Your opinion on Dems taking 'anti-liberal' stances to gain votes

Suppose a democratic candidate chose an anti-liberal position like an anti-immigration stance (close the borders, ship 'em all back home hardline stance) that is SURE to appeal to most voters irrespective of their party affiliation, would you support him / her?

Personally, I'd feel quite uncomfortable supporting such a candidate, even if victory was certain (even though I'm convinced people's prejudices can be used to predict their actions better than their virtues)

playing the game is one thing, but somethings are just non-negotiable.

If we don't stand up for our ideals then no one will believe anything we claim to stand for. Standing up for things is not just for popular ideas. The peopel judge the candidates as much if not more so by how they stand by unpopular ideas.

We need to realize we CAN AND MUST get by without corporate money so we can once again serve the common working person.

It's short-term smart, but long-term disastrous. What we have now, in my opinion, is the long-term result of just this kind of "triangulation".

Tightening labor conditions and achieving zero or negative population growth are usually goals exclusive to those on the left not the right.

are no jobs. If unemployment - which is so harsh that there is no place in the whole United States that has a booming economy with jobs to send Katrina evacuees to - how can you accept more immigrants.

Immigrants rock! But if the times are that immigrations doesn't do anything for the economy - you go for lower numbers.

That is just normal. Do you have any idea how wide the doors to immigration were at certain portions of U.S. history?

Huge!

Because it was so needed.

The immigration thing will be turned on its head in 2014 - when the boomers retire. The desperation for workers will be huge! Huge! Huge! Again. Perhaps in the first time in 100 years. America will be desperate for workers.

Should they be visiting workers? That's not in my heart.

start heading left as soon as possible.

... it reminds me of something Truman said: "Voters are smart. Given the choice between a real Republican and a fake one, they'll pick the real one every time."

1. Who opposed mass transit, and
2. Said mass transit would "allow the wrong kind of people" to get into glitzy neighborhoods,and
3. Was not too enthusiastic about implementing school desegregation;

and for a Republican who was on the local ACLU board, and supported school integration, and EEOC type issues.

(And this was in a Rust Belt city - Santorum's home town).

is not anti-liberal.

Immigration is one of them. It definitely wouldn't cost them a vote if I found a socially liberal, fiscally conservative candidate who believed that illegal immigrants were just that....illegal. I believe they SHOULD be shipped back until they comply with immigration laws...at the very least we should NOT be encouraging them by giving them jobs and mortgages.

Gus Hall. wink

the move to abolish the Electoral College now and banish that system to the relic heap of antiquated bourgouis style "indirect democracy" forever.

Traditional or Progressive Democrats will never have representation under this system - we must now seize the moment and take advantage of golden opportunity to abolish the Electoral College.

At no time in our country's history will such a single issue enjoy such broad support - completely accross the political spectrum - from left progressives to the extreme right and in the so called "middle" - do Americans feel so strongly about the lack of representation. Yes, many times in the past it has been brought up for discussion and even a vote in Congress. In fact, a constitutional amendment nearly won in Congress, I think back in the 70's. I don't recall the voting results but I do recall that it was very close.

I think the time is now - because the Neo-Liberal Democratic Party does no more to represent traditional liberals, then the Neo Cons represent traditional conservatives.

The time is now to move for Proportional Representation with (Choice Voting and IRV) in state and federal elections - along with paper ballots only, and clean money campaign reforms.

The time is now - or never.

Each state's popular vote would be mulitplied by an E.V. factor eliminating both ties and the importance of swing states to the neglect of all others.

The Great Compromise is vital to the fabric of the Union and in any case are Wyoming's three electoral votes any comparision to California's fifty-five?

Senate / House
2 CA 1
2 WY 53


In the Electoral College representation of Wyoming is only 5.4% that of California's. In the House Wyoming has 1.8% that of California delegation. Population is still far more important than the two Senate seats.

on positions that matter. Too much has already been given up by taking that track.

There are far too many people here at DU who will take a rigid stace and vote as above; HOWEVER, this is anything but representative of reality. Most liberals want to be idealistic in their politics, but when it comes to letting another Nader destroy our country maybe for good, those of you idealists who pull the lever for a Joe Shmoe no chance of winning protest vote mine as well pull the trigger and kill us all. Also, the stances that are considered "liberal" or "conservative" are RARELY as cut-and-dried as the one example given, there are many of us here at DU who take opposite views on a given issue. Posts like this are utter tripe and serve only the posters ego and little else.

'posters ego'? LOL, you deserve an award for nastiness!

I bet you'd get a different response than these people sitting comfortably surfing the net.