...can't figure out why you need to vote and what you'd be voting for? On "this board," no one should need "threats" to vote, and no one should need a reason to vote. Vote!

I'll repost two responses here because your comment is a perfect example of the point I made in another thread.

Repost:

There are those who want to only focus on the negatives. It's all about: Obama is going to do this or that. He appointed corporate tools. He criticized us. He's not looking out for us.

If you point out that something hasn't happened yet, you'll get the responses such as these: Are we supposed to wait until after the fact? He told us to hold his feet to fire. Being a good Democrat means being critical.

Does anyone not understand holding Democrats' feet to the fire? There is legitimate criticism of policies that are being considered. Focusing on preventing something negative is a good thing. Harping on it to claim that nothing is being done while ignoring the positives is disingenuous.

Also, there is little focus on fixing or strengthening policies that work because that would require two things: 1) Acknowledging the existence of these policies and 2) Focusing on GOP obstruction.

It's like a public option or single payer. The only time the naysayers bring these up is to attack Obamacare or harp on why these didn't pass.

Pushing Congress to address these issues isn't even on the radar.

For some reason, those who want to focus on the negatives above are less likely to agree with focusing on the GOP. The negatives have to all be about Democrats, who despite working to fix the mess, "don't really care about us."

Another poster responded:


Followup response:

I completely agree. I still think that focusing only on the negative is the wrong approach. It leaves the impression that nothing needs fixing...that the only things that matter are those worth stopping. For example, net neutrality needs fixing. The action hasn't happened yet, and supporters know the right course (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024876742). Supporting the right action doesn't require spending every energy denouncing Democrats as sellouts (that is, unless the goal is to have people abandon the party before the elections). At some point, there needs to be action to support the right course. IOW, the net neutrality proposal doesn't mean everything this administration has done is to the detriment of average Americans.

Consider this from Elizabeth Warren:


Posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024914331

The CFPB has been doing a great job, and the policies in place give regulators the tools to do their jobs.

Elizabeth Warren:



Ally Bank To Pay $98 Million For Charging Higher Interest To Non-White Borrowers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024208931

Obama's CFPB under Richard Cordray "took $800 million from Bank of America"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024802019

CFPB Sues ITT Tech For Allegedly Exploiting Students, Pushing Predatory Loans
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024570346

Sen. Warren Praises New CFPB Mortgage Rules that Make Families, Economy Safer
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024295777

Banks Ordered to Add Capital to Limit Risks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024798328

New York Financial Regulator Uses Dodd-Frank to Sue Auto Lender
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/new-yorks-top-regulator-sues-subprime-auto-lender/

SEC Will Require Companies To Report CEO-To-Worker Pay Ratios
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023694931

Why isn't there more focus on shareholders' say on executive pay?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024877216

Executive order on federal contracting means real action on economic mobility
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024415803

CFPB, hard at work
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024877283

Regulators Finalize Stricter Volcker Rule - Reuters/HuffPo
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024158305

Senator Warren is very critical of how regulators have handled their jobs, and she is determined to hold them accountable and push for strong rules.

Brown, Warren Urge Fed To Address Risks Associated With Bank Ownership Of Physical Commodities
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024831309

That's the right approach, IMO.

That's what you just wrote. What a surreal statement.

Then why are we being threatened? And on what planet do you conclude that the party needn't give us reasons to vote?

Do you consider anyone who lands here to be an automatic, or 'owned' vote?...because it sure sounds like that is what you are saying. That's a pretty damned arrogant stance for a party to take, don't you think?

I thought this board was about attracting new voters and generating excitement for the party. I wonder how someone searching for a party, who arrives at DU through a search engine looking for what Democrats have to offer, would feel about your comment here.

This is exactly the surreal I was talking about...

"Then why are we being threatened?"

...you should stop playing the victim. Who has "threatened" you?

"And on what planet do you conclude that the party needn't give us reasons to vote?"

What "party"? Find a candidate that you like and vote. Recruit one, write one in. Are you advocating not voting?

Speaking of "surreal":

"Do you consider anyone who lands here to be an automatic, or 'owned' vote?...because it sure sounds like that is what you are saying. That's a pretty damned arrogant stance for a party to take, don't you think?"

It's your damn vote, do whatever you want with it. You own it. You know the choices: vote or stay home.

You get to decide.

Other people will exercise their right to take action and vote based on their own conclusions. Others will help to sway them.

Protestors take over Missouri Senate, Demand Medicaid Expansion
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024915729

and contemptuous.

It reproduces itself in great fractal clouds of absurdity...and we stand in awe of its majestic lack of substance. We could put all of this to rest right now by simply debating the planks of our shared platform instead of running commentary on a never ending test match of dueling outrages. Seriously, what would a unifying platform look like on this website? What does this underground have to offer by way of a vision? The surreal performance art points to this existential question by defining its absence. Bravo!

And how this actually suppresses the vote.

I have been accused of suppressing the vote by actually being critical of that messaging.

Like a distorted carnival mirror version of what elections were supposed to be about in America's representative system.

The representative system is a thing of the past. Looks like.

It is through specific policies that we are represented. I believe the word politician is from the same root word as policy. If a politician does not represent us through policies that are beneficial to us, what possible purpose do they serve? And why would we vote for them otherwise?

elections have become on how evil the other side is. And also if you vote (f0r the right people) all will be fine.

Both messages actually suppress the vote. But pointing this out means you are suppressing the vote.

As you said, bizarre. And this site is a place where we should be discussing message and how to refine it, and how to talk policy.

Today I covered the wildfire awareness week event here in San Diego. And I asked about expanding an agreement between Mexico and the US for mutual aid and unified fire command, from Arizona\Sonora border region, to the whole border region. I asked an actual policy question. I also referred to a beyond obscure treaty signed in January of this year, and I leaned about it by reading Excelsior in Mexico City. The Secretary of the Interior looked beyond surprised. I get it, nobody asks those questions in the United States anymore. Let alone local press, or local independent small press.

This also leads to why elections are a simulacrum of what they should be.

If you don't have a good candidate in the primary, that's your indication that you need to either run for office, or work on recruiting a good candidate to run in the primary.

Even if they lose the primary election, they can turn the party. That's how the insane wing of the Republican party took over - they lost a lot of primaries, but the threat caused the "mainstream" to fear them and turn in their direction.

and MSNBC had a category called "Best Zingers" to help determine who "won" the debate.
I KNEW it was all over, and that Americans who Work for a Living no longer had a chance.


To be honest, we haven't really had a "Presidential Debate" since the League of Women Voters refused to host them any longer in 1987:

How many here are old enough to remember REAL Presidential debates....about POLICY and all that other BORING stuff?
The LWMV did NOT have a "Best Zingers" category to determine who "won".



You will know them by their WORKS.

That makes my gut hurt. They have been deliberately transformed into pageants, not civic events.

+10000000 The League of Women voters statement was a devastating indictment of the travesty that has been made of our election system and the debates. I remember after Perot's run that both corporate parties tightened control over the debate access and formats, because they didn't want to allow a challenge like that again.

Another big moment for me came during the last election, when Obama's campaign was asked directly what Obama's plans for Social Security would be, and David Axelrod REFUSED TO ANSWER:

Obama campaign refuses to disclose plans on Social Security
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101643786
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021483594
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/debating_social_security_if_not_now_when_20121004

And for the rest of the campaign we were lectured to be quiet, not to ask what the policies were or how they would represent us.

Like I said, surreal.

his position on Social Security is similar to Romney's.

Glad to hear that, Mr. President.

After all, who's going to get excited about voting FOR govt secrecy, illegal spying on US citizens, drone attacks, killing of US citizens by govt without a trial, off-shoring jobs, theft and fraud by Wall St being covered up, etc, etc, etc? Those who dont willingly support the Corporatist State, must be coerced by force. If that fails, send in the militarized police... like OWS.

Houston, we have a problem.

Fear sells...fear works.
And with fear to drive people you don't need policies or actions.

It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise.

Niccolo Machiavelli

"Winning" can be a matter of simply smearing, demonizing, paying off, or otherwise eliminating the other guy to become the last man standing. You don't necessarily have to advocate anything, as Republicans have been demonstrating for years.

That was a nice little peek behind the curtain of the dog and pony show. Great post, Woo, and oh so true.

I am so sick and tired of the condescension and the marketing.

That's what corporatists - like corporations - do...market and manipulate. That, instead of trying to represent.

This is why we have an insulting, dishonest propaganda machine talking AT us now and trying to manipulate our responses, instead of politicians listening to us and trying to represent our interests.


*Had to go to youtube to see it...It won't play here.

Well said woo.

You can choose to deal with things as they are or stick your head in the sand.