By selling out their voting base, what do the Elected Dems gain?

:tinfoilhat:

:popcorn: ?

The plan is all Republican all the time forever and they know it,
but this way they get to draw a paycheck for another term,
and the Rethugs maintain the appearance of a 2-party system
until it suits their purposes to discard it.

.....or worse.....

I've been thinking about this, and finally realized (I'm no genius when it comes to statistics) that some centrist Dems figure it's better to take one vote away from the Repukes while adding one to the Dem column, than to woo one Dem non-voter (or Green voter, e.g.). It's a net gain of two as opposed to one. So they'd rather go the Republican Lite route, thinking it's a better way to bolster their chances.

I have a couple of problems with this. First of all, of course, it's dishonest to turn your back on the principles your party supposedly stands for. But even aside from that, it's not practical. Because for every moderate or disaffected Repuke voter you attract by being an anti-abortion, pro-war, anti-labor pseudo-Democrat, you repulse a Democratic or potential Democratic voter.

And that just doesn't add up.

I think the worst result of the Repub lite Democrats is that so many potential voters have just given up. I know a lot of people who would be likely Democratic voters but don't vote because "it doesn't matter whether I vote or not, they'll all do the same thing."

We've got to give people a real choice. A real reason to vote for us. And follow through. Then we will be a majority party by a big margin.

Country, they are doing a good job of hiding the loot. That is, unless they are selling out for peanuts.

Neville Chamberlain was a case study in the failure of a policy of appeasement.

The trouble is, a lot of the times they're right. If the party establishment candidate that's running for the Senate in Minnesota is the candidate in November I feel like I'll have to vote for her because, as much as I'd prefer someone else, she still won't be as bad as the Republican that's running. What the DFL and the candidate haven't figured out is that she's turning off a lot of people, especially with her position on Iraq and a good many of those people will go with the Green Party candidate. I'm worried that enough people could defect and we'd wind up with the Bushbot winning with a plurality. (In 2000 about 5% of Minnesota voters went with Nader, though Gore still took the state).

Of course, if that happens, the DFL will blame the Greens and never admit that not having a candidate that gave the voters a choice had a thing to do with it. :banghead: