Sitting out the 2012 election will only make things worse

[Tony_FLADEM]

I am a Democrat for 2 reasons. 1. I agree with the Democrats on the issues. 2. When Republicans are in power all they do is fuck up this country. George. W. Bush ruined just about everything you could possibly destroy. The Republicans Control 1 House in the legislative branch and they had the capability to create a crisis this country has never seen before and still might see. To me even if the Democrats met for 1 legislative day and adjourned for the remainder of the time, that's preferable to having the Republicans in power.

We are having to give up cuts to the Social Safety Net partly because millions of Democrats did not vote in 2010. They were upset about not having a public option and as a result Medicare and Social Security will now be diminished to give in to these terrorists on the other side.

Unfortunately, some Democrats will stay home in 2012 and this will make things worse. Imagine an all Tea Party government:

President: Rick Perry
Senate Majority Leader: Jim DeMint
Speaker: Eric Cantor

Hopefully we never see this nightmare.

[derby378]

1. We need a better selling point than VOTE DEMOCRATIC - IT COULD BE WORSE!

We need a bold vision for America, and right now, our party simply isn't delivering one. We have the potential, we have the brainpower - where's the disconnect?

[Tony_FLADEM]

4. The Republicans are so bad. That selling point is good enough for me.

[Big Blue Marble]

20. Have you noticed that every time we vote based on that arguement

we get less and less and both parties represent our interests less and less.

Your logic is breaking down. The reward we get for voting for Democrats is that they become more Republican.
Your meme is running out of gas.

[peacebird]

9. people don't trust dems to walk their talk. They are the party of "cave in"

They behave like spineless quivering cry-babies giving the bully their lunch money every single day.

I am disgusted. I don't NEED a freaking SLOGAN, I need true ACTION (and by that I don't mean bending over and saying
"Please sir, may I have another"

Most of the Dems in congress are every bit as corporate owned anti-average american as the pukes.

[treestar]

31. Actually, we don't

The Republicans are that bad. They do negative campaigning. We should point out how much they have harmed the country at every opportunity.

We can have a positive vision too, but there is nothing wrong with using the fact that the alternative sucks very badly.

And they are the alternative.

At this point we really don't need much more than that the Rs suck - they suck that much.

[IndianaJoe]

2. Obama figures we'll vote Dem. Where else would we go?

And that's what I'll do. But if you're a Progressive, you can't help feeling that he should have fought harder for our agenda and been less compromising about our core beliefs. Last election I was enthusiastic. I just can't say I feel that way now.

[TransitJohn]

3. When the Democrats we elect brazenly

work against the Platform of our Party, what's the point anymore?

[enlightenment]

5. Explain to me, again, the part about

what the Democrats were doing between 2008 and 2010 - when they were 'in power'?

Inventing the 'super-majority' to cut themselves off at the knees really wasn't helpful . . .

[Tony_FLADEM]

8. They were trying to fix the healthcare system

The bill they passed had some good things but not everything progressives wanted. Some of them stayed home and now we have cuts to other programs that are supported.

[TBF]

10. Yes, they tried to "fix" the system with the approval of the pharama companies. No sale.

nt

[Tony_FLADEM]

17. There were good things in the bill

such as being able to get insurance if you are sick and regulating how much the insurance companies can spend on "administrative" costs. Things could have been modified later.

[Politicub]

15. If you ignore the progressive gains made over the past two years, there is no help for you

I don't get people with attitudes like yours. Is it a cry for attention? Because we've made a lot of social progress compared to the Bush years. There are many lists on DU of positive things that have happened. Do you just ignore them?

Things could be so much worse.

[TBF]

25. Limited social progress is the only thing accomplished - there is no difference economically.

That may be enough for rich dems, but it's not enough for me.

[Politicub]

32. "The only thing accomplished?" Don't underestimate how important social progress is

And how long it takes. It's insulting to people who have spent their entire lives fighting these battles while living in the long shadow of inequality.

And there is a tremendous economic difference. Retirement accounts have made up for the losses under the Bush admin, for one. The stimulus package was too small, but staved off a worse situtation.

But if you choose not to see or appreciate those things, I can't help you

[dbonds]

35. Not ignoring gains, I don't see ANY. I see loosing ground.

[Politicub]

39. Then you are not paying attention if you haven't noticed advances in LGBT civil rights

Or you discount them. It has to be one of the other, because the LGBT community has made remarkable strides over the past two years. And you can't deny that President Obama's admin has been part of that.

[dbonds]

40. Only at the state level, nothing new here in Alabama...

and DADT is still there till the 60 day waiting period is over. And that was the easiest one to crack. And I will deny Obama has been any part in that small gain.

[Politicub]

41. Then what I said is confirmed. You are not paying attention.

It's like arguing with sign posts on DU these days.

[dbonds]

42. Don't piss on my head and tell me it is raining.

Sign Post. I have a sign but I can't post it.

[Politicub]

46. I've got a pithy saying, too: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater

Shall we continue?

[dbonds]

47. Who's the baby and what's the bathwater?

[still_one]

33. To put it into perspective, they were NOT really "in power". A blue dog Democrat has ideas that are

more aligned with republican ideology than Democratic ones

byah from Indiana is a perfect example during that time, and he is less far right than most of those blue dogs at the time

Many of those blue dogs were only democrats because historically the Democratic party was all about states rights and slavery

That somewhat reversed later down the road, but still remained entrenched into the sixtes.

Remember good ole george wallace? He was the poster child for the blue dogs

[joeybee12]

6. I've heard this before...pretty much every election...it's getting VERY old...nt

[LoZoccolo]

14. What other facts become untrue due to simple aging?

[TBF]

7. The nightmare is that we do not have democrats agreeing with us now -

with the exception, maybe, of independent Sanders, Alan Grayson, and sometimes Al Franken. That's it, that's what we got.

We've also got a "democratic" president who has placed social security and medicare on the table for cutting.

So tell me why in the hell it matters at all? And stop telling lies. It's not like we didn't vote - I don't even support capitalism but I went to the polls in 2010 to vote a straight dem ticket, as you all begged.

You know what - no difference - if anything it has gotten worse.

You can vote dem all you want, but until we have a general strike that shuts this country down it isn't going to do a damned bit of good.

[Tony_FLADEM]

12. Do you think they would be cutting Social Security and Medicare

if Democrats still controlled the House Of Representatives? They would not because the terrorists wound't be in a position to blackmail them.

[TBF]

22. There is no reason to do it now - Social Security did not contribute one penny to the deficit

and POTUS should be on TV screaming that to the rooftops. Instead he's got his little "compromise" plans all worked out - which makes me (and many others) think that cutting SS was the plan all along. The rest is just theatre.

And we are not amused or fooled.

I live in Texas, I know about Rick Perry. I live under his rule here and it is not a bad place to live. I'd like folks here to be more open on social issues, but other than that it is not bad. I know that if he is voted into the presidential slot exactly what to expect. Now what President Obama should do is give us all a reason to storm those polls. He should be up giving us his plan for safeguarding all social plans rather than throwing them in his "compromise" pile before he starts. Then I might muster support for him again. Then I would be able to see why he is better than Rick Perry. But support for republican lite? No way. Why bother?

[Politicub]

11. I stand with the Democrats and President Obama on many issues. I can't think of one GOP position...

that I support.

It's madness to think sitting out an election will make a statement. All people do is make things worse for themselves and the less fortunate.

The brutality that will stem from the unthinkable notion of losing the presidency and congress will be immeasurable.

[Tony_FLADEM]

13. I agree with you. When Democrats don't vote things only get worse.

[dameocrat67]

30. we might privatize social security and start another ho hum! n/t

n/t

[TheKentuckian]

37. What are these positions? There are several Democrats are less terrible on than the TeaPubliKlans

but not many that I would say "I stand with Obama and the Democrats on_______".

I don't agree with Obama and leadership on a whole lot because I didn't agree with Reagan, Poppy, Jim Baker, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, or George W. Bush on much.

Yes, most of their stances are better than Rick Perry's, Michelle Bachmann's, Sarah Palin's, or Jim DeMint's but I sure as fuck don't "stand with" them. About everything proposed is yesterday's Republican nonsense, much of it with heavy hitter Republican support until our idiots elected to assimilate and endorse the positions which radicalized the pukes and pushed them not into agreement but into new extremist positions which our morons then sought to negotiate with starting from the previously held opposition position.

Fucking wholly stupid and counter-productive.

[dameocrat67]

16. I am pretty skeptical that the people who have sat out and will

next time are reading this.

[Riftaxe]

18. Not sold, I will vote for the few Democrats who have

been constructive, the ones that have failed to perform or even to attempt to perform what they promised will get a blank next to their name if they run unopposed by another democrat.

Not even my party will hold me hostage for my votes.

[Politicub]

21. You realize that by not voting, you are still casting a vote, right?

We have a winner take all electoral system. People who hold their breath in an attempt to make a statement in effect vote for the other party.

People that sacrifice the good for the perfect are part of the problem.

[Riftaxe]

50. That is one view, however i would argue that

No one is asking for perfect, at least until we get a line item none of the above vote for office on ballots. That by leaving it blank, it is the same as stating that the difference between both candidates are so slim it does not matter who wins.

Sure the difference will only show up when ballot cast totals are compared to votes received per office.

Politics is not a game of immediacy and should not be treated as such, perhaps the next cycle we will get a better Democratic candidate on the ballot.

Personally I would like to see every state and above office in the party face a primary every election cycle to keep our party responsive to our demands, but that would be to much work for a group that is inherently lazy (organizationally at national and state levels).

It used to be that we would elect firebrands who would get things done (or at the very least attempt to) in their first few terms before becoming complacent. These days, they are complacent from the start, and we hardly start with the best in the party (i.e. Martha Coakley if you're in the North East)

[lame54]

19. same as voting in it

[still_one]

23. How will you convince people if they see Democrats NOT defending Social Security and Medicare?

What goes through their mind is that they are doing the same thing the repukes would do, so what does it matter?

For arguments sake lets assume that what the Democrats are proposing isn't even that bad, they sure are NOT communicating that to their base

This has shades of HCR where those for the public option were excluded from the initial talks

[dameocrat67]

26. good point

we did not have this trouble under bush. the democrats fought him.

[still_one]

38. Not all the Democrats fought him, and that is also our problem. Many of the blue dogs are not

aligned philosophically with the principles of FDR. They are closer to republican ideology

When Howard Dean says the Democratic party needs to open its doors to every idea, he is wrong. There are some ideas that cannot be negotiated.

Social Security, Medicare, the right the choose, etc.

[dawg]

24. At this point, any Democrat is better than any Republican.

There are lots of Democrats I'm disappointed in, many I would like to see primaried, but at the end of the day I'm marking the box with the "D" beside the name.

[Faryn Balyncd]

27. You are absolutely right.

[Ohio Joe]

28. A democrat can do nothing dumber then sit out an election.

Even voting third party is not as stupid... Though it's close.

[dbonds]

29. A Frenemy or an Enemy, not a choice that matters much.

Maybe a Progressive candidate will emerge.

[EFerrari]

34. Before you continue to spam DU with this "Democrats didn't vote" bs

shouldn't you show some evidence that they didn't vote

And, btw, this authoritarian fear-based argument won't move liberals.

[katnapped]

36. Only thing you're guaranteeing

Is that if he IS re-elected he's going to drift further to the right.

"Well apparently the people like my shift since they voted me back in, so gotta amp it up some more"

[ejbr]

43. Why not just support voting for a Dem Congress?

Maybe if we threaten Obama in a way that lets him know that we would be satisfied with a Dem Congress and give up the White House, he'll get with the program.

[dbonds]

44. All dems aren't dems...

Some are corporatist running dem to make sure whoever wins the corporations wins too.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Sorry. "Not as bad" is no longer good enough.

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine

[Speck Tater]

48. Like an alchoholic maybe America needs to hit bottom, really hit bottom hard

before realizing that things need to change.

Our system simply doesn't work anymore. Electing one corporate toady over another won't make a bit of difference. Maybe we just have to let the corporate toadies crash the system so we can build something better from the wreckage. Maybe we don't have any choice but to sit by and watch.

[MadHound]

49. If the party doesn't want the left sitting out 2012,

Then it needs to give them something to vote FOR, not simply pumping the fear angle in order to get them to vote AGAINST something.

The left has watched as this president, and the party, has belittled, berated, and left them behind. Now, with the 2012 election coming up they want the left to get enthused, involved, to contribute to, work for and vote for their candidates.

The left wonders why they should, there is nothing to vote FOR.

And as this deal comes down, as this economy goes in the tank, more and more on the left are going to drop out, since they have nothing to vote FOR.

[gulliver]

51. The sitter-outers are a minority

Any so-called liberal/progressive who even seriously considers sitting out 2012 should be written off. Write off their votes and use them as a counter-example of effective liberalism, as cowards and slackers "now-a-bed." The message can be, "Get off your butts, serious liberals. We need to defeat the Tea Party and take up the slack from our swooned and passive-aggressive."

[zappaman]

52. only a moran

would believe voting doesn't matter.

[jwirr]

53. I totally agree. For one thing we need to take the House back and

strengthen the Senate. Regardless who wins the WH. For the sake of the Supreme Court we need it to be a Democratic president.