OK. I'm convinced. I *will* vote in 2014 and 2016.

[MannyGoldstein]

Of course, like virtually every other DUer, I've been convinced of that since... forever.

We're not the problem. We vote. Liberals are particularly reliable at voting. For Democrats, and everything.

The problem is the folks in the "middle". They're the finicky ones without much political passion who stay home or vote for the other guys if the party in power doesn't Get The Job Done.

So we can have more posts that exhort us to vote. But, what Democrats really need in order to win, is to Get The Job Done.

And one more thing: from now on, each time I read about how Nader's to blame for Bush, I'll contribute $10 to Nader for President. Cut the #%^*.

[lostincalifornia]

1. I had no doubt Manny, and I have no doubt you will vote Democratic

[hrmjustin]

2. I do have to say moderates can be a pain in the neck at times.

Here in NY our governor ran like a liberal an well all you have to do is read the stuff I post in the NY room.

[Warpy]

3. They also need to convince people to vote FOR them

There is plenty of ammo out there if they just stop trying to keep their powder dry.

God dammit! This is a war!

If they don't start to fire, they're not going to have a country worth bothering to run.

[nomorenomore08]

17. +1

Exactly this. Things are pretty dire but not (I pray) hopeless.

[zappaman]

4. Glad you've been convinced! n/t

[WillyT]

5. I'll Match You Dollar For Dollar...

& Rec !!!

[brooklynite]

6. Right...those "middle" voters here who say "I'll never vote for....."

Now personally, as a moderate, I've voted in every election I was eligible for since I turned 18. But don't let me interrupt your stereotype...

[Capt. Obvious]

7. Same here

Not the moderate part

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Which part of "like virtually every other DUer" was confusing?

A person might begin to think that people are just looking for things to take out of context...

[Capt. Obvious]

10. What's that supposed to mean!

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Like this:

[sabrina 1]

61. You mean the one or two over the past few years who said that? Fyi, if everyone in the country

voted at the rate DUers do and always have voted, the turnout would be around 90%. Maybe those who are attacking voters here should get off the internet and go talk to people who DON'T vote.

Sometimes I wonder if the goal is to stop people from voting the vitriol is so intense against actual voters. Because if these are representatives of the Dem Party, which I hope not, all I can say is I hope the routine we see here from them is not what they do when they are canvassing for the Dem Party.

[brooklynite]

68. I strongly believe in actual voters...

...who by and large seem to have little in common with the political sentiments expressed here.

[Capt. Obvious]

76. Because DUers don't vote

They're fake voters.

[Zorra]

70. Did you always vote for Democrats? Just asking, because moderates are

by definition farther right than progressives, and can be either Democrats or Republicans, and sometimes vote for candidates of the other party.

There are Moderate Republicans, but progressive Republicans do not exist.

[ProSense]

9. Can I say

And one more thing: from now on, each time I read about how Nader's to blame for Bush, I'll contribute $10 to Nader for President. Cut the #%^*.

...fuck Nader?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024629502

[Number23]

11. As long as you don't say

FLYING MONKEYS!!!

[nomorenomore08]

21. Sure, fuck Nader. But to be consistent, also fuck all the people and all the sociopolitical

factors which made the 2000 election close enough to steal.

[Fumesucker]

49. Reagan Democrats on the other hand are the base of the party

After all, only a Democrat who voted for Reagan knows the true meaning of being a Democrat.

Just like the 300,000 registered Florida Dems who voted for Dubya.

[ProSense]

54. Some

"Reagan Democrats on the other hand are the base of the party. After all, only a Democrat who voted for Reagan knows the true meaning of being a Democrat."

...current Democrats were Reagan Republicans. Cenk Uygur comes to mind. I'm sure you can think of a few others.

"Just like the 300,000 registered Florida Dems who voted for Dubya."

That doesn't excuse Nader voters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024772714#post52

[Fumesucker]

59. But some of us never bring up the Democrats who voted for Dubya, instead always focus on Nader

If a mere 275 Democrats who voted for Der Chimpenfuhrer had voted for Holy Joe's running mate instead we wouldn't have had the entire Cheney Regency.

[ProSense]

81. Let me

But some of us never bring up the Democrats who voted for Dubya, instead always focus on Nader

If a mere 275 Democrats who voted for Der Chimpenfuhrer had voted for Holy Joe's running mate instead we wouldn't have had the entire Cheney Regency.

...repeat my point, again:

There are crossovers in every Presidential election. In 2012, 10 percent of Florida Dems voted for Romney. Those are Democrats who identify with the right. It's not surprising that they voted for a Republican.

The voters who went for Nader are likely on the left. Gore needed about 1,000 votes to win Florida.

No Nader, and Gore likely could have picked up thousands of votes.

[Fumesucker]

90. Perhaps Democrats should appeal more to those on the left then

Since the right leaning Democrats are going to vote Republican anyway...

[Comrade Grumpy]

65. And Ralph appreciates the donation.

[ProSense]

80. He needs all the help to fund that billionaire candidate he wants.

Fuck Nader.

Another donation courtesy of me.

[DCBob]

13. That's nice.. your $$$$ to Nader should help him with retirement home expenses in sunny Florida..

the scene of the crime.

[Auntie Bush]

14. If it wasn't for Nader Bush would have won.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Is probably a true statement. nt

[Auntie Bush]

15. Gore would have won if Nader hadn't run.

[RobertEarl]

37. Umm, Auntie?

Gore did win.

I know this may come as a surprise to you, but it is true: Gore actually won. It was however, stolen from Gore, and, oh, us, meaning you.

[Autumn]

50. When the votes were counted Al Gore had won. Blame a corrupt supreme court.

Facts are facts.

[Auntie Bush]

16. I don't think Nader should have run because he divided the Dem vote

[Auntie Bush]

18. Nader took thousands of votes from Gore.

[Capt. Obvious]

19. I see what you're doing

[RoccoR5955]

27. Nader took thousands of votes BUT

Gore won the popular vote!
It's because people didn't get off their posteriors and get others to the polls, that Gore lost!

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. So in all your wisdom explain this one to me

not one US Senator, NOT ONE, rose to support THEM.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?161634-1/florida-electoral-vote-challenge

[Auntie Bush]

20. Gore must really resent Nader since he's responsible for him losing

[nomorenomore08]

25. Sure Nader (unwittingly) played a role in Bush's (s)election, but he wasn't the only factor

by a long shot. The fact that an obvious, demonstrable shit-for-brains like Dubya could garner tens of millions of votes to begin with, is nothing if not an indictment of our fellow Americans.

[Auntie Bush]

22. Fork up ProSense...you owe Nader $50 bucks!

Sorry Manny I was thinking it was you who said you'd pay Nader $10 bucks every time someone blamed Nader.

[ProSense]

23. LOL! n/t

[RoccoR5955]

26. What we really need to do.

Is to take the day off on Election Day, if we can, and give rides to people to the polling place.
I do it all the time. I work on a list from the Democratic Party in my area, and manage to have gotten many candidates elected. Quite a few by a mere handful of votes. Especially in local elections.

Like Manny says, it's not about US voting, it's about getting others out to the polls.

And I'll match Manny's contribution to Nader, because Nader didn't lose the election in 2000, people not getting voters to the polls did.

[Auntie Bush]

28. You owe Nader $50.00 too.

Anyone else?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

29. LOL I'm sure you are already doing that, so what sort of threat is it? nt

[MannyGoldstein]

30. See, now *this* is a personal attack nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

31. Wrong, you interpreted as a personal attack. However, from your previous posts

(unless you have changed your political views since yesterday, which is entirely possible), you tend to defend the folks that contributed to that campaign. So where in that am I supposed to think you would definitely not be contributing, particularly since you just threatened to? You very well could be. I don't have access to your bank account, only to your posts.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Yup some folks are on a roll

it is a good thing some of us NEVER alert.

[joshcryer]

34. We won in 2006 because we recognized GOP obstructionism.

And overt power plays. The Gang of 14 comes to mind.

Democrats play too nice.

[MannyGoldstein]

38. Zero Mostel was better, I think

But Topol was quite good.

[Fumesucker]

53. Shades of "All work and no play make Jack a dull boy"!

I'm expecting someone to say "Heeere's Johnny!" shortly.

[octoberlib]

36. Oh, ffs.

It was all those Democrats who voted for Bush that lost us the election. 12% of Democrats voted for Bush.

308,000 voted for Bush. 24,000 for Nader.

[frylock]

39. thread killer

[Rex]

40. Doesn't matter what you post, some here are programmed to

ignore everything BUT Nader. NOW, you can wonder how many in here voted for Bush, I would bet it is the same crowd that voted for Reagan...so you see why they ignore everything BUT Nader.

[octoberlib]

46. Had the same thought. nt

[DCBob]

41. There will always be a group of conservative religious Democrats who will tend for vote Republican.

Nothing we do about those idiots. Liberal Democrats I would expect would vote for a Democrat candidate.

[Rex]

42. One would hope they grew out of worshiping Reagan.

Of course any of us paying attention back then, knew that the sellout of our nation was already starting wholesale with the Reaganites.

[JI7]

44. they are republicans now, the reagan democrats were mainly dixiecrats

[Bluenorthwest]

58. Reagan took every State but one. Not all 'dixicrats' at alll.

A shit ton of 'moderate Democrats' voted for Reagan. Rafts of them.

[joshcryer]

43. Fails to acknowledge Nader's concerted focus on swing states.

Which arguably cost the Green Party federal funding because they failed to make the 5% threshold.

Also, Nader got 97,488 votes, not 24,000 votes. That's Nader's extrapolation because "only about a quarter of Nader voters would've voted for Gore" and it's been the canned talking point about those elections for, oh, I dunno, a decade now, easily.

Regardless, a full state recount showed that Gore won, and the SCOTUS ruled illegally. A full state recount should've been done as opposed to simply ratifying a result that was invalid.

[octoberlib]

45. Thanks for the info

SCOTUS has done a lot of damage to this country in the past 14 years.

[joshcryer]

48. The SCOTUS ruling FL didn't have time for a recount was BS.

They delayed and delayed. The SCOTUS should've heard the merits immediately and called for a full state recount using the highest standards of FL code. Instead they waffled until the last minute to make a ruling and it went back and forth in appeals for almost two months.

It didn't help that Gore, strategically, chose to count ballots in certain areas rather than the entire state. His own lawyers should've told him that opened up the Equal Protection clause for use against him (ironically he lost ground in the selective recount, which one might have predicted since if your polling place votes overwhelmingly for the one guy, you're not going to scrutinize ballots the ballots of the other guy; once you scrutinize the other guy starts gaining). Al Franken did it right, by calling for a complete statewide recount and a tally of the absentee ballots.

[Rex]

64. Totally, the SCOTUS pretended there had to be a deadline to democracy

and failed us all! Of course Thomas and Scalia ignored clear conflict of interest, so they could get their party elected.

And now look at us today, those two selling us down the river for pocket change. Makes me ill to think about it.

[ProSense]

52. Here's what's wrong with that claim

It was all those Democrats who voted for Bush that lost us the election. 12% of Democrats voted for Bush.

308,000 voted for Bush. 24,000 for Nader.

There are crossovers in every Presidential election. In 2012, 10 percent of Florida Dems voted for Romney. Those are Democrats who identify with the right.

The voters who went for Nader are on the left. Gore needed about 1,000 votes to win Florida.

No Nader, and Gore likely could have picked up thousands of votes.

[pnwmom]

47. Go ahead and throw your money away, Manny. Nader did throw 2000 to Bush. He got 95,000

Florida votes, and the difference between Bush and Gore was only about 500. If Nader hadn't been on the ballot, and only 1% of his voters went for Gore instead -- 950 voters -- Gore would have been way ahead. But there almost certainly would have been a lot more than 1% voting for Gore if Nader hadn't been campaigning on the basis that Bush and Gore were Tweedledee and Tweedledum, and it didn't matter who was elected.

Nader's never going to have that kind of influence again, no matter how many 10 dollar donations you make to a possible campaign.

But don't forget to send in the $10. You promised!

[Bluenorthwest]

56. You do understand that there is no such organization as 'Nader for President'?

Ralph Nader will be 83 on next election day I think, the oldest person ever elected was Reagan (Moderates will remember voting for him I'm sure) and he was 69.
Obvious satire is obvious. The great thing about satire is those who take it as sincere, they serve as the punch line to the joke.

[pnwmom]

60. You do understand that more than one person can make a joke?

But in case I need to spell it out for you, no, I didn't think Manny was serious about throwing his money away on a non-existent campaign.

[redstatebluegirl]

51. What bothers me

are the people who don't vote in local elections. We had a city council election this week, it also had an important public safety referendum on the ballot. The turnout was HORRIBLE! I asked one of my friends if she voted, she said "I only vote in the big ones".

Local and state elections, city council, state representative, judges and school board can screw with your life more than a Presidential vote.

I can proudly say I have only missed one vote since I was eligible to vote, I was hospitalized and an absentee was not possible. There are people around the world who are envious of our ability to pick our leaders, yes I know some are not the ones we want and can be the lesser of two evils but we owe it to our democracy to vote.

With the supreme court decision yesterday, the vote is all we have left.

[reddread]

55. covering the GOP's crime, Democrats who blame Nader N/T

[Autumn]

62. But some find it much easier to blame one person who had every right

to run as a candidate for President under our Constitution, usually the ones who talk about the political way of "making sausage". And they completely ignore the dirty tricks of the GOP and a corrupt supreme court and give them a free pass. I think it's a shame.

[reddread]

69. I really think its 100% cover, not legitimate blame by functional intellectuals.

the relentless repetition, some of it came from right wing shills, ultimately exposed and banned, didnt it?
or is that incorrect?

[Autumn]

73. I agree it's cover. I don't know where it came from and why it's repeated so much here

but it is endlessly repeated, by people who should know better.

[Jim Lane]

88. Some of us are capable of perceiving multiple causes.

For example, people who criticize the Supreme Court's decision are not thereby covering Katherine Harris's crime.

And, of course, the Nader partisans feel free to blame Gore because, for example, he selected Lieberman, and they don't think that blaming Gore constitutes "covering the GOP's crime" -- that twisted logic is applied only to people who say anything negative about Nader.

I will admit, though, that my anger toward Nader has lessened. From 2000 to 2004 he lost the vast majority of his voters, as people realized that his downplaying the differences between the parties was fatuous and his purported "strategy" of building a new, progressive party from scratch was a delusion. Politically, he's almost completely irrelevant, not meriting even a "Fuck Nader" anymore.

[JoePhilly]

57. Your reason for why the people in the middle stay home is overly simplistic.

The people in the middle, the "finicky ones without much political passion" as you describe them, are easily manipulated. Not only can you influence who they vote for, you can influence whether they will vote at all.

Let's think some. I think everyone on DU would agree that there is no "liberal media", and that the media works for the GOP and actively tries to help them win elections.

Ok, so think like those who control the media. You want as many people to vote for the GOP as possible. And you want to get Democrats to not vote.

What you do is sell two totally opposite versions of why Democrats SUCK. And you push the different versions into different media properties.

The first version of the DEMS SUCK message is tuned for those who lean RIGHT. This message claims that Democrats are evil socialist commies who hate God, hate America, hate guns, want to steal your money via taxes, and give it to minorities. People who lean right are more likely to internalize this message. The goal here is to ANGER these right leaning middle dwellers. ANGER creates the energy that these people will need to vote. This message is the one you (because you control the media) push into right wing channels. Rush, O'Reilly, anywhere else on FOX.

The second version of the DEMS SUCK message is tuned for those who lean LEFT. This message is totally opposite the other one. Democrats are evil corporatists who want to destroy the environment, love war, can't get anything done, and might as well be Republicans. This message is intended to DISCOURAGE those who might lean left, reducing the energy they might have to vote. This message is the one you (because you control the media) push into left wing, channels. Put it on Huffpo, fire dog lake, parts of MSNBC.

When you take the GOP's actual efforts to block people from voting, and then add a small up-tick of right leaning voters who are angered, and a slight down-tick of left leaning voters who are discouraged, you can win a close election.

Even if each of these tactics only nets you 1% advantage for the GOP, a 3% total shift will win plenty of elections.

And Nader isn't to blame for Bush ... but let's be honest, a vote for Nader certainly did nothing to prevent a Bush presidency. Nader was never going to win, which is what would have been necessary for those votes to potentially have helped prevent Bush from becoming President. These folks might as well have stayed home, or voted for Bush. Because the outcome was assuredly the same regardless.

[krawhitham]

63. A lot of people stayed home in 2010 and bragged about it at the time

Data for liberals

2006 - 85.7 million voters x 20% liberal = 17.1 million liberals voted
2008 - 132.6 million voters x 22% liberal = 29.1 million liberals voted
2010 - 90.7 million voters x 20% liberal = 18.1 million liberals voted
Net change from 2006 to 2010: +1 million liberals
Net change from 2008 to 2010: -11 million liberals

Net change for turnout of liberal voters from 2008 to 2010: -37.8% of the 2008 total (-11 million / 29.1 million)

Data for conservatives

2006 - 85.7 million voters x 32% conservative = 27.4 million conservatives voted
2008 - 132.6 million x 34% conservative = 45.1 million conservatives voted
2010 - 90.7 million x 42% conservative = 38.1 million conservatives voted
Net change from 2006 to 2010: +10.7 million conservatives
Net change from 2008 to 2010: -7 million conservatives

Net change for turnout of conservative voters from 2008 to 2010: -15.5% of the 2008 total (-7 million / 45.1 million)

Conservatives are clearly more reliable at voting

Here is Data for moderates

2006 - 85.7 million voters x 47% moderate = 40.2 million moderates voted
2008 - 132.6 million x 44% moderate = 58.3 million moderates voted
2010 - 90.7 million x 38% moderate = 34.5 million moderates voted
Net change from 2006 to 2010: -5.7 million moderates
Net change from 2008 to 2010: -23.8 million moderates

Net change for turnout of moderate voters from 2008 to 2010: -40.8% of the 2008 total (-23.8 million / 58.3 million)

While their percentage dropped more than ours, they by far out number us 34.5 Million VS 18.1 Million in 2010

data from http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/10/954909/-Turnout-a-little-data

[MannyGoldstein]

87. That's really interesting info, thanks.

Seems like in 2006 vs 2008...

- Liberals numbers were up a bit
- Conservative numbers were way up
- Moderates were somewhat down.

Smells right.

[Hepburn]

66. I have voted in EVERY election since I turned 21 years of age.

I was in the generation when persons reached the age of majority at 21 years. I have always voted a straight Democratic ticket and, further, voted for the "liberal" position on all ballot measures and for any person who I knew to be liberal for other office like judges, etc.

I only skipped voting for one Dem in all these years -- and that was an asshole from Riverside County named Robert Presley. I just could not vote for him...but I sure as heck could not vote for a Repuke.

[MineralMan]

67. Of course you will, Manny.

But, you see, just voting isn't enough if you call yourself an activist. Your vote is just one vote. It's important, as all votes are, but it's not enough.

Instead of just voting, how about using whatever writing skills you may have to encourage others to go to the polls and vote, and to bring others with them? Now, that would be election activism.

I mean, if you're really interested, there's plenty you can do to help GOTV in 2014 and 2016. Voting is good. Getting others to vote is excellent. Try being excellent, Manny.

GOTV-Way MineralManny.

[Zorra]

71. Condescend much? nt

[Autumn]

72. MineralMan has always done what he is advocating.

Ya know, like being excellent.

[MineralMan]

79. Do I?

Manny says he'll vote. I'm giving him a suggestion about how he might do more to assure that we regain control of Congress. Do you have a problem with that idea?

[DCBob]

85. Hardly.. MM's response was appropriate, constructive, polite and spot on!

MG's comments on the other hand are quite the opposite.

[Skidmore]

75. What MM said.

[questionseverything]

77. quoting blackboxvoting.org here

I also posted a Tennessee file with work orders and release notes which shows the Accenture software has a history of tripling votes in certain ('random') voter histories, going back to 2004. Except it is not random: Other files I discovered prove it is with primarily suburban Republican precincts that votes are somehow being recorded twice and sometimes three times for certain voters in the voter history report, and this didn't just happen in 2004; it also happened in the 2008 presidential primary and in May and August 2010, and according to election commission notes in Shelby County, also in the 2012 presidential primary.

http://politics-beta.slashdot.org/story/12/06/21/168207/bev-harris-of-black-box-voting-releases-accentures-voting-software

//////////////////////////////////////////////

when people say reps vote more in mid terms, I always think, well the program votes for them

but even tho this info has been out there for years even here at du there seems to be a disconnect

/////////////////////////////////////

minn has pretty transparent/ accountable elections ,sadly that is not the case everywhr

[Fumesucker]

89. Many people notice when you are trying to blow smoke up their asses

I get a lot more intellectual traction with my many Republican and conservative acquaintances by not constantly spouting over the top rhetoric for the Democrats, that's the fastest way to turn them off to any sense I'm trying to inject into their worldview.

"Yeah, Democrats suck but they suck considerably less than Republicans" is a far, far easier line to defend and get people who are primed by "The Liberal Media" to see than "Republicans suck but Democrats are totally awesome".

I suppose it depends on your particular area and your particular circle of acquaintances but over the top protestations of Democratic awesomeness are simply going to be discounted by many here in the South while a more cynical message about the relative merits of Republicans and Democrats can be sometimes made to work.

From my point of view where I am, discouraging probable Republican leaning voters from going to the polls is a lot more doable than encouraging Democratic ones to vote. Anyone who is going to vote Democratic here most likely already know most of what I have to say where the Republicans are often astoundingly ignorant.

It takes a long time to build credibility and it can be destroyed in mere moments by saying something people consider to be completely untrue whether or not it actually is untrue. Being viewed as a cynical but basically honest interlocutor is much more effective for me in my circle than as an outright lying pom pom waver for the Democrats.

[Sheepshank]

74. Good...so what are you going to do to encourage others to vote?

because so far, all I see from a very vocal crowd here is the attempt to discourage that middle voting block.

It's as if they want the RW to win every election to teach the Dems a lesson . It's just plain old weird assed thinking imho

I tend to think that if the Dems elected Officials were in a superior, very strong position ...knowing their voting block is secure and behind them all the way, every time, they would not need to coddle any other political leanings, but can make the strong stand we all wished they would.

Weakening the party does NOT strengthen the individual elected Officials...it just doesn't

[Capt. Obvious]

78. Actual voters don't read DU

So no need to worry.

[Sheepshank]

84. the whole thread started with a possible vote :(

now you take that away?

[Capt. Obvious]

86. I didn't

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4775383

[Corruption Inc]

82. I wonder how many people would vote to have the vote removed?

There's a lot of people who seem "purge happy" these days, I bet they'd even purge themselves from voting just for the power trip involved, LOL.

I always vote too, despite the lines of rethugs at every voting station I've ever been to.

[dionysus]

83. pt barnum is right, and nader thanks you...

and Nader is partially to blame for bush. Nader, the butterfly ballot, Katherine Harris, all played a factor in that theft.

...and be honest Manny, you like Nader because he scorns Democrats..