The “teach-the-Dems-a-lesson” strategy not only doesn’t work, it’s extremely dangerous.

[bigtree]

The 'Teach-the-Dems-a-Lesson' Myth

(A Special Report)
by Robert Parry

If my e-mail inbox is any indication, many American progressives plan to use the Nov. 2 election as an opportunity to “teach the Democrats a lesson” by either not voting or casting ballots for third parties, even if this contributes to the expected Republican (and Tea Party) landslide.

The thinking seems to be that the loss of the congressional majorities will punish the Democrats for accepting half-measures and compromises on issues from health care and financial reform to job stimulus and war. The Left’s hope apparently is that the chastened Democrats will then shift toward more progressive positions and be more assertive.

However, modern American political history tells us that this strategy never works. After the four key elections in which many progressives abandoned the governing Democrats – in 1968, 1980, 1994 and 2000 – not only did Republicans take U.S. politics further to the right, but the surviving Democrats tacked more to the center and grew more timid . . .


read more: http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/7167-can-you-teach-a-blue-dog-a-new-trick.html

[Edweird]

1. The DLC is tacking to the right win/lose/draw. Blaming it on votes or lack thereof is dishonest.

[mmonk]

63. +1

[LWolf]

2. I don't think it's about teaching a lesson.

I do think it's about logical consequences: earn the vote or lose it.

[truedelphi]

10. Bingo. Don't move the Party of the People lock step and full tilt support to

The Big Corporations, and then expect the same loyalty that you had when the Party meant something.

Luckily Barbara Boxer has supported basic premises of real Dem principles, so she has earned my vote and will receive it. But if some Blue Dog were running for the Senate - they would need to lick my butt several times before I'd vote for them.

[me b zola]

21. + a million Brazilians

:thumbsup:

[readmoreoften]

52. +1

[LoZoccolo]

3. One big problem with the strategy is that there are two ways for the Democrats to go.

To the left, or to the center. After the left proves themselves less loyal and more willing to punish Democrats than pull more of the electorate left, where can we expect the Democrats to go?

[Edweird]

14. You have a 'center' hand? I only have a 'Left' and a 'Right'.

[noise]

16. Less loyal?

The blame should be on the Democratic party for treating the public with contempt.

[ixion]

4. It's not that petty. It's about ethics

And, quite simply, if both candidates are going to vote for things that I abhor, I see no reason to vote for either one of them, as the outcome will be largely the same.

[Chulanowa]

9. So the question becomes, which one will vote for MORE things you abhor?

Because that's the one your non-vote ends up supporting.

[LWolf]

29. I don't agree.

For example, we are seeing the anti-Democratic privatizing and union-busting agenda for public education that has been marching forward and making gains ever since the Reagan administration take off under Obama; it's spreading much more rapidly than it did under GWB. Why? Because it's a Democratic administration pushing it. There's no opposition.

This Democratic Congress has voted for and supported plenty of things I abhor; some because they are neoliberals themselves, and others because they won't oppose bad policy if it's promoted by a Democratic president or his administration.

[Chulanowa]

41. So how exactly does not voting hinder this?

I'm with you with regards to the travesty the Democrats are throwing against education, though honestly, Labor's been dead i nthis country since the 80's, so I can't blame them too much on that score.

But sticking my head up my own ass and not voting won't make this better, will it?

See, this is dropout bullshit. Not voting doesn't send any kind of fucking message to anyone, except "I'm a lazy apathetic asshole." Contrary to what the useless patchouli-sniffers used to think, nobody's going to care. "The system" won't grind to a halt without your participation - it'll simply carry on and you won't be influencing it in any degree.

So that being the case, what you do is push for preferred candidates in the primaries, and push hard. That delivers a message. And regardless of whether your preferred democrat gets the nomination or not, you should vote for them because of a few key factors - very few of them are going to impose the state on a woman's uterus, for example. Haven't heard any Democrats talking about repealing the Voting Rights Act. Not very many of them want to go krystalnacht on Muslims and Mexicans in this country.

The Dems have a lot of fuckups going on. No argument. But even so they are leaps and bounds above the competition. With that in mind, and the knowledge that not voting accomplishes diddly squat, the course of action is clear - even if you don't want to vote for the Democrat, at least vote against the fucking Republican.

[LWolf]

46. The whole issue is not really about not voting.

It's about not voting for Democrats. And, just to head the next misdirection off, not voting for the Democrat doesn't mean voting Republican.

There ARE other choices.

It's about voting for the person on the ballot that comes the closest to representing what the voter wants. If nobody comes close enough to be worthy of a vote?

Even if the only person on the ballot was Sarah Palin, I'd still vote. I'd simply write someone in.

The "enthusiasm gap" that some are up in arms about isn't really about not voting. It's about not donating, not working to GOTV. It's about the real possibility of 3rd party votes. It's about THOSE elements that contribute, or not, to an overall Democratic Party victory.

The party, after working AGAINST so many core voting blocks since '08, is now panicking, and lecturing, demanding, and bullying people, as if that will GOTV.

Stupid. Disingenuous. Not worthy of respect. And likely to make things worse.

For the record, I voted today. I voted for every Democrat on my ballot. Most of them I voted for enthusiastically. One, not so much, but the alternative is unacceptable. One, defiantly, because I don't think we have a chance to turn House district 2 blue this time around, but I want Greg Walden to know that there is dissent in his district.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

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

[LWolf]

53. Me? Easily manipulated?

:rofl:

Nobody manipulates me. Let's be honest; your whole post is an attempt to manipulate me into buying the idea that I don't have any other choice--and I do.

Nobody manipulates me. There's a reason that I'm the Lone Wolf.

I properly understand more than you do, apparently. I understand your point of view, and your argument, completely. I could argue it in my sleep. That doesn't make it more than one valid pov, or more valid than another.

For the record:

There's nothing wrong with "people like me."

You have absolutely no clue about anything about me, as evidenced by your several paragraphs of ignorant commentary about...me.

Your arguments really aren't going to go anywhere; they've been repeated ad nauseum at DU until most of us, agree or disagree, could quote them in our sleep. You aren't exactly sharing some new-spangled revelation that we've never heard before.

For the record:

I voted today. I voted for every Democrat on my ballot. Most were enthusiastic votes. One was less than enthusiastic, but he's not a neoliberal, it's a tight race, and his Republican challenger is dangerous, so it made sense to vote for him.

For the record: I always vote. I never vote for Republicans. As a Democrat, I usually vote for Democrats. That said, I'm an issues voter. Not a partisan voter, and not a personality voter. I do not, and will not, vote for neoliberals regardless of party.

For the record: There's nothing you, nor anyone else, can do to change that, and if I need you to comment about ME, I'll let you know. Meanwhile, stick to the issues.

[BzaDem]

64. As I've said, I do not need to sway you; that will happen automatically.

You seem to be indicating that you aren't going to be swayed until you experience damage resulting from your actions. I fully admitted that was a possibility. You shouldn't pretend that you will never be swayed though, since that is simply false as a factual matter. People who voted for Nader thought they would never be swayed either, until they saw Bush's actions. Then Nader's vote share was cut by 90%. Reality has a tendency to do that.

Your argument that you aren't being manipulated, is... that you aren't being manipulated. Of course, that's what most manipulated people would say, so it's not very persuasive. My argument is not a "point of view," it is a statement of fact. If you want to produce empirical data indicating that third party candidates (to the left of Democrats) can win, feel free to do so. The problem is you can't, because it isn't true (as a purely factual matter). Someone who repeatedly denies the truth is by definition manipulated.

[LWolf]

71. Again, it's all about me.

Can you not argue a point without making it personal?

Your armchair psychological assessment is a failure, both as a debate technique and in reality.

[Chulanowa]

68. No, there are no other choices

A Democrat who votes Green is just wasting his vote. Same with a Republican who votes for the Constitution party. Or any combination thereof. Barring a complete party implosion (which isn't going to happen to the Democrats anytime soon) there is no real play for third parties. Voting for one is, for all intents and purposes, the same as writing in "Daffy Duck" - in which case you might as well just sit at home and masturbate - keeps your hands just as busy and gives you more of a reward for the effort you put in.

It'd be great if we had a multiparty system where throwing your vote to the Marijuana party or the Worker's Party or the Union of Fascists Party or whatever wacky-ass party you favored might end up with one of them in office (I prefer the first two, but hey) but we don't. And barring a massive overhaul of our political system, it's not going to happen. Best you can end up with is a situation like what happened briefly in the 19th century - a strong party (Democrats) facing off against two weak, competing parties (Whigs and Republicans). And the results of those elections aren't something I'd care to see emulated soon.

And you can bang your fists and wax indignant about "scare tactics" all you want, but yes, if Democratic voters are throwing their votes away either by not voting or voting for people with no chance of winning, then you're going to end up with Republican assholes running the show. And what that tells the democrats is that they have to be more like Republicans to win. In the meantime, they're not the ones who end up suffering the policy of these republican freakjobs - you are.

I guess what I'm saying is that this isn't a very good plan.

[LWolf]

72. Your opinion is noted.

And filed where all opinions go.

Actually, I don't think you'll find that I've banged my fist and waxed about "scare tactics" at all. You at least were presenting your opinion in a reasonable way. Why try to make it about me?

[SidDithers]

73. +1...nt

Sid

[ixion]

38. Nope, and this is my point: if I vote for someone, that is my proxy saying, in effect,

that I give this individual my Vote of Confidence to carry out business in my name.

This is, of course, why I'm so pissed at Obama. I voted for him in good faith, and he failed, and because he has my proxy, my name is now on his failures, and that I cannot abide.

I did not vote for Bush. As such, the crap that he did, while funded by my taxes, was not something I had party in.

It's that simple.

[BzaDem]

51. That's a problem with your conception of voting, not with Obama.

In reality, there are two potential candidates that have any chance to govern, and you pick the one that you would rather govern.

NOTHING about that says you have to LIKE either of them, give either of them confidence, etc.

In general, NO ONE said you had to LIKE all the choices you made in life. There are some choices that all adults make that they don't like. But that's really just too fucking bad. Not liking a choice doesn't mean the choice doesn't exist, or that you don't have to make it. (Not voting or voting third party IS making a choice -- to enable the greater of two evils.)

If it helps, think about it this way. By not voting for the lesser of two evils, EVERYTHING the greater of two evils does once elected has YOUR name on it. Everything. You might deny this, but that doesn't make it not true. You had the chance to not enable the greater of two evils, but you and you alone singularly decided to enable rather than not enable.

[ixion]

55. I SAY that I must respect and agree with a candidate

whether I 'like' them or not is irrelevant.

And no, I will not choose between one of two craptastic idiots, either of which will contribute to our downfall in equal, albeit different methods.

[BzaDem]

65. Except what you are missing is that a non-vote contributes even more to "our downfall."

You act as if there is something you can do to "contribute to our downfall" less. But that isn't true at all.

[Le Taz Hot]

74. When will you understand

that your arguments have been made, literally, millions of times on this board alone, and all of the people with whom you argue have heard those arguments and disagree with them. Continuing to belabor the same. point. over. and. over has no effect because those points have been countered. The argument ends there as there is nowhere else to go but backwards, which is why the same. point. has. to. be. made. over. and. over. again. The Party Loyale are in a serious loop and it will be, ultimately, the Party's downfall. There is a reason we're called progressives -- we're ready to move forward with or without you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. The Democrats need to learn to earn the votes of the left rather than spurn them.

If you vote for them, they turn right. If you vote against them they turn right and whine about the left.

[bigtree]

6. yet

. . . you can't just ignore the cataclysmic consequences of a republican Congress. Been there, done that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. I first heard that song in '68.

When we were told we HAD to support Humpty-Dumpty or Nixon would be elected. Sure enough, the Democrats still blame us for Nixon instead of that other lost war that LBJ and Humpty supported. Kinda like what's happening today.

If they want the votes of the left they have to appeal to the left. But, it doesn't matter. According to the administration were irrelevant and, besides, "where can we go"?

[bigtree]

18. I agree that opposing war is key, as are other important issues and inituatives

But, our political system isn't a zero-sum game. There are myriads of issues, initiatives and concerns which are frozen out with republicans in control. I'd take a Humphrey administration over Nixon's any day. No contest.

Almost nothing in my life offers me a clear choice to what I want or need. I've never expected that working for what I want in our political system was going to be a straight line to success. We build on what we can achieve and try and hold ground to succeed in the future. We just don't just unilaterally fold and concede to those who would oppose us.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Working within the system has only moved both parties to the right.

What little faith I had in politics and politicians doing anything but seek to attain and retain power has been lost over the course of my life. Another DUer sent me this quote today which sums up my feelings about the system.

“Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich by promising to protect each from the other.” – Oscar Ameringer

[bigtree]

34. we still have to convince enough voters to support progressive candidates and issues

That hasn't happened in our primaries to the degree that we can effect progressive change at the rate we want. That shortfall in support at the ballot box can't be easily remedied by just acting outside of the electoral system. We still need to have a political structure which is at least amenable to our presence, if not our agenda (something that you can't find with any republican-dominated Congress).

Politics is a stepping-stone, building-block endeavor. It's rare to have a political movement immediately leap into power, influence, and authority from the outside. It matters whether we can set the agenda in Congress; what bills get the floor and which legislation advances for votes. All of that can't be managed effectively out of power or out of office. Protest can only do so much. If you'll indulge me for a second . . .

Taking our protests to the streets and (sometimes) to the halls of Congress is a healthy flexing of our democratic system. Our legislative agenda is best served when it is initiated and advocated from the ground up, but, at some point, to convert those ideas into action, our agenda need to be assigned to our legislators we elect to public office - the caretakers and managers of the levers of our democracy.

Baynard Rustin, a key organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, argued in his book, 'Strategies for Freedom', that for a movement to have a permanent and transforming imprint, it should have a legislative goal attached which will transcend the whims of the emotions of the moment. Describing a different struggle that America faced with the advancement of civil rights, he wrote that:

"Moral fervor can't maintain your movement, nor can the act of participation itself. There must be a genuine commitment to the advancement of the people. To have such a commitment is also to have a militant sense of responsibility, a recognition that actions have consequences which have a very real effect on the individual lives of those one seeks to advance."

"Far too many movements lack both a (legislative) perspective and a sense of responsibility, and they fail because of it," Ruskin wrote.

"My quarrel with the "no-win" tendency in the civil rights movement (and the reason I have so designated it) parallels my quarrel with the moderates outside the movement," Rustin wrote in his book, Down the Line. "As the latter lack the vision or will for fundamental change, the former lack a realistic strategy for achieving it. For such a strategy they substitute militancy. But militancy is a matter of posture and volume and not of effect."

Achieving legislative solutions which will adequately confront conservative resistance in Congress will take time. That effort will also, more than likely, take even more protesting. But as long as we keep our legislative goals at the head of our protests, and form the necessary coalitions of support to advance those legislative efforts within the system, we can assume the necessary responsibility for the consequences of our actions and transform the direction of our movements from agitation to action (quoting myself here).

[Egnever]

22. And yet you still havent learned?

that was the point of this article that "punishing" them hasnt worked in fact it has arguably made the situation much worse as the message the establishment takes away is the right won because we were too far left and keeps taking further right to recaptures the voters it thinks it lost to the right.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. Neither has patronizing them.

Clinton "won" with his introduction of the "Third Way" and "triangulation" which moved the party right. Obama is a continuation of that policy of appeasement.

[noise]

33. Any result is used as an excuse

to move further to the right.

[pnwmom]

40. They earn the votes by being further to the left than the Rethugs are.

Even if they're not as far to the left as most progressives would like.

[BzaDem]

50. Where in the world do you get the idea that votes need to be "earned?"

That is a pure fantasy in a winner-take-all, two-party system. You ARE enabling one of the two parties no matter WHAT you do. Not voting for the lesser of two evils is enabling the GREATER of two evils, whether you accept this or deny this.

Did the Republicans you enable (by not voting for the Democrat) "earn" your vote? Because mathematically, they are getting it, whether you fill in their oval or not.

I mean, seriously. Do you REALLY think voting against a Democrat is punishing that Democrat? When that Democrat is going to become a lobbyist and earn 3-5 times what they were making before? They would probably laugh in your face if you told them that. Voting against Democrats punishes YOU a lot, but it certainly doesn't punish the Democrat you voted against.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. Do you really think they shouldn't have to earn the votes of the people?

That's an interesting take on "democracy". Hell, why even bother with the charade of voting at all? Just have the all-knowing party appoint the bosses.

[BzaDem]

66. I never said anything about should or shouldn't. I'm just describing the system we live in.

I personally would love to have IRV voting or proportional representation (where a vote for a third party is not a vote for the Republican). But we don't have that. Denying reality doesn't accomplish anything.

[alarimer]

62. Yes they have to earn our votes- they work for US!

Obama works for US, not the other way around. If they screw up and vote for things we don't like or implement policies we don't like (secret prisons, Bush-like foreign policy, stupid educational plans, etc) then we vote for someone else.

I think the time is ripe for a progressive third party but it would have to start local and build up from there. Kick the Blue Dogs into the Republicans (which is what they are) and form a party of true progressives. Hopefully the Democratic Party as it stands right now will wither and die, like the Whigs.

[Spazito]

7. Mr. Parry is right on point...

"In other words, the Left’s notion of “teaching the Democrats a lesson” is a myth. It may make some progressives feel morally pure, but it doesn’t work. And, the results of the last 42 years should make clear that the idea is not only folly but it is dangerous."

Recommended.

[drm604]

8. Very true, but some people just won't get it.

Handing an election to a Republican by voting third party or not voting at all may send a message, but it may not be the message they intend to send.

Losing an election to a Republican may cause a politician to move to the right rather than the left. Send the messages during the primaries or send them directly by calling their office and telling them what you think. Don't do it by electing Republicans. That should be common sense. :banghead:

[Ruby the Liberal]

11. I will vote, but my attitude sucks and I can't seem to turn it around.

If I keep reminding myself that the Rs will make matters worse, I can somewhat motivate - but the biggest part of me is so thoroughly disgusted that a caucus of 59 can't get shit done without allowing the Rs to screw up legislation with their amendments that they end up voting against anyway.

Blah.

[mzteris]

13. It's not dangerous

It's IDIOTIC and LETHAL.

More people will die and suffer under a republican than a dem. He may not be moving fast enough, but at least GDIT - he is moving in the right (left!) direction for the most part.

I may not like everything he does, but I LIKE NOTHING THAT THE REPUBLICANS DO.

Do YOU really want to be that "one vote" that put some gd ijut in office to further muck up our country and our lives? Really?

[Davis_X_Machina]

15. Someone's going to tell me...

...that Robert Frickin' Parry is an Obot, a sellout, a party hack?

Let me check.....

Yep.

Excuse me -- I have to go drink heavily.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

17. I am withholding my vote from the so-called Dem in my district.

The only reason I'm doing this is because I know she will win.

If she were in any danger of not winning, I wouldn't do it. But she isn't.

She might just see that she got fewer votes than she expected. The last time this happened, she did turn more to the left.

We do not need nor do we deserve the Blue Dog Democrats.

That is all.

[bigtree]

20. still risky

If enough folks decide to be complacent about the prospects and sit out, it could backfire. Also, at what point will your legislator reason that your vote isn't one that can be easily obtained and turns to others who reliably vote? The non-support could easily transform into the courting of the more conservative field of voters, I think.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

37. I respectfully disagree, and here's why:

First of all, I am NOT sitting out and not voting. If others do, it won't be because of me.

And she could hardly be more right-wing as it is. And as I said before, the last time she ran for this seat, she did turn more left after the primary. She realized that there was disapproval of how she was conducting herself, and she addressed that.

So. My position stands.

I'm sure that it isn't the same for other districts. One size certainly doesn't fit all.

But I hope that it will work here.

Jane Harmon has not earned my vote, and she will not get it. CA District 36.

[bigtree]

42. so you have another choice like a write-in or someone to vote for?

Marcy Winograd, maybe?

http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/34282

[CaliforniaPeggy]

43. Absolutely.

And I do plan to do just that. Marcy Winograd it is.

[bigtree]

44. excellent!

You make very good points, California Peggy. Best of luck. :toast:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

45. Why, thank you...

For all your excellent points too!

:hi:

[mitchtv]

57. I refuse to vote for my Dem state Senator candidate

he beat a real Dem by 22 votes and is a proven homophobe with a record that lost my vote forever. Other than that it's Dem all uo and down the ticket

[stray cat]

19. But it worked so well from 2000-8 - See How Smart All Progressives Are After That

I am so glad we taught them a lesson by not electing Al Gore or Kerry!

[LonePirate]

24. We need to stop blaming the voters and place the fault where it belongs - on Reid and Obama

If politicians do not do what the voters want, then they deserve the consequences.

Obama should have known back in January 2009 that bipartisanship was not possible with the right. Reid should have made the Senate work seven days a week for months on end in order to pass the bills sent to him by the House. He also should have made the obstructionists actually perform a filibuster instead of withdrawing bills and votes. Heck, he should have changed the filibuster rule back in January 2009 when he had the chance.

It's a pity that Pelosi has been a true liberal champion in Congress and she is the one most likely to suffer on Election Day. There simply is no hope in DC for liberals and progressives. I can empathize with members of the Democratic base who sit home on November 2. Why should they vote when their voices are never heard. One party lies to the Democratic base about what it is going to do and the other party is the Republican Party. That's not exactly inspiring.

[architect359]

27. ...but do *we* deserve the consequences? n/t

[LonePirate]

36. The conservadems deserve the consequences. The rest of us don't exist or matter to our President.

[jaxx]

35. A sentence from the article:

There was very little soul-searching on the Left, which viewed itself as essentially blameless for the catastrophes that the Reagan years wrought.

[Catherina]

25. How hopelessly childish.; It's the Democratic politiians who have taught us a lesson

not the reverse.

Deliver on your promises and we won't even be having this discussion.

[UTUSN]

28. K&R #13, for, it's the would-be "teachers" who will be learning this old lesson. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

30. If Obama and the rest of the DLC had acted like Democrats, we wouldn't be here

That's the problem.

The problem is not the brutalized voters.

[jaxx]

31. I see some of the same things in the article in the posts to this thread.

Maybe it will be an eye opener, a wait a minute moment when the reality of the consequences hit home. I hope so. In this instance it'll be cutting off your nose to spite the country.

[bemildred]

32. The idea is to take control of the party, and then use it to effect policy.

So I agree with Mr Parry.

[pnwmom]

39. The only message it sends is: the majority of voters voted in Republicans.

Period. It gives the Rethugs a mandate to move to the RIGHT.

[JoePhilly]

75. And the media will sing that song endlessly. We are, after all, a "center-right" country.

And when the left stays home, they'll prove the media correct.

[Number23]

47. Rec'd. Really interesting read

I disagree with quite a bit of it (I think it's a stretch to say that because lefties "sidelined" on Bush that they share the blame for the Republicans taking us into the illegal war in Iraq) but it's a great read. Thanks for posting.

[Lilith Velkor]

48. So much for democracy, we are serfs who must provide for our "Democratic" overlords.

THAT makes me want to go out and vote. :sarcasm:

[Jamastiene]

56. An excerpt...

From Truman's Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action.
May 17, 1952
(source: Truman Presidential Museum and Library)
——————————————————————————–
"I’ve seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn’t believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don’t want a phony Democrat. If it’s a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don’t want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."

<snip>

The Democrats in the most danger of losing their seats are the Blue Dogs, almost always, the same ones who jump ship and swim to the Republican side every chance they get. They are always the ones who drag ass, help the Republicans obstruct legislation we want...and consequentially have trouble winning elections every time they run. It never fails.

The above quote from Truman rings true...time and time again.

If we do badly in this election, like most of the others where we have tanked, it will have nothing to do with Democrats teaching the Democratic Party a lesson. It will be the Democrats having the power, failing to heed the words of Truman, not effectively standing up for Democratic principles, and throwing it all away...once again.

You can expect a Democrat to vote for Democrats, but you can't expect that from the swing voters the same way. Millions of them out there shift from side to side from election to election.

That is just the way it is. All you can do is hope you gambled correctly when you decided they were more important than liberal Democrats and proceeded to let them dictate how legislation would be made for the last 2 years.

I know I'm voting straight ticket Democratic Party. My question is who are these mythical Republican voting liberals? I have yet to meet one of those on DU...at least not one that stays very long. :shrug:

[lightningandsnow]

58. I wish there was a viable third party in the US.

I live in Ontario, and we have three main parties: the Conservatives, Liberals, and New Democrats. The New Democrats are to the left of the Liberals. It's good to have a party that really does represent my interests - I don't think I'll ever vote for the Liberals, because they've shown time and time again that they don't represent me.

That being said, if I lived in the US and was a US citizen, I'd vote Democrat because the alternative is fucking awful.

[Touchdown]

59. Sounds like made up fearmongering to me.

As legislative chairman, I have talked to many people in my union. Most are disappointed by the Dems, but I've heard from nobody who isn't going to vote. I have no idea where this guy spends his days.

[EFerrari]

61. It's kind of a weird piece for Robert Parry.

He sounds like someone is holding a gun to his head.

[Fire Walk With Me]

60. Obama said that this election determines the direction the country takes.

It is possible that democrats can lose, and it would be very, very difficult to recover again from even more Bush policy...get everyone you know to vote.

[donheld]

67. The 'Teach-the-Dems-a-Lesson' is

cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

[DailyGrind51]

69. Exactly, that's how we got Reagan, remember?

[SidDithers]

70. K&R...nt

Sid