If a person sits out this election.. then yes they will take the blame for the changes

[Peacetrain]

I hope everyone got to hear Charlie Cook on MSNBC and what will happen if the state elections go republican. The republicans will get to redistrict next year and those districts will hold for 10 years.

All the progress made on the state level could go into the dumpster.

That is just the plain and simple truth.

[Gman]

1. Purists take note

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Peacetrain]

2. Yep...that would be gruesome

We are fighting a hard battle here in Iowa..

[felinetta]

35. I will not shed a single tear for any Democrat who doesn't vote.

[Bluerthanblue]

3. and condemn others

by their apathy.

I know this sounds harsh, but the truth is often harsh.

K&R

[Peacetrain]

5. I hope people stop and see what this could mean for the next decade

It really is staggering in its implications for the future

[Bluerthanblue]

11. I agree-

heard this quote this a.m. and it really struck me:

"This is a great country, and it wasn’t made so by angry people. We have a sacred duty to bequeath it to our grandchildren in better shape than however we found it. We have a long way to go and we’re not getting any younger."

Garrison Keillor said this long before the 'tea-party' came on the scene. He said it before Bush was was re-elected.

He needs to say it again- and needs to be heard.

:hi:

[TreasonousBastard]

4. Lots of Governors running, too.

[Peacetrain]

6. Yep...

[Ozymanithrax]

7. People sit out the election to send a message to Democrats.

The problem, is with the message.

Democrats who sit out are trying to tell the Democratic Party that it is too conservative.

But all the Democratic Party will know is that because they tried and passed a few very weak liberal slightly left bits of legislation, legislation that Republicans would never even attempt in a million election cycles, they were beat. They tried liberal and were rewarded with unemployment.

If Republicans win, the message Democrats will hear is that Democrats are too liberal.

You read that right.

That is the message.

If liberals and progressives (not an identical set) want more liberal policies and legislation, they have to elect more real liberals and progressives (recognizing, of course, that liberals and progressives are not precisely the same group). You get better results when you give a small reward rather than a good beating. It works in child rearing and it works in politics.

[Bluerthanblue]

13. the message that Dem's would be sending is that

we are just plain stupid.

:shrug:

[old mark]

18. I could not agree more. Thank you. nt

[Ozymanithrax]

22. If they don't vote...then the message is "We Democrats are monumentally stupid."

or, maybe it is all subconsicous, that Democrats really want a nice Strong Republican Man to spank them and tell them what they want.

Though I think that people who sit out and vote for a Republican with their ass are just stupid.

[CTLawGuy]

48. right

that would be a more logical message than the one the Naderites are trying to send. "I don't think the government is liberal enough so I'm going to make it more conservative"? That doesn't make much sense.

We have primaries to ensure base accountability of the party. The GE is to win ie to keep the Rs out.

[Fire1]

8. I'm almost certain we will have a pub governor. Even dems

are voting for the "the nerd." I think Bernero reminds people of Blago.

[Peacetrain]

9. Even more than govenors are state reps.. sitting out this election and letting redistricting

take hold.. tea party people in power on a state level.. mind boggling.. and those who sit there and think that would not happen..

Think Bachmann and Steve King.. yet put it on a state level.. that can pull the rug on all the progress made.

[Fire1]

15. Yep and folks can't see the forest for the trees. n/t

[sweetloukillbot]

25. Or even worse... Think Arizona nationwide n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

10. We aren't going to sit it out. We are going to get clobbered.

Elections are decided by the swing voters in the middle. Those voters are, primarily because the economy sucks, going to vote R in larger numbers than 2008 or 2006. Oh well.

[Bluerthanblue]

12. "oh well"?

self-fulfilling prophesy?

Apathy kills.

[bkozumplik]

21. oh please. "apathy kills"

Where did the apathy Come from?

Fix the cause of the apathy-- the milquetoast leadership and posturing to the repubs, and you fix the swing voters. You guys are shooting the messengers and ignoring the message. We should be loudly demanding that our leadership act more in the best traditions of our party, not hand wrigning and harping on people to get excited about something that no one is going to get excited about.

We are going to lose big this next election, thats pretty much a done deal. But NOW is the time to be influencing our leadership, because theres only a very small window-- that being right before elections, where they will take questions and make promises. *Otherwise, they dont really care.* You can protest every day after the election, and *it doesn't matter to them*

[Bluerthanblue]

24. sorry, but Al Gore and Joe Lieberman weren't my

favorite choice for who should succeed Clinton/Gore. BUT I understood that any of the alternatives were horrendous. (I have to admit that my 'fears' were surpassed by bush/Cheney.)

How can you seriously believe that losing big this fall will do anything but take us farther down a dark and dangerous path?

I don't get your assertion that the 'very small window' (before what you say will be a big loss) holds out anything hopeful for anyone.

Do you really think that taking questions and making promises before a failed campaign will do anything tangible for us?

:shrug:

As for shooting the messenger- don't forget that messengers have a role in determining outcome. How a message is delivered can influence the outcome of what happens.

"We're all going to die" is indeed a FACT. How, where, when and why are things we DO have a degree of a chance to control about that FACT.

Inaction is action- not voting helps the opposition.

As a realist/idealist I know that there will never be a candidate who embodies my "Ideal". Some are farther away than others, but I can guarantee you, that the Republican ticket is NOT even close- and hasn't been for decades. If I refuse to vote because I'm not pleased with our candidate, I'm supporting the Republican ticket. That is reality- I don't like it, but that doesn't change anything.

:hi:

[bkozumplik]

27. theres middle ground between voting and not voting

All we have is our vote as a group. Thats our one little chip in this game. We should do some negotiating with it. We shouldnt just toss it in and say we'll ride with what we have now-- we should unite and say as a group, this isnt good enough, will you fix it, and how will you fix it.

[Bluerthanblue]

29. where is the middle ground?

If you don't vote for the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate wins, YOU have had a hand in electing the Republican by your refusal to support the Democratic candidate.

There aren't many "black/white" "us/them" situations, but the way our country is set up, not voting for our candidate, IS voting for "the other".

imo

Your idea of us saying "this isn't good enough" I really understand. There SHOULD be a way to be heard and represented. But unfortunately, the solution you propose puts the Republicans into positions of power, and weakens us even further. The time for pushing is in the primaries-after that, the cost is just too great.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. yeah its my fault the message from washington is so freaking mangled

"oh well" because that is the reality. Sometimes reality sucks.

[a la izquierda]

14. There's been zero progress in Oklahoma...

only regression.
Still, I'll vote, even though I'll probably only live here another year.

[Ozymanithrax]

23. When you are alive, you can choose who you vote for.

Once you are dead, the side that holds your cemetary records gets to decide.

[wisteria]

16. We need to surprise the hell out the Repubs and the media and

create a Democrat voting surge. Going back to the losing ways of the Republicans and handing them more power is so counter productive and will be extremely detrimental to our recovery.

[pansypoo53219]

17. i accepted there was no chance to get what i wanted when bush won in 88.

2000 reinforced the need to not vote for what you prefer, but to prevent worse from happening.

[Bluerthanblue]

19. experience is a painful but profound

teacher.

I've learned a lot of painful lessons myself.

:hi:

[bkozumplik]

20. right its not the politicians fault

for not representing us, its our fault for not putting up with that tripe.

good logic.

Lets not blame our leaders, that would be too hard.

[Bluerthanblue]

26. and 'blame' is such a good solution?

What is gained by blaming?

Does it absolve you from your obligation do do something other than complain?

I personally, haven't found that to be a very effective tool for change.

:shrug:

[bkozumplik]

28. if you dont call them on it

then they wont do anything different.

[Bluerthanblue]

30. placing blame is a very simple action-

activly participating in making a change is much harder.

I'm so weary of everyone looking to place blame. The point of this whole OP is to avoid the situation of having to "blame" others for what doesn't have to happen.

If we get out and vote, if we support our Democratic candidates against the Republican opposition- EVEN if they aren't the candidate we wish they were, then we are still in a better position that we'd be if the Repubs had the control.

The 12yr. republican majority of congress which ended in 2006 did us ALL a world of damage.

[bkozumplik]

43. oh Ive actively participated

held petitions and heckled passers by, and signed up voters. knocked on doors. been part of democratic groups. yeah.

been there.

Not going there for this guy.

[CTLawGuy]

49. its called a primary

we did it in CT in 2006 with Ned Lamont vs. Joe Lieberman. It actually worked, but unfortunately, the Republicans abandoned their own candidate in the GE and put Lieberman back in office. That was a very unique situation, however.

If Ned had lost, I would have voted for Lieberman because, even as bad as he is, he is still better than a Republican. Lieb was a vote for Bush more than I liked, but any R would have been a vote for Bush to a much greater degree. And I would not have desired the choice between those two, but getting upset and sitting out wouldn't have made the choice go away or get any better.

Sometimes you have to minimize your losses.

[bkozumplik]

50. I think the essence of what we disagree on is strategy

But yes, we are definently on the same side.

[NJmaverick]

32. Kick and Rec so everyone gets this important message

[flamingdem]

36. kickkkk nt

[Onlooker]

33. Anyone who sits out this election does not remember the Reign of Reagan

Democrats were so upset with Carter (and rightfully so; he was quite conservative) that they allowed a basketcase and bigot like Reagan to get elected. That election harmed poor people, protected Apartheid, protected southern racism, and allowed AIDS to run rampant. The harm that Reagan did lasted pretty much until Obama got elected -- even Clinton had to contend with a right-wing Congress. If the Demos lose control now, we are in danger of another era of regressive politics. Obama is pretty much the one charged with dismantling the Reagan nightmare, not an easy task. If Obama and the Democrats succeed, they will lay the groundwork for more progressive people in the future. But, if they lose control of Congress, the Republicans will be devoting the next two years to making sure they also lose control of the White House. We can't let that happen.

[Kahuna]

34. It's a bogeyman! SQUAWK!

:applause:

[provis99]

42. your assumption is wrong. Democrats mad at Carter did not sit out the election.

The problem was not the liberals mad at Carter, it was that conservative Democrats, the "Reagan Democrats", switched and voted for Reagan.

[Onlooker]

45. It's not that simple ...

... I was actually a paid worker for the Carter campaign, and once had to rescue a Carter official (asst. secretary of agriculture) from a speech at a rural Democrat fundraiser. People were so pissed off at Carter, they were shouting the guy down and he did not know what to do. I jumped on stage and started shouting back and luckily got the crowd in line.

Reagan Democrats were largely Teamsters who were angry at Carter for deregulating the trucking industry and ruining their livelihoods. In addition, a lot of moderate Democrats voted for John Anderson or didn't vote because they simply couldn't stomach Carter's pro-nuclear policies. Lastly, Carter had no urban policy in his platform, and this alienated a lot of people who could have helped organize the election. Carter had alienated a lot of groups. In fact, in 1980 had the lowest turnout to that time (although since then there have been even lower turnouts).

[handmade34]

37. rec

[one_voice]

38. rec n/t

[FBaggins]

39. They certainly take HALF of the blame.

The people they voted for whose actions (or lack of same) caused them to "sit out" most certainly deserve some blame too.

But it's far too early to play the blame game. It assumes that we've already lost.

Some elected democrats might decide to do something that encourages more democrats to think that they're worth voting for.

[KakistocracyHater]

40. so what happens when the election machines say u voted 4 the R when u

did not, like SO MANY SENIORS in 04? Is that, too, on your "blame & flame" list?

[Hekate]

41. Kic and Rec

:thumbsup:

[JoeyT]

44. Gotta get the memes started early.

Bad policy depresses voter turnout and it's fault of liberals that were utterly ignored.
Got it.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

47. well, i'd say that if you ignore voting, then you deserve being ignored

After all, you don't expect that you will become noticed by your absence do you, or rewarded by sitting on yer hands?

The above was a 'general' comment to those saying they won't vote and not directed specifically at you JoeyT(this was just a good place to put the comment)

[JCMach1]

46. This is the Left's temper tantrum...

Unlike the tantrum on the Right (the Tea Party), I think the tantrum on the Left is at least deserved.

Obama built a 53% DEMOCRATIC/PROGRESSIVE coalition and proceeded to push a right/center agenda. That disconnect has caused... you guessed it a disconnect.

I don't think Obama can claw back even to 50.1% before Nov, but let's see what happens.

Yes, I am a disgruntled progressive... However, I am not taking a Naderite position and just let it fall apart if I can help it in any way.