Again...the issue is getting the non-voters of '10 a REASON to vote, not BASHING them for not voting

It's impossible to shame people into voting.

It's impossible to motivate voters negatively.

The only way to get those people back is to be WORTHY of their support.

I get it that people are angry about 2010(we all are)but that loss was our leaders' fault, not those who were disgusted by them and left feeling that they had no stake in the outcome.

And no, finding a positive approach to get non-voters to vote doesn't mean promising Utopia when you don't have the votes. It means continuing to fight on to undo bad compromises and continuing to fight for gains...not telling people to, in effect, shut up and settle for what they're given.

What part of "we have to EARN those votes...they aren't owed to us" does this party still not get?

Make it clear that we're on the side of the poor, the dispossessed, of both union labor and everyone who wants to be in a union, make it clear that the battle doesn't end with the half-measure, and you can win. That's what our party didn't do in 2010, and what it HAS to do in 2012.

Agreed?

If you disagree...why?

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

those compromises don't have to be the end of the story. It needs to give people a reason to think that there will be a fight for more in a second term. At this point, our leaders are pretty much telling the base that the story is over and that they should settle for the crumbs they got. This tone has to change.

It's about keeping people in the game.

We can't ever again reduce the whole thing to "what about the Supreme Court". That will never again be a worthwhile difference all by itself. The Supreme Court isn't anything to the vast majority of Americans. Its composition is meaningless to the poor, the homeless, workers, and everyone else who isn't at the present part of the political elite.

And that the voters have the right to expect the parties they elect to actually KEEP fighting for gains.

We can't win by telling people "this is all you get...think of the Court". That isn't an argument that's worth anything. And we don't have to settle for that.

The Right is on the run now, all over this country. If Democrats keep trying to compromise with it, that will save the Right from a defeat it is otherwise likely, if not certain, to face on a historical level in the next few years.

The right is definitely not on the run.
around 55% of the country is very conservative.

It doesn't matter what people in the red states or blue states think. Those states are going to vote how they always do.
You need to be concerned with the swing voters. They're the finicky ones that I believe are more concerned with what's been done as opposed to what may or may not happen years or maybe decades down the line. Are they complaining about the way things are?

If that was the case, what's happening in the Midwest and other states wouldn't be happening.

And if 55% of the country WAS "very conservative", that would mean that nothing would work and we should all just slash our wrists.

The fact is, for a lot of people "conservative" doesn't actually mean "right-wing". It's simply the word they use for "common sense". You can't equate it with the Tea Party. And if you go issue by issue, even many people who self-identify as "conservative" are actually quite left-of-center in terms of their views of particular issues.

Perhaps I should have said "the 'haves' are on the run".

What's happening in the midwest?
Aside from the rights of millions of workers being taken away?

Just because 55% is conservative doesn't mean it's a lost cause or anybody should slit their wrists. There are some key states, FL, MO, VA, NC, OH and the election will hinge on the swing voters in those states. They're not your average voter. Your technique may, and traditionally has, worked with them.

If they're doing well under obama then maybe they'll vote to re-elect. If they're mad about being mired in yet another war and are not satisfied with what's been done and don't like all the compromises and caving to corporate interests, maybe they won't.

Do you think what the workers are doing in those states is nothing?

The thugs crushed the activists like ants and took away their rights.

I'd say their strategy of peacful rally-style demonstrations has been ineffective.
I don't think it will have any impact on swing voters in the key swing states.

The point is that a resistance culture is growing from what started in Wisconsin. That one vote wasn't the end of anything. People are mobilized now.

And, as to the mythical "swing voters"...there's no constituency anywhere that will only vote for us if we say "vote Democratic, we're bland and harmless"-and nothing we can do if we do win on such a campaign.

We have a chance now to break American politics out of the existing constraints. A suburbanite/CEO campaign can't do that and can't win.

Things will deteriorate further from here given the corporatist bent of the party leadership. This will probably continue to a point to where the people will take to the state capitals and do Wisconsin style protests in most every state before we see any real change. We have to drop the charade that the deadweight corporatist politicians represent us.

Elections and campaign promises mean doodley squat nowadays. Not that they've ever meant anything before. Leadership in action is what it will take to bring the voters back. Get out there with the people or get left behind.

...don't consider "Ok. You're better than me. And waaaay cooler than me. I admit it. Now stop striking poses, get off your ass, and get to the polls" to be 'bashing'.

(btw, I DID vote, so this thread isn't about me)

I said the party has to listen to them and understand why they did what they did.

The party doesn't have to promise Utopia-it just needs to promise that a bad deal on a few bills in one Congress isn't the end of the fight-the way that Obama has, for example, in pretty much giving up on doing anything more on healthcare, financial reform or any measures to make it easire for workers to unionize.

....and addressing their needs -- for unlimited, unstinting affirmation.

I expect that's mostly what they want, at least here on DU, and here I am delivering.

It's about simple respect.

Why do you assume it's healthy for the party for you to dismiss those people. We can't win if we DON'T win them back. And you know they can't be shamed into coming back. Everyone knows that. Why not admit it?

And why do you assume they deserve your condescension? Is it impossible for you to admit that, just possibly, they had a right to feel betrayed and ignored by this party?

It never helps this party for its leaders to care solely about the elites.

was more Republicans voted than normal. The 2012 elections will see a higher turnout because it is a Presidential election. I am not saying we shouldn't try and get the vote out, but if you
saw what happened by letting Republicans win and this is not motivation enough not sure what anyone can do. This was not Obama's fault, it has to do with littlebrains who are shortsighted and
instant gratification society.

I can't help but blame the people who sat home for the situations we find ourselves in at this time. I guess the only good thing about the mess we are in now is that there are many more people who realize that they made a mistake in staying home.

Students are protesting college funding cuts that will raise their tuitions while the quality decreases.
Union members are seeing first-hand what the Republicans have in mind.
The poor are seeing cuts in safety nets.
The elderly realize that they are losing.

These groups will all be ready to vote in the next election. And hopefully, they will continue.

It would have been better if they had, but it's the party's fault that they didn't. It's the attitude that our party's leaders exuded through every pore, this attitude that the base doesn't matter, only the people who write big checks in the corporate suites.

Loyalty has to be earned. Enthusiasm and commitment have to be maintained through both deeds and through reassurance that the struggle isn't over.

There's a wave of passion for progressive values in this country now. Our party can only benefit from that if it appeals to the streets INSTEAD of the suites. WE have to jettison the elite corporate types now or the moment will slip away.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But there is also a balance that has to be made to get elected. This upsets me as a purist, but it is just the way things go. All candidates need so much money to run for any office, it cannot all come from individuals. So they do have to dance with people who have money. I hate this---but it is reality.

And maybe I just live in the wrong area of the country, but I don't see a "wave of passion for progressive values" right now. I see people upset over what is hurting them---rising tuition or cuts in Medicare or their kids schools cutting back or unions being pummelled.

Yes they are seeing that stuff happening. But the fact is that our side is ALSO doing it. Maybe not as bad as the other side, but if someone is on the fence and looking for clear cut proof and reason to vote then many of them are going to need more than "Well you see yes I know you see Obama and the democrats advocating cuts to these programs, and not really strongly supporting unions and safety nets, and appointing the very people who got us into this mess into positions of advocacy and power.........but let me explain to you at length how much worse the Republicans would be!!!".

That's not exactly a recipe for victory. It's what they counted on in 2010 and it's why we lost so badly.

There seem to be a lot of people in this party who'd rather lose than listen. Why would ANYONE be like that?

Sestak against Toomey for Senate. Sestak was a good Democratic candidate. But Toomey won. Sadly. I had absolutely no reservations about Sestak. He should have given incentive to people to get out and vote.

For governor, I was unimpressed with the Democratic candidate Onorato (he should not have won the primary IMO), but Corbett was honest about what he intended to do, and people should have heard that.

The Rep who won was a rabid teabagger candidate who was also vocal about his opinions, and he won against a first-term Blue Dog Dem (which probably should have been a good position in this sadly conservative area). She was doing a decent job, although I had problems with some of her stands.

Now everyone is up in arms about what is happening. They told us what they were going to do.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

out walking my precinct and talking to voters, potential voters, and people who said they weren't going to vote. We turned out 60% of the voters, and got a 60% Democratic majority in the election for every partisan office. It wasn't all that difficult. All I had to do was point out what had been accomplished, even though it wasn't all we wanted, and discuss the opposition. People who weren't going to vote decided that they would. Voters reaffirmed their intention to vote, and I even changed the minds of a few Republicans, who ended up voting for Governor Dayton, instead of the teabagger.

So, you're wrong. The answer is to actively go out and convince people of what is the best thing to do. If you do that, they will go to the polls and vote. Our Congress member is Betty McCollum. She was relected with over a 60% majority. Every Democratic candidate won. We did not lose a state Senate or Assembly seat. We won every race in our precinct and in our district.

Those who sit out elections do not deserve anything but the contempt of those who voted. It is a cowardly thing to not go to the polls. Anyone who does not can sit out the next election, too, as far as I am concerned. With hard work, it won't matter. We proved that in my precinct and in other precincts where people were active in getting out the vote.

You may do as you please. Just don't look for praise if you sit at home on election day. You won't get any.

I was referring to those who the OP was talking about who are more concerned with yelling at people who have any concerns with the direction our party is headed. The OP was trying to appeal to them and for most of those people you're not going to convince them of anything. See the first batch of exchanges in this thread for the perfect example of that. They don't want to actually have to make a case as to why people should vote Dem they simply want them to do so based on the "lesser of 2 evils" theory.

The problem is that I'm not entirely convinced myself what the best thing to do is. I know the worst thing to do is to vote Republican which is why I'd never do that. But after 25 years as a staunch, hardcore, primary voting, money donating Democrat I'm no longer sure the best option is to just keep throwing money and support at a party that is increasingly getting in bed with the worst, most reprehensible elements of this country. Sure they are shining lights of integrity within our party and I don't hesitate to support them with money and time, and (when applicable based on geography) support them with my vote. So it's really hard for many of us who feel as we do just convince others who are less politically aware, and less politically active that the best thing to do is to vote for the Democratic party on a straight ticket down the line.

For me, I've never met a Republican candidate who was better than the worst Democrat on the ballot, so it's easy for me.

No worries. People that are unhappy are not
'the base' and don't matter. That's why 2010
was such a success.

do they even know what they look like when they do? It hurts your cause.... whatever that is, I'm not sure come to think of it.

Besides, if we on the left are so significant, why even bother? Our votes don't count.

There are 4 reasons. Look to these states for the hell that the monsters are unleashing.

We didn't run as an anti-corporate, pro-worker party. If we had, people like Walker and Kasich would never have won.

The answer is mobilization and enthusiasm. Those things are happening now from below, and I'm not sure that our party's nation leaders really WANT them to happen. We can't benefit from that mobilization by running another timid centrist campaign in 2012.

We have to be the party of the have-nots, not the haves, of the streets and not the suites.

Those four states should be reason enough to get up and vote. I'm sorry, I have no sympathy for someone who doesn't "feel motivated". Motivate yourself! Look at the candidates, and even if the Dem doesn't get your blood pumping and feet moving to the door to volunteer, then the Republican should AT LEAST be enough reason to vote, if only to KEEP THEM OUT!

1 I see here is on my ignore list, JUST DO NOT GET IT WHY ATTACKING PEOPLE FOR NOT VOTING FAILS TO GET THEM TO VOTE.

It is necessary to motivate people to vote, by giving them a real reason to vote.

It is true that some people vote out of civic duty; as I do. I live in a safe GOP state; so there is no 'reason' for me to vote, other than civic duty.

But, many do not vote from civiv duty. There have to be good and attractive and competent candidates; and, good proposals to get many to vote.

I fought for Obama based on promised changes that he never even fought for. Instead, he fought AGAINST me, and from polls, the American people at large.

Obama fought his hardest not to fix healthcare, but to fuck the people who cannot afford it. Obama's solution is to stick gun in the faces of the poor and tell them that they will either BUY insurance at any price the insurance jackals choose to sell it or face fines and prison.

Obama did not end the wars, he just renamed them, and now he has added a new one.

Obama did not close gitmo or end torture, he expanded it. And along with this he expanded Patriot spying.

If this were not enough, he has now decided that indefinate imprisoning of americans without a trail was not enough, nor was torturing them to extract confessions. Obama ALSO decided that he wanted (and has) the power to order American's KILLED with no trial, no jury or judge, no courts, no constitution or laws, no oversite and no questions asked. Just killed. As in murder.

But he did fight for tax cuts, you have to give him that, Obama definately fought hard for taxcuts for billionaires. The rest of us... well, not so much. In fact, the poorest got a tax HIKE to help pay for it.

Some people here don't get that. They'd rather lose than listen.

"we suck less than them" = losing campaign slogan.

will never give up on it.

I've had a half dozen friends/acquaintances/co-workers - a few teachers or grew up in Union households or have union family members, who didn't vote in 2010 tell me they will never sit home on Election Day again. I recently had a good friend tell me going forward she will drag herself to the polls. If people needed a reminder on the importance of voting, they are getting it now.

Admitting we didn't give them sufficient reason or GOTV enough implies the president cannot walk on water and deflect blaster bolts with his bare hands. Bashing is way simpler. Shame! All your fault!

To show we're on the side of the poor and the dispossessed, we'd actually have to, you know, BE on the side of the poor and the dispossessed. I'm all for it, but I don't see it happening. We're the lesser evil and we're sticking to it. Being less evil than Republicans is a nice low bar, so it's a no-stress position.

:thumbsup: