Six Top Ways to Spoil the Chances for a Democratic Majority in Congress

[MineralMan]

1. Tell as Many People as Possible that Both Parties Are the Same - Nothing works better to keep Democratic turnout low.
2. Find as Many Reasons as Possible to Criticize President Obama - If the President is so awful, why vote for Democrats?
3. Declare that You're Done with Democratic Politics - That will do a great job of convincing people not to vote.
4. Do Not Participate in Local GOTV Campaigns - Nobody votes anyhow in mid-term elections, so why bother?
5. Accuse Those Who Encourage Election Activism of Pollyanna Thinking - Maybe they'll just give up in discouragement.
6. Don't Build up Support for Local Candidates on Social Media - Why bother? Social Media is a wasteland, anyhow.

[NaturalHigh]

1. Re: #2

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

- Theodore Roosevelt

[xchrom]

2. +1

[MineralMan]

3. I've seen that quotation before, you know.

It's a good one, as far as it goes, but it's not universally correct, and timing plays a role in its usefulness.

[NaturalHigh]

4. How is it not universally correct...

and when is it not okay to criticize the president? When there's an election coming up? There's always one just around the corner.

Sorry, I'm sort of a first amendment type, and I don't appreciate the implication that I need to get in line behind the president whether he's right or wrong.

[MineralMan]

6. You will, of course, do as you see fit.

However, you'll notice that I said nothing about never criticizing the President in my OP.

[Snotcicles]

38. Serve it piping hot. nt

[LanternWaste]

49. Only to political hacks.

"... timing plays a role in its usefulness."

Only to political hacks; to those who favor accuracy and honesty, there are no additional qualifiers necessary.

[msanthrope]

52. Knowing when to make your argument is part of effective advocacy. nt

[polichick]

5. So true.

[OilemFirchen]

36. TR was quite the wordsmith.

I've always enjoyed this one:

To sit home, read one's favorite paper, and scoff at the misdeeds of the men who do things is easy, but it is markedly ineffective. It is what evil men count upon the good men's doing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. +1 ...

and when it comes to some, it's not good enough for them to sit at home doing nothing but scoffing ... they wish to encourage as many as possible to do likewise.

And then, will act all brand new, when the evil men's counting comes true.

[MineralMan]

69. Excellent quotation.

Thanks.

[bigwillq]

37. ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. Of course ...

MM's OP was about how to lose in 2014 ... it appears your Okay with that because of the Teddy quote.

You can't complain about a lack of enthusiasm among Democrats while simultaneously deepening that enthusiasm.

[840high]

67. ...^ that

[sufrommich]

7. I would add *convince yourself that elections

don't matter because the revolution is coming!*

[MineralMan]

8. Well, come the revolution,

we'll all have an equitable government, because it always works out that way, you know.

[msongs]

9. campaign as a dem then govern like a republican :-) nt

[polichick]

10. Yes - that's the most important factor!

[Whisp]

44. which dems are governing like republicans?

can you name one?

You are aware of the over the top, crazy nasty shit the Pugs are pulling and you say there is a Dem/Dems that are the same?

yeah, I thought so.

[F4lconF16]

64. How about...

campaign as a liberal and govern as a conservative?

While I'm all for positivity and working to get the vote out, it doesn't help when liberals run as moderates and then enact conservative policies. It would be a lot easier to vote for a democrat if I was confident he would be a liberal.

As to the OP, while I think that timing of criticism and working to help democratic candidates is important, it has to be said that those who are often see criticizing Obama and other democrats usually have legitimate points. Just because the timing is bad with the elections doesn't mean that what is being said isn't true. That said, I think there is still a large responsibility to help the liberal candidates and elected officials we have already, if for no other reason than a republican-controlled government would be far, far worse.

[Whisp]

66. Name me one trans vaginal probing democratic moderate.

Or one that talks bigoted shit on the scale the Pugs do on immigration or gays or race?

Dems in red states can't be as liberal as we like but like McCaskill they are a hell a lot better than that freak she was running against 'women's bodies shut down' rape talk.

[F4lconF16]

68. I agree completely.

That's what was meant when I was talking about pretty much any democrat being better than the insanity of the republican party.

[Whisp]

75. Yes, and I will even say, which I don't like to!

As much as I dislike Hillary (and Bill), as much as I would put them on the very end of a long list of 'good dems', I would rather see Hillary leader than any of those awful people on the right that have gone completely mad.

[NM_Birder]

74. Don't know which ones are responsible, but ...........

In a shitty economy, with bullshit un-employment #'s,............. my stock investments have NEVER done so well. In the last 3 years, I've not only made my loss of more 1/2 my portfolio value, I'm UP UP UP and more than a little mesmerized by the gains.

I don't know who is pulling the market strings, but I have never seen an increase like this, over this short of a time. I've been active in the market for 12 +- years so I'm not a market expert, but certainly no infant either. My portfolio has NEVER been this positively active under a republican leadership.

I am at zero hour, and will likely start pulling out very soon and be out within a few months, so to answer your question to the other poster, .....

I don't know which Democratic leaders govern like Republicans, but for me, whatever they are doing and whomever they are, my egg basket is back to full with a few extra dozen stashed. They have done better for me than any Republican has before.

[leftstreet]

11. 7. Let GOPers run unopposed in many races

[MineralMan]

15. That's sort of up to the folks in those districts.

To run, a candidate has to file to run. If nobody does, nobody runs.

I've never lived in such a place, nor would I. Everywhere I've lived, there has never been a shortage of Democratic candidates.

If I lived where nobody ran as a Democrat, I'd file myself and run, just to have a Democrat on the ballot. Then, I'd walk as much of the district as I could and talk to as many people as I could. I might lose, but I'd give it a shot. Fortunately, I don't have to do that, since we have great candidates already.

Do you live in such a Congressional District?

[leftstreet]

29. ...or the DNC n/t

[MineralMan]

31. Not really. Congressional races are local.

Candidates are picked by District Democratic organizations, but candidates do have to run. If no candidate is available and willing, there will be no candidate.

The reality is that anyone can file to be a primary candidate in a Congressional District. Their name will appear on the primary ballot. The requirements to file vary from state to state, but there's always a way.

Now, in districts where there is virtually no chance for a Democrat to win, money will not be forthcoming from the national party organizations. The campaign will be up to the candidate and the local organization in those cases, but someone can run if he or she wants to run.

In one district where I lived, we had a perpetual Democratic candidate in every primary election. He never won a primary, but he ran each time, showed up to debates, knocked on doors and would speak anywhere he was allowed to speak. Sadly for him, much stronger Democratic candidates always ran, too.

Where I am now, in Minnesota, there's a former city council member who tries to run in place of our very popular Democratic congress member. Every two years, she shows up at the district convention and gives her speech and then gets no votes, because she's not really very good at it and has little to say. But, she runs. Since she ignores the endorsement process of the local DFL party, she also appears on the primary ballot as a Democrat. In the Primary election, she gets a few dozen votes. Then, two years later, she runs again.

Anyone can run. You can run if you like, too.

[leftstreet]

33. No such thing as a 'district where a Dem can't win'

Utter nonsense

When half the eligible voters don't vote, the Democrats have an opportunity

[Art_from_Ark]

63. There are some districts where Dems have an ice cube's chance of winning

The only time since 1966 a Democrat has had a chance in Arkansas' 3rd district, for example, was back in 1974, when Bill Clinton barely lost to the incumbent, John Paul Hammerschmidt.

There's also a district in Missouri (Springfield) that has not had a Democratic respresentative since 1960/61.

[Number9Dream]

70. Democratic Party leadership: My Republican Congressman is running unopposed.

Please give me a candidate to vote for.

I live and work in the Lehigh Valley of Pennsylvania. In November, I will be voting for the Democratic candidate against Tom Corbett, as well as any other Democrats running for whatever. Our two Senators are not up for election in 2014. My Congressman is Republican, Charlie Dent. This year, he will be running unopposed by any Democratic opponents. Listening to and reading various progressive media, I'm told over and over that in order to take back the House and retain the Senate, it's up to Democratic voters to vote in November. I'd love to vote for any Democratic candidate against Charlie Dent, but the Democratic Party can't come up with a single candidate to run against Dent. The Party leadership is letting down thousands of Democratic voters, not the other way around. It makes me wonder how many other races nationwide feature unopposed Republicans.

[whatchamacallit]

12. Could your vote be influenced by any of those acts?

[MineralMan]

16. Oh, hell no.

I'd never do any of those things, either, though.

[whatchamacallit]

19. Do you know lots of witless, suggestible democrats?

Just trying to make sense of your claim.

[MineralMan]

20. You know, I do.

I have met many of them while doing precinct walking. I've learned how to motivate them to go to the polls on election day and vote for Democrats. My precinct has a very, very high Democratic turnout for each election, compared to other precincts.

However, I wouldn't call them witless. Just unmotivated for one reason or another. Motivating them and helping them understand why their vote is important is my job as a precinct worker. It works. I've seen it work.

[whatchamacallit]

21. Uh huh... How do you know how they'd respond to hearing the specific "spoilers" you posted?

Did you test it on them?

[MineralMan]

22. No, I did not. In fact, I did just the opposite of those.

But, I'm sure you knew that already. Why would I try to get people not to vote? There are more than enough people doing that already.

[whatchamacallit]

23. Your OP asserts things for which you have no evidence

You admit none of the "top six" would have any influence on you. Are you just smarter than most democrats?

[MineralMan]

24. Ah. Well, then, thanks for your analysis.

I'll bear it in mind.

[whatchamacallit]

25. Glad to help.

[MineralMan]

26. Well, I should thank you for kicking my thread, too.

You've done a yeoman's job of that, and I appreciate it a great deal.

[dionysus]

41. aww, he hit a nerve by mentioning that making a career of bashing democrats doesn't help them win...

gave you a sad, it did..

[Whisp]

45. I noticed the sads too!

[whatchamacallit]

50. Nope, it was just a lame OP

And your feeble attempt to provoke is even lamer.

[dionysus]

47. you're doing a poor job of justifying why you participate in, well, all of the activities on that

list...

[whatchamacallit]

51. Which of those activities do I participate in?

Link please. I won't have to wait, cuz you won't be back.

[dionysus]

61. click on the "my posts" tab on your DU page...

[whatchamacallit]

65. Like I thought

Hit and Run bullshit. You got nothin.

[Doctor_J]

80. No, and neither could any DUer's

but please don't pee in the punch bowl that is this vanity thread.

[whatchamacallit]

85. Haha!

[The Magistrate]

13. Hear Hear, Sir!

"Can't nobody here play this game?"

[MineralMan]

17. Thank you, sir.

See you at the polls.

[KoKo]

57. I took it that "His Game" should be the Rest of We/Dems Game....

We've sort of been there and done that for a long while now.

It's encouraging to the Young Folks he thinks...but, working out there with "Young Folks" these days...they are way ahead of us...thinking their own thoughts and different from the Memes of this tired mantra.

Just saying......He expresses NEGATIVES...and like all of us when we were Young...we Want Positives...not some Rehash of Past Mistakes with a Wagging Finger at Us!

[AverageJoe90]

14. This. Just this. n/t

[MineralMan]

18. Thank you kindly.

[riqster]

27. I'll add a new one, encountered today:

I was informed that "zealot" GOTV types such as moi are actually suppressing the vote by being so passionate about voting. Us big ol' meanies. If we just shut up, people would naturally go to the polls, but all our GOTV activism drives potential voters away.

Yes, the poster really meant it.

Dafuq? I mean, really, dafuq????

[MineralMan]

28. Well, that's bizarre.

Truly. I've seen the results of my GOTV efforts. They have not produced any negative results, only positive ones and a higher turnout.

[riqster]

30. Same here.

But you can find just about any idea you can imagine being espoused on the Intertubez.

In this case, it was an idea that I couldn't even imagine.

Thanks again for this thread, and your efforts as a whole.

[MineralMan]

32. My pleasure. We seem to be agitating for the same things.

Good. The more the merrier, I say.

[riqster]

34. I find it hard to argue against using a right that much of the world wishes it had.

I urge everyone to use it.

[JoePhilly]

39. YUP, by calling for folks to support Democrats, we're supressing the Democratic vote.

This is a discussion in another thread ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=184845

Why should we GOTV for Democrats when 30 years ago, Dem Senators didn't block Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy.

[Whisp]

46. here on DU? nah....

[Auntie Bush]

35. Damn MineralMan- That hurt! You hit the nail on the head and I didn't

even have my hard hat on.

[MineralMan]

53. Thanks, Auntie!

[mcar]

40. Well said, as usual

A K and R for this.

[MineralMan]

54. Many thanks.

[LanternWaste]

48. And maintaining the pretense that money is speech.

And maintaining the pretense that money is speech.

[KoKo]

55. I don't see that here on DU...but, your LIST..Accusing Dems on DU of hampering

Last edited Thu Apr 3, 2014, 09:23 PM - Edit history (1)

the 2014 Elections is very condemning of Questioners.

And, it's hard to take you SERIOUSLY when you NEGATIVELY categorize those who Take Their Vote Seriously and don't want to acknowledge that there are some very serious problems facing our Democratic Party that is different from the More Serious Problems facing the Republican Party.

You do a dis-service to those of us who TRULY WANT CHANGE/We Can Believe In...knowing the hard work isn't up to Personality but POLICY.

Without a POLICY then Figureheads of Democratic Party are in for a rough road...because the Policy (DLC/Third Way) might match the Policy for the Insiders but America and it's Youth see False Promises and little Action on issues important to THEM.

[KoKo]

58. Heavily edited my post above...in case you read it quickly before edit.

[dionysus]

62. you don't see that on DU?

[MineralMan]

71. I accused nobody of anything. I didn't even mention DU.

How interesting that you found words in my post that aren't there.

[progressoid]

77. She's not the only one that thinks this is about DU

Many people up thread that support your OP think this is about DU too.

[Doctor_J]

81. there was a recent post declaring that opponents of the president's policies might be

an influx of white supremecists. Not kidding.

[Marr]

83. +1

[B Calm]

56. #1 on your list is an old republican tactic that still works for them!

[Deny and Shred]

59. Are you deliberately trying to dissuade dissatisfied democrats?

If the idea is to get out the vote, why try to alienate people who, though they'd never in a million years vote (R), might just stay home during the mid-terms?

Don't get me wrong, I will go to the polls, and I'll vote (D). I'll keep going whenever they let me vote. I just don't see the positive changes I'd like coming to fruition very often.

Don't be surprised if, when you get that exaulted (D) majority, the legislative result winds up being not much different than it is now. I'd embrace that change, mind you. I just realize you are asking entrenched politicians to do the right thing. 3rd way (D) IMO has run its course.

I guess as time goes on I appreciate Pete Tonwsend's lyrics more and more. Tomorrow, I will pick up my guitar and play, and hope we Don't Get Fooled Again by our leaders who promise to represent us, yet sit in judgement of our wrongs.

You want to win now and in the future? Get candidates that can energize average people and remain honest. Once elected, get them to support those average people, no matter the 'political landscape'. It wouldn't take long for THAT movement to crush in elections, midterm or otherwise. Fat chance given the continually expanding undue influence of $$$. One must dream though, right?

[AverageJoe90]

60. 7. Everything is hopeless, there will be no meaningful change. The Right will win. nt

[JoePhilly]

72. 8. We need a collapse so that the people wake up and help us replace the current system.

[jamzrockz]

73. Last one

7. Never conduct any kind of investigation on the policies and the people backing said politician because the D after his name is all that matters.

This is all the reason why we elect 60 democrats senate that will not support the president on passing a truly single payer healthcare system. Some times you lose when you win and I want to win to win and not just for winning sake.

[fredamae]

76. There is No Party

Pure of Corruption--But--there are some Fabulous Democrats still serving--under Impossible situations--without "free speech" ops (Corp MSM) that we must support.

I also believe--If we get out and VOTE this November--in spite of Gerrymandered districts--and Against all odds of winning--we Can actually win. Yes, it takes slightly more than Two Votes from Dems per candidate VS 1 for GOP--It still can be done.
For one thing--there are a lot of reasonable "ordinary GOP voters" who do Not support their own Extremists that will vote outside party lines.
It is statically difficult--but "Difficult" is Not the same as "Impossible".
Once we do (if we will) take back the House--We can at least "work with" and steer the Dem Party Back to "being" Democrats.
And Beware the "MSM messages of "Hopelessness", keep perspective of Who owns/controls Media and tightly manages the "message" - One of their main goals is Discouragement for Dems and Rage for the GOP to get them To the Polls in Mid-Terms--because that Is what usually happens. They understand most Dems Don't turnout in Mid-Terms--The GOP has been Salivating while waiting for Nov 2014 to wrap up the takeover of our govt...
They Want Us to sit down and Give Up. This Mid Term cycle might just Be Way More Important to the Future of "us" than Any General Election Ever was----Imo
Remember Real Dems Don't Give Up, imo.

[Blanks]

78. For those who believe that there is no difference between the two parties...

I'd like to direct you to the Wikipedia page for the 111th congress (the last one controlled by democrats).

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

You will see that not only did the democratically controlled congress accomplish things that are good for regular folks - if you read through it you will see that they had a lot of other good stuff that they would have passed had they been allowed to continue to serve. It is clear that they would have continued to work for us if the republican controlled House of Representatives hadn't descended on Washington to vote to repeal Obamacare on a regular basis.

The President had signed the least number of executive orders per year of any modern president and the right threw a tantrum when he said he was going to use them in the state of the union address to gets things moving because they weren't doing ANYTHING.

The democrats have a much better record of looking out for working class and middle class Americans, anyone familiar with 'real history' vs 'right wing history' knows this.

Obviously, the democrats aren't perfect and Obama is not perfect - it isn't a question of perfection. It's a question of which party is better off for the country in the short term and in the long term. Both the Great Depression and the recession that we are still struggling to recover from occurred after periods of GOP control of the government. Only a moron would believe there is no difference between the two parties. In fact every recession that has occurred in this country in the last 40 years has occurred during a republican administration. The wealthy benefit from a recession at the expense of the working class. It isn't a coincidence that recessions happen on republicans watch.

[Doctor_J]

79. 7. Say nothing as the DC Dems enact TPP, KXL, fracking, and more spying

Vanity threads. Oh, how I love them

[Marr]

82. At least half of your points boil down to, "don't voice opinions I don't like". /nt

[RandoLoodie]

84. yup. long story short.

[MineralMan]

86. You keep track of my posts to that extent?

Really? Do you use a spreadsheet or something?

[AgingAmerican]

89. He read your OP

nt

[Marr]

100. As AA said, I'm referring to the points outlined in your OP. /nt

[MineralMan]

102. Well, none of the points in my post do what you say they do.

So, I assumed that you were talking about other posts I have written.

Perhaps you'll tell me why you think the points in my post have the effect you mentioned, and let me know where I have gotten it wrong. I'll be very appreciative, I assure you.

[Marr]

107. This is a silly game.

You began by exaggerating the position of critics on several points. When called on it, you just say, 'well, if you aren't saying exactly what I cited, then I'm not talking about you' (your post #95, above).

But no one (or very few, at least) is saying exactly what you cited, because it was an exaggeration of the standard critics' position. See what I mean?


A: "People who say the parties are identical are going to make us lose".

B. "I think they're too similar."

C. "Well then, I'm not talking about you. I said people who say they're 'identical', not 'too similar'."


It would be like me posting, "people who worship President Obama are helping the party drift to the right". And if you protested, I responded with, "well, if you aren't literally worshiping him with an alter and incense, then I wasn't talking about you". It's just this passive aggressive sort of throwing stones from cover.

It's silly.

[MineralMan]

108. Unlike you, apparently, I do not consider electoral politics to be a game.

Perhaps that's the difference between us.

[Marr]

109. Then why play silly games with it? /nt

[MineralMan]

111. I'm not. That's your characterization, not mine.

And I wasn't talking about anyone in particular, anyhow. I see the same techniques used in many places, to varying degrees. While I post on DU, that is not the only place I participate in politics.

I'm not playing games, Marr. Politics is not a game. It's a deadly serious business that affects millions of lives in major ways.

And, with that, I'm out of this subthread. I'm not finding it particularly relevant to my OP.

[Marr]

114. Well, I'm very happy for you.

I see that point raised by people who describe themselves as "moderates" quite often around here, and there always seems to be this assumption on their part that the people they're arguing with aren't doing anything but posting on the internet. I'm involved in local politics as well-- have been for... sheesh, over ten years now, yikes.

[polichick]

87. So true - don't be too democratic!

[AgingAmerican]

88. "Nothing works better to keep Democratic turnout low"

Incorrect. Democratic politicians who abandon core Democratic principles guarantee low Democratic voter turnout.

Your OP is a thinly veiled attempt at stifling those who disagree with you politically on a Democratic board.

[MineralMan]

91. So, do you think both parties are the same?

That was the heading for that comment.

[AgingAmerican]

93. No

But I do believe the Democratic party has been slowly creeping rightward, particularly on economic and security issues.

[MineralMan]

95. But I was talking about people who say both parties are the same.

So, you're not really addressing what I said? I get it.

[AgingAmerican]

96. No, my original reply was very clear

It addressed the underlying reason for your op. A thinly veiled attempt at stifling folks who disagree with you politically on a Democratic forum.

[MineralMan]

98. I can't stifle anyone in any way. I can post on DU, and

so can they. How could I stifle anyone's ability to post on DU or to speak out anywhere?

As far as I know, everyone is free to state their own positions. Are you finding that not to be the case, or are you simply trying to stifle my voice? I have an opinion, and I'm going to keep right out stating it. Here and elsewhere. Here's my main point, which I've made many times this year:

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

That's my suggestion for fixing what is broken. Elect Democrats to create a strong majority in both houses of Congress and in State Legislatures. Do you disagree with that goal?

[AgingAmerican]

99. Hence the word 'attempt'

There are two basic types of Democrats on this issue.

1. Those who believe that voters should be loyal to the politicians
2. Those who believe that the politicians should be loyal to the voters

Number 1 drives people away from the process
Number 2 attracts people to the process

[MineralMan]

101. That is your opinion. My opinion differs from yours.

We are both entitled to our opinions, and entitled to express them here and elsewhere. My opinion is that Democrats, in general, produce results that are more beneficial than do Republicans. My own congressional representative and state legislators are progressive in their principles. They are the only legislators I can vote for, and the only ones I can assist in selecting for the ballot. I know that they will introduce and support progressive legislation.

You have your own representatives. In your own district, you can vote for them and, if you take the time and energy, you can also help select them. Whether you do that or not is up to you.

What I know is that if your representative is a Democrat, he or she is more likely to vote for progressive bills than if he or she is a Republican. Beyond that, I have no idea who represents you in your congressional district or state legislative districts. I do hope whoever it is votes with my congressional representative. If he or she is a Democrat, I have pretty good confidence that he or she will. If not a Democrat, I have little confidence in that.

I don't live where you do, nor do I vote for your representatives. I encourage you to help the Democrats win in your districts, though. That will be a better result than if a Republican wins.

[AgingAmerican]

105. So you think the politicians are more important than the voters

Got it.

I believe that mode of thinking drives away voters, and is the worst possible way to run a GOTV effort, but hey, I'm welcome to my opinion!

[MineralMan]

106. No, I don't think that at all. That's why I'm active in

local politics and work to help choose the candidates. In all of my legislative districts, that has helped us have a group of progressives representing us. I moved here in 2004 and immediately became part of the local DFL (Democratic) party organization. I didn't have much input into the 2004 process, because our caucuses and conventions were already over. From then on, however, I've been part of that process and have taken the time to meet each candidate, ask questions, and have supported the ones I believed to be the best choices. Our party endorses candidates, but we still have primary elections. The candidates we endorse almost always win in the primaries, though, so the process works.

For those whose participation is only to vote, then they have a more limited selection of candidates by the time the elections happen. Early activity is what determines who those candidates are.

By election time, either the Democrat or the Republican will prevail. In all cases, I prefer the Democrat, but I also participate in the selection process, since I believe that is very important. People who only vote have limited input. They get to choose which of the major party candidates will represent them. I'm not satisfied with that, so I get started early in the process.

[warrprayer]

90. You forgot one -McCutcheon makes 7.

I love kazoo music though.

[MineralMan]

92. Hmm...do you think playing the kazoo

will help turnout voters? I can play the kazoo. Should I try that when I'm canvassing my precinct?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

94. Another way to spoil chances: Run politics-as-usual, milquetoast, corporate candidates.

It's the candidates responsibility to fend off criticism and offer something to vote for. Clue: "Not as bad" isn't going to do it.

[MineralMan]

97. Except for my own district, I do not have anything to do

with selecting candidates. In my district, I am part of that process. Go look up Betty McCollum, MN CD-4. We're very proud of her, and have worked very hard to put her in that office. Do you object to that House member?

Everyone who cares about who runs should be involved in the candidate selection process in their own districts, at both the state and federal legislative level. It's a lot of work, but it's important. Who is the candidate for your Congressional seat in 2014? What can you tell us about him or her. Were you involved in that candidate's selection?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

103. I just looked up the likely candidate. Not much there.

I'll make up my mind when I know more about him.

[MineralMan]

104. Ask the candidate. There's no doubt a website.

Call the candidate or email the candidate. Ask your questions. In my experience, candidates are more than happy to talk to constituents at this stage. It also gives you an opportunity to bring up issues that are important to you.

When is your primary election? Are there other candidates? Contact them, too. If one meets with your approval, ask how you can help that candidate get elected.

Taking an active role in the process is one way to help get candidates who you believe will support your positions. Waiting until there's only one candidate doesn't help much.

I don't know where you live, but there must be a Democratic organization there. Get involved with that organization and you can play a role in who the candidate will be.

Activism implies activity. Be active. That's my advice.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

110. As I said, most likely. Very little info available on him or the other two.

[MineralMan]

112. They don't have websites?

There are no contact points? That seems strange at this point in the election cycle. You know their names, right? They can be contacted, then. Who knows? Your contact with them may prove to be very important.

I won't ask where you are. If you told me where you are, though, I could find contact information for those candidates in just minutes. I'm quite sure of that. These are people running for office. They'll be easy to find. If they're not, then they haven't a prayer of winning.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

113. It doesn't look good for any of them.

The incumbent Republican has $220,000 "on hand".

The one I could find info on has $2000 on hand.

WA 3rd

[MineralMan]

115. Perhaps you can work to help with fundraising, then.

I'm just saying. You do not have to simply wait until the election, you know.

If you want change, you have to be part of the process, it seems to me.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

116. I donate regularly to outfits like the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, LINKTV, and Kiva.

Politicians, never. The way to get money out of politics is to not put money into politics.

[MineralMan]

118. The Clark County Democratic organization is holding

its caucuses and convention on April 12. Another opportunity. You can attend.

http://www.bluedonkeys.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=nLkuh6JK0RU%3d&tabid=56&mid=395

[MineralMan]

117. Incumbents always have cash on hand.

I just went to the Bob Dingenthal website. He is having a meet and greet this Sunday. Those are good opportunities to meet candidates, and this early, it won't be hugely attended, so you should be able to ask some questions. Great chance to get involved early, I think.

http://bobdingethal.com/


Who are the other Democratic candidates? The filing deadline isn't until May, so all of them may not have filed yet.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

119. Believe it or not, I'm not all that interested in politics.

Like government, it is but a necessary evil....until a better alternative comes along.

It's being interested in tsunamis. Trying to stay out their way, and minimizing the damage they do. At least tsunamis don't get paid to screw things up for the ordinary folks.

As I see it, the establishment (remember being anti-establishment back in the day?) is still the problem. And, it's really beyond repair. We fought the good fight in the '60s and lost starting with the '68 Democratic convention and McGovern's defeat. It's been downhill ever since.

I'll still vote and, unless they sell out too much, I'll still vote for the "lesser of two evils", but that's about it.

[MineralMan]

121. OK. I am interested in politics.

If you're not, then there's not much for us to talk about, is there?

I guess someone else will decide who represents you in Congress.

BTW, I voted for McGovern, too, even though I knew he had virtually no chance. 1968 was a bad year, indeed.

[Rex]

120. More great advice from MM. nt.

nt.