Serious Question ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

Okay ... Let's suppose the worst case scenario: The gop relents and agree to significant new revenue and in return, President Obama gives on entitlements ... specifically, he introduces a Chain CPI and means testing of SS, and raises the Medicare age to whatever, over X number of years.

Now I know DU will explode; but does anyone here seriously propose Democrats seat out the 2014 elections?

[patrice]

1. It's a tactical mistake to honestly reveal that sort of thing, especially when it's also a strategic

gambit to also lie about it, e.g. 2010.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. Are you that new to politics? People here are engaged, but the fact is no matter what we do

Democrats will stay home in droves in 2014 if such a thing happens and apathy is about the best you could hope for, in many States, politicians would have to choose between retaining their seats as members of another Party or losing as Democrats.
And 2014 would just be the start of it. 2016 would be a forgone Republican victory. There would be need for many years of re-branding the DNC into something acceptable after they'd flushed the very reason people are Democrats in the first place for the sake of pleasing Republicans.

[graham4anything]

6. Bull. MORE people will vote. people want unity and this really is not a major issue

You are overestimating this issue greatly.

[1StrongBlackMan]

9. No ...

I am far from new to politics.

And I would suggest (and this is gonna pi$$ a bunch of folks off here), those that would consider sitting out 2014 are the newbies or ignorants of olitics.

The fact is ... if you don't like the politics you are getting, sitting out guarantees you will continue getting the olitics you despise. The far better tact, in this here democracy, is to redouble your efforts to elect the House of Representatives and Senate that will give you the politics that you want, regardless of who is in the Whitehouse ... the President doesn't write or vote on legislation; not most a president can do is veto what Congress passes ... and how often does that happen?

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Who are these 'those that suggest' this? I sure don't, and I don't see others suggest it either.

What State do you live in? Let's go over turn out records for midterms. Here, each one is a new record. If they make cuts, that will not be the case here this time. People will be angry.
So how'd your turn out go last midterms? How about 2010? Shall we compare results rather than listen to you characterizations of things you claim to have read on DU?
Are you setting turn out records or not? The rest is just chatter, only votes matter.
I'm in Oregon, compare your results here at any time.

[1StrongBlackMan]

29. I live in Arizona (CD8) ...

So tell me how any of what you have posted is relevent to what I have posted.

If your district ... or the whole of Oregon, is elected progressivve candidates, great; but that is NOT the country. A national agenda/movement is only as strong as the representatives sent to Congress.

[leftynyc]

33. Anyone who stays home is an imbecile

It's really that simple. I feel the same way about anyone who stayed home in 2010. These times are too important for a temper tantrum.

[lunatica]

3. No

I assume you meant 'sit out' rather than 'seat out'.

I suspect it will drive more Democrats to vote.

[graham4anything]

4. The DEMOCRATIC VOTERS won't do it, nor will any President Obama fan.

as for the same old, same old Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, Ron Paul/Rand Paul/David Duke fans,
well, they are not President Obama's Democratic voters

and Ron/Rand Paul fans would never vote for a democratic party candidate anyhow, nor did they in 2012 or 2008

(and in 2000 voted for Ralph Nader)

[newfie11]

5. If that happens I would feel very betrayed

How to know who to vote for? We have been lied to it seems.
If Obama does go for the chained CPI,Medicare age change, and the other things that Re thrown about then who the hell do you believe.
Once in office they forget what they stood for.
Yes I am disgusted with all polititions!

[Hoyt]

7. Whatever Obama might agree to, it will only get worse If GOP gains.

I won't sit out, nor punish Democrats if the ultimate deal improves our country.

[bemildred]

8. First off, Obama is not up for election again, but the Congress is.

And also, he does not make law, the Congress does. So Obama can say what he likes. And he seems to like dividing the Republican Party, and that's OK by me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

11. I know ...

That's why I weep everytime I hear a "democrat" on this board loudly proclaim, "If (President) Obama does/doesn't do X, I'm never voting (or voting democratic) again!"

[bemildred]

12. Yep, we could start a wind farm here. nt

[haikugal]

10. Such a deal would be dishonest and a crushing blow

to millions of people that want real solutions to our very real problems. It would be horrible and a repeat of 2010. Many people will just say 'fuck it!'.... we're hanging on by our finger nails now and such a deal will only make our lot worse.

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. I agree ...

many would feel betrayed and more would feel its a crushing blow that would make hanging on by our fingernails all the tougher ... but would it really? I know we have been told so; but really?

In the case of the Chained CPI, it would mean a reduction of projected increases of $1,500, over 20 years ... and that is only if inflation matches or exceeds expections, every year of those 20 years.

A raising of the Medicare age is a bit tougher, especially if you happen to be within a couple of years of eligibility.

Everyone trots out the poor and elderly and disabled and veterans, when making the doomy vision; when in fact, it is the middleclass worker (that uses SS as a secondary source of income) that will be most adversely affected ... that is why we hear so much noise on this.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Why don't you simply advocate these cuts rather than playing passive aggressive games?

'Trots out the poor and elderly and disabled'. Better than shitting on them in the name of centrist bipartisan ideology.

[1StrongBlackMan]

16. No passive aggressive games ...

I do not advocate for these cuts ... far from it ... Rather I support strengthening these programs by expanding them by increasing the funding base and loosening the eligibility terms. But since, apparently, that is not going to happen ... largely because there lacks enough DEMOCRATIC support for since enhancements, I am merely pointing out: 1) these catastrophic cuts, are not really catastrophic; and secondly, those calling it catastrophic are doing so to protect their self-interests.

What I am is honest enough to state that MY concern for the strengthening of the programs is self-interest; NOT cloacked my "concern" for the poor and elderly and disabled, which ,BTW, have been held harmless under each and every mention of entitlement changes.

[Bluenorthwest]

18. The cuts would be devastating to the groups you mention. I notice you offer no support for

your claims, none at all. And of course, you characterize those who do not agree with your wish to see these cuts as having self interest as their only thought. No cites, no facts, no numbers, just characterization of those who do not agree.

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. Suport for my claims ...

what support can I offer that you will accept? In each and every discussion of the chained cpi, there has been the proviso that the poor, elderly, disabled and veterans, would be exempted/protected. I will not provide a link to the Carney presser (during the debt-ceiling negotiations) where the chained cpi was first raised, or any of the subsequent discussion, including this most recent series of articles, the vast majority of which include this priviso, because I have done it many, many times before, only to have them ignored.

What support for my claim would you accept that means testing of entitlements would not harm the poor, elderly, disabled or veterans ... since means testing, by definition, excludes the most vulnerable?

What support for my claims would you accept, when your continuing to argue "it's not about me (pressumably a non-poor, non-elderly, non-disabled, non-veteran) but rather, the poor, elderly, disabled and veteran", when you ignore that each of these groups have been provided for?

[Rider3]

14. I will never stay home and NOT vote!

Voting is too important, even if I'm not one of the electoral voters. (We need to get rid of the electoral vote and go with the popular vote.)

[1StrongBlackMan]

21. No ...

But you just let others make you believe that a President can do anything without a complaint Congress; rather than work to have the Congress that will give you what you want.

[1StrongBlackMan]

24. You really think that?

First, there are not enough Democrats in the House to get anywhere and there are not enough Democrats in the Senate that can be counted on to hold the line. From what I've seen, President Obama has a history of working with those he can count on, while trying to reach a deal that will get him the number he needs to advance the ball. In other words, President Obama is about governing.

[jerseyjack]

22. I believe the premise is wrong.

Dems will give up a shit load on entitlements while the Repukes will bend a little.

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. I disagree ...

it is NOT what history reflects.

[forestpath]

26. I don't vote for Republicans. You can take that any way you want.

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. I take that as a good thing ...

as there are no republicans in the Democratic party ... regardless of how progressives attempt to cast them.

[Rowdyboy]

27. I turned 18 and voted for the first time in 1972. I've voted in every primary and election since...

and I am a Democrat. Regardless of anything President Obama might do I will continue to support my party.

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. Thank you ...

for your support.

[talkingmime]

28. Assuming your premise is correct, the GOP will just block it because Obama supports it.

They don't give a rats ass about the country. All they want to do is make Obama look bad (which isn't working).

But, just for grins, assume it does pass. That would give the Democratic Party a boost in 2014, another reason that the GOP will block it. Their corporate sponsors will not allow any kind of tax increase on the rich. All that's allowed is cuts on services to the lower classes. We're paying taxes to feed the rich, not to help each other. The GOP wants to make that part of the equation stronger.

[BlueDemKev]

32. No, I'd still vote Democratic. Sitting Out an Election is NOT an Option!