This election is a binary event. Calling for Obama's defeat *IS* advocating for Romney's victory.

[scheming daemons]

and vice versa.


Liberals are smarter than conservatives, generally. Higher IQs, better educated, more aware.


But sometimes simple, basic logic escapes them.


Either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney will be President on January 20th, 2013. Nobody else. If you advocate for the victory of one, you are advocating for the defeat of the other and vice versa.


In other words, Professor Unger is a complete and utter idiot who doesn't understand simple on/off binary logic.


If you call for Obama's defeat, you are calling for Romney's victory.

[freshwest]

1. +1,000. K & R.

[rhett o rick]

16. What is the +1000 for?

That he said that either Romney or Obama will win in Nov???? Is that such an amazing statement???

[CakeGrrl]

39. Apparently it would be to a Harvard professor advocating the defeat of a Democrat.

Explain the concept to THAT guy, because he either doesn't get it or doesn't need to care.

[tclambert]

110. In binary, that's only 8,

so it's not that big a deal.

[bluestateguy]

2. He is a tenured Harvard professor

It is not he who will have to suffer the consequences of a Ramney presidency.

Very much like many of the overprivileged Nader voters I remember meeting in 2000.

[DavidDvorkin]

3. That's always true, ever four years

Not supporting the Democrat means supporting the Republican.

And it's almost always a choice of the lesser of two evils. Refusing to make that choice is equivalent to voting for the greater of two evils.

[tomp]

112. what a system! nt

[DavidDvorkin]

127. I wish we had a parliamentary system

with proportional representation and real power vested in a prime minister. Far from perfect, but it's a better system than the one we have now.

[WillyT]

4. Ah... The Simple Life...

Yet... even Ansel Adams knew that Black and White... was an abstraction.

And a beautiful abstraction at that...





Life is way more complicated, and has many, many colors, and feelings, and reasons, for the choices people make.

Make the vision compelling, beautiful even... and people will come.

[ProSense]

7. Yeah,

"Make the vision compelling, beautiful even... and people will come."

...or they will flock to Romney, stay home and ensure a Romney win and live happily ever after admiring the "vision," the "compelling, beautiful" vision of what could have been!!!

Here's the "compelling" vision: life with Romney as President or Obama's re-election.

Envision that, it's the least you can do beyond staying home.

[WillyT]

8. Well... I WILL Be Staying At Home...

But that's because because I Vote By Mail.

But my vote will be for Barack Obama, and BTW... the OTHER Democrats on the ticket.

But I live in California... what are YOU guys gonna do?

[ProSense]

10. Same as you

"But my vote will be for Barack Obama, and BTW... the OTHER Democrats on the ticket."

...vote Obama and Democrats.

That's my plan.

[coalition_unwilling]

104. I flirted briefly with voting 3rd-Party in November. But then I watched one

of those Repig presidential primary debates and it scared the living shit out of me (Thanks Tx4obama for the link to it

So I'm back to Obama in November.

Sometimes, voting the lesser of two evils is a fucking CIVIC DUTY and this is one of those times.

[OnyxCollie]

12. It's like fifty shades of gray, or something. nt

[kentuck]

18. Beautiful photography!

Thanks!

[WillyT]

19. You Are Quite Welcome !!! - Here's More:

Link: http://tinyurl.com/88gujvu

[kentuck]

25. Bookmarked.

[TahitiNut]

24. Consider, too, that we see less than 10% of the electromagnetic spectrum.

"That which is essential is invisible to the eye." (Little Prince)

[MjolnirTime]

37. You consistently amaze me with your ability to be obtuse.

If Obama loses, who wins?

Do you? Does the United States?

How deep does your vendetta go?

[WillyT]

42. You've Been Consistently Amazed Since October ???

Hell... I've consistently amazed people here... since 2001.

They call me The Amazing WillyT.

It's sort of embarrassing to be flattered so ...

[MjolnirTime]

61. Hit the nail right on the head, didn't I?

You should be embarrassed.

[JDPriestly]

45. Actually, WillyT, this has nothing to do with politics, but somehow to call those photos

black and white just illuminates the lack of color in our language. Is it the Navajo or the Hopi who have so many words for black and white. Looking at those photos I really wish we did.

But when it comes to elections in the US, there are only two choices. So no matter how unhappy we are about that, we have to settle for one.

We talk about elections in terms of personalities, and we pick a couple of policies to focus on. But really, we are electing a government, not one man, not just the policies of that one man or party.

It isn't really picking from two evils, it is choosing a group of people and a leader.

[WillyT]

54. Most Excellent Observation !!!

The lack of color in our language... is indeed an inhibiting factor in our discussions.

[rudycantfail]

90. Informed liberals are going to see

two marginally different shades of dark grey. Arm twisting isn't going to change that.

[Zoeisright]

101. Completely, absolutely, 100% wrong.

If you can't see the differences, you need to open your eyes. The Supreme Court, to name just one entity, will be completely different if R(money) steals this election. In other words, back to the 17th century. If you think that's the same thing, you're beyond help.

[rudycantfail]

114. The Democratic leadership is not concerned

about the vast majority of Americans, the Lilly Ledbetter list not withstanding. I agree Obama will pick non-conservative justices but only because he'll be unable to blame somebody else for it after the back room deal is made with the 1%.

[tomp]

116. he's likely to pick centrist judges, imo. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

117. What a ridiculous statement. How Nader-esque.

[tomp]

115. please be careful not to confuse your opinion with fact. just sayin'. nt

[treestar]

108. Sometimes it is simple

You want Rmoney to win or not?

[ProSense]

5. Yeah. but

"In other words, Professor Unger is a complete and utter idiot who doesn't understand simple on/off binary logic.

...he's entitled to this opinion. Besides, he's the good kind of "utter idiot" advocating the perfect pitch on the way to stupid. What's not to admire?

[kentuck]

6. That sounds like a logical and rational argument...

But I don't know that it automatically qualifies the Professor as a "complete and utter idiot"? Perhaps that is only a biased opinion? It assumes that he cannot be against both.

A stronger argument would be to explain why Obama is the only choice? There is no other choice. If you choose someone else, then you are not only a traitor, you are also an idiot...

[BlueCaliDem]

13. The professor should keep his opinions to himself until Pres. Obama is re-elected.

Then go ALL OUT on him afterward. That's the smartest thing to do.

Let's not forget, there is still 20% or so who haven't made up their minds and aren't as political as we are. And to have the Professor come out like this is what the GOP is hoping for: the Democratic circular firing squad. It helps the GOP win elections because the middle will be listening and they won't be hearing any GOP coming out against R'money who is the media darling so it makes President Obama look weak. Remember, perception is king.

[cally]

9. I resent those, like Unger, with their protected jobs

advocating for Romney under the guise of supporting progressives. Academics need to leave the ivory tower and their pet theories and look at the real world.

[joshcryer]

21. Precisely. The people who make these observations are likely doing well.

It won't affect them either way and they can feign political purity.

Let me see some unemployed progressive on unemployment and getting food stamps advocate Obama's defeat. I bet it'd be a rare event.

[Inkfreak]

68. Absofreakinloutly

[JNelson6563]

77. +1

[Tarheel_Dem]

121. Cally, I wish I could frame this, or at the very least, recommend it.

[aikoaiko]

11. He's not the first Harvard professor to throw a bomb during the waning years.

I think its a to-do item on post-tenure review.

[Honeycombe8]

14. That is true. So it makes me wonder, what was his point?

If his point was to get in the news, he succeeded. He made no public statement supporting Obama in 2008, although he says NOW he supported him them. But did he, really?

He's an activist who is involved in politics in BRAZIL.

Something...there must be something that will benefit Brazil if Republicans get in office here.

[rhett o rick]

15. So what is your objective here? To clarify to the "smart" liberals that they have no

choice come November? Either Mitt Romney or Pres Obama will win the election???? No shit?

I swear you are trying your damnedest to piss off liberals.

So if you arent a smart liberal nor a asshole conservative, what the fuck are you?

[jeff47]

26. November you vote for the Democrat

Primary day you vote for the liberal. And you're going to have to get a lot more liberals to bother showing up on primary day.

The Democrats are in their current ideological position because conservatives show up at the polls. Every. Damn. Time. Primary turnout among liberals is embarrassingly bad. So conservative Democrats pick who's on November's ballot.

Want the party to go left? Get as many liberals as you can to show up on primary day. It's how the conservative Republicans did it. And be prepared for a long fight.

[rhett o rick]

32. Who are you arguing with? nm

[jeff47]

33. You. You claim the OP is designed to piss off liberals

who are annoyed that Obama is their "liberal" choice.

If your goal was to do something about that situation, re-read my post. We have lots of work to do.

If your goal was to complain on a message board, then I'd really prefer you didn't bother. Sleeping would be just as effective in changing the situation, and would make it easier on those of us trying to herd cats.

[rhett o rick]

48. And I guess you think that liberals dont get that. nm

[jeff47]

49. If they did, they'd show up on primary day. Yet they don't show up. (nt)

[Bluenorthwest]

79. This is an amusing post. The other day, I read a post from a DUer who claims to be an ardent

Obama supporter who criticizes liberals. The post said 'we did not have a primary this year'. Of course if 'we' is the Democratic Party we most certainly had a primary. I voted in the Oregon Primary, including my third vote for Obama. The 'most ardent supporter' did not even know there was a Primary, and allowed the other candidates and questions to go without their vote, and they took one vote away from the President's count in that State, where the turnout among Democrats was low as can be. I'm a liberal. And I vote. My State is blue, my Rep and Senators and Gov and Sec of State are Democrats, our turn out in 2010 set records, while the 'most ardents' in redder states did not bother to vote at all. "We had no Primary' they say....and yet they will turn on a dime and declare that their lack of a vote is 'support' while the actual activism and voting of anyone critical of any policy is 'hate'. If I were a politician, I would want votes, not rhetoric. Criticize me and vote for me is better than praise me and take a pass on the actual vote casting thingy...

[jeff47]

83. Your anecdote clearly trumps statistics. :sarcasm: (nt)

[JDPriestly]

46. Actually, primary day is too late. We need a lot of progressives to show up at Democratic Clubs

and to support Democratic activities. That's the only way that we can get a voice first in our party and then in the nation as a whole.

I hear people say so often that they don't want to attend the Democratic Club because the people there are so conservative. And then we come to primary and election time -- and they don't want to vote because there aren't any progressives on the ballot.

It's up to you to get active in your local party politics long before the elections -- all the time. Take some responsibility. Don't just leave it up to other people to get out the vote and pick candidates.

Who knows? If you go to your local club's meetings, you might actually meet your candidates early enough to know who you are voting for in the primary. You might be surprised at how much you like some of them and how much they agree with you.

[jeff47]

50. One step at a time

If we can't get 'em to even show up on primary day, they're not gonna show up to meetings.

[TheWraith]

28. You really need to learn that you don't represent all liberals.

"Liberal" does not necessarily mean tantrum prone, illogical, and ill-informed.

[Number23]

59. !!

"Liberal" does not necessarily mean tantrum prone, illogical, and ill-informed.

I daresay a fairly large portion of GD (though not real liberals in general) would probably disagree with you.

[Tarheel_Dem]

122. Another gem I wish I could rec!

[dionysus]

36. it'd only piss you off if it was accurate and hit a nerve... too fucking bad

[FBaggins]

17. Sorry. Oversimplification.

This isn't the only election in our lifetime.

One could believe that a more progressive 50 years could result from losing this year.

I don't happen to agree, but you don't have to be supporting a Romney win... You could be supporting presumed future consequences.

There were plenty of republicans who felt that way about McCain... And looked correct after the 2010 "shellacking" (though they wouldn't be the ones supporting Romney, so who knows what they think today).

[ProSense]

20. Don't agree

Sorry. Oversimplification.

This isn't the only election in our lifetime.

One could believe that a more progressive 50 years could result from losing this year.

I don't happen to agree, but you don't have to be supporting a Romney win... You could be supporting presumed future consequences.

It's not an "oversimplification" to state that the logic is utterly idiotic. In fact, some of the biggest whiners after the 2004 election were the very people who advocated such logic, which does amont to simplistic thinking, and worked toward that goal.

Suffering is not worth it. A better path to a more progressive 50 years is to do everything to block Republican rule.

[Honeycombe8]

27. Prosense speaks the basic truth, as does the OP. It's just a fact.

Maybe we'd all like a three party system, but that's not what we have. It is a fact that either Obama or Romney will win in November.

It is also a fact that a Republican ruled executive branch, together with a fall-in-line House, and possibly a larger minority in the Senate, would do untold damage to the country in four years.

We feared what would happen from a second Bush term. Sensible people tried to explain this to Nader. But our fears were realized, and worse.

Beware of Unger and people like him. When is the last time you saw a presidential nominee's former professor do a VIDEO stating that his former student must be defeated? (That's the same as a video in support of the opposition, since there are only two choices.)

Beware, and investigate. Could he have a reason for wanting the Republican to win?

[JDPriestly]

47. But Unger and those who feel like he does are people we have to deal with.

We have to change their minds. And just pointing at them and saying, "You're wrong. I'm right" is not going to get them to vote.

So what can you say to reach the heart of those who (and I can say I sympathize with them in some ways although I agree with the OP and will support Obama) feel that Obama has really let them down?

Some of these people are great folks and Obama needs their votes. Propaganda and lists of accomplishments aren't going to work. Like Unger the people I know are well educated and voted for Obama in 2008.

These people are a big part of our reality. We can't just snub them. How do we reach out and include them and persuade them to vote? There are lots of them, at least in California.

[Honeycombe8]

128. We cannot change Unger's mind. His heart & thoughts are about Brazil; Romney has

agreed to enrich Brazil. So that's a done deal.

Anyone who not only disagrees with Obama, a former student, but goes to the exhibitionism to make a video and exclaim that he not only doesn't support Obama in ANY way, but he WANTS OBAMA DEFEATED. That person has an agenda and is not, and maybe has never been, in the Democratic Party's corner.

His mind is as made up as Romney's is.

That's okay. Unger wasn't a possible vote, anyway.

[quakerboy]

132. I wonder about this

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the people who most fervently believe that Obama is the best president ever are the same ones who believe what you describe.

But if Gore or Kerry had been declared winner, Obama would probably not have had any chance to become president. Certainly not the current president, and probably not ever.

Would it be better to be in Kerry's second term, and never to have gotten a President Obama?

[jeff47]

22. You move the party in the primaries

Sorry, but your argument is crappy wishful thinking.

Let's look at recent history: What happened after 2000? With a heartbreaking loss and the disaster after, did Democrats decide to embrace the left?

I believe the answer is best described as "FUCK NO". The party went even very much to the right.

How 'bout 2010: A big pile of liberals were disappointed that they didn't get utopia after voting for Obama, so they stayed home. Thus dragging the country to the right and getting even less of what they want.

So, you could ignore recent history and live in a fantasy world where the Democratic party would turn left after an Obama defeat, or you could do exactly what the Republicans did to drag their party right: Win primary elections.

You want the party to go left? Get liberals out of the house on primary day, when liberal turnout is embarrassingly abysmal.

Nobody else will drag the party left for you. You are going to have to do a metric fuckload of effort. And complaining on a message board isn't going to do a damn thing.

("You" in this post means "liberals who decide to not vote for Obama in November because they're unhappy with how far to the right he is". I have no idea what FBaggins has done or is going to do.)

[dionysus]

40. and, some imbeciles think throwing the govt to the repukes will result in a great depression which

will usher in a new socialist or communist utopia from the ashes... completely ignoring that;

1) this will cause death and misery
2) a dictatorship is just as likely to happen

[joshcryer]

23. That's the historical materialist roadmap and it's not been historically accurate.

"Things must get worse before they can get better."

Since it's impossible to predict social dynamics of the future I don't see any rationalist taking that position.

[TrollBuster9090]

44. Yes, the country is much more left wing now as a result of 2.8 million liberals voting for Nader

in the 2000 election, and sending a message to the DNC. That worked out REALLY well.

Please. We're not talking about paper training a dog, here. It doesn't happen in increments. Elections have consequences.

Good or bad, perfect or flawed, we're not talking about four more years of Obama. We're talking about 25 more years of a reactionary Supreme Court turning the country over to multinational corporations and plutocrats. The next occupant of the white house is going to nominate two or three Justices to the Supreme Court, who will rule for the next 25 years. Conservatives GET this. Liberals do not.



The reason the country's politics is as far right as it is now (much farther to the right than the peoples' actual views, although they'd never know it) is because conservatives have WORKED at it for nearly 50 years from the BOTTOM UP, not from the TOP DOWN. Crafting the message, organizing PACs, stacking the courts.... NOT by chopping the knees out from underneath the most visible player on their team, the Presidential candidate. Frankly, the fact that they've recently STARTED chopping down their presidential candidates for not being conservative enough is going to be what ultimately destroys their movement. The Tea Party purists who purge their primaries are going to be the undoing of the Republican Party. Not now, but ten years from now you'll see the effects. The Democratic party shouldn't be imitating the Republicans' biggest mistake. A mistake they've only started to make RECENTLY.

[chknltl]

126. You and Thom Hartmann say this. It all majes sense to me.

Thanks to Thom Hartmann, I agree with you 100%. Keep preaching it brother. The SCOTUS is what this election is all about. The neocons know it too. Progressives, liberals, Democrats, whatever banner you claim, WE NEED TO BE UNITED by THIS concept! After Obama gets re-elected, then we can pivot and push hard for things like campaign finance reform, election fraud review, and the repeal of Citizens United. These are the three co-equal ailments to our very democracy currently and rightly should be in our discussions but without a SCOTUS backing WE THE PEOPLE, these three issues are moot.

[TrollBuster9090]

133. Thank you!

[pnwmom]

29. Or, he sees an advantage for his home country, Brazil, if Romney is elected.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=821763

[xtraxritical]

30. STFU and vote a straight Democratic ballot!

[limpyhobbler]

31. We should change our election system so we don't need to have this conversation anymore.

We expend significant energy on this subject that could be better spent on something else.

If we had a two-round presidential election such as in France this conversation would be meaningless. The top two from the first round go on to the 2nd round.

We would be free to vote Green (or whatever) in the first round and and then for Obama in the second round vs. the Republican.

Other forms of ranked-choice voting or instant-runoff voting are also options.

I had hoped the Democratic leadership would have seen the value in this after what happened in 2000 with Nader.

A lot of people think the whole political system is awash with money and is so broken that the Democrats are not much better than the Republicans on their issues.

So I think it's time to talk about changing the way we vote to allow for our Green friends to vote their conscience without having to worry about throwing the election to the bad guys.

[jeff47]

34. You will never get such a system from the Democrats or Republicans

Because that system will destroy the power of the two major parties. They will never push to implement it.

[laundry_queen]

81. Yep. You're pretty much stuck with it.

This system benefits the 2 parties and they will fight to the death to keep it that way. And, as usual, American people will suffer.

[dionysus]

41. thats a fine idea but no one will allow that to happen.

[TrollBuster9090]

51. Unfortunately, changing our election system requires actually WINNING elections and assuming power.

And the last time we did that, we couldn't agree on enough issues to actually DO anything that counts.

I agree that the transferrable ballot is a great idea, but changing anything about the American electoral system is an almost impossible uphill battle. There are a few other things that should be changed first that would have a bigger impact, like banning corporate cash from elections. Banning dark money. There are easier ways to achieve that.

As for Green Party voters, what we need is a FOUR party system. Center right, Center left, far right and far left. This would translate as Republican, Democrat, Libertarian and Green. (Yes, I know not everybody likes the left/right paradigm, but let's use it for now.) The way for the third and fourth parties to break in is at the HOUSE level, not the primary level (ie-transferrable ballots for Democratic and Republican primaries, for example).

There are districts that are so far to the right that the Dems don't bother to field candidates (remember Michael Moore running a FICUS PLANT in a solid Republican riding, and the ficus plant winning?), and left districts where the GOP doesn't bother to field a candidate.

The Green Party should run candidates against Democrats in districts that are so far left that the GOP doesn't bother to field a candidate. The Libertarians should do the same in Republican districts where Democrats don't bother to field a candidate. By doing this, we could break open the House to two additional parties virtually OVERNIGHT. Nothing could be easier.

[laundry_queen]

82. I agree with what you say. nt

[CakeGrrl]

35. It should be obvious, but apparently not for some even now.

I wonder who else he thinks might win? Some mythical write-in out of thin air?

[MjolnirTime]

38. Heads like Holes

shamelessly so

[JDPriestly]

43. True. Good argument. Any other suggestions in case this does not convince people?

I have been pointing out that when you vote for Romney either by voting for a third party candidate or not voting at all, you vote for a Republican cabinet, including the Secretary of Labor, to say nothing of Republican judges, Republican tax and trade policy, all of which are worse than Obama's even on the best day.

I'm an Obama critic on some issues, but we have get Obama back into the White House. We managed somehow to survive Reagan and Bush I and a lot of people relaxed after that. But the truth is, we really didn't survive Bush II with our economy intact. Bush II did not take the right measures soon enough to prevent the disaster that occurred thanks to his lack of oversight and regulation.

Even if people feel disappointed, we must elect Obama. There isn't any other choice.

If you don't like Obama so much that you can't vote for him now, you should have been working to find and support a challenger way back in 2009 or 2010. Any other good arguments?

[jeff47]

52. Copying what I replied to you in another thread

Tell them you need their help.

Fear isn't going to motivate them. Otherwise they'd already support Obama.

The way to drag the Democratic party to the left is through primaries. We have to put more liberal Democrats on the November ballots, and then vote for the Democrat in November no matter their politics.

What's currently happening is liberal turnout in primary elections is abysmal. And that statement is an insult to the word "abysmal". So the conservative Democrats are the ones who pick the November ballot, because they show up. Every. Damn. Time.

So ask for their help. You need their help to get more liberals to vote in primaries. You need their help to identify and support more liberal primary candidates. You need their help to drag the party left. Please help me will have to become your mantra.

And ask them to not make it harder by helping to defeat Obama in November. 2000, 2004 and 2010 all caused the Democratic party to head to the right. If Obama loses in 2012, the party will just continue heading right.

So let's get Obama re-elected, and start working on getting better candidates for primaries. It's what the Republicans did, and look how effective it's been. Let's do the same thing for our side.

[JDPriestly]

63. Great post. Thanks. That's what I am trying to do. And I plan to keep trying.

You cannot change things unless you work for change.

[Fire Walk With Me]

53. Carl Sagan called "If/Then" an invalid attempt at argument.

"The Demon-Haunted World".

[DonCoquixote]

55. Save for one thing

Our election system works as If then, it is a flowchart, a machine. It's not like we would be able to wish away a President Romney. Granted, we can do a lot more to obstruct him once in office, the way the GOP has obstructed a lot of Obama's plans, but that will take time, and working bottom up as others have said.

[Fire Walk With Me]

58. All "leaders" must be held accountable by the people they supposedly represent

so it's a no-brainer to pressure Obama when he's wrong or destructive. Meanwhile, it -is- possible to work even harder to eliminate the problems the thugs wish to push upon us.

And yes, the system is rigged if there isn't any "None of the above" workable options to keep them in line with the people's wishes.

[DonCoquixote]

62. Pressure vs not voting

It is one thing to pressure, to even yell at
It is another to say "I will NOT vote for Obama"
because that only ensures a victory.

There is a reason why Ralph Nader and Jane Hamsher get money from the GOP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1337889
http://archive.truthout.org/article/republicans-fund-nader-decisive-electoral-weapon

and it is because they do what the GOP WANT, which is win elections.

[Fire Walk With Me]

66. Obviously we need a new model which will obsolete the old.

Perhaps participatory, horizontal Democracy based upon the will of the people instead of "leaders" who are led by banks and corporations?

In the mean time, pressure the republicans out of town. RMoney has already altered his tour route once, due to protesters. Enough protesters makes this effect become permanent.

[TheKentuckian]

73. There is no way to pressure a politician other than votes and money.

I don't think you actually mean pressure, you mean complain and then come out the pocket and vote which gives the politician every license to ignore any and all complaints because there is no consequence to do so.

The real reason protest voting doesn't work is because too few people do it. A small number can be replaced, at least in theory, by being a little more regressive. A large chunk makes the argument foolish because there isn't enough room to get them and be of any value to your existing coalition to hold it together and attract firm GOP voters.

You have a fair chunk telling you to go to hell and damn the torpedos, a chunk you cannot capture by any stretch of the imagination replacements from the Reich for and the win go right, lose go right action is halted and reversed.
This is done because it can arguably be gotten away with.

[DonCoquixote]

113. what I mean

I mean that if the progressives cannot be relied on, they won't be. It is nasty, but we know the right walks on broken glass. We know they will vote for Romney, even if they prey his Mormon butt gets dragged directly into the 9th layer of Hell the day after. If progressives refuse to vote, then anyone wanting to win will know that any leftist could be undermined, especially as, thanks to people who take GOP money like Huffington, Hamsher and Nader, they know they can trick enough progressives into cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Yes, pressure can come in the form of yells, and even not sending money in to the candidate. However, the right wing has taken out any advantage to the "protest" vote, as they will walk across broken glass. The way the progressives will be listened to is if they are the ones who save the democrat's rear. Sadly, the people who the media have sold as that role are these mythical "undecided" ones, the gatekeepers without whom none can win. If the liberals take that role, than they can free the left from the idea of having to please the mushbrains.

[TheKentuckian]

134. I don't buy your premise because it really makes no sense.

Why would anyone respond to those that are already captured? They don't have to do a damn thing because there are no consequences and nothing to be gained or lost if they don't.

How do you even convey the message that you want something different if you unflinchingly and reflexively go along with whatever you are served. It would seem to me that the message sent would be keep it up and more where that came from.

I see no effective pressure from "yells" or tying up Congress' phone lines and very little from the money since the real game is capturing corporate dollars from folks with greatly divergent wants and "needs" from those of us that have to eat ramen to send the fuckers a few begged for dollars.

People don't talk about cutting of their nose to spite their face, not many anyway. They contemplate cutting off their nose because it is cancerous and will eventually destroy their face and kill the whole damn body.

You are arguing to support bad policies because eventually it will lead to good policies in the form of bones tossed to loyal dogs.
When does that happen? I think you are arguing that it happens among the TeaPubliKlans which I see little evidence of. They get the policies their leaders want and their leaders spend millions and billions getting them to want the shit they are selling which will do nothing but fuck the glass crawlers.
What was the last bone thrown to the GOP masses that conflicted with the aims of the money people?

The GOP/GOP base dynamic is not a model. Our people get fed up from getting fucked over, the TeaPubliKlan masses get pissed when the screwings might be reduced because they are about sure they will soon be doing the screwings (if they are not already under the misimpression that they are already).
It is like folks on our side always want to point to the impact of the Teabaggers but simultaneously forget that the whole deal was engineered, organized, and funded by Republican professional insiders and their big donors including a former Speaker of the House.

You are also projecting loyalty where there is none that I can see, essentially faith based transactional politics. As if we support enough free trade agreements then they will think kindly on that support and end them or if we just back them on austerity that they will strengthen the safety nets.

Hell, if we do as you suggest we won't be liberals anymore, not in effective terms. We'll play along until the political spectrum shrinks to nothing with a few silently praying for the bones to be thrown but the gist of what once was fought for forgotten and new frontiers abandoned completely.

[DonCoquixote]

135. reply

"Why would anyone respond to those that are already captured? They don't have to do a damn thing because there are no consequences and nothing to be gained or lost if they don't. "

Because they still need our votes to win. However, on the other hand, if the GOP knows that our circular firing squad will keep firing, then they have no reason to fear us, because they know we will do their work for them. We would "capture" ourselves. Why do you think Rush Limbaugh encouraged people to give money to Ralph nader? Why do you think Hamsher and Huffington get paid by the GOP? The right would love NOTHING BETTER than for us to splinter into several groups: it is why they got CANADA, because even though the left had 60 percent of the vote, they fought amongst themselves, and got clobbered.

Unless you can actually win office, you are already captured.

[Marr]

56. I remember when the sentiment, "you're either with or against us" disgusted

just about everyone here.

[scheming daemons]

69. Presidential elections are one of the rare cases where it applies.

[Marr]

84. Wow-- that's a pretty enormous exception.

It's a bit like saying, "stealing is wrong, unless you really really want to".

I disagree with this man personally, but someone on the left calling for Obama's defeat is not the same thing as endorsing Mitt Romney. They're completely different positions, and all you're doing is giving yourself an excuse to ignore and demonize a position you don't want to hear.

[Beacool]

87. Naaahhh, that's only when a Republican says it.

If a Democrat says it, then the collective is expected to conform with the party line.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

95. If only the collective would explain their rules in advance so that we could all march in lock-step

and make them happy.

[Beacool]

102. I'm a rebel at heart.

I don't follow any party line.

[SidDithers]

57. DU rec...nt

Sid

[Rowdyboy]

60. 2 to 4 Supreme Court justice nominations is enough for me....

Not that I'd have a problem otherwise. He's certainly fallen short but then so did Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson and John Kennedy-the other Democratic presidents in my lifetime. In the arc of history,all of them have been on the correct side for justice, all their Republican opponents on the wrong.
That in itself is enough for me.

[Evasporque]

64. there are two kinds of people that understand binary

those who get it and those that don't.

[GarroHorus]

65. There are 10 kinds of people in the world,...

those who understand binary and those who don't.

[Fire Walk With Me]

67. If you absolutely must put time and energy into this corrupt, bought-and-sold system

Last edited Mon Jun 18, 2012, 02:35 PM - Edit history (1)

please spend it right now in mercilessly pressuring Obama to refuse PAC monies, Wall Street monies, Goldman Sachs monies, etc., and to immediately eliminate Citizens United so that at minimum our votes will actually have some effect.

Wisconsin being the wake-up call. We don't want a Koch and a smile...we want our government back.

[MadHound]

70. So using that logic, calling for a victory for the people of this country means,

That I'm calling for the defeat of both Romney and Obama

[SidDithers]

71. Are you calling for the defeat of both Romney and Obama?...nt

Sid

[MadHound]

72. It certainly would be a victory for the people, don't you agree?

Get a real liberal in the WH, not a center right, faux liberal.

[stevenleser]

78. Great, we're all waiting for a plan from you on how your ideal candidate can win in November.

Until then, the rest of us Liberals are voting for Obama.

[OnyxCollie]

86. This election is a binary event.

Does Mitt Romney support corporations over people? Yes or no?

Does Barack Obama support corporations over people? Yes or no?

Well, that leaves a write-in candidate. (Ask for a paper ballot.)

[WI_DEM]

74. So some self important Harvard Professor isn't happy with Obama

and that is the big media topic?

[MineralMan]

76. Only on Huffington Post, apparently.

And by those who read it religiously.

[MineralMan]

75. Precisely. nt

[shcrane71]

80. True. It's game theory played out on a political level.

Liberals don't like being gamed, but we don't know how to get out of this.

[jeff47]

85. We know how to get out of this

It's gonna take a lot of work dragging the party left via primaries. It's what the Republicans did to drag their party right.

The problem is it requires a lot of work for a very long time, which is apparently very difficult for some liberals - after all, they abandoned the Democratic party in 2010 because Obama didn't fix 40 years of rightward drift in 2 years.

[shcrane71]

91. So "Libruls" are the problem?!?!? Riiiiight. nt

[jeff47]

92. No, Liberals not showing up to vote is.

Fact is liberal turnout in primaries is terrible. Really, really terrible.

That's when they need to show up to drag the party left. And they've been failing to do so.

[Marr]

93. It was the "moderates" who failed to turn out for the last mid-term elections. /nt

[jeff47]

106. Moderate turnout was down compared to 2008. Liberal turnout was down more. (nt)

[Marr]

107. That's not what I'd read-- do you happen to have

a link that describes that?

[jeff47]

111. Not in a convenient link.

Since we're talking about Congressional districts, accurate polling comes from a ton of different polls that cover only a small area. National data isn't as useful because a ton of liberals showing up in California doesn't help us win races in Florida. Then, we have to look at the polls in the races where incumbent Democrats lost to get the best idea of "what went wrong".

Then the next problem is identifying who is actually a "liberal", because demagoguery by Republicans and the media has been very effective at convincing people to not use that word even when they support liberal policies. Which means you have to spend some time reading each one of those piles of polls because you have to get to the parts where they ask about specific policies. Change in support for liberal policies is about the best proxy you can get for change in liberal turnout, on the assumption that most people wouldn't change their mind on, say, abortion, "welfare", and schools in 2 years.

When I took the time to do this for several races after 2010, the Democrats who turned out were much less liberal compared to 2008. If moderates had stayed home and liberals voted, support for liberal policies would have risen. Instead, support for liberal policies fell.

Frankly, I don't have the time to re-do that kind of analysis now, especially with the difficulty of digging up old, non-national polling data.

[Marr]

119. I'm sorry, but it sounds like you sifted the information to

support a pre-formed conclusion.

What I've read, and what I think is common knowledge, is that self-described "moderates" did not show up in the numbers they'd displayed in the previous election, while self-described liberals were more reliable in their turnout.

[shcrane71]

98. They didn't fail to do so in the WI Recall. Stop blaming Liberals.

[jeff47]

105. So the WI Recall was a primary election?

Oh, no it wasn't. So it isn't relevant.

Next you'll tell me liberal turnout was high in November, 2008 so it can't be liberals not showing up for primaries.

[shcrane71]

130. You're out-of-touch. Ignore the record turnout in WI, but others won't.

And all those Liberals in Dane & Milwaukee counties, in Ohio in 2004 and Florida in 2000 have serious questions about how elections are conducted. But continue to tell the Liberals that it's their problem that we have right-wing regimes that they don't support instead of doing creating elections that oh say, the Carter Center would back.

[jeff47]

131. Again, they show up when it's exciting.

That's the problem. The actual process of dragging the party left is very, very boring and very, very slow. Because so few liberals show up to do so.

By sticking to the WI recall election, where turnout among liberals was down compared to Nov 2008, you are confirming my entire thesis.

[Tarheel_Dem]

124. "Stop" not knowing the difference between a "primary" and a "recall" election.

[lunatica]

88. I work in UC Berkeley

Believe me many Academics have difficulty with anything that isn't their specialized field, and being in Academia they don't get to hob nob with teabaggers so they don't have a clue.

[NCTraveler]

89. It is not a binary event.

Some people take a much longer outlook with respect to politics. Who wins is binary. The long-term political implications of the election are not binary.

[Teamster Jeff]

94. Exactly

Part of his point is that an Obama loss will lead to a "reorientation" of the Democratic Party which now is veering more and more to the right.

[CakeGrrl]

96. "Reorientation" of the Democratic Party makes some big assumptions

You're assuming that once this current crop of extreme right gets hold of the reins of power, that a simple "Reorientation" will help anything.

Dangerous assumption. And awfully naive for the Harvard Law prof. Or maybe it's indicative of the bubble in which he lives.

[jtuck004]

97. Which might well motivate a stronger progressive movement. One never knows... n/t

[NYC Liberal]

129. An Obama loss will lead to a "reorientation" all right: a reorientation to the right,

not the left.

We already played this game in 2000, when it was argued that Gore losing would force the Dems to move to the left. After eight years of Bush and Republican rule, how did that work out?

[truedelphi]

99. The obvious flaw in your header:

If it is true, then it pretty much proves that we are not living in a democracy.

If this election is a binary event: then, we are living in a kleptocracy, where we have the choice of voting for two empty suits. And in the end, we still have the endless wars, the endless Homeland Security surveillance, the lack of will to do anything for the average person, and the complete capitulation of the party that once stood for the working person. So as the middle class goes down the toilet, at least let's state the obvious - we don't have free elections.

We have no choice about getting our wealth transferred to the One Percent. Only difference I can see: one party will let us have contraception, cuz who the hell would want to bring a kid into this world? While the other won't because, after all, Jesus will make it all better.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

103. True. And remember the "free trade" agreements. Three more added. Another is on its way.

[bigwillq]

123. Good post.

[bvar22]

100. AND, as any long term Party Activist KNOWS,

...election season is the ONLY time to get your issues in the Party Platform,
and the BEST time to get your favorite politician to go on the "I support" record.

Loyal Democratic activists have always accomplished this by:
*making a lot of noise to generate Public Support for an Issue,

*demanding accountability for broken campaign promises,

*loudly expressing dis-satisfaction with areas of performance,

*TRUMPETING Traditional Working Class Democratic Values.

Pretending that everything is just peachy,
and keeping quiet has NEVER gotten a single issue in a Party Platform,
or motivated a single politician to address anything.


If you want a "Pony" (EFCA, re-negotiation of NAFTA & ALL Free Trade Treaties, active support of UNIONS, direct MASSIVE Economic Stimulus for the Working Class, protection for American JOBS, Hands OFF Social Security, Expansion of Medicare or at least a Public Option)
better ask for it NOW,
because that door will be shut after the election.

Unfortunately, there are those here without the long term experience of Party Activists
who will naively try to equate fighting FOR traditional Democratic Values as supporting Republicans.
Of course, that is laughably ABSURD.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[DireStrike]

109. Is this addressed to Unger?

He admitted that there would be a cost to having a Romney presidency, but thinks its better in the long run.

You're arguing with a straw man.

[morningfog]

118. I agree. But, will add, criticizing a policy position of Obama is not calling for his defeat nor

is it advocating for Romney's victory.

[SidDithers]

120. This thread is awesome...

It's really brought the "not a dime's worth of difference" crowd out of the woodwork.



Sid

[Tarheel_Dem]

125. Which begs the question, why would they wanna post here? If they agree with Unger, how is......

that not "advocating" for the defeat of the Democratic candidate?