Vote for Democrats.

Winning elections is important —therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

Only 1% of DU does and you can see how well adjusted they are!

The philosophical shift of the DLC the late 80s and 90's resulted in the US having 2 political parties both to the right of center and both endorsing the notion that the business of government was promoting profits rather than the the promotion of national policies and practices that effect the advance of the collective welfare of all citizens.

the healthcare fight, but not so great that the WH sided with the blue dogs.

We have to stay clear on who they're really working for.

as the only saviors of the party and of the people. People like that would never have the political capital to get anything done.

Sure, I may vote for them myself in the primaries... but once that's over... it is my DUTY and the duty of all Democrats to back the general election candidate with a 'D' next to their name.

I don't agree with calling it climate change, simply because that's not a solution it's a complaint. If we are going to ask our elected officials to solve problems, we have to define the solution.

The solution to climate change is investment in alternative energies and there is a social security problem - the solution is raise the cap. Asking to not 'put social security on the table' is not recognizing that there is an upcoming problem.

The TPP, if anyone thinks that they're solving the problem of factory jobs being sent off because of trade agreements needs to watch 'Modern Marvels' (on the History channel. Manufacturing jobs are disappearing because of automation not trade agreements.

The only fire that we need to hold our elected officials feet to - are tax increases on the wealthy, return to the anti-trust laws that were around in the post WWII era and push for alternative energies. I believe you are advocating for looking at symptoms and not the problems themselves.

I don't disagree with your assertion that we need to hold our representatives accountable, but I don't agree completely with your issues. It isn't that I believe that it makes you wrong - it illustrates how difficult its going to be to hold them accountable. We all have different 'pet' issues.

regarding all issues.

I agree with you in concept, I just think we have to be careful what we are asking for (or insisting on), and the solution to the social security issue is to raise the cap. If we all insist on opposing the chained CPI proposal then we are advocating for the program eventually running out of money.

We can't realistically address climate change without some kind of plan. I drive, I expect most people here drive. What kind of plan do you have for taking all the cars off the road?

It isn't only the wealthy and corporations that contribute to climate change - it is built into our society. Do you want to eliminate school bussing? What are we asking for here - when it comes to climate change? What sacrifices are you willing to make?

There has to be a price for the choices we make.

But my concern re this thread is that many Dem leaders don't even begin to create a plan - don't even WANT to have a meaningful plan - because their constituents are really not the people.

Taxes aren't high enough on the wealthiest.

There are companies and individuals that receive huge returns on their investment (of congress in their back pocket) by persuading those representatives to spend on things that they benefit from.

All of our problems are because we don't tax the high earners enough.

When you look at the periods in history when we had the greatest economic expansion - they coincide with higher taxes on high earners. I don't believe that's a coincidence.

As far as taxes on possessions: no. Certain possessions are legitimate business expenses (vehicles for example) and shouldn't be taxed at all. There's no good reason to tax people because they're buying things necessary to conduct business (even houses to some extent). It is the practice of earning excessive money by squeezing it out of less fortunate people and then hiding that money in places where it doesn't circulate within the economy that must be stopped.

Raising the top marginal tax rate to 91% like it was in the 1950's is the way to do that.

SS is an EASY FUCKING FIX. INDEX THE GODDAM CAP.

Real-life outcomes are more important to me than "cherish(ing) sweetest reflection".

Or, is being loyal to a party a principle?

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

Congratulating myself on my "principles" by either not voting or voting for an obscure candidate with practically zero chance of winning is not worth boosting the chance of practically any Republican beating practically any Democrat.

When I think of how a few hundred votes could have spared us eight years of Bush, and the hideous price of those eight years in lives lost, trillions wasted, increased wealth disparity -- there's no way any "message" people voting for Nader was worth that price, no clear message was received by Democrats to go more left rather than more right by those Nader votes, and even though we got Obama in 2008, the 2010 election showed that the public and the candidates had still learned very little of lasting impact from eight years of Bush.

The obvious answer for the party is to move to the left to capture the votes of the left. If the Democrats didn't receive that message who's to fault? The voters or the Democrats?

Results matter more than placing blame. I'd rather have a mediocre Democrat than a bad Republican and a smug feeling he/she isn't my fault.

We deserve better.

food stamps, raising the age on SS, and not giving cost of living increases for SS are good outcomes? The democrats are hurting poor people and the middle class is disappearing. Either they stand up for us or there will be an increasing number of people who will not stand up for them at election time.

...is due Republican obstructionism, not lackluster Democrats, it's due to low Democratic voter turnout in 2010 (where if a few less-than-inspired Democratic voters could have saved all of us a lot of pain by making beating the Republicans more important to their motivation than expressing their lack of enthusiasm for the available Democrats), not to mention the legacy of Bush, which could have been avoided in 2000 with just a few hundred more votes here and there, no doubt many of which didn't turn out for Gore because he just wasn't "good enough" to "earn" the votes of a few Democrats more concerned about feeling good about themselves for not compromising rather than the good of the general public.

wages. If a democratic candidate comes along that will join me in that fight I will vote for them. If not, I will not vote for them.

The (D) brand is never wrong so we do not need to hold anyone accountable.

We have to reverse the thirty years of Reaganomics that is crushing this country.

I'd only work for a candidate who would absolutely put people and the planet ahead of corporations.

Unfortunately, most Dem leaders are complicit in perpetuating Reaganomics.