REALITY 101: Don't like the budget deal? Then VOTE IN MID TERM ELECTIONS !

[RBInMaine]

It was the best that could be expected when the RePUKES control the HOUSE largely because WAY TOO MANY "progressives" could not be bothered to vote in 2010. Simple and true as that. WAY too many sat home and complained that the Dems were not "progressive" enough even there there was more progress than we had seen in a generation between 2008 and 2010. So the RePUKES got in, and now some people are actually complaining about he consequences. Hello ! The Dems and Obama can't just do whatever they want when there are way too many RePukes in the Senate and when the RePukes CONTROL the House.

Remember that thing we learned in 8th grade civics about separation of powers with THREE CO-EQUAL branches of government and a BI-CAMERAL legislative branch? Well, this is the price paid for staying home and complaining foolishly in 2010 instead of VOTING.

We must also remember that though it doesn't go nearly as far as we would have liked, the budget deal does not harm the big three of Medicare, Medicaid, and SS. It stops some of the sequester. It restores some domestic spending. And the right wingers don't like it at all. It's about the best that could be expected because like it or not our side HAD to negotiate with the RePUKES. That is just the way it goes. That is called GOVERNING IN THE REAL WORLD.

Moral of the story: If you don't like having to compromise with the RePUKES, then CAMPAIGN, DONATE, and VOTE THEM OUT.

[riqster]

1. In 2010, lots of potential Dem voters sat it out. Not just Progressives.

We need to get every anti-Repube voter to the polls, regardless of their position on a political axis.

[RBInMaine]

3. Most Dems are quite progressive compared to the RePukes. But, agreed. They all need to VOTE.

[riqster]

14. A lot of non-Dems tend to vote Dem. When they vote.

We need to GOTFV for everyone who can vote against the Reeps.

I know that's a minor semantic quibble:but it took less than ten votes to give the Repubes total control of Ohio's state government. In today's environment, small details can have huge consequences.

[RandiFan1290]

2. You would think the country would be more grateful

After Obama, Pelosi, and Reid did them the great favor of making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Just think, we could be paying the Clinton tax rates right now!!!!

Thank god it passed, eh?

[RBInMaine]

4. They raised the taxes on the upper income people and wanted to do more. But you can only do so much

with so many RePUKES in office and them controlling the House. You're avoiding the main POINT and the main ISSUE and that is progressives didn't vote, the pukes got in, and now progressives need to deal with it OR get out, campaign, and VOTE THEM OUT. NO EXCUSES !

[RandiFan1290]

5. Republicons didn't control the house

when Obama made the Bush tax cuts for the rich permanent.

[MannyGoldstein]

6. Democratic turnout was fine in 2010. Disillusioned independents broke hard

for Republicans, e.g. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/06/1003805/-Did-liberals-really-stay-home-and-cause-the-2010-rout#

(Battling for banker bonuses while mooning the 99% has consequences.)

[Skidmore]

8. WTF is a disillusioned independent?

Dem turnout was not fine because we had too many sit out. How "progressive" is that? It's called shooting yourself in the foot.

[MannyGoldstein]

11. I presented evidence; where's yours?

"Bankers uber alles!" just didn't play well with independents. Certainly, nobody could have foreseen that.

[Skidmore]

20. Anyone who believes "Bankers uber alles" and broke Republican was either

a Republican to begin with or a banker. Since when do independents who believe otherwise just show up at the polls and vote Republican to teach the Dems a lesson? That makes no sense.

[Fumesucker]

22. No, they ~don't~ believe "Bankers uber alles" and stay home on election day n/t

[last1standing]

26. It doesn't matter how many times you show them proof, Manny.

They don't believe the bullshit they're selling; they're looking for excuses to shut us up. Like the republicans, they're not even trying to cover up their disdain for us any longer.

[treestar]

7. Yes, R hold on Congress

means no progress.

[Demo_Chris]

9. That's always the excuse, and it is always just that, an excuse...

They would have voted like they promised, like liberals, only they needed a majority, they needed a bigger majority, they needed a majority in both branches, they needed a supermajority in BOTH branches and the White House, No a real supermajority, a bigger one, they need everyone basically, but give them that and you are gonna see some serious Liberal shit!

But until then, sorry, but we just have to vote like Republicans. Somehow we are to believe that the GOP can advance their agenda while holding a small majority in only the house, but Democrats cannot advance shit even when we hold the House, Senate, and White House.

[hobbit709]

10. +1

[riqster]

15. The second paragraph is a bit off.

Reeps can cock-block with their House majority. That, since they have an obstructionist, nation-weakening agenda, is sufficient to stop progress on our to-do list and advance their own.

[Demo_Chris]

17. Yet somehow our to-do list is never even introduced...

We're here today celebrating a deal in which we DIDN'T cut Social Security. We have posters here today calling that a win. They are celebrating, because the party with marginal control over one half of one branch of government wasn't able to dismantle the entire social safety net. Woo Hoo!

We have the White House, the Senate, and almost a majority in the House, but we cannot advance ANYTHING. Hell, we couldn't advance anything when we held all three. We could not even propose it. And the reason we were given at the time was that giving our party a majority in every branch of government wasn't enough, we have to give them more, we have to give them a super-duper majority. And until then, why they will have no choice but to continue to vote as if they were Republicans.

[riqster]

19. We have to fight on two fronts, as I see it.

Front number one: de-elect every Reep we can, in every race in every location. Beat them and take away their power.

Front number two: elect more Progressive Dems wherever possible.

If we only accomplish one of the two, things will never change for the better.

My pennies, anyway.

[enlightenment]

27. In other words,

exactly what DemoChris wrote?

[riqster]

29. Kinda sorta. Just a different focus.

My post was specifically about a way to fix the status quo without risking another illegal Repube occupation.

In terms of the assessment in DemoChris' post, I can't argue any significant point. Anybody to the Left of, say, Attila the Hun, is in an ocean of crap, no doubt.

But my approach to being in an ocean of crap is to figure out how to get out, not to talk about being in that ocean. Both approaches are valuable in their own way.

[woo me with science]

28. Excellent summary. nt

[Le Taz Hot]

12. Progressives are activists.

Progressives don't sit out elections. Your premise is 100% incorrect, as has been proven time and time again. But don't let facts get in the way of a good scapegoating. You want people to vote for your candidate? Offer up better candidates as opposed to DEMANDING !111!!111 that people vote for your pro-1% Third Way candidates.

"Shut up and vote" doesn't work anymore. In fact, it never really did.

[octoberlib]

13. The problem in purple and red states won't be progressives.

We'll be volunteering and driving people to the polls like we always do. The problem will be with the independents and their perception of the ACA. The candidates who get the most I votes usually win.

[Autumn]

16. I always do, I always have. Still don't fucking like it

[geek tragedy]

18. it's not progressives, but rather the broader democratic coalition, that flakes out in midterms.

The most reliable bloc of voters in midterms is crabby old white people. Guess who that favors.

[99Forever]

21. I always vote. EVERY TIME.

What I WON'T do, is vote for Turd Way DINO pretenders while holding my nose. Period.

Want my fucking vote?

EARN IT.

[kelliekat44]

23. Me too. nt

[jeff47]

25. And this budget deal is the result.

While it's a lovely idea that there would always be a Democrat that can earn your vote, that isn't always the case. As a result, we get Democrats to the right of your position. When you refuse to vote for them, we get a Republican. And then we get budget deals like this.

We can drag the party to the left in primaries, but need to keep voting for the Democrat in the general, even if they're shitty. Otherwise, the efforts to drag the party left in primaries will fail. That's exactly what Republicans did to drag their party right. And look what it got them.

[struggle4progress]

24. After the gerrymandering, it would be nice if lotsa folk did more than just vote

[kelly1mm]

30. Technically, since the House is up for election every cycle, it was 2012 voters that gave

us this House, not 2010 voters. Now, the 2010 voters DID give us gerrymandered districts as that was a census year and reset congressional boundaries (2010 was a wipeout in state races as well).