Lack of enthusiasm doesn't hurt the Democrats - it hurts progressives.

[Drunken Irishman]

"Sit out and hold the Democrats accountable - move the party to the left!"

It's a good sentiment. It's also terribly flawed. You're not moving the party to the left by not voting. I wish more liberals and Democrats would understand this. Who you're hurting are liberals that get taken out just as much, if not more, than moderate Democrats you supposedly hate.

It's not teaching Obama a lesson giving him an even more conservative House and Senate to work with.

It's actually hurting you - and your ideology.

We keep hearing, "why aren't the Democrats like the party of yesteryear?"

Because you voted out the party of yesteryear by staying home. It happened in 1994, when a whole host of progressive Democrats were given their walking papers, shifting the dynamics of the House & Senate for a generation. It didn't force the party to the left - it forced 'em to the right because they lost a whole bulk of firepower from the left.

Where it really hurt the Democrats was in the House. A good amount of progressives, including Speaker of the House Tom Foley, were defeated - and in some instances, defeats came in Democratic-leaning states.

1994 was the election everything officially shifted to the right and we've been trying to climb back since.

The problem is, when liberals and Democrats (this isn't just a liberal issue - it's a Democratic issue) sit out, and it's been their MO long before Obama and Democrats were pissing off party liberals, those progressives we rely on lose.

Russ Feingold lost in 2010 because of a lack of enthusiasm. Because of his loss, the senate is much more conservative.

If we replace Harkin with a bat-shit insane Republican - the senate is again even more Republican.

Today, the Denver Post endorsed Cory Gardner, who is likely to beat Mark Udall. Again, another solid progressive is going down.

The irony? The likes of Kay Hagan and Mary Landrieu, the type of Democrats liberals hate, will stay - while the good ones are taken down due to lack of enthusiasm.

So, the senate again moves more and more to the right.

What's the incentive of being a progressive in the United States senate - especially if you're from a swing state? Progressives and Democrats don't seem to have Udall's back in Colorado - he's losing. Losing to a wingnut. Udall won his first election in 2008 by 10 points. Obama won Colorado by five-points in 2012.

Yet they're on the eve of electing a right-wing Republican senator.

Again, no incentive to being a progressive, staking out positions that may hurt you back home, because you're not getting the support in midterm elections anymore. Feingold didn't lose because of Obama - or because he was too conservative. Feingold lost because there was no base of support anymore to pull from. Both liberal and Democratic support was down compared to the 2006 midterm, where Herb Kohl won.

So, and this message isn't necessarily to DU liberals, because I think most of you will vote, realize that when you're holding someone accountable or you're depressed about the overall state of the party, staying home in November is only worsening the situation.

The Democrats are not only going to lose the Senate - they're going to lose at least a couple good senators in the process.

For six years, Colorado is likely to be represented by a right-wing nut job Republican.

Sure, he may lose 2020 - but by then ... who knows how much damage will have been done?

Hell, it's been four years since 2010 and we're still trying to clean up that mess.

One thing is for sure: the senate is likely to be less liberal come November 5th - even if the Democrats manage to keep it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

4. then you havent been paying attention on DU..

[bahrbearian]

20. Then you have a link ,right?

[bahrbearian]

68. Thats your link? Wow

[VanillaRhapsody]

32. I just finished telling someone that staying home if HRC wins the Primary....

is NOT an option...DO NOT try that shit with me.....I don't have to prove anything....been dealing with it for weeks...

In FACT the link you should read....is the one that Paul Krugman wrote this week!

[bahrbearian]

69. Wow . you've got nothing then.

[VanillaRhapsody]

71. and WHAT have YOU got?

NADA!

It is NOT my first Summer Out.....I am not letting YOU force me to break the rules

[bahrbearian]

72. I'm not the one making the claim you are.

[VanillaRhapsody]

73. And I know what I know....

I am not calling any other members out.....that's against the rules...

[bahrbearian]

77. Its not agains the rules to post links to OPs

can read through them and if the claim you make is true, you'll look good. So quit saying its a call out.

[VanillaRhapsody]

80. I meant individuals.....they are all over this forum...

Here is what you NEED to read...

There's a different story on the left, where you now find a significant number of critics decrying Obama as, to quote Cornel West, someone who ''posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit.'' They're outraged that Wall Street hasn't been punished, that income inequality remains so high, that ''neoliberal'' economic policies are still in place. All of this seems to rest on the belief that if only Obama had put his eloquence behind a radical economic agenda, he could somehow have gotten that agenda past all the political barriers that have con- strained even his much more modest efforts. It's hard to take such claims seriously.

Finally, there's the constant belittling of Obama from mainstream pundits and talking heads. Turn on cable news (although I wouldn't advise it) and you'll hear endless talk about a rudderless, stalled administration, maybe even about a failed presidency. Such talk is often buttressed by polls showing that Obama does, indeed, have an approval rating that is very low by historical standards.

But this bashing is misguided even in its own terms – and in any case, it's focused on the wrong thing.



Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/in-defense-of-obama-20141008#ixzz3FmgkXosq

[Scootaloo]

126. "I hold in my hands a list of names..."

and Vanilla_Rhapsody's infatuation with his witch-hunt against progressives on DU continues.

[VanillaRhapsody]

132. Nope NOT Progressives.....Independents....lets get this straight once and for all

Progressives have to vote to actually ACHIEVE some progress......Independents cannot commit to voting for whomever is selected in the Democratic Primary....if you sit out or you cannot vote for some actual Progress....you know like Barack Obama has achieved....then the shoe might fit.


They can hide behind calling themselves "Progressives" which is a misnomer....

Could that include YOU?

[LondonReign2]

79. I'd suggets ignoring her

Her entire MO is to clog discussions with combative non-responses

[bahrbearian]

83. I'm working on my post count. just like her.

[VanillaRhapsody]

134. bring it!

[QC]

115. BINGO! n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

135. I could give a rat's ass about my "post count" on this site.....

but if that is what makes you feel better....

[VanillaRhapsody]

133. I'd suggest that too if I were and Independent!

[Rex]

33. Of course not.

Right before the November elections, you can be guaranteed certain posters will do their best with the divisive threads. So predictable and sad.

[wyldwolf]

55. Ever notice when someone asks for links and then someone provides links...

... the links either go ignored or people tap dance and moonwalk all over them?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025647310#post14

The question now is will you ignore it or try to moonwalk over them?

[bahrbearian]

67. Thats your link? Fail! Nice moon walk though.

[wyldwolf]

76. I guess you decided to tap dance and moonwalk over them...

I don't suppose your first choice would be to explain why it doesn't meet your qualifications.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

97. You know, I took that link

and noticed how the first person to reply to you in it neatly provided links to refute the misinformation in your linked comment.

Sad when your own links work against you.

[wyldwolf]

103. you miss the point.

The links I provided wasn't to prove anything BUT progressive thought leaders have advised 'progressives' not to vote or to vote third party. We can debate all night whether 'progressives" HAVE stayed home or voted third party. But the facts presented at the link are just that - facts.

FACT: Michael Moore and Molly Ivins, two influential progressives, DID endorse Ralph Nader and suggested good progressives do the same.

FACT: Robert Parry did warn 'progressives' not to sit out elections based on emails he was getting where progressives were suggesting it.

FACT: In 2010 Ed Schultz DID say he would not vote for Dems in the 2010 mid terms.

FACT: In 2014, Ted Rall DID say progressives should 'break up' with Dems.

There has been NO links that have refuted this.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

105. FACTS:

Most progressives don't give a flying f... what Michael Moore or Molly Ivins want. On the left, we don't just go in goosestep behind our 'influential' (whatever that means) progressives.

I don't even know or care who 'Robert Parry' is.

Ed Schulz is an obnoxious git, who seems to be the 'equivalent' of a 'Rush Limbaugh for the left'.

Ted Rall is a cartoonist, and can't even draw all that well.

So your 'facts' are what 5 individuals have said, and I could care less about any of them, and I would imagine most lefty types could care less about any of them.

If I were you, I'd only start to worry when and if Melissa Harris Perry, Chris Hayes, and Rachel Maddow start fomenting a rebellion on the left. They're at least better and more widely well-regarded on the left than the five folks you chose to go by.

[wyldwolf]

107. Again, that isn't the point. It's being denied progressives have said these things. But they have.

Sorry, you can tap dance around this all night. Progressive thought leaders on the internet have factually advise progressives to sit out elections.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

108. 'progressive thought leaders'.

yeah, right. Who exactly is following them?

Lefties think for themselves.

[wyldwolf]

109. so here is your line of argument

- Progressive internet sources tell 'progressives' to stay home and not vote.

YOU: Do you have links that prove that?

ME: Sure, here you go.

YOU: Oh, no, those aren't valid because, well, just because.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

110. 'just because'...

My reply was 'You call them 'progressive thought leaders', and I don't.

Now Michael Moore has done some good things in the past. Ditto, in fact, Ralph Nader. And Ed Schultz is on the correct side of some issues.

But that doesn't mean anyone on the left pays attention to any of them except on specific issues. I don't look to Michael Moore to be my spiritual guide on race issues, Or Ed Schulz to be my guide on anything, even if I know him to be on the right side on labor issues much of the time.

YOUR argument is that the people you chose are 'progressive thought leaders' and that that, I suppose, means that they speak for more than just themselves.

The closest I've ever come to having someone who can 'speak for me' is Bernie Sanders, and even he and I disagree on some things, such as I/P.

You've cherrypicked a few cases, and broad brush smear 'progressives' based on those five. (And Ed Schultz is a damn fool if he actually sat out an election, just like damnfools across the political spectrum who sit out EVERY election.)

[Scootaloo]

127. Still ignoring the first reply to the link you posted that destroys the claims made

[wyldwolf]

128. really? So links were posted that proved Moore, Ivins, Ed Schultz, etc. DIDN'T say those things?

So links were posted that proved Commondreams didn't really post this article?

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/09/09/obama-broke-his-promise-latinos-maybe-we-should-sit-election-out

So links were posted that proved Robert Parry didn't really claim he'd gotten emails from readers saying Progressives should sit out elections?

I must have missed those links.

[Andy823]

5. It real isn't that hard to find

Do you think that reading post after post bashing the president, the democratic party, or constant doom and gloom along with the old meme "both parties are the same" is really encouraging people to vote? If you already are depressed that thing didn't go exactly as you wanted, these kind of posts just make it worse. Hold their feet to the fire, let them know you want more, but don't discourage others by joining the doom and gloom crowd.

[rhett o rick]

22. Those that claim the Left sits out elections don't know because they sit out elections.

If they participated they'd realize that it's the Left that man the phones and go door to door. Those that stay home are the lazy conservatives that are fine with the status quo. But thanks for trying to drive a wedge at this critical hour.

[VanillaRhapsody]

38. UH Bullshit....When WE turn out...WE WIN!

We outnumber Republicans by a landslide....so don't give me your Third Party bullshit!

[Android3.14]

63. Your attitude turns people off

You are actually discouraging people from voting.

[bahrbearian]

70. I think thats the her mission.

[VanillaRhapsody]

75. My mission is to seek out those that are NOT Democrats on this Democratic Underground Forum....

if YOU cannot commit to voting for the winner of the Democratic Primary....YOU are not a Democrat...you are an Independent by default.

[bahrbearian]

78. Oh good a another troll hunter.

[VanillaRhapsody]

81. Yep you got it!

ARE you admitting you are trolling?

[zeemike]

101. We need another witch hunt.

There is little time left before the election, and we must root out the impure from our ranks...we all know they are there...

[VanillaRhapsody]

137. If they are in support of a NON-Democrat....then what do YOU call it?

[Marr]

84. lol

Seek out the unrighteous, oh brave hunter.

[VanillaRhapsody]

85. Thanks I will!

Love that....

[DisgustipatedinCA]

87. Then get your indicator gauge fixed

The device you use to "seek out those that are NOT Democrats" must be on the fritz. You've accused a huge number of DUers of being Republicans/freepers/plants/baggers/libertarians, etc. You're not The Decider, you know.

[VanillaRhapsody]

89. the indicator works quite nicely....If you cannot commit to vote for the DEMOCRAT that wins the

the Primary.....then it pegs at Independent Voter!

[LondonReign2]

82. Yup. I'd agree that is her mission

[VanillaRhapsody]

88. Yeah it is.....

[VanillaRhapsody]

74. Surrre it is....ON Democratic Underground...

that is SOOO much bullshit!

[totodeinhere]

95. Not according to some polls.

Gallup has it 31% Democrats and 29% Republicans.

Rasmussen has it 35.4% Republican and 34% Democrat.

You can disagree with those polls but if so can you please provide substantiation to your claim that Democrats outnumber Republicans "by a landslide?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_U.S._states

[Andy823]

113. Well thank you

For putting words in my mouth. I simply asks if you think bashing all day long at the president, the democratic party, posting doom and gloom, and trying to push the idea both parties are the same actually encourages people to get out and vote.

Care to answer that question instead of trying to paint me as some trying to drive a wedge?

[rhett o rick]

116. No one does what you contend. I have never seen a liberal claim that both parties are

the same. The Left is critical of our president as they should be. Liberals believe in challenging our elected representatives and holding them accountable. The meme that the Left wants to stay home is an old attempt to disparage the Left. And it always seems to pop up when the Party needs unity. There are a lot of things in this country that are gloomy. We need to address them and not pretend they don't exist. Like fracking. It seems to me that the Left are the only ones worried about fracking. Same with the TPP and the XL Pipeline. Apparently the non-left are pretending these are not important.

[Andy823]

120. I am not saying that

Once again you are putting words in my mouth. I never said that liberals or the left were to blame for anything. I asked a question, and you did not answer it. I want to see everyone get out and vote, but there are some who seem to want to discourage not encourage people. I don't think they are liberals or on the left, or democrats. I think there are people who come here simply to stir things up and they may be right wingers, teabaggers, libertarians, or just plain trouble makers, but they are here. So please stop putting words in my mouth.

Also if you would like to answer my question I would appreciate it.

[rhett o rick]

130. No I won't answer a loaded question like that. It's a logical fallacy, I think begging the

question. If you have a point, it's best if you use statements in lieu of trying to trick someone with loaded questions.

This is a message-board for politically liberal posters. Liberals are known for challenging their representatives and each other. If one doesn't like that, maybe a conservative message-board would be more appropriate. I have yet to see a liberal say that both parties are the same. It's a meme perpetrated to disparage the Left. Now who here in a politically liberal message-board would want to disparage the Left?

[arcane1]

8. I haven't seen it here, but I see it in Facebook comments often.

Usually by not-too-bright people who think they'll hold their breath and thereby force the grown-ups to fix everything for them.

I'm grateful that I haven't seen this on DU yet

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. + Infinity

This exactly

K&R

[Andy823]

3. Excellent post. nt

[sadoldgirl]

6. While I will vote for Udall (and Hickenlooper)

it seems to me a strange attitude to call him a progressive. He is an honorary member of the third way and quite happy about the extensive fracking in the state. And to go on Hickenlooper, the governor is definitely a DINO.

But go on, blame the left again for not voting!

[Drunken Irishman]

7. I'll blame Democrats too.

I'm glad you're voting Udall. He's certainly progressive on a whole host of issues. Good luck there, but I'd wager the exit polls will show exactly what I presented here today: liberals and Democrats will have a fewer share of the voting electorate compared to 2006 - the last time the Democrats did well in a midterm election.

[sadoldgirl]

13. You seem to forget a few things imo,

Colorado, outside of Denver and Boulder, is a red state. Governors may have been in different parties, but it has always been a struggle to elect Democratic Senators.
The gun issue has driven many moderates towards the right,

and, lastly, Udall himself shows no enthusiasm at all, NONE.
His opponent however does so a lot.

I hope that the results will not be as bad as you predict; the Post is not read by many anymore.

[BlindTiresias]

10. More or less

If they get a good kicking it will be the left's fault.

If they are victorious, it will be the result of "serious minded center-right individuals".

[Drunken Irishman]

12. It's not hard to prove who is and isn't to blame.

That's what exit polls are for.

[BlindTiresias]

14. Yeah

Except the exit polls don't confirm the "blame the left" story. At all. That didn't stop people from blaming the left in 2010.

[Drunken Irishman]

15. In many instances, it sure did.

In Wisconsin, liberals saw a larger decrease in turnout compared to 2006 than any other group - including Democrats on the whole. I'm sure there are some states were liberals saw an equal turnout - but in a great deal of states that were important, liberal support wasn't at the level it needed to be to win.

[BlindTiresias]

16. Eh, not so much

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/06/1003805/-Did-liberals-really-stay-home-and-cause-the-2010-rout

That causal explanation may be satisfying to you but I would highly advise digging deeper and finding something a bit more robust, as it will only strengthen the Democratic party in the end if they are making assessments based on factual findings and not morally satisfying hunches.

[Drunken Irishman]

18. Eh, it is.

It's not casual - it's backed by fact.

1) liberals typically have a higher turnout in national elections than midterms (in 2010, liberals made up 20% of the overall electorate, in 2012, they made up 25% of the overall electorate).

2) in Wisconsin, Democrats on the whole saw a 1% decrease in turnout from 2006 to 2010 - however, liberals saw a 4% decrease.

If liberals AND Democrats voted in mass like they do in presidential elections, the party would keep the senate and make some strong gains in the House.

It won't happen.

[BlindTiresias]

19. CAUSAL

Not casual

Can I have some links for that information btw?

[Drunken Irishman]

25. My bad...

But the point still stands.

My links were pulled from CNN Exit Polls:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/WI/G/00/epolls.0.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/state/#WI
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls.main/
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/results/race/president

[BlindTiresias]

26. Yeah, I figured

The article I linked to explains all that. You should give it a read.

[Drunken Irishman]

28. I don't need to read it. I've got the numbers right there.

But thanks for the suggestion.

[BlindTiresias]

29. yes

He links to the same data and explains why he thinks your argument isn't the case, using the exact same data.

[Drunken Irishman]

30. I don't need a subjective look at objective data.

[BlindTiresias]

34. Data is objective

Interpretations of data are subjective, including yours. I am somewhat mystified by why you want to refuse to read the article, you can always disagree with it once you have actually read it.

[Drunken Irishman]

35. Because I've seen the data...

I don't need to be told what I've already seen.

[BlindTiresias]

39. There are many ways to interpre the same data set, though.

For the benefit of others here is the explanation:

"Once again, liberals made up 20% of the electorate, but only voted 87% for Democrats. Between 2006 and 2010, liberals made up the same proportion of the electorate, and yet actually voted even more strongly Democratic in 2010 than their historical norm. This is remarkable given that 2006 was actually a Democratic wave, and 2010 a Republican one - and 2010 actually had higher overall turnout, 41% versus 36% in 2006. It's not even that the same liberals from 2006 showed up, but in fact some new ones came out too. But they weren't enough.

If you insist on using 2008 as the baseline (debatable since it was a Presidential election), then you'd find that liberals were 22% of the electorate and voted 87% Democratic. So there were a few more liberals, but they were slightly less Democratic. Probably a wash. Even if you want to say this cost the House D's 1-2% of popular vote (a real stretch), you'd still need to account for the other 7-8% of popular vote they lost between 2008 and 2010. That would ignore the problems of comparing Presidential to off years, where some of the more liberal groups like the young are just historically less likely to vote anyway.

Wherein is this great liberal(/progressive) sulkfest in lieu of voting? Liberals voted. They voted for Democrats. I don't know how many held their noses while doing so, but they damn well did so, at least according to the most reliable evidence we have of such things.

Exit polls are complex, and there's lots of moving parts, between various groups showing up in different numbers, and actual people changing their minds, ideologies, or party affiliations. Not to mention new voters appear, some die off, everyone else ages, there is no picture perfect apples to apples comparison of one election to the next.

Still the claim that petulant liberals punished Obama to their own detriment is repeated so often with such certitude, I thought I would request to see the proof of it, because I don't see it, in the most obvious place it would appear if it were there, the proportion and voting of actual liberals in comparable elections. If you have some more complex explanation of how it really happened, I would like to see it, because all I see is the proportion of the voting population calling themselves "conservatives" grew tremendously at expense of those calling themselves "moderates." Either a bunch of moderates became conservatives, or moderates stayed home, or a lot of conservatives who usually stay home came out. Or some combination of those things. Yet any of those explanations would be tremendously at odds with the "blame the progressives" explanation."

In other words, you can't compare presidential elections and mid-terms in order to cast blame as the turnout is across the board lower (usually). Wisconsin may be a special case, but hardly representative.

[Drunken Irishman]

50. I think it's pretty clear liberals and Democrats are consistently less enthused in midterms...

It's been the case going back to the mid-90s. There's only been two elections since the 1994 disaster where Democrats out-performed Republicans in midterms - 1998 and 2006. In '98, much of the pushback was due to the GOP's impeachment of Clinton and even then, Republicans actually received more votes than Democrats in the national House vote and the Democrats were able to not lose seats (they had zero senate gains that year and still remained the minority party).

But 1994, 2002, 2010 and now 2014 will continue to trend Republican, even though, in national elections, the GOP has won the popular vote only once since 1988 - 2004.

So, while voting is down across the board in midterm elections, it's the Democrats who traditionally take a bigger hit - and that's been the case ever since the Republican Revolution of '94.

It's telling that, in the last 20 years, the Democrats have only had one really good midterm election, and it came at the lowest point of the Bush presidency - when Republican turnout was completely depressed.

[quakerboy]

131. And its the moderate democrats who stay home

the milquetoast who just don't care that much if there ain't history being made or a big name in a horse race. That's where your argument falls apart. You have focused in on one state and one election that goes against that trend, but that's whats going on in the rest of the instances you are so pointedly ignoring.

[Rex]

40. Yeah funny how certain people refuse to look at that chart.

Their canard is so old, they don't even try anything new year after year, that most people are not fooled by their intentions.

[LondonReign2]

86. What a stupid lie

Seriously, the lies are so transparent. Of course, like Republican's I've debated these inconvenient facts will be ignored. Pre-emptive progressive blaming seems to have been the marching order of the day.

Did liberals really stay home and cause the 2010 rout?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/06/1003805/-Did-liberals-really-stay-home-and-cause-the-2010-rout
“So I went back to the exit polls and the picture I see shows nothing like that. If you are a proponent of this claim, I challenge you for empirical proof that some set of activist liberals "took their ball and went home" or whatever metaphor you prefer to make Obama's leftward critics appear childish and immature. Inside, the evidence I found that shows this just ain't so.”

http://blogforarizona.net/do-progressives-even-sit-out-elections-the-numbers-say-no/
“As you can see, Democrats did slightly better with liberals in 2010 than in 2006. Had there really been a collective we’re-sitting-out-the-election-to-spite-Obama pout going on, then there should have been a sharp drop in the liberal participation percentage. Yet notice the 9% in moderate voter participation and the concomitant 10% increase in conservative turnout. Republicans were pumped for that election but their turnout tends to be higher in midterms anyway. Millions of moderate voters either flipped to conservative or stayed home in 2010.”

“As you can see, all the Democratic groups dropped, but the liberal Democrats dropped least of all”

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/progressive-movement/news/2012/11/08/44348/the-return-of-the-obama-coalition/
Ideology. Liberals were 25 percent of voters in 2012, up from 22 percent in 2008. Since 1992 the percent of liberals among presidential voters has varied in a narrow band between 20 percent and 22 percent, so the figure for this year is quite unusual. Conservatives, at 35 percent, were up one point from the 2008 level, but down a massive 7 points since 2010.
Ideology. Obama received less support in 2012 from all ideology groups, though the drop-offs were not particularly sharp in any group. He received 86 percent support from liberals (89 percent in 2008), 56 percent from moderates (60 percent in 2008), and 17 percent from conservatives (20 percent in 2008).

[Rex]

91. You can post that information all day, it goes against the narrative and will be ignored.

Sadly for them, Dems will turn out in huge numbers and win back the House. Their fear smells like victory.

[LondonReign2]

92. Yes...and I do have to post it all day, apparently

since their seems to have been a message from Third Way headquarters that today was the day to preemptively blame liberals for the potential Democratic losses. Could they be more transparent?

[Rex]

93. Not really, it might be more effective if they changed their game plan

but they stick with the same message every year, year after year. I LOVE the desperation, it makes me all day at their pathetic attempts at shutting down the vote.

[LondonReign2]

102. It's funny

It's the third thread I've posted those facts in, and not a single response from our friends.

But it's not a coordinated effort so stop saying that!

[VanillaRhapsody]

42. OH fuck yes it DOES....WE the left....Registered Democrats FAR outweigh the Right...

When WE vote WE WIN! Hands down!

[BlindTiresias]

44. haha

Simmer down there, sport.

[VanillaRhapsody]

47. I am no "sport"......I am passionate

[BlindTiresias]

49. Cool?

The random caps and extensive ellipses makes you look unhinged.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. that's YOUR opinion....

Yeah and I have seen that debate tactic before....when you have a losing argument....accuse your opponent of being angry or "unhinged".....its not new my friend.

[BlindTiresias]

52. I don't have an argument with you?

And your posts do indeed look cray cray, or "passionate" as you say.

Please.........read out your posts..........extensive....elipses.....makes you sound......like either Jeff Goldblum.........or a space cadet.......so unless that is your intention..........it should be avoided.......

[VanillaRhapsody]

53. I don't care if I look crazy or not....I am telling the truth

I guess the truth hurts....

Perhaps detecting sanity is not YOUR strong suit!

[BlindTiresias]

54. Brother

Half the time I can't even parse out the point you are attempting to make, the other half I could do a word replacement and it would be identical to a beered up maniac posting on a sports forum. So whatever truth you are laying down on me, it is apparently too elusive to cause pain!

[VanillaRhapsody]

57. I am NOBODY'S brother....how astute you are....NOT!

Yeah its apparently above your pay grade actually!


and by the way....I am not here to impress YOU!

What I am telling you is....THIS is bullshit:

"Except the exit polls don't confirm the "blame the left" story. At all. That didn't stop people from blaming the left in 2010."

because Exit polls don't show you WHO didn't vote....NOW does it?

When WE Vote WE WIN!!!

P.S. it is a bit Misogynist of you to ASSUME I am a male!

[BlindTiresias]

60. Who are you here to impress?

The Jeff Goldblum fandom? People who randomly shout?

[LondonReign2]

90. She isn't trying to impress anyone, she is trying to tie the debate up in knots

Mission Accomplished!

[Fumesucker]

11. Preemptive hippie punching will continue until you long haired dirtbags get some morale

And we'll be needing some handy scapegoats in the near future so stick around after you vote for the DINOS we put up for you.

[OilemFirchen]

23. Hippie punching?

Curious that this meme has popped up twice in this short thread.

Who are the hippies, and who is punching them?

[rhett o rick]

119. Who is getting punched here and other threads? At this time in the election cycle,

it's time to trash the Lefties. Not really sure to what end.

[OilemFirchen]

125. Hope this helps:

Hippie:



Radical:



Hipsters:



Moron:

+

Hippie Punchers:

[Rex]

37. It's sad to see year after year after year.

But totally predictable.

[BlueJac]

17. Just voting democrat solves nothing!

I will vote Bernie! Washington if full of right wing Democrats that I do not support. Shit, they are 70 republicans at best or worse!

[OilemFirchen]

21. Sorry.

Bernie is not up for election this year. Do you even live in Vermont?

[VanillaRhapsody]

45. Hello Independent Voter

Frankly I am tired of these Independents telling the Democrats what to do!

[Tarheel_Dem]

66. Thank You!

[blkmusclmachine]

24. Third Way took over in mid 90s. NO WAY progressives/liberals will have a say in today's DEM Party.

And the Third Way will like a Republican controlled Congress very, very much.

[Drunken Irishman]

27. They took over because a huge chunk of progressives were voted out in 1994.

[Rex]

36. Must be close to election time again, the divisive threads are flowing fast and furious.

Of course nobody is fooled.

[VanillaRhapsody]

46. Right now one is fooled by the Independents any more....

[1StrongBlackMan]

41. I really think ...

the "discouraging LIBERALS/DEMOCRATS" argument is inaccurate. The vast majority of Democrats and Liberals will vote, and vote Democratic ...

However, I suspect the target for discouragement is not liberals or Democrats, so much as those that WOULD vote Democratic; but for the discouraging message, i.e., the youth and the politically disengaged.

We are hearing 24/7:

GOP: "Government doesn't work" ... Check!

Libertarians (right and left): "Government is evil" ... Check!

Tea Party: "Government doesn't work and there is no difference between establishment republicans and establishment Democrats" ... Check!

"Liberals/Progressives": "Government is evil and there is no difference between establishment republicans and establishment Democrats" ... Check!

Result: Only 15% of the American people pay close attention to the only mechanism for change.

[VanillaRhapsody]

48. and I am tired of these Independents telling Democrats that they aren't Liberals....

[sadoldgirl]

56. Just a quick question for you

Do you call candidates,who are members of the third way Democrats?

Oh, another one:
If people vote differently from you they are automatically Independents?

[VanillaRhapsody]

59. I call Democrats Democrats....

People who cannot commit to voting for WHOMEVER is elected in the Democratic Primary are Independents by default.

THAT is why

[sadoldgirl]

61. Okay, I understand now.

Would you have called people who did not vote for George Wallace Independents or Democrats?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

123. Is George Wallace running?

I thought he was dead.

[JaneyVee]

43. +1 GOTV

[Iliyah]

58. It overall hurt America!

VOTE!

[jtuck004]

62. Sometimes the song isn't about you...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

64. I've heard this tale before...

Half of the country doesn't vote so when 26% vote Republican they do a victory dance and claim the country supports things like the elimination of Social Security. When Dems win it's treated like an accident in the Beltway and they spend their entire time trying to win over Republicans who just want them dead.

Don't put me in charge. I'd have FBI raids on K Street.

[Tarheel_Dem]

65. Now you've done it. The new Liberal/Libertarian hybrid will come after you unmercifully.

I know this cuz I had heard on the internetz that both parties are the same. They even made this:

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

94. I've only ever heard one or two very obvious trolls say 'sit out'.

The real lefties I know will always vote, although some Dems may not like the people for whom they choose to vote.

(EDit, and, btw, in 2010, progressives came out in the same sorts of numbers they always do. It's a zombie lie to say they 'sat it out'. They didn't, but that particular lie doesn't ever seem to die, no matter what the actual crosstab data showed.)

[Historic NY]

96. Too many people do sit home unless its an important election year...

thats why the state houses are rocking with baggers, thats why they are fucking with election laws, thats why they are cutting education, its a whole host of stuff that all boils down to deciding how the Democratic Party moves. So sitting out any election is conceding your right to complain. You think the republicans sit out those all so called bullshit elections....nope thats why were having problems and why the gerrymandering continues. I live in a town thats run by Republicans why, because Democrats who move here don't want to get involved, or they have too long a commute, are not involved in the community...ect. In my county the GOP is out numbered but they win and will continue to win.


Honestly the liberal - progesssive stuff is plain bullshit....if you not voting in every election.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

106. Too many people sit out EVERY single election.

The problem is more non-voters than it is semi-voters. Which is why the GOP does everything it can to make voting harder and more expensive.

[Historic NY]

112. Which was the point I was trying to make...

[TBF]

98. Writing OPs accusing dems of not voting -

I wonder why we are seeing so many of these. Who does this benefit?

Hmmmm.

[totodeinhere]

99. It's not liberals and progressives who will sit out. They will participate.

The Democrats who might sit out are low information voters who call themselves Democrats who are not very engaged in the political process. It takes something big like a presidential election or an issue that they really care about to get them to the polls. These are the people that we need to motivate to vote. We need to get it through their heads that midterm elections have consequences and that the GOP will hurt them in many ways if it gets more power.

[LondonReign2]

104. The data from the elections since 2006 indicate it is the moderates and indys that sit out

[JoePhilly]

118. Yup , all the negativity demotivates those folks

[JoePhilly]

111. It's moderate Dems who will sit out.

All the negative noise impacts them most.

[Fumesucker]

114. So no matter who sits out it is the fault of the left?

That's diabolically brilliant, you have found the perfect scapegoat; a powerless and voiceless tiny minority, hated by all right thinking Americans who nonetheless are responsible for any and all less than optimal results.

Poifect!

[JoePhilly]

117. More so the media actually.

But the endless whining on the web doesn't help any.

You guys seem more concerned about being blamed for Dems losing than having the GOP win.

It doesn't realty matter who's fault it is if the GOP wins.

[rhett o rick]

121. Is it time to disparage the Left already? Oh yeah, it's Oct. I am active in

Democratic politics in my county. The liberals are the ones that are always enthusiastic. We had a "Drinking Liberally" meeting just last night. None of the liberals are going to "sit out." All the volunteers for helping candidates are from the liberal group. I know most. They will be the ones going door to door, putting up signs, and manning the phone banks.

The meme that the Left stays home is false. And I wonder to what end it's pushed here.

[MerryBlooms]

122. Dems are fired up and ready to go!

I don't know a single Democrat who's not excited about voting.

Push away those gray m$m generated clouds-- hold your head high and exude a positive outlook! Your smile and encouraging words are infectious.

GoGo Dems!!

[GeorgeGist]

124. Sure to win friends.

[99Forever]

129. Same lame line of crap,

Different day.

[marmar]

136. Jesus, Mary and Joseph.