The splinter threat is a manipulative tactic which I think has proved ineffective.

[LoZoccolo]

On the Internet, there's nothing preventing a person from lying when they say that they no longer support the Democrats, or will not vote for them; in this country we have a secret ballot system.

If someone does lie, I'm guessing the intention behind the lie is for that person to gain more influence than they feel they would have otherwise.

It is a manipulative tactic, but when I use that word "manipulative", I do not necessarily mean to disparage it. Politics is about manipulating people. There are ways to do it that are considered more honorable than others by society. I may not convince you to use one of these more honorable tactics, but I think that a case can be made that the splinter threat tactic is ineffective. How much time has been spent by the "netroots" in arguing the splinter question, that could have been spent figuring out how to effectively gain more consensus and support for particular issues amongst the electorate, who are the ones who actually hold the highest office in a democracy.

I would propose that the splinter threat tactic has been a huge time sink hindering the effectiveness of the Internet as a political tool; when people use it, they mostly distract other activists who are trying to use the Internet productively.

The other side of the coin is that the rest of us should avoid being too distracted by the splinter threat tactic, as I don't think it will go away soon.

[Edweird]

1. Of course. Anyone that says they are fed up with "Dems" pushing RW policy is clearly lying.

[LoZoccolo]

2. I did not say that. n/t

[Edweird]

12. I did not say that you said that. N/T

[griffi94]

3. correct

we're obviously rightwingers pretending to be lefwingers while disguising our selves as right wingers in order to demoralize the rightwingers dressed up as leftwingers pretending to be moderate wingers and all this to make the president look bad.

to hell with this i'm going back to pretending i'm BATMAN

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA BATMAN BATMAN BATMAN

[Edweird]

6. I was thinking more along the lines of a bunch of

disenfranchised Reagan supporters that are loving the "New Dems" - now with more 'pragmatism' even more 'sensible'. But, yours has an endearing out-of-control quality :)

[griffi94]

10. hey thanks

out of control quality. yeah i like that

[JoseGaspar]

4. The OP should take his own advice.

Watching the OP in action, it is clear how "distracting" the "splinter threat" is. The OP should most definitely focus on being an "activist" who tries to "use the Internet productively".

Would it be presumptuous to assume that this post is in the class of a New Years Resolution and that the OP is promising to engage in productive activism rather than ever again playing against a disruptive tactic which is ineffective?

Good luck with your new, highly positive, never destructive, non-manipulative, very honorable endeavors.

[LoZoccolo]

7. Sure, I've been sucked in a lot in the past. n/t

[Fumesucker]

5. People never lie in real life..

:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

9. They do that too.

It seems to be easier on the Internet, though.

[Fumesucker]

13. It just makes politicians of us all..

Politicians mostly being people who are better at and more comfortable with lying than the average Joe..

[Radical Activist]

8. There are many progressive Democrats in Congress. How many progressive Greens are in Congress?

I think we've been trying that strategy long enough to see that it's a waste of time. At least for the Greens, who can't decide whether or not they're political party or a social movement. They couldn't pick one and failed at both.

[sabrina 1]

11. I don't think what people say on the internet is the problem.

There will be no splinter if politicians do what they were elected to do. It's simple. On SS eg, all Democrats have to do to unite their base is to take a stand, starting now, to protect SS from privatization. We would all be able to get behind that. So would many Republicans and Independents. Polls show that people across political lines, want SS protected.

We know, and Democrats know (Republicans know too, but lying comes naturally to them) that Alan Simpson et al are lying about Social Security. All they have to do is slap down this phony Cat Food Commission which is attempting to tie, erroneously, SS to the deficit.

It's simple, it's up to Democrats now if they want a united base who will work as hard as they did in 2006 and 2008, for the November elections.

The rest, what people say or don't say, won't matter if Democrats show weakness on this issue.

Edited to add, what Democrats say now matters. We are not going to fall for the usual talking points, the ones we were subjected during the Health Care debate. So, I hope no one wastes our time trying those tactics again. This is easy, let's see if they decide to unite people, or divide them.

[griffi94]

14. great post

[LoZoccolo]

15. There hasn't been a significant splinter since 2000. n/t

[griffi94]

16. i have to disagree

i think the gop has their hands full with their own splinter group the tea partiers.
tht's also why i think the democrats have squandered a real opportunity for new deal like reform.

the gop at the moment couldn't oganize a 2 car funeral procession, but instead of jack rolling the bastards the democrats wring their hands and whine about needing more seats in congress, and then when the progressives complain we're told that we either walk the line or else we'll get whatever gop boogeyman is in vouge at the moment.

the repubs have shot their bolt. the only way they'll get their bullets back is if the status quo remains unchanged, and sorry to say, it looks like that's where we're going.

[LoZoccolo]

17. Which election since 2000 has been decided by a splinter? n/t

[griffi94]

18. none

but the gop has lost their raving nutter base, for that matter obama won with numbers he did because he peeled off indies. while i guess you can't call the indies a splinter group they do have the numbers to swing an election.

i wasn't talking exclusivly about elections and your statement just said there hadn't been a significant splinter group since 2000.
the tea party is a splinter group that's giving repubs a major headache. i don't think the tea party will win squat but they did manage to scare the hell out of some gop candidates.
it remainsto be seen if the raving nutter tea party wing will turn out for mccain and the others they tried to primary. wasn't crist in florida teabagged

[sabrina 1]

19. Like I said, the split is between politicians in DC

and the people who elected them. On the internet, I presume you are talking about Democrats, the so called split is not over issues, we mostly agree on issues. It is on tactics, and that can be settled by the politicians we elected. If it is not, people will vote their consciences in November, some will use the tactic of trying the Dems once more, and others will try something else.

But in the end, the people basically agree on issues, but some have been convinced we can wait a little longer, while others believe we have waited too long already and those we elected show no sign of working for us, now or in the future.

But on the issues, there is no split even here on DU, most agree on he issues..

Dems and those who elected them are split. That has to be fixed or they will lose, it's that simple.

[LoZoccolo]

20. I should have been more clear.

By "splinterist threat", I mean the strategy of threatening to withdraw votes from a party in order to coerce them into doing something you want. Unless people actually carry through with it, it's just a threat. I'm saying that this strategy is ineffective.

As far as opinions being split (not votes), that's to be expected in a political party, where people compromise on some issues to enact their agenda on other issues.

I would expect there always to be a split between the people who want something and the people who have to work out the details of making it happen.

[sabrina 1]

21. Well, if this was just the way politics usually work, you might have

a point. This is a situation where the Democratic Party is doing the work usually done by the Republican Party.

As for threatening to quit a party to get something in return, I don't think people are that stupid. You don't seem to get it. WE KNOW the people no longer have any control over their government. We know that Democrats are not about to listen to those who elected them, at least not the Executive Branch. The Health Care debacle was the final proof of that. Hope is gone, that's what you fail to understand.

Mass. proved that we are way beyond what you are talking about. Democrats are losing their base. It's happened before in history but not that often. This is one of those times when it may have gone too far and there will be no getting back the support they once had.

Maybe it's necessary, the corruption has gone on for too long. Maybe the whole system is ready for a good cleansing. It will be hard, but the country has had hard times before. I'm sure we'll survive, but we won't be the same. But no one is kidding, so don't fool yourself, they are very serious.

[LoZoccolo]

22. There's really no evidence that Scott Brown's victory is the result of a progressive revolt.

In the 2006 Senate race for Ted Kennedy's seat, turnout was 2,165,490, with 1,500,738 voting for Kennedy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Massachusetts,_2006

In the 2010 special election, turnout was actually greater, 2,253,727, and Coakley only recieved 1,060,861 votes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Massachusetts,_2010#Results

As you can see from the polling, Scott Brown went from 24% to 52% from September to January, while Martha Coakley went from 54% to 43%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Massachusetts,_2010#Polling

It does not seem that there were a lot of people staying home if turnout increased, and the number of undecideds decreased along with Coakley's numbers, so it does not seem as if she alienated her supporters into staying home, but into voting for Scott Brown. Were these swing voters the progressives? Why would progressives vote for a Republican?

And what is your reason for thinking that the Scott Brown victory is due to progressive alienation?