Disappointed Democrats on this board should not be of concern during elections.

[NCTraveler]

All groups of Democrats and Independents take about the same amount of heat on this board. But often, it is those further on the left side of the spectrum who take more of a beating with respect to blame and the loss during elections. I firmly believe that the concept of placing the blame on them is inaccurate and not very helpful.

Reasons:

1) An overwhelming majority of the left on this board will show up and vote during the midterms. They are, as a group, the most important part of the Democrats voting block. Almost all of them will vote for the Democrat under most situations. Have some become disillusioned to the party? Yes. The percentage of them who will not vote or will vote for another party is very small.

2) The extremely large group of voters/occasional voters sometimes referred to as "Reagan Democrats" are more wishy washy when it comes to getting to the polls. They should be the greatest concern when it comes to GOTV. Those further to the left of the spectrum are highly instrumental in getting them to the polls. Their enthusiasm and flat out concern of governments actions are higher on their priority list than others.

3) The further left members of our party believe in ideals that will win out almost every time with Democrats. What's that you say, the further left ideas will win with "Reagan Democrats"? Yes, almost every time.

4) What about the negativity? What about their seemingly constant problems with the party? Damn straight they have problems. What would you expect. Our party without them would be a rudderless party. You think corporate influence is bad now, try a party without a left base there to keep them in check. Without them, the parties really would be more similar than they are today. With that, they are also able to talk to "Reagan Democrats" in a way that shows they don't feel they are supporting a party that has achieved perfection. Every voter knows the party is flawed and will respect that people are working to better it every day.

5) The further left pay more attention to politics overall. They are not as movable as other groups. They are much more reliable than other groups. It is almost a waste of time complaining about them. They are in the game. They feel they have skin in the game. Time would be much better spent presenting their ideas to the more centrist among us.

If certain people are disappointed, so be it. I know I am. I also know that some progress has been made. Most during extreme opposition. I personally don't see how one cannot be disappointed with the overall performance of the government today. Those feelings are real, not made up. So if we are going to go after a group for their lack of enthusiasm, lets go after "Regan Democrats" and the majority of Americans who don't care enough to show up at the polls. Lets get out the vote. Certain groups are very uncertain with their votes on election day, the left isn't really one of those groups. The ideas of the left in our party win out with centrists. Almost every time. You want them out there talking about our party. Spreading the passion that they possess. Most of them here want nothing more than to educate voters on candidates who support things like single payer, strengthening SS by way of increasing revenues and payouts, limiting the war machine, adding regulation to the banking industry, etc. These ideas win out.

Yes, I would probably be referred to here as a more centrist Democrat. Yet my ideology is further left than most of our elected officials. Fighting to move the party left is greatly needed and the ideas will appeal to those on the fence. Doesn't matter if they are left or center.

[hobbit709]

1. +1000

[JoePhilly]

2. Here's the thing ...

... there are lots of folks who lean left, but who are not very active politically.

If all they hear day in and day out, from the right and from the left is ... DEMS SUCK ... those folks will shrug their shoulders, give up and stay home.

The actual policies won't even come up. Take the ACA. The individual parts poll well, but the law itself gets lower marks. The media takes the right wing anger against the "socialist ACA", and combines it with the "it ain't universal HC" anger from the left, and then claims "the majority dislike the ACA".

[NCTraveler]

3. The Republicans have the same issue. Not born out in the media as much,

but they are very far from monolithic. Bush is hated among many conservatives. Romney was hated among many conservatives. What you are talking about has a very minimal effect. It is the centrists, often not labeled as democrats, who need to be courted. The lefts views need to be listened to, not dismissed. Outlets can get polls to come out in many ways. They can also be read in many ways. Would milk poll favorably? Probably. What if they were then asked about the favorability of the fat content in milk. Wouldn't poll as well. For the fight that the ACA was, and the enormity of the legislation, I promise you that it is polling just fine.

The big voting block to go after are the centrists. There is a much larger percentage of them up for grabs. They can be gotten by espousing the further left ideals of our party.

[JoePhilly]

7. Agree ... those folks in the middle, and those who lean left ...

... but who do not follow politics closely, will prefer the positive messages from the left.

[NCTraveler]

13. I think they would much prefer the honesty from the left.

Positive and negative. They don't want to hear unreal views about party greatness. Such greatness does not exist. They know at that point they are being sold a bill of goods.

[JoePhilly]

18. I did not suggest giving them "unreal views".

As a simple example, if you tell them the ACA sucks, because its not single payer, and the right tells them the ACA sucks because its big government, the only message those folks in the MIDDLE will take away is ... the ACA sucks.

Is that the kind of "honesty" we're talking about here?

[NCTraveler]

22. That is just an amazingly simplistic view of how conversations in the real world go.

The ACA sucks because it is not single payer is a complete logical fail and very few say that. VERY FEW. You have to be honest with what is being said before you can be honest about the rest.

The ACA is flawed but has many great parts to it. It is a work in progress and we need to get a Democratic majority in order to keep working on it. We need to move the party to the left so the changes to it will benefit the people.

You see, you black and white thinking simply sets you up for failure with your argument. You are making a case that only exists with a very small group. VERY SMALL. Once you learn this you will be able to move forward and stop fighting the monsters under your bed.

[Phlem]

41. +1000000

And a big thank you!

Binary mentality is one of the most annoying things in the world.



-p

[zeemike]

38. I think that is exactly right.

If you want to turn off the centrist just tell them how great the Democratic party is and how awful the GOP is...it will come of as not honest and make them believe the party is no better than the tea baggers.

[nashville_brook]

73. honesty shows way more respect than blowing smoke in their direction

and people appreciate it. we know when we're being handled. we know when we're being lied to. a little respect goes a long way.

[Capt. Obvious]

5. Then it's up to you to save those voters

[JoePhilly]

10. Guess so.

Hopefully the perpetually disgruntled will stay out of the way of GOTV efforts.

[NCTraveler]

17. They are not in the way.

That is what you need to figure out. What is in the way are the millions of Americans who don't vote or who are uneducated about voting. You are concerned about a monster under your bed. The monster is not real to the point of being significant when compared to other groups. I understand that you are very passionate about them. Often more passionate about them than the direction of the leaders of the party. That mind-set is wrong and needs to change. The message from the left will win out with almost all voters. You constantly attacking them will not.

[JoePhilly]

21. The people we are talking about don't follow politics closely.

My question for you is "which message from the left" are you talking about?

The people we're talking about will not follow any political discussion closely. What they take away is the essence of the discussion.

That's why people who like the specific elements of the ACA, claim that they also dislike the ObamaCare. They are not following the discussion closely enough.

So, is the message from the left on the ACA ... (a) The ACA sucks because its not Universal HC, or (b) the ACA provides a very strong foundation on which we can move towards universal HC.

Which version of this you pick matters in this discussion, and in any discussion with the voters in the middle.

[NCTraveler]

23. It does matter.

And an overwhelming majority go with your option B. That is obvious.

[Puglover]

52. This.

Thanks for a well thought out OP that isn't a cut and copied paste from someone's blog screed.

You are IMHO spot on..

[Bluenorthwest]

59. Says a guy whose State has low turnout, long lines and Republican ass in

Senate Seats. How did PA rank for turnout in 2010?

PA turnout 2010 41.7%
Oregon 52.6%

[SMC22307]

67. It's rather depressing that in 2010, only 9 states cracked 50%.

Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington and Wisconsin.

http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html

(Hope my count is right... I only eye-balled it.)

[rhett o rick]

25. Here's the thing

"there are lots of folks who lean left, but who are not very active politically.

If all they hear day in and day out, from the right and from the left is ... DEMS SUCK ... those folks will shrug their shoulders, give up and stay home. "

You are suggesting that the message from the left is "DEMS SUCK". That's not true and I dont understand why you try to paint that picture.

The OP said it well, "Most of them (the left) here want nothing more than to educate voters on candidates who support things like single payer, strengthening SS by way of increasing revenues and payouts, limiting the war machine, adding regulation to the banking industry, etc."

How do you read "DEMS SUCK" from that?

If you want to get the apathetic to vote, offer them candidates that clearly support issues that effect the 99%, like single payer, protecting SS and Medicare, reducing our expensive defense expenses, regulating the banks, etc. If you support candidates that are ok with the status quo, the apathetic will stay home.

The left isnt apathetic and wont stay home.

[Scuba]

78. +1,000

[treestar]

82. Amen! Tired of the idea we must cater to them.

The negativity is not an indulgence any real liberal would do!

Every time they post one of their screeds about the spinelessness of whatever Democrat, the slightest pushback gets them mad. They demand we all trash the Democrats 24/7 and insult us if we don't!

[djean111]

4. "Disappointed liberals" are being set up as a whipping boy. That's all there really is to it.

[NCTraveler]

6. I do think the stage is being set by some.

Even though there are much larger groups who don't show up to the polls.

[fredamae]

9. The difference for

me-(a disappointed member of the Dem Wing) I "slap back"....And Corp Dems aren't used to that and are surprised.

[frylock]

49. no question of that

[nashville_brook]

71. i think you're right -- and it's a really stupid strategy.

[Scuba]

79. Not if your goal is to lose and blame any and everything besides policies.

[1000words]

72. Again

[Kelvin Mace]

8. The folks on DU aren't the problem

As you correctly point out, they will show up. It is the Dem voters who don't frequent DU, who have been repeatedly betrayed by Vichy Dems and Blue Dog Dems in Red and Purple states we have to worry about.

[Ichingcarpenter]

11. Your local elections are your best line of attack

Be charged up on that, take back the school boards, planning commissions etc and other local agendas.

Seattle proved this.

[NCTraveler]

14. The most important message in politics can be found here. ^^^^^^

It is also possible for one person to make a difference at that level. Not so much on the national stage.

[djean111]

35. The national stage is almost 100% controlled by Big Money. 99.9%, I believe.

On the national stage, we are presented, for the most part, with DNC Third Way approved candidates, and are told that anyone liberal cannot possibly win, so we have to keep voting for DINOs, and then we end up with a bunch of DINOs who are NEVER going to be liberal.

[Ichingcarpenter]

39. My point too.... but locally

you can change the environment and this where the PARTY SHOULD GIVE MONEY but they don't because they are not third rail enough so we must find other outlets for it such as crowd sourcing.

[djean111]

43. I agree.

[tabbycat31]

95. May I ask about your involvement on the local level?

Have you attended your local Democratic committee meetings or shown up at an event.

In my state, the candidates are decided by convention (they get the 'party line of X County Dems/GOP' on the primary ballot and usually go on to win the general) and being involved locally allows me to vote for such nominees at the convention. Often there is only one person who steps forward, so he/she is the nominee by default.

But across every state in this country, there are hundreds if not thousands of local offices (school board, mayor, council, X commission, etc) that are either vacant or the GOP runs unopposed (last year, I wrote in Homer Simpson as a protest vote for no Democrats running for council in a 60/40 D town). When county parties select their nominee, this is the 'farm system' that they often look to (if you follow baseball, these small offices are the minor leagues of politics) when selecting statehouse and federal nominees. With a few exceptions (2010 environment where politicians were hated at all levels), Mayor or State Senator Frank Underwood running for congress looks better than Frank Underwood running for Congress. That title gives credibility to their campaign, but he has to win at the local level to get that title.

Stop focusing on what the national Democrats are not doing and start focusing on what YOU CAN be doing for your LOCAL Democrats. In a few cycles, these local guys you help out very well could end up in the state house or DC.

[djean111]

96. I have attended a couple of "meet the candidates" sessions - really interesting.

Held in a meeting room at a local hotel.
Somehow, it seemed that Democrats and Republican audience members sat separately.
Candidates were for school board, tax assessor, things like that. The best part was speaking to them before and after their "pitches" - one guy running for school board showed his ass when he told me to check out his web site - he was against gay anything in schools, and for religious teachings.

Something I have noticed in the last few years - most local candidates do not put party affiliation on their handouts, you have to ask or dig around for that info, or wait until the ballots are available..

[tabbycat31]

98. The laws vary by state

In the state where I vote (NJ), there were 'partisan' and 'nonpartisan' towns. Nonpartisan towns used to have their local election in May, but a law was signed a few weeks ago that gave them the option to move them to November (to save the town $$ on the elections). In 2010, I voted 4 times (school, local, primary, general) and in 2012 I only voted 2 (primary, general) (2013 was a shitshow because my governor is an idiot). The 2012 November ballot had offices from president down to school board on it.

I live in a nonpartisan town and the local offices are not allowed to be partisan. None of the candidates have a party affiliation on it (they can have a slogan under their name). In other towns in my county, the local officials do have their party listed.

AT the state leg level and county level, there are partisan races.

(I've had a school board candidate bring up abortion in his platform). The GOP is better at building their farm system than the Democrats are. If a bunch of DUers run for local office (I've actually been asked but I spend too much time on the road for work to do the job) think of how we can make things that much more progressive.

Think of that school board candidate about the religion and homophobia. Now imagine someone running on a pro-science platform, pro sex-ed, pro gay, etc.

I would suggest attending one of your local Democratic meetings (or revive the county party if they're inactive). Good place to meet like minded people too.

[Capt. Obvious]

12. WRONG

They're staying home and not voting because some people on the internet said something mean about Dems.

[LondonReign2]

15. Those meanies

need to be taken out behind the shed and bogged.

[Capt. Obvious]

16. Beaten with rolled up Hope posters

Bad Democrat!

[NCTraveler]

19. OK. That was funny.

But the fact is the extremely loyal people to the party aren't really the problem either. They are extremely reliable when it comes to voting. They just aren't as reliable when it comes to moving the party to the left or holding feet to the fire. But their importance should not be scoffed at. They are also great at selling the party. They put a much more positive spin on it. This works with many people.

[Capt. Obvious]

20. "They are also great at selling the party"

Can blue links be brought into the voting booth?

[NCTraveler]

24. The poster you are referring to has taken me to task with blue links on multiple occassions.

Often their links weren't even relevant to the debate being had. Yet if you take the time to read some of their links they are often filled with extremely good information. Often information that is not readily available. They provide information that can be used to debate and gain greater understanding of topics. I no longer debate that individual but I often take time to read their links. There is good in just about all debate here. Sometimes you just have to look a little harder than others. Salespersons are extremely important.

[Capt. Obvious]

26. Any Gish Gallop will have nuggets of wisdom here and there

[NCTraveler]

27. Had to look up "Gish Gallop". What a great term. nt.

[Capt. Obvious]

29. Did you read the Rational Wiki?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

[NCTraveler]

31. Yes. It can be seen often. I never put a name to it.

Urban Dictionary had me laughing.

[Capt. Obvious]

30. There's a similar debate tactic used here constantly that needs a name

Someone posts a wall of text.

Someone responds to some/most of wall of text.

Wall of text poster lays into responder for not responding to one piece of the wall of text. Declares victory.

[NCTraveler]

32. To be honest, I have been guilty of the exact opposite here.

Picking out a small part of a post and tearing it apart. Not letting go and associating that one small section of text to that person. It is often easy to do and is a very poor debate tactic. I am trying to improve on it. I have often seen exactly what you describe. A conversation on debate tactics would probably go a long way here. Or maybe sink like a rock.

[djean111]

33. Bwah! Exactly.

"Can you tell me if you are going to run for office yourself?"
"Can you tell me if you are going to run for office yourself?"
"Can you tell me if you are going to run for office yourself?"

"I win!" No, but a lot of eyes glazed over, and not one mind was changed or forced or whatever to buy what is being sold. Pretty much has the opposite effect. Really.

[beerandjesus]

34. Or:

"Don't you agree with Bernie Sanders?"
"Don't you agree with Bernie Sanders?"
"Don't you agree with Bernie Sanders?"

"I win!"

[djean111]

36. Oh, that is one of my very favorites!

What I find hard to believe is that anyone thinks that dispensing this stuff, scornfully, sways anyone whatsoever.
Mystifyin'.

[zeemike]

47. Or on the flip side.

"So you agree with Rand Paul?"
"So you agree with Rand Paul?"
"So you agree with Rand Paul?"

"I win."

[JoeyT]

50. Until it's thrown back.

"Free Trade eh? You know that's like the favorite thing of every libertarian ever including the dreaded Ron/Rand?"

And suddenly the attitude is "Libertarians? Never heard of them."

[Ichingcarpenter]

44. LOL

8 Traits of the Disinformationalist

1) Avoidance

They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity

They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.


4) Teamwork

They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial

They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a News Group (NG) focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.


However I do agree fighting on the local level.

[Maedhros]

63. I disagree. Extremely loyal partisans can be a big part of the problem.

When the party leadership goes very, very far astray from traditional Democratic values the "extremely loyal partisans", by rubber-stamping everything the party leadership does, encourages them to continue to abandon those values.

[NCTraveler]

65. You make a valid point, I just think there is much more to it than that.

This brings me back to black and white thinking. It is all too often wrong. They are not the enemy and they play an extremely important role in the party. I think your argument, while holding some validity that shouldn't be dismissed, is just the flip side of the coin.

[Maedhros]

66. Certainly - there is no single reason for the predicament we're in.

I'd rank the problems thusly:

The growing ranks of

1. Low-information voters

allow for

2. Money in politics

to control and distort the debate via control of the media, especially by fostering an intense environment of

3. Hyperpartisanship

that focuses our attention on the ridiculous behaviors of (e.g.) the Tea Party while major bad policy (e.g. the TPP) is cemented in the background.

[NCTraveler]

68. +1. Thanks. nt

[beerandjesus]

28. Thanks for this.

I couldn't agree more!

[G_j]

37. as a rule, this 'block' is most disiplined in voting in off-year

and local elections.

[Ichingcarpenter]

40. As a rule is right but Seattle

proved an aberration which is growing..

[G_j]

48. not sure I follow

the reference to Seattle..

[Ichingcarpenter]

51. Socialist being elected plus $15 wage passed

Then the mayor fighting for open internet and no monopolies with it.

[G_j]

54. Oh yea!

good point, she rocks!

[Ichingcarpenter]

55. Pot freedom as Gay marriage freedom

was local not from Washington DC nor from Obama.

In fact ..... he does try sometimes.

[Ichingcarpenter]

60. Obama was not leading on these issues

yet they were democratic ideals which won locally.
His views on gay marriage were well known and not good yet his pot views where positive before he was elected but he unleashed Holder for years and attacked pot clients.

[stupidicus]

42. So true

every since I started participating here going on two years ago now, I've made the case that the problem children in terms of diminishing the enthusiasm, etc, are those who've been attempting to bash we lefties.

What has been most amusing to me has been their efforts to seemingly educate us on the threat posed by the modern condition of rightwingnuttery and the threats they pose to our republic and the social fabric that tethers us all together, like we aren't already acutely aware of that and consider it when voting time comes.

It is they that have put out the unwelcome mat. During the lead up to the 2012 election, you were a stealth Mutt supporter, Bushbot, or some other rightwing creature determined to skewer the election if you dared to express concerns about chained cpi being on the table, etc. While many of us old lefties have held our noses and voted for the lesser of two evils for far too long, all the aforementioned BS increased the burden and personalized it ways new to many of us. Why should we stay or work with those who obviously don't want us around is the question that arises. If participation means never criticizing except under that penalty, well, where's the participation other than as a small part of an echo chamber?

I would never allow the efforts of a collection of shortsighted peabrains to unduly influence my voting or not, but I can certainly understand why many would be overtaken and negatively influenced by the "sit down and shut up" nature of those that think only full and unqualified support is the solution for what collectively ails us. They don't seem to realize that it has been a lack of "uppityness" and an excess of the "go along to get along" BS that has allowed the DLC/Third Way mentality and BS to get it's tendrils into the electorate and to move the politics in DC rightward as the country has moved leftward.

They are responsible for the former and dishonestly no doubt, would like to take credit for the latter. That's one of the reasons why I've also argued that they are really just a very vocal minority here and in the public square that utilize the same rhetorical, etc, tactics as their Pee Party counterparts. And the saddest part is, they also unwittingly or otherwise share the same result even if not the goal of moving the DC politics rightward. WHile the fear of modern rightwingnuttery isn't objectively irrational imo, their way of dealing with it is. Calling the dissatisfied traitors, etc, and basically telling them to sit down and shut up, is not a very effective recruitment tool or means to forge and maintain an alliance in any case, but certainly serves well as a good way/means for producing a self-fulfilling prophecy.

and we're supposed to see, understand, and allow that in silence. If rightwingnuttery is the problem, and leftism is the cure, who is offering the larger dose and solution to the agreed upon problem? I'd say those demanding more lefties and accompanying policy as opposed to those willing to settle for rightwingnut-lite.

They see their babysteps in the rightward direction as a better brake than our refusal to go along silently, despite the fact they are the only ones making any movements in that direction. Their BS passes neither the smell nor logic tests.

good post

[djean111]

45. Quite right, Smarticus!

[2banon]

58. Well Said!

[Trust Buster]

46. I have two points that I wish to make;

1) Though we may disagree on the reasons why, the average American is apathetic and disengaged from the political process and current events. Given the obstructionist behavior of the Republicans over the past 5 years coupled with the millions of American families struggling, how can it possibly be that the polls indicate the distinct possibility of Democrats losing the majority of the Senate this fall ? In other words, if the Republican obstructionism in the wake of the Wall Street meltdown that led to the destruction of our economy isn't enough to wake up the masses, then what the hell will ?

2) In the wake of Citizen's United and the Voting Right Act rollback, it is impossible for one person to achieve from the Oval Office what we wish to be achieved. Given the precarious ages of the Justices, we need a Democrat to reshape the Supreme Court and overturn the recent damage done so that our President has the tools to make the changes we wish to see.

Any other year than 2016, I'd be behind a Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown. But if we don't win the White House in 2016, then say hello to a 6 - 3 or 7 - 2 Right wing majority on the Supreme Court. Then, all will be lost. Therefore, I believe the stakes demand that we support the candidate that can capture the majority of the swing voters in the middle of the political spectrum that decides elections. We have no margin for error in 2016. A loss could prove disastrous.

[NCTraveler]

56. You see, I think this is a bigger negative to our party than....

anyone from the left holding feet to the fire.

"Any other year than 2016, I'd be behind a Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown."

There is zero, zilp, zich, nada extreme about Warren. There is nothing about her that makes her unelectable. Yet you have written her off. Such a shame that a Democrat can make this claim, as you have, injuring the ideology of the party. How and the world can you determine at this point that Warren is not electable in 2016. It boggles my mind how one can be so certain of something that is opinion based on almost nothing.

"Given the precarious ages of the Justices, we need a Democrat to reshape the Supreme Court and overturn the recent damage done so that our President has the tools to make the changes we wish to see. "

I really can't even think of a starting point to address this.

[Trust Buster]

62. Guys like me are not the issue in 2016.....

.....presidential elections are decided by who wins the middle 20%. If the middle 20% would look favorably on Warren, then why are the Democrats in danger of losing their majority in the Senate this fall ? I think your reading of what's acceptable to swing voters in this country is flawed to say the least. If your vision were true, we'd have nothing whatsoever to worry about this fall. But, in reality, we do.

[NCTraveler]

64. Way too many assumptions with no real argument to back them up.

The Warren thing makes no sense. Neither does the way you present your case with respect to the SC.

"If your vision were true, we'd have nothing whatsoever to worry about this fall." Not sure where you have pulled "my vision" from, but it appears as if you are responding to someone else.

This is the twisting necessary in order to malign those on the left. It is an extreme stretch.

[Trust Buster]

75. Oh, I get it. You're one of those types that speak a lot but say nothing.

My point was clear. If you don't want to address it, then quit wasting my time.

[NCTraveler]

88. "then quit wasting my time"

This is what makes DU awesome. Some things can't be made up. Please waste your time and respond to this. I have the power to control your internet activity. Too funny. This has been a very positive op and replies. Please try to keep it that way. Thanks.

[Trust Buster]

90. I calls 'em as I see 'em......you don't like that, then tough noogies pal

[NCTraveler]

91. More time wasted. Must not put much value on it.

You made me smile. Thanks. Last word to you. Have at it. You are adding nothing to the thread.

[Trust Buster]

92. You're the one that couldn't reply with any substance to my original post.

You're behave no differently than a Right wing extremist. Now run along "victim".

[treestar]

87. That's a good point

Now watch for several outraged responses on how "I vote my principles."

[LynneSin]

53. Except there are no more Reagan Democrats...

those people are now Republicans and Reagan hasn't run for an office in 30 years.

[NCTraveler]

57. Don't think that is accurate but have at it. nt.

[2banon]

61. Huh?

[rhett o rick]

80. Their name may be different, but they are still with us.

The Democratic Party has many factions but if we break it down into the two major ones, you clearly have the liberal or populice side and the other major side which has been given a number of names, all of which they decline to call themselves. Names like Reagan Democrats, DLC, The Third Way, Conservative Democrats, etc.

Reagan Democrats arent Republicans because the Republican have become the Clown Car. There has been a steady stream of moderate Republicans leaving their Party and moving to the Democratic Party. And they bring their conservative ideology with them.

The oligarchy isnt foolish enough to only back Republicans. They also have a hand in the Democratic Party, especially at the upper levels. We have to support progressive Democrats or be stuck with the status quo until the poverty level reaches 99%.

[WillyT]

69. + 1,000,000,000 What You Said !!! - K & R !!!

[nashville_brook]

70. very well said. shame that some here are itching for a fight where there's none to be had.

if folks are taking the time out of their lives to participate on this forum, they're likely to be super-voters, and highly unlikely to sit out a midterm when we actually have more power than in presidential years.

[BlindTiresias]

74. Thank you

Yours is a fair take on the situation; I'm glad to see that some centrists realize the left is their ally and not their enemy.

[dreamnightwind]

76. While I greatly appreciate the sentiment of your OP

and many of its points, I don't believe you can meaningfully have this discussion while ignoring the role of corporate power.

In another post in this thread, you speak out against black and white thinking, I quite agree. You also note that there are similar issues on the right, where they are not happy with their people (McCain, Romney were mentioned IIRC). Many on the right consider them RINOs.

So, what's going on here? Corporatism is screwing over the members of both parties, and is firmly in control of both parties. It's not particularly a left-right issue. That's a form of black-and-white thinking that needs to be looked at skeptically.

The goal of moving our party to the left is wonderful, thank you for supporting this goal (though it boggles my mind to see that coming from a poster with a Hillary avatar).

The main obstacle to this is not the right-wing, nor is it moderate/centrist Democrats, it is the corporate capture of our nation, from the major political parties to the think-tanks to the lobbyists to the Supreme Court green-lighting unlimited political spending to the media which frames the issues and brainwashes the voters.

It's a top-down battle as much as a left-right battle.

Some of the disgruntled voters on the left and the right realize this. But much of the electorate does not. Maybe they have corporate jobs they are clinging to, the old it's hard to convince someone of something when their paycheck requires them to not understand it thing. Or maybe they still see corporate issues through the pre-globalization perspective (what's good for G.M. is good for America), or maybe everything they know as facts came from corporate sources.

I feel that truth is on our side, given enough info, most people will see the problem for what it is, corporations gone wild. The problem is, money amplifies speech in proportion to profit potential, not in proportion to quality of life potential. A corporation's position on renewable energy (usually opposition to it) is amplified by its ability to catapult the propaganda, whereas a non-corporatist is free to state their positions but has no similar ability to amplify their message.

The internet was supposed to offset this advantage, we can all publish our thoughts for others to read, and it's great in that regard, but so far it has not managed to be an effective counter to a corporation like Fox or Comcast's ability to deliver their views directly into the homes and minds of the electorate.

[Rex]

77. Really, that is not what this is all about. In a nutshell;

Some authoritarians tried to make a List of people that needed to be eliminated from DU. Their attempts failed and they are now trying a new method of divide and conquer.

I wish they would stop, but shame is something a person either has or does not have.

[treestar]

81. Their negativity suppresses others

I'm sick of defense of them. And of their constant demands for obedience! And the pity party! They are not taking more heat on the board than anyone else. In fact they start it!

The most outrageous thing here is that they make fun of us for being supportive of the Democratic Party!

I don't think most of them are really hard workers when it comes to GOTV and working the phones and the street. They just expect to be served up what they want and threaten to not work because they are not "excited" enough. And their negativity is not going to excite anybody, centrist or whatever.

[Capt. Obvious]

83. "I'm sick of defense of them. And of their constant demands for obedience! And the pity party!"

Oh that's rich coming from you.

Here's something you'll understand:

[treestar]

86. I'm not going to pity them for getting pushback

on DU for their constant whining. Stay home. Complain. Fine with me.

[NCTraveler]

89. "they start it" nt.

[Doctor_J]

84. the far right show up because the Repukes fight their battles

The Dems offer chained CPI, more fracking, more drilling, XL, insurance mandates instead of health care, TPP, charter schools, and then wonder why turnout is low.

rec

[Chathamization]

85. The problem is the sentiment that says voting won’t change things and that both sides are the same.

These are the kinds of sentiments that keep people from voting, and there have been a number of threads expressing that point of view.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

93. + Infinity!! Thank you!!!

[gulliver]

94. The "undesirable" Business influence on Dems is unaffected by the "disappointed."

The undesirable corporate influence in the Dem party is caused essentially entirely by the Republicans, and getting the Republicans out of power is the only way to curb it. We are in an arms race when it comes to money—far from the only weapon in politics, but a big one. Business gives as much money as it thinks will yield a profit. Republicans take as much money as they can get, and Democrats take as much money as they have to to survive.

Therefore, the Republicans are the key factor, because they are willing to absorb unlimited business money of practically any color. They create the demand for illicit corporate influence. Strip the Republicans of all power, and the Dems will have little need for the kind of money that pays for undesirable corporate influence. Most Dem politicians would gladly give it up, and those who didn't would be much easier to weed out.

The good, mostly positive left (and the vast majority) focus on overpowering Republicans at the ballot box. That is the way to end the corporate influence arms race. The angry, mostly negative left are a pocket of reliable votes, and that is all. Unfortunately, the negativity they bring breeds division and suppresses voting, so they are a net burden on left wing, progressive politics. If we could get them to stop spewing negativity by agreeing to do without their votes, it would be a good deal.

The last thing we need to do is imply that the angry, disappointed, constantly negative left are the rudder of the left, though. They are so not. They aren't the rudder. They aren't the base. They are just our burden.

[tabbycat31]

97. If you are talking about presidential elections

You must realize that there is about 10% of the electorate in a handful of swing states that will decide the election. It's a given that New York will vote for whoever the Democrats run and that Oklahoma will vote for whoever the Republicans run.

When all is said and done, probably less than 5 states will decide the election. They could be the 'classic' swing states (OH, FL, PA) or the new blue states (VA, NV), or the changing demographically and will be ours with time (NC for now but others are coming in this category). If you live in NY or Oklahoma, your vote is not going to make a difference in a presidential election period (even if one of the nominees is a complete trainwreck and won't carry a traditional state for his/her party).

As much as I like Elizabeth Warren, I fear that her candidacy could become a complete trainwreck and she could turn into a Walter Mondale type candidate. Another aside from her is look at the last three people elected statewide in MA and what their track record is when running for president.

2016 is shaping up to be an epic shellacking for the GOP in the senate (when the class of 2010 is up). In order to get the teabagger class out (Toomey, Johnson, Kirk to name the low hanging fruit), we need an electable candidate that will have coattails.

[Capt. Obvious]

99. You fear Warren would rival Mondale?

It will be even worse - there's no fast food slogans she can effectively use.

Unless... "America Runs On Warren"?

[tabbycat31]

100. I do

Aside from my FB and DU, the general consensus on her (I'm a Democratic campaign staffer and spend all day around Democrats) is that she would carry less than 5 states.

I'm working in a state that has the potential to be a battleground (Obama won 44% here without spending a dime and sending his volunteers to another state) but they would not vote for her. I can't imagine one of the new battlegrounds (VA, NC) voting for her.

I'm a numbers person, and believe that numbers are the key to winning election (I'm constantly looking at previous election data and pulled up hers). In 2012, she won 53.7% the vote in a state that Obama won 60.4% of the vote. If MA is not the most liberal state in the country, then it is one of them. She underperfomed the president by almost 7 points here. That is not something that looks good for a presidential nominee.

I'm also skeptical of MA candidates in general. Look at how the last 3 did.

ETA my parents, both strong Democrats who raised me that way, would not vote for her. They've already said that she's too liberal.

[Capt. Obvious]

101. Democrats need to stop this self-flagellation

I see plenty of Republicans (not all) happy to have Cruz or or Paul be their nominee and not worry about them being too conservative that they couldn't win more than 5 states.

And really, you or I could run and win more than 5 states. A relatively popular sitting President isn't on the ballot, but I digress.

And your description of Warren's performance in her Senate race is laughable to us Massholes. She knocked out the most (I'm sure he slipped leading up to the election) popular politician in our state. He pulled plenty of votes for Dems - it's why he only lost by 6 points. And she did it running as a woman for state wide office which this true blue state typically rejects every time (give or take an AG).

[tabbycat31]

102. Maybe things are different in MA

And I have never worked in a state as 'blue' as MA before. But in all of the states I have worked (KY, WI, NJ, VA, NC, SC) I have been told before (at the doors or on the phones with independent voters) that the Democrat is too liberal, but NOT ONCE have I been told that the Republican is too conservative (even when running against Rand Paul). Over the course of my lifetime (I was a baby when Reagan was elected), the conservatives have successfully turned 'liberal' into a dirty word. It will take 30 years for us to reclaim the word.

I just don't see Warren as having appeal to independent voters. Any Democrat who is too liberal for my parents would not stand a chance (the only other Democrat they've ever said that about is NYC mayor Bill DeBlasio).

Judging by numbers alone, the following senators did better (electorally) than Warren did.

Dianne Feinstein
Chris Murphy
Tom Carper
Bill Nelson
Maizie Hirono
Ben Cardin
Debbie Stabenow
Amy Klobuchar
Roger Wicker
Claire McCaskill
Deb Fischer
Bob Menendez
Kirsten Gillibrand
Bob Casey
Sheldon Whitehouse
Bob Corker
Ted Cruz
Orrin Hatch
Bernie Sanders
Maria Cantwell
Joe Manchin
John Barrasso

Three senators of the class of 2012 had numbers above 70% (Kirsten Gillibarnd, Bernie Sanders, John Barrasso).

In the eyes of someone who crunches campaign numbers all the time, a good candidate for president is a governor or senator who does well electorally in a state that typically does not favor his/her party (I hate to use my piece of shit governor Chris Christie as an example, but he's a textbook example). (This can be scaled down for other elections). Numbers wise, Claire McCaskill, who was DOA before Todd Akin was her opponent, put up better numbers than Elizabeth Warren did.

The reality is that fewer than 10% of the electorate in fewer than 10 states has all the power in presidential elections. Ultimately, this is who the candidate is spending all the $$ on all the ads, etc towards winning. If the candidate does not appeal to them then he/she loses.

[Capt. Obvious]

103. Looking at that list

How many of them knocked off popular incumbents?