I hate these ambiguous posts, William. Please try to be clearer about what you think and feel.

Please don't eat your face!

K&R and thank you!

I hope that made you laugh.

I agree with you.

Democrats need to get to the polls and vote. Put all the cynicism and naysaying and grumbling and complaining aside when it's voting time. Vote!

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." –Mark Twain

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016108097

also,

I recommend tabasco sauce for the eyeballs, helps them go down-

Definitely Rude-worthy!

Benghazi...?

Babies...?

...?

Preaching to the choir and insulting the disaffected. Is the solution to continue to vote for the mundane and be satisfied? There are lessons aplenty in failure.

than they do anything else.

I once lost my temper with some clients and their response was that they respected me. They then listened to what I told them. Some people are that hard headed. I imagine the type who doesn't vote might fall into that category.

I immediately turn AWAY from any posts that do such.

Our society has been so degraded, and continues to be so, by what is now considered to be every day discourse, that I have little hope for the future.

Could be! And also there is that element of DU that complains President Obama doesn't use that strategy - too mild mannered! No fight!

In a democracy, you can't have it all your own way; the way to avoid the greater evil is to vote for the lesser evil, and lump it.

If consumers are not purchasing your product the fault must lie - and it does lie - with the product and the presentation of the product. Whether that product is a democratic candidate or the act of voting itself, I will not fault the consumer except to learn how to better market to them.

Change the product or change the marketing or change both, but I find blaming the customer to be a wasteful exercise.

blaming the customer is not only justified, but required.

This isn't a goddam magic trick we're involved in. You bake your own bread, and if you don't, spare me the gripes about being hungry.

You are talking about corporations and wealthy self-interests, right? You can't be referring to the majority of working and poverty class families who can barely pay bills and can barely keep up with their kids' homework, because that seems silly to me. Voting and voter turnout is, in my mind, absolutely working the way that those who have the time and resources to participate in the lead-up intend it to.

Free will still exists. Raising your hand every two years is not a labor-intensive exercise. Doing so will fix this shit. Fact, period, end of file, and all arguments to the contrary strike me as complaining for the sake of complaint. Spare me.

I don't care though; I am not very sensitive. I just thought you might like to know in case you ever intend on mass communication.

No matter your opinion, the matter is clearly that most people do not feel engaged or motivated by the current political atmosphere. You can complain about it and do nothing or you can engage in changing that atmosphere. I choose the latter. As a marketer, I see this through a marketing lens and so my solutions come from that perspective. Your "solution" - scolding and sort of whining, really - is your prerogative, obviously, but it seems old hat and ineffective to me. Good luck to you in any case. I would like to see increased turnout and better candidates.

Your posts here are absolutely perplexing to me as a fellow communicator, but, obviously, to each their own.

It's your basic right as a citizen. In some countries people don't have that.

The Republicans haven't motivated them either. God forbid they should.

And I think you are wrong about the republicans. Not only do I think they do market and motivate, I think their base is more open to the act of marketing and sales than democrats are in general. Some liberals' distaste for, and misunderstanding of, marketing and sales hobbles their ability to send and receive messages as well as coordinate in force.

Freedom to be excluded is all it is.

I suppose you will have to define "freedom" for me, because the freedom to decline - the freedom to say 'non serviam' - is the most fundamental component of my own definition of freedom.

You are not free of them and are subject to the laws their elected officials make. You aren't free from the society around you by not participating. You find you can't do something you wanted to do because they made a law against it.

Because that seems to be the bush you are beating about. I am stating my position clearly: People (obviously) are free to not vote. That is a free choice. The consequences of that non-action are a separate matter, which is why I personally encourage voting.

If you want to be free from voting because you think it's so awful, there are plenty of countries to live in. But while you live in this one, you will be ruled by those who do vote, so you're not free of them either. It's starting to sound really dumb and you are at a point where you should abandon this line of argument. I have the freedom to turn down a million dollars, too. It's in that line. Just dumb. As a "freedom" it has no positive value to a person.

Maybe they thought the situation in Congress wasn't worth changing, or that somehow it wouldn't get worse than it already is if the Republicans took back control of the Senate.
But, the people that I have talked to over the last month who didn't vote had 3 different reasons for not voting, and the most common reason they gave me for not voting was that nothing was going to change in Washington even if they did vote.

<---- Gridlock

Idaho had the lowest turnout in history this election year!
Only 29% of the registered voters even bothered to vote.

if there was a Democratic majority, something could happen. It might not be enough, but it would be better than gridlock.

If they didn't like the government shut down, same thing. Gridlock is natural to our system because it allows different parties to hold different branches. Nothing gets done unless Democrats have both of them. If Republicans get both, what they get done is not desirable.

And a line of people behind me and in front of me. I'm not a corporation.

The way to get around that would be voting. If the corporations and wealthy self interests knew everyone voted, like 95% turnout, they wouldn't be able to have as much say. The congressperson would know they are the choice of the majority of voters. The 99% each has one vote. That's the beauty of it. The rich man only has one vote too. The apathy is what lets them lobby and wine and dine, etc. They know it won't be noticed.

Self government is a right. It's a wonderful thing. It's not a product, which is something you can do without if you don't want it and have to be convinced to buy. There is no analogy here. If that's what you think the politicians should be doing, you're saying they should be corrupt. Or promise you goodies you know they can't deliver, as they are part of deliberative bodies and have competing branches of government. They can't "serve" you as with particular things. They have to serve you by representing you in the office they get elected to, and that office's powers are defined.

These products also require periodic re-assessing and refining. You don't need to spend any more of your time trying to convince me otherwise, though I am willing to be persuaded if you feel you have something pertinent. Voting and democracy and the republic are all of the things you say, but, to me, they are also products that require context and motivation to participate in - that is marketing. The idea that people will vote merely because they can is, no matter anyone's feelings on the matter, clearly not true.

OMG! You don't have to have voting marketed to you. It's something you get to do without having to pay. As a member of society. You don't have to have money to do it. You get to be part of it. If you aren't, other people will run your government.

People clearly don't vote merely because they are able to. Whether I wish that were not true seems irrelevant to me. I accept it and, to me, the solution is marketing. I may change my mind in the future. And voting is clearly as much a product as the candidates and parties are.

prod·uct
ˈprädəkt/
noun
noun: product; plural noun: products

1.
an article or substance that is manufactured or refined for sale.
"marketing products and services"

To me, motivating a person is selling them on an idea. I don't demand agreement with my perspective, but I have yet to see compelling refutations.

To me, self-interest is, obviously, not enough.

but I guess the majority of the people (you know, the ones that don't vote) are just assy faced fuckey fuckity fucking fuckers who are also cotton headed ninnymugginses.

No reason to demand motivation. If you don't do it, you are left out. You shoot yourself in the foot. It doesn't send a message to anybody. Or it sends the message they can do what they will without worrying about what you think.

It sounds like you're more concerned with "what should be" than "what is."

I don't think anyone would disagree with you that:

1) there's no drawback to voting
2) there's no logical reason someone should need motivating

If both of those things are true, then why did we just get our asses kicked? Because at least one of the following must also be true:

1) People don't like our message. We assume our ideas are way more popular than they are
2) People don't know our message

It blows my mind on that so many on DU think the solution to lost elections is to call the voters idiots. Yeah, that'll teach em.

Or are too busy and let it slide, because they don't care enough. It's not that they don't like our message. It's not that it isn't liberal or left enough. Anyone who cared that much would get to the polls and vote for third party candidates.

There are always several on the ballot here. They get like no votes. Staying home doesn't help them.

I voted for a Green in my local rep district, since the Ds don't run anyone. If I had simply skipped that election because my only choice was a fucking Republican, it would not have sent any message to that idiot. But the G candidate getting almost 20% of the vote might have told him something.

But I am not an advocate of not voting, I am an advocate of better candidates and marketing.

about being a nation of consumers and not citizens. Giving in to that is not the answer.

People have always been consumers and the notion of "selling" someone on an idea or a movement or a revolution is nothing new and it certainly is marketing. Convincing people to vote is most certainly marketing a product - no matter one's visceral response to those terms - and scolding people or trying to belittle them into voting is poor marketing. It is also very childish and surprising to me, but it's a free-ish country.

And neither does any political party. People who might vote for someone else are a different story.

I have never had to be sold on the idea of voting. Not voting means not that you don't like who is running for the major parties (you could vote third party or even write in). It means you are sure no matter who wins, there is not threat of anything. It means that you are satisfied with the status quo and certain that it won't be upset for you in any way no matter who wins. It shows a pathetic faith that the people who do vote will make sure the country keeps running the way it has.

As far as the rest: "Not voting means not that you don't like who is running for the major parties (you could vote third party or even write in). It means you are sure no matter who wins, there is not threat of anything. It means that you are satisfied with the status quo and certain that it won't be upset for you in any way no matter who wins. It shows a pathetic faith that the people who do vote will make sure the country keeps running the way it has." << that is pure nonsense. Obviously you will believe as you will, but the idea that non-voters are satisfied with the status quo or that non-voters are motivated by a single thing (satisfaction) ignores the volumes of comments and conversations right here at DU as well as the hundreds of other places on the internet where a curious person who doesn't already assume they know what motivates people can see there are myriad reasons people don't vote. Keeping it simple is a mistake here, I think. This seems to be a complex problem from what I have seen and heard.

that is just plain fact. If people want anything to change they have to vote at the very least of it. If there really are such people for real, they are too irrational to deal with. The first thing they have to do is vote. And write. And join groups that will make their wishes known. They can't sit there and wait until the Democratic or any party suddenly has people in it saying what they want to hear and then having enough elected officials to do it.

by which participation can be increased. If your contribution is "People should just vote because they can," then thanks for your contribution. I have other ideas.

And marketing hasn't worked. So maybe a little tough love is worth a try.

Especially in light of the poll showing people don't like who is in office. Damn, it takes a lot of nerve to complain to that extent. Maybe catering to those people increases their sense of entitlement.

And marketing has worked for the side who embraced it. And "tough love" is a bullshit term and certainly has nothing to do with Will Pitt's silly whine-fest that started this conversation.

Nixon, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Bush the Lesser, the last two mid term elections.

Those votes didn't really help matters.

Nice to be on the same page with you, old friend, for a refreshing change of pace. Damned well said.

Tell me, are your representatives, your senators... actually your peers? When's the last time Joe Schubblefutz from across the road went to park his ass in Congress? Do plumbers, teachers, grocers, auto mechanics fill the ranks of our government?

No, the people we find on our ballots are almost universally so far removed from the voters that they might as well be treated as products on a shelf. Wealthy Lawyer Democrat vs. Wealthy Businessman Republican... or Wealthy Businessman Democrat vs. Wealthy Lawyer Republican? Coke or Pepsi? Oh one's blue, one's red, and they taste kind of different...

The US is society of consumers, and out elections reflect that. You don't like it and neither do I, but that's really the way it is. so long as we're stuck arguing Coke vs. pepsi in our elections, that's not going to change, either.

Nothing stops anyone from running, especially locally.

We should not give in to being a society of consumers. And we should not consider our vote as a consumer currency.

Beats the hell out of growing up and taking responsibility.

YOU'RE NOT A FUCKING CUSTOMER.

You're a citizen.

Live up to it. This isn't a goddam store. This is a country, and you have a part to play.

but one is, obviously, free to communicate in that tone or not. Citizens, obviously, are free to vote or not. I vote. I vote because I want to and because I care, but I care and I want to because I have been convinced of the importance of voting - voters are made and not born.

The posters that spend all their time after a bad election cycle calling the electorate "fucking idiots" or claiming the election was stolen do no service towards changing the outcome of future elections.

Let's imagine there's only one restaurant in town. It's a fantastic looking place, with a wonderful menu. You go to the restaurant and order fillet mignon. Your plate arrives and instead of a lovely meal, it's a cold can of Spam.

You go back, and order fillet again. And you get another serving of Spam. This repeats many times. And you discover that if you don't show up, the same cold can of Spam arrives at your house. So go and pick something wonderful, or stay home - you get the same result. Busting your ass results in Spam, and sitting on your ass results in Spam.

Why would it be surprising for people to stop going to that restaurant, even though it's the only restaurant available? They get Spam no matter what.

Yelling at them "You must go to the restaurant!! We got nice food 50 years ago!" isn't going to work. They've figured out that the nice food isn't going to come anymore, they'll only get Spam. "People died for you to go to the restaurant" won't work either. They just get more Spam.

"This time it's gonna be different!" will only work once or twice. People catch on pretty quick that they're gonna get Spam again.

"Go to the restaurant or you'll get Spam!" is no threat at all - Spam is what they're getting either way. "Your Spam will be slightly colder if you don't go!" is extremely ineffective.

If you want people to go to the restaurant, you have to ask them what they want and start working on getting it onto their plates. Even if you fail, showing that you're actually trying to give them something other than Spam is going to do far more than screaming at them.

And your post is nothing but screaming at them. Why's it not going to work? Because they know this is what they get:

Young voters did not create the system. They arrived with Clinton handing out Spam. They always got Spam.

They did not choose to switch to Spam. That choice was made by the people already at the restaurant. Who keep insisting that wonderful food is gonna come real soon now, yet keep insisting that we must enjoy our Spam when it arrives.

Young voters can fix the system.

By voting, along with everyone else.

This isn't fucking rocket science.

You claim it is so simple, yet the problem of voter apathy continues to perplex. Getting vaccines is simple, but convincing people to get them is more complex.

Unfortunately, our only choices are "get fucked over" or "get fucked over, but they'll occasionally claim to feel bad about it".

Your generation hasn't been asking younger voters "how can we help?" for more than 30 years now. Instead, your generation insists you know what must be done, and that we must help you. And insisted that our issues must be traded away to the Republicans to protect your issues.

We get shit from Republicans, we get shit from Democrats. Why on Earth are you surprised when we don't participate?

You want us to vote? Stop lecturing and start listening.

But we know you will never do that.

I know they don't teach you kids math any more, so try to stay with me.

Midterms and presidential primaries, where ALL THE REAL DECISIONS are made: 40% turnout, max...with 80% of the batshit crazy GOP base going to the polls...so 80% of that 40% are people who don't believe in dinosaurs because they aren't mentioned in the bible.

The ONLY WAY to defeat the current political clusterfuck is to pile on bodies and outnumber them. That's it. That's all. That's the only way.

The fucking bastards always always always vote. If it's raining live man-eating jaguars outside on election day, they deploy cement umbrellas and go to the polls. THAT, and THAT ALONE, is why shit is so fucked up. You complain about the lack of choices and Citizens United and so on...WHY do you think those things exist? They exist because decisions are made by those who show up. When only shitheads show up, we get shitheaddery in congress and the Judiciary, we get dwindling choices, and we get fucked over.

Show. The fuck. Up.

Like I said: not rocket science. Nature abhors a vacuum. When you're not there, someone else will be, and they'll be running shit on your behalf, because you couldn't be fucking bothered.

How's that for a lecture?

Do you really think that leads to persuasion? Do you really think you can beat people into submission? I mean, this is communication 101 kind of stuff, man. Silly.

I honestly meant no offense. You were standing on the soapbox of your generation, so I decided to tip it a bit. Work with me here; that was kinda funny.

And read the rest of the post. It's important, math and all.

and began to be a gadfly.

Many, many here worked tirelessly to get out the vote. I do not recall your efforts to do the same, and writing
snide missives are not "efforts."

played out, very unoriginal, and nasty as all fuck, but a shtick nonetheless.

Contrived, banal, and useless.

I don't find the form and content particularly persuasive and they seem to re-state what you have already said and so the content is redundant. In any case, I vote and I participate in the lead-up, but I find voter turnout to be a motivational, and thus marketing, issue. Part of that is the process of voting - Tuesdays suck for most workers. Also, the amount of research and time required to be informed is daunting. I think there are ways to address these issues, but it will take re-envisioning the product of "voting" as well as the product of the dem party as well as the candidates. It seems to me none of these difficulties is addressed by being aggressive and angry.

It's a web forum, not the wide world. In this place, we vent. T'was ever thus. Deploy your coping skills.

But, yes, I coped or whatever.

I forget the original's name, Hunter something I think.
Thing is, it's already been done.

I often confuse the two.

from the well of my soul.

but where do you take them?

a Constitutional Amendment. Voting on Saturdays. I was in Australia during their election one year and it was on Saturday and that struck me as smart. Though they have mandatory voting. Which is another issue. Motivating people with a fine might be just as good as anything else.

They choose to submit to the will of others rather than affect things themselves.

Why are Republicans so much more motivated? Is it because the Republicans are so nice to their voters? They market Republicanism better than we market progressive values? Do they have to be marketed too? As if so, what is your strategy? How come there is such a failure of marketing those values? It appears easy for the Republicans to sell racist, sexist, authoritarian, etc. values.

Of course the next thing to claim is the Third Way is running the party. OK, then go form a party that markets proper progressive values. It should win, no? At least, with a good marketing strategy. What will that be? Being real nice about it and all.

I am quite certain I could write a book about the marketing successes and failures of each party. Not only that, I am certain I could write a second book about how legislation and the actual duties of congress have been themselves transformed into marketing tools. Politics is sales, distasteful as that may seem to some, and the process plays out from there. The idea that people will vote merely because they are free to is, to my mind, a mistake as well as a hindrance to victory.

The people who do vote now at least are motivated enough by themselves. We aren't all passive, especially when we know the cost of not voting, or that fact it gets us nothing.

But listening requires more work than lecturing, so that isn't gonna happen.

But hey, it's what you've been doing for decades. Sure it hasn't worked, but I'm sure this time it will work. And when it doesn't, you can lecture more!

Lean and Green to Fringe-y Racist Supremacist.

Those kids stayed home. Even though there was an assortment on the menu. And plenty of opportunity to vet the candidates if one had the attention span to watch them debate.

And we got Charlie "Money Boo Hoo" Baker as a consequence.

What, after being handed that menu, does it need to be read to them, and do they need to be spoon fed as well?

My gripe about this complaint is that it doesn't do any good to preach to the choir. I doubt there are a lot of non-voters here, except maybe the odd troll or disruptor. Post this stuff on gamer or sports boards, and see if anyone bites (they probably won't, but given that someone here said that people 'respond' to insults--not in my world, but whatever), maybe that's where the "hearts and minds" barricades are, these days...?

I vent here, as I have done pretty much every single day since May of 2001. That is what this space is for, what it was made for in the first damn place: venting, and commiseration.

Don't give me shit, please, for venting in a place specifically created for venting. If you post on gamer boards, copy and paste what I posted here. Have at it, go wild, it's free to the public. If you think posting here is activism in any way, that goes a long way toward explaining why we happen to be fucked as a nation.

Christ, this place cracks me up. HOW DARE YOU POST YOUR OPINION AND LET ME GIVE YOU MY OPINION ABOUT YOUR OPINION

P.S. Why preach to the choir?

Cuz that's how you get them to sing.

Anyone else doing the same is "giving you shit?"

Sounded to me like you weren't venting, but accusing--of course, maybe that's because your profanity laced commentary had a bit of a hostile edge to it. I don't think I'm the only one who thinks that comments (yours--not mine) like GOD DAMN SHIT FUCK BALLS TITS ASS AND SHIT, fucking VOTE, you stupid complacent lazy fuckwits, you ball of lint-riddled uselessness... are suggestive of a bit more than political frustration. Maybe you need to get out more, or something. You're no Rude Pundit--he uses the foul language a bit more judiciously, at any rate. And that's saying something.

Speaking of HOW DARE YOU POST YOUR OPINION AND LET ME GIVE YOU MY OPINION ABOUT YOUR OPINION, isn't that what you're doing with your response to me? This is, last I peeked, a DISCUSSION board--not a One-Way Venting Board.

Sheesh.

Not everyone has to love your "stuff." I don't think there's any need to put people down, here, and that sounds like what you're doing. Your "opinions" such as they are, are insulting in a broad-brushed way. I am pointing that out to you. You don't have to like MY "venting" either, but don't post yours in a semi-public place if you don't want people to remark upon it.

FWIW, the idea is to preach to the flock, not the choir. The goal isn't to motivate singing up in the rafters amongst the already converted, the goal is changing hearts and minds in the pews.

Your insult-laden opus doesn't cut it, IMO. YMMV.

I usually don't post much when the "usual" bashers start threads, but damn you hit the nail on the head here and I had to tell you I think your post was right on and I couldn't have said it better myself.

I like to think there's more here than unites us than divides us. I wish we'd spend more time on points of agreement, but that's just me "venting" I guess!!

We may not agree with the methodologies, but I think most of us agree that a rising tide lifts all boats, education should be affordable if not free, no kid (no person, really) should go without the basics--food, shelter, nurturing, health care, etc., people have a right to live without fear, a laborer is worthy of his or her hire, war pretty much sucks and it's best to avoid it, etc. etc. and so forth!

to put your OP on a big billboard somewhere.

Or have some comedian perform it!

So you had 2 real candidates, and 3 pretend candidates.

He influenced an election in a big, big way, and damn near won. And it was a lot of those older Boomers (who were younger then) who turned away from an incumbent President and handed the win to Bill Clinton.

There was choice on the ballot--there's choice on most ballots. "The Kids" (and anyone else) often don't want to be associated with a loser, perhaps, so they just don't bother to vote at all. Or they don't bother to research the candidates and just take what the media feeds them. They don't watch those (dull/boring) debates. They are accustomed to having their news explained to them by comedians--they're just not attuned to a more pedestrian approach to political events.

They might be surprised if they take the trouble to turn out and vote--and do so in LOCAL elections. That's how parties grow. Sitting home and griping that there's no choice on the menu, though, that's not going to cut it. Waiting for the "Big Show" every four years isn't the answer, either.

I don't think hurling insults is productive. I think a bit of self-motivation is in order. When "the kids" or anyone else, for that matter, get sufficiently uncomfortable, I suppose that motivation will one day come. For my generation, it was the prospect of half the population being sent off to War Without End, Amen (absent a big rich daddy to bail junior out) that motivated "the kids" to take to the polls in droves. For some of us (like me) that became a lifelong habit. I don't even miss a local election. If the polls are open, I'm there.

And I will tell you straight up, I don't like the replies I have gotten.

I've gotten answers ranging from "I don't care" to "It doesn't matter." There's just no motivation besides "What is best for ME?" I see very little altruism, very little willingness to put oneself out there without promise of return--it's a bit discouraging, to be blunt. The prevalent attitude is one that sounds frighteningly like selfishness, to be frank with you. Will that turn these kids into Republicans when they start earning in a big way, or will they be willing to contribute to the tax base to help those less fortunate? I am not sanguine.


All politics is local, and there's nothing that interests this crew. The kids who are facing high tuitions want them lowered and want more compassionate loans, and maybe grants as well, but the ones whose parents are footing the bill don't seem to give a crap. I know their parents don't share those kinds of "I've got mine" attitudes, so I'm not sure if it's peer pressure or youthful rebellion playing out, here.

Maybe if there was a proposal to price internet access by the minute there would be some movement or interest in political matters, but it's going to take the return of the draft to get young people out to vote in large numbers, otherwise, I suspect.

I can't imagine how young people would cope without their electronic devices, and even with them, it's too much trouble to do the basic research and go to the polls for way too many of them. The lack of knowledge about local politics is stunning to me. In the city of Boston, there shouldn't be a soul who can't name Mayor Walsh, and it's shocking how many young people are unclear as to who Menino was--made worse by the fact that, for many of them, he was the ONLY mayor they ever knew until illness caused him to resign.

The bottom line, though, is this--the process by which we choose leadership is well established and it works if people participate. Further, it's the system that the young people will inherit--if they choose to sit it out, and think that by not making a choice, not expressing an opinion, not writing (how hard is it with the internet--no pen, paper, envelope or stamp, even?) to their representatives to weigh in on what is important to them, is gonna work for them, more power. Let the oligarchs have it all. Be serfs or lords, depending on what you inherit--it won't matter to me.

By the time your generation is in the hurt locker, wishing you'd crafted your own future by growing your own leaders instead of waiting for the older generations to handpick them for you, I'll be a distant memory.

You might think that it was just my generation that ended that meatgrinder, but it wasn't--it was my generation, and my grandparents' generation, and my great grandparents generation. And when they got it from all sides, and watched their own kids coming home maimed or in boxes, even the Greatest Generation defected. THAT's what ended that meatgrinder. And to suggest that one needs a "majority" to get anything done just isn't on--the Civil Rights movement wasn't lit off by a majority of the population--but it was the right thing to do. If you've got ideas, YOU need to speak up, not wait for someone to offer you a list and a short pencil and tell you to tick off the ones you like.

Passivity is YOUR enemy, not mine.

No one needs to ask anyone what they care about--the motivation needs to come from within. Tell your representatives what you care about, and do it relentlessly. Don't wait like a wallflower to be asked to dance--get out there and cut the rug on your own terms.

I don't mean to single the young generation out, either--plenty of thirty somethings don't vote, either, as do the middle-agers (they MEANT to, but they just didn't make it). The only reliable voters, it seems, are the elderly. They're the ones who are faithful voters, who pay attention to the issues (not that they always use the best sources--that shiny and slimy Fauxsnooze being one of them) and who get their raddled old behinds to the polls...I know, because I drive 'em there.

even the people the comedian might support will get made fun of eventually, or do something to attract negative comment.

as well as a good sense of humor. Politicians are low hanging fruit, and current events are something everyone can relate to...

People remember George Carlin, but I'll bet they don't remember him like this:

They aren't set in stone. When the choice was between Whig and Democratic Republican, why didn't it stay that way? You have to vote for the third parties for them to be able to grow. Because it's not instantaneous is no excuse.

Being nice hasn't seemed to have worked. And I doubt the Republicans are "nice" about it. People do seem to be rather submissive, which is unfortunate, but an apparent reality. IMO not voting is being very submissive to everyone who does vote. So maybe yelling at them is worth a try. "You better vote, or there's going to be hell to pay!" Hell, that's true when we wind up with Republicans in office.

There is such a difference between liberalism and conservatism that we are honest and try to be above all that, yet they do it and it works.

And unfortunately too many people would be OK with things like "Republicans are gonna make you women stay home and not have careers!" might actually meet with approval for Republicans. "They will create segregation between black and white people and do away with gay marriage!" "They will make everyone carry guns!" Doesn't have the same effect.

It's not like a restaurant. It's a chance to participate in government. If you give that up, you will be governed by the ones who DO vote. Jeebus Keerist!

It's like being a shareholder in the restaurant and then complaining when the other shareholders turn it from a Chinese to an Italian restaurant when you didn't go to the shareholders meetings and vote.

The Democrats can afford to ignore the Greens because they don't get many votes. But if they noticed that they DID get some significant number of votes, it would start to mean something. Or the Greens might get somewhere. Not voting is asking for more disappointment just so you can complain about it, to my mind. There's no excuse for not voting. The two parties are not set in stone over the long haul. If the Democrats truly are not worth voting for, the not voting keeps them the same. It will never move them to the left. Thinking that's going to work is insane.

Hell, you give us as Democrats no motive whatsoever to do anything you want. Why should the rest of the party act on the wishes of people who've said they won't vote for them and won't vote for anyone else?

If you don't like it then vote green, but god help you if you vote green!

all sorts of vile shit. The second ballot I ever voted on asked 'Should we fire all the gay teachers and also the straight ones who support gay rights, Yes or No'. I voted No. Such a question would never be on a CA ballot today. It would be against the law of the State as it now exists to fire anyone for being gay from any job.
Same old spam. If the 'kids' say so.

You are a glorious dragon, old friend. Charbroiled my arse on more than a few occasions, to my personal improvement.

'Should we fire all the gay teachers and also the straight ones who support gay rights, Yes or No'

Which one won?