"Vote so as to defeat each and every Teapublican in each and every race, in each and every election."

It really is that simple.



Sid

We are not in a partisan political contest, not anymore. We are up against a coalition of criminal, theocratic, regressive entities. And if they keep winning, we lose.

in a Blue State and the leadership who abandoned their own Democratic Candidate, handing the Governorship, which could easily have been won by a Dem that year, to Republicans.

And in Florida, where prominent Dems supported a Republican again, over a Democrat.

Among other races where the Dem Party abandoned Dems handing races to Republicans.

We are going to have to do something about this.

A good start might be to highlight all the times Dem Party leaders gave away races to Republicans.

That's obvious by the argle-bargle in your reply to my post.

Sid

what do you call that? Or would you rather 'blame the voters'.

I guess I thought you wanted to point out the facts about those responsible for losing elections. THAT is what I agreed with.

If not, then you are correct, I do not agree with anyone who is ignoring why we are losing to Republicans.

You want to know why those rat bastards don't give a shit about Dem voters? Because they aren't scared of us. They know most voters sit it out, most of the time.

So they seek the approval of the monied interests.

state with more Dems voters than Republican voters. Christie COULD have been defeated, he was very vulnerable at that point because people were very angry over his handling of Sandy.

But the Dem Party obviously were not interested in electing a Democratic Governor. I remember the stories we were being told, by Democrats 'oh, he is too popular' even when people were informing them that he was very vulnerable and if the Party in NJ and the Dem Leadership had made an all out effort to support the very good Dem Candidate, it was definitely possible to defeat him.

How is all that the fault of the voters? They ELECTED Dems, then the Dems they elected, voted for the Republican.

Funny how the party has consistently refused to explain that mess or to admonish the more than 60 elected Dems who voted for and endorsed the Republican, while attempting to BLAME THE VOTERS.

Maybe you can explain how the voters are to blame when they DO go out and elect Dems after which those Dems move so far to the right they actually endorse one of the worst Republicans?

How can those Dem voters know that the next Dem they elect won't do the same thing?

The voters are never to blame when a party loses elections. So that meme needs to go once and for all.

Just because a blue state elected Dems does not mean otherwise.

Parties respond to pressure. Since voters are insufficiently engaged, the pressure to which the parties respond comes from corporations.

Yeah, the Republicans suck harder but that's hardly an endorsement for the Democrats despite Democratic elected officials endorsing Christie.

How the hell are voters supposed to know voting Democratic makes any difference when Democrats endorse Republicans?

It is an emotional argument, not a factual one. Look at red states. Look at blue states. Big differences.

Bear in mind that NJ is nominally a "blue state" and yet quite a few elected Democrats endorsed the Republican candidate for Governor.

Worse than motherfuckin' Ohio.

They need primaried.

without mention of any names or parties-- you probably wouldn't have been able to tell them apart, sad to say.

Although to his credit, Pryor did have a commercial that linked Cotton to the Koch brothers, bit it didn't do a bit of good.

No way, no how, not when his previous endorsement of Blanche Lincoln was so disastrous in the 2010 general election.

claim to give a shit about elections. Every damn midterm we do just fine, as do a few other States while the rest of you have low turnout and elect Republicans.
Nov 2014, we had 69.3% turnout, low by our standards but double the national average. It's mostly because of access and ease of voting due to Vote By Mail. Yes, we have better than average candidates, but that is also a function of the ongoing high participation rates.

But other States should definitely keep their video screen ballots and long lines, ID laws and short voting times. They obviously love those features more than they love good government. To each their own, eh?

Voters have a duty to register and vote. At the end of the day, candidates need votes to win. If the party puts forth crappy candidates, it's because the good ones are getting supported by voters.

But even a crappy D is better than any R.

If we want better candidates to vote for, then get involved in the local party! And don't tell me it can't be done. We wrested away the local party from the old boys club over a couple election cycles and elected some candidates to be proud of.

WE. Are the party, and blaming some proverbial smokey room is ridiculous.

Your attitude dooms us to constant electoral failure.

Glad to see you too!

I wanted to get into ARMA but age and infirmity forbade it.

Thanks.

We have kendo masters in their 80s still practicing.

Hope that helps!

Voters can dictate to those they elect, IF there are enough voters to hold the officials to account.

Until voters throw out bogus "public servants", we will never be served.

And I'm sure when those voters decide NOT to reelect any of the dozens of elected Dems who supported the Republican and helped him win over the Democrats, someone will, once again, tell the voters they should support the Dems 'no matter what' because we need to 'win'.

My opinion is that when Dems act like Republicans even to the extend of publicly endorsing them, or voting for their policies, the onus is NOT on the voters.

Voter action and inaction, that is how.

there really is no point in trying to change your mind. But so long as that is the mindset of the Dem Party, they will continue to lose elections.

It took voter ACTION to put over 60 Dems in elected office in NJ. Didn't it? But you are dismissing that action now.

However, a whole lot of other voters are NOT going to dismiss the hypocrisy of telling voters to 'vote for the Dem even if you don't like them', which is what Dem voters did in NJ. And THEN when those not so great Dems betray them, in overwhelming numbers, STILL blame the voters.

Sorry, no one is buying this anymore.

Here's the lesson learned by Dem voters in NJ. If you don't like the Dem candidate because they lean too far to the right, don't vote for them.

Because, see all of YOUR comments, when they end up acting more like Republicans than Dems, you the voter are going to be blamed anyhow.

I see you are not blaming the elected Dems in NJ. Should the voters vote for them again in your opinion?

Dem voters do?

You appear to be very certain of who is to blame. So I am asking for your expert opinion.

Vote for these betrayers who have a 'D' after their name who will get the backing of the Dem Party, AGAIN?

Picking candidates at the grass roots instead of whatever dickweeds the party shoves at us.

I am proposing active involvement by the masses instead of passive reaction. Not sure why that infuriates you.

such a thing when they have in fact been very involved, choosing Progressives to run against DINOS like these NJ 'dems' only to have the Dem leadership pour support and help finance the very DINOS the voters want out.

That is exactly what happened to Democrat Buono who ran against Christie. How was THAT the fault of voters who supported Buono but who was abandoned by the party leadership, leaving the dinos to endorse the Republican? Why did the party allow them to get away with that, why did not even publicly ADMONISH them??

So since we know that voters will be involved in many of these races involving these Dem Christie Supporters, what should voters do when the party does to the primary challengers what they did to Christie's Challenger, Buono?

Let's stop with the pretenses please. We have example after example of situations where the voters were slapped down as the party favors the dino and then demands that voters support THEIR choice.

So, again, my question is, how is it the voters fault when the party over rules them and pushes another of these dinos on the voters?

When does it become the fault of the party leadership??

The party leadership (and those democrats who acquiesce far too easily to conservative republican demands). And also apathy & ignorance among voters. I most definitely don't discount all the things that you say here in this thread. I also think it's important to vote for the most progressive candidate on every ballot, in every election, especially local & statewide elections. Whenever republicans win majorities they are able to strong-arm even candidates who would like to be more progressive, by telling them 'it's the will of the people - the votes are on our side!'

You can't effect change by staying home on Election Day!

How does a Republican winning help anything?

If you want change in the party, only one thing matters.... PARTICIPATE IN IT!

but it summarizes the issue in a nutshell

Napkinz finds the best memes.

so I'll add three more ...

You have two choices


A. Political party which goes out of it's way to write and pass laws that encourage and legalize discrimination against gay people

B. A political party that would NEVER do that



next?

But the Pony Platoon won't accept something that basic.

All the people I've talked to that don't vote any more are discouraged by the choices given them. They see neither side as giving a rat's ass about them. Maybe you should talk to some of them about why before saying the usual BS about "Say hello to President Cruz" or some variation thereof.

I have voted in every election since I became old enough, though it's getting harder and harder to select an option on the screen while holding one's nose and carrying a barf bag.

and learn the issues and how the democratic candidate differs from the republican candidate.

But I also agree with you wholeheartedly that democratic candidates must do a much better job of distinguishing themselves from republicans. Especially those who win.

I just can't fathom though, why someone would say it's all the fault of the candidate, as some excuse for not voting. Or that it's a 'lesser of two evils' as though that's some excuse not to vote. Voting is always a lesser of two evils. Or pretty much always. Unless you find some dream person on whom you agree on every single issue.

I think the problem is not all the fault of the candidates or all the fault of apathetic voters. I think it's a little of both. The sad thing is that this can cause a drift toward the right. Because the right keeps voting. Then they get in power and say 'See? We have a mandate from the public that cares enough to vote?'

Obviously there are other factors at play as well, like voter suppression and people working on voting days. But I sometimes feel like the apathy among younger voters, especially in congressional elections, is one of the saddest aspects of the dumbing down of civics in our country. There are big differences in policy issues among candidates and politicians. There are especially distinctions between republicans and progressives (for whom I always vote).

I do agree most definitely that the democratic party must put up people who are very distinct, in both policy and in tenor, from republicans. I talk with a lot of younger folks too, and I find many of them ill-informed on the differences between the republican party and the democratic party, in terms of policies. I'm really less interested in assigning all the blame to one side or another side. I'm very interested in addressing what needs to be done to improve the situation. Because right now I believe the democratic party has a real crisis on its hands. And so does our country.

Since many incumbents ignore the voters (due to low turnout) we keep getting SSDE. If we primary a few of them and increase turnout overall, the power dynamic will shift.

Excellent post. The antics of the Tea-publican Party for the last fourteen years have not only shattered my belief that the GOP can govern competently, but also that the Republicans govern with the best interests of the United States of America at heart. Voters, rise up and fire the lot of them!

suddenly no different from the 'Tea Party' which is of course not a Party at all and just the name of a Republican Party caucus.
As long as I have lived, Republicans have been bigoted, racist, misogynistic extremists. There was no magical time when they were Creamy Moderates. Reagan was a right wing fucker. Not some glorious bipartisan genius. A horrible, reactionary fuck, and he was well established as such before anyone voted for him to be President, as Governor of CA he was a vicious man, when asked about protests on campus he suggested a bloodbath would put a stop to it. Kent State was less than a month later. Anyone who voted for that man did so knowing he'd said that and many other awful things.

By the late 60's, the party had been quietly taken over by the nutjobl brigade. Since then it has gotten more obvious.

saw as extreme right wing, greedy and bigoted before I was born. My family's disgust with the GOP goes all the way back to Franklin and Eleanor. Yes, I could point to some random Republicans here and there who were not horrific, Oregon Governor Tom McCall had some great moments in the 70's. But Oregon Senator Wayne Morse is a better example of a righteous Republican. Morse was elected to the Senate as a Republican, and while serving his first term left the Republican Party in protest of the nomination of Richard Nixon as VP. Damn good reason. Wayne was then an Independent. Later he was elected to the Senate as a Democrat, where he was a vocal critic of the Vietnam War and a vote against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.
Today, what I see are people who were proud Reagan supporters, who say they were Republicans for 'the markets' and left the Republican Party because of 'the markets'. That's not much like Wayne Morse.

But let's not forget that the 1992 Republican Convention Keynote Speaker was Pat Buchanan. His rhetoric was horrific. 23 years ago.

Not that they were appealing before that.

But it is a fact that they have gotten even worse over time.

If the best they can do is to claim to be Not as Bad they're not going to.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

It's time we realized that will not work.

And, merely being "Not as bad" rings up a lot of "No Sale" responses.

We won't get what we want by letting other stakeholder groups decide for us.

I would like a "certain type of government". If the bad or not as bad candidate won't provide it, then I see no reason to vote for either.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]