There, I just thought I'd toss that out there to save the Purity Patrol the trouble.

I agree with every word of your post!

We have already lost campaign finance reforms due to the Citizen United case and a key section of the Voting Rights Act. If the GOP gets a couple more justices on the SCOTUS, we can kiss Roe v. Wade and the rest of the Voting Rights Act goodbye

Texas is subject to a voter id/voter suppression law due to the SCOTUS ruling on Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

Can we help with that? Give us information and I'm sure we can.

I have more than one form of acceptable id but there are between 600,000 and 1.4 million Texans who do not.

I worked with the State party on voter id issues and we tried to get ids for people. It is a very difficult process and the GOP voter suppression tactics worked in Texas. My future son in law was the first "free" id issued in my county and then they had to call austin to figure out how to issue the id.

In Texas, GOP turnout out was up and Democratic turnout was down in large part due to the GOP voter suppression efforts

We defeated a voter ID amendment in Minnesota in 2012, thank goodness, but the Republicans will try to do it again if we don't keep them out of control in our state legislature. One more reason to turn out the Democratic vote in 2016.

Good luck with your fight in Texas.

to the Boy King in 2002. Sorry, can't do it. I will vote Democratic but it might have to be a write in.

If the Conservative Democrats really care between Clinton and Bush, they best not nominate Clinton.

Remember 2000? The Conservative Democrats had Ralph to blame. Not going to happen in 2016.

If you want to defeat Bush, choose a progressive candidate that all the Party can get behind. Trying to coerce the Left with horrors of bad SCOTUS picks is bullcrap. Choose a progressive candidate and you won't have to threaten.

So unless you believe a Repub will pick a better SCOTUS justice than Hillary, go ahead and not vote. Sometimes politics is that black and white.

and I can not overlook that. Those that support her must recognize the risk. It's on them.

then you must realize you're helping to put the Republican candidate in power.

You can huff and puff all you want, but that is the REALITY of the matter.

That is on YOU.

Just like you. In November, my vote will go to the Democratic nominee. Did I say something different from that? I don't think I did.

Who do you suggest should get it? Who do you support? Will that person be on my ballot? If so, convince me to vote for that person. I want positives, not negatives. I'll wait here.

if they want to split the Party, nominate HRC. Maybe you can forget 2002 and the thousands of dead American troops, tens of thousand wounded American troops, and the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis. HRC made a mistake as she has admitted and was complicit in that disaster. Why choose her when we have many good candidate with integrity?

Apparently you do not have one. Oh, well...

supported the worst disaster in modern history.

For my primary vote? I must vote for someone, not an unnamed anyone. Give me a man, and the reasons that name is who should get my vote.

I will vote in the Primary in MN. I'll wait for your advice, and then listen to your reasons.

At this point in history, that candidate going to be a Democrat. I wish there were more choices, but there aren't.

Yes, some of hem will be blue dems, third way, or belong to some other detested sub group of the Democratic party. Not one of them will be a Republican.

If we all go out, and make the best choice we can from the list of available candidates, we have a good chance of keeping the White House and taking the Senate. On a really good year, we might even take the House.

If we take the House, we set the legislative agenda. We can do some good things.

All it takes is to go out in the general election and vote for the best applicant for the job.

Primaries are different. In primaries, we can fight over the essence of the Democratic Party. In the general, the best choice in most cases will be easy, because the other side is intolerable.

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME

The word "Corporatist" scares me about as much as word "libbrul."

The prospect of another Supreme Court "justice" like Sam Alito or Nino Scalia, now THAT scares me.

Every time a Democrat stays home and sulks on Election Day because his or her preferred candidate didn't end up as the nominee, that same Democrat quite literally hands a free vote to the enemy camp.

VOTE, DAMMIT. VOTE "D." Even if it's not the "D" you want, it's ONE HELLUVA LOT BETTER than any "R's" the other side offers.

I've heard the whine - "but... but... but... we've gotta SEND a MESSAGE!!!!" Yeah? The only "message" you'll wind up sending if you feel that way - is the one that will make republi-CONS laugh and sneer and high-five, and send YOU the following message, straight back: "Gee, thanks! Thanks for the win, CHUMP!"

No matter how much you tell them they're going to be hurt worse, no matter how much "reality" you ask them to face, no matter what you want to say to them, fact is, you're dependent on their vote to win. The youth are fed up in this country--there is no one to represent them, so they won't play the game anymore. They're done. Finished. The end.

You cannot make them care by telling them it's going to be worse--for many of them, it's too late. The only thing you can do is listen to them, and give them someone they will want to vote for.

Normally I really like your posts, but this is extremely condescending and shows that you aren't listening to any of them at all. You are blind to the reality that you're screwed without the people who aren't voting right now. Your only option is to get them to vote, and offering them a "D" that only halfway screws them isn't going to do it.

Donald Berwick both received a tiny amount of the vote. The problem with the "people aren't voting because there aren't progressives running" narrative is that when progressives do run, there's often very few people who bother showing up and voting for them.

But I HAVE listened to them. I HAVE heard their assertions. I had a debate with a proponent of the Green Party pushing Peter Camejo for governor in 2002. Gray Davis won. I appreciate what groups like the Green Party are about. Deeply. But unfortunately, with the two-party system we have now, and frankly, no realistic hopes of a viable third party alternative (there are ALWAYS hopes. But realistic hopes? Not so sure about that one), it's a no-go. All it will be is a spoiler. Camejo didn't get very far that year. But his followers had stars in their eyes. "We've got to SEND a MESSAGE!" - they said. I tried to give them some realistic facts. I hate to see people tilting at windmills when there's no realistic hope for victory. Hell, I hate to see it when I'M reduced to doing it myself, which I have been from time to time!!!

The third party always loses, but creates shit for one of the two main parties, especially the one expected to win. That one won't win. Ask John Anderson when Jimmy Carter and ronald reagan were jousting. Ask Ross Perot - fortunately THAT one worked to our favor because he spoiled it for bush1 and then four years later for bob dole. Ask ralph nader. If he hadn't run, and his votes had gone to Gore - and I'm NOT just talking in Florida, there would have been no question. bush/cheney would have been LOCKED OUT of the White House. And the whole nightmare scenario in Iraq very likely would not have happened. Al Gore would have had other people advising him on foreign policy than the PNAC. He's not on there anywhere.

You say condescending. Well, okay. Fair enough. Guilty as charged. And I apologize. But I've just seen too many of these things where the third party wannabe completely shits on the otherwise sure thing. And the "we've gotta SEND a MESSAGE" folks just collaborate with that. They're well-intentioned, for sure. Their hearts are often pure - certainly WAY more pure than mine! But they wind up "sending a message" alright - and it's the one they really had no intention of sending in the first place! Certainly it gets the result they had no intention of wanting in the first place, either. I remember ralph nader expressing the opinion that one of the reasons why he ran, and WAS indeed the spoiler, was that he believed to effect REAL change, it just has to get REALLY bad out there. REALLY bad. Well, how bad do you want it? How much are you willing to risk - that will affect mothers and fathers across the country who don't agree with you and their kids get sent off to war to get their legs shot off. Or worse. How close to the brink are you willing to risk going? What if I don't want to go near that brink? What if other voters like me don't want to risk being dragged toward that, either? Just because some idealist wanted to "send a message"? Again, I'm sorry if I sound condescending. By now, I feel as though people should have seen and learned enough. Certainly people here - with the vast spectrum of commentary and research and links you can go look at and study, and well-thought-out arguments WAY better and more eloquent and more compelling than mine - that tell the truth and should educate - and prevent more mistakes being made in future elections - certainly people HERE have that luxurious wealth of resources so they know the facts and the truth and the backstory and know not to make such mistakes. And know that "sending a message" is just pure folly. Going full-on idealist when in reality you have to make some hard-ass, hard-core, harsh-reality real-life/warts-and-all decisions in the voting both - just does not work. And it invariably winds up not working for the idealist AT ALL! OR the rest of us who are affected by the presence of that idealist's vote - that spoils it for the better of the two candidates (okay, the lesser of two evils) and lets the bad guy win.

And frankly, I'll still settle for a "D" that only halfway screws us than an "r" any day. By now, we should all be aware of what a complete 100% screw-job is, especially looking at what the republi-CONS are setting up to serve us. Seriously. Anybody really want to "send a message" when you've got jeb bush on the other side, who has now picked a fellow PNAC signatory and Iraq War architect (paul fucking wolfowitz) to be on his foreign policy team? Is "sending a message" really THAT important in such a case? SERIOUSLY? Frankly anybody who'd really want to do that - especially in this case - earns everyone's contempt. I'm being a hard-ass here, I know, but by now, at my age, I've just run out of patience with those who think they're doing something good for our nation by "sending a message." The message they really want to send will, GUARANTEED, go into the political dead letter office. Or it'll come back, marked with "Return to Sender" and "Thanks, CHUMP!" on it. All the "send a message" thing will do is get the senders laughed at by the winner they NEVER in a million years wanted to help, or to aid and abet, to begin with.

There's being idealistic on one hand and there's being realistic on the other. In politics, and I truly hate to say this, idealism needs to take a back seat. I wish it weren't that way. Frankly, I wish the Peter Camejos of the world had a bigger seat at the table. But in this system we have now, they don't. It doesn't work that way. And all the wishing and message-sending won't make it thus. We're stuck with what we have. So that's what we have to make the best of. Like it or not. What did the Blues Brothers say - about "wish sandwiches"? A "wish sandwich" is where you have two pieces of bread and you wish you had some meat. Hard-ass, yes. Guilty as charged. I concede. And I genuinely apologize. Flame away. I probably deserve it. I could certainly be wrong, and in this case I sincerely wish I WAS wrong. But I'm an old broad by now and that's the reality that I see, and have seen, over the years anyway, since I started voting. That's why I liked George McGovern a lot because he was the FAR purer candidate. But I was concerned that he wouldn't win, practically speaking. Nevertheless, I voted for him, rather than choose an alternative that would guarantee that he'd lose. We at least had some hope with him. Splitting our vote by going for Gene McCarthy or somebody else guaranteed NO hope. Unfortunately Nixon took that one. And that sure wound up being a lot of fun, too...

It's also why I'm sorely tempted to start donating to the mike huckabooboo campaign...

What there is, though, is a large pool of younger people who pretty much won't vote at all. Then, there's a pool of young Republican voters who do vote, a pool of Democratic voters that go and vote for Democrats, just like most other Democrats do. I know a bunch of great young people who are very active in Democratic politics in Minnesota. They're hard-working people who make a difference. They vote in every election and help with GOTV efforts. Some are just now taking leadership positions in the local organization, too. People like me are encouraging them to do just that, because the local Democratic organization is tired and ready to stop doing all of the work that is required.

There is another group of younger voters who might just go and vote if they really, really like a candidate, but only if that's the case. A bunch of them showed up at the polls in 2008 to vote for President Obama, but were nowhere to be seen in 2010 and 2014. They did show up in Minnesota in 2012, because there was anti-marriage equality amendment on the ballot, and it made a big difference in the outcome in 2012.

That group, though, is unreliable as voters. You can't count on them to show up at the polling place. I don't expect them to show up in 2016, either, at least in Minnesota, and at least in my districts. We have progressive state legislators and a wonderful house member in my area, and their votes aren't needed to re-elect those people. Unless there's someone cool on the ticket, they'll stay away from the polls, because it's too much fucking hassle for them to bother.

To that extent, then, their participation is candidate oriented. Hillary Clinton isn't going to get them to the polls, and I don't see anyone else lining up for the Democratic primaries. We'll manage to keep our progressive legislators in office where I am, and whoever the Democratic presidential candidate is will get a 60% majority in the districts I vote in. The rest of the voters - the ones who reliably show up - will vote as they always do, for Democrats. They are the true base of this party.

I know what would get that off and on group of voters to the polls in 2016. If Russell Brand could run for President, they'd be there in huge numbers. But, he's not eligible. Elizabeth Warren might get some of them out, but she's not running. Nobody else who has been mentioned will do it, either. Bernie Sanders? I don't think he'll be on the primary ballot here. If he does run, he'll be out of contention by Super Tuesday and won't be in our late primary or will clearly not be a real player by that time.

So, I don't expect the sometimes-voters to show up in 2016. They're not reliable. They are not the Democratic base. The Democratic base shows up and votes for Democrats. That's just how it is. Ask anyone who is involved in Democratic politics at the local level.

I could never understand how some people can't see the simple math in that equation. Let's see. All else being equal I vote for the really bad asshole, instead of the just moderately bad asshole.

Quite clear.

I simply said that I'd vote for the Democratic nominee, and recommended that others do the same. That's not a lecture. Whoever wins the nomination get my vote. I always vote for Democrats. So do most other Democrats.

It's all media these days.

You mean you haven't noticed over all these years that is all he does?

of course that doesn't mean non-DUers will vote for "what choice do you have?" though I assume we'll get the blame for daring to have lines that can't be crossed

I suppose that if GOP ideas are so bad then actually working with the GOP and pushing its policies that the GOP on its own could never get passed should be denounced even more strenuously, since that's a bigger problem than people not voting, but that'd require an ounce of introspection

saying you'll shut up by a predetermined date doesn't make you an "activist," it means you'll negate your every criticism and that your word is worthless

I'm voting democratic.

The democrat farthest away from my standards is a million light-years closer that ANY damned republican is and thats a stone cold fact!!

....and sanity.

People who dislike the front runner need to be promoting someone specific. Just attacking isn't going to work, now or ever, in primary elections. Threatening not to vote for the eventual nominee is a losing strategy, too. People who do that are announcing their irrelevance.

Money in our political system is so toxic and killing our democracy. It has to stop and I fear Hillary will be to indebted to big donors to do anything about it.
I will not support Hillary in the primary, but, of course, I will vote Democratic no matter what.
Right now the two biggest fears I have are the 2016 election and global warming.

You stated you dont vote for republicans. I agree, I dont vote for candidates who hold republican ideals either.

is off the table until you accept better Democrats or find enough Teabaggers that will go along with your aims.

Y'all seem to get flexible when someone takes a hostage and seem pretty keen on holding them yourselves so maybe that is the only way to move the needle here with people who claim to share goals but are always steering away from them.

You want something and apparently the only vehicle to secure it is Democrats so you need some votes, what are you going to do for them besides raise boogiemen?
Always talking compromise well then start compromising with people that will actually vote for what you want instead of bullying, threatening, and whipping fear.

Funny how we always compromise with the right, never the left, always shift right, never left, always move the needle by moving to the right, never the left...says something, doesn't it?

Perfect people don't make mistakes, sure they cost us a lot when a Repuke wins - but anything to them is better than a progressive in the WH. And why? A progressive might actually try and do what JFK was going to do - hold people responsible for their actions while in office.

Sounds simple, but in this plutocracy we see that money trumps peace and principles. No matter what party.

Is here, party meetings, living rooms, and Primaries.


Not a voting booth on Nov 8, 2016. That is the day for unity.

Lets talk about strengths, weaknesses, possibilities, preferences, suspicions, alliances, histories, and how we should shape our future candidate into what we find acceptable. This is the time to do it.

Hm.

(not to be construed as accepting the inevitability of HC being our nominee)

That was deliberate. If people support a specific candidate, it's a long time until the convention. Time for them to get to work with positive support for their favorite.

Nor did I think your intent was to advocate acceptance of HC.
My added text was more for general consumption, given all the brouhaha over HC lately.

I will do as I do because I choose to do it.

I will not accept your advice because it is bad.

Your advice is bad because I will not accept it.

I will do as I will do because I will not accept your advice.

Etc, etc.

Oh, with a pinch of smug and paternalistic attitude.

Thank God they filibustered Alito and Roberts.

You remember the way Joe Biden worked over Anita Hill?

I guess if you think there is a substantial difference between Corporate Democrats and Rethugs, go for it.

nt

I won't vote Democratic if there's another candidate with a significant chance of winning who, IMO, would make a better President.

The chance of that happening in 2016 is virtually zero.

I realize I won't be able to advocate for that candidate here -- unless the admins change DU policy, which might conceivably happen in the event of a political earthquake that gives a progressive third-party candidate a chance of beating the Democrat.

...in state legislatures across the country, and Koch-funded candidates have won elected office to local governments all over the map, as well. State and local governments are writing a hell of a lot more shit than the do-nothing Republican Congress. And their bills are what the national Republicans base their legislation on, anyway.

But continue fighting over whether Hillary is the "Lesser of Two Evils" against a Republican, or whether Warren or Sanders can mount an alternative campaign, or whatever other petty issue of individual candidates and their personalities, over actually getting things done politically, at any level of government. The Koch Brothers thank you for it.

Democratic nominee even if she is a Wall Street shill.

I live in California. If Hillary can't win Callfornia without my vote, she can't win anywhere.

I'm sick of voting for people who sign laws that take American jobs away, that support the monopolization of the airwaves with conservative blather, that repeal laws that keep banks honest, that vote for every war and that involve us in every conflict even when it is unwise and means helping a bunch of cruel and irresponsible religious fanatics and that sign laws that cut the benefits to the poor. Not going to vote for a candidate who supports privatizing work that civil servants should be doing. Not going to vote for those things because they are the basis and sustenance of corruption. Had enough of the corruption of voting for the lesser of two evils.

Not going to do it. Not going to go there.


It's time we get some reform in this country.

You'll make your own choice.