What will it take to break DLC/New Dem/"Centrist" "lesser of two evils" trick on voters?

[yurbud]

Ted Rall's recent piece on Progressives' need to break up with the Democratic Party put what is likely to happen with another president from the corporate wing of the party, which will essentially be a rerun of Bill Clinton and Obama betrayals: some progressive policies and incremental changes around the edges, but the big policies like trade, war, foreign policy in general, taxes, and even social spending will be dictated by banks, Wall Street, and the largest corporations.

The same could be said of centrist Dems in Congress, and even many seeming progressives become less so when the party is in a position to get anything done.

At a minimum, Democrats rarely go to the mat to advance progressive policies and at best defend existing programs like Social Security and Medicare when there's such overwhelming public support for them that they can't afford to act like doormats and still be taken seriously as an opposition party.

What will it take to break this death grip of two parties, one corporate and another corporater?

A mass exodus of voters to a new third party?

The death or at least shriveling of the GOP to a no longer credible obstacle to progressive policies?

Will campaign finance reform or even a constitutional amendment to turn back Citizens United really be enough?

Will it take a massive, massive display of screwing average Americans like another Wall Street bailout while the rest of us get austerity or starting an unnecessary world war?

What will break this false choice we have now of essentially gay-bashing versus gay-hugging corporatists?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. As long as they're taking our votes for granted under the "Not as bad" meme, it won't happen.

If we make it hard for them to slither away with scare tactics, they'll never change.

[Maedhros]

2. As long as there are no consequences for selling us out,

Democratic politicians will continue to sell us out.

Actions like this:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/04/21/135604863/protesters-interrupt-obama-with-song-wheres-our-change-they-ask

Singing "we'll vote for you in 2012, yes that's true; look at the Republicans — what else can we do?" a small group of protesters interrupted President Obama's appearance at a San Francisco fundraiser today with a song that ended with the question "we paid our dues, where's our change?"

are laughably ineffective and make the protesters look stupid. When they announce that there will be no consequences for ignoring them, what do they expect will happen?

[Enrique]

4. campaign finance will do it

the money is the source of the whole problem.

[Armstead]

11. Not necessarily. Money is one means to an end.

Don; get me wrong. I certainly agree that the situation regarding money and politics is horrendous and needs reform.

But frankly, that's not gonna happen anytime soon, as we learned from the fate of previous reforms that were ultimately shot down and replaced with something worse.

But the good news (sorta) is that a good message can overcome a shitty one, as Republicans have found to their disappointment.

So, in addition to hoping and pushing for finnce reform, Democrats should concentrate on good messages and candidates.

[merrily]

47. That will take a Constitutional amendment, which will never happen.

Thank Citizens' United for that.

CU aside, McCain Feingold left it up to the politician. Obama promised to go that route. McCain did; Obama didn't.

Even with a Constitutional amendment, Congress will never bind politicians more than that.

[Chucky-Doll]

5. Here's a list:

1. When progressives stop being silent, and letting conservatives control the message, and the agenda.


2. When progressives stop pouting, and sitting out elections, and prove that they are a force to be reckoned with. When "progressives" stay home on Election Day, they are sending the out of touch "DLC/New Dem/Centrist" crowd the wrong message. The "DLC/New Dem/Centrists" believe when conservatives win elections, that is a message from the country to move to the Right.


3. When progressives start doing a better job explaining progressive polices, and finding strong progressive candidates, that are actually electable.

4. When democrats start fighting republicans, instead of each other.

P.S., the DLC doesn't exist anymore.

[stillwaiting]

7. P.P.S. Neither does Blackwater.

I do agree with some of your prescriptions though.

[yurbud]

43. and like Blackwater, DLC changed their name because their brand was poison

with activists.

Both Blackwater and the DLC are sort of like VD that became STDs, that became STIs. As soon as too many people figure out what it is, you have to make up a new name to shake the stigma.

[RKP5637]

82. I've always been amazed at democrats I've known, party line voters, that had absolutely

no idea what the DLC was or about.

[merrily]

93. I know someone who is very smart and well-informed. A lifelong Dem,

she had become disenchanted with the Party. She had never heard of the DLC either. Reads at least two newspapers a day.

Many are clueless that the party has changed, let alone knowing what changed it.

[yurbud]

108. If you talk to Republicans, a lot don't know ALEC, the Kochs, Grover Norquist, or Karl Rove

they just know what's given to them in the media.

[merrily]

111. We political message board junkies get a distorted perspective

about what Americans are paying attention to.

[yurbud]

104. And when you tell them how they differ from New Deal Dems?

[betterdemsonly]

8. The new democrats exist

The Clintons and Obama are both members. They have the exact same philosophy as the dlc.

[Armstead]

12. You're kiddin, right?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

31. Progressive policies are those things

that 65-90% of the American public routinely polls in favour of. And the corporate-owned politicians in each party then ignore them.

And if the third way types are so stupid as to think them losing elections is a message to 'move right', they'll continue to move right...into continuous unelectability.

[merrily]

53. I try never to impute "stupid," especially to people at that level

and their phalanx of advisors. Sometimes, the simplest answer is also accurate. IMO, they move right because right is where they want to move.

[stillwaiting]

95. They're not stupid. They have an agenda, and they are masterful pretenders (i.e. corrupt liars).

They will do what they want to do, and they will ALWAYS blame the left.

It's a win-win, and it continues to move the agenda to the right.

They don't care what the majority of Americans want on the issues, and they definitely know what most Americans want. This means they must distract and divide the population while they deny what is politically possible. They are very good at doing that, and they get paid very well for doing it.

[yurbud]

35. Progressives fought during the Bush years. centrists were busy agreeing with him.

[merrily]

54. +1

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

64. Thanx for the post; people here need to be reminded.

[merrily]

68. I owe another DUer, whose screen name I've forgotten.

I knew, of course, that she had voted for the war. I mean, I wasn't in a coma during 2008, was I? But I had no idea that she had advocated for the war.

Please note, too, what she says about calls from constitutents. I wish people would stop believing that their calls determine anything.

I just recently found out, via a question on The Millionaire, that the "Close" button on an elevator is there only to give passengers an illusion of control. So, keep making those calls and signing those internet petitions if you're jonesing for an illusion of control--and I can understand why Americans are. Otherwise, time is better spent trying to think of something that might actually work.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

89. What will work is if people get behind a candidate who's not a warmongering corporatist - that would be a good start.

[merrily]

98. Understatement of the year, compadre.

[yurbud]

36. our thanks for going to the polls in 2008 was a big FU from Obama & the Dem Congress

they put have done a lot before the GOP took back Congress (and they likely wouldn't have taken it back if Dems did their job) but elected Dems took care of the money people first and pre-compromised with Republicans whenever possible.

And no Republican forced Obama to continue to privatize K-12 public education.

[merrily]

55. We didn't only go to the polls. We donated and worked off our asses.

Change and hope.

[yurbud]

44. Did all the members die, drop out of politics, or renounce their DLC policies?

[merrily]

48. "the DLC doesn't exist anymore." So what? A technicality.

DLC was a think tank.

The philosophy lives on in Third Way and other think tanks, much as Christianity lives on, even though no has seen anything on Christ's website for 2000 years.

The DLC did its job and turned the party Third Way. Most Democratic politicians are now New Democrats, whether they self-identify that way or not. It's almost unnecessary to self-identify that way anymore, anyway.

When progressives stop pouting, and sitting out elections, and prove that they are a force to be reckoned with. When "progressives" stay home on Election Day, they are sending the out of touch "DLC/New Dem/Centrist" crowd the wrong message. The "DLC/New Dem/Centrists" believe when conservatives win elections, that is a message from the country to move to the Right.

Sorry, no. The Party has gone right because the politicians wanted to, not because of anything that Dem voters did or did not do. This was not a bottom up issue, but a top down.

Read the wiki on the DLC, founded mostly by men who were then at least Presidential hopefuls from Southern States, after the South went red, Lieberman being an exception as to geography and Hillary as to gender. What chance did they have even carry their own states unless the Party went right?

Then look into Carroll Quigley's philosophy, Quigley being one of Bill Clinton's professors. Clinton said Quigley and JFK (son of multi-millionaire capitalist Joe Kennedy) were the two biggest influences on him (Clinton).

New Democrats know perfectly well that the left is dissatisfied, so it's not a matter of speaking up, either. Their response/mantra, when asked? "The left has no place else to go."

IOW, no matter how dissatisfied and vocal the left is, they're going right--and believe they can do so with impunity. (See Maedhros post upthread.)

Blaming the change in the party on Democratic voters misses the point--and the reality of the situation--entirely.

[LondonReign2]

121. When did progressives sit out elections?

[betterdemsonly]

6. Nominating a non-dlc, non-new democrat

like Warren or Sanders, would help alot. If you want to break it permanently amend the constitution so we can have Ranked Choice voting. You can do that through the amendment process or a Constitutional Convention. I favor the later, since we also need to an Amendment against corporate personhood among other things.

[jeff47]

17. Top of the ticket doesn't do much.

FDR only accomplished what he did because he was able to get Congress to pass the laws.
LBJ only accomplished what he did because he was able to get Congress to pass the laws.

Clinton could have gotten us single-payer healthcare. Congress wouldn't pass the law.

Top of the ticket gets all the press and attention, but top of the ticket can't actually change what we want changed.

[betterdemsonly]

20. Yeah you can nominate non-dlc, non-new democrats

for congress too! They aren't mutually exclusive goals. Your argument is like saying you can have mash potatoes or gravy as opposed to both together. Clinton would have given us nafta, welfare deform and Glass Steagall no matter what. As for the idea that we would have gotten single payer but for congress. How do you explain the first 2 years of the Obama administration. Also Clinton had both houses in his first term too, so the problem must have been democrats.

[jeff47]

23. Not what I'm arguing.

You were talking about two possible presidential candidates. And lots of people around here talk only about Obama and what he hasn't done - even though Congress is what is in the way.

Which results in lots of people here saying "______ is way ahead in my state, I'm not going to bother voting". Which shortchanges all the down ticket races, as you know.

As for the idea that we would have gotten single payer but for congress. How do you explain the first 2 years of the Obama administration.

Congress wouldn't pass it. Just because they have "-D" after their name doesn't mean they're liberal, as you are well aware.

Also Clinton had both houses in his first term too, so the problem must have been democrats.

It was both. Republicans for obvious reasons, joined by enough conservative Democrats.

[yurbud]

41. I would like to see one chamber of congress (probably senate)

replaced by a chamber of at large reps with proportional representation of different parties who have to form coalitions to govern.

That would change things enough, but it would stir the pot in an interesting direction.

[DonCoquixote]

9. when not voting for a democrat

stops giving the GOP victories.

[FiveGoodMen]

34. And when voting for (and electing) a Democrat STILL gives the GOP everything it wants?

[merrily]

51. Why would the GOP want repeal of Glass Steagall, NAFTA and TPP?

[BillZBubb]

10. All it will take is for real progressives to win in the Democratic primaries.

If the progressive message is good enough (and it should be), progressives will have an advantage with Democratic voters. The primaries are where change has to happen.

Progressives must have a strategy to capture independent and new voters in general elections. Fear that progressive candidates will alienate independents helps the DLC keep stacking the deck.

Progressive candidates, in their primaries, must call out DLC'ers for their corporate ties and backing. Make it an issue. If they don't, corporate money gives the rightist Democrats a huge advantage.

Progressive need to back real progressive candidates. If I recall correctly, wasn't President Obama the progressive's choice in 2008? I found that odd because he never was and never really ran as a progressive.

[betterdemsonly]

15. They don't just have a problem with corporatism

They also have a problem with war hawkery and neoconservatism.

[BillZBubb]

37. Fine, let them make that case too.

I certainly didn't intend to list all the differences. The point remains, we live in a country where it is really only viable to have two parties. If we had a parliamentary system it would be different, but we don't. Therefore, progressives must win primaries in the Democratic party to have a chance to govern.

[Jim Lane]

46. Finally, more than halfway down the thread, I find a post that gives the right answer.

If a progressive candidate has enough votes to win the general election on a minor-party line, then he or she has enough votes to win the Democratic primary and then win the general election.

The reverse, however, is not true. Because of widespread party loyalty, there are millions of people who will pretty much automatically vote for the Democrat in the general election, even if there's another candidate on the ballot who, by some computerized scoring of issues, would be closer to their views.

The alternative strategy favored by some seems to be to announce: "OK, of the people who vote in the Democratic primary, the plurality prefers the centrist candidate, but if you nominate that candidate we won't support him or her in the general. You must nominate our preferred candidate to get our vote." Not only is this undemocratic, but in practice it doesn't work. Practical politicians tend to shrug and write off the "fringe" voters who go stomping off toward the left. Democratic politicians instead turn their attention to their right, because there are more votes to be gained from the people who think the Democrat is too liberal but the Republican is too conservative.

[merrily]

57. Maybe you can answer the questions in my Reply 56. I can't.

I don't think there are any easy answers.

[Jim Lane]

106. Your questions are valid but are not reasons to go third party

My purpose was to disagree with the OP's reference to the supposed "Progressives' need to break up with the Democratic Party" -- a course I consider a recipe for disaster.

I agree that there are no easy answers to the questions you ask. My point is that, although each of your questions points to a difficulty in working within the Democratic Party, every single one of them would become significantly more difficult if progressives try to succeed without the Democratic Party.

[merrily]

112. I'm not at all sure, you are correct about that.

However, further discussion by me would violate the TOS.

[merrily]

56. That's all?

Who is recruiting liberals to run? Not the DCCC or DSCC or the DNC. Recruiting takes money, a staff, etc. Who is going to do it?

Assuming someone is recruited, who will back him or her? Sure, you can get donations from voters, but you have to have a staff and visibility before even that happens. If you watch House of Cards, someone running for Governor got $4 million off the bat, just as seed money. Campaign advisors don't work for free, either. Really big bucks.

Who will get the President or a past President and some big names to stump for him or her?

Who will get the establishment media to cover him or her fairly? I remember Katie Couric insinuating Dean was too insane to govern. "But take a look and see for yourself what you think," said she, just before running the tape of Dean's whoop to rally his troops. And then every station ran it over and over, like it was on a loop.

I was for Kerry then, but was still shocked by the hatchet job the media did on Dean.

[BillZBubb]

105. Jeez, I didn't know I was expected to solve the whole problem!

Money, of course is a problem. In another post I discussed a possible coalition between labor and progressives. Labor has been getting screwed by the DLC Democrats and they know it. Labor could supply a decent amount of money to help progressives have a fighting chance. Progressives would have to be sensitive to Labor's concerns--which I don't think is a problem. Most progressives, I think, aren't too happy with a lot of the trade deals the Democrats have supported.

Other roadblocks exist, but they can be overcome with a lot of hard work and unity. Nobody said it would be easy.

[merrily]

113. Labor has started the Working Families Party.

Sometimes, they simply put the Dem candidate on a different part of the ballot, to show Dems how many of their votes are coming from, well, working families. Sometimes, they run their own candidates and some have won.

As far as solving the whole problem, no, I don't expect that. That's why we discuss things, to pool ideas, though TOS limit what we can discuss here.

But when someone says "all we have to do is........" I want specifics or at least some recognition that it ain't easy.

[Jim Lane]

114. In New York, at least, the WFP almost always cross-endorses the Democrat.

In a couple of races the WFP has cross-endorsed the Republican.

Offhand I can think of only one New York office won by a solely WFP candidate. It was a City Council district in Brooklyn where Republicans are essentially nonexistent, so there was no danger that a separate WFP candidacy would split the progressive vote and let a Republican win with a mere plurality.

One standard criticism of third-party efforts is that our system, including but not limited to the general rule of single-member districts with plurality election, tends to produce a two-party system. In the Brooklyn race, at least, the WFP victory was not a counterexample. Two means two -- not three but also not one. It was for all practical purposes a one-party district, where the WFP could become the second party. In the country as a whole, that's an extremely unusual circumstance.

[merrily]

115. Cross endorsing Republicans--I could never vote red. Just not in my DNA

And, cross endorsing the Dem--big deal. I don't think politicians care where their votes come from, as long as they get the votes. And the latter is why I didn't get excited about WFP when I first heard about it. Now that I hear they go red sometimes, I am even less excited. The last thing I want is another incentive for Dems to go right. But, if WFP can run their own candidates and win, that does interest me, even if they are starting with lower offices (as they should, IMO).

One standard criticism of third-party efforts is that our system, including but not limited to the general rule of single-member districts with plurality election, tends to produce a two-party system.

Democrats and Republicans have done a lot to ensure that third parties have a hard time, from laws to strong arming networks. (Not that the pro-establishment networks need a lot of strong arming.)

One way to go might be continuing to vote Dem, especially at the Presidential level, while volunteering and donating to the so-called third party of one's choice. (Unfortunately, the real number is about 23 national parties and many more at the state and local level--talk about dilution. And bless our hearts, the left will start more parties at the drop of a hat or a splinter's worth of ideological difference.)

Then, when you think the third party or its candidate may have become at least viable...........

[Jim Lane]

120. Third party that's "at least viable" -- what would you envision as the time frame?

Even if there could somehow be only one unified progressive third party (a real problem, as you point out), an optimistic account of its progress would be:

* Starts off small and has no effect on the election.
* Grows to the point that it occasionally splits the progressive vote enough to allow the Republican to win with a plurality short of majority.
* Continues to grow so that the Democratic Party and the Hypothetical Third Party are of comparable strength, which means that they usually split the progressive vote enough to allow the Republican to win with a plurality short of majority.
* Continues to grow so that it eclipses the Democratic Party, which becomes a minor party that's still strong enough that it occasionally splits the progressive vote enough to allow the Republican to win with a plurality short of majority.
* Becomes so strong that the Democratic Party has no effect on the election.

The obvious problem is that those middle phases, during which the Republicans benefit, would last a long time. In an effort to build a nationwide new party, those phases would last decades.

My question for the proponents of a Green Party, Populist Party, Progressive Party, WFP, whatever, is: In what year do you project (being optimistic but reasonable) that your party would first elect a President who did not also have the endorsement of one of the existing major parties?

Also, of course, somewhere along the way, corporatist opportunists would gravitate toward the new party. The true-blue progressives couldn't keep them out. Party governance is, by law, democratic. I think that the Green Party has demanded formal statements of adherence to its platform, but party hierarchs can't prevent someone from voting just because the hierarchs' don't like the voter's political views.

[merrily]

58. Americans had plenty of solidarity. It's been systematically

taken with divide and conquer strategies. One party versus the other, both parties versus liberals.

It isn't the country that wants to move right. It's politicians of both parties who want to move the country right and pretend they are only bowing to the voice of the people.

[stevenleser]

14. As soon as you and enough folks stop thinking its a trick and dig in and do the necessary work to

get your folks nominated and elected.

[jeff47]

16. Time.

It took conservatives 50 years to move the country to its current political alignment. It's going to take us a while to move the country back.

The problem with positions like Rall's is he seems to want a savior to fix it all, and he wants them now. That's not going to happen, even if liberals flee the Democratic party.

It's going to be a long slog of challenging moderates in primaries, and then voting for the Democrat in the general to move the country. It won't take us 50 years, because we won't be trying to convince people to vote against their own interests, but it's going to take multiple presidencies.

Vote in every election. Drag your friends and family and neighbors and coworkers and random strangers off the street. Vote for the best candidate in every primary. If there's only a corporatist on the ballot, run.

Yes, we need idealists like Rall out there demanding change. But we will only reach them via deliberate steps.

[pnwmom]

24. Right. That's the approach conservatives have been taking ever since

Goldwater failed miserably.

The decided to take the long view and work from the bottom up, taking over from the lowest levels -- starting with the school boards.

And they've been succeeding.

[jeff47]

25. Yep. They haven't been waiting for a savior to appear and change everything.

Instead, they got to work. And our current location is the result of their work.

[merrily]

49. The Kochs began planning the Tea Party in the 1980s.

Last edited Wed Jul 9, 2014, 06:48 AM - Edit history (1)

Funded it, organized it, etc. Their daddy before them helped found the John Birch Society. The biggest donors in the Republican Party are quite willing to contribute to the alleged "grass roots" organizations.

Money and organization from above--plus a lot more media help than something like Occupy ever got--are among the big reasons why the conservative groups in the Republican Party are succeeding. Not because of the grass roots.

We have no equivalents in the Democratic Party.

Also, please see Reply 56.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

66. All good points.

[WI_DEM]

18. An out and out liberal actually competing and winning the nomination & then the election.

[geek tragedy]

19. progressives actually expanding their share of the electorate

and winning elections of consequence.

Tom Carper should have been knocked out by the left a long time ago.

[whatthehey]

21. People who understand that making evil less is a good thing?

Never understood why the lesser of two evils is seen as a bad argument.

It's not like we pick electoral winners on any other basis than winner takes all. When somebody else other than D or R has a flying monkey's chance then they will be relevant but until then you get to pick the one you like most/hate least, or you get to sit out and not participate in the electoral system in any meaningful way.

But you'll still get evil. Wouldn't it make more sense to get less of it?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

32. You're not 'making evil less' by voting for 'the lesser evil'.

You're continuing to choose 'evil'.

And the message that sends is 'evil wins'.

So we continue to get evil candidates.

[BillZBubb]

39. That is totally illogical.

If candidate r will do 10 bad things, but candidate d will only do 4 of those plus a few good things, which would you vote for? One or the other WILL be elected, so pick...

Plus this isn't some religious argument about good and evil, this is about governance--good or bad.

No candidate will ever always do exactly what you want on all issues. It will never happen.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

42. I vote as my conscience dictates.

There are usually more than just two options for the highest level offices. So I find one to vote for who promises to be 'good', not 'less evil', even though it often turns out that the guy saying he'll be 'good' turns out to be 'less evil'.

For instance, in 2008, I voted for Obama, who used lots of lefty rhetoric to sound like he was going to be 'good'. He didn't let us know in advance that he intended to sweep Bush regime war crimes under the rug, or continue to expand drone assassinations, or hire a bunch of Goldman Sachs Republicans as his economic team to 'fix' the economy in a way that sent more than 90% of the wealth 'recovered' to the rich and paid off wildly irresponsible 'bets' owed to Goldman Sachs by failed finance sector companies off at 100 cents on the dollar.

So conscience doesn't always get it right. Sometimes you still wind up with 'lesser evil'. But you don't have to go out of your way to deliberately seek to vote 'lesser evil'.

[whatthehey]

84. Of course you are!

So let's say Obama has continued NSA spying, trade deals that may displace workers, foreign wars, and cuts in the Fed workforce. Let's say you consider them evil. Probably true.

Now let's say we'd all followed our dear "principles" and refused to vote for him.

McCain/Romney would have done all the above, exacerbated the foreign wars and added to them, deepened the cuts, etc. He'd also have appointed two more Scalitomases rather than Sotomayer and Kagan, certainly would not have allowed DADT to end on the positive side, never even have tried for extended unemployment or expanded Medicaid and health exchanges.

More evil, whichever way you look at it.

Pining for Eugene Debs isn't going to make him a viable candidate.

You have two choices as I said. Not picking the better guarantees the worse.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

85. 'Lesser evil' is also in the eye of the beholder.

To all the RW folks out there, McCain was the 'lesser evil' rather than Obama.

So 'lesser evil' voting doesn't guarantee one side or the other wins. It merely guarantees you're locked into those specific two choices.

It reinforces a system of binary thinking, and binary government that leads to the country sliding further into crappy outcomes because two groups are locked in bitter opposition.

Where the choices are, in the eyes of every lesser evil voter on both sides, 'getting worse faster or getting worse slower'.

[whatthehey]

90. Not sure what your point is here

Yes RWNJ thought McCain was the lesser evil. And my point stands for them too. Not supporting or voting for him surely made it easier for Obama, who you can rest assured is to them a greater evil, to become POTUS and increase evil, in ttheir minds.

I THINK you are saying that voting for anybody imperfect is causative of the two party system. That's complete nonsense if so. Waiting for a perfect candidate just means you won't vote. Voting for a 2% tops 3rd party extreme candidate, be it Constitution or Green, just means there is zero chance of your vote doing anything positive.

Voting for the best viable option is just that. I'd vote for Kucinich or Warren or heck let's keep the example above and resurrect Debs and I'd vote for him every bit as happily as I would Clinton or O'Malley or Cuomo or whoever the "corporatist 3rd way DLC warmonger 1%er DINO" bete du jour is, assuming they were running against a Republican as the Dem nominee. My willingness to do that does NOTHING to determine the value of the candidate to purists, and acts only to do what I stated - to choose the better of the only two options we have. Your unwillingness to do likewise will also do nothing whatsoever to improve the nominees by your lights. It will however increase the probability that the worse of the ony two options we have will win.

Not voting for imperfect candidates will not create perfect ones. It will just make truly terrible ones win instead. Wishing this were not so is resaonable. I would prefer a more open electoral system myself. But we live in the real world where elections have real consequences, and the next President WILL have either a D or an R after their name. Which one do you prefer? Voting any other way is illogical. Pretending there is no difference is either blind or insane.

[merrily]

50. Please see Reply #2. I didn't sign up for the Democratic Party just

because Democrats know better than to say things like "If it's a real rape, a woman's body has a way of shutting that whole thing (conception) down."

[corkhead]

22. Link to the Ted Rall article:

I had not seen it. Thanks for bringing my attention to it.

Like a tick, mainline “centrist” (i.e. conservative) Democrats will suck you dry. First they misdirect your hope for real change. Then they extract your vote. By the time you realize you’ve been chomped, the buggers drop off, bloated on stolen power and wealth.

http://rall.com/2014/07/03/syndicated-column-at-some-point-progressives-need-to-grow-a-pair-and-stop-having-anything-to-do-with-the-democratic-party

[xchrom]

26. Because I'm in NC - I'm voting down ballot.

I could care less about Prez.

[merrily]

52. Please don't leave the slot blank, though, even if

you write in someone.

[JoePhilly]

70. Yea, who cares about the supreme court and its life time appointments.

Certainly not my teenage daughters who will have to live with the next set of judges appointed for most of the rest of their lives.

[yourout]

27. Nation wide instant runoff voting.

Till then we are screwed.

[merrily]

60. Would that take a Constitutional amendment?

If so, how likely is it that the Republicans and Democrats in Congress will vote in favor of it, to get the ratification process going?

[cascadiance]

94. It's already being used in some communities, as are open primaries...

Open primaries destroy political parties and their being vehicles for social movements in primary elections, and are probably worse than what we have now if they aren't done right, but are being put in place to lure in independent voters who feel left out of the primary elections, but don't understand what open primaries do to the electoral process. Big money is being pushed to have these voted in like we are here in Oregon now this coming election and California did some years back.

We need to do something like instant runoff voting or range voting to make sure that third parties and others can get votes without becoming demonized like Nader was for being "spoilers". Until then, the two major parties will get heavily bribed to put corporate candidates out for the two major parties and ensure that they all "play the game" to foster the corporate corruption cancer that we have today.

[merrily]

96. Oh, I'm very much on board, as long as its feasible.

When you say "already being used in some communities," what do you mean? Local elections? State office?

Do you know how anyone got it started in his or her community? I can't imagine Republicans or Democrats going along with it.

I realize President is not the be all and end all, but can it be used for Presidential election without a constitutional amendment?

[rickyhall]

28. If a candidate can get the nonvoters to vote we'd have it,

but there lies the rub.

[merrily]

61. I think the rub(s) lie about 20 steps before that. Please see Reply 56.

[pa28]

29. Good question. Fortunately I think there is an answer.

The left needs to organize and fund it's own wing of the party just as centrist/corporatist Democrats have done with theirs.

Unions need to stop funneling money to the party or incumbent organizations like the DCCC. Instead of indirectly funding their own demise by electing free trade corporate Democrats labor groups can groom and fund their own credible candidates and begin the long process of cleaning house.

Same with rank and file Democrats. Find good left candidates and give them your time and money even if they aren't local. I don't know how it's going to look but unless we organize ourselves within the party we'll be getting the finger with their "lesser of two evils" argument forever.

[BillZBubb]

40. I like that idea!

One problem I see, though, is that the unions haven't always been exactly progressive on social issues, certainly not the rank and file. That could lead to a further schism.

One thing progressives really need is a series of progressive "think tanks" that develop progressive policy and sell it in the media.

[merrily]

63. Not as easy as it seems without big bucks backers. Please see Replies 49 and 56.

If you think it easy, just think about even Step 1. (I have.) How do you even start to raise funds? (Remember, most of us have day jobs and no millions to spare.)

[Alkene]

30. WWIII n/t

[NealK]

33. Why do you hate Obama... And Hillary?

[conservaphobe]

38. Not sure if having our own Cochran/McDaniel dramafests is going to help anything. nt

[MisterP]

45. nnnnot vote for them, mebbe? nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

59. Liberals can stop offering up fools & flakes as alternatives, for a start.

[merrily]

65. Yeah, we don't offer them up. We're not the ones picking candidates.

[Tarheel_Dem]

69. Sounds good to me.

[merrily]

72. Glad you're enjoying the rightist duopoly. I prefer the left.

[Tarheel_Dem]

73. Doesn't seem to matter much what you "prefer". I just wish the malcontents...

would go out and win a primary, and stop whining about "centrists"; "the DLC"; "the corporate media"; "the rightist duopoly", blah..blah...blah.

At some point, maybe you guys will do some introspection, and stop looking for outside sources to blame for your epic failures.

[merrily]

74. According to you, your wishes don't seem to matter. No one is going

to stop expressing themselves to suit you.

As for what I prefer, I sense change coming. Maybe not tomorrow, but on its way. Sorry, but you just may get better politicians forced on you.

Speaking of being sorry, you'll forgive me if I don't continue this pissing contest. For all it matters, you can have the last word as well as the first salvo. In fact, have as many last words as you like.

[Tarheel_Dem]

77. I never asked for your response in the first place. See how that works?

Your willingness to end the exchange so abruptly might help explain liberals total failure to launch. You're not convincing, just reactive. You guys got all hyped up in 2000, and instead of building something of your own, you've instead tried to co-opt the infrastructure built by those dastardly "centrists & DLC'ers".

"Change has been coming" for you guys for a long time. Either shit, or get off the pot already?

[brooklynite]

62. How about: find a progressive candidate that 17+ million Democrats will vote for?

Or maybe, stop using scary word clichés, accept that not all Democrats are as progressive as you (and DU) are, and that being less progressive doesn't make them dupes, and treat the primary the way it's meant to be treated: as a battleground of ideas.

[merrily]

67. If you look at polls on issues--no labels on the issues--no propaganda

Last edited Tue Apr 21, 2015, 09:36 AM - Edit history (1)

poisoning people's minds, people of all parties poll more liberal than either Republicans or New Democrats. The numbers as to people from all parties are around 70% or better.


The country is not demanding to go right. The politicians are taking it right.

[brooklynite]

76. So you're saying that voters are stupid...

...YOU'VE been able to see through this evil plot, but they can't?

[merrily]

78. Whenever a post starts, "So, you're saying...." what follows is

rarely what the poster said at all.

[brooklynite]

81. Please correct my misinterpretation...

We have Democrats in States like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and (gasp!) New Jersey, who voted for Republican Governors after voting for President Obama. Either they did it because their brand of Democratic Politics made those candidates acceptable, or they were duped into voting against their ideological positions. Which is it?

[yurbud]

107. a lot of people don't take the time to follow issues and just see the commercials and what's on the

mainstream media.

And if a candidate too far outside the corporate fold starts doing too well, they will be ridiculed like Howard Dean, or ridiculed and excluded from debates like Dennis Kucinich on the left and Ron Paul on the right.

[winter is coming]

87. Um, that doesn't make sense.

You said, "The country is demanding to go right." Based on the previous paragraph, shouldn't you have written, "The country is demanding to go left"?

[JoePhilly]

71. That's the correct answer.

The same folks whining now wanted Obama to be primaried in 2012. They spent a lot of energy complaining about that as if it has some chance of happening.

What they should have been doing is working to develop candidates who could reach millions of Dems who are not as progressive as DU.

Now they are complaining about Hillary.

In 4 years, they'll probably be demanding a primary opponent for then President Clinton.

[JustAnotherGen]

75. +1

[Number23]

117. You and Tarheel (right above you) have given well reasoned, pragmatic, logical answers

Which is probably why you're either being needlessly harassed or ignored.

[merrily]

122. Sorry, it took much longer than I anticipated. Life happens.

It's worth clicking on the links to look at the percentages.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12777036

[vi5]

79. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

That's the only thing that wins in American politics. Which is why we're so screwed. Our choices are between the party that loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooves money and the other party that just looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooves money.

Until we can offer either one more money than the other guys, we're screwed and nothing will break that hold.

[abelenkpe]

80. More comfortable well off dems losing work

To offshoring championed by their own policies.

[reddread]

83. ignore them here, trash their trash. New Mantra-only one conservative Party AND THIS AINT IT

Theyre selling lies, dont waste your energy on them. Invest it in people who listen, people with families and
loved ones looking for REAL hope, REAL change. Bring the victims together to win, not to lose.
This is our party, they'll cry if we want them to, just dont listen to their murderous, interventionist,
money thieving 1% serving
bullshit.

[IronLionZion]

86. When progressives win some general elections

The only way to shift anything in any direction is to fucking win, god damn it. There's no point being pure and losing in a landslide. The DLC, which ceased existence in 2011 for those who need a bogeyman to blame, was originally created because of Mondale/Ferraro's epic fail. Carter got nominated after McGovern's epic fail. And Bill Clinton was nominated after Dukakis and Mondale. Winning is winning.


Nobody is asking you to shower, shave, or wear clean clothes, or even conform to traditional gender roles or get an office job. But stop complaining and start getting out the votes for liberal candidates and prove they can win .... by fucking winning! You dirty hippies.

Look, I supported a lesbian candidate for governor in my state who promised to legalize weed and all sorts of wonderful stuff. She still lost. These candidates need votes. That's how it works. And most of the red state moderates lost in the 2010 tea party rebellion anyway.

Nice ideas are very nice. But motherfucking votes are all that matter in the real world. And that takes tireless thankless hours of work every day for a populist grass roots campaign. Who's going to do it?

[brooklynite]

99. Couldn't I just write a blog post?

Getting political candidates elected in competitive races is hard!

[IronLionZion]

100. Life is hard

blogging is easy!

[librechik]

88. strong multiple party system with election runoffs.

That is what works. By definition, what works is not what we will get here in Crazyland USA.

[Octafish]

91. Great post, yurbud.

We tried voting them out, that didn't work.

We need a Plan B. While an ideological cleansing of the Party is my choice, that requires a boatload of money. Not gonna happen, as most all of those with money like things just the way they are.

We likely need Plan C: A New Democratic Party where INTEGRITY is a requisite for office.

Don't know if it can defeat the Big Bucks, but I do believe it would be very popular.

[yurbud]

110. Every candidate would have to pledge not to take corporate money or go to work

for any corporation or large company in any capacity after leaving office.

[n2doc]

92. So long as a large chunk of folks remain low information voters

So long as they vote for whomever they see running the most ads on TV
So long as the vote for the most familiar name
So long as they don't make the effort to find out what the candidates records are.

And finally,
So long as candidates can freely promise policies which they then abandon immediately after being elected, with no consequence...


I don't expect anything different in 2016.

[DirkGently]

97. Republican-lite stylings aren't going to win many elections, for starters.

The conceit that you can court Wall Street and destructive de-regulation and be a Middle-East Hawk and talk about the great need for "entitlement reform" all the time, and still win nationally as a Democrat is a failure already.

Obama is not the most progressive Dem around by a long shot, but he beat Hillary Clinton by at least giving the impression he was to her left.

The Democratic brand cannot thrive on a platform of being just like Republicans, but slightly more pleasant on social issues. That only appeals to conservatives, and conservatives hate Democrats far more than they distrust the extremists in their own party.

The idea, of course, is to collect all that sweet, sweet oligarch money to run campaigns. But while money is what makes the campaign *industry* work, it isn't the only thing that wins elections.

What people keep forgetting is that our policies are, quite objectively, way out of whack TO THE RIGHT.

Republicans have literally run out of room running in that direction. All they can do is flap their arms and say "no" to everything that isn't a tax cut.

Democrats running to catch them will fall off the same cliff.

[ProfessorPlum]

101. Elizabeth Warren n/t

[MohRokTah]

102. Don't become unreliable voters

The far left did that in 2000.

It forced the Democratic Party to the right.

[BainsBane]

103. Revolution and the overturning of capitalism

the state functions as it is intended, to protect capital. It always has throughout the entire history of this country. Expecting some political messiah to change that is ludicrous. The entire political and economic system is set up around promoting moneyed interests. You call them corporatists now. In other eras they were the Slave Power or industrialists.

[PowerToThePeople]

109. This. n/t

[joshcryer]

116. "gay-hugging corporatists"

I don't have a damn problem with a gay-hugging corporatist.

[AgingAmerican]

119. Get rid of the electoral college

As long as it exists, we will be stuck in a two party system.