The political climate is drifting into Naderism

Remember Nader? He's spent a good many years siphoning off Democrat support and votes by convincing folks that pulling for his losing and marginal campaigns would 'teach Democrats a lesson' and advance the progressive agenda. My concern is the loose chatter about pulling support from the Democratic party without spelling out just how that action will result in something more than just advancing a republican to office and to an inevitable, intractable incumbency.

I think that primary challenges are necessary and productive. We certainly need to work to advance candidates who promise to remain faithful to our agenda and initiatives.

There is little value, however, in scuttling a Democratic candidate's chances in the general election against the republican opposition by allowing the opposition to amass more support and votes than our Democrats (with very few exceptions, the republicans are always much worse). That's obviously not the ideal that we seek when we begin a campaign, but I think we need to remain engaged and responsible to the end result. It does no good at all to put a republican cretin in office with our inaction or indifference. We need to find the balance between advancing our agenda and avoiding self-defeating protests which amount to enabling the opposition.

That often means compromising; a staple of our political system. If we can't get the ideal candidate in office, we need to continue to work to influence them with our activism and advocacy. We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the advancement of Democrats. Consider the alternative.

I tend to agree with you.

They refuse to learn.

What's that saying? You can lead a person to knowledge but you can't make them think.

really matter any more.

Nail meet hammer!

:rofl:

or cynically and openly take my vote for granted to the point that they just will say in front of God and everybody that I "have no place to go".

That's unacceptable.

Further, they are proving extremely unresponsive to (not to mention less than thankful for) our activism and advocacy which leaves little options other than to fight them like the enemies they show to be and then in the end abandon them to their fate if they continue to go their own way.

Reinforcing bad policy, lies, and capitulation has not to my knowledge ever produced satisfactory outcomes. I think your plea is with the wrong people, if the Democrats wish to maintain power then the people with the power and the votes need to wake up and serve the interests and take care of the needs of the American people.

I don't vote for Republicans regardless of what letter they place by their names. If the Democrats don't wish to be seen as Republicans then they had best abandon their failed policies and philosophies and get their asses back to work for the people instead of the moneychangers.

Oh, I know that in our two party system the only way to punish a political party for failing to do your bidding is to remove it from power. But in a two party system it means you reward the other side.

Unfortunately, that is the nature of the beast.

Nader was more into saying there was no difference between Democrats and Republicans.

you don't really have to convince people that there's no difference between the parties. Their day to day lives will tell them that and that lasts longer than an election season.

Huh?

It's like a spouse who complains that the other person is drifting away--but doesn't mention his/her own unending neglect and nagging and ingratitude.

And I've yet to see anyone who claims it (you are certainly not alone in repeating it) show any real evidence that it is fact.

Nader's votes weren't 'siphoned' off Democrats. I don't understand why people keep repeating this. There is no alternate reality in which the people who voted for Nader 'would have' voted for Gore, say, in 2000, or Kerry in 2008. It's just a scapegoater's fantasy imo. Maybe they wouldn't have voted at all, maybe they would have written in someone or voted for another minor party candidate, but he didn't 'steal' votes from the Dems.

Current threats to abandon the party by previously faithful Dems aside, I just don't think framing your argument that way lends any credibility.

they were not gonna vote for Gore/Leiberman..

It clears things up even more!

That's why the founders thought democracy was a good idea.

The only "influence" that politicians feel (outside the money the corporations bribe them with) is our votes. If we don't make them earn them, they'll ignore us as "having nowhere to go".

The "not as bad", "work within the system" (no matter how corrupt), is wearing more than a little thin.

The fact is that the Obama administration is losing DEMOCRATS, including such liberal NY Times columnists as Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert...and their readers.

Read today's (January 26) column by Bob Herbert and then read the comments in the order Readers' Recommendations. Read them and weep.

And it's not the fault of Ralph Nader or right-wing operatives or any of your other silly scapegoats.

It's the fault of the Obama administration and their head-in-the-sand supporters.

And your denials and petty accusations don't help your case at all. They just make you seem like bullies.

I have to agree Lydia nailed it!

so I don't see how primary challenges are productive in any way.

And, what "advancement" are you talking about? Who is "advancing", exactly? You seem to be conflating advancing party control with advancing the party platform when they're not at all the same thing any more. :shrug: