Warning: Reactions to the Democratic losses that help the Repubs

[johan helge]

Some liberals say they won't vote Democratic, if Democratic candidates are too conservative (e.g. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6923325).

Two reasons why this will help the Repubs:

1 Short term: It will make it easier for the Repubs to win (e.g. liberals voting Nader in Florida 2000).

2 Long term: It will make the Dems more conservative, because if liberals don't vote Democratic, the Dems must get conservative votes to win elections. But won't the Dems become more liberal, to get the liberals mentioned above to vote? Broadly speaking, no:

a) There are more voters in the middle of the political spectrum than on the left.

b) If the Dem candidate loses one vote to the Repubs, he needs two liberal votes to compensate for this.


In short: If the Democrats become stronger, they will become more liberal (as the Repubs became more conservative when they became stronger under Bush). So make the Dems stronger - vote for them!

[jgraz]

1. What helps the Repubs is nominating spineless corporatists to run as Democrats

The solution is simple: nominate real, strong progressives and you win elections. Nominate Repub-lite weasels and you lose.

[johan helge]

4. Perhaps so

but my topic was not what the Dems should do, but what liberal voters should do when the Dems nominate "Repub-lite weasels".

They should still vote for the weasel.

* Because that will help the weasel beat someone 10 times worse.

* And because if the Dems win, they will tend to become less weasel-like in the next election - just like the Repubs became more conservative under Bush, when they thought they could do so without losing elections.

[jgraz]

9. The definition of insanity...

We've been doing this for 40 years and the results haven't changed. I think we may need to switch tactics.

[johan helge]

15. Well,

there were pretty many who tried to switch tactics in 2000, and voted Nader. And so we got Bush instead of Gore.

And in every election there are lots of liberals who try this tactic - they vote Green, or don't vote. If they, and e.g. more blacks, had voted Democratic, the Dems would've won more elections, and both the Dems and the Repubs would've been less conservative.

The political parties are just mirrors of the voters. If the voters become less conservative, so will the parties.

[jgraz]

17. You really need to brush up on your recent history

Nader didn't give us Bush. A dispirited base, a weak, center-right candidate who couldn't win his home state, a criminally negligent DNC and a treasonous Supreme Court gave us Bush.

It's truly incredible that you blame the loss on "blacks". If you recall, it was "blacks" who were kept from voting in Florida through Jeb's fraudulent felon's list and the complicity of the Democratic National Committee.

[johan helge]

19. Discussing Nader always feels like explaining that 2+2=4.

There were many reasons Gore "lost" - that he didn't win his home state, the Supreme Court - AND Nader. Without Nader, Gore almost certainly would've won Florida. This isn't difficult.

Did I blame the loss on blacks? I blame it on everyone who didn't vote for Gore (if they were allowed to register and vote).

[jgraz]

21. There's one problem with your equation: Gore DID win Florida.

Even with all the shenanigans, he got the most votes by any unbiased count.

You're right, this isn't difficult. You just need to get over your Nader Derangement Syndrome.

[johan helge]

24. The biased count was another reason

Gore "lost". But if not for Nader, Gore would probably have won, even if the count was biased.

You're right, I have a Nader Derangement Syndrome. During the 2000 campaign, I could look at Bush on the TV, but watching Nader was simply too much. I pretty much saw what kind of guy Bush was, and knew how important it was to stop him.

[jgraz]

28. The lesson from 2000 is that a ticket that fires up the base wins elections.

And the base just wasn't that fired up about Gore/Lieberman.

And then we didn't learn our lesson, blamed Nader, and ended up with Kerry/Edwards. How'd that work out?

[johan helge]

29. There are many lessons from 2000

I'm sure Gore made many mistakes (but my impression is that he did an excellent job). But at least he tried to stop the Bush catastrophe. Nader didn't try this, he helped Bush.

[Marr]

14. You really don't see what a losing strategy that is?

When you vote for a corporate weasel just because he's got a D next his name, you prove to the party establishment that you can be safely ignored. And they will ignore you.

It's better to play the long game. Let the corporate stooges lose, and it saps influence from the DLC wing of the party.

[johan helge]

38. I assume you think like this:

DLC-ers lose, and then the Democrats will nominate liberals, and win.

But what happens when Democrats lose? When they've lost enough, they move towards the right to win - Bill Clinton's victory was an example of that.

And where do the Dems nominate liberals? They nominate liberals in districts where liberals can win. In conservative districts, they nominate conservatives. And liberals not voting makes the districts more conservative, which leads to more conservative Democratic candidates.

In short: The parties are just mirrors of the voters. If liberals vote, the parties become less conservative.

[Marr]

56. It's amazing to me that you can believe that.

Parties are not mirrors of the voters. They're mirrors of the political system and the economy. If you poll the voters on issues, we look about as liberal as Britain. Our political parties don't reflect that at all. What is passed off as the left here would be a right wing party in any European country, and not a mildly right-wing party, either.

Our political system has several inherent flaws in it. Two of the big ones are that our system naturally produces a two-party dynamic, and is designed to give wealth a disproportionate voice. Our media is basically the voice of the corporate class.

Bill Clinton moved to the right because that garnered him more corporate support, and because he knew his base had nowhere else to go. If everyone supported people like that simply because they had a D next to their name, they would just continue in power forever.

[johan helge]

57. I don't mean that the parties are mirrors of the voters

in every respect, of course. There are of course other things than the voters opinions that shape the parties opinions, e.g. the interests of campaign contributors (as you rightly point out). But my point was simply that if the average voter becomes more conservative (these other things equal), so do the parties (the Repubs because they want to be more conservative, the Dems because they have to in order to win this average voter).

If everyone who sympathize with the Dems had voted (and there had been no similar increase on the Republican side), this would happen:

a) First, the Dems would win some elections.

b) How would the Repubs react to these Dem victories? They would of course follow the average voter leftwards, in order to win him, because they need him to win elections.

And when some Dem sympathizers don't vote, this has the opposite effect.

[spanone]

47. let the weasels rot. i don't buy the premise.

[johan helge]

52. Why does Europe have more liberal politicians than the US?

One reason is that (if my impression is right) the US underclass does not vote as much as the European underclass.

In short: The parties are just mirrors of the voters. When liberals don't vote, both parties go towards the right.

[FiveGoodMen]

2. "If the Democrats become stronger, they will become more liberal"

Only if they want to.

And there's no evidence for that.

[johan helge]

6. Yes, I think they want to

Take Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama: Of course they are more liberal in their hearts than their political programmes indicate. The programmes are designed to take votes from the Repubs.

And take the Repubs: Why did Bush run as a "compassionate conservative", and govern as a right-wing maniac? Because he needed to take votes from Gore, and wanted to govern like a right-wing maniac (and rightfully thought he could do so without losing the next election).

[FiveGoodMen]

7. How do you know what's 'in their hearts'?

[johan helge]

11. Because they are just like you and me

They hate the Repubs. They've given their lives to fighting them.

I've seen them speak. I see how they feel, they feel just like you and me.

I remember a speech by Hillary once. God, she was good!

[cornermouse]

26. They don't hate the repubs.

They work in the same building. They go to the same parties. They have a peer relationship. They don't hate each other. All you have to do is watch them interact with each other when they're not talking politics to realize that. Your premise that this is the liberals fault is false and basically, this is another of those "beat 'em into line" posts that are so popular on DU.

[johan helge]

27. "Hate" can mean so much

- the Dem leaders hate the Repubs (or, more precisely, what they stand for) in some meanings of the word, not in others. What I meant, was simply to emphasize their commitment to Democratic values.

[FiveGoodMen]

31. If you can tell whether someone means what they say just by their speeches

You can pretty much write your own ticket in life.

Work for CIA, FBI, courts, wherever.

A human lie detector is of unbelievable value.

[johan helge]

32. I hadn't thought about that -

perhaps I can become a millionaire!

Here's something I wrote in 2001 about voting Green, but the same can be said about liberals not voting. The text between "Wrong:" and "Irrelevant:" explains why I think most Dem candidates are more liberal in their hearts than they dare to be as candidates:

Here's why you should not vote Green:

1 It makes it easier for the Republicans to win.

2 It makes the Democrats (and the Republicans) LESS green/liberal. Why? The essence is the median voter on a left-right scale among those who vote for the Democrats or the Republicans. The party that wins him, wins the election. The more liberals who vote Green, the more conservative this median voter will be. And this forces the Democrats towards the right.
Green voters say that the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans are not important. This is both wrong and irrelevant.

Wrong:

Assume you give the extreme left position 0 on the left-right scale, and the extreme right position 100. Then the Democratic voters occupy approximately the positions 0-50, the Republicans the positions 50-100. The median voter has position 50. The median Democratic voter has position 25, the Republican position 75.

Accordingly, the "heart" of the Democratic party has position 25, the heart of the Republican party position 75. The Democrats' program is a compromise between their "real" position 25 and the position 50 of the median voter they need to win. Analogously for the Republicans.

So:

1 There are many important differences between the programs of the two parties, just check for yourself.

2 The difference between the hearts of the two parties, between what they really want, is even bigger. One may say that the "real" difference is 75 - 25 = 50 positions.

Irrelevant:

Even if the difference between the programs had been "small", it would be the best one could hope for. This makes every difference important.

What's (most) important is not the size of the difference, but the "average" position of the two parties on a left-right scale. Assume the Democrats win. If everything else is constant, then both parties will move towards the left until the Republicans win an election. And so on.

To conclude:

The two parties are like two horses, the D horse trying to pull the left end of a rope, the R horse trying to pull the right end. Liberals voting Green has the same effect as blacks not voting. It weakens the D horse, and moves the rope (i.e. the government's policy) towards the right. Why do you think the Christian coalition has no own candidate, but votes for the

[FiveGoodMen]

33. What if the D horse turns and runs the wrong way?

That's certainly what's happened in DC.

[johan helge]

34. I gotta go, I'll reply later. Thanks for the debate!

[johan helge]

37. I assume you mean the Blue Dogs.

Yes, they are conservative Democrats, and try to destroy health reform, the stimulus, etc. But as far as I know, the most conservative Democrats come from pretty conservative districts. Liberal Democrats would probably not win in those districts. So avoiding to vote in those districts will just

- make it easier for the Repubs to win there, and
- make these districts even more conservative (and so the Democratic candidates there even more conservative), because liberals don't vote there.

[FiveGoodMen]

48. Dying an inch at a time is still dying.

It's time for all of us to stand up and fight.

Compromise has lost us nearly everything. (Especially for groups like gays that are open season for the right!)

[johan helge]

49. Why help the Repubs?

"It's time for all of us to stand up and fight" - let's try not voting. Right.

Take the blacks. 9 out of 10 black voters vote Democratic. But the proportion of blacks that vote, is pretty low. And the Repubs do everything they can, to keep it that way. And they of course would love to see the same thing happen to liberals in general.

[Ardent15]

3. You have it backwards

If Democrats are more liberal, they will become stronger. Not the other way around.

[johan helge]

8. Perhaps so

but my topic was not what the Dems should do, but what liberal voters should do when the Dems nominate "Repub-lite weasels".

They should still vote for the weasel.

* Because that will help the weasel beat someone 10 times worse.

* And because if the Dems win, they will tend to become less weasel-like in the next election - just like the Repubs became more conservative under Bush, when they thought they could do so without losing elections.

[Geek_Girl]

5. I think are problem is deeper. We need to support Democrats that will support

and stand up for solid progressive policies. If we can't do that then I don't see the difference between voting for a repuke or a corporatist dem. They both represents the interest of the extremely wealthy not the American people.

What really needs to happen is the American people need to reform both parties to serve the interest of the American people not the interest of the hyper rich. Until we stand together as nation and force our Representatives to represent us we are all fucked!

[johan helge]

10. "I don't see the difference between voting for a repuke or a corporatist dem."

That's approximately what the Nader voters said in Florida in 2000 ...

The most conservative Democratic congressmen tend to come from pretty conservative districts. But if more blacks, more liberals etc. had been voting in these districts, then the Dem candidates didn't have to be so conservative to win elections there.

[Geek_Girl]

18. The difference was Al Gore was not a corporatist Dem

Never was never will be.

[johan helge]

20. No, he wasn't

but many thought so.

And assume he was. Then the same goes for him as for the most conservative Democratic congressmen:

The most conservative Democratic congressmen tend to come from pretty conservative districts. But if more blacks, more liberals etc. had been voting in these districts, then the Dem candidates didn't have to be so conservative to win elections there.

The parties are just mirrors of the voters. If more liberals vote, both parties will become less conservative.

[Geek_Girl]

30. This isn't about Liberal or Conservative those are just labels that get thrown around

It's about who's interest that these politicians serve. There have been some republicans though very few that have had tried to serve the American peoples best interest. There are a few democrats that have served the American peoples best interest but most Politicians both Democrat and Republican serve the interest of the Uber Wealthy.

I believe as a Democrat we need to make sure that we elect and support only those politicians that truly serve the interest of the American People. When a Democratic Politicians demonstrates that they serve the interest of the Hyper Rich then they needed to be booted out of office period. Otherwise we get what we have now. Basically very little difference in either political party and no real change. If anything I think this past election cycle clearly demonstrated that. Democrats swept into office took power and now we have 2 war fronts, big give aways to Wall Street and what looks like give aways to Pharma and the Big Insurance companies, gutting of FOIA, continuation of the dismantling of civil Liberties ect...

As Democrats we need to stand up and through these jack asses out of office. Otherwise nothing is going to change.

[Raineyb]

41. Stop blaming black people for this.

Considering how often the Democratic party throws the interests of black people on the back burner black people are the most consistent Democratic voters out there.

That notwithstanding, people will only put up with representatives who don't do shit for them for so long before they look to someone else on the ballot and the Democratic party would be wise to remember that.

[johan helge]

62. I don't blame blacks in particular, of course.

I mentioned blacks because that's a topic most people are familiar with: The Repubs don't want blacks to vote, for obvious reasons. And liberals want more blacks to vote, for the same obvious reasons.

So, for the same reasons, liberals should also want more liberals in general to vote.

[Autumn]

12. Well after doing that for over

the last forty years, I'm not going to hold my nose to vote anymore. They will have to start working to get my vote. No more free ride for them. I'm not voting for republican light anymore.

[johan helge]

13. But that attitude makes Karl Rove smile, and you don't want that?

The most conservative Democratic congressmen tend to come from pretty conservative districts. But if more blacks, more liberals etc. had been voting in these districts, then the Dem candidates didn't have to be so conservative to win elections there.

Have you really been voting for Republican light? Not in any Presidential election, I think. E.g. Clinton, Gore, Kerry & Obama are all liberals in their hearts, and as liberal as they thought they could be as candidates.

[Autumn]

35. Some of us vote in EVERY election,

not just Presidential. Karl Rove? fuck him, Same for republican light.

[johan helge]

39. I give up

If liberals don't understand that they must vote, they understand nothing, and deserve nothing. Let the conservatives govern, at least they understand that they must vote.

[Autumn]

40. I give up too. I am a liberal

who has voted Democratic in every election for over forty years, and I am NOT going to vote for conservative Dems anymore. It doesn't work. I am not changing they will have to change to get my vote.

[johan helge]

60. Would this have happened with Repubs instead of

these conservative Dems?

Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26krugman.htm... ):

"Right now it looks highly likely that Congress will, indeed, send a health care bill to the president’s desk."

From http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/29/health.care/inde... :

"The bill <..> would <...> extend insurance coverage to 36 million uncovered Americans, according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."

[Raineyb]

42. Repeat after me: The candidate is not entitled to a vote.

They have to earn them and if they continue to do nothing when they get into office people will not pull the lever for them. It's just that simple. The right in this situation lies with the voter not with the candidate. You would do well to learn that.

[johan helge]

61. Of course the voter is the one who decides who he'll vote for

- hell, I don't even deny him his right to vote Republican!

[Jazzgirl]

16. Bullshit.

n/t

[johan helge]

22. And I admire you.

[LatteLibertine]

23. Unfortunately

history has proven most politicians hearts are green regardless of party. Want a vote? Buy it.

Have a look at Max Baucus here-

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lm_health.php

Direct link-

http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lm_memsclients.php?id=N00004643

[johan helge]

25. The most conservative Democratic congressmen

tend to come from pretty conservative districts. But if more blacks, more liberals etc. had been voting in these districts, then the Dem candidates didn't have to be so conservative to win elections there. And they wouldn't, as the Dem candidates in less conservative districts indicate.

[Raineyb]

43. Baucus is bucking his own constituents to vote for his corporate masters

so your argument doesn't wash at all in this case.

[johan helge]

53. Yes, let's get rid of Baucus, no problem,

but if Baucus is the Dem candidate, I'll vote for him, partly because the Republican candidate is even worse. Much have been achieved by voting. When has not voting ever achieved anything?

[Autumn]

36. The old republican saying, you are

either with us or against us. I'm using that on these conservative Dems.

[opihimoimoi]

44. YES [phone]..Its either Positive Mode or Negative Mode....

[anonymous171]

45. Conservative republicans don't vote for moderates

That is why they are so powerful, even though they are in the minority. A small band of dedicated politicians can achieve great things in American politics. Moderates make a party weaker, not stronger.

[johan helge]

50. The Republicans are less powerful than perhaps ever

- they have only 40 (?) seats in the Senate. That's why, for the first time, the US may now get near universal health care.

I want the Repubs to stay as crazy and extreme as they are. Because that will give election victories to the Dems. Because without election victories, nothing gets done.

[anonymous171]

54. "near universal"!? What are you smoking?

Whatever it is, I want some.

[johan helge]

58. That's what Krugman says

Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=1):

Past efforts to give Americans what citizens of every other advanced nation already have — guaranteed access to essential care — have ended not with a bang, but with a whimper, usually dying in committee without ever making it to a vote.

But this time, broadly similar health-care bills have made it through multiple committees in both houses of Congress. And on Thursday, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, unveiled the legislation that she will send to the House floor, where it will almost surely pass. It’s not a perfect bill, by a long shot, but it’s a much stronger bill than almost anyone expected to emerge even a few weeks ago. And it would lead to near-universal coverage.

[butterfly77]

46. We need new people and..

we need to be vetting them now..

[johan helge]

51. I don't mind new people

- what I mind is not voting.

[salguine]

55. If I keep getting the same useless assholes like the ones that have a stranglehold

on the Democratic Party now, who are so far beyond pathetic I can't even find words for it, why should I give a shit if the Republicans come back? I mean, really? The truth is, neither party has really done a hell of a lot for me lately. The Republicans enact policies that actively hurt me, and the Democrats enact policies that don't help me one fucking bit, if they manage to enact any policies at all.

If anyone's response has the word "pony" in it anywhere, fuck off.

[johan helge]

59. You should be more sanguine, salguine!

Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26krugman.html?_r=1):

"Right now it looks highly likely that Congress will, indeed, send a health care bill to the president’s desk."

From http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/29/health.care/index.html:

"The bill <..> would <...> extend insurance coverage to 36 million uncovered Americans, according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."