Let's put this "You gotta vote for any D" thing to rest shall we?

No matter how logical the Moderates think this position is, it's suicidal. Here's why. Do you remember when Bush stood in a room full of tuxedo'ed rich white men and called them his "base"? He was just being honest, and he was right. The Democrats base are the hard core left wingers. They are abortion rights activists, they are anti-Iraq war, they are for severe health care reform, they are very protective of Social Security, and so on.

Have you noticed how pissed the American public is at Congress right now? Why do you think that is? It's because they aren't doing what they promised they would do. They TALKED a big game against the war, and for other important reforms, but to date they have accomplished little of that and in fact seem wishy-washy in their efforts to do so.

We can nominate someone for president who is kinda sorta for getting out of Iraq, someday, and someone who thinks the health care crisis can be solved by trying to arm twist everyone into buying overpriced insurance that doesn't cover anything, a candidate who talks out of one side of their mouth about labor rights while taking a ton of money from the corporate donors who are screwing labor without benefit of lubrication, or a candidate that thinks the answer to all the partisan bickering is to just sit down with someone like Inhofe or Tancredo and hammer out a "compromise". Sure we can do that. If we do though, here's what will happen.

The hard core Dem base support for such a person will be nonexistent. Some of them will vote Green Party, no matter how stupid you think that is. Some will simply get frustrated and go to the Mall instead of the voting booth that day. Many will write in a different candidate who they think is superior. The end result will be an extremely weak turnout for your "moderate", "third way" candidate.

The point I'm making here is that NO MATTER HOW STUPID YOU THINK IT IS if the candidate we nominate doesn't inspire the base they will not support him/her in the numbers we need. That's a fact. Do we need to appeal to independent types? You betcha. But if you go too far down that path you lose the base you apparently have come to take for granted.

So now you need to ask yourselves this: Do you wanna bitch at 2008's equivalent of the Nader voters for the next 8 years or do you want to win the White House? Choose carefully, the fate of the nation rides on your decision.

I think if you took a survey of all Democrats you'd find that's not true. If you have a survey that backs you up I'd like to see it. As of now, I'm voting D regardless of the candidate.

But no, I am most decidedly NOT talking about the "DU base". Americans as a whole are more thirsty for a Leftist solution to what ails this nation than they have been in a quarter of a century, or perhaps ever. Surely you have seen the polls concerning Congress' failure to accomplish anything meaningful to end the Iraq war.

If we nominate a muddle of the road candidate the Democratic base will yawn and not show up. Mark my words.

I voting Blue because thats the Best Odds for serious change....

Its not what they(DEMS) did...its what shows more Promise...

The PUBS have given us 16 plus years of Bad Decisions...please consider it...

I am voting Dem. No question about it.

The point is that if the Dem we nominate doesn't INSPIRE the base, we may well lose. And we would deserve to lose. We CANNOT simply tell the Dem base to get in line and vote. It will not work.

our Dem Leaders will run amok...if we yell loud and clear...the Pubs get better odds....

The Solutions R Us Company sez there should be ways to insure our candidates do the GD job....How? By committing them to some sort of Filtration....There must be ways to make sure our candidates will not turn out as a Joe or a Zell. But, rather, they should be a basic Democratic Party Philosophy that all members must follow....

Our Party should have some sort of training/workshop/whatever to weed out the Cronies and Peters...currently, we let anyole body in the tent...some, as we found out, are trolls and moles....consider Carl Sheeler...ran as a DEM from RI against Whitehouse...lost his ass in the primary....what does he do?...back the PUB candidate in the Gen El...The Pubs are like termites...insidious and tenacious...

This Dem Party is Fractured and a way to coalese/unite has to be solved...

the electorate has done by not showing up in the polls...he is holding them ACCOUNTABLE for their lack of action. This is what the right wing does...they harangue and harass their congresscritters so much that they know better than to step out of line.

The Democrats count on others bullying their base into compliance so they ignore those who support a living wage, universal healthcare, fair taxes, and such in favor of their wealthy campaign contributors.

sounds like, don't you?

Here is what the MAJORITY of Americans (Democrats AND Republicans) want from OUR government!

It disgusts me that people ignore the "disaffected" voters and keep creeping and crawling to the fascist right. The false meme that independents are allegedly middle-of-the-road is total horse shit. The REAL "middle-of-the-road" is somewhere between Clinton and Kucinich ... but you don't get things to move left and match that constituency's values by choosing someone slightly to their right. One can NEVER get a ship to move to port if the rudder is never more than midships.

disgruntled voters, or those who won't vote at all because they just didn't get their way COMPLETELY! THAT attitude exists on both sides of politics. I think this attitude was even more strong in past years, but after the last 6 1/2 years, after seeing all the distruction of ShrubCO and the compliance of a Pub Congress to let him get away with it all, I think there's going to be much LESS of that than in the past.

The moderate Dems in Congress have ALLOWED the worst of Bush's policies to pass. They had the opportunity to stand against them but they alway chose to keep their powder dry. Well now their powder is damned near dessicated and Bush has had everything his way.

Ignore the Left at your peril. They are pissed.

Now we hear that the Bush administration ordered scientists to keep quiet about global warming. How his actions are permitted
by Congress is a something we should be calling them on. They have to get involved in the day to day business of running the
country instead of the day to day business of running a perpetual campaign for office.

It is hyperbolic to say that the moderates always did nothing. First, because there have been Democratic alternatives, usually sponsored by Rangel, which moderates have voted for. After Republican majorities voted those down in lockstep, then moderates gave in to the inevitable. As in 'I voted for the $87 billion (Democratic proposal) before I voted for it (Republican proposal)' Except that Kerry voted against the Republican proposal in that case.

Secondly, there have always been compromises, which make the legislation NOT QUITE AS BAD as the original Republican proposal. There are examples in almost every bill.

1. The $300-600 rebate checks in the 2001 tax cuts
2. automatic phase-outs of the Bush tax cuts, and delays in implementing tax cuts for higher brackets
3. dividends taxed at 15% instead of 0% like Bush proposed
4. Instead of a blank check authorizing invasion of Iraq, Bush was required to get approval of the UN Security Council.

and so on.

Even moderate Democrats have done quite a bit, but not enough to over-ride a veto.

If I knew how to post the icon of the little guy rolling around and laughing, I would.

:rofl:

Thanks!!!! I learn something new every day on DU!

will sit this one out if the Dems nominate a centrist too weak to stand up to Bush, i.e., Clinton, Edwards, Obama

Sorry...if anything, I see many here who feel it's "my way or the highway" on many issues. If you're not for impeachment NOW, then you're some weak-kneed wimp or if you think that Democrats aren't a "sell-out" cause we didn't jump on whatever pet issue it is to your liking or gave it the priority you think it deserves.

The joy of being a Democrat is a little thing called DIVERSITY. It means that we are free thinkers...able to put our own math together and come up with our own reasonable conclusions. That doesn't mean it will be the same as others...and viva la diference. That's what makes a DU of value and here is where we can all sound out our concerns or opinions and get feedback. For some, this can give more light and knowledge...only if you let it be that way.

While I will not say I vote for any Democrat no matter what, I surely can say there's no way I could vote for a current Repugnican...not for any position of responsibility...no way no how. That's the only given I have going into next years elections. I want Repugnicans gone...PERIOD. Be it with Democrats or Independents...I want Repugnicans gone. It's that simple.

As far as whose the Democratic nominee next year, I'll cross that bridge when we see what the primary voters in various states have to say...or what the circustances facing our country is. I'm all but certain it's not going to be any better than it is now. My prime focus right now is getting as learning about and supporting as many Progressive candidates as I can...helping the small campaigns on the local levels that will make the real difference next year.

I think, if there's one thing a majority of us here hold in common is our disgust, frustration and contempt with the status quo and the Repugnican party. We've suffered through a long trashing that we're just starting to come out of...and some of us are ready for some major payback. '06 stopped the bleeding...'08 turns the corner...

Now if you think a Nader or Bloomberg can do better...knock yourself out.

I have watched since Mondale our party picking the same kind of candidate over and over again and losing over and over.
People want to blame everything except the fact that after 20 plus years of choosing the same kind of candidate, DLC type, we still have not learned shit.
I am so sick of it. If we cannot see the DLC candidate does not make people want to go out to vote and cannot get the indie vote and we end up losing, then it's time to stop making the same mistake over and over.
I want to win. I want to see a real democrat in the white house. Not a somewhat dem. Not that they will win. never do.

It is the folks who don't want to upset the applecart who got us that. Do you remember all the moderate Dems who REFUSED to filibuster Roberts and Alito? The far left wanted to fight, it is the MODERATES who didn't.

won't fight for anything.

Sometimes you just have to stand for what is right and not what is politically expedient.

this week? What reason did the Democrats give for not filibustering Roberts and Alito?

Define them by their ACTIONS not their words, as most politicians hire PR firms to help them during campaign season. Thus far the actions tell me they will be a little less harsh than the Republicans, but harsh nonetheless.

The failure of Democrats to mount effective filibusters
got us Alito, Roberts, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, and many
other vile appointees.

Tesha

which some supposed "democrats" actually crossed over to vote FOR.

The Democratic party has unfortunately lost both the moral high ground AND the public's perception of being able to stand up and lead (or just say a resounding NO to appalling things).

Not sure what can be done at this point to change that... the vast majority of the electorate doesn't pay much attention to policy- so they don't see much difference. And our "leadership" isn't doing much to create and reinforce the contrast.

The "strategy still seems to be: "but, but" we're not as bad or as corrupt as Republicans.

eom

who will never vote for a "certain" Democrat, and those who will vote for a third party that will never see the inside of the White House, no thanks for your contribution to another possible four years of Repuglican rule. There is no logical defense for voting anything but Democrat, and inspired, but, for now, unacceptable ideologies will fail in the taking back of our country. That will come later. A position of strength has to be attained first, and our best chance is with whoever the the Democratic nominee is. To accomplish those things which are not really accepted by Mr. and Mrs. Moderate Democrat, which scenario would contribute to that likelihood? Another corrupt, bfee licking Repug administraton, or a Democratic administration that is at least, open to new ideas and direction? If we end up with another Naderizing of this election, and lose, those who voted their "conscience" will be able to say, "I stuck to my convictions". Problem is, that conviction may contribute in the complete destruction of the constitution. I don't really think it's worth it, and the millions who do vote Democrat will say, with much sarcasm, "THANKS A LOT!" My o2. Thanks.
quickesst

IT DOESN'T MATTER. The point is that if we nominate a Repub lite we will lose. It doesn't matter if they are wrong, what matters is results. Do you want to win in 2008 or not? If you do then don't talk logic to me, talk strategy.

and their echo chorus on the radio and on cable news to savage her. Once again we will hear about Monica, Paula, Whitewater. On the positive side I am sure they will show her hypocrisy at having served on the board of Wal-Mart.

It will be a nasty and very divisive campaign if Hillary is the nominee. You aint seen nothin' yet.

Not much more to add, except my sincere thans for writing it.

TC

mis-characterized the core of the Democratic party because hard-core left wing is oppressive not progressive. edit to add: Which is not meant to imply that the core is progressive.

After that, the show's basically over. The fate of the Nov. 4 election will be determined in the primaries, so choose wisely.

:thumbsup:

Of course, the (D) I vote for may not be the nominee, but a Democrat I feel is a better choice for our country. Thank the gods for being in blue CA and the write-in option.

Be strong in your convictions. Have a vision and speak it.

Independents are independents because they're not satisfied with the leadership from either side. That doesn't automatically put them "in the middle" of the political spectrum - it makes them wanting a new direction, and we're trying to appeal to them by drawing less distinction between the parties. That's dumb strategy, given the independent mindset. Take a clear direction, make a clear distinction, and we'll pick up a good chunk of the indy vote.

of course, their willingness to play dirty and to commit any sort of illegal activity to do so. They succeed even though the American public is even more progressive than our Dem leaders (partly because the patheticlly misinformed and distracted public doesn't even understand where it actually stands).

But another very important reason is that they are unified. That is also why they are able to get their policies passed into law. Those "moderate" Repubs who don't agree with them are strong-armed into supporting whatever bills or stances the Repub leadership decides to put out there.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are unable to get enough of their people elected to form a strong majority, because the party lacks unity at the grassroots level, and even when they do get elected, individual members will get in each other's way. Think of Landrieu, the Nelsons, Lieberman when he was a Dem (and who still caucuses with the Dems), etc. It's like herding cats.

I am all for pushing for what we want in the primaries. We should work very hard for progressives during the primaries. But when that stage is past, I think we should come together to defeat Republicans every time. Pressure the Dems in office, badger them, support primary challenges against those who don't listen (as the far right Republicans do against their members who displease them), but keep in mind that defeating Republicans in the general election is essential. As long as Republicans hold the levers of power, they control the way politics can be played in this country.

Politics is the art of the possible. The perfect really is the enemy of the good.

By taking one step at a time, we have managed to break the dam, so that more and more and more information is finally being brought out into the light. Every little bit that gets exposed creates an opening for another little bit to get exposed. The process is speeding up now, no matter how frustrated we feel that it is not moving faster. Just think of what has happened since the Dems have taken the majority in Congress, though that majority is too slim.

One of the most important things is that the investigations are being covered as news. Oh, sure, not as much as they should be, but still, covered. Compare that to the way Conyers’ investigations were buried in the basement and ignored by the press before he had the chairman’s gavel.

We do need to agitate for impeachment, and agitate hard. Elected officials seldom lead, really. They wait for us to create the massive march that they can run to get in front of. If we get enough of a roar going at the grassroots level, then they will feel safe joining us.

But in a general election, defeating Republicans is the most important thing we can do. During all primary seasons, and while they are in office, we need to make the seat very hot for our recalcitrant Dems, but at the general election, we need to destroy Republicans and prevent a Republcina majority—and even prevent a strong Republican minority.

We knew by the numbers alone in the last election, that the Democrats would not have enough votes to swing an over-ride of a veto. Congress can pass what they want, with all good intent, but when it gets to *'s desk, he will veto it, knowing full well that the veto will stand.

I think the push for the next election should be to get a Democrat in the White House. If that mission is not clear and precise, and the Gods forbid, another Republican get elected, we better make damn sure there are enough Democrats in congress to over-ride the swift veto pen that will surely be in the President's hand.

Just My opinion.

But even regardless, those that would vote for the green or indy candidate while that candidate has no viability, are still being quite stupid and detrimental to the global society.

Sure, we should put our best candidate forward and hope for one that can inspire the masses. But no matter who it is, those with progressive ideals that choose to vote green or not at all, are not only shooting themselves in the foot due to their ignorance but also taking other people out with them. That's what makes their position so blatantly stupid.

But both can coexist. We can have a candidate that wasn't as good as they should've been and people who are so narrow minded as to do something so completely ignorant and stupid as voting for the green, at the same time.

Vote for (D):


Do anything else:

tell the hard left to go fuck themselves. (Which they're already doing by voting 3rd party, anyway.)

Any votes lost to the Democrats from this group will be picked up in the middle.


And once again - any group as undependable as "Nader voters" is not the base of the Democratic Party.

strategy.

Go back and read the OP again and try to understand it. This is not about third party voters, or Nader voters, it's about the Democratic base, the people who've hung in there year after year voting Democratic. We're fed up. We don't want Clinton or Edwards or Obama. We want a DEMOCRAT.

If you were the base, Kucinich would have been our nominee last time around, instead of an afterthought who could barely pull 5% of the vote.

You don't think Clinton, Edwards, or Obama are Democrats?

LOL!

You prove my argument.

out of Iraq NOW, they want their civil liberties and their jobs back, they want single payer health care, they want Social Security and Medicare protected. Your "moderate/conservative Democrats" (AKA DINOs) aren't going to give them that. Kucinich will.

Kucinich has to deal with the media and his own party marginalizing him, but if people find out what he stands for, he can win. Unless the machines are already rigged, which is entirely possible.

People are getting fed up with the media and the party machines so I think a lot of people will be looking for someone besides Clinton, Edwards, Obama, to vote for in the primaries.

Now, explain to me in what way the Bush-enabling trio of Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are Democrats.

of winning the nomination, much less the Presidency.

If you don't think that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are Democrats, maybe you should ask yourself if you are a Democrat.

And that's all I'm going to say -

One thing thing I've learned is that it's a waste of time talking to zealots.

The votes in the middle is a myth. How many Democratic defeats does this take to get this through your head?

The Right Wing plays to their base and they win. The Democrats continue to seek the mythical "moderate" votes, lose their base, and get burned come election time. It's time for something different.

since you're so savvy about what wins elections.

-------------------

Here in Colorado we've taken two House seats and one Senate seat away from the Republicans in the last two elections. How was it done? By running moderate/conservative candidates in moderate/conservative districts, and, in the case of the Senate, a conservative Democrat (Ken Salazar) - who, btw, outpolled a liberal Democratic Presidential candidate running in the same election cycle by 12 percentage points.

Those are real races, real numbers.

If you want me to take you seriously, then back up your argument with the same.

and a moderate/conservative Republican? Nothing! Except the D or R after their names.

anyone who believes that after the last seven years does not deserve to be taken seriously.

But I don't want to hear any of you guys bitching that it was the progressives' fault when you lose the election -- again.

is still a THOUSAND TIMES BETTER than the "best" Republican.

As the Romans said about Carthage, I say it here:
The Republican Party Must Be Destroyed.

:kick::kick:

that's for sure.

than any Republican nominee.

Even Hillary Clinton.

:kick:

as my Senator has exclaimed as she pounded her gavel.

If even moderate Democratic candidates had won the white house the last two times, we would not have the Supreme Court we have now, be in Iraq, hated around the world, nor all the appointments around the country we don't even realize yet.

Yes, I'll proudly vote for whichever Dem is nominated.

in Congress had done anything to stop it. Most of them just gave Bush whatever he wanted. They're in power now and they're still giving him whatever he wants.

If the Dems pass this immigration bill, I guarantee that a lot of Dems will lose their seats in Congress and we'll probably have a Republican president, too. But they are too gutless to stand up to Bush.

The only Democrats with any courage are Dennis Kucinich and the members of the Black Congressional Caucus.

There's nothing magical about this party that commits me to a death-pact to support it. It just happens to have a platform that is 85% right, as opposed to the GOP which is 95% wrong.

shall we?

Honestly, I think you did put it to rest. Or one would hope.

Stay home and let the repubs choose a president for you!:sarcasm:

Doorbelling, phonebanking and giving more money than you can afford is absolutely NOT going to happen, though.

too far to the right and lost its nerve. Unless the nominee is farther to the left (i.e., left of the average Republican) and shows a spine, s/he'll lose.

You said it so well I'm going to repeat it:


"The hard core Dem base support for such a person will be nonexistent. Some of them will vote Green Party, no matter how stupid you think that is. Some will simply get frustrated and go to the Mall instead of the voting booth that day. Many will write in a different candidate who they think is superior. The end result will be an extremely weak turnout for your "moderate", "third way" candidate."

"The point I'm making here is that NO MATTER HOW STUPID YOU THINK IT IS if the candidate we nominate doesn't inspire the base they will not support him/her in the numbers we need. That's a fact. Do we need to appeal to independent types? You betcha. But if you go too far down that path you lose the base you apparently have come to take for granted."

"So now you need to ask yourselves this: Do you wanna bitch at 2008's equivalent of the Nader voters for the next 8 years or do you want to win the White House? Choose carefully, the fate of the nation rides on your decision."

The Republican base is more ideologically cohesive and more favorably geographically concentrated. They can be very conservative and win in rural and Southern districs in House elections and they can carry Southern and conservative Western states in Senate races and Presidential races by playing to the conservative base in winner-take-all elections. Conservative states simply have greater representation per capita in our federal government. It's unfortunate, but true.

We need more than our activist base to win national elections. We gained control of the House and Senate as a result of victories by "conservative" populist Democrats. Jim Webb's and Heath Shuler's.

Personally, I'd love to have an ideologically pure liberal majority party. That's been the liberal dream since FDR tried purging the Dixiecrats, but I'm not so sure the numbers add up. We've always won as a centrist coalition party.

I partially concur with your critique to the extent that I think that maybe our national candidates have gone overboard in the past in moving to the center-right and haven't been strong enough advocates of liberal ideas, but I don't know if liberal Democrats can necessarily duplicate the base-driven strategy of the conservative Republicans as you seem to suggest.

To me being making a statement isn't worth handing the repukes the white house for the 4 more years.