Would Democratic politicians rather lose than risk losing rich donors?

[yurbud]

I heard an interview with Ralph Nader last night, and he said the Democrats had a winning issue with the minimum wage and one that easily set them apart from the GOP.

Nader met with Harry Reid and said if Obama had gone barnstorming around the country asking voters to give him the Congress that would pass such a bill for him to sign, it would have made a huge difference. Reid agreed but said instead, Obama was fundraising, and the party didn't present a unified message.

This morning on Democracy Now, Amy Goodman said minimum wage ballot measures passed even in very conservative states, indirectly confirming Nader's point.

If Democrats don't run on a simple, easy to explain progressive issue that is overwhelmingly popular, you have to wonder whether keeping their wealthy donors is more important than actually winning.

I guess they figure if they side with the rest of us instead of the 1% and they lose, we can't offer the consolation prize of high paying jobs as lobbyists, CEO's, corporate lawyers, or consultants. We can only offer the jobs we elect them to do, so they can win or lose. With the fat cat 1%, they win either way.

What do you think?

5 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	YES, too many Democratic politicians would rather lose than risk losing their wealthy donors and future employers
	5 (100%)
	NO, that's not a big reason why Democrats lose
	0 (0%)
	other
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[randys1]

1. I think if we dont get a new party head and a message like this, we are , hell, the world is in

huge trouble.

That is what I think...

[yurbud]

2. Dems are running as the other corporate white meat

Which gives us the chose between one party that's corrupt, ignorant, crazy, and cruel and one that's just corrupt.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. "The government of my country snubs honest simplicity, but fondles artistic villainy,

"The government of my country snubs honest simplicity, but fondles artistic villainy, and I think I might have developed into a very capable pickpocket if I had remained in the public service a year or two." Mark Twain

[BillZBubb]

4. Politicians know your chance of winning goes down if you are outspent.

So, they do everything they can to avoid that. That means bending the way the big donors expect you to bend. As long a big money is involved in our politics, that's how it is going to be.

The Democrats could be on the side of every issue the voters want but if they are outspent by the republicans by 2 to 1, they would probably lose. Whoever controls the message controls the outcome.

But, the Democrats do need to find a message that resonates with voters. They have failed at that for some time. "We aren't the crazy ones" just isn't enough.

[yurbud]

5. Jerry Brown his last election even though he was outspent by something like 30 to 1

[MisterP]

6. they party has shown for at least a decade that they prefer #1

Cegelis, Lamont, McKinney, Halter, Romanoff, Sestak, Grayson, Kucinich, Buono, Lutrin, Rev. Manuel Sykes, Weiland, now Davis and Grimes

how else can they blame 3rd parties/"circular firing squads"/"cutting your nose to spite your face"/progressive purges/abstentionism/not sacrificing your firstborn for GOTV?

[bigwillq]

7. I believe the answer is yes (nt)

[Electric Monk]

8. Oh my. You really went there. I have been thinking (reluctantly) along those lines for awhile.

I want you to be wrong.

[yurbud]

10. I want me to be wrong too.

[treestar]

9. Well now you are actings as if money does not matter

The Greens don't have much money. Why don't they get the votes? They are on the right side of the issues. Why don't they get the votes? Why aren't they winning offices?

You're saying the Democrats should refuse the big money right? And that will mean they will stick to principles and get the votes.

Why bother? We have the Greens already doing that.

The only reasons people Demand the Democrats stand for these things is that they have the national presence and the money.