Our party leaders need to let go of the "they have nowhere else to go" attitude towards the base.

[Ken Burch]

The Democratic Party DEMANDS that workers, the poor, and activists give its presidential ticket their votes-and yet, at the same time, refuses to accept that they owe those groups anything in exchange for that support(while believing, at the same time, that they owe everything to the big Wall Street donors who demand that the party leave the base out in the cold on economic, foreign policy, and budgetary issues.

This attitude can only lead to massive absentions from the polls by those groups, and thus can only guarantee a Republican re-take of the White House in 2016.

Yes, most Democratic presidential candidates(other than the frontrunner and Chafee)are going to be significantly better than whoever the GOP puts up. But those we ask to vote for the Democratic presidential ticket have the right, if nothing else, to expect that the party will take them seriously and treat them and their needs with respect.

One-way loyalty is not a sustainable way to run politics...at least for a party that wants to be the alternative to the GOP.

And at some point, the base, if it continues to be treated as the party treats it now, will FIND somewhere else to go.

[JI7]

1. you are implying Hillary Clinton and Chafee will not be better than the Republican ?

and btw, the base supports Hillary Clinton . that's how she is leading in the polls. she has actual supporters who have been out there getting support for her.

[cui bono]

6. Unfortunately that's most likley because the party and its base has become centrist.

And also because she has name recognition and because most people don't pay that close attention to politics so don't really know anything about TPP or her voting record or of any other possible candidates.

But the Dems are going to lose the left shortly if they keep telling us to STFU and describe us - as has been done here on DU - as all high and mighty, holier than thou, and telling us - as has been done here on DU - that we are "welcome" in the party but not to "control" it.

So the centrists want the left's vote, they just don't care about what we want.

[cascadiance]

22. The party leadership may now be centrist, but NOT the base!

The base is feeling left out, which is why we've lost heavily in the last two midterm elections.

And note that in those midterm elections, the Democrats more apt to lose their seats were the "centrists" (better named corporatists) that hacks like Rahm Emmanuel when he headed up the DCCC pushed on the base in primaries instead of decent progressives.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

33. No, he's right.

The Clinton base is not the 'base' of yore. If you're not happy about voting for Clinton, you're no longer considered 'base' by those who are.

[cascadiance]

46. Oh so if you're not a supporter of Clinton, then you're not a Democrat....

Oh I get it. So, traditional Democratic Party voters are just not regarded as part of the party base any more. Which party should we join then if we're not part of the Democratic Party base?

[cui bono]

87. That's the feeling I get from the centrists.

But of course they still want our votes while they ignore our desires.

[cui bono]

88. She, actually.

[ND-Dem]

92. you also notice that our candidates talk all populist -- until they get elected, then they

govern from the center-right. It's been the basic pattern for years.

[NYC_SKP]

9. What "base"? You mean low information voters who only go with name recognition?

IMHO, her "base" consists of the banks and the left-leaning 1%ers.

Add to that registered Dems who don't follow politics and just go with the name they know.

Add to that folks who are acting out of fear of losing to a Republican, who think only Clinton can pull it off.

That's a pretty sorry base.

[NanceGreggs]

14. HRC's "base" ...

... consists of people who think she'll make a very good president.

I am but one of those many, many people - and I am not a 1%er, a bank, I am politically aware, and my support is not based in fear of any kind.

Having to tell yourself (and others on DU) that a politician you don't support has a "base" made up of all the types of voters you've named above - well, that says a lot about you. And it's not pretty.

[Scootaloo]

15. What makes her the superior democrat in your eyes, Nance?

I mean out of the possible contenders, what sets her ahead?

Please do avoid the "electability" canard, as that's a circular argument (of course you think she's electable, you're voting for her) and presumes no other Democrat is electable.

[NanceGreggs]

18. Well, thanks for the invite ...

... but I have no inclination to explain to you what I think of Hillary, or why. I owe you no such explanation.

As for the "electability canard", your logic is faulty. Support of one candidate over another does not mean one thinks the other choices are "presumed to be unelectable".

In 2008, both Hillary and Obama were "electable" - I believe either one of them would have defeated McCain. So my support of Obama was never a matter of believing that "no other Dem was electable".

[delrem]

23. So you have no explanation whatsoever? nt

[NanceGreggs]

47. Mm hmm ...

... that's exactly what I said.

[cui bono]

89. Actually, you said worse. You refused to answer a simple question.

On a political message board which exists for exactly these discussions.

[ND-Dem]

93. there is no answer.

[NanceGreggs]

101. This political message board ...

... no longer exists for the sake of discussion.

It has been taken over by people who don't want to discuss anything. They simply want to talk at other posters, but not to them.

They want to state their position - on HRC, Obama, the Democratic party, TPP, et al - over and over and over again, while pretending that the opinions they express are something more than what they are; i.e. - a constant, droning repetition of the same old/same old.

Here's a DU game you can play at home:

Pull up any OP with multiple responses. Cover the left-hand side of the screen, and look only at the names of those who have posted a reply. I guarantee you that you can predict exactly what each poster said on the topic with 95% accuracy before you read their replies.

Everyone knows who will say what, who will take what position, who will post the predictable well-worn links from the equally predictable sources. Everyone knows which posters will high-five each other, which posters will trigger the inevitable sub-threads, which posters will launch personal attacks, which posts will be alerted on, and which posters are the most likely to have alerted.

There is no point in attempting discussion or honest debate. There are very few posters left here who are willing (or able) to engage in either.

It is that predictability factor that has DU's traffic stats in yet another nosedive. What is the point in attempting to engage other posters in honest debate when you already know what their response will be?

What is the point in trying to converse with others when they have made up their minds and don't want to even acknowledge any facts that don't coincide with what they have already chosen to believe? What is the purpose behind answering questions posed by someone who is not interested in the answer, but is only waiting for yet another opportunity to state what everyone already knows will be their reply?

Yes, I refuse to answer the question posed - which is actually not a simple question. But perhaps that's part of the problem, too - thinking that complex questions can be answered simply, when they actually require thought that goes beyond the black-and-white thinking that has become all too pervasive here.

[cui bono]

102. Then why do you post here? There's no reason not to answer it.

It was a clear question, why you support Hillary. Your answer can be as simple or complex as you like, but to make excuses for not answering is odd considering you are participating on a political discussion board.

If you can't answer, or are embarrassed to, or feel there's no point, then why are you posting here? All you are doing is being part of the problem you described. And, to add to that, when you posted a different response to that poster you referred to her/him as deluded. Is that how you think discussion should go? Is that going to lead to better discussions?

[NanceGreggs]

132. Saying I refuse to answer ...

... is not an excuse, or a result of being unable to respond. It is a flat-out statement: I refuse to respond.

My reasons for supporting HRC are many, and they are in some instances complex. So why should I sit here and compose a lengthy essay on what those reasons are?

I owe no one an explanation of my support. I owe no one the time and effort a complete response would require.

As I have pointed out, this is no longer a "political discussion board". To be so, this site would have to consist of actual "discussion", which it no longer does.

I did not refer to anyone as "deluded". What I did say is that it is delusional to insist that someone who IS NOT RUNNING should be supported in their NON-run for the presidency.

[Katashi_itto]

109. +1000

[JustAnotherGen]

28. This is where I'm at - exactly

Support of one candidate over another does not mean one thinks the other choices are "presumed to be unelectable".

Electability means nothing in April 2015. Says this Obama supporter - who didn't get on board with him as the candidate until August 2008. Because - I didn't think it was possible.

Chaffee - I'm not sure of. But the other three registered Democratic Party members - there are beliefs and prior votes/legislation they supported that I agree with. There are things I disagree with.

[NYC_SKP]

54. Among poll respondents, most by far are not as bright as you, Nance.

I would think that it goes without saying that a number of well-reasoned, worldly supporters can be counted among the likely majority of respondents in ANY given poll who can't find Iraq on a map but will happily vote to send bombs there.

You and a lot of my friend like Hillary, I won't hold it against you.

But don't try to tell me that if the "base" were exposed as fully to the alternatives as they are to Hillary that the numbers wouldn't change.

[NanceGreggs]

60. No personal offence meant, NYC ...

... but I have been reading the same kind of rhetoric aimed at Obama supporters here for six-plus years, i.e. we are idol worshipers, mindless cheerleaders, low-info voters who know nothing about politics or how gov't works.

The idea that we Obama supporters - and now we HRC supporters - are well-informed people who have based our support on solid criteria is never considered.

As I said, when you feel compelled to dismiss anyone who supports a politician you don't support as being too stupid, too ill-informed, or too mindless to know what's going on, you are saying far more about yourself than you are them, or their choice of candidate.

"You and a lot of my friends like Hillary, I won't hold it against you."

Gee, thanks. And I won't hold it against the Warren-for-President people who continue to delude themselves that EW is going to run, when she has made it abundantly clear that that's not going to happen. Or Sanders-for-President folks who delude themselves into thinking that a 73-year old, self-identified socialist is going to take the nation by storm and win the presidency.

There is political wishful thinking - and then there is political reality. I'll stick with reality, thanks.

[jwirr]

67. You do not want to be called stupid but it is okay for you to call others deluded because they do

not agree with you?

[NanceGreggs]

82. Agreement or disagreement with me ...

... has nothing to do with it.

As I said, there is wishful thinking - and then there's reality. And the reality is that Warren is NOT running, and Sanders doesn't have the widespread appeal necessary to win the presidency.

Do you not think it delusional to believe that a woman who isn't even running is magically going to be the next POTUS? How do you think that is going to come about?

Luckily for all of us, both Warren and Sanders are in positions of influence and do their jobs extremely well right where they are.

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. Everytime I read an OP like this I wonder ...

how someone can look at the poll numbers (of DEMOCRATS) and claim their contrary position is somehow representative of the Democratic base?

And, further, all this talk about the Democratic base being disappointed and the Democratic base walking away from the Democratic Party is strange ... It is nothing that I hear, anywhere other than blogs and pundits (left and right), that are more about controversy and clinks, than anything else.

[Number23]

77. This has been a delusional and even fairly hilarious tactic that a loud group have deployed here for

some time.

The idea that just because poll after poll after poll shows that they are the tiniest most statistically insignificant minority -- the FRINGE no less -- on myriad ideas and positions, that it's only because of skewed polls/people lying to pollsters/aliens/tears in the space-time continuum ANYTHING other than the fact that they are a tiny, statistically insignificant minority.

I posted something about this a few days ago http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6514826

The louder the Democratic Party speaks, the more clearly and the more unified their voices are in the real world, the louder a certain cadre here screams that somehow they and they alone represent the Dem party. And I'm sure it's a coincidence that it's always the posters that are the most divorced from reality and divisive here that scream the loudest about how they represent Dems and that anyone who disagrees with them are right wingers/Thrid Way/conservatives even though by every single measure that counts, the vast majority of the Democratic base take great joy in having practically nothing in common with these people and go out of their way to let them know that over and over again.

[GoneFishin]

50. The base that knows how to spell "D", and thinks nothing else is important.

[sabrina 1]

96. 10% of that base is now registered as Independent. Dem voter registration is now only at 32%

with many of them very unhappy about the rightward swing of their party.

Hillary has no challenger yet, so those polls are meaningless. I, who do not support her eg, would answer 'yes' to those polls, because the alternative is a Republican.

So please, if we are to win in 2016 we have to stop turning a blind eye to the FACTS. In 2008 over 40% of registered voters were Dems. Now it's down to 32%.

Dems are going to have to try to attract the largest voting bloc, Independents, now over 40% of registered voters. Since many of those left leaning Indies do not support the Third Way, the ONLY way to attract them is to provide them with a candidate that is left leaning on Foreign Policies, on the Economy and on Social Safety Nets, such as SS AND who opposes Secret Trade Deals.

You can't win elections with 20% of registered voters.

So yes, the party needs to stop telling its base that they have 'nowhere else to go' because at least 25% of them are already gone.

Now they need to figure out how to hold on to the remaining base and how to bring back those who have found 'somewher else to go'.

[JI7]

99. if they are registered as independent they are not the base

[cui bono]

105. The base is defined as who is voting for them, not necessarily by party affiliation. n/t

[sabrina 1]

114. They WERE the base. Now why would the base of a political party be fleeing that party? Shouldn't

the party want to find out because as the base shrinks, so does the likelihood of winning elections. The leadership of our party lost us the House, because like you, they didn't acknowledge the concerns of the base. And then to make matters worse, once again, after losing the House, they turned a blind eye AGAIN to the concerns of the base, and lost us the Senate.

My point WAS what you said, that those who now register as Independents WERE the base but are no longer the base.

When you start losing your base you need to start asking why, not bashing those who are still registered as Democrats, which is likely to lose even more of the base.

[JI7]

115. the base is black voters, lgbt, hispanics , asians and i see no evidence any of these groups

are leaving

[sabrina 1]

116. Are you saying that minorities are different in some way to white voters and therefore have nowhere

else to go?

Minorities are no different to other voters just fyi. They, including women, are as capable of seeing when they are being taken for granted but ignored when it comes to their concerns about some major issues.

Surely you are not suggesting that minorities are not as concerned about corrupt Wall St practices, (AAs eg, were as deeply affected by the Mortgage crisis losing their homes etc, as were White people) as any one else. Or that they are not as concerned about being lied into war, and the continuation of all war all the time, as anyone else? I don't know what your experiences are, but in my experience they are as active and concerned as White people about the issues that are the cause of the losses the Dem Party has suffered in the last two mid terms.

Seriously? Minorities are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians and non voters, just like White voters.

Eg, it was the Log Cabin Republicans who got the ball rolling on Gays in the Military when they sued for their right to serve and won. While Dems were still reluctant to grant Gays that basic right.

[JI7]

117. you do realize that majority of white voters vote republican while majority of minorities vote dem ?

you are the one trying to claim support for democrats mean minorities don't care about certain issues.

[sabrina 1]

118. What I realize is is that you have assumed that the loss of 10% of registered Dems since 2008

doesn't include any minorities. Why would you assume that? Over 40% of voters were registered as Dems in 2008. Now it's down to 32%.

Why would you assume that there are no minorities among that 10%?

More importantly why do you think this has happened? And a shrinking base means losing elections. THAT is what the Party Leadership should be worried about.

I am certain that minorities' concerns regarding the economy, Foreign Policies, Social Programs, the loss of Civil Rights etc are no different than anyone else's.

Not sure why you would think otherwise.

[JI7]

121. yes, i would say not many minorities but even among some independents many still

identify strongly with one of the parties with most of them leaning more democratic.

there is no shrinking base. democrats are doing far better than they have in presidential elections compared to 25+ years ago.

minorities strongly vote democartic. more so than ever.

[sabrina 1]

122. The math says you are wrong. But who cares about math?

[JI7]

123. no it doesn't, party registration has nothing to do with who is the base

there have always been people who crossed party lines .

in fact the lower percentage of the republican party registration has resulted in most of their party being part of the base which has actually hurt them in many elections, especially presidential.

[sabrina 1]

125. Are you denying the reality that with the shrinking of the base, we lost the House AND the Senate?

Denying reality isn't going to get anyone anywhere. The math says that the biggest voting bloc in the country right now is the Independent vote.

That is because confidence in both parties is at an all time low. Why are Dems part of this lack of confidence? Because they insist on running Third Way candidates and refusing to support Progressive/Left candidates, see the NJ Governor's race eg, so voters will come out for the Progressive Left candidates, but are refusing to hold their noses for Republican lite anymore.

What they ARE doing is working locally. Getting Progressive issues on their local ballots AND WINNING. Finding and supporting Progressive Candidates at their local and State levels and WINNING a majority of those races.

But here's the thing, Progressives, Unions, among others who made up the base of the Dem party are tired of trying to change the wrong way this party is headed at a National level, and are now focused on their local elections, building the party from the ground up where they know they will be heard, not told to just 'stfu and vote'.

Ignore it if you wish, but don't blame voters when the party loses. The party leadership is responsible for any loses it suffers, but they refuse to take responsibility so now we who worked so hard to GET control of the House and Senate are left with Republicans in control.

Btw, what polls have there been of Independents? That is where parties win or lose. Yet all we see are polls for registered Dems.

[JI7]

128. and most independents lean democratic, we lost the house because of how districts are drawn out

the people in those districts lean republican, that wasn't going to change anything.

[sabrina 1]

130. Whatever you say! Maybe some day you will take a closer look at those mid terms, and not just

accept the excuses for losing every time it happens.

[JI7]

131. it's about recognizing reality .

[sabrina 1]

133. Yes, exactly. And the reality is we are losing. We lost the House and the Senate. That is the

reality. The question you are refusing to ask, is why? We have the statistics, so we know why..

Tell me why the Democratic leadership handed Christie a victory in a Blue State when he was already vulnerable?

Why did over 60 elected Democrats endorse that far right wing moron over the Progressive Dem who could have beaten him and why did the leadership of the Party refuse to help her?

Explain that if you can.

Something has gone very wrong with this party when Republicans like Christie get the support of the Dem Party over a Progressive Democratic candidate, and if you want to ignore this phenomenon and ignore WHY we are losing the base, then expect to keep losing.

Thankfully we now have fantastic liberal organizations who are not ignoring the reality of why we are losing, with the help of the current leadership who actually prefer a Republican like the vile Christie to a Progressive Democrat like Buono. I see it as a crime in progress that needs to be investigated. And thankfully that is exactly what is happening. THAT is another reality.

[JI7]

134. republicans have lost more party registration so how did they win ?

and christie was not vulnerable . he was going to win easily . just because a state is red or blue doesn't mean someone of the opposite party can't win.

[sabrina 1]

135. Christie was VERY vulerable over his handling of Sandy. But even if he wasn't, explain why over 60

elected DEMOCRATS pretty much HANDED him the election by ENDORSING HIM. It was SHAMEFUL.

NJ is a BLUE STATE. Stop pretending there is nothing wrong here!! Something is VERY WRONG. And NJ isn't the ONLY state where things like this have happened.

And we are going to find out why whether you choose to ignore it or not.

[JI7]

136. because he was not vulnerable and actually was popular

just because a state is blue doesn't mean there can't be popular republicans . just as being a red state doesn't mean there can never be popular democrats. kentucky has a democratic governor who is popular .

[sabrina 1]

137. Wrong, you are repeating the EXCUSES that were handed down when outraged Dems

demanded answers as to why the Dem Party abandoned its own candidate in favor of one of the most corrupt Republicans.

You are condoning Democrats SUPPORTING REPUBLICAN. Amazing! I will remember that the next time you attack anyone here who opposes a Dem candidate. It seems you're okay with Dems voting for Republicans.

And you are WRONG aside from anything else. Christie was in a LOT OF TROUBLE after his dreadful handling of Sandy so STOP repeating the false garbage that was used as an attempt to try to explain why the DEM PARTY supported a REPUBLICAN.

I see you have no problem with Dems voting Republican. I will remember that.

[JI7]

138. he was popular, and i'm not condoning anything, i'm stating facts, reality

the democrats who supported him did so because he was popular.

there are different levels of politics. a lot goes on at state and local levels.

you seem to think everyone views politics the way you do based on cable news when that is often not the case at different levels.

it's good to learn about different people and places .

[sabrina 1]

139. So it's okay for Democrats to support a Republican? Thanks, that's what I thought you were saying.

Christie was HATED especially by Democrats. Just to make sure people know you are merely repeating the EXCUSES made AFTER the DEM PARTY supported a corrupt, vile Republican OVER a good Progressive Democrat.

Do not ever again let me see you admonish anyone here who criticizes a Dem politician on the issues. I will remind you that according to you, if a Republican is 'popular' it is okay for Democrats to go ahead and vote for the Republican!

Wow! And I though this was a forum that supports DEMOCRATS.

I am bookmarking this subthread. I believe you may be violating the TOS by promoting that we support 'popular' Republicans.

Do not ever again let me see you reminding people of the TOS of this site. Clearly you do not agree with it.

[JI7]

140. oh, you are the one that claimed millions of people watch RT ?

and now you are making up false claims about what i said.

but you also claimed democrats lost the election to republicans because of loss in party registration to independent. yet you ignore that the republicans lost even more party registrations .

and now you are claiming i'm supporting someone by stating facts.

[sabrina 1]

141. You have defended Democrats voting for a 'popular' Republican. I will remember that.

I would never, ever condone voting for a Republican. Yet, that is what you just did. You defended the Dem Party supporting one of the most corrupt Republicans, you defended over 60 elected Democrats ENDORSING a Republican who WAS IN TROUBLE in a BLUE STATE.

Sick to death of the hypocrisy of those who attack good Democrats who care about issues, not one of whom would EVER defend what happened in NJ.

We KNOW why the Dem Leadership supported Christie the Republican over their own good progressive Democrat.

I see you are trying hard to distract from your condoning of Dems voting for 'popular Republicans'.

RT btw, has increased its viewership around the world. But our MSM continues to lose viewers.

Love the US Liberal Women RT gives a voice to. Young, smart and LEFT. The Right Wing corporate media will never allow them to succeed, but thankfully we now have many other news outlets where Liberal Women Journalists can and do have the opportunity to do the job they were trained to do.

I'm still trying to process your support for Dems voting for a Republican like Christie. Did you really say 'because he was popular'??

Thanks, nothing more to say really. Well, except there is no way anyone could ever convince ME to vote for a Republican. T

o each their own I suppose.

[JI7]

142. stop accusing people of things for stating facts

saying democrats supported christie because he was popular does not mean one supports it. it's stating what happened.

just like saying Obama is going to lose most of the south does not mean i want obama to lose the south.

saying jeb bush would be competitive in florida and could win the state does not mean i want jeb bush to win.

as i said, i can recognize reality even when i don't support it.

i don't need to claim millions are watching RT .

[sabrina 1]

143. It's a simple thing to say. What the Dem Party did to Buono in NJ was reprehensible. They supported

a Republican, one of the WORST Republicans, a bully, a right wing corrupt, vengeful, crook, over a good Democrat.

The Dem Party Leadership, while DEMANDING LOYALTY from voters, ENDORSED and VOTED for, one of the most corrupt, Republicans, with Presidential ambitions no less, they could possibly find OVER a good, progressive Democrat.

He was NOT popular. THAT WAS THEIR EXCUSE. He was in deep trouble, DEMOCRATS RESCUED HIM. It took DEMOCRATS to save his ass, in a BLUE STATE. AND YES they came through for him. The question is 'WHY'?

He would have lost that race if Democrats who are a large majority in NJ, had rallied around the Democrat. THAT IS A FACT.

I don't care if a Republican is 'popular'. What does THAT have to do with Democrats voting for him?

BUSH WAS POPULAR, over 90% of Americans supported him afte 9/11. But DEMOCRATS DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM.

Just admit it, we are being SCAMMED. And we will no longer take seriously the garbage that we are being fed.

There is something very wrong going on here. Christie isn't the ONLY Republican who got support from the Dem Party.

So stop trying to excuse it, there is something WRONG here and you can try as hard as you want to, you can no longer dare to criticize good Democrats who refuse to be fooled by propaganda we are being fed each and every day.

[JI7]

144. i'm not being scammed, id on't think millions watch RT

[sabrina 1]

145. Exactly why are you trying to change the subject to something so far from

the subject of this discussion if you are NOT being scammed? Just say what any Democrat would and has said. What happened in NJ was outrageous and lost credibility completely for the current leadership of the Dem Party.

Such a feeble attempt to distract from this issue. At least try to defend your position which is 'it's okay for the Dem Party to save the political ass of one of the most despicable, corrupt Republicans while abandoning a good Progressive Democrat who could have won in a BLUE STATE where the Republican crook WAS in trouble over his handling of Sandy AND his treatment of teachers and Unions.

Just dont let me see you lecture anyone here about who they should vote for. I will refer everyone to your defense of Dems voting for Republican crooks, and we KNEW he was a corrupt, bullying, Republican POS, 'because he was popular' which of course he was NOT.

Uneffingbelievable!

I would never, ever vote for a Republican, least of all a total POS like Christie. But elected Democrats rushed to save his rear end when he was in danger of losing that election. Over 60 of them ENDORSED HIM and voted for him. Where are they now? Hiding! The question is WHY?

And I have no idea why YOU are attempting to make excuses for this.

[JI7]

146. you change the subject all the time

claiming democrats loss in areas with largely conservative voters had to do with decrease in party registration . yet republican party registration was even lower .

[sabrina 1]

147. NJ is a BLUE STATE. A rotten, corrupt Republican was in trouble there. And the Dem Party rushed to

save his ass. Why? They succeeded. If only they had supported the Democrat, but they didn't. Not one of them has been willing to face the outraged public to explain why they did this.

And NJ isn't the only place the Dem Party has supported a Republican, is it? Florida comes to mind.

And Democrats want to know WHY. You apparently are okay with the Dem Party saving the political career of a nasty, corrupt Republcan who WAS NOT POPULAR with Dems no matter how many times you say it. WE KNEW HE WAS A CROOK.

[scscholar]

2. We don't have anywhere else to go

Are you asking them to ignore reality?

[Maedhros]

5. No, we're asking that they actually listen to what we want

and represent us accordingly, rather than screwing us and telling us to like it.

[cui bono]

7. Well I can't vote for Hillary. So they better start listening and responding. n/t

[GoneFishin]

51. And we're dirty hippies.

[blkmusclmachine]

3. Oh there's the faint lip service paid to the Party Plank BEFORE the election. AFTER the election ...

PFFT!

[JI7]

4. if this group actually exists why didn't they vote for Chuy Garcia in Chicago ?

[betterdemsonly]

12. They did

There were no republican candidates in that election so Rahms voters were republicans and right leaning dems. Most of the actual democrats voted for Chuy. No republicans is not a condition most dems have going for them. Rahm also took advantage of black loyalty to Obama and low voter turnout. Most dems also don't have such a high percentage of Obama loyalists in their district, and most parts of the country have higher percentages of voters than Chicago does.

[JI7]

13. so they make up a very small percentage in the country ?

in a general election anyone can vote for any party candidate including president .

[Scootaloo]

16. The wheels on your goalpost seem very well-greased.

[JI7]

20. nope, i don't agree with what the poster claims

especially the comment about black voters .

chicago is a strong democratic area .

[delrem]

24. Conclusion: the Republican won. And you're laughing. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. No a DEMOCRAT that you don't support, won. n/t

[cui bono]

90. That depends on whether you define Democrat as someone with a 'D' after their name or

someone who holds and enacts traditional Democratic Party principles.

[ND-Dem]

94. It's the "D," baby. Just the big "D".

[1StrongBlackMan]

97. LOL ...

Yeah. Ok.

[cui bono]

98. Well... what has Emanuel done that is true to Democratic principles and what has he done that isn't?

[1StrongBlackMan]

107. I don't know ...

What I do know is he was elected as a Democrat BY a bunch of Democrats ... so those Democrats think him Democratic enough. I will not argue with them.

[cui bono]

111. What percentage of Emanuel's vote was from Republicans?

What was the split in votes among Dems only?

[1StrongBlackMan]

112. Good question and good point. Do you have an answer? n/t

[cui bono]

113. I do not. I thought you might since you made the statement that Dems voted him in,

but it was a general election, so I suspect he was the choice of the Republicans who voted.

I did come across an interesting article about the election when looking for the voting demographics:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/04/chicago-mayoral-race-results-rahm-tell-crooked-answer-yes-true-period.html

Why did Rahm Win?

First, Rahm got lucky, RJ Eskow:

Emanuel had a surfeit of luck. Karen Lewis, the immensely popular head of the Chicago Teachers Union, led Emanuel 45 percent to 36 percent in head-to-head polling last July after confronting the mayor before and during a 2012 teachers’ strike. Tragically, Lewis was diagnosed with a cancerous brain tumor and was unable to run. That left Garcia short on time and resources with which to overtake the cash-rich incumbent. Another formidable challenger who chose not to run was Toni Preckwinkle, head of the Cook County Board of Supervisors.
...
Third, Garcia lost the black wards because the “black misleadership class” held them for Rahm (and by extension, Obama). Black Agenda Report:

Rahm Emanuel’s biggest asset was the overwhelming support of Chicago’s well-established black political class of preachers, business types, “community leaders” and public officials. President Barack Obama himself came home to Chicago this year and in 2011 to campaign for Rahm and cut commercials for him. Nearly every prominent black elected official in town, Democrats all, came out for Rahm, for privatization, for gentrification, for austerity, for more of the same. This is the state of black politics in 2015, and the reason that Rahm Emanuel carried every single one of Chicago’s majority black wards.

A career Democrat politician himself, Chuy Garcia could talk about the injustice of high stakes testing and privatizing public schools. What Garcia simply could not do was explain to black audiences why almost every black politician in town including the black Chicago Democrat in the White House was riding with Rahm. To do so would have been to directly criticize the regime of black urban politics and the policies of the president himself, something even the most “progressive” career Democrat politicians don’t do.
...
Finally, Garcia didn’t clearly separate himself from Rahm on finance; austerity, in particular:

Instead we got Garcia, who steadfastly refused to draw up a bold policy program, opening himself up to easy criticisms by Emanuel that he had no real plan for the fiscal crisis facing the city. Even late in the campaign, he continued to use phrases like “shared sacrifice” (usually code words for additional austerity measures on the backs of workers) in describing how he would solve the city’s budget woes.

He refused to strongly endorse measures like a financial transactions tax.

So, as they tend to do, people voted for the real Rahm, instead of a fake one.

It goes on to talk about how Dems win when they emphasize anything they did that was progressive. That Rahm's campaign did that and that Politico wrote an article about what Hillary can learn from Rahm about "taming" the left. Bill Clinton did the same thing. He ran as a progressive and governed as a moderate. Obama pretty much the same, he ran as the candidate of change but then admitted he is actually a moderate Republican.

So the people actually want a progressive. This was just an ill-fated campaign by Chuy for several reasons.


EDIT TO ADD:

Republicans Heap Money On Rahm Emanuel's Re-election Campaign

Standing out among the big contributions to Emanuel’s super PAC, Chicago Forward, is a $500,000 donation -- more than half of the group’s fundraising haul for the month of March so far -- from hedge fund billionaire and Republican donor Ken Griffin. Chicago Forward money is now being used to attack Garcia with negative television ads.

Raising money from Republican donors might seem odd for the former chief of staff to the Obama White House, but Emanuel’s campaign and super PAC have received millions from wealthy benefactors from the opposing party. In total, Republican donors have put more than $2.3 million behind Emanuel’s re-election since Jan. 1, 2013, according to Illinois campaign finance records. These contributions account for 10 percent of all donations Emanuel and his super PAC have received in that period of time.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/19/rahm-emanuel-republicans_n_6904566.html

[Ken Burch]

26. It's probably why Chicago's mayoral race is now officially "nonpartisan".

The only reason to pass a change like that was to set of a permanent coalition of the GOP and the right wing of the local Dems.
It's about making sure Chicago never gets another Harold Washington.

[JI7]

62. so is los angeles and new york

and based on what you say chicago has more conservatives. so pushing liberal policies wont work since most people are conservative there.

[Ken Burch]

83. Are you sure about New York?

I distinctly remember Di Blasio winning the Democratic primary and beating a GOP opponent iin the fall. And that was just two years ago.

[JI7]

84. yes, i was wrong, because the only contest was really the dem primary

whose winner would decide who would be the mayor since republicans had no chance.

but still , according to your analysis chicago is mostly conservative if a liberal can't win in the general election.

[RobertEarl]

8. heh

Like they care, right?

They have allowed a corrupt vote counting machinery to take hold and count our votes however which way they can fix our votes.

They start wars around the world and take our tax dollars to pay those war wages and you expect them to listen?

[CrispyQ]

40. That was the most accurate & depressing post this morning.

[lexington filly]

10. Since the 90's/Clinton until now, for the most part it seems to me Vote Democratic

and it's "death" by a thousand cuts for the middle class and poor people. Vote Republican and they'll lop our heads off all at once. (ObamaCare being a significant exception.)

We really do need a grass roots effort to make our Party leaders understand if they want us to leave our homes, jobs, or lives to stand in line to vote for them, they must give us some extremely good reasons and problem solutions other than Fear The Republicans.

[DeSwiss]

11. Because we haven't found another place to go and they're betting that we never will.

- And unfortunately it's a good bet for them since I see little indication that people are fed up enough to really do anything. They're only fear is that we won't be scared enough of the Loonie Repuke Du Jour, to go to the polls so that they don't lose their jobs.

That's all.

K&R



They teach to hate ourselves, first -- I'm too fat, my teeth aren't white enough, my hips are too big. After a steady diet of that, then it becomes harder to care about anyone else.......

[polichick]

32. Love that quote - by the way, the dirty fucking hippies were right.

[haikugal]

58. Yes we were, and we still are!

[polichick]

66. Right on!

[DeSwiss]

129. Yes they (we) were.....

...we can put that on our resume' if we ever get another chance to apply for being the dominant species of a planet again. I could be wrong, but I think we've already blown this one. I mean look at what we've come to.

- Is this anyway for a mature species to act???

[treestar]

37. You do have elsewhere to go

Nothing stops you from starting a third party. It would be hard work to get to the point where it could get enough voters to win offices. The Greens have a few offices here and there and don't give up. It will take time. Makes no sense not to do that if the Democrats just aren't for you. It makes as much sense as demanding the Republicans provide you with a candidate you like. If you aren't with the majority of Democrats, you need another party.

We're not supposed to think of them as institutions (and the parties are informal) that provide candidates. We are supposed to be part of the process.

[1StrongBlackMan]

68. +1 ...

Especially this:

It makes as much sense as demanding the Republicans provide you with a candidate you like.

A while ago, I posted an (imperfect) analogy, where the new kids in the neighborhood come to the playground, where everyone is playing football, largely, because they HAVE a football; and the new kids demand that the game stop because they want to play baseball.

And when the "older kids" say "fine, do you have a baseball, gloves and a bat?", the "new kids" say, "No ... but we think we can play without them. The "older kids" say, "Okay, go get a baseball, some gloves and a bat, and we can play baseball." But the "new kids" say, "We don't need any of that ... besides, football sucks!"

And when the "older kids" go on with the baseball game, the "new kids" try and take the football ... so what once was a game everyone enjoyed becomes a game of keep away, that no one other than the "new kids" enjoy ... and they enjoy it, not because they enjoy Keep Away; but, because no one is playing football.

I seems that this is what is going on on DU and various blogs.

[woo me with science]

106. Thank you.

[treestar]

17. you are not the base

The base votes for them no matter what. The base is happy with them, as they are the choice of the party as leaders. The base does not threaten to go elsewhere. You don't get it. They do what the base wants. You're just not part of it.

Playing the victim never works. They do what the proactive people who work for them want, not what the victims of everyone want.

[betterdemsonly]

19. I think you mean the proactive people they work for

Their base is there donors, not voters.

[treestar]

36. The base would be people who try to get donors

As we need money. I don't know the way around that yet. But it does look like regular people can give in large numbers more than big business, unions, and big organizations can. I think Obama got more money from the combinations of small donations than big donors.

I also don't think they can directly simply favor their big donors. That could be seen and pointed out. There are two many people involved to create a conspiracy, so thank the Founders for that.

[Major Hogwash]

25. I disagree, I think Ken is a part of the base.

He lives in Alaska, what other party do you think he votes for, for Christ's sake?
He is not "playing the victim", as you suggest.
He merely wants a wider range of candidates to choose from to vote for in order to represent him.

[treestar]

35. The base turns up reliably

OP talks about people not showing up.

The base works to get the candidates going - they don't demand candidates to choose from, they know they are making the candidates.

And the party does not DEMAND anything. We do the best we can to get the best candidates going from the ground up.

This whole mentality that the party serves us rather than we being a part of it sickens me. And then threatening not to vote if the party does not serve up the exact candidate they want. They should go out and campaign for that candidate rather than whine about the party. If you are part of the party, you can find another Democrat to fight for. There's no point in sniping from sidelines.

[PowerToThePeople]

38. actually, they are supposed to serve us

That is why they are "public servants."

What we have are private industry servants, except for a few.

I would like to see campaign finance laws enacted that included language outlawing political parties.

[treestar]

39. No the party is "us"

before they get elected, we can get involved in who the candidates are. If you sit back and expect the party to serve up the candidates and then complain they are not good enough, that's not really participating, but others to do it for you.

In office they serve their constituency, which of necessity includes people/actions we as individuals don't agree with.

That attitude is not right and serves no purpose. It's not a product we are buying. It is something we get to participate in - thanks to the Founders, we are not in the situation you describe. That sounds more like the USSR and it's fake offered candidates.

[PowerToThePeople]

42. well, I push the candidates I want pretty constant.

Bernie is my choice for POTUS this time.

In the future, I think my state's governor Jay Inslee could make a strong candidate for potus too.

[Thinkingabout]

59. I have yet to see where other candidates are not allowed to run, you can't lay blame at the DNC.

In the case of Bernie I don't know if the DNC would provide support because he is a registered I
Independent and having an independent running for the DNC nominee does not match up.

After the statements made about candidates right here on DU does nit give encouragement for people to put themselves and their families to be subject to the hate.

Get your candidate in the race, if they can get the votes to be the nominee then I will go with the nominee of the DNC.

[jwirr]

71. They are not a pulic servant until they are elected. And if we are active in the party we are the

ones who make them our candidates to be future public servants.

As to no political parties. We in MN do not label our candidates for lower offices by the party and it makes voting hell. They leave this nice little brochure on your door knob and all it tells you is that they are a good family man (big pic of the family) and a very generic resume that tells you nothing about where they are coming from. For all you know you are voting for a tea-party darling.

[1StrongBlackMan]

70. +1 ...

But why wouldn't someone just love a lover that threatens to leave you?

[cui bono]

104. No, the party has changed, the "base" is still liberal. The party, as evidenced by so many posts on

DU alone, has become centrist. The "base" is still interested in the principles that the party was founded upon. Unions, workers rights, civil liberties, regulation of big business, not allowing too big to fail, etc... Unfortunately, the party has taken in so many moderates, likely because the R's got too extreme and also because of the push of the DLC/Third Way, that it is now basically moderate Republican, just as Obama has describe himself.

The "base" is left with no one to vote for that truly represents their interests any more. Look at all your posts supporting corporations, Wall Street and outsourcing of jobs on one of the TPP threads. It's outrageous to have a Democrat supporting all of that. Used to be unheard of. But the Dem Party has been infiltrated by centrists, the corporations control the media so we have only center and right media, so everyone assumes the center is the left. But it's not. Not by a long shot.

Where is anyone "playing the victim"? You know that democracy works when people speak up. That's the only way it works. So why can't we do so without people like you telling us we don't belong? We belong a hell of a lot more than you do because we support workers and the people. You support corporations, Wall Street and outsourcing of jobs. You are a conservative when you support those things and people like you have severely damaged the Democratic Party. You don't even understand that unions built up the middle class, or are you purposely being coy and pretending that outsourcing did that?

So don't go telling liberals that "You don't get it. They do what the base wants. You're just not part of it." You don't have a clue and you have zero appreciation for who got you what rights you still have left. Rights that your centrist Dem Party is giving up without a fight anymore. Go ahead, keep pissing on the left and see what happens. All you're going to do is get a Tea Party president and it's going to be your fault, not the left's.

[daredtowork]

127. Do primaries always play chicken over pulling a Nader?

Though the low turn out situation seems more likely to me.

I've never really watched the Primary lead-up before. It's pretty interesting that the tent of "the base" has shrunk so far already. Someone above tried to claim all minorities and lgbt were on board as the base even if the social left were excluded. Those votes are already a lock, are they?

*watches Clinton ship approach same iceberg it hit in 2008*

[betterdemsonly]

21. Obama, Clinton and the DLC still believe they can replace

the unions with something called the coalition of the ascendant. It is a multiracial and multigender demographic associated with Silicon Valley, and multinational wall street firms. The trouble is this demographic is very very tiny and provides few if any real jobs for anyone. While the voters are becoming more multiracial, they are not Silicon Valley workers, and are not economically ascendant. They are mostly service industry drudges in gerrymandered districts with little political power. The republicans and their white evangelical children have come to dominate most states and offices aside from the white house. The dlcers have been a disaster for the party a whole. I don't think they care though. They still have their own seats of power so how the party does, doesn't matter. Eventually voters will go elsewhere because the party dies in most places aside from some urban fiefdom like Rahm Emanuel's in Chicago.

I live in an area that may soon see republicans running uncontested.

[Shrike47]

27. I'm going to vote for the Dem nominee, whoever it may be. The Party doesn't want my thoughts.

They want my vote, and they get it. My ideal candidate doesn't seem to be running, as of yet. I send money. Not because I always agree, but because the Republicans are so bad that I have no choice but to support the Democrat.

[Scuba]

29. Yep. Then when they lose elections they blame us. If they want our votes, they have to ....

... do something to earn them.

[treestar]

41. See the post below you

It's not a popularity contest and they won't cry when they lose. Only we lose. People who don't vote lose. It's so high if those people got together and voted for the Green Party, they could win big offices. They don't care. It's no use to spite the people who do run that you don't think are liberal enough. No real skin off their nose. They didn't win, so what? They'll run again. These are people who care.

[libdem4life]

45. When they lose elections, a Republican wins and screws us. I know, not popular. Don't care. n/t

[struggle4progress]

30. There's a sure way to have influence in the Party, and that's to help build the Party over the years

by pushing good people into local office and then diligently them pushing up the pyramid

You help put a good person into local government and keep helping that person until s/he's in statewide office, that person will remember not just your face but your name as well

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

31. They're changing who 'the base' is.

'The base' used to be people far more to the left, but the party has shifted to the right because the politicians who run are seeking votes from people who are farther to the right. Carter pulled things somewhat to the right, and indeed his late primary opponents tried to unseat him in part BECAUSE they felt he would be too far to the right to win in a general. Clinton triangulation pulled HARD to the right, and both Gore and Kerry tried working the right end more than the left in follow-up, but lacked the 'aw shucks' good old boy charisma. Obama pulled a bunch of new lefty voters in 2008, but worked the middle harder in 2012 because folks knew better where he stood by then. Now we're back to probable Clinton triangulation again, and a further shoring up of 'the base' as the people who were on the far right wing of the party 30 years ago, rather than the solidly left.

[DCBob]

34. I dont think that's the attitude.

I think its more like they think many on the far left are naïve and clueless about what's realistic and what's good for the country. For sure they fear a third party challenge like what happened in 2000.

[TheKentuckian]

43. That calculation seems to work well enough for the purposes of those doing the math, Ken.

They could give a fuck what we want because no matter how much howling and hand wringing there is the model works just as well as suspected and better almost always dampens enthusiasm enough to keep it tight and therefore too divided to clear the smokescreen and see the complicity.

They don't have to do shit unless we make them do it and Democrats tend to wish to rely on begging, complicated schemes, hoping for a loyalty bonus, or the goodness in our pols to come shining through because many are conflict adverse, also complicit, suckers, and/or assorted flavors of chumps.

When we flush the turds then they won't be leading but they are large and in charge for as long as we allow it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. Bollocks, Ken - your OP is full of it. "other than the frontrunner"? Ridiculous

most Democratic presidential candidates(other than the frontrunner and Chafee)are going to be significantly better than whoever the GOP puts up.

You know damn well that Hillary Clinton is also significantly better than whoever the GOP puts up. It's crap like "there's no difference between Hillary and Republicans" that turns people off voting for Democrats. You're suppressing the Democratic vote with bullshit like that.

[workinclasszero]

108. It's crap like "there's no difference between Hillary and Republicans" that turns people off voting

for Democrats

Yes it's pure suppressing the democratic vote.

I'm sure the koch bros are happy to see the millions they are spending trying to get Herr Walker or Canadian Cruz elected Boss/Pope of America working its magic on DU and other democratic sites.

[pampango]

48. republican party leaders often yields to the policy wishes of the far-right. Our party

should do the same towards our base.

[H2O Man]

49. I like this

a lot. Thank you.

Recommended.

[orpupilofnature57]

52. +1000 !!!!

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. Posted to for later.

[Glitterati]

55. They ALREADY have somewwhere else to go - HOME

It's these same people who stayed home last election.

They have somewhere to go - and that is to withhold their vote entirely.

People don't stand in long lines, battle massive voter disenfranchisement, and put up with all kinds of weather for hours and hours in long lines for someone who gives them nothing to vote FOR.

No one goes to the polls to vote AGAINST someone without motivation.

All the jerks stomping their feet, screaming at non-voters, won't get even ONE voter to the polls without something to vote FOR.

Barack Obama gave voters HOPE.

Without it, they stay home.

So, pull 2014 again. Abandon your base, abandon your President.

And YOU WILL LOSE.

AGAIN.

[HereSince1628]

56. Real true blue dems vote quid pro bono

[Autumn]

57. I have said it before and I will say it again, they are creating a vacuum and

a vacuum will be filled. I may not have another party to go to, but neither do I have to vote.

Excellent OP

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. Except -- they're right.

Seriously, where would we go?

[jwirr]

75. To make the question a bit clearer: Seriously, where would we go if we want to protect what little

we have left? Like ACA, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. I hate that it comes down to this but IMO we have two choices: take over the party like the tea party did the Rs or create a new party but one that we know can win. Most of us are not going to go for a party that we know cannot win.

Both of those choices will take time. And IMO we do not have time.

[liberal_at_heart]

65. I can't count the number of times I have been told I support Republicans just today alone.

It is getting nasty and I can only imagine it will only get even nastier as time goes on. Sad that they think intimidation and bullying will get them what they want.

[Jakes Progress]

69. Only if they have a moral center.

As it is, they don't give a rat's ass about you, the middle class, the earth, our children. They only want to get elected to keep the money and power they love.

I see no indication that the party leaders will be decent human beings.

[MineralMan]

72. You are not the base.

The base is all those folks who show up at Democratc Party caucuses and become convention delegates. They're the committee members, precinct captains and canvassers. They're the volunteers for state legislative candidates, people who work phone banks and registration drives.

Some of them are also doing social media outreach for Democratic candidates and driving voters to the polls. None of them are online trashing primary candidates who will probably be the nominees in the general election.

You are not the base. You do not represent the base. You're something else. I'm not sure what, but it's not the Democratic base.

[madfloridian]

73. Whoa there. Many of us have done those things.

More powerful voices won out. Don't be so judgmental.

[MineralMan]

74. Past tense?

Many of us are still doing those things and will continue to do them, election after election. I'll be out there again in 2016, whoever the Democratic presidential candidate is. There's a reason for that. I don't always get the candidate I hope for, but I support the party and all of its candidates. It's about more than one office. The base never forgets that. Others blow with the winds, but the base stands firm. Do what you wish. I'll be out there again, as always.

[madfloridian]

76. Some of us do what we can now.

For various reasons that are private ones. I donate and support other ways. As I said don't judge others so harshly.

[smokey nj]

91. You don't have to justify yourself to anyone, madflo.

Anyone who matters knows you've been fighting the good fight for a long time.

[Ken Burch]

81. I've done ALL of those things...for decades.

You're not entitled to lecture me about non-involvement.

[cui bono]

95. That's not what the base is. The base is the voters who vote for a particular party.

It has nothing to do with if you participate in the election process.

And btw... your post was extremely rude. If that's the attitude you take towards others in the party you are doing more harm than good.

[Major Hogwash]

100. Of course, you're right.

I have no idea where George got that idea.
It sounded so cheesy that I couldn't believe he said it.

[Autumn]

119. So if we don't do those things we are not the Democratic base?

Nice pile of Bull Shit you got going on there. I did those things for years. I don't do them now, I have changed my voter registration to Unaffiliated because Jamie Dimon was whipping votes on the Senate floor at the behest of the President for the Omnibus bill which I personally found to be an obscene action and I am just as much the Democratic base as anyone here, and that certainly includes you.

[guillaumeb]

78. I wish I had said that.

Excellent points all.

My feeling is that APATHY is to blame for most of the success of the GOP. Their message is a toxic blend of racism, sexism, classism, and whoring for the rich. And that does have some fans, but if the Democratic Party was better than GOP lite it would energize the 40% who never vote.

[democrank]

79. Research speeches by many influential Democratic leaders like Rahm Emanuel or Al From and

you`ll get a good idea what corporate leadership thinks of the base. It has been this way for many, many years. The New Way says principles aren`t all that useful anymore, at least as compared to political consultants, images-makers and boat loads of cash. In fact, we`re told you can prove what a good Democrat you are by supporting policies, nominations and appointments we fought against under George W. Bush. Just nod, that`s the New Way.

How many corporate Democrats have you heard stand up and fight for unions lately? Just asking.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. I am no one's "base" and my vote is my own.

In matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place. Gandhi

[Doctor_J]

85. I don't think the dc dems want the votes. The president was desperate to get a republican congress

in 2010and thus the abandonment of his 2008 campaign as soon as he took office. The only purpose the traditional democratic groups serve now is to be blamed for the slaughters at the polls.

[MFrohike]

86. Why?

Bill Clinton's made 80-100m shilling for the financial sector since he left office. What's the downside for others like him?

[AZ Progressive]

103. You know why they keep on doing this? Because they CAN

They know that if you vote against them (or not vote at all), your just punishing yourself because the Republicans do as much as they can to make hell on earth for you.

[1939]

110. The problem is the cure may be worse than the disease

A massive vote for a third party on the left (say 15%) would get the party leaders' attention and move them to the left. Unfortunately, that would come at the cost of a GOP landslide for a couple of election cycles until the party reunited.

[DirkGently]

120. Issues, not party loyalty,

drive turnout.

You can't browbeat or shame people into voting for anyone. You have to convince them you are fighting for their interests.

Small children can understand this, no?

[LWolf]

124. That's for damned sure. n/t

[upaloopa]

126. Bull shit

That leads to what happened last year.
You need to work from a position of strength to make change that means being in power.
You advocate cutting off your nose to spite your face.
You advocate weakening yourself to where the oligarchy will grind whatever is left of you into the ground.