What are your true feelings about supporting the Democratic Party of today?

[Douglas Carpenter]

58 votes, 4 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	It is a party that deserves and needs our full and enthusiastic support
	13 (22%)
	There is little difference between the two parties, so I'm not that inclined to advocate supporting either major party.
	3 (5%)
	I wish there was a viable progressive alternative to the Democratic Party, but there is not and it is not likely that there will be in the foreseeable future. And unfortunately the only viable alternative party is so extreme and so dangerous - there is no choice for now but to support the Democratic Party at least the vast majority of times.
	38 (66%)
	I'm a ratfucking right-wing troll pretending to be a progressive. But, I'm really just here to cause dissension - divide and conquer - so that the Republicans will have a better chance at winning elections.
	2 (3%)
	I prefer French Toast with either a custard or ricotta based filling.
	2 (3%)
	4 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. As a reporter I do not support any national party

just the facts.

[BainsBane]

25. This is a Democratic website

When you signed up you agreed to support the Democratic Party. Perhaps you should reread the terms of service?

[sabrina 1]

35. Are you saying reporters cannot post here, or are you saying that reporters should be biased?

I have never seen anything here that forbids reporters from posting here. There are and always have been members who are not registered Democrats but who 'lean towards the Dem Party'. Do you think the Dems could win any election without Indpendents? See 2010 when Indeps stayed home before you answer that question.

Oh, as far as reporters, they should be impartial when reporting the news. Unless Fox is the new standard for reporting.

[cprise]

38. Maybe this is the reason why Independants are growing in number

In any case, you and Skinner will have to accept that less than 100% of my votes go to Democratic candidates.

If not, that's just more oblivion for DU.

[BainsBane]

43. Independents are growing in number because DU is a Democratic website?

How do you figure that? It's been Democratic since it was founded. Independents are growing because fewer people want to be associated with the nut job Republican Party.

[cprise]

48. 'Americans More Likely to Identify as Independents Than D or R' -Gallup Jan. 2014

Congratulations on that 6% spread between R and D. Neither party has a healthy reputation.

[Katashi_itto]

49. Lol! So you want lip service instead of the truth. And we wonder why the Democratic party is in bad

shape. I plan on French toast instead of bothering with midterm voting.

My attitude was fully engendered by the certain groups here on DU.

I started thinking, "Christ..these are supposed to be the people in my party... the non stop insults, the fanaticism, the accusations of misogyny, lame personal attacks for simply stating my opinion...

well guess what... It's French toast time.

[BainsBane]

54. Misandry?

French toast time? What does that mean? You're going to vote Republican because you think men are so horribly oppressed by the awful women of the world? I can't imagine my values being so malleable that I would change my voting behavior because of what someone online said. I think anyone who does was never liberal or progressive in the first place.


Edited it back to my original version where I exclaimed misandry because I checked and saw that was indeed in the version of the post I read.

[Katashi_itto]

55. Pardon, who said anything about voting republican?

Coming voting time, I simply plan on sitting down to eating French toast instead of voting.

Twist what I've said however you like

[BainsBane]

56. It was a question

Why don't you just come out and say what you mean? What is the reckoning you were talking about? What is the so-called misandry and "fanaticism" that you find so objectionable?

[Katashi_itto]

57. Lol! I know how this game is played. I won't rise to it.

As I said I know what i am doing come voting time

[BainsBane]

60. This is how you always react

You haven't once tried to have a serious conversation with me or any other feminist on this site, that I've observed. You constantly mock. You don't even try to engage in honest discussion.


I reread your initial post more carefully. You plan to punish the awful women on this site by having French toast instead of voting. You live in a red state. You want to make sure Democrats have fewer votes to help Republicans gain power because you think that punishes some women you don't like on DU. I can't say I'm even slightly surprised.

[Katashi_itto]

61. Completely untrue...but its a standard for you.

Moreover, the self-absorption with the idea, that I am punishing the women on this board is funny. Those posts by your crowd were just part of a growing disillusion with what is being said here. Not the sole focus.

[BainsBane]

62. Are you saying you didn't just link your decision not to vote

to your views of women on this site?

[Katashi_itto]

63. See above I added more, and no, not not entirely with this site.

A good portion though.

[BainsBane]

66. Yet you just admitted it in the post above.

[Katashi_itto]

67. Admit what? That I was accused repeatedly?

[BainsBane]

68. That you weren't voting because of your views of women

largely on this site, you said.

Clearly you and I have little in common. The people I encounter on this site have no influence whatsoever on my vote. That is a function of my conscience and sense of social justice. The idea that I would act to allow people to go hungry from lack of food stamps and economic assistance or die from lack of medical care because I had my ego bruised by someone online is an absolute impossibility for me.

[Katashi_itto]

72. Lol! Again its this idea that I arrived at this simply because of some nonsense posted online

I have watched how critical thinking has been tossed out the window here for the most part. That real discourse has given way to base insults. All while the vital issues just molder.

I voted faithfully, campaigned for our president, and for what?

We ended up corporatist President, not what i thought I was campaigning for.

Constantly seeing the Rs make inroads fueled by the Koch money machine, and now likely will take the house and senate.

All while watching the Dem discourse (not just here) basically argue about how many angels dance on the head of a pin?

Listening to the steady drumbeat here of lameness over the years, has simply alienated me, icing on the cake.

I no longer think things will get fixed.

But no problem, I like French toast.

But I am sure you will spin it in some fashion you want.

[BainsBane]

131. That is not how you began this discussion

You made yourself clear. Anyone can read your posts themselves. You talked about how you had been called a misogynist and as a result you were going to stay home and have French toast. You talked about fanatics. Now you go on about corporatists.

Firstly, I am continually astounded that people only now have figured up that our government is controlled by money. How is that possible? Haven't you been paying attention during your lifetimes? You thought that would suddenly disappear under Obama, despite the nature of the US economic system and campaign finance law? Have you ever heard of capitalism? In what country did you think you've been living?

And then your solution to that is to allow Republicans to gain more power. Makes a lot of sense.

[Katashi_itto]

132. Lol!

[BainsBane]

135. Let's review

Katashi_itto (4,489 posts)

49. Lol! So you want lip service instead of the truth. And we wonder why the Democratic party is in bad

I plan on French toast instead of bothering with midterm voting.

My attitude was fully engendered by the certain groups here on DU.
I started thinking, "Christ..these are supposed to be the people in my party... the non stop insults, the fanaticism, the accusations of misogyny, lame personal attacks for simply stating my opinion...

well guess what... It's French toast time.

Star Member BainsBane (24,349 posts)

62. Are you saying you didn't just link your decision not to vote


to your views of women on this site?

Katashi_itto (4,489 posts)

63. See above I added more, and no, not not entirely with this site.


A good portion though.

I agree it's pretty funny. What's also funny is changing your story on a dime.

[Katashi_itto]

136. Amazing, how you spin, but it still boils down to Waffle time in the near future

[BainsBane]

138. LOL. Those are quotes from your own posts

Spin. Jesus. You can't make that shit up.

[BainsBane]

142. What's particularly instructive

Is you keep saying that as though it's about getting back at me. It's your country too.

[Katashi_itto]

156. Whats instructive is

how manipulative you try to be

[BainsBane]

157. I know

Quoting your own words back to you is totally manipulative. Imagine thinking you have anything to do with what you write.


It's a complete coincidence you keep invoking french toast and waffles as though it's a threat or form of retaliation.

[Demo_Chris]

87. It's astonishing how many lies you packed into that one post. nt

[Katashi_itto]

88. Agree!

[Demo_Chris]

91. I imagine she will be back to tell me what I meant to say, then tear it apart...

But I will save her the bother. I meant what I actually wrote and I am uninterested in debating or even discussing strawmen.

[Katashi_itto]

94. Most likely,

and then then they wonder why Dems go have Belgium waffles instead of voting.

[Demo_Chris]

116. Voting for these clowns is like ordering waffles for the 1%. nt

[BainsBane]

134. You accuse me of lying

And then affirm the very point you accused me of lying about. Priceless.

FYI: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4742901

[Katashi_itto]

137. All one has to do is look at your past posts of other threads

[BainsBane]

139. Hey, I spun your posts

by QUOTING you.

[fascisthunter]

154. And What you are doing is turning off voters

your attitude isn't going to win votes or get that poster to vote the way you want them to. You realize that, right?

[BainsBane]

155. What attitude is that?

I didn't realize I was supposed to convince members of a site called Democratic Underground to vote Democratic. I assumed that was a given. I do GOTV efforts in my own community, and as anyone knows who has done such canvassing, the focus is on turning out voters who will vote Democratic, not convincing them who to vote for.

If people have to be flattered and have their egos stroked to vote Democratic, they aren't Democrats. When people have repeatedly voiced conservative positions on issues, I'm not even slightly surprised that they have no problem with the GOP taking the Senate or the White House. If someone doesn't care about social justice, there is nothing I can do to convince them that the lives of other human beings matter. That is something that is either within someone or it isn't. Individual politicians may focus on convincing them that voting a particular way serves their own self interest, but that is not my responsibility. The Democratic Party doesn't waste time on convincing non-Democrats to vote. Why should I? I'll focus on getting Democrats out to vote, as GOTV efforts always do.

[Katashi_itto]

160. +1000

[Katashi_itto]

58. misogyny not misandry

[Demo_Chris]

86. Pretty much feel the same. A huge group here will support and defend ANYTHING...

They seriously don't stand for anything at all. They're as bad as the Teabaggers on the right, so wrapped in hate that it's strangling them.

[Katashi_itto]

95. Yup, hate of anything that doesn't walk in lockstep with their ideas.

[BainsBane]

147. You mean the group called Democrats?

[Demo_Chris]

151. No Baines, and I really prefer not to waste time with your games. nt

[BainsBane]

153. You are the one who chose to enter this subthread

by insulting me. Accusing me of games is rich.

[Squinch]

92. The phrase, "I'm going to take my ball and go home!" springs to mind.

And all because of "the certain groups here on DU"!

I guess they were really mean to you.

Good thing you are here to punish them by withholding your vote! That'll teach them! They'll be sorry! Oh, yes! They'll be sorry!

[Katashi_itto]

97. If you say so

I view it more as these are the groups I am promoting with voting? Why bother?

[Squinch]

99. Same thing. Which begs the question, is there a reason you are here?

You've chosen against Democrats because "the certain groups on DU" have been mean to you, so what is left for you to do here?

[Katashi_itto]

104. What gives you the right to say I've chosen against Democrats?

My path is my own.

[Squinch]

106. I didn't say it. You did. But your umbrage is noted.

[Katashi_itto]

107. No, you say I did. Your posturing is noted.

[Squinch]

110. Nyah nyah.

[Katashi_itto]

111. Still liking those waffles

[Squinch]

113. But, again, you have stated that you have no intention of supporting the Democrats in the midterms,

and that because of "the certain groups on DU" you are unhappy that "these are supposed to be the people in your party." Unhappy enough to withdraw your vote from the Democrats in order to teach all these "the certain groups" a lesson...

...OK, done. So why are you here? This site really has very little to do with Belgian waffles, so why are you here?

[Katashi_itto]

133. I like waffles. Isn't enough? You ought to go visit the cooking and baking forum.

And what gives you the right to ask "why I'm here" like its some sort of purity test.

[Squinch]

145. What gives me the right is your announcement that you won't be voting in the upcoming

election. You opened the conversation. I am just asking the obvious question. If you don't want to be asked, don't open the conversation.

If you think that asking why a poster is posting when he has no plans to vote is a purity test, then you don't really understand the concept of a purity test. But, I get it. It's a catch phrase, and a catch phrase can substitute for a point when there is no real point.

And you do know that your avoidance of the question with the repeated references to waffles is childish, right?

[BainsBane]

146. Don't quote, Squinch

That amounts to "spinning."

[Squinch]

149. AND lying! Because... just because! That's why!

[Adrahil]

96. Then why are you here?

Not voting at all is basically a vote for the other guy. If you can't even bother to vote, why are you here?

[Number23]

178. I'm trying to figure out the same thing! People are mean to him here so instead of voting for Dems

by his own admission, he's going to sit home and eat French Toast instead of voting.

Is that supposed to upset anyone here? Does anyone here care? Is anyone that thin skinned old enough to vote anyway? And why are people applauding and agreeing with such an idiotic comment? And your question is a perfect one -- if he feels that way then why is he here?

[davidpdx]

59. It is amazing the number of flies around DU

They out themselves just fine without anyone saying their names.

[BainsBane]

64. It's been clear for some time

but now they feel empowered to just come out and say it. I guess the Democratic sign on the front door left no impression.

[Katashi_itto]

65. Lol!

[Squinch]

103. You're seeing that gathering gnat cloud too, huh?

[MrMickeysMom]

69. Supporting, regardless of how tainted the democratic process has become = what?

The to progress (progressive Democratic Party) is to support my parent's Democratic Party, and I still do.

I have very strong, hard evidence that your question is better put to those running the Democratic Party. Do they really get to change the rules in order for me to be compared by this false equivalency?

[BainsBane]

70. What rules have changed?

You suddenly figured out the system was corrupt? When did that dawn on you? I marvel that so many people only now seem to be aware of the nature of our political system, yet for some bizarre reason think there is something new about any of it. You just figured out this is a capitalist country where government is controlled by the wealthy? It's always been that way, as is virtually every other society in modern history. You can either vote Democrat or Republican. If you really think the Democrats are as bad as the Tea Party that controls the GOP . . . well, it just boggles the mind. I can't even begin to imagine how or what you are thinking.

[MrMickeysMom]

168. Your last line was the easiest one to agree with...

Maybe you do not understand what kind of Democratic party it was for my parents right around the time of Eisenhower's step down, post WWI, then what was never to reach fruition under JFK. This doesn't fall under sudden changes, nor do I know how old you are. You sound much younger than I do.

Rules HAVE changed. So have laws allowing unfettered capitalism to reach it's zenith of corruption. The rules of the Senate under the majority hammering away at the minority since Newt Gingrich's contract on America only exacerbate how ineffective they are in swinging it back the other way. To top it, SCOTUS decisions of Citizen's United put the lid on what a grass roots organization can do locally and state wide.

Meanwhile, I've already was a local govt. official having survived a 5 yr shit storm, which ended last year. No good deed in the last two of those five years went unpunished for the same reasons that unfettered capitalism has crushed anyone's chances to serve in government who isn't corrupted. You wanna make a difference? Fine, but you gotta have money.

The level of corruption has increased exponentially, unless you are newer to witnessing it. If you are that much younger than I (I'm 60 now), then your vantage point is different. You talk of "modern history", and I talk of history. If you don't learn by it, then it's bound to repeat on you.

It's rather simplistic to deem that I think Democrats as being as bad as the tea party that controls the GOP. The complexity of the problem goes beyond our party, based on what I explained already. little democracy is no longer there for us, because of who wins elections and then what they feel they must do to "stay elected".

[BainsBane]

182. Okay, I can see that

and you're right. I can't remember a period of time before I was born. However, what are you talking about are structural problems having to do with the influence of money on government, not the Democratic Party in particular. It is a function of the influence money in the capitalist state and the fact that SCOTUS has sanctified corporate influence through Citizens United and related rulings. The country in general has moved to the right, so the Democrats have moved with them. Think about the GOP under Eisenhower vs. today. Now that's a huge change. Politicians and parties are a product of their time. To imagine we could have a party of a different era in today's context is ahistorical.

As for not learning about history, I have a PhD in history. That is why I understand that politics reflect the times. Some lament the fact we don't have an FDR. We don't have an FDR because we don't have an active Communist Party and labor movement pressing to overturn capitalism, with an FDR coming along to save it from potentially revolutionary forces from belong. We have politics that reflect the economic and social circumstances of our era, and much of it is ugly indeed. So I can certainly understand being pissed off with all of that, but what doesn't make sense to me is to put the onus on the Democratic Party in particular.

As for democracy no longer being there, I would submit it never has been. Certainly campaign finance has made government less accountable to the people, but eras in which government was most responsive was when it was forced to act due to widespread political mobilization from below. Perhaps the salient question is why do Americans not act now as they did in the 1930s? Does media--from cable television to the internet--actually undermine popular mobilization? The internet can be an effective tool for organization, as we have seen in popular movements in the Muslim world, but it isn't mobilization in and of itself. People have to move beyond the internet to get out and FORCE government to act, and even then it's a hard slog.

[dionysus]

158. !

[mike_c]

2. although I don't entirely agree with #2...

...(I don't agree with the blanket statement that there aren't any differences between the two major parties)-- nonetheless I cannot support either of them, most of the time. My politics are WAY left of today's democratic party, which simply doesn't represent me. So I mostly vote green or for independent liberal candidates who might or might not align themselves with the dems.

[LostOne4Ever]

3. I think French Toast is awesome

But I would rather have Belgium waffles with strawberries and bananas.

[Katashi_itto]

50. Given the choice between midterm voting and Belgium waffles. I now know what

I'm doing! This is the actually more reasonable post I've seen in weeks.

Reporters of real information like Nadia get attacked.

Real discourse and discussion of issues is dead here. Instead nothing but insults across this board by the bully brigade.

I know where I am at at midterms. Thanks DU!

[riqster]

74. Not voting = electoral support for Repubs.

Because of the mathematics of American politics.

[Katashi_itto]

76. It does work out that way.

Belgium waffles are still the better choice.

[riqster]

77. So you openly admit that your actions support Republicans?

That is ill.

[Katashi_itto]

78. I admit I like waffles.

[LostOne4Ever]

114. Waffles! The ulitmate answer to life the universe and everything!!!

Any lover of waffles is a friend of mine

[Katashi_itto]

115. :)

[BainsBane]

159. Some of us can actually cook and eat waffles

and vote all in the same day. It's not that complicated. We could also cook some friend chicken, do the dishes, and put in a full work day before or after going to the polls.

[LostOne4Ever]

162. We sure can!

Never said otherwise!

Just trying to show some sorely needed unity on DU, and promote the wonderful breakfast food we call WAFFLES!!!!









PS: Just so that we are clear I am very much a supporter of President Obama. I just love waffles and dislike all the bickering on here lately, and found the french toast option provide to be hilarious

[mike_c]

152. yum, waffles....

[nadinbrzezinski]

167. Make mine gluten free.

Hmmm...turn on computer...lovely EIR to slough through. This one is not that badly written though. Waffles sound delicious though.

[Autumn]

4. I'm a life long Democrat since the day my parents took me to register to vote.

Have never missed voting in any election in over forty years. I am seriously considering changing my party affiliation.

[Squinch]

93. To what?

[CrispyQ]

130. If you go unaffiliated, you will get slammed with junk mail & phone calls & front door solicitors

from both parties. My husband's unaffiliated & everyone wants to talk to him at election time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

161. Since we report on the election

That is actually an asset. And some of the mailers from both sides are a hoot.

We have considered one of us taking either party to test a theory. That be, are they different?

[CrispyQ]

163. I noticed a lot of the repub candidates didn't have the word Republican on their mailers,

using the word conservative, instead. I figure it was a way to appeal to both the old time repubs & the wacko teabaggers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

164. The local scandal is that a few

Races are supposed to be non partisan. So when the dem called the republican on his/her party affiliation all kinds of fun ensued.

And yes, we are for conservative values...yada yada. But the dems are running on liberal, or more likely progressive values, yada, yada.

The other favorite is "small business owner."

We were thinking of the registering to either party just to see if mailers change. My BIL lives in the same district and is still registered dem, so will ask him to save a few. It's just a theory of mine. The way they both go for the non partisan is different than partisan.

[Autumn]

176. It won't bother me. I enjoy talking to Democrats and I don't mind

giving Republicans my opinions. I'll probably go with Independent. Edited

Colorado has a Green Party.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. between 2 and 3. There really is not much effective difference, but our managers frighten us

with the prospect of the lunatic wing of the corporate right half of the duopoly and we dutifully support the corporate left half of the duopoly.

It fucking sucks.

[bvar22]

183. Like This?

[Tx4obama]

6. Anyone that thinks there little difference between the two parties has not been paying attention...

Good lord!

[DeSwiss]

28. Faking being a Dem doesn't count. n/t

[Hell Hath No Fury]

7. As someone who chose the Democratic Party at 8 years old -

I am at the point where I have given up pure Party politics and instead choose the best candidate I can for every race. I have the luxury of living in CA, so I am more free to vote my choice/conscious than others.

[nadinbrzezinski]

165. And given the bright idea from republicans

On only top two moving on...you might have my choice for a Judge. The moderate Republican...or the tea party extremist. Now that was truly a difficult choice to make.



Two more full cycles before they get rid of it. Mostly it's been a disaster for them.

[Recursion]

8. I'm a straight white male. There's little difference between the parties for me.

But there are a lot of people for whom the difference between the two parties is a question of life and death.

[Squinch]

98. So there is a vast difference with respect to the nature of the world you get to live in, even as

a straight white male.

[oldandhappy]

9. The t-folk are completely unacceptable to me.

[Throd]

10. Whatever you're doing, you're doing it all wrong.

That's what I learned from tonight's shitstorm.

[winter is coming]

17. I thought "shitstorm" was the forecast every day.

[hfojvt]

11. other: Robb is a dingbat

also, it is a party that I am trying to take back from Rubin and his allies
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022085948

[FarCenter]

12. I support Democratic candidates for office

But the party at the municipal and county level? Not so much.

[LWolf]

13. Pass.

Why would you ask for the "true feelings" about a controlled/censored topic on this site?

[Douglas Carpenter]

15. why? because I'm trying to sniff out the lukewarm and the unfaithful to try get them purged

[LWolf]

16. Okay.

[Blue_In_AK]

32. Color me lukewarm.

Have at it.

[sabrina 1]

36. Well you may as well join the mob ...

[Squinch]

79. Ah. Just what we need. You as the witchfinder general.

[Deny and Shred]

83. Purging the lukewarm and unfaithful - wow

Big Tent? Who made you Sheriff?

Please please please define being lukewarm and unfaithful. Toss in a few DUers who are shining examples for the rest of us to follow. Illuminate us with the democratic representatives on the Federal level that best exemplify your faith.

By the choices on your poll, I'd assume your only acceptable choice is A.

Since a majority chose C, which clearly falls under lukewarm, you seem to have an uphill battle.

Isn't purging an attempt to reduce electoral turnout for the representativers of your faith? Great plan.

[Douglas Carpenter]

84. um, it was a joke

do I really need to always post the tag - doesn't that like, kind of spoil the punch line as well as insult peoples' intelligence?


P.S. I voted for #3 also. But, I always felt that explaining something like this is a joke really does insult peoples' intelligence.

[Deny and Shred]

85. Oh, Ok

Maybe I've read too many hyper-partisan threads lately. A purging campaign seems like its inevitable around here lately.

I thought he asked a good question. I didn't see the humor in your response. My mistake I guess.

[Marrah_G]

109. Sadly here the sarcasm tag is usually needed.

[Eleanors38]

118. I THINK he's being sarcastic.

[Douglas Carpenter]

148. thank you

[struggle4progress]

14. Today's alternative is the batshit-crazy Republican coalition of assorted one-issue ideologues,

fundamentalists, libertarians, mysogynists, nativists, and racists, together with various knee-jerk low-information voters

So no deep thought is required here IMO

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Any party is merely a vehicle for certain principles and policies. I support it if I agree with them

"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

[Crunchy Frog]

19. French toast for me, thank you.

[cprise]

20. BS manipulative poll

Have a nice day

[Douglas Carpenter]

21. how so?

I'm putting forward the most commonly expressed opinions you hear here on DU as answers. How is that in any way manipulative?

[cprise]

22. Marginalizing the Left; replete with fear-mongering

I think I'll get a Bernie Sanders sig line.

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. I support Bernie Sanders and very much hope he runs for President in 2016 in the primaries

as a Democrat. I would give my heart, mind and soul to the cause. If you take a look at my journal I think you find the idea that I'm not left enough to be laughable. I do believe in critical thinking though.

[cprise]

30. I'm sure cerebrally you're very left; Instinctively not so much.

I could be watching a CBS or USANetworks confection and at least get some laughs in the process of absorbing... don't know... the Germans must have a word for 'unintentional false propaganda from the gut'.

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. I guess you have invented in your mind the political equivalent of the "Christian" who goes to

church and kind of believes - but is not really "saved."

[cprise]

39. One can assume a 'saved' posture via notions of centrism or status quo

Especially the pernicious, ruinous kinds that offer 'solutions' by cutting every proverbial baby in half. This time, King Solomon is a bought-out puppet government (or corporate aristocracy) that can't be bothered with the nuances of governing humanely.

At the lower levels, this is manifested as a zeal for maximal punishment of people why are lacking in that one remaining dimension of the social contract: Dollars.

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. the whole point of progressive or left thinking

Even in the Marxist dialectic - perhaps, especially in the Marxist dialectic - the most fundamental point is to advance progress and inhibit reaction. To do this with any effectiveness one must speak the truth and act on it - no matter how bitter it may be. One of the bitter truths in the American experience is that it not possible at this time and for the foreseeable future to build a national alternative to the two major parties. This is reality. I wish it wasn't. When I was just a kid in my twenties I didn't accept that reality and I participated in three different third party efforts; The Socialist Party USA, The California Peace and Freedom Party and the Citizens Party (a forerunner to the Green Party). After a few years I came to realize that this is not dealing with the real world as it is. It is living in a make believe world that I wish was the case. Although, I certainly met a lot of very nice and some very interesting people.

I don't advocate working within the Democratic Party out of some principled position or have any illusions that Democratic Party is a progressive party. It is not. I advocate working within the Democratic Party because there is no choice and there is not going to be for the foreseeable future. That is how our system is configured and has been for a long, long time. To reject reality in favor of a feel good illusion is not speaking the truth and acting on it and it is certainly not advancing progress and inhibiting reaction. It is simple bourgeois self-indulgence.

[BainsBane]

27. How do you define "the left'?

People keep dropping these terms and they seem to correlate to little other than what I believe is leftist and those who disagree with me are RW. How do you define "the left"?

[cprise]

33. There are different ways

...that converge surprisingly well.

A quick jumping off point is the Political Compass: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

There are the writings of Marx; whether you value his anticapitalist critique, his utopianism, or both or neither.

The emergence of science and humanism, which formed the background for the development of capitalism, socialism, unionism and communism... different ways of grappling with self-determination

There is also the overlap between Ecology and egalitarianism, called environmentalism

Of course, there are also exclusionary or negative criteria that define the Left: One shouldn't be a reactionary, i.e. someone who prefers to make instant judgements of individuals and situations according to superficial features like clothes or skin color. 'Stand your ground' laws could be considered an ultimate way to enable reactionary violence, for instance.

[BainsBane]

44. And what does that have to do with American politics?

There is no socialist option in this country and their hasn't been since before the early 20th century, while their never was that option at the national level. The other positions you lay out all more closely align with the Democrats than Republicans. The US has a very narrow political spectrum in terms of political parties. It has always been that way, only the GOP has gone insane in recent years. I used to think politicians were supposed to reflect my political views, but then I grew up. I learned some history and figured out some things about this country. It is now and always has been devoted to capitalism. There will never be a socialist or what many would consider a true leftist in power. Even if by some miracle one were to win the White House, he wouldn't be able to get things through congress, as we have seen with a moderate like Obama. So if you think the idea is for politicians to say things to make you feel good about yourself, you're going to be looking for the impossible your entire life. However, if you want to make a practical choice between two parties and the candidates that operate within this system controlled by capital, then you do so. If you want the GOP in office, vote for them or a third party candidate, because the results are the same.

There is a wide gap between what I personally believe and what I expect politically because I know the options are limited due to the nature of this country the campaign financing system as determined by the Supreme Court. What I would like to see bears no relation to what is actually possible and what my political options actually are. Watching the GW Bush presidency was enough to knock some sense in my head and make me realize there are dire consequences to screwing around with third parties or maintaining some pipe dream about what politicians should be. The two parties are what they are.

In regard to your statement that you won't be voting consistently Democrat: Is it possible you don't care if abortion is made illegal and the Civil Rights Act repealed? Maybe you don't care if women are subjected to the power of a reactionary state because you're not a woman. I do not know if you are like so many who complain about the Democrats who think the voices of women and people of color entirely illegitimate. I do not know if you share the view expressed by some around here that gender issues aren't really politics, and that it's more important for people of color to make white men feel comfortable than fight to end racism. I truly don't know how you stand on those issues, but I do know that many of those most hostile to the Democrats are those who have made their opposition to the concerns of women and people of color very clear. They call themselves leftist, but to me they look reactionary. Some sit around and talk about black hair being ugly and pretend race doesn't matter, while telling African American members they are "out of their depth" when they try to join a conversation about race. Those same members are hostile to the Democratic Party and the President, and while they claim to be leftist I see no signs of it. Some have openly admitted to longing to return to the early 1960s and display not even the slightest concern that most of the population--women, people of color, and LGBT Americans--did not benefit from equal protection under the law during what they consider the halcyon days of America.

Again, I don't recall your posting on such issues so I don't know your position, but I must say the cavalier attitude with which you treat the prospect of Republican victory makes me wonder how much you think about the majority of the population that is not white and male. Or perhaps you're still young and sorting this stuff out. I hope you figure it out fast though because I really don't want a Tea Party Senate and Ted Cruz presidency.

[cprise]

73. Plenty. Its clear that democratic reforms must start at the local level

Its the only way Americans will get used to the idea that more workable alternatives exist.

And many of us live in areas that are far from 'purple' and not swing. That is an opportunity to vote one's conscience without handing conservatives a victory.

Personally, I don't know what else to say to your last message or that from Douglas; some of it is bizarre mis-characterization (we know the Ron Paul supporters who show up at Occupy events aren't progressives). The facts on the ground say that the War On Drugs was largely about race and class, expanding incarceration to a Stalin-esque scale. Now we have a surveillance state that outstrips aforementioned police state. Food and energy prices are climbing and education has been re-engineered into a scam.

D and R both are hemmoraghing voter affiliation to the independent category.

These are realities, too.

No civilization has reached this level of inequality and corruption without sparking a revolution. I think our nation has a chance at a peaceful revolution from the ballot box, but this process (assuming it takes hold) will be no friend to the Clinton-ism of the Democratic Party.

[LuvNewcastle]

117. I agree on all points.

I want us to see significant change, and I don't expect to see anything like that from either major party. It's too hard for a candidate to get noticed today if he doesn't have millions or billions of dollars at his disposal, therefore I think that true revolutionary change cannot come from the ballot box. It's only going to come from acts of protest. Many of the same big contributors who support the Republican Party also support the Democrats. How much deviation from the status quo can we expect from either party?

I'm not saying "don't vote," I'm just saying that you shouldn't expect a lot of results when you do. Anyone who truly wants to see a change should find other ways to accomplish it outside of electoral politics.

[BainsBane]

24. Options 1 and 3 are the same

It is simply the way it is.

[Warpy]

26. The only reason they have my undivided support (and have had since 1980)

is because the Republicans sold out to the religious crazies and the economic fascists and just plain went barking mad.

Now they realize it hasn't played out the way they wanted to but they're stuck with both groups, one supplying hard voting numbers and the other supplying the cash to keep them that way.

[joshcryer]

29. I'm unaffiliated but I support the Democratic Party Platform.

With a few caveats about internationalism and trade stuff.

[PeteSelman]

34. Grudging.

There really isn't much of a choice. Today's Democratic Party is way too corporate, way too Reaganistic for my liking but the Republicans are just insane.

It sucks not to have any representation.

[cprise]

40. The answer is: Alway vote, no matter what, and

...if you live in a non-'purple' area, consider voting your conscience even if you have to write-in.

If you feel like staying at home, register your dissatisfaction by writing-in some other person. Take their legitimacy down a notch!

[PeteSelman]

41. I live in a bluer than blue area.

And I have a great rep but the national party sucks. I vote in every election and am not above writing people in. Hell, I've written myself in on occasion when the candidates have been unsavory.

[cprise]

42. A model small-'d' democrat :)

[Boomerproud]

173. Amen to that.

What sane choice do we have-I wish the "leadership" would take the huge opportunity to brand the party but the lack of leadership shows that they stand for nothing-no ideas, no real principles, nothing. My grandfather, a local pol back with there were Democrats, would be ashamed.

[Niceguy1]

37. I always support whom I feel

Is the best person for the office.

99% it is a dem, but not always

[B Calm]

45. There's no difference is a right wing talking point!

[Union Scribe]

47. Somewhere between 1 and 3

I agree with the sentiments in 3 but I'd prefer that progressive alternative to BE the Democratic party. I want the sniveling corporate stooges out.

[Ichingcarpenter]

51. Five centuries ago

Five centuries ago, Niccolo Machiavelli explained how to undertake a revolution from above without most people even noticing. In his Discourses on Livy, he wrote that one “must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones.”


That is, keep the old government structures, even while you make profound changes to the actual system, because the appearances are all that most people will notice.


So today, instead of seeing the corpse of a republic in which we live, we see merely the dead man’s clothing. Those clothes look the same as ever, albeit increasingly worn. We have had a quiet revolution that has not eliminated our Congressional representatives – it’s simply made them largely irrelevant.

As Machiavelli saw in his own time (and as he essentially foretold regarding our own), the dramatic changes to our political institutions have occurred without the people really noticing.

Consider the internationalization of real power in this world, and the lack of institutional means to examine or regulate such power. Our global situation is akin to medieval feudalism, or more simply gangsterism.

The military power of the United States is the primary tool for enforcement and self-enrichment by those with means. Best of all, you don’t have to be an American citizen to influence policies of the U.S. military.

Just ask any influential Saudi Arabian, Israeli, or Chinese leader. Or various leaders from the world of organized crime.

Consider the ramming through of the Patriot Act a bare month after 9/11/01, and then reaffirmed again when it was obvious that not a single member of Congress read it thoroughly.

With such a massively expanded federal ability to spy into your personal life, you might as well bid farewell to the Fourth Amendment – at least if you’re doing anything interesting in the opinion of certain and mysterious bureaucrats.


Consider the conviction held by America’s Founding Fathers that a functioning democracy requires an informed citizenry. Otherwise, they argued, the experiment in “government by the people” would be doomed to failure, and would inevitably transform into oligarchy. Compare that to our situation today, when ordinary people cannot gain important information from governing bodies, when the Freedom of Information Act is increasingly unfriendly, and when people are pacified 24/7 by a non-stop all-encompassing entertainment-driven culture that dominates one’s waking moments.

The Romans called that bread and circuses. It describes our situation well enough today.
In the same vein, consider also the promulgation of lies by America’s political leadership that served as the pretext for the current war (e.g. the false link between Iraq and Al Quaida, the falseness of claims regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction), and the willingness of America’s so-called Watchdog Media to jump uncritically on board, beating the war drum. And when recognition is made that the information was indeed false, it comes too late to prevent the pointless deaths of thousands of soldiers and civilians.


Consider the horrified reaction to the savagery of Nazi and Japanese atrocities during the Second World War. To the infamous German defense — “we were only following orders” — the world responded (rightly) that there are certain human values that must never be transgressed, and that torture is never an acceptable human value. Fast forward to the atrocities committed by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison. And the defense offered by (what some like to refer to as) America’s finest: that they did no wrong, since they were only following orders. Just ask American soldier, Lyndie England. That’s what she told the world

The fallout from the deep recession and the banking crisis proved the institutions we thought were sound are but an illusion.


Machiavelli certainly had it right, but an addendum is necessary. After the true and deep structures of power have been sufficiently transformed, the outward appearance must eventually catch up.

As the old song says, something’s gotta give, and the outward trappings will need to be revised to reflect the new order.

So I'm not gonna vote on your poll on this thread.

[sendero]

53. Well said...

..... we are frogs and the pot is coming to a boil, and we are just sitting there. It's hard to imagine that one party or the other having "power" is going to make much difference since both parties are complicit in our current 200-degree situation, although in different ways.

[Deny and Shred]

89. The Discourses, two thumbs up.

One of my absolute favorite books.

NM most definitely foresaw what's happening in this Republic.

We could use a Tribune or two.

[LuvNewcastle]

119. Great post, Ichingcarpenter.

This sounds a lot like something Noam Chomsky would say, which is high praise coming from me.

[Ichingcarpenter]

127. Credit goes to Richard Dolan

though I added a bit.

[The Magistrate]

52. Personally, Sir, i Would Select Both the First And Third Options

[LeftishBrit]

100. I would select the 3rd option for our Labour Party AND for the Dems...

Thatcherism is dangerous, and the Republicans are Thatcherites with theocracy thrown in. All the world needs.

[The Magistrate]

102. But If Not Done Whole-Heartedly, Ma'am, It Does Not Work

So long as we insist on ordering a'la carte, our efforts will be open-handed slaps, not blows from a closed fist.

[Douglas Carpenter]

150. fighting against something whole-heartedly can sustain enthusiasm in the short run - but in the long

run I can't see it maintaining broad based appeal especially among those too young to remember a world before Ronald Reagan when what now passes for the wisdom of the elders on Sunday morning talk shows was once relegated to the ravings of the right-wing crackpot fringe. For the Democratic Party to sustain whole-hearted enthusiasm - at some point - it has it has to offer something more than opposition and largely cosmetic modifications. It has to offer a vision of how the world can be with a viable program for achieving it.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

71. how about true blue but fed up with ineptitude - lack of

even an iota of unified pr

[bemildred]

75. Both parties are corrupt and venal, and I cannot support either one, as a party.

So I support Democratic politicians, when they speak or act for Progressive policy.

I would be happy to support the Democratic Party, as a party, if it would take a stand against corruption and money in politics. That platform would win in a landslide all over the country.

[Puzzledtraveller]

123. ^^this^^

for me as well

[Maedhros]

141. Precisely my view.

I will vote for Democratic politicians when they are the best candidate, but feel absolutely no obligation to do so.

The Democratic Party, as a whole, lacks integrity.

[99Forever]

80. I will vote my principles.

Always, every time, till the day I'm seeing the wrong side of the grass. If the Democrat works hard for liberal principles and not corporate owners, they will get my vote.

[BainsBane]

166. How have you managed to vote in the past?

Or did you just recently vote in your first election? I have to wonder what country you think you live in that a government isn't going to represent the financial interests that pay for their elections. This is a capitalist country. No one works for the people's interests, and they never have. If you're waiting for that, you're not going to have anyone to vote for.
The options are the Democrats or Republicans. You want Ted Cruz and the Tea Party to hold power, keep worrying about your principals. I myself am going to focus on the world I actually live in, not some fantasy idea of what I think politics should be. I'm not looking for a politician to make me feel good about my views. I'm voting for the best option available to me because anything else is to surrender to the far right that controls the GOP. Make no mistake about it, voting for a third party or not voting is the same as supporting the Tea Party because that is the result.

[99Forever]

169. I cast my first vote in 1972.

Save your lectures for someone else, I'm not interested.

[hobbit709]

81. Pretty much quit supporting the party at the national level

I support candidates that I am pretty much in agreement with. And I vote D in elections even if I have to hold my nose and carry a barf bag.

[get the red out]

82. #3 for me

The Republicans and their vile offspring, the Tea Party, literally SCARE THE SHIT OUT OF ME! I am a yellow dog Democrat for the foreseeable future. I see no other way of defending any of our rights as citizens. Do I wish we had a viable left, HELL YES, but the right is so entrenched in our media that it won't be permitted, at least at this point.

[PowerToThePeople]

90. I voted 3, but I think there is a possibility of near term viable 3rd party. eom

[Adrahil]

101. What sort of third party?

If the democratic party splits, we might as well fold the tents up and go home.

[PowerToThePeople]

108. Difficult to see, always in motion is the future. n/t

[Adrahil]

112. Ahhh, the Jedi... I could get behind that. nt

[BlueStreak]

105. What party? There is no party?

There is just a bunch of free agents using that brand name for whatever purposes they want. The "party" barely does any fund raising now and does absolutely nothing to set a national agenda.

Obama twice ran WITHOUT the party. He had his own money, his own offices, his own people. He took all those resources AWAY from the Party. It worked for him but we are really screwed in the state legislatures -- not to mention losing the House too.

There is no Party. The whole premise of this poll is faulty.

[LuvNewcastle]

120. Very good point.

Average voters all over the country ask the question, "what do the Democrats stand for?" There seem to be at least as many answers to that question as there are Democrats.

[BlueStreak]

122. And that is why I suggest our only path forward is a clear agenda

along the lines of the very successful Contract with America from the 1990s. Gingrich took over the House, winning over a lot of normally Democratic voters simply by having what appeared to be a reasonable plan. As we know, much of that plan was highly deceptive and had disastrous, insidious consequences. But the point is that people will follow a leader if they perceive there is a plan. Obama has been all over the map. The only leader we have had recently was Pelosi, and she isn't is a position to do much now.

So if something is going to change, it must come from the grass roots. I believe the 9 points in this plan are things that every Democrat should be able to support, It is not a difficult standard. Nonetheless, most of them won't go for this unless they feel the same kind of pressure that Republicans feel from Grover Norquist.

[LuvNewcastle]

128. That's a plan I would support.

I wouldn't vote for a candidate who didn't support those things. It's something for Democrats to agree on, and something to show America what the Democratic Party is all about, and it could win elections.

[BlueStreak]

144. Polls indicate huge majorities support all of these items

The enemy is our own Party. Those are the ones who refuse to stand for anything progressive. The two parties have grown very comfortable with this standoff. The Republicans say that everything Obama does is wrong. The Democrats say that the Republicans oppose everything. So the only group that gets serviced is the 0.1%

[Eleanors38]

121. You are pretty much right. When I vote Democrat...

it's more with a nostalgic pang some 40 yrs old.

[BlueStreak]

125. In the 2012 election cycle, I offered to the local Democratic Party

my services free of charge to provide and run a large sound system for events they might organize. I offered to organize musicians that would add power and atmosphere to any rallies they might want to do.

Crickets. I don't think they did any events of any significance.

So I went to the Obama offices and volunteered. But this was a state Obama wrote off, so that office didn't do much. We flew the flag and did some phone banking, but basically there was no party operation at all in our state. It is amazing that we were able to win the Senate seat, but that was because of Mourdoch's insanity. And we won the State Superintendent office, but that was a huge grass roots effort by teachers and librarians. The Party didn't do anything. We lost everything else.

This is a serious problem.

[nadinbrzezinski]

171. Hi neighbor

You are describing my local party. And this is a blue state.



On the bright side, the republicans are even more disorganized...

I cover politics and some of the backstabbing we have heard on background, and now none in their right mind wants to run for local/ state office...

But, but...some are just mean and never loved him!

[BlueStreak]

172. In today's world, most of the resources go to the swing states

which may be the way to win the White House, but it sucks for the rest of the party, especially state legislatures.

[nadinbrzezinski]

174. It also does not help

Local observation, that the party really has given up on certain areas. We have had a few clubs fold, for example. And that is a he said, she said thing where everybody mud slings.

I am happy I ain't registered for either party.

[Eleanors38]

175. Then you can imagine Texas, or the ghost town that is party structure.

If Davis or even van de Putte wins, they will de facto be the party.

[BlueStreak]

179. Definitely. We need Howard Dean back

Howard understood the importance of challenging everywhere and developing the "farm team" so to speak.

Today's party doesn't need a farm team. They just call Goldman-Sachs and ask who they would like to have in charge.

The demographics say that Texas should be getting close to the tipping point. We need to get that done.

[Eleanors38]

181. Wendy has closed the gap to single digits in the latest poll. nt

[closeupready]

124. The party leadership are multi-millionaires, elites, out of touch with everyday people.

I voted "wish there was a viable alternative but there's not at the moment", however.

[fredamae]

126. And the phenomena

is by decades long planning--imo-it is no accident that "we" are locked into voting for the "Least Evil". It pisses me off. Third Way/New Dem Coalition/Corporate Dems Increased that divide-and today We are so divided (by design) we can't seem to pull enuf folks together to change the system.

[bigwillq]

129. I vote for progressive candidates not for a party.

Living in CT, this means the majority of the time I vote for Democrats.
But I am not a party loyalist.
The current political climate makes it difficult not to take sides (I would rather have Ds than Rs, but the lesser of two evils is still evil) but the two-party system has ruined politics, imo.

[Demo_Chris]

140. The critical number in this poll is the top one...

Unless something extraordinary happens we are going to get buried in the midterms, and I suspect that we are doing a fine job handing 2016 to the GOP as well. After the Bush disaster we had an unprecedented opportunity to turn this country around, and to demonstrate that the political left had good answers to many of our problems. It is probably no accident that the corporations, who like things just as they are thank you, instead selected the half-term Junior Senator with the winning smile and Used Car Dealer ethics to follow up Bush. Or did you REALLY believe billion dollar nation-wide election machines assemble themselves behind people who have yet to complete their first term in office as a Senator?

Obama has given the corporate elite everything they wanted, absolutely everything, and he's demonstrated to another generation of Americans that they can HOPE for a real change, but the only thing changing is the letter in front of the corporate shill's name.

So here we are. The GOP teaparty fringe looks dangerously delusional, but they do get out the midterm vote. After that, the GOP leadership will do what they can to force them off the national stage. 2016 will be someone 'sensible,' a straight talking pragmatic, who isn't afraid to 'reach across the aisle' and work with the other party. Someone like Christy or Hillary. And either way the Corporations win.

[Atman]

143. Not into the poll, but...

I still work for the Democrats. I will continue to work for the Democrats. I don't see any viable option.

That said, it pains me to see what is going on. Once you're rich, Democrat or Republican or Whatever, it seems that everything flies out the window. The only goal is protecting your own nut. You're rich...and rich people are not the Democratic base. Rich people don't vote Democratic, they vote to keep their tax breaks. So when they get elected, they protect the tax breaks, not the people who elected them. Sad but true.

[Douglas Carpenter]

170. one more for the fun of it

[Todays_Illusion]

177. Such an obvious push poll, soon to be paraded to promote

some propaganda about Democratic ready to abandon their party in droves.

I just can't participate in a poll that doesn't reflect what I think.

[Douglas Carpenter]

180. how one earth is this a push poll when the poll simply states the most commonly reflected opinions

regularly expressed here on DU? There is nothing that even remotely suggest that Democrats are ready to abandon the party in droves - except, I suppose in some loopy paranoid imagination. One poster up the thread claimed that this poll marginalizes the left by suggesting that the poll is dismissive of third parties and assumes no alternative to supporting the Democratic Party.

[Douglas Carpenter]

184. once again