Dammit, people, campaigning and voting in LOCKSTEP is the answer.

I am talking about getting out and campaigning like mad and voting for ANYONE with a (D) beside their name. If you see a white male Democratic candidate at a press conference wearing fur, eating a big fat T-bone steak while mumbling, "I am kind of queasy about pro-choice," then damn it, hold your nose and VOTE FOR THE SOB!!

Republicans figured this out a long time ago. Just get someone in office with the (R). Doesn't matter about ethics, or viewpoint, or anything else. Get that (R) in office and you'll get your way eventually.

WE HAVE TO TAKE THE SAME ATTITUDE.

On edit: Damn, people, I'm talking about AFTER the primaries! That should have been obvious! Holy crap, next time I'll spell it out, and if I can find a font that looks like crayon, I'll use it.

but THEY program votes, decide how many machines for polling places in highly DEM precints, drive the trucks that lose paper ballots.

Job one: Assure fair and ACCURATE elections.

I agree completely.

This is definitely the case for state and federal offices. In some parts of the country, I think third party candidates can be supported for local offices.

Hmmnnn, flash back to 1995.

Republicans ignore EVERYTHING to elect their candidates. I'm not saying to go completely that route. What I'm saying is that we have to vote for candidates who don't necessarily say everything we want to hear!

So give it up. Until and unless the party starts to mend fences with its traditional working class base, those folks will either stay home or take the chance that the GOP aint lying about tax cuts this time.

Lockstep is for prisoners and fascists. Democrats are neither.

1. Act like fascists and vote in lockstep.
2. Don't be in lockstep and live in an actual fascist country.

Which do you prefer?

Vote in lockstep and you get Clinton. Don't do it and you get W. Which is the preferable alternative?

there are more choices than that.

It's very simple. Either Democrats unify at the polls, or we lose. It's been demonstrated time and time and time again. Hang together, or hand separately.

Name your alternatives to my "false" dichotomy. What are they?

second of all, I reject the false dichotomy that if we want a dem, it has to be a DINO or a republican.
My alternative is to run progressive dems against DLC dems in primaries.
find out which type of dem the VOTERS want, instead of which kind of dem the DLC wishes to implant.

I agree we must vote together at the polls in the general election, but I've found many yellow dog democrats and DLC supporters keep telling us we need to support ANYONE who calls themselves a dem or else vote for a republican. Anyone can call themselves a democrat, and there have been races where a republican switched parties right before the election.

Do I go to a supermarket and buy any coffee as long as its coffee? Is it ok with you if I read the lable first?

Lastly, a call for unity is fine, a condescending exhortation on how to vote is not.

That's all I'm saying. Nothing more, nothing less. And I didn't label unity as Naziism. You and others did.

"And I didn't label unity as Naziism. You and others did.'

oh, really, care to back up that accusation? the only time I used "fascism" was quoting you.

Not "you and others." Just "others." Of COURSE I don't advocate fascism - I was trying to make a point!!

There are other options that a lightswitch, on or off, conservative mentality never sees. Another option is what I listed.

So far, a good portion of them still back Bush. I'll be voting against the war and politicians who support it in '06 no matter what letter they have after their name.

LOL.

For what it's worth... I'm with you. I am a loyal Democrat, and I will always vote for the D over the R. Like it or not, the United States is a two-party system. The worst Democrat is almost always better than the best Republican.

in a primary, the progressive Dem over the DLC dem?

wouldn't that be better?

Primaries are the time for fighting. General Elections are the time for voting in lockstep.

I'm a pretty liberal guy, and all things being equal I will usually support the more progressive candidate. But another consideration for primaries is which candidate is most likely to win the General Election, and sometimes that is the more centrist candidate.

in the general election?

I see a lot of proDLC posters trying to make it seem that way as a tactic to get progressives to set their own issues aside.
In other words, laying down the weapons BEFORE the primary based on the DLC view of who is electable, rather than allowing a primary to show who the voters prefer.

isn't that preemptive strike against progressive candidates to predetermine who is most likely to win in the general election?

your message is self conflicting here: primaries for fighting, but don't really fight if you think the centrist is "more electable"

I reject the notion that the DLC or some nebulous "centrist" option should be kingmakers. Let the voter decide. IMHO, the time is ripe for progressive candidates. The republicans are a corruptive cancer on the govt. you can't fight it with more of the same, or almost the same.

Voters always complain there is little difference between the parties. If we keep reinforcing that, we keep making ourselves increasingly irrelevant.

I said primaries are the time for fighting. And they are. I didn't put any qualifiers on it, and I did not say that anyone should lay down weapons or whatever.

You asked whether it is better to support the more progressive candidate in a Democratic primary, and I explained that I usually do but I do not always do so. For me personally it depends on my understanding of the situation.

that tracks better for me, sorry I misunderstood

In our system, which it appears needs to be rescued, the only possible rescuers are (D)s, a majority of (D)s, and/or more (R)s who locate their consciences.

I'm saying that when it's (D) vs (R), go with (D).

I, however, will continue to vote (and live) based on principle. That way, at the end of the day, I won't have any regrets.

There is no point in electing a bunch of DINOs to office. (How much of a difference do you see Lieberman making?) There is no point in electing a bunch of people who do not hold the same principles I do. (We've got that now in the current administration.)

Your plan is very similar to the republican plan and, if I might be so bold, I would suggest you review exactly where that plan has landed them:

1) A party over-flowing with corruption.

2) Sinking poll numbers

3) Their second party President who will undergo impeachment hearings.

I do hear your frustration and I can understand it. Your point of attack, however, is not something which is in the best interests of our nation. Matter-of-fact, this same line of reasoning is one of the two primary reasons I left the GOP and became a Democrat. It is very sad to see it also cropping up here.

I just think that I'd rather see a Congress full of Leibermans than a Congress full of Delays.

Your plan is very similar to the republican plan and, if I might be so bold, I would suggest you review exactly where that plan has landed them:

Let's see. It's landed them in control of every single branch of the government.

1) A party over-flowing with corruption.

Which won't ever be punished because they're in control.

2) Sinking poll numbers

Which people will forget when it comes time to vote.

3) Their second party President who will undergo impeachment hearings.

He won't unless we vote a bunch of Democrats into the House, which won't happen unless we vote, as I said, in lockstep.

only choice. Further, working to front a better progressive candidate than lieberman does not mean someone prefers someone like Delay.

If I want a Honda over a Yugo, does that mean I don't like cars? No, it means I have discerning taste in cars.

You want a progressive candidate? Work your ass off in the primary for it. But if you got a Lieberman instead of a Pelosi, work your ass off for him ANYWAY because a Lieberman is a hell of a lot better than a Chambliss.

No one to my knowledge is avocating voting for a republican over a dem after the primary. You seem to be falsely implying that.
and, you seem to be using that false dichotomy as a bludgeon to hit progressives over the head in order to support "any dem at all" mentality.
I proffer that this is a preemptive strike against progressives to PREVENT them from doing just what you suggest: working for a progressive dem in the primary.

Perhaps I should have said that in the original post, but I thought that it was obvious. I thought that this board was intelligent enough to take that as a given. Next time I'll frickin' spell it out.

essentially you're saying to vote democratic in the general election...right. Is there even a need to say that? Isn't this a democratic board?
What is the purpose of saying that, unless you are:

1: accusing us of wanting to vote republican instead
2: attempting to herd progressives in line behind nonprogessive candidates in the primaries, or somehow resign ourselves to the "centrists" being the only "electable candidate"

so, which is it?

accusing us of wanting to vote republican instead

Don't you think that there are lots on here who would vote third party rather than a candidate that they consider "DLC"? It needs to be said. Argue all you want during the primary. GET IN LINE after.

I INTENTIONALLY gave you a false dichotomy. how do YOU like it?

however, I don't have a direct line into what other people think. ARE people saying they'd vote third party rather than DLC?
I have yet to see that articulated. I HAVE seen people warn the DLC that they are the minority and do not reflect the majority of voter's issues.

I think, more to the point, they've suggested the DLC is in the wrong party. But I've always seen everyone say they would vote democrat regardless, but they would try to stop the DLC from rotting the party from within.


none of this addresses YOUR INTENT, which as far as I can determine, is ordering us in a very condescending and commandeering way, to vote as you desire.

Congress full of Liebermans is better than one full of Specters... gotcha!

Congress full of Hillaries is better than one full of Obamas... gotcha!

Politicians who stand for nothing* are better than those who abide by the platforms set by our party... gotcha!

Years of progress out the window is fine as long as Ds win elections... gotcha!




* (As long as they have that all-important D by their name)



BTW, Sir, may I ask a question? When you succeed on getting the folks to vote for only people with Ds behind their name on the ballot, regardless of what that person on the ballot believes or intends to do once in office, how long will it be before the Democratic Party becomes something we no longer recognize?

Congress full of Hillaries is better than one full of Obamas... gotcha!

All I am saying is that it's time to realize that not every candidate is going to give us 100% of what we want, and that 75% is a whole lot better than 2%.

HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT EQUATE TO KRYSTALLNACHT?!?

It is not, however, what you wrote in your OP.

Unless there is a democratic majority, republicans will continue to chair committees.

So look forward to more Pat Roberts style cover-ups.

what brought the Roberts, Ambramoffs and Delays to the GOP.

When you tell a block of voters to only care about one or two issues, you are ignoring a whole slew of others. When you tell voters to ignore everything but party affiliation, you are implying that principles outlined in party platforms do not matter.

If all we are doing is electing a bunch of Democrats who act like Republicans, who wins?

are usually single issue voters. There are plenty of Dems who act like Dems, although you may disagree w them on an issue or two.

What is being advocated is

1 fight like hell for your candidate in the primary
2 advocate and vote for the dem in the general election

It is pretty damn simple. Instead we have this endless splintering and demoralization. And more republicans.

I can't believe you guys keep ignoring this.

and that it should be stopped.

You know the ones I am talking about. They have split the party. It is a moral question, and they have failing grades. They do not deserve the vote.

The war is what the party needs to rally around. Polls show the U.S. public is mostly against continuing the war. Why are Hilary and Leibercon becoming as bad as the worst warmongering Republicans? Why have they abandoned their base and their party?

Because they've seen Repukes get re-elected for it. And WHO is our base? Democrats don't have a base. We're too busy fighting amongst ourselves about every single major issue and lots of minor ones to have one. That's why I am screaming about lockstep.

cannot be Republican Lite. If the leadership will give the people an option, a party and a platform for people to vote for that stands for the things many on this 70,000-strong website stand for, the votes will be there.

The problem is that there is no separate set of ideas and ideals for people to vote for. The leadership has to articulate effectively these ideas for the people. That is how you have a party -- not by imitating another party. Once you have another party, people then have the option of voting for it.

The Republicans are doing everything they can to hang themselves. All we need is the corporate media, even just some of it.

denounce spying on Americans as unpatriotic and un-American.

Edited to add: After the revelations that we have a Dictator in charge of our country, I think I can forgo any stance on any other issue.

And stomp about in the street?

:eyes:

I say "unify," people say "Nazi." No WONDER we continually get our asses kicked in elections.

:eyes:

Perhaps people wouldn't say Nazi if you didn't use stupid fucking terms like LOCKSTEP. Puh-leez. Unify this. It would take a lot for me to join up with the likes of you, that's for damn sure. When you say "unify" you really mean "agree with me, it's the best way." Anti-democratic shite masquerading as political strategy.

There is no greater treat in a R household than a nice fresh roasted baby. They greedily devour it's flesh.

When push comes to shove, you are correct. However, that is NOT the message that should be encouraged. The Democrtic Party has to be scared into returning to its principles. Otherwise, they will continue to be complacent and tepid, and we will perpetuate the One-and-a-Half Party System in which there is NO real alternative.

Case in point. Clinton was certainly better thn Bush BUT:

Bush happened because of Clinton.Without the crap that Clinton and the DLC supported, Bush would not have been able to drive in the last nails in the coffin so easily.

Without the underlying trends that Clinton and the DLC ignored in the 1990's, the groundwork for the Corporate Takeover of America would not have been possible under Bush.

We have to stop acting in a manner that the Democrats can take their philosophical "base" for granted. Sure there should be a "Big tent" with diversity. But we have to stop assuming that the tent has to be almost indistinguishable from the GOP tent on the core issues.

Instead, IMO, we ought to actually BELIEVE IN WHAT WE BELIVE IN and stop think we have to dilute or disguise it. That's the lesson we ought to learn from the GOP. They succeed becuse they believe in what they believe, and they make no apologies.

Basic traditional Democratic liberaland progressive beliefs and positions ARE mainstream.

I'm not advocating voting for anyone but whom you want in the primaries. What I'm saying is that if someone who's less progressive than what you want gets the Democratic nod, then campaign for him/her just as hard as you would have your candidate.

There seems to be a lot of this attitude. :shrug: Makes me glad I'm an independent. :eyes:

The problem is that Democrats don't organize like Republicans. Missing this point is why we lose elections.

to feel like traitors if they voted against the party. We need to do the same thing.

"we must be like republicans".

:hide:

Wow.

Castor oil will relieve the sting from the claw marks. Nothing in the world will remove the smell from the urin...though Fabreez may help.

:silly:

Giving you a recommend by the way...this fracas should be interesting.

If we can have every last Democrat in Congress vote in lockstep for one year, I think we'll be on our way.

brings to mind images of monsters and abysses.

they're VICTORIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111

:+

was just taken for granted by the Party establishment.

Whoever the candidate is, he or she still has to convince me that they're worth voting and campaigning for.

inspiring another 10% of the eligible to vote by creating a message that makes sense to people....

here :

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=5607354