No matter what - you will vote for dems in midterms and 2012 - and they know that

[The Straight Story]

What incentive do they have to really make big changes and go to the left??

They have your vote. They only need to work to secure the vote of those in the middle. Those undecided folks and moderates.

They will court their vote, not yours.

Who else could you vote for? No one. And if you stay at home and don't vote for a dem, then a repub wins.

They won't listen to the left, because they know - come hell or high water - you will vote for them.

We have little power, because we already sold our vote - they don't need to try and buy it anymore, just pay lip service.

Pro choice? Gay? Against the war? For unions? Who else are you going to cast a vote for???

Liberals, especially those more to the left, have no real power left because our vote is a guarantee come election day.

Why the hell would they bend to our desires when they don't have to???

[laughingliberal]

1. I think this is what they thought about MA

I would hope they would have learned. Of course I believe the majority of DU members will go vote for Democrats in the hopes that a good one will get slipped in on us. But the general electorate? If our leaders are still blowing Wall Street and the banks in the back room? I wouldn't bet on it.

[JI7]

3. in MA Coakley was liberal , she lost because she didn't get indies

so using the Mass example means one should have done more to get those in the middle.

[laughingliberal]

5. A lot of indies in MA are liberals.

But don't listen to me. I'm a liberal. Encourage the party to keep playing to the middle. We'll see what happens.

[JI7]

7. yeah, but did those indie liberals vote for Brown ?

if they voted brown or didn't vote i don't consider them to be liberal.

[laughingliberal]

9. Well, I suppose then you get to define them

The post election polling done by DFA was done on indies who usually vote Democrat. Of the ones who voted for Brown 18% gave the reason as not wanting the Senate health care bill to pass. Of those who stayed home who usually vote Democratic 20% gave that reason.

Not smart but if you've screamed and shouted that you hate a bill and one person says they'll vote for it and the other says they won't, what would you do? And by 'you' I mean your typical voter who doesn't spend their lives on a political message board.

I was pissed when Coakley started out saying she wouldn't vote for the Senate bill without a public option and then changed to saying she would.

[JI7]

13. i still don't consider those people to be liberal

[laughingliberal]

15. Well, I guess then that settles it.

And we'll just keep on with the center right agenda. Hasn't done much to quell people's anger but I'm sure it's a winner.

[JI7]

17. i never said to do that

you are the one claiming they are liberals and if only candidates were liberal we would win.

[No Elephants]

20. Regardless of what you "consider," liberals in Massachusetts stayed home

Or maybe even voted for Brown, just to stop a giveaway to the health insurers. I was not among them, but that doesn't mean they weren't liberals.

Tough if you can't accept that as the reality, but it is.

[JI7]

26. they must have stayed home during the Primary also then

[No Elephants]

19. Not so sure Coakley was liberal and, IMO, she lost bc Democrats stayed home.

According to her camp, she conceded as soon as she heard Boston turnout numbers--not how Boston voted, but the turnout numbers alone.

[JI7]

25. ok, so why didn't the liberals vote for a liberal in the Primary ?

[JI7]

2. who is "they" ?

there are more in the middle than there are those on the left. if there are so many on the left why didn't Kucinich do better.

also Brown won in massachusettes because he did so much better among independents who make up a lot more voters than republican or democrats in the state .

[laughingliberal]

10. You're absolutely correct. Let's keep ignoring the left.

Lemme know how that works out for us.

[JI7]

14. i am the left, and i don't consider those who don't vote or vote Republican

to be liberal.

[depakid]

16. So, because they won't vote for wishy washy, stand for nothings- or Republican lites

People aren't liberals?

errr... OK.

[JI7]

18. yeah, i odn't consider people who vote against same sex marriage to be liberal

[No Elephants]

21. People in Massachusetts never voted either for or against same sex marriage, but

they voted for an overwhelmingly Democratic legislature that kept same gender marriage from being a ballot issue.

[JI7]

24. and

my point is those who are claiming if only a candidate vote liberal people would vote for him/her because the voters are liberal.

a good example is in California where Barbara Boxer gets elected but idiots vote to ban same sex marriage,they voted for horrible things like prop 187 and getting rid of affirmative action. and of course there is prop 13 which is a big reason for so many of the problems in the state.

candidates win for many reasons. take Massachusettes where Hillary won the primary even though she ran to the right of Obama. one reason is that Hillary and her husband are very popular in the state.

Coakley was liberal but it wasn't enough for people to vote for her. she probably could ahve won if she hadn't taken the state for granted. she did have the huge lead at one point. i don't think it would have changed much if she just changed her position on some issue. it was the more the way she campaigned or rather lack of it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. They need more than our votes

They need consistent and dedicated activist energy on behalf of all their campaigns. That is what most changed during the last seven years that helped put Democrats over the top in so many cases. If progressives start cutting back their support for Democratic candidates to just showing up on election day, it will take a toll.

[Zhade]

6. No. No, I won't.

NT!

[secondwind]

8. BUT THEY WON'T HAVE THE INDEPENDENTS' VOTES..!!! And blacks and hispanics

won't come out in DROVES if there is no real CHANGE.

[PufPuf23]

11. The Left does not have fair media access regardless

of how much $$$ to spend.

The USA (and the World) is so disheartening compared with my perceptions in my youth.

Funny the left always turns out to be correct as far as peace, productivity, and quality of life.

Transfers of wealth to the top only goes so far and then we die. The gentle, disadvantaged by circumstance (including mental), minorities, and lovers of the natural world lose most. I could not in my heart birth a child into this world we inhabit in 2010 and worry for our children.

[No Elephants]

22. In my observation, the left often turns out to be correct on this board, too.

[depakid]

12. The same tired old claptrap from 1994- and on and on

The evidence shows it doesn't work that way -and yet people never seem to learn.

Republicans don't think like that- and lo and behold, until their policies (inevitably) manifest disasters, they win elections and hold majorities.

[No Elephants]

23. If winning elections for the sake of winning elections is your goal, great.

However, if legislation and other things under Democrats keep getting harder and harder to distinguish from legislation and other things under Republicans, more and more Democrats will stay home and/or vote third party.

Speaking only for myself, I draw no particular satisfaction from the fact that Lieberman caucuses with Democrat or the fact that Stupak puts a (D) after his name, rather than an (R).

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

28. I'll vote for the dems in the midterms because they both represent me

Pat Leahy and Peter Welch are solidly progressive.

Now come 2012, what you say is true when it comes to the presidency.

[LWolf]

29. My vote is never guaranteed. nt

[stray cat]

30. Many dems would rather give power to the GOP then endorse someone they are unhappy with