Common Dreams: "Maybe we should sit this election out."

[wyldwolf]

As for our own plan of action? It’s hard for me to imagine many of us voting for Republicans, who have at times been downright hostile to immigrant communities. But maybe Latinos in places like Colorado, Florida, Arkansas and North Carolina — states with closely contested Senate or governor’s races — should sit this election out. Maybe only by paying a price at the polls will Democrats finally stop throwing us under the bus.

And the comments!

The Republican is red
The Democrat is blue
Neither one of them
Gives a f--- about you

------

Go big time and urge all Latinos to vote Green. Screw the democrats.

How many times does the democratic party have to stab people in the back for them to wake up and realize that the excruciating pain they feel won't stop until they pull out the knives?


http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/09/09/obama-broke-his-promise-latinos-maybe-we-should-sit-election-out

Today, after people called for links proving 'progressives' have called for sitting out elections (or voting 3rd party), I've been told:

Michael Moore doesn't count because ... well, they weren't clear.

Molly Ivins doesn't count because she's dead.

Robert Parry doesn't count because someone doesn't know who he is.

Ed Schulz doesn't count because he is an obnoxious git, who seems to be the 'equivalent' of a 'Rush Limbaugh for the left'.

Ted Rall doesn't count because he is a cartoonist, and can't even draw all that well.

So... Commondreams? Acceptable source?

[BeyondGeography]

1. It is during what I call happy hour

aka the gloomfest which runs from 6-7 am daily here.

[SidDithers]

70. I've noticed that too...

it's educational to do sort the GD page 1 by Thread Start time once in a while, just to see who is posting and how quickly they post. Some posters don't even have time to read the articles that they're posting, in the time between the threads that they're posting.

Sid

[MineralMan]

3. But, see, nobody reads commondreams...

Yeah, that's it...

[wyldwolf]

5. well damn! Goal post moved again! :)

[sabrina 1]

36. Liberals read Common Dreams. For Dems it has

always been and is one of the most reliable sources available.

Every progressive Democrat knows that. It is one of the most read Dem sites and most respected on the Left.

The right of course has always hated and tried to dismiss them, just as they do with minoritie, Gayss and Women and of course the 'left'.

As a proud lifelong Dem and Feminist I consider Common Dreams to have been out there fighting for Gay rights, women's rights and minority rights.

One of the best, most credible Left sites there is.

But maybe you intended to say 'no one on RIGHT reads Common Dreams'? Although t hat too would be incorrect to an extent, the far right DOES read the most popular Left/Democratic sites, or peruses them, in order to attack them.

The way you know a site is a legitimate Liberal Dem site? It is definitely going to be criticized and attacked by the Far Right.

[merrily]

51. I don't read Common Dreams and DUers consider me practically advocating

overthrow of the US govt by violence, to institute a Communist dictatorship, preferably with me as the dictator.



I don't boycott common dreams. I just never got into of reading there.

[Monk06]

124. I had an ex girlfriend steal my University diploma and move to Japan. She made a forged copy and

used it to get her 'articles' published in Common Dreams. I left a comment at the end of one of her pieces and told her to stop using my credentials to get work for which she was not qualified.

Common Dreams does not check their writers for CV fraud so how good a source can they be?

[JoePhilly]

4. Impossible!

Or that's what I heard.

[cheapdate]

6. Shit no! The next president will likely appoint two justices

to fill liberal vacancies on the SCOUTUS. A GOP win in 2016 would be a disaster that would color the court for a generation or more. Conservatives will be free to act without any restraint whatsoever.

All of the impassioned and eloquent dissents written by Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor don't change anything. The 5-4 decisions of the Robert's court have given away our democracy to big money, gutted the Voting Rights Act, approved of the worst excesses of the security state, and stripped power from the workers and the people.

This is important. Elections have consequences. I'm disappointed that some people are willing to turn a blind eye to the serious and long term consequences of "punishing Democrats" in 2016.

Any gains that have been made in recent years will be reversed and set back for a long time. Conservative are very good at consolidating power any way they can.

Vote Democrat people!

[VanillaRhapsody]

106. EXACTLY.....I don't get this OWNERSHIP of the Democratic party the Far far Left feels....

they are about a majority on the Left as the Teaparty is on the Right....and the Tea Party ALSO thinks THEY own the Republican party.

You are right....VOTE Democrat people!

[cheapdate]

123. The Progressive Caucus has, or had, around 62 members in congress, I think.

60 Democrats and 2 Independents, or something like that.

Are these progressive leaders, who are ACTUALLY fighting the fight, hoping that voters stay home to "send a message" to the Democratic Party?

Hell no! Of course not! They're begging for support -- support that only comes when Democrats CONTROL CONGRESS!

The party in control schedules the votes, controls the committees, and SETS THE AGENDA.

GOP control means that progressives are effectively POWERLESS.

The left "protest voters" think they're being strategic, but they're only being self-destructive.

[VanillaRhapsody]

133. I didn't say Progressives did I?

Which proves my point precisely!......

[LadyHawkAZ]

7. They're not DU members so it doesn't count

Or something.

[1StrongBlackMan]

8. NSA!!!!!!

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

38. Barry's spying on us! Barry's spying on us!! OH! He's worse than BUSH!!

[VanillaRhapsody]

107. hahahahaahaha.....its the Far Left version of BENGAAAAAZZZZZIIIII!!!!

[MerryBlooms]

9. Straight Dem ticket for me. I don't care how hard I have to pinch my nose.

I will never NOT vote against republicans.
We stand a better chance turning a supposed 3rd way Dem towards leftness, than any goddamn current republican.

[AlbertCat]

27. Besides...... you HAVE to vote for the SANE party.

period.

[VanillaRhapsody]

108. There it is.....its a choice between Sanity and Insanity!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

30. strength in numbers too.

People will legislate more bravely the more sane people they have around them.

[Freddie]

74. 100% agree

The worst Dem is better than ANY Repug. Period.
And staying home, or voting 3rd party, is the same thing as voting Repug. Why can't people get that???

[NuclearDem]

10. See 2010 for what happens when people decide to sit one out.

Now the House is permanently Republican until 2020 at least.

So yeah, fuck that.

[sabrina 1]

37. Dems did not sit out in 2010, Independents sat out, and they will again unless the Dem Party

gives them something to vote FOR. They will not go out to vote AGAINST something. As was made clear in 2010.

Just telling voters to hold their noses and vote for the Third Wayer because the 'other guy is worse', won't get the critical Independent vote to the polls.

You are talking to the choir HERE. Everyone here WILL vote. But what are you going to tell those independents who now make up the largest voting bloc, in order to get THEM out to vote?

Last poll I saw 40% of registered voters are now Independents. Only 32% are Dems and less than that, 29%, are Repubs.

So stop yelling at Dem voters before you start losing them also, they're not exactly thrilled as it is.

Just tell us how you plan to convince Independents to vote for Dems?? What is the Dem Party offering them. They came in 2008 to vote for Dems, two years later they stayed home. So, how do you plan to talk to them about voting in November?

[Blue_Tires]

40. I assure you Dems in Virginia sat out in '09 and '10...

We even had a couple of DUers admit as much...

[merrily]

52. Any polling that reflects that?

Not that polls are infallible, but polling did show that the left did not sit out 2010.

Besides, if the left is ineed dispirited enough to sit out elections, maybe someone at the DNC should figure out what to do about that, other than whining about the left. Democrats sure aren't going to win elections without the left.

[joshcryer]

67. This is about GOTV, not whether "the left voted."

"The left" simply allowed for there to be an enthusiasm gap. "The left" don't make up the entirety of the vote, as Grayson and Feingold showed. Even progressives need the mushy middle to get elected. This is something that appears lost on people.

If "the left" vote, it means little, if they don't get out the vote, as well.

[merrily]

86. Maybe I am just not seeing it, but I don't see that

as broken down by liberals vs. other Democrats. That is what I keep reading on DU, that it's specifically liberals who don't turn out.

And that is what the OP of this thread is about.

[Blue_Tires]

89. Well, I've never seen it broken down that way

All I'd said was Democratic voters across the board stayed home in VA in 09-10

[merrily]

92. Yes, that was your wording.

I assumed it related to the OP though, so my bad on that.

[joshcryer]

121. There are more conservatives than liberals.

The OP of this thread is a distraction.

[Blue_Tires]

82. here's a start:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/05/800879/-How-voter-turnout-decided-the-Virginia-governor-s-race#

http://www.governing.com/blogs/politics/Why-Turnout-in-Virginia.html

The rest of my evidence is mostly informal and unscientific -- I work at a university, and I casually quiz the students on how many voted...

[merrily]

88. Please see reply 86.

[sabrina 1]

122. I am in NY. Polls show that the majority of Progressive dems held their seats.

Who do you think voted for them? Republicans?

Blue Dogs lost, and polls show that Independents were unwilling to vote for Republican lite. That is what will happen again if the Dem Party does not, as happened in 2010, support Progressives. The party supported Blue dogs, Independents did not.

[Blue_Tires]

135. Well I don't see the party running any real progressives in VA for the foreseeable future

So if Dem voters want to stand on principle and stay home, that's their right...I just don't want to hear *ANY* complaints when their principled stance allows fringe rightists like McDonnell and Cuccinelli to waltz into office...

[Union Scribe]

43. Truth. But they're setting up another lie already

"See it was just like 2010!!!11"

And then they pretend the left is the source of division! Soulless political hacks know no shame.

[RandiFan1290]

65. Same hacks use to tell LGBT to 'shut up and sit down' on DU

They use to lecture the LGBT on DU to shut up close to election time
and were always so concerned that the "GAY" would cost Dems the elections.
They tried to set up the gay scapegoat in the exact same manner.

So obvious and one of the reasons I've never given this site one thin dime.

[bread_and_roses]

134. I'm here. I am a Blank in NY. I won't vote.

Here in NY we have Governor 1%(D), who wants a R Senate so he can have cover for his 1%er policies so he can go on the Presidential trail with "moderate" and "bi-partisan" tacked on his name. He's the stealth Scott Walker when it comes to public employees, education, and shoveling big $$ to vampire corporations in the name of "development," but the WFP, of which I used to be a part, endorsed him because he's going to win.

I'm a big fan of yours, Sabrina. And you are right - voting against something is not enough, and when your vote for a D is not even a vote against ..... why vote?

The system is totally broken and voting D just gets us a slightly slower death. We have POTUS supporting Amazon in its blatant abuse of workers time - a story I saw days ago that just popped up here this AM and has now disappeared from front page - not interesting enough, I guess? I often think that the cognitive dissonance around here is great enough to qualify as literal insanity. The simple fact that mostly populist candidate Obama brought out people who never voted while may-as-well-be-R when it comes to power and $$ POTUS left them cold teaches nothing, evidently. The same arguments are trotted out.

Let the Rs win. When things get bad enough, something will change. Unfortunately, we are as likely to end up with a brutal repressive theocracy as with anything better. For which third-way Ds and the so-called "Liberal" establishment will bear a huge share of the responsibility. It won't much matter to me - I'll be dead one way or another. But I weep for my grandchildren.

[sabrina 1]

139. I agree with everything you just said, B&R. As for Cuomo, I could not agree more. He is FOR

fracking eg, although he has gone silent on that for the election season. 'Vampire Corporations', yes. I am upstate NY in farming country. NO ONE is happy with politics here, Left, Right, Independent.

To keep on doing the same thing, we hear the same talking points every election, 'the other guys are worse' now, IS insanity.

First thing that needs to happen and it began in a way in 2010, although the Third Wayers refused to admit it, when voters refused to vote for the Blue Dogs. The Dem Leadership were angry. They think we are stupid, they forgot that THEY used the Blue Dogs as their excuse for NOT getting Progressive legislation, the PO eg. It was always 'but what could have been done, the Blue Dogs are responsible'. So, the voters agreed and threw most of them out. The Third Way BLAMED the voters.

Good post, probably too true for some around here who have the gall to attack VOTERS when the problem is the Leadership which has been pouring money into the Third Way/Blue Dog candidates even though they LOSE rather than support actual Dem candidates. They need to win back your vote, but that isn't how they will view it. They will attack you and blame you and never, ever take responsibility for losing those votes.

[neverforget]

41. Independents voted for Republicans 55-39 and women 49-48.

2010 Elections Exit Poll Analysis: The Political Price of Economic Pain

The Republicans relied on differential turnout. Among Tuesday's voters, 46 percent voted for Obama in 2008, 45 percent for John McCain -- an election Obama won by 53-45 percent. Thirteen percent of Obama voters defected to Republicans for Congress, while 8 percent of McCain voters favored Democrats. And among other voters -- the 8 percent who either didn't vote, or voted for someone else, in 2008 -- Republicans won by 57-36 percent.

GOP candidates scored better than they have in decades among some key demographic groups. Consider:

Women voted 49-48 percent for Democratic vs. Republican House candidate -- the best for Republicans among women in national House vote in exit polls since 1982. Obama won women by 13 points in 2008.

Democrats and Republicans were at parity in self-identification nationally, 36-36 percent, a return to the close division seen in years before 2008, when it broke dramatically in the Democrats' favor, 40-33 percent.

Swing-voting independents who, as usual, made the difference, favored Republicans for House by a thumping 16 points, 55-39 percent. Compare that to Obama's 8-point win among independents in 2008. It was the Republicans' biggest win among independents in exit polls dating to 1982 (by two points. The GOP won independents by 14 points in 1994, the last time they took control of the House.)

Democrats lost independents big time. Our turnout would've had to have been gigantic to beat that drubbing by independents.

[joshcryer]

68. The turnout was similar to 2006.

The problem was that there was a large youth vote gap that were disillusioned and the GOTV effort was pathetic. We're talking a 9 point spread. That means that the Republicans got out 9 points more than we did and we lost 9 points. That is too large to be described by some sort of weird psychological shift. The activists just dropped the ball.

I'll note Colorado stayed blue because we didn't give up.

[eridani]

125. The people who sit out elections are the people that Turd Way types just love to counterpose-

--to the "far left." That is to say the well informed types who are more interested in policy than personality. Average voters don't vote strategically, don't vote consistently, and don't give a bloody goddam about bikini graphs and official unemployment rates.

[Chathamization]

11. That wasn't a particularly easy article to find just browsing the site. I went to the front page and

didn't see it, then looked at the date - oh, a month ago. OK, I'll just go back through a few pages of news stories until I get to Sept. 9th and look through the stories there. Eh, not there. Well, it first appeared in Politico, so maybe it's in the newswire section, let's go back a few pages to Sept. 9 and look through the stories there - nope, not there either. Eh. Maybe in the views section? Go back a few pages until Sept. 9th, look at the posts there, ah, found it.

Yeah, that article is pretty silly (and the comments on Politico are actually better than the ones on Common Dreams). If you really wanted to spend time combing through sites on the Left searching for silly things someone said, you'd probably eventually find some other examples here and there as well. Not sure that tells us much.

[wyldwolf]

12. but it was very easy using Google.

[Chathamization]

14. Yes, but I was trying to see how visible it was on the site. The fact that you needed to Google this

because it was too difficult to find an example by simply browsing the sites should be telling.

[wyldwolf]

15. telling of what?

Some here were tasked to provide links proving the DU topic du jour. It's been entertaining watching people try to discount the links. Your approach is original I'll admit.

[Chathamization]

18. I guess it depends on what you think the topic du jour is. If it's "If I do a Google search I can

find some examples somewhere of people saying Democrats should sit out the elections" then yes, I suppose you're correct. However, if the topic is "it's common for sites on the Left to encourage people not to vote," having to go to Google to find an example seems to prove that isn't the case.

[wyldwolf]

19. No one has said or implied "it's common."

So you have no argument. The big topic of the day is whether progressive sites have discouraged voting. They have. That being said, Google is the preferred internet method to find information.

[Chathamization]

20. If it's not common and examples tend to come from the fringe (judging just from the comment section

of that article), then I'm not sure what the point is - other than some people really love digging up and broadcasting any negative stuff someone on the Left does.

[wyldwolf]

21. ok, so now Commondreams doesn't count because it comes from the fringe. LOL.

Here's an idea Chathamization - if people really don't want proof of something they shouldn't demand it.

Remember - the challenge was to prove progressives are discouraging votes on progressive sites. This has been proven by this link and several others.

[SidDithers]

73. The pretzels they're twisting themselves into are amazing...

Good thread.

Sid

[Chathamization]

87. Not sure who was demanding proof of what, since you didn't bother to reply to a post asking for

proof, you chose to start a new topic proving that some on the Left somewhere do bad things. As I said, if someone was arguing that that wasn't the case, they were certainly wrong (and any sentence that begins "not a single person on the Left has..." is going to be wrong in general). If they were arguing that it wasn't prevalent, the fact that one has to search for an example through Google rather than just looking at the front page articles of prominent sites doesn't prove the case.

Again, I'm not sure which you're trying to argue. Instead of replying to the post in question, you started a new topic, and responded to people asking what your point was by posting a laughing GIF (or perhaps that's the extent of the point you were trying to make?).

As for Common Dreams, as I said, I was judging by the comments I saw there - specifically the number of Green Party members in the comments, many more than I've seen on any of the sites I frequent. If you want to argue that Common Dreams is mainstream, you're welcome to. I don't frequent the site so I can't say much beyond it didn't look like it in the 10 minutes of browsing I did.

[wyldwolf]

91. So you're saying with a straight face you haven't seen anyone ask for proof?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5647310
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5646934
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5646911
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5648940
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5646989

... just for starters.

Now, what posting are you referring to that I didn't reply to? Keep in mind I don't often respond to irrelevant points are people demanding answers to things I'm not even discussing.

[Chathamization]

95. The question was what your point was. But I concede that you're not discussing that, so perhaps that

is why you don't bother answering it.

None of the posts you linked to said that it has never occurred. In fact, if you bothered to read the posts you linked to, you'd see a number mention it occurring occasionally on less mainstream sites. They all seem to dispute that it's prevalent, or "all over the internet" as the other post claimed. Your posts here suggest that they're correct.

[wyldwolf]

97. So my point was that 'progressive' sites and personalities have advised people to sit out elections

I also proved it with several links.

So you're saying that person asked me to prove it and I did so what's your issue?

None of the posts you linked to said that it has never occurred.

I never said or implied any of those posts said it has never occurred.

They asked for proof it has occurred. Which I've provided. They didn't say "prove it's prevalent." They asked for evidence it HAS happened. And I've provided it.

Now why are you still twisting yourself in knots over this?

[Chathamization]

117. Perhaps you should read the posts you linked to. None of them asked for proof that someone somewhere

said something like that. Two even mention that it happens occasionally in some places - your claim that they said it happens sometimes and then demanded proof that it happens sometimes is ludicrous. All of them were responding to a post claiming it was all over the internet, and disputing that claim.

[Cha]

128. Thanks for finding that, wyldwolf.. I never would have dreamed "common dreams" could be so damn

dumb.

[bahrbearian]

71. You can find anything you want on Google, if you only read Google.

[Fumesucker]

13. The normal Democratic search for leftist scapegoats is picking up momentum I see

[Andy823]

23. I don't understand

I see nobody scapegoating leftists. I see people pointing out that there are post on not only DU, but other progressive boards from people trying to get those who vote for democrats to stay home, and who push the meme that both parties are the same. I also don't see anyone here claiming what was posted on common dreams was done by "leftists".

As for me I don't believe that this kind of posting "is" being done by "leftists". People who post this kind of crap are not progressives, not liberals, not democrats and not leftists. They have their own agenda, and it's not the same as real progressives, real liberals, real democrats, or real leftists. What do you think?

[Fumesucker]

55. This is done to prime the message of who is responsible for any losses that might occur in November

You'll note that despite the fact it was the centrists who stayed home in 2010 that loss is constantly and loudly laid at the feet of the "left". The groundwork for that was set before the election, just like what's being done at this moment.

I think it's both hilarious and extremely revealing that one of the prime current instigators of this leftward finger-pointing technique on DU was a long time poster on Free Republic, I suppose you can take the boy out of Free Republic but you'll never take the Free Republic out of the boy.

Wait until after the election and you'll see, the centrists will lay any losses entirely at the feet of the left no matter what the facts might say, that's what this is all about.

ETA: After reading the rest of the thread I see I should mention that there's an actual living breathing Fox News personality on this very thread helping to bash the left.

[NanceGreggs]

57. "Wait until after the election and you'll see ...

... the centrists will lay any losses entirely at the feet of the left no matter what the facts might say, that's what this is all about."

Yes, that's what this is all about. The "centrists" are out to get the "leftists", who are anxious to scapegoat the "true progressives", who in turn want to oust the -- oh, fer fuck's sake.

How many unpure Democrats does it take to crucify the "true leftists" on DU? None. They can nail themselves to the cross all by themselves, thank you very much.

[Fumesucker]

58. I still regularly read posts here on DU blaming 2010 on "the left"

Often by a Fox News personality and a former Freeper.

Personally I find the irony just short of breathtaking, I'm kind of a fan of irony and it leaves me shaking my head.

[NanceGreggs]

59. Oh, don't I know what you mean!

There are posts blaming the "left", and posts blaming the "centrists", and posts blaming the "semi-progressives", and posts blaming the "true progressives", and posts blaming the "leftiest leftists", and posts blaming the "progressiest progressives" - for everything, past, present and future.

It's almost as though some people had an agenda - one that included turning Dems against Dems.

[Fumesucker]

60. They'll smile in your face

[NanceGreggs]

61. Yeah, the Back-Stabbers ...

I wonder who they could possibly be.

[Fumesucker]

63. Research shows they are more likely to be the wealthy and powerful

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/study-wealthy-people-more-likely-005013962.html

Upper-class people are more prone to unethical behavior, research indicates.

In a series of experiments, University of California at Berkeley psychology professor Paul Piff found that people who are better off act differently from their poorer peers. A PBS Newshour segment documented some of his findings, which include:

While 90 percent of California drivers follow a law requiring them to stop for pedestrians at crosswalks, people who drive luxury vehicles are three to four times more likely not to.

In an experiment where people were left in a video-monitored room with a bowl of candy they were told was for kids coming by later, wealthy people took twice as much candy as poorer participants.

[JTFrog]

66. Yep, ratfuckers are prime time entertainment and rec generators on DU.

But we're supposed to pretend that they aren't here. That our only truths come from those who have spent six years trashing and demeaning anything and everything this Democratic administration has done (or not done).

Every election year they dust off the both parties are the same, lesser of two evils, zomg there are no real Democrats strawmen and prop them up for a few months of dead horse beating. It's all about wearing people down to the point of apathy, hopelessness and defeat.

Scapegoats my ass.

Anyway, I'm glad we have some folks around here who try to keep it real. Good to see you Nance.

[Bobbie Jo]

96. .+1000

Nailed it.

[Number23]

193. Oh, you SO nailed it

Yep, ratfuckers are prime time entertainment and rec generators on DU.

But we're supposed to pretend that they aren't here.

Spot on. But lately, it seems as the wheels are falling off the Wagon of Wailing that these folks rode in on. Lots of positive stories about the job the president and the democrats are doing, a recent poll with over 400 votes that had 87% of voters giving the president a passing grade, the vast majority of those votes giving him very high marks.

When the Perpetually Petulant even fail here -- a web site that not too long ago was full to the brim with left Libertarian screamers -- then you know you the jig is almost up.

[1StrongBlackMan]

113. Ya know ...

Sometime I think that ...

Other times, I just think folks are just throwing "Me, Me, Me" tantrums.

[Tarheel_Dem]

64. "They can nail themselves to the cross all by themselves, thank you very much. ".

[1StrongBlackMan]

112. LOL ...

[joshcryer]

69. Link to "centrists stayed home in 2010"?

We're likely to lose Mark Udall over this crap, oh, but he's a third wayer, so who cares, right? Next I'm sure it'll be told to us that if our candidates were more left wing, then they'd get elected. Just like what was said when all the blue dogs got the can in 2010.

[SidDithers]

75. That's exactly what I was thinking about...

all the cheering when blue dog Dems got beat by Republicans in 2010.

Sid

[LondonReign2]

177. Did you say link?

Did liberals really stay home and cause the 2010 rout?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/06/1003805/-Did-liberals-really-stay-home-and-cause-the-2010-rout
“So I went back to the exit polls and the picture I see shows nothing like that. If you are a proponent of this claim, I challenge you for empirical proof that some set of activist liberals "took their ball and went home" or whatever metaphor you prefer to make Obama's leftward critics appear childish and immature. Inside, the evidence I found that shows this just ain't so.”

http://blogforarizona.net/do-progressives-even-sit-out-elections-the-numbers-say-no/
“As you can see, Democrats did slightly better with liberals in 2010 than in 2006. Had there really been a collective we’re-sitting-out-the-election-to-spite-Obama pout going on, then there should have been a sharp drop in the liberal participation percentage. Yet notice the 9% drop in moderate voter participation and the concomitant 10% increase in conservative turnout. Republicans were pumped for that election but their turnout tends to be higher in midterms anyway. Millions of moderate voters either flipped to conservative or stayed home in 2010.”
“As you can see, all the Democratic groups dropped, but the liberal Democrats dropped least of all”

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/progressive-movement/news/2012/11/08/44348/the-return-of-the-obama-coalition/
Ideology. Liberals were 25 percent of voters in 2012, up from 22 percent in 2008. Since 1992 the percent of liberals among presidential voters has varied in a narrow band between 20 percent and 22 percent, so the figure for this year is quite unusual. Conservatives, at 35 percent, were up one point from the 2008 level, but down a massive 7 points since 2010.
Ideology. Obama received less support in 2012 from all ideology groups, though the drop-offs were not particularly sharp in any group. He received 86 percent support from liberals (89 percent in 2008), 56 percent from moderates (60 percent in 2008), and 17 percent from conservatives (20 percent in 2008).

[joshcryer]

194. So the activist left failed to appeal to the moderates.

Sounds about right.

[LondonReign2]

196. What the fuck?

That might the single stupidest thing I've read in some time...either that or you are intentionally trollish.

Sorry that the actual data fucks up the false little narrative the conservodems like to spin. Seems it is the so-called moderates who are fickle.

[OilemFirchen]

81. "there's an actual living breathing Fox News personality on this very thread"

Kucinich?

[Fumesucker]

105. Somehow I don't think Kookinich would be bashing the left

But that was a good try.

[OilemFirchen]

110. But he's a Fox News Personality.

That seems contextually important to you. Me, I don't give a shit. And, as I don't watch Fox, I really can't say what Fox News Personality Dennis Kucinich has to say about anything. Apparently, though, it's tainted... right?

[treestar]

111. But the view of the OP article was that

Where they are telling us you didn't do enough for us, and therefore we won't vote, and that'll make you lose to the Republicans, that's the very desire. Where's the threat otherwise? They are trying to gain leverage (dumbly) over the Democrats with the threat of not voting for them, so why not be proudly responsible for the R winning, saying, See you didn't inspire us enough and do enough for us and now you lost to Republicans, therefore you need to do more of what we want, since we can cause you to lose.

[1StrongBlackMan]

115. Damn ... you speak toddler, well!

You got it all in there in one breath.

[merrily]

90. Not sure what the ultimate goal of it is, either.

Is left bashing supposed to guaranty that the left votes?

[AverageJoe90]

16. *Sigh*.....well, this is part of the reason I became a more mainstream lefty.....

Than the one I used to be. 2010 was perhaps the final wake-up call for me. Thanks wyldwolf.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Tsk. Tsk.

[BlueCaliDem]

22. I can't believe Commondreams would post an article like that!

I know they've never been fond of President Obama or Democrats, for that matter, but to blatantly call for "sitting out" the elections and advising that Latinos, the fastest growing voting demographic in the U.S., vote Green or some fringe Party is beyond the pale.

At least now we have proof that, yes, some progressive sites are advocating sitting out these crucial elections or voting fringe Party. It's as if they've forgotten 2010!

[GeorgeGist]

24. How to win friends and influence people.

Someone to blame if you lose.
Someone to ignore if you win.

[wyldwolf]

25. So let me get this straight. We're asked to provide proof and when we do...

... you come back with that shit?

But at least you're not discounting the source. You're just upset the source was presented.

[JaneyVee]

26. With friends like that...

[Historic NY]

28. Listen to these a--holes and you will fall further behind..

when will you ever learn. Its almost predictible that they would appear like on cue.

[mopinko]

29. commondream will post anything as far as i can tell.

especially when it is bashing dems.
progressive? how about loony?

[rwheeler31]

31. Who is ths hospital administrator who wrote a piece for politico on Sept. 9?

I doubt she will have much influence.

[whereisjustice]

32. Lie to me once, shame on you. Lie to me five times, what do you expect us to do?

When Obama ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004, he promised to represent Latinos and lead on immigration reform. His speech during the Democratic National Convention that year captivated me. While busy running six health clinics for low-income and mostly undocumented immigrants on Chicago’s southwest side, I strongly urged every Latino and immigrant registered voter I came across to support Obama. As the daughter of a Mexican immigrant who picked beets in South Dakota in the 1940s and then moved to Chicago to open a successful jukebox business, I was proud to pull the ballot for Obama on Election Day.

Lie to me once, shame on you. Lie to me five times, what do you expect us to do? Obama and the Democrats who supported and encouraged him have little credibility among Latino voters. Obama may have done more to suppress the Latino vote through broken promises than any hostile action taken by the Republicans.

Last weekend, Obama backed off his most recent promise to push immigration reform through executive action to protect vulnerable Senate Democrats who would otherwise come under fire during the upcoming midterms. But by trying to shield those lawmakers, he may have harmed others.

Colorado Sen. Mark Udall, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, Illinois Reps. Brad Schneider and Bill Foster — all Democrats who have kept their promises to the Latino community and consistently supported reform — will face reelection and risk losing if disaffected Latinos refuse to show up at the polls. Between now and the midterms, more than 60,000 Latinos and immigrants will very likely be separated from their loved ones and thousands of U.S. citizen children will be left without a mother or a father before the president acts. Most of these human beings have lived in the United States for more than a decade and do backbreaking work that Americans do not want to do, contributing to and growing industries that Americans cannot do without. All they ask is for a chance to get right with the law, legally enter the workforce and stay together with their families. Obama’s broken promise and delayed action will mean many of them will be deported.

Their suffering and that of their families, friends and children should weigh on the consciences of the president and the Democrats who encouraged Obama to put off — again and again and again and again and again — the push for immigration reform.

First published at a more widely read site by BOTH Democrats and Republicans

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/09/after-obamas-punt-maybe-latinos-should-sit-election-out-110728.html

Carmen Velasquez is founder and retired executive director of Alivio Medical Center in Chicago. Her accomplishments and opinions deserve respect and give her far more credibility than the people here trying to make her look like a lunatic fringe. You can't keep kicking huge numbers of voters under the bus and expect unwavering loyalty in return.

[JustAnotherGen]

76. It's worked before

The Democratic Party has counted on black Americans all of my life. We aren't really respected for our loyalty to the central to left in this country. So it's just standard operating procedure. But if they (Latinos/Hispanics) join with us in this party - well . . . There's strength in numbers. Their concerns intersect with those of us who are black Americans - together we can alter the dominant culture. Whether that dominant culture throws its weight around on the left or the right - we can change it.

Add in intermarriage between our groups (I have a half Puerto Rican neice) and it becomes pretty obvious that if not to the Democratic Party - then join with black Americns in the left.

[ReRe]

33. Hello?

Anyone who suggests that one should not vote in this country is a Republican. You don't even have to cast a vote for a Republican. If you don't vote, Republicans win. Does this even have to be said? Is there one DU member who does not know this?

[whereisjustice]

34. are you suggesting it is easier to let 100s of thousands of latino voters vote Republican

or not at all than to represent them in a Democratic government? They voted for Obama. It is a fact that a huge number of minority latinos feel betrayed.

How does your stamping of feet and scolding help win them back? I think it just chases them further away.

[ReRe]

44. Wow, what did I ever do to you?

No, I speak the truth. I don't buy the premise that hundreds of thousands of Latinos are not going to vote and/or will vote outright for Republicans. 1st, what did Republicans EVER do for Latinos? Nada. 2nd, Latinos are not dumb. They have been living right here in this country ever since PO was elected and they see that the Republican Party has done everything it can to thwart anything that PO proposed.

If Latinos feel betrayed by anyone, they should feel betrayed by the Republican Congress! And you know something? I think that's exactly how they feel.

[whereisjustice]

46. You don't understand that the Latino community is very conservative, many liked Bush

and I think you won't win voters by using scare tactics. It's easier to run on solid progress than promises.

Immigration reform is a big deal. So are the deportations.

Republicans aren't the only ones incapable of nuanced understanding and empathy. You need to understand you won't get very far by attacking or denying the legitimate concerns and justifiable disappointments.

Democrats here seem completely incapable of populist sugar. It's nothing but brute force, insults and mockery.

One thing's for sure, this isn't the party of FDR.

[ReRe]

48. You need to sit down, my friend...

... take a deep breath. You're clearly upset with how PO has handled the Immigration issue. You must assume that I am not, because why else would you be so combative? Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm probably about 100 times more pissed than you, if there was a way to weigh passion. But...

We are where we are, whereisjustice. No more, no less. And I will repeat to you: Democrats must get out the vote on Nov 4th. If the citizens of this country don't rise up and elect a veto-proof Democratic House and Senate, then we all fall.

[CakeGrrl]

35. And while the Dems "pay a price at the polls"

…the GOP election winners will deport everyone they can.

Being under the bus won't be the problem.

[whereisjustice]

39. Hmmm, Latino's watched Obama agree to "pony up" nearly 4 billion dollars to pay

for Rick Perry's border war with Mexico. Coupled with the fact that Obama's administration rate of deportation was the highest of any administration on record.

Now you are threatening Latinos using fear tactics. You know what wins voters? Promises that are kept, words that can be trusted.

Your words here are hollow and tell us you have no idea what its like to be unrepresented and deliberately oppressed, used only as a political pawn between two disinterested political parties.

Why do you think your strategy will work to win back voters? It won't. Keeping promises, the really big ones, will.

How about trying that?

[CakeGrrl]

45. I'm a math realist. No threat here. SOMEONE is going to win the election.

and it won't be a 3rd party. I'd bet a paycheck on that.

If people want to take their chances on the GOP, deities be with 'em.

What election outcomes do YOU see playing out?

[whereisjustice]

47. I think that when Obama won his first term, credit went to conservatives/independents

and Obama went straight to work mending fences with Republicans and liberals were told to shut the fuck up. 2010 was a disaster and liberals were blamed. Now liberals are once again being blamed for preemptively losing the Senate.

The Democratic Party also badly miscalculated the damaging effect NOT prosecuting Wall Street would have on public perception.

I also think it is a BIG mistake calling a well respected and accomplished Latino leader a loon. She has a resume and track record that demands respect.

It's childish behavior and oblivious to the real and legitimate perception that both parties are tone deaf to the working class.

It didn't work in 2010, it's not going to work now.

[randome]

93. You didn't answer her question. I'll help you out.

The outcome of not voting at all or in voting for a 3rd party that can't possibly win is that the GOP will get the 'message' that the electorate prefers them.

That's reality.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[whereisjustice]

94. The reality is it is easier to get people to vote for you when you actually represent them,

rather than try bully your way to victory by attacking an amazingly unselfish Latino woman who dares to challenge your perceived authority.

It's your choice and you've chosen poorly. That's the reality.

[CakeGrrl]

120. "Childish behavior" is deliberately abdicating your right to vote

in the face of a malignant opposition.

It's really worse than that. It's very dangerous and foolhardy if one has paid any attention to the extremity of GOP rhetoric.

[treestar]

109. Yes indeed. They will be on a southbound bus

Really are they trying to make Latino voters look stupid? Why would anyone shoot themselves in the foot like that? They have nothing to gain. Well, maybe some temporary emotional satisfaction if a Republican wins? Good grief. They keep bringing this up over and over again and it is insulting to Latino voters.

[Union Scribe]

42. So you brought this here

thus spreading the message not to vote, in order to do...what? Win internet cred? I'd say that you and a few others doing all the talk about people not voting are the ones keeping it a topic of conversation, not anyone actually saying they won't vote.

[Spider Jerusalem]

127. Facts don't cease to exist because they're ignored

fact: Some people who would otherwise be voting Democratic are unhappy with President Obama and the Democratic Party for reasons that aren't likely to drive them to vote Republican but may see them sitting out the election altogether. Rather than complaining about it or pretending it isn't happening one should be asking "how can we reassure these voters that we intend to address their issues?"

[nilesobek]

49. No one, no entity

is going to keep me or my little fight club/trailer park boys coalition from voting Democrat across the board and we will show up like we always do. I hope Balukoff has a reasonable chance to defeat Otter this round for Idaho Governor but I'm cautiously pessimistic really.

[Spazito]

50. Commondreams should just come out and state they want repubs to take the Senate...

it would be a more honest admission than their dancing around the result were voters to do what is being advocated by those who write for the site.

[JustAnotherGen]

77. In Total Agreement

[SidDithers]

99. +1...nt

Sid

[stevenleser]

53. This is why I don't read Common Dreams or Firebaglake. Stupid stuff like this. nt

[Fumesucker]

56. Someone who helps Fox News catapult their propaganda doesn't want to hear stupid stuff?

[bahrbearian]

72. LOL

[Oilwellian]

79. ROFLMAO!

Common Dreams is now dead to me!

[Purveyor]

54. Hell no I'm not sitting this one out. We have 'leaf-pickup' funding on our

ballot and my hickory trees are already dropping leaves!

[KitSileya]

62. An author just described the choice for many

at the polls is whether to drown in salt water or fresh. Considering how many Democratic candidates would have been Republicans if today was before 1981, they aren't wrong.

The main part to remember, however, is that there are two things at stake - who will be representing you in Congress, and who will have control over Congress. While you may not care about the choice you have in the former, your vote will also decide the latter. While you may not have anyone you want to vote for, there is always someone to vote against.

[raouldukelives]

78. Of course, the main people suppressing the vote are Wall St supporters.

Well, suppressing the votes for progressive and liberal ideals that is. If they are on board with corporate and conservative rule then they are doing a good job.
But I digress, those who invest in, support and help facilitate Wall St transactions are the ones most responsible for the problems we face as a nation and a planet. They are the ones who through they're own actions support and fund groups like ALEC and Americans for Prosperity. Who fund efforts at new Jim Crow laws, who back strong, corporate candidates, who topple struggling third world democracies as well as our own here at home and who will make sure every last bit of wilderness and water is burned, poisoned and rendered lifeless for future generations.

For every step forward a "liberal" investor tries to make, they have already made two steps back, for all of us.

[LWolf]

80. If that many progressives are saying it,

maybe the party ought to be listening. Since apparently a majority of the human pack crave being told what to think and do by media voices.

My Senator gets my vote. I'll bet Moore, Ivins, etc., wouldn't withhold their vote from Jeff Merkley.

[L0oniX]

137. I notice that centrists are not sympathetic to progressives but rather attack them as if that will..

entice them to conform ...or something like that. It's bad management psych.

[LWolf]

195. Yes. nt

[jwirr]

83. Common Dreams is a fairly good source but this time I think they are way off. If we set this one

out we will not get another chance. In a word: vote suppression.

[Savannahmann]

84. The entire article is very interesting.

Imagine it as the verbal version of the Ferguson protests. There the public was tired of being taken advantage of. Tired of unarmed blacks being killed by police. The death of Michael Brown was one too many, and the public erupted in anger and frustration. Their message was no more.

The article you've linked to describes a long litany of broken promises. One of the things I and others have said before is you have to act upon your promises. Imagine you are married. You keep promising to fix a broken door lock on the house. You never actually get around to fixing it though. Your spouse hires a locksmith to fix the lock after weeks and months of delays. You are furious, how dare they do that. They are furious, you never did what you said you would. Who is wrong? Perhaps both, but the one who broke the promise is most wrong wouldn't you agree?

Lie to me once, shame on you. Lie to me five times, what do you expect us to do? Obama and the Democrats who supported and encouraged him have little credibility among Latino voters. Obama may have done more to suppress the Latino vote through broken promises than any hostile action taken by the Republicans.

Now you're angry that the community is upset, and unwilling to march to the polls and vote just because you've put out another series of ads saying Si Si Puede.

Governing is a job. You are asking the voters to hire you for the job. You are asking them to support you. In order to get that support, you must serve them. If you promise to vote for any gun control legislation, and then you vote against it, that is a broken promise. Enough broken promises, and you lose that support.

If anything, this is an indictment against the Democrats who have long taken many groups for granted. In St. Louis, a group of Black democrats endorsed the Republican. Who's fault is that? Is it the black community for failing to support the Democratic party? Or is it the Democratic party taking the black community for granted?

I've said before, and I'll say it again. We can not take a single group for granted. We must earn those votes. We must govern by principle. We must live up to our promises, and we have to let every single voter know we care about them, and are working hard to serve them.

I argue this is not progressives asking people to sit out the election. This is a revolt by those who have been lied to and ignored. This is the political equivalent of a street protest. They are saying no more lies, no more abuse, no more excuses. President Obama could live up to his most recent promise tomorrow. But he won't. Because the Democrats are hoping to get the racist vote as well as promising the minority groups that they'll be protected from the racists.

Imagine that the Civil war has ended. Now, we can free the slaves. Yet we tell the Slaves that this is going to take a while, be patient. How would the public respond? How would the slaves respond? There would be outrage. The northern states would wonder what they had fought for. The southern states would wonder why the war happened in the first place.

Read the article again. It's a decade long recitation of broken promises. The community feels abused, even betrayed. Tell them how much worse it would be if Republicans were in charge. For them, the situation would be exactly as it is now. For them, there would be no gain for electing anyone. The Republicans don't like them, and the leader of the Democratic party has lied to them for ten years running.

Back to the marriage analogy. Let's say that you catch your spouse cheating on you. This isn't the first time they've had an affair. This isn't the second time, nor the third. This time it will be different they promise, this time I'm going to be totally faithful to you. Would you believe them? For ten years, they've never followed through with that promise, and if you choose to stay, it's secure in the knowledge that they will cheat again. Do you roll your eyes and say whatever, just make sure you use protection and don't bring a disease home. Do you go get a lawyer and end the marriage? How many times before you stand up and say no more?

This isn't a wide spread movement yet. This is two small microcosms that show how dangerous the business of politics is. It is a shot across the bow, warning Democrats that they had better pay more attention to their voters, than they have been. It's a shot across the bow because Illinois will go for Durbin, without a doubt. Missouri doesn't have a Senate seat in play this year, so the anger expressed in St. Louis will be local, and won't really affect much and probably won't affect the race for City Executive.

As has been said many times, give them something to vote for. For ten years the hispanic community has supported Obama, and for ten years they have gotten nothing but more promises during each election season. This time I swear it will be different. This time I swear we'll get it done. This article isn't proving your point, it's an indictment against the Democratic Party and especially President Obama for broken promises. It's a spouse shouting that they are tired of being cheated on.

[randome]

85. A lazy, cowardly way of looking at things.

You want to send a message? Send one to the Republicans. Help vote them into obsolescence then we can start on the Democratic party.

First things first.

The only 'message' that is sent by letting Republicans win is that the electorate prefers them.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[wyldwolf]

98. The bizarro world of DU

When Mineralman made his post suggesting 'progressive' internet sites have advised 'progressives' not to vote, he was immediately challenged to provide proof in his thread and several others, including one thread where the OP made fun of him and the topic.

When I provided the proof, I was told told:

Michael Moore doesn't count because ... (well, the poster wasn't quite clear in explaining why.)

Molly Ivins doesn't count because she's dead.

Robert Parry doesn't count because someone doesn't know who he is.

Ed Schulz doesn't count because he is an obnoxious git, who seems to be the 'equivalent' of a 'Rush Limbaugh for the left'.

Ted Rall doesn't count because he is a cartoonist, and can't even draw all that well.

Commondreams MAY not count because the article was re-posted on Politico (which means it immediately lost it's 'progressive' street cred, I guess.)

NOW someone is saying NO ONE asked for proof or evidence.

[whatchamacallit]

100. So what

if this http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025647686 is any indication your concerns are overblown.

[wyldwolf]

101. what concerns?

[whatchamacallit]

102. Your post supports MM's hand wringing over FUD

Nobody is going to be swayed by Common Dreams... or you.

[wyldwolf]

103. Only in so far that "progressive" voter suppression exists. I'm certainly not concerned about it.

[whatchamacallit]

104. Honestly

My vote is more likely to be suppressed by browbeating partisans than the occasional off-message article or post. Just sayin.

[Puglover]

169. This.

I have voted in every election since I was able to vote. I have never cast a vote for any other party but the Democratic Party. And I probably never will. And I agree, I find the "browbeating" hysterical partisans to be far more alienating then any asinine blog I (don't) read on the web. The posses trying to suss out any thing that they say threatens our party and then marinating in the outrage is beyond a turnoff.

I wish they'd focus 1/10 of their ire on Republicans rather then nipping at the heels of good Democrats on this site. Mostly now, I just laugh rather engage in the pointless nonsense.

[stevenleser]

114. Not to mention "Oh well, then there must be a reason". The moving of the goalposts is pronounced. nt

[Chathamization]

119. Do you have any evidence that someone said "NO ONE asked for proof or evidence"? Or is this another

bit of misinformation?

[Spider Jerusalem]

129. I don't see that "Latino" = "progressive"

And I don't see that as "voter suppression", either. And the failure to address the immigration reform issue is a legitimate concern for Latino voters. Promising to make it a priority and then not making it a priority is not really giving people who voted on that issue a reason to continue in their support.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

116. The trifecta will soon be complete for the "True Progs"

2014 the Thugs take the Senate. Mitch and John stick it to the black guy for two years, including impeachment. True Progs will say "Well, Obama brought it on himself".

2016, if Hillary wins the primary, the True Progs will "sit it out" and Jeb Bush is president.

Remember when a Bush and a Republican Congress teamed up the last time? 2001-2007. What happened in 2008?

2019, the country will be finally fucked. By then the internet will probably be completely private and DU won't exist. True Progs can celebrate in the quiet darkness of an underpass.

[LondonReign2]

178. When have progressives ever sat out elections?

[True Blue Door]

118. Not this stupid bullshit again.

Certain parts of the left never learn, they always think cutting off their noses is a way to spite their face for not looking pretty enough. And no amount of experience blowing up in their faces ever teaches them. Rise above the passive-aggressive whinefest and just make the party better if you don't like it. Be the change you want to see, and no wants to see abunch of whining ninnies threatening to take their ball and go home.

[Cha]

126. "She's Voting"..

But, if they don't vote then fuck 'em.. they have nothing to whine about then.. they couldn't even get their lazy ol stuck up ass to the polls.

THe Supreme Court and the Environment don't mean shit to these whiners.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/09/09/obama-broke-his-promise-latinos-maybe-we-should-sit-election-out

[Cha]

130. MLK on Voting..

[Cha]

131. If you sit home during the midterm elections.. these guys win .. And, These Guys Win.. and they're

shitting on our Planet.

[Vattel]

132. If enough Latinos sit out, the Dems might start keeping their promises to them.

That is the theory. I doubt that it would be effective, but maybe it's worth a try.

[L0oniX]

136. Despite all the attacks on progressives here on DU I still voted straight Dem mail in ballot.

All you who attack progressives ...your bullshit, hyperbole and feeble attempts to discourage didn't work on me.

[oberliner]

138. Shades of Gore/Bush/Nader

Not the wisest of strategies.

[madfloridian]

140. Yes, much of common dreams is very good. Just like DU or DKos

There are articles I disagree with at every forum. I think some posts here are pretty far out. I think there are good writers at most forums.

I think it is wrong to judge a whole site by one or two writers.

[wyldwolf]

141. No one is judging a whole site. Why would you say that?

The contention has been NO PROGRESSIVE SITE has suggested sitting out an election. That is clearly wrong.

[Spider Jerusalem]

142. Does Ms Velasquez speak for Commondreams? I doubt it, her views are her own.

There's a reason they're called "opinion pieces" after all. I would seriously doubt the editorial viewpoint of Commodreams (if they have one as such) is that people who would otherwise vote Democratic should stay home on Election Day.

[Fumesucker]

143. If anyone is catapulting the "sit out the election" meme it's you and Mineral Man

I've heard that far more from you and Mineral Man and a couple of others here than I have anywhere else at all. I don't read Common Dreams, not sure I've ever even been to the site but now I know that they want me to sit out the election and I've read their rationale for doing so and it doesn't seem as daft as some of you want to make it out to be.

Lots of posters here claim that politicians pay no attention to people who say they won't vote for them and yet the Democrats continuously court the right wing who are unlikely to vote for them and ignore or even insult the liberals who are far more likely to vote Democratic.

It's like votes from the left are tainted somehow and the only real American votes come from the right, the Democrats give the impression that they would far rather get one right wing vote than ten left wing ones.

[wyldwolf]

144. You certainly live up to your name.

[Fumesucker]

146. That reply says a great deal about you and nothing about me

[wyldwolf]

147. when one spouts nonsense as you've done, sucking fumes may very well be why.

[Fumesucker]

148. There's actually a word for what you are doing..

Nutpicking.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nutpicking

The practice of sifting through the comments of blogs, email threads, discussion groups and other user generated content in an attempt find choice quotes proving that the advocates for or against a particular political opinion are unreasonable, uninformed extremists.

When Jonah has no substantive arguments for his point, he frequently resorts to nutpicking in order to demonize progressives.

[wyldwolf]

149. Which you began with your hysterical post #143

[Fumesucker]

150. No, your OP is pure Nutpicking

You found a quote by someone most of us have never heard of in a fairly obscure place you could use to paint progressives in a negative light and have been spreading it for all you are worth.

It didn't escape all of us that this latest round of progressive hating was started by a former long term Freeper.

[wyldwolf]

151. My OP is exactly what 'progressives' on DU said didn't exist

So much energy being expended to discount it now.

[Fumesucker]

154. I never ventured an opinon as to who said or didn't say what

But I recognize a smear campaign when I see one, particularly when it's as clumsily done as this one. You could have a brass band with elephants and be less obvious.

Do you really think this kind of finger pointing spat motivates people?

[wyldwolf]

155. so?

People demanded, I delivered.

[Savannahmann]

157. The OP misses the entire point of the linked article.

The entire point of the linked article is that the politicians broke their promises to that community. The promise could have been kept any number of times over the last ten years. It should have been kept more than once.

Look at the situation now regarding immigration. President Obama can't act on immigration or we lose the racist vote. At the same time, we're telling the victims of racism to hold on a little longer, endure a little longer. What we're telling them is I know I've lied to you more than once over the last ten years, but this time I swear I'll do the right thing, if you'll vote to support me just once more.

So by delaying Immigration reform, in the hopes we can get the Racist vote, which belongs squarely in the Republican camp I might add, what are we really saying? If we manage to save the Senate, is it because of the Racist vote? Don't we risk losing the Racist vote if we pass Immigration Reform then? I mean, there will be another election in two more years, and if we lose the Racist vote, we could end up with a Republican Senate, and White House. Wouldn't that be awful to put the Racists in charge? or whatever.

My friend, how many times have you seen threads here calling on the Democratic Party to govern by Principles? What does the party promise if we win the Senate in this election? Two more years of Gridlock. Seriously. Two more years of the same damn thing we've had for the last four years. Because the Democratic Senate still won't talk to the Republican House. The Republican House isn't going to give up their issues, they won an election on their issues too. The primary defeat of Cantor showed them they can't sound too accommodating to the Left, and stay in office. So we see the excuses already. It's not the Democratic Party's fault we lost, it's those people nobody ever heard of that were encouraging people to stay home just because the Party didn't follow through on a promise.

Here's the dirty little secret. Nothing is going to happen on Immigration in November either. Because there will be runoff elections that take another six weeks or more to get wrapped up. Georgia Senate election for example. It won't be decided in a runoff until January. Then if we manage to hold the Senate by a single vote, no Democratic Senator looking at re-election in 2016 or starting their Presidential run is going to want to see Immigration Reform by Executive Order. Because then that becomes the issue they are asked about for the next three weeks, too much chance to offend one group or another so early in the game. The author of that article is now aware of this trend, and is sick of it. Promise the moon in the campaign, and then fail to deliver even a moon pie after the election. All so we can hope to siphon off a little of the Racist vote.

[Fumesucker]

158. The OP doesn't care what the point is

The OP just wants a group he can set up as scapegoats, this is a preemptive strike.

Like you said, this ain't our first rodeo, by now the pattern is boringly predictable.

[wyldwolf]

165. the OP has proven, despite what many on DU claimed, that a 'progressive' site...

... has indeed suggested 'progressives' sit out an election.

[wyldwolf]

164. the entire point of the linked article was to show 'progressive' sites have suggested sitting out

Multiple DUers said NO 'progressive' sites had done this then demanded proof and links that they had.

Proof and link provided.

Now the question is, do YOU advocate sitting out the election?

[Fumesucker]

170. I advocate everyone following their conscience

I would prefer people vote but that's not my choice to make for them and I can see why some people might feel their vote doesn't count or makes no difference.

Perceptions are funny things, from my perception you are trying very hard to get the "sit out the election" meme onto DU and you are trying very hard also to tie progressives to that meme.

At this point things are such a clusterfuck that neither party really wants to get a big victory, divided government gives politicians a built in excuse for breaking their promises because the other guys are so damn unreasonable, crazy even.

Go read at Discussionist, the right thinks the Democrats are being every bit as unreasonable, crazy and hypocritical as the left thinks the Republicans are. Both parties have played that meme to the max and at this point I think they'd be heartbroken to see it leave.

One thing I notice the centrists on DU have in common with the conservatives on Discussionist, they both loathe the left.

[wyldwolf]

171. nice dodge of the question - but not surprising.

[Fumesucker]

173. You would advocate people not follow their conscience?

The OP still hasn't substantively responded to anything I've written, it's all been personal attacks of one sort or another.

But not surprising.

[wyldwolf]

174. Since you won't answer, the only conclusion is YOU advocate sitting out the election.

[Fumesucker]

181. The thread is here for everyone to read if they wish

They can make their own decisions about what they think, they will anyway.

I guess you could say I'm pro-choice.

[wyldwolf]

183. have the courage of your convictions. Just say you advocate sitting out the election.

[Savannahmann]

189. Of course I don't advocate sitting out the election

But I think it's a lot of hooey. No one here would have seen that article if you hadn't posted it. But you needed a scapegoat to explain why the Democratic Party lost the Senate. Now, thanks to you, I have the perfect defense as to why the Democratic Party appears to be losing the Senate Election, bookmarked in fact. The reason that Ms. Carmen Velasquez is upset is that she's worked hard for the Democrats for ten years. For ten years she's asked that the Democrats address the problems that she sees every day. Immigration reform.

For ten years, five elections, the Democrats have said yes, if we're elected, we'll take care of it. But they never have. They've been too afraid to address the problem. Now, Ms Carmen Velasquez is angry. This time all they're getting is the promise that the President will take executive action, like he said in the spring, and the summer, after the elections, sometime.

But as I explained, everyone knows that's not true. The inevitability of Hillary people will be screaming at the White House to do nothing of the sort that would poison her chances at winning the election in 2016. Vulnerable Democrats in the House and Senate will be screaming just as loud behind closed doors pointing to this election as proof that the Republicans can win, and the party must come first. We just can't afford to lose the racist vote, while ignoring the Latino vote.

This reminds me of West Wing, the TV Show. In it Toby is talking to a Politician, who is expressing the level of upset from one of the core groups of the Democratic Party, the environmental movement. Toby asks where they're going to go? What will they do, vote Republican? Toby dismisses the threat, because he believes he will win either way. The Democratic Party leadership assumed that the danger of losing the support of Ms. Velasquez was non existent. Look at the quality of the woman we lost, pandering for the racist vote. Look at the support we've lost, as we hope to get a few more racists to support our party. Racists who will abandon us the second we do anything for Ms. Velasquez. Look how useless it is, because we're still losing the Senate. Look at what a waste it is. Afraid to act for fear of putting the Senate in jeopardy, and in doing so, we've put the senate in jeopardy.

The point of Ms. Velasquez, and of mine for longer is this. You can't take your supporters for granted. IF you don't see that point, then there's no hope. You haven't proven your point, you've proven one of mine. That principles and ideals matter, and you have to live up to your promises. Because I honestly doubt that Ms. Velasquez would be able to encourage the Latino community to turn out and vote for people that they believe have betrayed them. I can shout GOTV all day, and not erase that sense of betrayal. I can shout GOTV from now to election day, and not make a dent in the hearts of people who have seen loved ones deported all the while knowing that the person I helped get elected, promised it wouldn't happen.

Nothing I say to a progressive like you could make you stay away from the polls. No argument I can conceive of would make a dent in the people who feel betrayed by the actions of those they've elected. Principles matter, and one principle the Democratic party have seemingly forgotten is this. Don't promise what you can't deliver. We destroyed Bush '41 with read my lips, no new taxes broken promise ads. Did we think that no on would hold our side accountable for broken promises?

[PowerToThePeople]

145. Death is inevitable, it is just a matter of how fast. n/t

[JoePhilly]

152. So we should accelerate it?

[JoePhilly]

153. Some on DU are more concerned about being blamed for DEMs losing ...

... than they are about the consequences of the GOP winning.

We are less than 1 month from the elections, its going to be close, and here they are, demanding better candidates.

Its a little too late for that in 2014. Their priorities are out of whack.

[Liberal_Dog]

159. And Some On DU Have Already Thrown Away The Senate

And here they are trying to find a scapegoat for a loss that hasn't even happened yet.

[JoePhilly]

161. Again, who cares?

This endless bickering isn't going to increase turnout, is it?

Shouldn't that be what we're all trying to do 3 weeks out from the actual election?

Maybe not.

[Bobbie Jo]

160. Exactly. nt

[adirondacker]

156. Here comes the bus!

[Faux pas]

162. The article is from a month ago

why are you dragging it out now?

[wyldwolf]

163. because multiple people on DU said no 'progressive' sites are suggesting people sit out the election

AND they demanded proof from another DUer that it's happened. The age of the piece is really irrelevant to the point.

[Faux pas]

167. Well, since I missed all the previous drama

excuse me for not knowing the inside story. I thought you were promoting a sit out. Sorry.

[JHB]

179. What is relevant is that a CD reprint of a Politico article...

...does not amount to some kind of progressive campaign to sit out the 2014 election.

[wyldwolf]

182. CD would not have posted if it didn't meet their editorial guidelines.

does not amount to some kind of progressive campaign to sit out the 2014 election.

And no one has said it does.

[JHB]

185. If "no one has said it does", why has there been the week's worth of hoopla?

If it's a few isolated myopics, then why start a pie fight that's certain to "splash" crap onto progresswives that are not part of that limited subset?

[wyldwolf]

186. because multiple people on DU said no 'progressive' sites are suggesting people sit out the election

... then demanded links. All this was explained in the OP.

ta da!

Any hoopla came from those twisting themselves into pretzels.

[JHB]

188. That's your view, and that's fine. Mine is that there was a lot of blame in 2010...

...placed on progressives on precisely this issue for precisely the same reason, when in fact the losses were due not from lefties sitting it out but from the mass of "casual voters" who didn't show up for elections that didn't have the high-level focus of a presidential campaign.

So to me, that explains one side of this without any twisting or pretzels.

[wyldwolf]

190. that's not 'my view.' It's a fact. People asked for links and evidence

and it was given to them.

I'm not arguing that 'progressives' have ever sat out elections. But I've proved it as been suggested by them on 'progressive' sites which is exactly was requested.

[Major Hogwash]

192. Boom goes the dynamite!!

And to think, here I thought you were a wyld wolf.

This thread is certainly interesting.
I'll say that for ya.

[JustAnotherGen]

166. I think it was in response to this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5647310

Common Dreams is pretty much known for representing the interests of the far left.

[Faux pas]

168. Thank you for

cluing me in.

[Rex]

172. Sheer desperation. Another thread starter blamed progressive sites

for discouraging voters, yet could not name ONE site he had visited or back up his claim. So this OP found one opinion piece from common dreams (from a month ago) and is holding on to it like it justifies the other thread starters claim!

Desperation is so sad to watch on DU, yet funny!

[wyldwolf]

175. excuse me, I gave several other examples as well - but spin on

...

[Faux pas]

180. Desperation is a sad thing

anytime and anywhere. I'm just so tired of seeing it here Rex. Like things aren't tense enough, huh? We need more posts that are uplifting and inspiring not so gloomy and doomy.

Peace, Love and Joy is my mantra.

[Rex]

187. I agree! I am somewhat surprised at all the doom and gloom threads.

We are going to CRUSH the GOP in November! No amount of divisive threads will change that! We might not get everything we want, but I feel very positive going into these elections!

We're going to get the House back AND keep the Senate...and that seems to have some very angry, even right here on DU!

[bobGandolf]

176. No way.....too much at stake. n/t

[riqster]

184. Supporting Republican victories so as to teach Dems a lesson?

Yeah, right. It's worked so well before, hasn't it, now?

[Rosco T.]

191. That's the kind of stupid. selfish, idiotic, ignorant attitude....

that gives the Senate, House and eventually the White House to the 'thugs...