safe districts.

If the Blue Dogs refuse to vote for a bill because it has a strong public option, the risk to them from a negative public reaction is greater than the risk to most House Progressives.

[redqueen]

8. I'd need to see polling data to back that up.

With 70% of the public supporting a public option, they need more than just their word as an excuse.

[Greyhound]

12. Yep, that's a load of crap they're trying to feed us.

Just as in dozens of previous elections, the largest single voting block is non-voters, and they usually don't vote because they "know" it does nothing for them.

The candidate that taps into that resource, wins.

[CrispyQ]

28. "The candidate that taps into that resource, wins."

I agree completely!! Why don't the dems see this? Every election they tell us that they have to swing to the center because of the undecided voters. Fuck the undecideds! Fuck 'em! Any person who can't decide between Kerry & Bush or Obama & McCain is clearly a person who has no convictions. Why do we cater to these people, this very small group, & give them the power to sway our platform?

I'm sick of supporting a party that doesn't represent me. Yes, I hate the batshit crazies in the repub party & they scare the crap out of me. But I don't know how many more times I can vote for a party that won't stand up for me, a party that constantly capitulates to repubs, even when we have the majority. If the dems would go back to populist policies that truly represent We the People, instead of selling out to the corporations, I think they would find democratic voter registration would increase.

Sadly, it's now a Catch-22 situation. Because they have no credibility anymore, the People aren't going to vote for them just because they tell us they will represent us. So it would take a few election cycles for them to prove they mean what they say. But knowing they don't have those votes now, they don't support populist policies. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:


:banghead:

[redqueen]

36. I disagree that the majority of them don't vote because of that reason.

From what I see and hear, it's mostly because they just don't care, or don't understand how much it affects their daily lives. There is a segment that doesn't vote due to cynicism, but I disagree that it's a significant number of them. Nowhere near the number of moderates/independents, anyway.

[Greyhound]

45. So, if they don't care and or feel it doesn't effect them, and we (politically aware folks) know

how profoundly wrong that is, what's the next question? It seems to me that it is, why do they believe that?

[redqueen]

46. If I had to guess...

I'd say it's because they're completely cynical, and see their positions as merely their chance to cash in, and nothing more.

[DireStrike]

49. Because they can.

People work and worry about lives and jobs and loved ones. There are an infinite number of diversions. It is not only possible, but in fact difficult to maintain an interest in politics, and to find any time to pursue that interest. They may glance at a paper in the morning, maybe even get angry when DC does something stupid, but they have no idea what to do about it and no time with which to do it.

[Zenlitened]

67. I totally, totally agree.

Deliver a proud, progressive message directly to that huge number of citizens who've turned away in disgust... and watch the whole electoral dynamic change.

:hi:

[Codeine]

160. Most people don't vote

because they are fucking idiots who don't pay a lick of attention to anything.

At all.

Ever.

[SoCalDem]

9. Probably , it will just turn off many of the younger people

who got all fired up in '08, and some independents who had high hopes.

It may also energize what's left of the hardcore republicans.

Whether we lose seats in '10 is still uncertain, but midterm elections are usually pretty ho-hum anyway, so who knows..

The only way to get rid of the corporate whores in government, and eliminate the lobbyists, is to institute term limits.

and to have public-funding of elections & candidates. That's how we get new ideas into government, and how we undercut the flunkies who tell us what we want to her, when they are running, and then do what their corporate masters tell them to do, once elected:(

[redqueen]

14. Definitely agree re: public funding.

I don't see any upside to letting the GOP have control of congress...

[bridgit]

10. No. They'll consolidate their ties with corporatism and walk away

[mike_c]

11. I more-or-less gave up on the dem party in 2000...

...so sure, if you consider folks like me on the leading edge of that discontent, then it began nearly a decade ago. I'm not going back to being a "loyal" dem until the party moves far enough to the left to embrace my politics again, which essentially means accepting the green party platform or something pretty close to it. I'm a liberal, period. Any political party that seeks my vote must represent my politics, and they are WAY left of today's democratic party.

[redqueen]

15. So... do you think it will work?

Will losing votes move the party left?

[mike_c]

87. I don't know-- so far it certainly hasn't...

...but so far it's too early for lost votes to have much effect on dem party leadership. Certainly any effect from losing voters on the left was offset by a general backlash against republican policies under Bush during the last congressional election cycle and the last presidential election. I don't think it will matter much until dems are looking for a means of transforming the party, and that's unlikely until the party leadership is really sweating the outcome of national elections.

Will it help then? I don't know. Probably it will be too late. But in any event I feel better voting for candidates who actually represent my political interests rather than candidates who only say they do.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

13. FDR got cracking on the New Deal

after 19% of the votes went to parties left of the Democrats in the 1932 presidential election.

[redqueen]

16. Yeah... no one had thought of the DLC at that time.

So, do you think it could still work, given the state of politics now?

[bornskeptic]

33. Did you make that up yourself, or did someone else do it for you?

In 1932 FDR and Hoover collected 97% of the votes. Third parties combined for about 3%.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

edited for omitted word

[redqueen]

39. It may be the wrong reference...

but the Dem party did adopt planks from the Socialist Party (IIRC) after losing votes.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

84. So which was the one in which LaFollette took 16%?

:shrug:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

114. 1924 - 13%

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. I haven't seen that work yet. Usually the reply is, "Hey! Where do you think

you're going? We're the only party you can turn to! Don't you dare be a spoiler and steal our votes! So vote for us and then siddown and shaddap!"

At least, that's what I have heard from friends who were Dems who switched.

[redqueen]

19. The Green Party, obviously.

Nothing to do with "stealing votes"... IMO it's just ceding power, like I said.

The question remains... do you think this tactic will be effective in the midterms?

It actually has worked before, but that was long ago.

[GreenPartyVoter]

23. Frankly, I don't know what will work. As you say it was long ago. I think

the power of corporations and fear of making wrong moves has rendered the Dems in Congress paralyzed in many ways. :( Not a put down by any means, just my assessment of the situation.

This is why I think public financing only would be so helpful. The people in the legislature here in Maine who opt to do it voluntarily say they feel free to follow their conscience because there is no one with a financial hold over them. It would make so much sense for all our officials to have that freedom!

[redqueen]

25. Amen. (nt)

[DireStrike]

32. We need to find a chink in the armor like public financing

Does the right-wing automatically hate it because we like it? Do they not realize or care how beholden their reps are to moneyed interests? Some of them hate their reps and wish they would be more pure. They should embrace public financing.


...but then, even if they did... we could have 90% of the country, I think, in favor of free and open public financing, and still not get a bill through the system that would create a good public financing system. At this point it's clear that representatives are not listening to their constituents at all, but only to the rich who control all the levers in the system....

[T Wolf]

31. redqueen - if you do not agree with withholding support for those Dems who sell

us out to the reich, then how do you suggest they be moved leftward (if you think that would be a good thing)?

What incentive does a DINO have to act like a Democrat if there are no consequences for acting like a puke?

Even children figure out very quickly that threats of punishment without follow-up mean nothing. It's also like yelling at a deaf dog who is peeing on your carpet. The only thing that works is to walk over and physically stop the urination.

"Our" politicians are pissing on us and yelling at them (but continuing to vote them in) will not stop that shower.

So, what do you suggest?

[redqueen]

38. Of course I think that would be a good thing.

As for incentives for DINOs... IMO only being primaried out and replaced will help. We may still lose but it is better to lose by pushing for a left candidate than staying home, IMO... *that* I do think sends a message... staying home just makes them chase after actual voters... which if the lefties stay home, appear more and more conservative.

[Mystayya]

22. That is the sentiment I see even here in this thread.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. As long as the Dems count on our nose-holding ability they will continue to move right.

From their standpoint, it just makes sense. Why bother appealing to the left if they've got their votes no matter what they do? They're then free to court the "moderates" and conservatives.

As long as we allow ourselves to be taken for granted the Dems will not only ignore us but continue the slide to the right that Clinton started.

[redqueen]

40. But even when the left has abandoned them,

in recent history in 1980 and 2000, it did not seem to do anything to shift them to the left. On the contrary, they just kept moving right.

IMO they will only move left when their party members force them to, by pushing resolutions, changing the platform, and primarying out DINOs where possible and replacing them with better representatives.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

48. Then, it is up to the individual citizen to bow out of the game.

In disgust, if nothing else.

"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

[redqueen]

52. Quotes are nice... but I don't want Congress in the hands of the GOP.

Cause like I said... I do think things would not just be worse, but MUCH worse, if they do get control.

[Bluenorthwest]

111. So that is your quote. Weighed against Thomas Jefferson

the scales tip in Jefferson's direction, I'd say.
The real question for you is are you willing to support actively candidates who are right wing but wear the D? Because you know, it is possible to vote for a person that you pushed and criticized all though the campaign. You are against with holding votes, but are you also in favor of working hard and donating to elect Bill Nelson? If he's the only choice, will you send him a check? Volunteer?

[redqueen]

113. Does being nasty help you somehow?

I'm in TX... I'd love to support a Dem, and it'd have to be a pretty conservative one to get anywhere down here. So... yeah.

[Bluenorthwest]

117. Not intending to be nasty by saying Tom Jefferson holds more weight

than a person who is not Tom Jefferson. I am also no Tom Jefferson, and I have no problem with anyone saying so. I offer that you did not address Mr Jefferson's quotes, and instead brushed them off, and that is not exactly the height of civility either. So apologies if you were in some way offended.
The rest of my questions are also valid as can be. It is not just about votes given or not given, but talents and energies and money. The last election saw a huge amount of participation. And because of that, we won. Because people did more than merely vote. So it is valid to ask what you think about how far support of right wing Democrats should go. I'm actually not sure, because I live in very progressive places, and have my entire adult life. So if I were in one of those districts, those would be big questions for me. I honestly do not know what I'd do. Here I do things. Would I if I were asked, do a thing for a Blue Dog, just because he or she is not GOP? Don't know. Much would depend upon the actual candidates. Specific issues. But it would be a difficult position to live in. So I asked. Because to me, voting is not the whole of it. I'm lucky to be able to be where I am, and have been lucky in that way my whole life.
I'm thinking that at the State Party level might be even more important in more conservative areas, seems that might be where the current might be moved more easily. You'd know better than I would. Any active Texas Democrat has got to be a tough cookie, as the strain of Republicans there is particularly virulent, and even Republicans should be on the look out for those cats, and they have been at it for generations. In Texas, I most likely would stretch my Blue Dog acceptability level, because those Republican are worse than average. The worst, in fact, of all. So what is done to defeat those particular bastards is fine with me. As long as they are defeated.
Is that less snarky and more to the point?

[redqueen]

118. LOL... the non-apology apology...

Anyway... glad to see that you understand the bind Dems are in, if they live in truly red areas.

Now if you could just focus your ire on the constituents where there is no real reason to have Blue Dogs... maybe we could actually make some progress. Those are the areas where we can make the biggest change the fastest. Sadly, it's up to the constituents... there's little you or I can do besides assist with whatever primary challenger they might (hopefully) support & vote for.

[Bluenorthwest]

123. Forgive me if I do not see much civility in your manner

either. So you are not Jefferson, but I am nasty and filled with misplaced ire. Yet a hand offered in kindness is bitten. The proper response would have been to offer your apologies rather than add more personalized adjectives to your editorial on the subject of me, not of policy, nor of tactics, not even of Mr Jefferson's thoughts on Party.
I think you might know something about working in a Red State. But you have nothing to offer in terms of my person, and that arrogance is noted. You do not know me. I do not personally attack you. No adjectives were assigned to you by me. And you think I am the one who needs to apologize better? Nasty, ire filled me? Amazing.

[redqueen]

125. LOL... get off the cross.

I called out your *mocking*, since you obviously want to wiggle out of the insulting nature of it... and your non-apology...

Nobody said "bitter" and "ire" and whatever else but you... that comes from your vicitm complex. Get over it.

[DireStrike]

41. Fuck.

I can't think of any way to move the Dems to the left, without some kind of major public effort, the kind that would never occur in our society. Between the polarization (Three poles - Left, Right, and I-couldn't-give-a-fuck-even-if-I-wanted-to), and corporate control of the media, we would never be able to mobilize a serious force for social change. We are dependent on wild-card events.

On the other hand, the right seeks to disempower the government. Perhaps it'll lose some of the ability to infiltrate and neutralize politically active groups. But that will probably be the very last power the government gives up as it shudders to a halt.

[redqueen]

47. Well aren't you a little ray of sunshine.

;)

Seriously though... you raise some good points. I guess I tend to be more optimistic, because it seems to me that some people are slowly (very slowly) starting to wake up to the media's role in this scam... and starting to voice their discontent with this third-way BS. And like you said, it's through public effort that the party will change... so I'm hoping that people won't give up and will keep pushing for better candidates, better platforms, etc.

[DireStrike]

60. Pessimists are rarely disappointed.

Rarely happy either, but that's a horse of a different color.

When we have a government that sees attempts to change the system as "low intensity warfare", and infiltrates groups that pose an alternative to the status quo, I think I'm entitled to some pessimism.

Whenever a new alternative springs up, they march in and appropriate it and twist it into nothing. Even when people hear of an effort, know how to support that effort, and are able to do so, it would be completely drowned out by astroturfed media shouting. Which they can afford to do almost indefinitely. Paying attention to a sustained argument, and being able to tell truth from lies when each side is presented as equal, is something I don't believe the American public is up to at the moment.

I don't think people will cease being distracted by bullshit unless it gets really bad here.... I hope I'm wrong of course. I DO still live here.

Pushing and donating to liberal candidates is a good idea, probably the best chance we have. And then they go to washington and some will fall apart, undoubtedly promised anything they can dream of, legal or illegal. The only cure for that is to send more good people in, and change the overall percentage.

[redqueen]

65. I mostly agree...

it's far to easy to distract people... and people give up far too easily, as well, IMO.

[DireStrike]

66. I see what you did there.

Clever...

[redqueen]

77. Come again?

Could you explain it to me, please?

I'm obviously far from clever.

[WeDidIt]

42. Nope, it'll do what it always did and push them further right

The ONLY EFFECTIVE MEANS of moving the party to the left is via strategic primary challenges from the left.

This means that you cannot doa primary challenge of a Ben Nelson effectively because the left in Nebraska is not large enough, but you can mount an effective challenge of Specter from the left.

It has to be done on a district by district basis. Only by moving those blue dogs from very blue districts out via primary challenges can you stand a chance of moving the rest of the country to the left. When you start moving purple districts to blue, then red districts wills tart becoming purple.

[redqueen]

50. Yep... it can't work everywhere...

but where it can be done, it sure should. And I don't believe that these Blue Dogs can use the RW electorate excuse for opposing the public option... not automatically. If there is polling data to back that up, fine... but I don't accept the excuse at face value.

And yes... district by district. Indeed.

[HamdenRice]

43. Certain elements of the left thrive on failure and whining. So Palin 2012 is a big win for them.

I don't think they want the Democrats to move to the left. They want to complain and whine in order to confirm their basically negative view of existence.

If enough of them abandon the party as they did in 1980, and as they abandoned Gore in 2000, they can get a horrific repug administration in 2012. This will make them happy in their misery, kind of like the way a pig wallows in shit.

[redqueen]

55. For some, that does seem to be the case...

the ones who can't help but point out the flaw in any piece of good news.

Who insist that both parties are just the same, that Obama is just like bush, that he's a corporate sellout serving the third bush administration... crazy talk, in other words.

[dmallind]

62. Yep - exemplified best by the lingering Nader apologetics

No damn difference my arse......

[redqueen]

71. I couldn't possibly agree more about the difference. (nt)

[Codeine]

163. I've never agreed with HamdenRice.

Until now.

[redqueen]

166. Hah.

Cool. :)

[hfojvt]

44. Reagan was elected by rich conserva-dems, not leftists

although Teddy certainly did not help matters either.

[redqueen]

56. That is far from the truth. Working class Dems voted for Reagan.

Not sure where you got the idea that it was only rich conservadems, but you're quite mistaken.

[hfojvt]

88. I don't think so. Check the stats on wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980#Voter_demographics

Although I think we may both be underestimating Anderson. I see more Carter losses by class than Reagan gains. But there is a big drop in the $15-25,000 range 48% were for Carter in 1976 and only 38% were for Carter in 1980. You can call them working class, but they are higher income working class. Median household income in 1980 was $17,710. Carter suffered an 8 point drop among "professional and managerial" from 41% in 1976 to 33% in 1980. True, blue collar went from 57-41 in 1976 to 46-47 in 1980 making an 11 point drop for Carter and a 6 point gain for Reagan. However, look for the union label. Union households went from 59-39 in 1976 to 47-44 in 1980. You may think that proves your point, but I think it proves mine, because if there's one thing we know about union jobs, it is that they pay better than non-union jobs. Those people were working class, but because they made more money than the rest of the working class they are more economically conservative. Liberals (whatever that means) abandoned Carter, dropping from 70% in 1976 to 57% in 1980 but they did not run to Reagan who only got 1% more than Ford. Carter won among the poorest 28% of the voters by 48% to 41.5% it was above the median income where he lost big. It stands to reason since Reagan was promising them more money. Some of them voted their pocketbooks.

[redqueen]

89. So you're taking back your assertion re: "rich" conservadems?

Also, it doesn't really matter if Blue Collar or middle-class Dems went to Reagan or Anderson... the effect is the same.

[hfojvt]

94. sure, technically I should have said richER

but the Reagan victory came from above the median income. More upper-middle class than working class. But Anderson, unlike Nader was not a leftist alternative. Not that I remember the details of his campaign, but he dropped out of the Republican primary. Kennedy's primary challenge did not help, but I don't see a huge exodus of lefties, as much as the upper income economically conservative dems. I see those as DLC types - pro-business, college graduate, high income and socially liberal. Higher income union workers who say "I've got mine" and don't care all that much for the rest of the working class.

In 1992 and 2008 we seem to have won them back, but only by becoming DLCers and embracing Reaganomics ourselves. Clinton promising a middle class tax cut and attacking Bush for increasing taxes, and Obama promising a tax cut for 95% of all taxpayers.

So, no, I think I was pretty much right on.

But don't I always?


Doesn't everyone?

[dmallind]

61. The typical DU assumption here (not necessarily the OP's) is not tenable

The assumption is that Dem representatives and elected officials often depart from the wishes of the clear majority of "real Democrats".

But you have to ask yourselves the following questions:

Who are the people on the nominating committees and candidate recruitment committees? Dedicated party members of course. WalMart doesn't have a vote on any nominating committee in the land.

Who are the people who care enough to vote in primaries, let alone campaign for their chosen candidate? Dedicated party members again. Exxon doesn't get 10,000,000 votes for Obama when Kucinich is an option.

It's the same with the party platforms. I have been told constantly that "real Dems" are for strict gun control, and against NAFTA and capital punishment. All three have been shown to be wrong in recent Dem platforms, voted on entirely by dedicated party members elected by other dedicated party members at the most grassroots of all levels to support their interests. I am unaware that Pfizer spends a nickel on getting people elected as delegates to Democratic conventions.

The money comes in much later and it is undoubtable that those already elected can often be swayed by contributions - but as for what candidates we get and what our platform contains, that is entirely a reflection of what very active, very involved real Democrats want.

The problem for DU is often that it is the choice of ALL real Democrats, not just the echo-chamber of one part of that spectrum here.

[redqueen]

68. You make some very good points.

I was disheartened to learn how unpopular the "real Dem" positions were among the Dem voters in my red area.

The real work to shift the party starts in changing the minds of the electorate, so that they will vote for the more liberal primary contenders. It's not all pushed on us from the top down... there indeed are some conservative Dems who support some of these Blue Dogs. Not all, mind... Lieberman is testament to that.

[dmallind]

83. You also have to consider that most people are not monolithic

There are few people who have opinions on all issues that are at a consistent point on the political spectrum (and frankly I think it's most likely that those who have such consistent opinions are simply not deciding for themselves but just following whatever the leaders of that particular bloc tell them is the "correct" opinion). I'm about as left as you can get on some things - equal rights based on gender, race and orientation, choice, healthcare and so on - while being moderate Dem on others, Blue Dog on still more, and even on the right (truly on the right, not the version of right proclaimed by some far left types who consider Sotomayor a, and I quote from today's DU, "conservative right-winger") on one or two. When faced with a primary choice between a centrist Dem and a DU idealist I simply have to weigh their various stances on all positions and make an objective choice. You vote for the candidate in toto, and I am not so clueless as to assume that any will always agree with me, or should.

[redqueen]

85. And then there are some who might

vote for the candidate they feel is most 'electable'... which might explain some of the Dem votes for Lieberman after he'd been primary'd out... who knows?

[dmallind]

147. True. That's a tough one for me to follow but in some cases I would

After he'd been primaried out there is no excuse (to me) to vote for him but one of name recognition - and that IS an excuse, not a reason. But still I voted for Ventura as governor of MN for that reason. Clearly the Dem was not electable. I campaigned for him and donated to him - but he was the wrong candidate running a poor campaign while Ventura was grabbing the zeitgeist. It became obvious he would fail, so I did indeed vote Ventura as a vote against the only other candidate with a chance to win - and we all know who that turned out to be. I don't lose any sleep over my tiny role in denying him the governorship.

[Kaleva]

124. Your post is worthy of a thread all it's own.

[scheming daemons]

64. Losing votes on the left means GOP takes power

I hope that's what the disgruntled progressiveindependent.com denizens that have invaded DU lately want... because that's what they'll get.

[redqueen]

72. I doubt it's what they want...

but that's what we'll get, yep... the GOP in control of congress... making Obama's job that much harder.

[rucky]

136. That's what primaries are for. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

73. Depends on how the lose really? If they lose while kicking up a fight, then maybe

america will respect them but realize that there were just not enough votes

If they lose by progressively given away any and all meaning to being a democrat, then America will see them for the GOP light that they will have become.

really, it all depends

[redqueen]

76. I partially agree...

I agree that it depends on how they lose. However I think it's more a case of staying home/going 3rd party vs. finding primary challengers.

The former being ineffective... the latter being more effective.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

79. they need to be focussed with their message and not appear conciliatory

american dont like wimpiness. right now, going back on the public option and wavering about it will seem wimpy

[redqueen]

80. Definitely agree. (nt)

[leftofthedial]

86. Unless actual liberals take local control over the party and start

filling the party's pipeline with liberals instead of corporatists, the party will just stay the same, getting gradually more right wing as did from LBJ to Carter, again from Carter to Clinton, and now from Clinton to Obama.

[redqueen]

105. Completely agree. (nt)

[robcon]

90. The Democratic party is not losing any votes from the left, IMO.

We're losing some independents, IMO, since the 2008 election, but the left wing of the party has nowhere to go right now.

[redqueen]

103. So it's all just empty threats, you think?

All the railing about how people will stay home if this or that isn't done well enough?

I understand the sentiment of course... everyone gets emotional. I just don't see the actual logic behind it, since as it seems to me, it doesn't seem do anything to push the party left. It seems the DLC just gets more power, and perhaps even more people coming to agree with the way they think.

[robcon]

115. Yes, I think those are empty threats.

Mickey Kaus, Slate magazine: "Left-Dems are going to kill a watered-down health bill? I don't believe it. Do you? ..."

[redqueen]

119. I wasn't talking about the Dems in DC.

I was talking about those saying they wouldn't vote for a Dem if they vote for a screwed up bill.

[robcon]

133. Then there's even less chance that the threat is real.

I don't believe for a second that even a moderately small percent of LeftDems will vote for a Nader-wanna-be instead of a Democrat in any major election.

We all saw what happened in 2000.

[kenny blankenship]

92. I know what is guaranfuckingteed not to work

Brow beating me.

I'm over the smug you have nowhere else to go attitude radiating from the Rahm wing of the Party, and threats will just drive me away all the quicker.

Don't give a shit. DLCers:Stuff your threats ALL the way up your ass.

You fuckers have more to lose than we do, so go ahead, threaten away --AND WATCH ME WALK.

[Individualist]

96. I wish I could recommend your post

:applause:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

99. thank you. this is how i too feel the democrats (both elected and party worshippers) treat

me and the gay community. you have nowhere else to go

[redqueen]

100. Er... okay.

Meanwhile... what do you think will work to push them left?

As for them having more to lose... surely you jest. They'll get theirs whether from lobbyists or directly from industry from either side of the revolving door... so dream on.

[Doctor_J]

95. cede more power

Your fellow TExan Moyers - "Two corporate parties". Strange thing is, the further they move to the right, the more they get punished, to which they respond by...moving to the right.

I think the problem is that Bayh, Nelson, etc. don't like people - IOW they're Repukes

[redqueen]

104. Well it's up to their constituents to change things.

Just like Lieberman's tried to do. Like I said upthread... finding and supporting a primary challenger... now that does send a strong message that we want the party to move left... staying home or voting third party doesn't seem to get that same result. Not in recent history anyway.

[mmonk]

97. If they understand it was us they lost.

[redqueen]

106. Wouldn't polling data back that up?

Didn't it do so in the past when we've lost seats? How could they not know?

[billyclem]

116. The example of the right in the 90's

Remember what happened with the rebup party in the 90's, not at the congressional level but with the presidential elections. In 1992 the wacko Ross Perot received 19% of the popular vote as a third party candidate, siphoning off many from the right who were unhappy with pappy Bush and drawing out many who wouldn't have voted otherwise. In 1996 he dropped to 8%, still quite a showing for a third party candidate. I don't know how many were dissatisfied repubs and how many were occasional voters but the right viewed all votes for him as lost votes and moved futher to the right through the 90's. Where did they end up? With W!!!!

I am not advocating a move to a third party; but, the idea brought out in other posts of more liberal candidates in the primaries might be a winning idea. Pressure on the party from the base moved one to the right, it should be possible to move ours to the left.

Just thoughts......

[redqueen]

120. I definitely think that supporting primary challengers from the left

would be a much more effective strategy, IMO.

[barbiegeek]

122. We went to NADER & GOT BUSH in 2000

[Kaleva]

126. More Dems voted for Bush then for Nader

[redqueen]

134. So... again ... how is not voting all supposed to push them left?

The fact that you just brought up makes it all the more puzzling...

[Echo In Light]

127. Wrong-o, daddy-o. Stolen "election," 110%. Even Gore disavows the Nader 'theory'

[Orsino]

128. As long as we let the MSM and corporate power define left and right, no.

If lefties leave, the Democratic Party will simply look further right for support.

[redqueen]

135. That's exactly how it seems to me. (nt)

[paulk]

129. that seems to be the calculation the Dem. Party is making

throwing the progressive wing of the party under the bus and hoping to pick up the lost votes in the middle.

But, you know, times change - 8 years is a long time - and the newest Zogby poll has Obama losing 18% support in the 18-25 demographic. These people weren't old enough to vote in 2000, and these are the voters who put him over the top in the last election - I'm not sure they are going to respond to your argument that sitting home in 2010 is going to help the Republicans.

[Echo In Light]

130. Something tells me we're going to see A LOT of anti-3rd party propaganda in coming yrs!

[Kaleva]

131. It's hard to say which demographic put Obama over the top

Most any group can make that claim.

[paulk]

132. Kerry won that demographic by less than 10 points

Obama won it by almost 40... or numbers close to that, I can't remember exactly.

It was the biggest difference, numbers wise, between the two elections - it's a valid argument, imo.

[redqueen]

137. I'm simply asking about the logic behind the tactic.

If results aren't important, then I guess there's no need to ponder what the actual results will be.

[paulk]

140. I guess what I'm trying to say is that losing votes

from the left, in the past, has made the party move right. I think that's the calculation the Dem party is using now - in that they figure they can make up those votes in the center, and enough people on the left will still vote for them in 2010 that they can keep their majorities. They may even be right, since the Republicans keep moving even farther to the right, leaving a lot of people in the center abandoning them for the Democrats.

I think it's a mistake on their part, because, at some point, the Democrats will cross the line for the group of people I feel won Obama the nomination - the 18-25 year old demographic - the people who flooded the caucuses, the people who were his foot soldiers for the campaign. They weren't around to learn the lessons of 2000 first hand - a lot of them are new to politics - they were swayed by the hope and change rhetoric, and they want results now.

This is an especially dangerous situation for a midterm election, where the party of the sitting President almost always loses seats. The two groups that sit out midterm elections anyway are minorities and the 18-25 demographic. Obama can't afford to alienate this group anymore than he has.

[Swamp Rat]

138. Hello President Geb Bushler & Vice-President Sarah Palin.

[Blasphemer]

139. No - it will be get more conservative as it absorbs the moderate GOP'ers

This is why striking now on the most liberal agenda possible is so important. The party will continue it's rightward move and eventually the left will break off completely. The GOP will regain some power along the way because of the split but they will eventually become the largest fringe party.

[Jennicut]

142. If the progressive left splits off we will look like England

There is the conservative Tories, the moderate Labour and the Liberals. And the Tories look like they will beat Gordon and the Labor party. Labor did do an incredibly sucky job since Tony Blair shifted them from center left to center. But the liberals over there still aren't winning anything...I know we have a different history in this country but I fear we will be just a faction and of no importance.

[laughingliberal]

144. Life long Democrat here

Have supported Democrats all my life. Endured persecution by Birchers and Klansmen as a child with parents in the civil rights movement in Memphis in the 60's. Have had my life threatened. Lived through attempts on my father's life. Lived through the firebombing of my father's car in our driveway. As others my age, I saw a President and a presidential candidate assassinated. Was 12 when King was killed in Memphis and lived through the rioting that ensued. Have watched the erosion of the working class beginning with Reagan. Watched as the for profit industries took over health care and drove down the wages and working conditions of nurses as well as the quality of care our patients received. Had some hope when Clinton was turning things around and gave him a pass on some of his more conservative moves as I believed it was because he had to work with a Republican House and Senate and compromise was necessary to get anything done. Watched as the destruction of the working class accelerated under Bush. Cried on my way to the polls in November to think we would finally see our first African American president and that he would have the majorities in the House and Senate to actually enact some worker friendly policies.

Now I am expected to swallow a mandate to buy health insurance from the very companies that have stagnated the wages of workers and have driven me crazy trying to get them to pay claims after charging outrageous premiums with no option that would be affordable? There is no excuse. My husband and I have been thrown into poverty after struggling all our lives to make a living and remain solvent. Now, I'm unemployed and his business is in the tank. We have lost everything but our house and are barely holding on to it. He is eligible for Medicare in 3 years so there is some hope for him. I have 12 more years til I'm eligible and doubt I will live to get there. Sorry, I'm just not up for any more of this corporate subjugation.

[redqueen]

157. The question was, do you think it will make the party more liberal? (nt)

[kentuck]

145. Interesting post.

Barack Obama raised $750 million dollars in the last election cycle. I am sure the left had nothing, or very little, to do with that? I'm sure most of his contributions came from moderates and blue dogs and independents and concerned Republicans? It doesn't seem to matter what the left does, they are not recognized as a political entity by the remainder of the Democratic Party? It seems that way to me.

Obviously, if the left divorces the Democratic Party, it does not take our Party to the left. It takes the Republicans even further to the right. That's the Catch-22 that we find ourselves in. As much as I hate to say it, it appears the only solution is to have more than two Parties.

[robcon]

146. I think there is a more important impact of a divorce in the Democratic party

kentuck wrote: "Obviously, if the left divorces the Democratic Party, it does not take our Party to the left."

Not only that, it takes the Democratic party to the right. Mostly Blue Dogs will remain, and the line up would be:

A Far right Republican Party
A Center-right Democratic party
A Left 'new' party

That's not very appealing to me, although I really don't think it will happen. I think we've learned from Nader in 2000 that splitting the vote is a loser proposition, and I think very, very few Democrats will support a third party.

[kentuck]

148. So the question that remains:

Is it reward enough to simply prevent the above from happening? Or should the left expect something more? Is the left only a buffer to prevent total capitulation to the right and the corporatists?

[robcon]

152. No. The question is tactical (how do we do it) not strategic (where are we going)

We have to re-energize the left and independents for the issues that matter. The only way to transform the Democratic Party is by organizing, and having clear positions and rationales.

[kentuck]

153. The left and independents were organized and re-energized ...

in the last election, it could be argued. What have they got to show for it?

[robcon]

155. Not enough people were "organized and re-energized"

If we don't have the numbers (i.e., if not enough Americans think of themselves as liberal) we won't get anywhere, IMO.

It's the 'selling' of the program, through providing real, practical and tangible benefits to our proposals that will enable us to grow in influence in the Democratic Party and in the nation.

[kentuck]

156. In my opinion...

the Senate does not reflect the Democratic Party at large. It is a fallacy, I think, to believe they will change if we get more "liberals and progressives" organized to vote.

[redqueen]

168. Of course they will.

If we get enough liberals to vote that we can unseat them... how could they not?

Liberals have elected Senators like Sanders, Feingold, Boxer, and now Franken.

This country has been bombarded with anti-left propaganda for 60 years at least. It's quite an uphill climb, but I do think we're making progress.

[redqueen]

159. Well giving money surely doesn't push them left.

The only thing that seems like it would push them left, IMO, is finding and supporting primary challengers from the left... and also lefty activists attempting to work their way up into positions of power. That is of course far from easy... and pretty much impossible in some states.

And yes of course it would be much easier if we had a parliamentary system... maybe in a few generations we will get there.

[NotThisTime]

149. Losing voters on the left always moves the country RIGHT, now look where we are...

The Sarah Palin's of the world are perched to take over next go round, just great. Let stupid lead the stupid.

[Political Heretic]

150. First of all, most of the Democrats in Washington ARE corporatists.

The only thing that causes a political party in this system to move to the left is economic collapse and people rioting in the streets.

I'm not suggesting anyone would actively wish for those conditions or being heartless about it. I'm just acknowledging that very little short of that has the power to penetrate the massive power of this corrupt and broken system.

[kentuck]

154. Unfortunately.

true.

[redqueen]

161. That's Nader's theory as well...

only I think he was leaning more toward speeding up collapse by assisting the right in order to get there faster. Could be mistaken about that, though...

[Political Heretic]

172. Smear by association is a logically cheap tactic.

What Nader thinks or does not think is irrelevant.

The fact is accurate and true about the corporate influence over the majority of politicians, regardless of party, in Washington. No one is seriously disputing that. Those who do, typically spokespersons for the corporate lobby, have no facts on their side, while the rest of us have the simple ledgers of the multi billions of dollars of corporate bribe money that goes into the pockets of the majority of Washington politicians.

As to the rest, I'm not campaigning for economic collapse and social chaos. I'm simply not afraid to admit that the hope of the kind of extreme political and social change we need seems increasingly unlikely to happen by simply voting for the right politician (or any stripe) or calling congress right "effing now."

Just because I feel that way, does not mean that I automatically think just voting for some third party candidate matters a damn. I certainly do not.

So you can take your "let's try and connect PH to Nader and then smear by association" nonsense and stow it. Thank you.

[TankLV]

151. This is NOT 1980 - so HOPEFULLY it will have the OPPOSITE effect of 1980

THEN, we didn't have the REPUKE'S disasterous TRACK RECORD to point to of their FUCKED UP and PROVEN WRONG ideas!!!

[redqueen]

162. You give the electorate more credit than I do.

We have decades of evidence now... I hope it's enough. But propaganda is extremely effective, and people have short memories, and don't seem inclined to think too hard about too many things.

[TransitJohn]

158. No

The party leaders care more about the corporate money than the votes of the people.

[slackmaster]

167. It's very likely to move left IMO, and that is not the way to keep a majority in Congress

The Democratic Party has a long history of cutting off its nose to spite its face.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

169. Didn't this get tried AGAIN in 1994 and 2000?

Look how well those elections turned out for us and what happened to the overall direction of the party. I'm not saying that people shouldn't feel demoralized and/or upset when the Democrats don't act like they're *supposed* to nor am I arguing that people shouldn't be free to vote for candidates that they feel better reflect their views but the theory that *punishing* Democrats by voting third party and/or staying home will lead to a progressive "makeover" of the Democratic Party just doesn't seem to be panning out so far and perhaps is actually accomplishing the opposite not to mention helping to elect more Republicans and keeping them in power year after year. Logically, the abandonment of the Democratic Party by progressives would ENSURE that it does NOT move in a more progressive direction.

[redqueen]

170. Yes... that's exactly how I see it.

I want to push the corporatists out, not leave the party so they can further their hold on it.

We got Franken in there with Sanders and Boxer and Feingold... I think we're headed in the right direction... it'd be a shame to lose momentum now.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

171. Absolutely

We seem to have a pretty progressive bunch in the House but the Senate IMHO is where the real challenge lies. Part of the problem is that Senators have to run a statewide race and have to appeal to a larger constituency. I think, though, some of the Blue Dogs could do a much better job standing up for progressive values and explaining to some of the low-information voters the merits of progressive change instead of trying to pander and shift politically to whatever that "sweet spot" in the center/center-right seems to be and running from progressive positions on issues out of a fear of being called "liberal".