It's A Curious Thing To Be Accused Of Depressing Democratic Votes, When Elected Democratics...

[WillyT]

just may be the thing depressing said votes.

Capiche ???

The historical and lifelong supporters of the Democratic Party are:

Women
Minorities
Union Members
The Elderly
The Middle-Class
Students
Liberals/Progressives
(Please add to the list...)

Yet... many an elected Democrat seems to be willing to not only ignore many of their lifelong/traditional supporters... they seem willing to vote against them, AND against their very own platform (.pdf file): http://www.c-span.org/pdf/draft-2008-democratic-national-platform.pdf

So I ask... just how far away from the positions/philosophy/platform of the Democratic Party, do the Democratic voters allow their ELECTED Democratic office holders to stray?



Because when Democrats start engaging in Scott Walkerisms in an election year: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002276473

It really really is neither smart, nor productive. In fact it's the opposite.

[Zalatix]

1. Vote out the blue dogs. All of them.

It's as simple as that.

[tosh]

3. Well, in 2010

the teabaggers voted my blue dog out.

So now I have a teabagger

[WillyT]

4. So The Vote Stayed The Same, Huh...

[SharonAnn]

50. Except that "R" counted towards the Republican majority. So that's not the same.

[Zalatix]

5. Dem voters pooched the screw in 2010.

We failed to meet the Tea Partiers with a huge counter-rallies in 2009. We let the TP gain too much momentum without any street-level opposition. We could have fought back. Look at Occupy Wall Street now. That could have happened in 2009. Nose to nose against the Tea Partiers, the TP would have been blown away. This failure sent a HUGE message to our elected Democrats: their base had gone home and did not show up for the political fight with the Tea Party.

This created a false wave that the TP had great power - and when Democratic voters stayed home in 2010 that perception became reality at the polls.

We are setting ourselves up for failure once again by not PRIMARYING everyone beneath Obama's level with liberal Democrat candidates. We don't need to Primary Obama... we need to primary everyone in Congress and the State houses.

Aside from Elizabeth Warren we're pooching the screw. Again.

[Scuba]

25. +1

[Ikonoklast]

6. Yeah, and that was an improvement....not.

That strategy so many advocate for here means you went from someone that voters with Democrats maybe 80% of the time, to someone that votes AGAINST Democrats 100% of the time.

I bet math wasn't their strong suit.

I can't believe the political naivete of some people here. We lost the House, and all leadership positions in every committee because the Blue Dogs were mostly all replaced with Teabaggers.

I am sorry you got a Teabagger, I hope you have a good Democrat running in your district this fall.

[LooseWilly]

14. I'm guessing you have to include votes to praise the heroism of Gabby Giffords' Aide to hit 80%

voting "with" Democrats for those Blue Dogs.

When the votes "mattered", I seem to recall nearly all the Blue Dogs "bailing out".

Strategically... I think sacrificing all the "matters" votes in the name of supporting a Blue Dog, rather than sacrificing the "don't matter much" votes while fighting to build support for a Blue Not-So-Dog... is a better long-term strategy.

I might be wrong, or I might be right... but as long as the DLC holds sway over the top-level party positions, I don't figure any of us will ever know... because DLC strategy has consistently worked the Blue Dog strategy... an ironic throw-back to the roots of the Democratic Party— to the pre-FDR days when the Democrats were, as often as not, Dixie Crats... and working hard to turn back any popular politics/policy (including fierce resistance, at the time, to any attempt to undermine Jim Crow).

{Just to make clear... I'm not saying the DLC supports Jim Crow... I'm saying the conservative Blue-Dog-courting ways of the DLC are reminiscent of a pre-FDR Democratic Party which was so conservative that it did support Jim Crow, rather than workers and immigrants and reform. And as for the technicality of the "dissolution" of the DLC, I point to the New Democrats— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrats —"... They are represented by organizations such as the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the New Democrat Network, and the Senate and House New Democrat Coalitions."}

[tosh]

26. My former blue dog

actually voted with Democrats almost ALL of the time. "My" teabagger votes, as you guessed, INSANE 100% of the time.

Now we have 2 Democrats and 1 Independent running against the TB. One Dem is VERY conservative and is well known. The other is progresive on environmental issues but there exists no record for him that gives a clue on other issues. The latter leads in fundraising via ActBlue.

The TB appears to be Alec/Koch backed -- seems to be benefitting from some experienced strategists. He has managed his image much too slickly for the novice that he is.

I'd much rather have kept my Blue Dog.

[justiceischeap]

27. My problem with this strategy is that if we don't allow Blue Dogs within the party

then voters in those areas will just vote Republican and that's no help at all. I understand the frustration about Blue Dogs but really, if put in the proper context, Blue Dogs are such because they represent their constituents. For example, in Gabby Gifford's neck of the woods, I don't think you could get a liberal Democrat elected but obviously, a Blue Dog is doable.

I am one of those, it seems, rare Democrats that think the politician should actually represent who voted for them. I may not agree on their stances on many things but if they're actually doing their job and representing their constituents, then I'm happy to have them instead of a teabagger.

[loyalsister]

48. +1

Well said. I get angry about a lot of votes I see. But, in the end I usually have to admit the political realities and get over it. My progressive friends and I are in a minority.

[dreamnightwind]

54. I disagree, most Blue Dogs are tools of corporate interests

I completely respect where you're coming from, wanting more Dems and wanting reps that represent their constituents are good points.

The thing is, a candidate that truly represents the interests of the people, even people in conservative districts, is a fairly progressive candidate. The Republican Party and most of the elected Democrats represent monied interests much more than they represent their constituents. If we loudly and bravely make this point, we can win the argument, because it's the truth, and because citizens are fed up with phony corporate toadies who don't represent their interests.

I could see a Democratic strategy of running candidates whose positions on social issues are attuned to their constituents, but on issues such as corporate power, income distribution, local jobs for local firms, social safety nets, etc etc., progressive positions are what represents those people's interests. The others are just pretending to speak for the people, while taking their marching orders from the various powers that be.

[WillyT]

56. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

[woo me with science]

30. Well said. We will have thieves

for exactly as long as we consent to vote for thieves.

[quinnox]

2. Yes, but some seem to think we owe allegiance to and work for politicians, instead of

the other way around. Nope, the politicians work for us, they are our "public servants" and that even includes the president as well. *gasp*
We the people have the power, and if some politicians do something we object to or strongly disagree with, well then, they may not get our votes.

[LooseWilly]

7. How far do voters allow democratic politicians to stray from the platform?... jaw droppingly far?

... if the fact that I just served on a jury over an alert on your OP is any indication.

Though, your OP isn't hidden... so I guess there are more people than not wondering that same thing.

I, personally, find the Democratic Party platform barely tolerable— so my support of those elected officials who stray further rightward is ... microscopic.

I suppose that's one voice chimed in for you.

[WillyT]

9. It's Curious That They Alerted On This One..

But not this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002276473



But thanks for the heads-up.

[noise]

8. Right from the Romney playbook

Criticism of Democrats was ok in the past but the election is too important. We need to stop rehashing the past and give the Democratic party unconditional support.

[quinnox]

10. Its attitudes like this that

lead some to actually alert on this OP. Please stop being the purity police for Democrats, its not your place. "We" don't need to do any such thing like give "unconditional support" to all Democrats, what nonsense.

[WillyT]

11. LOL !!! - I Thought He/She Was Being Sarcastic

[quinnox]

12. Nope, I think that post was deadly serious

its hard to believe, I agree.

[WillyT]

13. Well... It's Definitely "Deadly"...

[noise]

15. I agree that the lack of

faith in our leaders is truly hard to believe. Especially now when our leaders need our devotion more than ever. We must not waver as do to so indicates a sign of weakness to the Romney campaign and al Qaeda for that matter.

[FarLeftFist]

16. Then the terrorists win.

[white_wolf]

17. Okay this has to be an example of Poe's Law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

[quinnox]

18. wow

I see you have been here since 2006 but this is the first time I have noticed your posts. You bring up Al Qaeda now too in an attempt to reinforce your point? I'm speechless. I would say you are deliberately posting in a satiric style but somehow I doubt it. If any post deserves "Perfect Sheep post of the day" its this one.

[noise]

20. Your feigned bewilderment might work on a Romney site

but here it's seen as obvious disloyalty during an election year.

Dissent was so 2011.

[quinnox]

23. Ok, you are putting me on

nicely done.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

43. Are you keeping disloyalty scores for everyone?

Don't you understand that people laugh at this shit when you post it? We need to have DEVOTION? Really? This is no way to sway people's opinions, but it is mildly entertaining. I don't know that this is the outcome you wanted.

[Starry Messenger]

19. Romney/al Qaeda 2012

Sounds formidable.

[white_wolf]

21. Ha I wonder which is less popular with GOP voters?

They seem to hate Mittens as much as they do anyone else.

[Starry Messenger]

24. That's what I was thinking!

LOL.

[WillyT]

22. Faith In Our Leaders ???

Bwahahahahahahahaha !!!



You, once again, forgot the sarcasm thingy!

[bvar22]

34. "lack of faith in our leaders" ?

"our leaders need our devotion more than ever" ?

I think you have confused politics with your church.
Blind Faith and "Devotion" belong in a religion,
NOT politics.

Your post is almost identical to the preachings of the Nun that taught 1st Grade Religion in my Catholic School.
"If you waver in your Faith & Devotion to Jesus, The Devil will see that as a sign of weakness."
ISTG.

Thanks for the FlashBack!



[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Dragonfli]

38. Do you think our "leaders" are like Gods or something? Creepy Jim Jones quality to your posts...

[suffragette]

41. "faith" "devotion" "al Qaeda" and the earlier "unconditional support"

Quite the collection of buzz words in two brief posts.

Reads more religious revival (with Romney and al Qaeda substituting for brimstone and hellfire) than political stance.

[Puglover]

44. Dear God.

You are being sarcastic right???????

[DisgustipatedinCA]

33. this was the one proposing a "voluntary" loyalty oath last night

...complete with insults in the first sentence.

Noise.

[Dragonfli]

42. I prefer blood oaths punishable by death when I join a cult, what he proposes just isn't as sexy as

that, it is more like a run of the mill expectation of a confidence man selling himself as royalty.

Yes sir! If it isn't a blood oath, it just isn't worth my subservience!

[noise]

58. The key word being voluntary

We are at war with al Qaeda during an election year and people are criticizing President Obama?

What happened to good citizenship?

[bvar22]

35. You what would be cool for DU3?

If "Transparency" would let us view WHO was hammering the ALERT buttons.

Just like DU3 keeps a public record of "Recs,
we should also be able to see a public record of "Alerts".

(We can't view that information now, can we?
Maybe I just don't know how to view that info.)

[dreamnightwind]

57. Excellent point

I don't know the answer, maybe someone else will chime in... Hopefully there is or will be a way to see who is alerting.

[fascisthunter]

46. dumb

[xchrom]

28. du rec. nt

[woo me with science]

29. When parties become corporate products,

it becomes extremely important to look past the pretty label and actually read the ingredients. Just like Breyer's ice cream, our Democratic brand has been sold in many cases to the conglomerates, and there is now Republican crap inside the pretty blue box.

Yes, this is less and less about Democrat versus Republican, and more and more about the one percent versus the rest of us, regardless of party.

Support real liberals from the grass roots, and OCCUPY.

[bvar22]

31. "Give 'Em HELL Harry" Agrees!

[font size=4]
"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman

QED:2010[/font]


[font size=4]Leadership! "The Buck Stops HERE!" NO Excuses![/font]


For those of you too young to remember FDR, HST, or LBJ,
you really don't know what a Kick Ass & Take Names DEMOCRAT is.
I really miss THAT Democratic Party!



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Dragonfli]

40. "NEW" Democrats don't listen to Harry silly, they have think tanks full of conservatives now

that do their thinking for them, this anti-union shit is boilerplate PPI, Third Way think tank policy, which is basically the same as Heritage Foundation policy seeing as how they agree on most fronts.

I know this is not news to you, I responded for the benefit of those that never bother to look into where their policy is cooked, dropped on the floor, spat on, stolen from, washed and then served to the public on a sesame seed bun of a bill.

[fascisthunter]

47. Ding Ding Ding!

[kctim]

32. Elected officials

who choose others over their own constituents, are soon voted out.

This notion that people in moderate areas really want to be represented by liberal/progressive views is nothing but a fantasy. Those people will vote Republican before they ever vote for a liberal/progressive.

If you don't want to depress Democratic votes, let the people vote for the Democrat of their choosing so that ALL are represented by Democrats.
Refusing to do this only results in votes for Republicans.

[bvar22]

36. OTOH,

a FireBreathing Populist (a la Huey Long)

*who avoids the Wedge Issues,

*looks like the Marlboro Man,

*runs on a platform of Economic Justice for Working Americans

*and has support from the Party

..CAN win ANYWHERE.

..extra votes if he/she can ride a horse and shoot a gun without looking like a poser.

The meme that "only a conservative can win in a red state" is bullshit made up BY conservatives to ELECT conservatives.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[kctim]

37. Well that totally explains

why liberals/progressives are winning in every red district, doesn't it.

This isn't the early 1900s, people can easily find out where the candidate stands on the issues, so there is no avoiding them.

But, I'm a fair guy, so tell you what: pick ANY Marlboro Man look-alike you want, have him ignore taxes, the 2nd Amendment, gay marriage, abortion etc... and preach only about his opinion of 'economic justice,' have the Party support him and run him in MY district and see if he wins.
IF he does, I am wrong and you are right.
When he does not, we will chalk it up as all the others before him.

[bvar22]

39. I'll make it easier.

YOU tell ME where George Clooney wouldn't WIN.

ALL he would have to do is answer every single question with:

"I don't know about all that,
but I DO know that Americans who Work for a Living have been getting screwed for 30 years,
and I'll fix that."

[kctim]

45. In my district

or any other district where they can find out easily where he stands on ALL the issues.

But, we can easily settle it all now:

Where has a Clooney looking person who holds liberal/progressives views, but preaches only about his views on fixing Americans getting screwed for 30 years, ever come in and taken a red area? Why do they not do it more often?

Sooner or later the far-left is going to have to accept the simple fact that everybody who disagrees with them are not brainwashed. That they must work with the other 80% of Dems who are moderate IF they want the Party to be in control.

[bvar22]

49. Why guess?

Here are the facts:

"In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic Party:

1. 65 percent (of ALL Americans, Democrats AND Republicans) say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

2. 86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives&quot .

3. 60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

4. 66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

5. 77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

6. 87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

7. 69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

http://alternet.org/story/29788/

Combine those issues with an American Idol face,
AND Party support & funds,
and we got a WINNER!

21st Century America does NOT vote on the issues.
They vote for Name Recognition and a pretty face.
With decent marketing, the more ambiguous the stand on the issue, the better the chances in the election.
See: Obama, 2008.
Sad but true.

The biggest problem grassroots, Pro-Working Class Democrats have had
is making is beyond the Democratic Primary,
where the White House (Party) endorsement, support, and funds from the DCCC and DSCC goes to the Blue Dogs
and DLC "Centrists".

SEE: Arkansas Primary 2010
where the Blue Dog Anti-HealthCare, Anti-LABOR Blue Dog (Blanche Lincoln) was solidly supported by the White House against
a popular, gross roots, Pro-Labor, Lt Governor Bill Halter in the Democratic Primary.
The White House even sent the Old DLC Dog, Bill Clinton, back to Arkansas to rescue Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln.
Adding insult to injury, a "White House Spokesman" ridiculed the Grassroots & Unions for "wasting $10 Million Dollars"
supporting a pro-LABOR Democrat in the Democratic Primary.

What happened in Arkansas was mirrored in other states,
while good Liberal Democrats were left to fend for themselves.

Paul Wellstone routinely won support in RED areas of Minnesota simply because he STOOD unambiguously for the Working Class,
and had the voting record to prove it.



[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. Aw, Bob, there you go confusing people with your facts and experiences

[jsmirman]

55. Wellstone

what a man.

What a loss.

[kctim]

61. I love those polls and those who hang on them as gospel

Two things funny about them though.
1. The election results do not match up with the election results. (Yes, a Wellstone will win here and there, but so does a Walker)
2. The questions are simplified and get different results when not. Guess that makes it easier for people to use the parts they like and ignore the parts they don't.

Take so-called "free" universal healthcare for all. Yes, a large percentage think it sounds like a good idea, but less than half of that percentage are willing to pay what it would actually take to make it a viable program. Paying $12 dollars or so more per month is not going to do it AND it is a program that will have constant increases if it is to survive.

Raising the minimum wage sounds great also, but seeing how most working Americans make more than the minimum wage, I wonder if it would have the same support if you also asked if they would be willing to pay more in order to raise the minimum wage? Would be great if they would, but election results haven't really shown that desire yet.

Repealing tax cuts is the same thing as raising taxes and, while it is just my opinion, running on raising taxes is not a good thing to run your campaign on. Doesn't matter if you have a Clooney/Pitt ticket, cutting the averge workers paycheck does not bode well for the ticket.

Protecting the environment is important to most people, Republican and Democrat. How it is done and the financial impact is what makes 'whatever it takes' the wild card. So far, environment first, individuals second, is not winning many elections.

6 and 7 aren't really wedge issues that divide voters. They are after thoughts that people can live with as long as the candidate is good on other things.

As I said earlier, the polls do not support the results of the elections. IF they did, liberals/progressives would have a super majority and there would be no need for excuses as to why people do not vote for them.

But hey, you go right on ahead with living by what "polls" tell you Americans want and I'll go ahead with living by what Americans tell us they want through the election process. No harm no foul in that.

[joshcryer]

52. It's a curious thing to dismiss the disenfranchised who rely on us to get them out and vote...

...but perfectly predictable from a position of privilege.

The vote is not depressed by Democrats failing to vote a certain way, in fact, they tend to vote just as their constituents want them to. Have a Democrat in a heavily MIC area? Well, the constituents, the majority, would like that Democrat to vote for the MIC. Since the country is not homogeneous the Democratic Party is not homogeneous.

Meanwhile, unfortunately, the anti-labor vote here was perfectly predictable.

[WillyT]

53. I Hear Ya... But There Used To Be This Thing Called A WHIP... And Party Discipline...

I know...



That laughed at...

In olden days... the WHIP would get the votes together to get things done... things the Party stood for... and were good for the future of the Party.

Then... once the votes were secured, individual Reps/Sens would go to the WHIP and aske to be released from their commitment, so they might have a better chance at election time.

Whatever happened to THAT???







Another quote form the olden days...


Jesse Unruh

On lobbyists – "If you can't eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women and then vote against them, you have no business being up here."

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_M._Unruh

Not very PC... but back then, you knew who worked for who.

[joshcryer]

59. This is what happened:

But all is not lost, we can get it back:



http://voteview.com/blog/

[bvar22]

60. The White House AND the Congressional Party leadership KNOWS how to do this,

AND uses this POWER routinely...
AGAINST the Progressive Caucus and Liberal Wing of the Party.

Remember when President Obama shamed the CBC last year,
and demanded that they quit whining about issues like Civil Liberties and Inequality,
to "Take off your bedroom slippers, put on your marching shoes..." and get behind HIS agenda?
Can you recall when President Obama has ever talked to the conservative wing of the Party with THAT tone
and THAT message?

Remember when President Obama went to Ohio and insulted Dennis Kucinich in front of his home voters
for holding out for a Public Option?
Has he ever gone to the home state of a Blue Dog and done the same?

The White House and Party Leadership knows HOW to use the Power of the Party to get their way.
The problem is WHO they use this power against.
This incident in which the White House needed a few more Democratic votes to pass the More Money for WAR bill n 2009 was revealing:

"From the jump, the White House and Democratic Leadership had the gloves off in the fight. Consider this report from last week:

Rep. Lynn Woolsey of California, a leader of the antiwar Democrats, said the White House is threatening to withdraw support from freshmen who oppose the bill, saying “you’ll never hear from us again.”

She said the House leadership also is targeting the freshmen.

It’s really hard for the freshmen,” she said. “Nancy’s pretty powerful.”

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/17-5