How to get Liberals/Progressives elected and in power. A Modest Proposal.

[SharonAnn]

I sometimes get frustrated because I have few chances to vote for Democrats on my local ticket and even fewer chances to vote for Democrats on my statewide and national ticket. And even when there's a Democrat running here in Tennessee, they're often way too conservative for me. Yet, I ALWAYS VOTE! And I have other ways to support Liberals/Progressives in other areas.

I refuse to think of myself as powerless so I've really thought about how I can get Liberals/Progressives into power. Since I recognized that national legislation has incredible power over our lives, I started there and then moved to state and then local. I'm always better off with Democrats in power and best off with liberal Democrats in power.

Here's the deal I made:

I always vote, and always vote for the most liberal Democrat who is available on the ticket I can vote on. I didn't get a chance to vote for or against Max Baucus, Joe Lieberman, etc. but I did vote for Harold Ford, Jr. (even though philosophically we're worlds apart) I voted for a more liberal candidate in the Senate Primary but I only had the choice of Harold in the General Election. He was a lot better than Bob Corker (R) and his presence would've given the Senate Democrats one more head count, even though he's conservative.

Then, I financially support (as strongly as I can) the most liberal Democrat anywhere who has even a remote chance of winning a national office no matter what geographic area they represent. I support pro-choice women through Emily's List, I directly supported Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Bruce Braley (Iowa), Ned Lamont (Connecticut), Bernie Sanders (Vermont), Al Franken (Minnesota), Steve Cohen (Tennessee), etc. and though I couldn't vote for them, many of them won. Their presence in the Senate and House helps me greatly. Even though I couldn't actually "vote" for them, I could support them with $, phone-banking, etc.

And I will NOT avoid actually voting, primarily because that's what the GOP wants. They're seriously into "voter suppression" in every way possible, I've seen local GOP here actually encourage Dem's to not vote since there are no Dem's running. If I go to vote in the local elections and there are no Democrats running for whom I can vote, I show up and cast a ballot with no Republicans selected. That way, at least the ballot count shows that the unopposed Republicans had someone show up who actually voted "against" them. And when Democrats consider running, they do actually look at those numbers to see if there might be some support for them in the potential electorate. And I want them to be able to see that there are people who are opposed to the current GOP officeholders.

In summary, I VOTE for whoever I am able to vote for on my ballot and I CONTRIBUTE to any liberals I can find who have a potential to affect national legislation in the House and Senate. Though I am hurt by the actions of Joe Lieberman and Max Baucus, I am helped by the actions of Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, Sherrod Brown, etc..

I do the same statewide here in Tennessee. Because I live in East Tennessee, there often are not any Democrats running for positions that are on my ballot. If there are, I vote for them even if they're not liberal. However, I support other Democrats running for the State Legislature if they represent my ideals, even if I can't vote for them.

[Forkboy]

1. That's pretty much the approach I take.

Though the amount of money I can give is severely hampered these days.

Great post, and happy to K&R. :thumbsup:

[anonymous171]

2. Stop voting for the MOST liberal candidate. Only vote for those who represent your views

If none are currently running for office in your area, write one in (if you can.)

The "lesser of two evils" voting strategy has failed us. We need to abandon it.

[mike_c]

6. agreed-- if a candidate doesn't represent our views...

...they should not get our votes. Period.

[SharonAnn]

9. I understand, but I can't agree. We can't get what we want without power.

We can't have any power unless we have a majority. When we have a majority, we can't get what we want without strong Liberal/Progressive members as part of it.

We really have to understand how this system of ours works (or doesn't) so that we can influence it. The "levers of power" are very important and they determine what legislation gets passed.

In TN, we can't write-in unless that person has registered as a "Write-in Candidate" by the deadline date. So, it's a wasted vote.

I sigh, sometimes, but Dem is better than a Republican these days. Really!

Just think, if we had no conservative Dems in the Senate, then there would be a Republican majority and none of the legislation we wanted would even get considered, much less passed.

It's not a perfect world and it's not a black and white world. When I heard *'s statement "You're either with us or you're against us", I rejected that as binary thinking. There are a lot more choices than oone or the other.

Self-satisfying though it may be to never vote for a Dem because he/she is conservative, that's kind of like cutting off my nose to spite my face. No real gain in that.

And if I only voted for those who represent my views (all of them), then I'd never find anyone to vote for. I vote for the best I can find because that's the person who's going to be in Congress. My mythical candidate won't be there.

[CTyankee]

3. Makes a lot of sense to me. Some folks, tho, have either a repub or a blue dog dem

astheir choices. Being from CT I really don't have that problem. I was really proud that we got Joe Lieberman thrown out of the Democratic Party, even tho he is still a goddam weight around our necks. I don't think any impetus toward progressivism is wasted...

[SharonAnn]

10. Yes, I was really excited about what you did in Connecticut. And I'll support Ned

if he runs again.

I completely left Joe Lieberman when he gave away the military ballots (including all of the fraudulent ones) to the GOP in 2000. I knew he couldn't be that stupid, so I figured it was intentional. And if he was actually that stupid, then ???

Your approach was exactly what I think should've been done. Eliminate Joe in the primary. And it would've worked in most states because the Dem loser wouldn't have had enough $$ to run as an Independent.

[CTyankee]

13. Or if they had the name recognition that Joe had, having been a VP candidate in 2000.

Back in the primary campaign of 06 I was calling for Ned from Dem hq in New Haven. Of course, I was only calling registered Dems at that point and I found that many people didn't know what the hell the primary was all about. They just knew Joe was their Senator and Joe was a Dem. So many didn't know/barely knew who Ned Lamont was. Later, in the general, I found Dems who didn't even know that Joe was no longer the Dem candidate. He was on the ballot and that was that. Ned wasn't known outside of our bunch of Dem activists or he was "known" as some rich guy from Greenwich just having a lark with his campaign but with no money worries if he lost...a guy with a cushy life, out of touch with regular people...you kinda know where that goes eventually and my heart was sinking every time I did my two hour stint of calling...

[Arctic Dave]

4. So if I'm a republican all I have to do is a d in front of my name and your mine?

And if by chance I do get into office I don't have to worry about doing anything in your favor because you are locked into voting for me.

[truedelphi]

8. That's been Feinstein's maneuver for at least the last fifteen years.

And not only does she act like a Repug in Dem's clothing, she is the loudest voice on who gets to run inside the SF Bay area, and she hand selects the person running for Governor.

Such that when we needed a strong candidate to offset "Ahnold" the Terminator's movie star name appeal, she found a wimpy guy named Angelides to run against him, though voters clearly liked Steve Westly, who had charisma and terrific sense of policies needed.

Oh and she hangs out with George Schultz continually. And she set the tone for the Senate Ethics statement, such that as long as a bill serves one other purpose than the one that puts money in your pocket, you do not need to recuse yourself from the vote. Thus she voted for the Iraq War Resolution, and then her husband got 27 million in contracts just weeks later.

It is almost impossible to be busted in the Senate these days for "conflict of interest."

[kestrel91316]

5. K&R

[truedelphi]

7. Thank you for always voting. And for attempting to show your strength in this

Mixed up and crazed political world, wherein the inner cabal of rat bastards aim to keep both parties pretty much the same.

[SharonAnn]

11. Thanks. Sometimes it's hard to keep one's "eyes on the prize", but we can do it.

[Odin2005]

12. That's what I do, too.