Because President Obama gave us someone and something to vote for. 2010, the President was not on the ballot so some said home. 2014 with the Senate up for grab. Hopefully we will see voters out in droves.

Good candidates, good propositions, easy access to voting. It is not rocket science.

Also, in 2008 a lot people were indeed voting for change, IOW, against Bush, even though he was not running, and Obama tried to embody change.

Lots of factors affect every election.

Republicans have record obstruction? The solution isn't sitting out, it's voting against Republicans.

Republicans got elected to obstruct because the voters weren't given a clear cut choice.
When the choice is R or R-lite a lot of people say why bother.

I've voted in every election since I turned 21( the same year the age was lowered to 18).
And there has been more than one election where I had to hold my nose and carry a barf bag because of the "alleged" D running.

there was nobody there to even TRY. Why? Because they're afraid of what the Republicans might do which means that they put more importance on the desires of the right wing than they do their constituency. If you have any questions a mere gander at the vast majority of laws that have been enacted in the last 30 years will tell you all you need to know. If I were to list all the pieces of legislation and policies, you'll find that 98% have been FOR the .001% and only a handful have been for the middle class and working class.

People don't have to be policy wonks to know that they've been royally screwed for the last 30 years and that virtually NO ONE is stepping up to represent them. Come election time, to often voters have the "choice" between Corporate Shill A (D) and Corporate Shill B (R), knowing that neither party represents them. What is amazing is that so many people on this board blame the VOTERS for being apathetic. Apathy is the result, not the cause.

Given that, is it any wonder people feel politicians aren't representing their interests? Hell, they're not even acknowledging they exist.

"But, but Republicans........!"

those are objectives the democratic party has been working for, while the republicans have been working to stop them.

it's lazy and naive for liberals to think those things are going to fall in their lap if they don't vote.

so they say, well, the democrats aren't getting it done, and they blame their reps and everything else they can while they let 1000 well coordinated radio stations scream all day for 25 years:

YOUR SISTER'S A WHORE, YOUR BROTHER'S A LAZY THIEF, AND YOUR IDEAS ARE TREASONOUS!!!

non voters suck

I think we need some fundamental changes in the system, from campaign finance to elimination of super majority rules in the Senate (yes, I get the risk), but they require constitutional amendments.

should receive unrelenting criticism from Democratic Voters.

If they betray our interests but hardly hear a peep, just because they're Democrats, we shouldn't expect to see an improvement.

Democratic voters should be united on this TPP thing and the net neutrality issue. Our candidates and office holders should have a ringing in their ears.

Lip service by office holders will not get it. If this net neutrality thing goes the wrong way it is up to Democrats to voice their disapproval to the President for making BAD appointments, appointments against the interests of the American consumer and party loyalists.

any and all of them.

+1000

If its all up to the candidate, why do we even talk about GOTV efforts?

You've highlighted the fallacy. It sounds fine for a second, then when you think about it, it's totally illogical. Lends itself to the idea we are looking for leaders to make us do things out of emotion rather than participate in the process of self-government. They are making the voters into helpless victims who can't take any responsibility - someone has to be charismatic enough to make them do their basic civic duty.

the walkers & the talkers too you know. You need the grannies who pay attention and say...son - grandson (daughter) go vote for this guy.

The voter is like the interviewer. The politician/candidate is ...well like the job seeker, get it? Go sell yourself & your ideals...how are you going to help me, not you! The job is to represent the people and in order to get someone to vote for you, the politician has to do the WORK (I know..old concept) to convince voters they will at least try.

Yet oddly, it doesn't sound like it.

1 month before the elections. And the focus is on finding new and better candidates?

Seems a little late for that.

seems to have escaped you. You'd rather it was "We the inspiring leaders and our sheep" since presumably a leader you admire can get others to follow.

No thanks. We have a government of the people, etc. and we'll keep it. Not looking for anyone so "inspiring" they can overrun the powers of the office they get elected to.

They are there to represent a large group of people, known as a constituency. They can't meet the needs of individuals specifically nor should they.

Media works to "mainstream" extremist Rs, and hides what Dem candidate stands for.

GOTV door knocking cuts thru that media bullshit and helps voters understand what is really at stake

want to participate

the 'left' cannot say it is getting its candidates' backs as long as it allows 1200 radio stations to take free pot shots at them all day

they've got carnival barkers on every corner and stump in the country screaming bullshit about liberals and their issues and candidates and the left sticks their buds in their ears and bop on by.

waiting for good candidates and progress in that environment is naive/unfair

you never think Battered Voter Syndrome can happen in your own party--until it does
(and it's not like "blame the voters" is a *winning* party's strategy)

And, if I did the party wouldn't support them anyway, or even worse, if they were progressive, they would actively undermine them.

I've already voted. Just another lesser of two evils vote. Even a recycled Republican, like "Chain Gang Charlie" Crist is better than the evil that is Rick Scott. But, not enough to inspire droves of people to turn out.

The Democrats don't even have a candidate running? I can't believe that would happen for the federal Congress.

I do have that in the case of my state legislative district, so I'll vote Green, since they happen to have put someone on the ballot. In previous years, I did a write-in.

In 2012 there was no Democrat who filed to run against John Boehner so he won his election unopposed, Joe Wilson was also unopposed. Those are two of the worst members of Congress yet we did not even have a candidate to run against them.

http://www.dfmpolitics.com/2012/09/ten-members-of-congress-who-are-unopposed/

Though I hope their are urban districts where the opposite occurs.

I can't seem to find an opposing candidate.

There is a Democrat running: Charlie Crist. He's a former Republican moderate who became a Dem after working with John Morgan, our state's biggest Dem donator.

Some people are opposed to Crist because he was a Republican, but as said before, he was moderate. He blocked a lot of extreme legislation in FL.

though he was not a Democrat at the time, because he could beat the Republican - so now he's become a Democrat, though moderate, which is a big sin around DU. But better than Republicans. We may like to have someone to vote FOR, but in some circumstances, we have no choice to to vote AGAINST. Against Republicans, where they would otherwise win. IMO it's a pipe dream that people who would vote Republican or moderate would change their minds and vote for a Democrat if the Dem was only more liberal.

Unfortunately, as a member of my DEC, I was obligated to support asshole Jim Davis in the race.

The alpha and the omega.

as we can.

I don't have any.

I only have local candidate with only one or two viable Dems/Ind candidates with any sort of chance. I will be voting early, like I do every election.

I will at least be voting to narrow the gap and to write in "none of the above" in unchallenged GOP races. We had a primary race here where we ended up with a LaRouchie Democrat to run against Williams. That one will be a "none of the above."

Not voting isn't a smart option. Thats what the Teapublicans want more than ever and yu need to send a message and "none of the above" is a way to do it.

In fact, neither does a write-in, unless they have previously filed to run as write-in at qualifying in APRIL. Otherwise the ballot is tossed.

I guess Mickey Mouse won too many elections down here. The shame is. he was probably the best candidate.

I had no problem voting a straight Dem ticket. There were Dem candidates in EVERY category. All of which ran on platforms that I, as a Democrat, agreed with.

All Dems.

Sid

Are you seriously suggesting that there's nothing that your Democratic candidate stands for, that you wouldn't also support?

Sid

and focus on the issue which is why there's so much voter apathy and what to do about it.

the feeling that a vote doesn't count is directly related to the lack of progress.

the left has been getting its ass kicked for 25 years because they let a bunch of think tank scripted radio carnival barkers scream over them and turn the voice of the 1% + the 10% of racists and psychos into what looks like 50%.

the 1% and their 1200 radio stations are short circuiting the feedback mechanisms a democracy needs to function.

that factor has been completely ignored by the left. considering the time lost on global warming it's the biggest mistake in political history.

any answer to your question that doesn't include that factor is not going anywhere- anything we try just gets yelled over (see OWS). you'll just have to wait for things to get so bad we're all camping in the street. then the loudest voices will still be coming from those same radio stations.

the left won't get any major reforms until they get serious about the fucking radio.

point of the OP. Some people think that voting is all there is to keeping democracy. You must have candidates and fair vote counting.

In some countries they would just run H. Clinton with no opposition. We are so much better here that our oligarchs will run a clown against H. Clinton so some will feel they are participating in democracy.

I've spoken to some people that don't vote. Basically they respond that they don't think their participation in the process has any influence on the government. Funny how a Princeton study recently confirmed just that.

...I ask them if they represent their view (and, duh, of course they do). I suggest they go to the polls and vote for themselves as a write-in candidate. You'll lose, but your vote is there to be counted. If you sit home, nobody in politics will care, you just make their job easier. But imagine a race where the vote is 25% for one guy, 24% for a second guy, and 51% "other". THAT would get attention.

I've never met the handful of people I've told that to again (or if I have, didn't remember them), so I have no idea of what they actually did. But when I left them I had them thinking.

"None of the above" can't fill the office that's up for election. Somebody has to be elected. One of the points of the "vote for yourself, if you just can't vote for anyone else" argument. No write-ins for Donald Duck, it has to be for a real person who can hold the office. Engage in the process every election, not just the "big ticket" ones. Passivity is not protest.

Besides, there are usually more races involved than the ones being protested. You're mad at congress so you're not going to vote for your county board?

But again, this is the argument of last resort, for those who you just can't get to budge.

Even at the local level.

Nevada Democrats Chose 'None of These Candidates' in Primary

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/nevada-democrats-chose-none-these-candidates-primary-n128166

politics is about coalitions and working together, not about "me."

But the usual finger-pointing fools still won't get it. Their "shut up and eat your gruel" attitude is ALL they have. And because of that, the Democrats will likely take a heavy beatdown. They never learn.

It's now too late for the one thing that could have changed that dynamic, an actual concerted effort to fight for Democratic policies and principles, instead we got warmed over Republican Lite shit and capitulation.

eom

But, most of the time, one is choosing the lesser of two evils.

I'm not very excited at Hagan, and my vote is against Tillis. She really hasn't done anything in her first term to be very excited about aside from supporting the ACA- but she is mostly hiding from that vote here.

All her ads are not about what she has done or will do- they are about what Tillis has done or will do.

She isn't running a campaign that gives anyone something to vote FOR- just doing her best to stir up votes against Tillis. Heck, she runs ads about school funding so much it's almost like she is running for School Board, not Senate. But none of the ads ever have an idea from her saying "I will do this to fix it."

The republican governor Corbett has been such a disaster for this state in so many ways, yes there are people who will come vote just to get rid of his sorry ass.

It does help that we have a credible Dem candidate running against him, who is capable of putting up a serious campaign with good ads. But I'll wager that most voters do not have a detailed understanding of his positions and don't even really care - the important thing is he's not Corbett, and he seems reasonable. Now, if our candidate were like "the rent is too damn high" guy or maybe even a Kucinich, THEN it might not work. People who are not wonks want someone safe, even if they're mostly voting against the other guy. But no, they don't necessarily stay home because there's no one on the ballot that "speaks to them" on issues they care the most about.

Decisions are made by the people that show up. That should be incentive enough.

having "something/someone to vote FOR." Treads dangerously close to I only vote when a perfect, ideal candidate for me is running...

I really don't get their logic. (This guy didn't do what we want, so we're going to show him! We'll vote for the guys that will hurt us!!)

Is voting a big logistical thing for folks in that area? Polling places far apart, really long lines, trouble voting and making it to work on time at a job where someone could get fired? I know that happens in some places and for some people's job situation. But if it isn't a big deal, then not bothering to vote is rather selfish and lazy. Yeah, you're wasting your breath to berate someone for it, but maybe emphasizing the positives of voting would help overcome the tendency toward laziness.

represents them. Polling places aren't an issue, lines aren't an issue and language is not an issue because you can get voter pamphlets and/or ballots in virtually every language. The problem stems from promises that have been made for decades now, and never realized AND the fact the Obama (D) has stepped up deportations that are hitting people in their own families. This is an issue that hits as close to home as it gets. To make matters 10 times worse, he delayed immigration reform because he was afraid he'd piss off too many bigots in red states. He listens to the bigots and not the people who's families are being deported. They're not voting for R's, they're not voting at all because they've no one to vote FOR. If Obama had, just once, gone to the mat for THE PEOPLE, we wouldn't be in this predicament, but he didn't and here we are.

Democratic incumbents keeping their seats in deeply red states. He and his political advisers concluded that keeping the Senate was important enough that taking a risk on delaying executive action on immigration reform was a risk well worth taking. Maybe they made the wrong political calculation, and especially if we lose the Senate anyway there will be a lot of second guessing of that political decision. But those are the games that are played in Washington.

that would stand up and challenge the status quo, which benefits the 1%, voter apathy would disappear. We have a very few Senators, Warren and Sanders come to mind, who are firebrands. They stand up for what they believe in. These individuals are wildly popular (especially Warren). These people have ratings for which most politicians would sacrifice a body part. Now, imagine a whole nation of candidates that held that kind of inspiration. Any losses in the southern states would be balanced out by gains in the rest of the country and we wouldn't have to worry about appeasing some bigoted redneck in the south in order to "win." The only people who "win" in elections like that are the 1% and most of us aren't part of that party.

These OPs at this time are disgusting. They are really trying to discourage us.

Should we (the wonks) be working to get out the vote even if the candidate is not perfect, or should we do nothing but complain, especially to the folks who aren't wonks.

Which message should we amplify as an election approaches?

My sense is the left on DU would prefer to amplify a message of ... "The Democrats SUCK" ... as we approach the election.

Think that will help, or hurt?

they're smart enough to have figured out that NEITHER political party represents their interests. They're staring down the barrel of deportation -- in record numbers under Obama. You'll have to pardon Latinos if they can't seem to locate their blue pompoms.

And clearly the left on DU feels the need to tell them that "the Dems suck" ... its all they talk about.

is none of my business. And making all/nothing statements challenges your credibility. The Left isn't of one mind/opinion and they post on a myriad of issues, one of which might be that the Third Way Democrats aren't representing We the People as they should be.

Let's make this concrete.

I live in NC. Should I (a) be encouraging fellow Democrats to get out and vote for Jay Hagen (evil Third Way Dem), or (b) telling them it really doesn't matter if she loses and Tom Tillis (R-crazyland) wins that NC Senate seat?

Well?

when I said what you do is none of my business. The ISSUE is how to motivate voters to vote. I suggested that getting better candidates is the key. The Party Faithful continues with the same old, tired pitch: "Vote for me because I'm not as bad as the Republican." At some point I would hope that you would learn that that doesn't work anymore. It's getting to critical mass here and more and more people are rejecting that non-choice. Maybe it's time to just simply offer up better candidates.

Kay is THE candidate that will run next month.

Do I support her and strongly encourage others to do the same, or do I complain that she's not liberal enough?

Which of those paths would you suggest?

Your OP already answers the question that you now run from when asked directly.

I'm not sure I understand why you think I would.

They've had YEARS to get better candidates yet all they offer up is the same old milquetoast corporate cronies and then call people "idiots" and "morons" when people don't vote for them or worse, stay home.

What are those?

Well, if you're Third Way, clean coal, the TPP treaty (being negotiated in secret), record numbers of deportations, the XL Pipeline, fracking, banksters going free and a record number of pot dispensaries busted, just to name a few, are your values.

If you're an FDR Democrat you believe in saving the environment, you don't support trickle down theories, you hold the 1% accountable for wrongdoing, you support cannabis legalization, you care about undocumented workers, who live here and pay taxes, being able to live without the threat of deportation, you care about clean water, you care about what chemicals are sprayed on their broccoli, etc., then those are your values.

Which type of Democrat do you think inspires the rank and file more, the ones who don't care about the needs/wants of the 99% or the ones who do?

At least Obama attempted to shut down Gitmo.

He also, in the face of an economic depression didn't spend billions on bailing out the banks but started the "alphabet soup." Yes, the USSC threw most of it out but it did put people back to work for a time and it gave them hope. It improved their roads and put indoor plumbing and electricity in their houses. Those programs benefited the people AND the corporations (via government contracts).

Interesting that you focus on the one thing you could use to bash FDR with and ignored everything else he accomplished and didn't focus on the sub-topic to which you responded which was, "Which Democrats?"

drain and gave us Social Security.

Yes, Obama tried to close Gitmo, or so it seemed to onlookers, but he sure has his faults, too. For example, he continued extraordinary rendition and outdid Bush 6 times over on drone killings. No President is perfect, but Democrats throwing FDR under the bus in an attempt to make Obama look better is not useful.

I'm showing that FDR did his fair share of fucked up things. I think Obama has been a pretty damned good president. Washing over FDR's faults to make Obama look bad is not useful, either.

And he is a Democrat. In its desperation, though, DU throws him under the bus quite often.

And which way of thinking will you take as a lesson to learn going forward?

If you really an truly end up blaming the ELECTORATE, and then blame the ELECTORATE again after the next loss... yeeesh. Forget getting any liberal policies of any significance ever passed in this country.

consequences of the GOP winning and taking over the government.

I think those priorities are wrong.

There is no proof of this.

If they are that stupid, why do we care?

They don't even know who their congressperson is and we are supposed to care what they want?

BS, they didn't even try. They have to be entertained? They can watch American Idol.

Their needs being met is irrelevant. If they are not part of the process, and don't participate in government, they will be governed by others. Nothing stopped their getting the chance to participate.

We don't have to beg and cater to these people. They leave themselves out of the system voluntarily. If they are not going to vote, we can afford to ignore them. And you can bet the party does do its best to appeal to likely voters.

You start your post by saying, "There is no proof of this," then vomit up some pretty wild claims of your own. They're stupid, they have to be entertained, they don't know who their Congressperson is, "their needs being met is irrelevant" . . . you've just proven my point.

Come on down and scream that shit in their faces and see how many people flock to the polls.

Goddess, that was an ignorance screed! I need a shower after reading that.

people who don't want to vote for us because neither party is good enough to get to the polls?

You are being very unrealistic and making the usual argument that the people are stupid sheep who can't get themselves to vote unless they are entertained and "inspired." How is that different from saying if they are stupid enough to absent themselves from the process, we don't have to cater to their votes?

And you are assuming these people support liberal policies, which is pretty dumb too. Have you ever met people who don't vote? They are never leftists. They could be inspired by a right winger faster than any left wingers.

What you are really doing is crying that the Dems are not liberal enough and trying to get us to give up on GOTV and stay home because the candidates are not as far to the left as you would like. The candidates reflect likely voters, and they are trying to win.

Really, it is getting quite tiresome. If you can't vote without "inspiration" or do you basic duty in self government without a lot of "inspiration" then stay out of the process. If you wish to discourage others, don't do it on DU as you are wasting your time.

I never claimed people had to be "entertained." I did claim they need to be inspired. You guys can jump up and down and spittle all over your keyboards all you want but that is a fact. If people are not given a reason to vote, they are less likely to vote.

And may I just say, you seem to be full of hatred. How inspiring do you think that is?

by someone who comes here complaining about OP like this are only intended to discourage voting. Seems a tad ironic to me.

n/t

with that condescending, soulless, ivory tower attitude.

Damn, just damn. Do the party leaders really think this way? Anyone besides TREESTAR care to answer?

promises". We should be voting for the best candidate, not voting gives an opening for the candidate who you do not want in office. I do not agree with every candidate, some I agree with less, just as I disagree with the title of this post
"People vote when they have something/someone to vote FOR." It does not make the poster bad or wrong, I just agree.

If the poster is saying "something" and forget about other issues the candidates stand for then voting against an issue you may not agree, then perhaps the post is correct.

Which candidate do you know who has kept their promises?

If your argument is untenable, change the premise of the argument. No one asked for the perfection, that's your morph. The thread is about why there is voter apathy (even the die-hard Party Faithfuls can't deny there is voter apathy) and I posited what I think the problem is and what I think the solution is: Offer up better candidates.

The side road "perfection" argument is a diversion tactic because you guys don't have an answer other than more berating (see upthread for a BEAUT).

including Ted Kennedy to back her Consumer Protection Agency. That was her baby. But that's not the point. The point is voter apathy and what to do about it. I posited that we need better candidates who will inspire people to get out the vote. Elizabeth Warren, after just 2 years in the Senate has proposed more legislation than many Senators who have been there 10 times longer. That shows that she's willing to fight for the people and that has made her one of the most popular politicians in the nation. Why do you think the Democrats are trotting her out around the nation? Why do you think her name is in the subject line of every e-mail from the Democrats who come begging for money. Because inspiration doesn't matter? Of course it matters! It's the whole ballgame. But you're not going to inspire people by offering up candidates who have nothing more to offer other than, "I'm not a Republican." You're going to inspire people by what the candidate says and DOES.

email from Democrats and money is donated. BTW, it is not only her name in the emails. It may be in the emails you receive but trust me, there are many more. I know it takes lots of contact to get other members of Congress to vote for a bill offered before it is passed. Working hard to promote ones position on an issue is good, I see Ted Cruz proposing legislation and he inspires some to get out to vote but I also hope for failure of everything he proposes. Oh, BTW, his name is in lots of emails asking for money also, in fact he had lots of emails during his "shutdown" of the government, my point is there are lots of candidates who inspire some of the population in the US but we need to be engaged and stop this silly "I will not vote for????" promotions. It is not good for this nation and ergo will not be good for the majority of the US citizens in which we know Democrats are.

I even put it in all caps just so no one would miss that part. I was merely relaying what was happening around me and why.

fact that limbaugh and 400 other blowhards were trashing them and lying about them from 1200 radio stations- enabling and forcing that lock step obstruction. same with any real liberal choices for the supreme court.

same with all other candidates liberals really like. we let them steal elections and drop wellstone and we didn't get in the streets.

it's gotten way past the point where 'principled' leftists can say they just can't vote for the lesser of two evils.

maybe if they're living in a cave eating roots and berries.

to our opinions, realizing that we can't win an election alone and always have to work with other voters when it comes to self/representative government. It's not a matter of making some candidate "earn" my vote by believing all I believe in - if that were the case, I could never find a candidate perfect enough to vote for.

And assuming those who don't vote are big liberals is ridiculous. If they are staying home because the candidates are not liberal enough, shame on them. They expect the government to cater to them over other voters.

I don't believe candidates should make promises. They should tell us how they would vote. Too many candidates fall for the idea they are to do things for the voters other than represent them in a legislature or execute the laws the legislature made or makes. And they can change their position if they think their constituency is moving another way during their term of office.

No one needs someone to vote FOR. They need to vote for the candidate who best agrees with their overall general aspirations, and should not sit home because none of the candidates are "good enough" for them. That's just copping out. Be a part of things and you can say something. Decide to sit home and sulk (this is what they are implying) means you simply don't care who represents you and it can be Republicans for all you care. That's not so sympathetic as OP tries to make it. Like the poor things, it's our fault we can't come up with an inspiring enough candidate. That's not how adults should be treated.

you may agree with an opponent less, is a vote for those you do not agree with on many issues. Thanks for your post.

the incumbent R who is certifiably batshit crazy and the D, who I know personally and is certifiably batshit crazy. I wish I were kidding.

There was an attractive yound Hispanic D who gdidn't get past the primary, unfortunately.

Devin Nunes. There's a Democrat running against him but she's done no campaigning. The district's pretty Republican but at least the Democrats have someone on the ballot this time. That's not always the case.

I'm in the 34th, and we are working to elect Shari Song in the 30th against that asshole turncoat Miloscia.

... the posting rules.

Therefore... I will consider my options in the privacy of the voting booth.


But you point to a fascinating dynamic: Cuomo has out-raised the GOP candidate by 23 times. That's 2300%, I believe.

I'm pretty sure in excess of 95% of that is traditionally "republican" money. i.e. corporate.

So , really: which one is the "Republican"?

2300% over a Westchester shill. That's some impressive grassrots financing!
I have to say that I find the "eat soup" ad mildly entertaining, but have to disagree with Mahone's endorsements about the Upstate economy changing. This place resembles a third world country more than a thriving and economically developing one. My new phrase to describe the region is "NewPennsatuckyork"
I'm seriously regretting the move back

and whatever else the ones owned by Wall Street call themselves are offering stability in the form of business as usual.

They don't seem to realize or care that business as usual is killing this country.

I will continue to vote Democratic because that's who I want in office when Scalia drops dead and Thomas quickly retires. However, don't expect much enthusiasm.

but do not SUPPORT any of them!

yet I've supported, donated to, volunteered for and voted for more Democrats than you can imagine. It's interesting that so many posters want to make this about me yet can't seem to address the issue. Just another diversionary tactic: If you don't like the message and can't counter with a reasoned, cogent argument, then go after the messenger.

I agree with Paul Krugman about the Far Left Fringe...

WAAAAY to fast to criticize....not nearly enough support....this web forum proves that!

pass laws that much of the county thinks of as 'far left fringe'. In 2010, when much of the country had poor results, we set a midterm turnout record. Why? Good candidates, issues on the ballot which people cared about and very easy access to voting.
The OP's point is proved by looking at the States where Democrats do well, where turnout is not depressed. If people have reason to vote and good access to voting, they vote.
I suggest that more States should consider making it easier to vote. I suggest that candidates and issues which draw voters are superior to those which do not draw voters.
Rather than casting blame they could turn to more successful Democratic regions to discover how they do it. I think that would serve them and the Party much better than repeating the same characterizations of liberals every two years.

I have lived all over....People in America are not suddenly going to BECOME Vermonters.......no matter IF you throw Bernie Sanders at them or not....THAT is the reality on the ground. People generally fear change.....they WILL change but they change slowly gradually over time. That is why they will say one thing in a poll on issues......but vote against those very issues in the voting booth....

But Vermonters are Americans just as you and I are.
Isn't it a bit up the Sarah Palin alley to claim the 'real America' is a more conservative America?

Are you denying the truth that Americans, for the most part do not go into the voting booths and vote against the very issues they claim to support?

Is that some big lie? I'd say history has borne that out!

And right on. "Convince a man against his will, he'll be of the same opinion still"

K&R

you can't be helped.

Why punish a local congressional candidate because of Obama's failure to act on immigration reform?

Seems to me that having more Democrats in congress might help provide the president with the testicular fortitude to do the right thing.

If the local candidates are meh, that's one thing, but still, why pass up a chance to get a republican out of there?

My congress critter is a particularly vile republican and the way this district is constituted our only hope is to get a less vile republican to beat him in his primary. A Democrat will never get elected here. But I still go out and vote because there are local candidates and ballot measures that are important to me.

I guess what you are saying is that Hispanic voters don't see the difference between the parties the same way I do.