When a Centrist Independent is a more reliable vote for Democrats than, well, some Democrats...

[riqster]

All I can assume is that:

Number A: the "Democrats" who plan to abandon the party have swallowed the Republican's line of BS,
Letter 2: the "Democrats" who plan to abandon the party have swallowed the Naderesque line of BS, or
Thirdly: were never really Democrats in the first place.

Regardless, I have never missed an election, have never wavered in my support for Left and Center-Left candidates, have never voted a Republican ticket, and have helped the Democratic party in many ways over the decades. I just haven't joined the party for philosophical reasons.

So to all those who would have us believe that they are "True" Democrats and plan on sitting out the next election, or claim that Dems = Reeps, or spend their time trashing the Prexy and other elected Democrats instead of working to defeat the Repubs, here is my challenge.

Show up or shut up.

Let's see whether you really believe in stomping the s***out of the Republican agenda, or whether you'll lie back and let it happen.

Vote, God-fucking-dammit. Or you're even less of a Democrat than me.

(Donning Asbestos Y-Fronts)

[AllINeedIsCoffee]

1. Vote Democratic or shut up and get out of the way!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[RC]

7. I have done that for decades. "Always vote for principle."

I do my research. I Read the bio's the local paper prints of reach candidate. And it usually ends up a close race between the lesser of two evils and his more evil brother/sister. Sometime the greater evil wins. Even though the also rans show much more common sense and a stronger attachment to reality.
Nobody listens, not even to my I told you so's. Those all important (D) and (R) override all common sense.

[treestar]

10. Such a reflection is better than health care or a social safety net

As you are sent off on the Republican latest war you can take your sweet reflection with you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. Is it your principle to support wars?

Not mine.

[Mojorabbit]

95. It is good to have a moral compass. nt

[geek tragedy]

21. Said the guy who was rich. nt

[riqster]

25. And that sweet reflection is such a comfort to those

...women who lose the right to choose, the children who starve, and the millions who suffered because of those "principles".

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. Is it your principles to vote for those who condemn children to starve, and suffer?

Not mine, or JQ Adams' either.

[riqster]

67. If one casts a vote (or fails to cast a vote)

...and that action helps a Republican to win, then they have supported such inhumane principles.

Talk is cheap. Life is not. And if we claim to be acting from high principles but cause harm with our actions, then are we really principled?

No. "By our actions you shall know us".

Other examples of "principled" people causing harm:
"Christians" who oppose marriage equality,
"Moslems" who don't oppose terrorists,
And so on.

Their "principles" hurt people.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

69. I don't support the "principles" you mentioned.

I assume that you vote your principles, don't you.

Yours seem to differ from mine, only in that I don't support Democrats (or, anyone else) who will settle for a little less killing, a little less torture, a little less inhumanity, a little less discrimination and then try to sell "not as bad" as a principle.

[riqster]

72. I hope you never have to live in a state that is 100% Red.

Because, even if it takes that experience to remove the scales from your eyes, no one should have to live in such a place.

Even though people like you sat out ejections, and consigned people like me to living thus.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. No I didn't.

I've voted in 22 federal elections. In not one, did my single vote influence the outcome in the least.

I've never sat out an election since 1965. And, I've never even considered voting for a republican. On 3 occasions I have voted 3rd party because the Democrats ran centrists and/or candidates who supported Republican policies that I found unsupportable.

[riqster]

78. Your single vote always matters.

That is what people need to grok. We are not independent people, we are interdependent. And our actions/inactions affect the rest of our society.

[LWolf]

53. That's my rule, anyway. nt

[cyberswede]

3. I disagree with the premise in your first paragraph.

Your assumptions are quite an oversimplification.

That said, I always vote - and always straight D.

[riqster]

12. That is all that matters.

[leftstreet]

4. Stop blaming voters

Enough with the lectures

Voters destroyed the GOP, rejected Reaganomics, slayed the religious right influence in politics

The Democrats have spent 5 years breathing life back into a party and ideology voters already rejected. If those same voters go looking for some other opportunity, they can't be blamed

[HardTimes99]

8. After his mandate in 2009, Obama had the Republicans on the mat for the final 10-count

in January 2009 and for much of the next 24 months. It's amazing to me how Republicans were allowed off the mat to retreat to their corner and come out for the next round as though 2008 never happened.

But then I remember Pelosi telling us after 2006 that impeachment was "off the table," and the feeling that I'm watching a perverse and cruel form of kabuki theater starts to capture me.

[leftstreet]

9. It started with Obama's silly healthcare 'town halls'

Summer/fall 2009 and suddenly the ridiculous 'tea party' is getting MAJOR mainstream coverage!

There were no 'town halls' for bank bailouts, or escalation in Afghanistan...

[riqster]

13. On the contrary,

Voters allowed the beast of Reagan to arise anew in 2000 and 2010.

We like to hold politicians to account. But they can't get into office unless we allow them to: either by our actions, or our inaction.

[SomethingFishy]

20. Problem is when we do elect them...

We don't hold them to account. And anyone who does is accused of "helping the Republicans".

If we vote and bitch we are "helping Republicans". If we don't vote we are "helping Republicans" When the current administration says "trust us it's a matter of national security", if we don't we are, "helping Republicans.

You can fling all the bullshit you want, your sad attempts to blame anyone but the politicians is pathetic.

[riqster]

33. Not in my mind.

If you at least vote Dem, you are fighting Republicans. If you vote and bitch, you are being an active citizen.

It's only those that claim that both parties are the same, so let's sit out the election, that help Reeps.

That's my opinion anyway.

[bluestate10]

50. I am a moderate democrat is a deep blue state. I often get out voted in primaries by

left leaning Democrats and Independents. Even when I get a democrats that I didn't prefer, I am wise enough to accept that person is far, far more oriented toward the policies that I value than a republican would be. That capacity to reason and adjust is what distinguishes me from most far Left voters.

[Bradical79]

5. Your post makes me less likely to vote

Seriously, I get tired of cowards like yourself telling people who have been consistent in their beliefs they are not Democrats simply because YOU people have double standards for important issues (like privacy, domestic spying, our 4th amendment rights, torture, war, and healthcare).

[riqster]

14. If you sit it out, you are helping Republicans.

And if you help Repubs, what are you doing here?

[Broward]

22. If you continue to give cover to

DINOS you're helping the Republicans.

[riqster]

28. Look at Ohio to see why you are wrong.

We had a lot of DINOs, yes. But life under total Reep control is far worse.

[bluestate10]

48. I smell bullshit. Look at any state that went from DINO to republican and tell me there is

no a stark difference, a stark, infinitely worst difference. This is what moderate democrats and democratic leaning Independents and many on the near Left understand that the far Left, with it insults toward anyone that doesn't think like it - don't fucking get.

[Major Hogwash]

63. Exactly. Idaho lost its DINO Representative in Congress when he was replaced by a flamethrowing . .

. . . Tea Party member.

The DINO Representative could be counted on to support maybe half of what the Democrats wanted to get done while he was in office.

However, the new Tea Party flamethrower cannot be counted on to do ANYTHING the Democrats want to get done.

[burnodo]

71. It is EXACTLY posts like this

the "you're either with us or agin us" posts that lay waste to any claim that you're anything other than partisan

[riqster]

77. If it is partisan to want to keep Republicans from fucking the nation to death,

Then by that definition, OK.

[sufrommich]

38. Christ almighty,anyone who would sit out an

election because someone on the internet pissed them off should probably turn off their computer.

[riqster]

45. Yeah, that is beyond a "fair-weather" Dem.

[bluestate10]

47. Given the stakes of the 2014 election, that is fucking crazy. nt

[riqster]

59. Oh yeah. Thence the OP.

[mick063]

6. Not going to shut up

Sorry.

We want our party back. We are tired of the half assed crap.

[TheKentuckian]

11. To be fair they only pretend half as crap, the reality of the offerings is much less than half

but can be framed as such due to the opposition increasing it's Bircher quotient so that what used to be mainstream or even hard right of acceptable Republican discourse can now be seen as "moderate" Republicanism.

Now we see Heritage proposals move from deep within the Republican party to the point of maybe being to conservative for prime time to far too liberal to garner a single TeaPubliKlan vote despite Democrats accepting well over a hundred of the opposition's amendments to sweeten the pot.

That one flipped from Republican Regular/edging right wing all the way to Democratic Broadway to edging left wing considering the number of accommodations made to TeaPubliKlans that had to be made despite their refusal to provide any votes just to keep supposed Democrats on board (in addition to actual bribes and killing key features).

[riqster]

15. Whose party?

The socialists, are they the true Dems? The DLC? The third-way types?

The Democrats have always been a broad coalition. Acting like Leftish versions if the Teabaggers (who also say they want "their" party back) is destructive. And helps Repubs win.

Anyone who helps Repubs win is not entitled to call themselves anything but a Republican.

[mick063]

24. The GOP fear is wearing off

Implement GOP policy, appoint a GOP cabinet, declare it "centralist", and then try to use fear of the GOP as a tool.

Bargain with Social Security as a chip, declare it a reasonable compromise, and attempt to scare me with what the GOP might do.

Absurd and I'm not buying in.

[riqster]

27. Not in Ohio, it isn't. We are in Hell.

Check out what has happened since those motherfuckers seized 100% control, and tell me there is nothing to fear.

[mick063]

29. A couple of years of adversity

and Ohio will throw those ass hats out.

You will become solid blue. The greatest threat to Republicans isn't Democrats, it is Republicans.

[bluestate10]

34. I am not sure.

Ohio has republicans running the entire government. They have implemented laws and procedures to protect their advantage. That is what makes democrats sitting out the 2010 election there so fucking horrible. The last state to overturn a republican majority and go almost all democrat was New Hampshire in 2012. Republicans took over the New Hampshire Legislature after the 2010 election then proceeded to pass all types of crazy laws. Fortunate for New Hampshire, that state had a centrist democratic Governor who routinely outsmarted the legislature and restrained it. Voters in the 2012 election went on a bloodletting spree, turning virtually the entire state, except for a US Senate seat blue. In the legislature, more than 100 republicans lost seats to democrats. The Governors chair stayed with a democrat. Ohio isn't like New Hampshire, republicans in Ohio have entrenched themselves, it will take coalition building and disciplined voting to remove republicans from office. The far Left, with it's my way or the highway mentality, is unlikely to engage in meaningful coalition building, that is truly disgraceful.

[riqster]

35. That's not how our history has gone, regrettably.

Look back a few years, and you can see that we have a tendency to relax or become apathetic. It's infuriating. I appreciate the pep talk, though. Hope you're right.

Regardless, my fear is that the country will fuck up the same way in 2014.

Nader (and others) said similar things when Bush ran in 2000: that the country would be so horrified by what the Repubs would do, we as a nation would turn Left en masse. As we all know, that did not happen.

I am fighting to make sure we don't forget our history, and by so forgetting repeat it.

[Broward]

16. Well, it's tough to stomp out the

Republican agenda when both sides are pushing it.

[riqster]

23. Not so.

Yes, the Dems are waaaaay too far Right for my taste, but they are NOT equivalent to the Repubs. Just look at what the Repubs in the House push and compare it to what the Dems in the Senate have managed to push past the Reeps there. VERY different.

For that matter, compare what the House did under Obama and a Dem majority with what they have done since some on the Left sat out the 2010 midterms.

And compare states that the Left allowed to turn 100% Red with what they did when Dems had at least some leverage. Ohio is a great example:
Our State Dem party sucks big hairy donkey dicks. In the last election, they and the Left fucked up like nobody's business. And we have , thanks to 8 fucking lazy Dems who did not vote, a 100% Reep government who are taking away women's rights, worker's rights, children's rights, in a way and to a degree that did not happen when Dems had at least some leverage.

Both parties are NOT pushing the same agenda.

[bluestate10]

30. Bullshit!!! If you think is isn't, go live in Louisiana, Texas, South Carolina, Georgia.

There is such a thing as hell on earth, may be you need to experience it to get your perspective on reality corrected.

[Mr. David]

17. You don't want Asbestos Y-Front.

You need Nomex! Better quality and better resistance and you won't get cancer.

[riqster]

18. Clearly better, thanks! nt

[Le Taz Hot]

19. Is it your impression that there are a lot of these

people on DU saying they won't vote? This post is sort of like the Republicans and the hub-bub and the Flag Burning Amendment. There were almost no legitimate instances of flag burning yet here the Republicans are running around with their hair on fire bloviating about adding and Amendment to the constitution to address a non-existent problem.

This is a political message board and I've rarely seen anyone say "they won't vote" if fill-in-the-blank. The few that I have seen are newbies. So it's rather amusing that someone felt the need to start a new thread on a virtually non-existent problem.

[riqster]

37. It took 300 people sitting it out in Florida to allow Bush to steal the WH.

It took less than 10 in Ohio recently to allow Repubs total control of our state.

Even if there aren't a lot, any is too many. Every vote DOES matter.

[Le Taz Hot]

49. And with that claim

I have all I need to know.

Have a good day.

[riqster]

60. Neither are "claims".

They are established facts.

[bluestate10]

26. The so-called "true" democrats and third party type here on DU disgusts me.

I have no use for them and consider them about as useful as breasts on a bull. I think Independents and democratic leaning Independents are going to come up big for democrats in 2014 and moving forward. I think that group clearly see the difference between democrats and republicans and understand that difference is huge in democrats favor. Even republican leaning Independents only give the republican party 40% of their faith. Center Independents and left leaning Independents are likely close to 100% in the democrats camp coming into 100%, our job as democrats is to field candidates that get them excited about voting, I don't think that candidates will be far Left candidates, but if some are, they should be robustly supported by anyone wanting good, effective government, job growth and economic fairness.

[JoePhilly]

65. Agree ...

Lots of the 3rd party types seem to working to reduce turn out, not enlarge it.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

83. You know, Senator Amy Klobuchar won reelection by being so inoffensive and useless

that the Republicans saw her as no threat. Her opponent was barely visible.

Yet Al Franken, much more a traditional Democrat, up for reelection in 2014, is polling very well.

[JackRiddler]

31. Reversal of what democracy actually is.

The politicians are supposed to serve voters, not the reverse, as is implicit in your post.

[riqster]

39. No, we are not here to serve the politicos.

We are here to elect them, and remove those from office who do not serve us.

Just because they are supposed to serve us dies not mean we have no responsibilities.

[NuclearDem]

32. When a Centrist Independent is a more reliable vote for Democrats than, well, some Democrats...

Then that's a problem with the party abandoning the left to appeal to centrists over the traditional progressives and socialists.

[riqster]

43. And that makes it OK to throw elections to the Reeps?

[NuclearDem]

44. That's no excuse.

Republicans will always be worse than the Democrats, but using the "Republicans will win" scare tactic is just throwing up a cover for the Democrats to move to the right with Republicans while staying just to the left of them enough to justify calling themselves "not as bad" as the other party.

If Republicans start winning elections, it won't be because liberals and progressives want them to win, it'll be because the Democrats have so isolated and removed their leftists from the party that they won't be able to vote for Dems and stick to their principles at the same time.

[riqster]

58. "Principles"?

By allowing Repubs to win, Ohio leftists and Dems helped to fuck over the poor, the away the rights of women, rape the environment and so on.

If votes have consequences, so too do the votes that are not cast.

We can see our principles in each others' actions: actions of both omission and commission.

[NuclearDem]

64. My point exactly.

When Democrats no longer represent liberals and leftists and simply try to tap into centrists and Republican voters, they're going to lose. The party allowed Republicans to come into power because they wimped out. There's certainly a strong progressive base in Ohio, but when the party is dominated by Third Wayers/DLC'ers/corporatists at the national level, that poison trickles down ballot.

[riqster]

68. And the voters who don't vote Dem, help elect Repubs.

People love to blame parties. They love to blame the media. They love to blame politicos.

But take personal responsibility? Oh, no, not often.


Voters are ultimately responsible for the actions of our government. How we vote, if we vote, both have consequences.

[NuclearDem]

70. Yes, they're responsible for how they vote, but what are the choices?

Option 1: Vote Republican.

Option 2: Vote Democrat.

Option 3: Vote third party.

Option 4: Don't vote.

Unless you choose option 2, Republicans end up winning. The Democrats count on the system being so badly set up this way to keep people voting for them, and only the threat of losing voters to apathy or third parties holds them to the fire and forces them to make changes to their platform.

I don't blame the parties, I don't blame the media, and I don't blame politicos. I blame the system. It's set up in a way that the only way to truly hold a party accountable for its betrayal of its progressive constituents is to allow the truly evil party to come to power. I wish it wasn't set up that way, but that's how it is.

[riqster]

74. I agree in all particulars.

But even when people see how evil the Repubs are, they still act like sitting it out is a morally defensible position.

President Washington warned us about political parties, and no one listened. Now his predictions have come to pass.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

82. Unfortunately, what the Dem establishment takes away from its losses is

"Oh no, we're too far left! We've got to adopt more Republican positions!"

Yet strengthening and expanding Social Security and Medicare are popular issues, as are disengaging from the overseas wars.

[NuclearDem]

85. And that brings me to another point

Shunning progressives and liberals who criticize Democratic politicians out of fear that it'll divide the party or cost elections does the whole party a disservice. If we're not vocal and open about the mistrust of the party coming from its abandonment of progressive ideas, the national leadership will keep pushing for independents and centrists and further abandon progressivism.

[winter is coming]

107. +1000. Every time we go further right, we sacrifice voters and our party identity.

I don't give a shit about defeating Republican politicians if we're still going along with Republican policies.

[ChiciB1]

36. I'm A Life Long Democrat & One Who Votes

with the Democratic Party almost always. But, I can think of one just recently that I did not vote for a Democrat. I voted for Charlie Crist who ran against Marco Rubio and have never regretted it. In fact, I even tried to get other Democrats to vote for him because I felt he at least had a chance of taking out Rubio. Now Crist has joined the Democratic Party and I will MOST DEFINITELY vote for him for Governor again.

I felt the Democrat who was running against him for Senator was actually further right than Crist. For some strange reason, while I can see his face in my mind, I can't remember his name. He was a Congressman before he decided to run for Senator. I know he was black and I could look it up, but it will come to me in time.

Anyway, I still feel voting for Crist was the best choice. Of course, a person has to do more than see a name and decide to vote ONLY if it's their party of choice. There are times when a little research is done you find another person is better.

[riqster]

40. Crist was not running as a Repub IIRC

He was running as an Independent. So OK, point made, maybe someone could vote for a non-Dem to beat a Repub.

Still, you picked the person you thought best able to beat a Reep.

[ChiciB1]

51. I Know, But He Was Elected As A Republican Governor

and I voted against him that time. He changed to Independent because he declined to be Jebby's lap dog. Jebby wanted him to bow down to him and HIS policies and he refused. He got stabbed in the back for doing it, and we got Rubio because Democrats voted for the Democrat.

Anyway, I was just making a point. Still as a liberal I'm not comfortable with the lurch to the right from so many Democrats these days. Obama wasn't my first choice, I knew he was a centrist, but didn't know he was so willing to compromise from the get go. I still believe in my heart that had he taken a stronger stance on issues during the first part of his first term, he would be in a stronger place now.

On a personal level I find him to be a wonderful caring man. A man with a good heart who does care. But given who we are up against these days, give me an LBJ right now. And truth be told, way back then if I had been able to vote, I wouldn't have voted for LBJ. Looking back, he actually governed with a lot of strength even though I felt he was kind of a bully back then.

Maybe that's why we need someone who understands the "bully pulpit" attitude today.

[riqster]

61. I see what you mean.

Obama wasn't my fave either. But he won because the alternatives were far worse in both races. And thank God he won.

We need to get more progressive candidates in queue for 2014. But we need to keep the Repubs from taking even more control of DC than they already have.

Look at Ohio, Carolina, and other 100% Red states to see why,

[TheKentuckian]

41. Probably "a centrist, independent" is closer to having their policy aims represented

What do you have to swallow that is too far left for you in order to be such a reliable voter?

I'm of the impression that the DLC/Turd Way policy and strategies are right up your alley because you describe your self as a "centrist" which always translates to corporate friendly, neocon tolerant, receptive to reductions in the safety net, not the least bit concerned about the environment, pro-police, pro-security state, favoring education deform while championing education as the key to better lives, and ever seeking paths to aligning with the opposition.

Your "challenge" is also logically flawed, it does not account for convergence of agenda. I'm all for kicking the shit out of the TeaPubliKlan agenda but that absolutely requires kicking the shit out of the Turd Way agenda, the two cannot be separated, sure some of the TeaPubliKlans are even more extreme in pressing it and do so with much harsher rhetoric but the broad agenda is the same.

It also tries to sell the idea that liberals don't work to elect Democrats and don't consistently vote for Democrats like "centrist independents" aka the folks I've never seen working a campaign. No, not even for "centrist" candidates.

In 2010 the minority vote dropped off, the youth numbers fell, and there are always Democrats who show up in Presidential years that are less apt to come to the polls in off years or for local races.

The thing is even if your phony assertions were true, it would seem necessary to try and get everyone out because the numbers aren't available within the regular electorate. If you have to replace significant numbers of people then they must be drawn from eligible non-voters.

I don't see how punching the hippies moves the needle but I do see how it is easier than motivating folks to mob the polls by being on their side rather than licking corporate taint, producing spin, and trying to win the blame for toxic policies passed to serve the rich and powerful.

There is no wishing away the reality that it is hard to the point of impossible to sell dicey voters that the solution to their dissatisfaction with the direction of a Democrat or Democrats is to vote for them or vote TeaPubliKlan. If the latter is unacceptable and significant to why one votes Democratic then??? Vote for them! Better yet pretend to support it while writing firmly worded letters that swear eternal allegiance but clear hope that the recipient evolve. If one can't feign support then be silent on this piece and talk up better areas. If there are many problems then shut up or again, go vote TeaPubliKlan since "you" must be one to have many problems with policy.

I can't pitch that shit and I've not seen a credible job to use as a template, it is ineffective to counter-productive as a tactic to herd established partisans who aren't even philosophically opposed to actually being Democrats and is completely worthless in selling those less inclined that I can see.
This bogus ass political strategy has burned bridges I worked hard to build in getting new folks to the polls in 2008, it is fucking dangerously stupid but instead of learning a damn thing here we are hearing the same bullshit spin and the same fingers pointing in the aftermath of their willful failure.

[mick063]

75. This is one kick ass post The Kentuckian

Sounds so nice, I had to read it twice.

[TheKentuckian]

99. Thank you for taking the time

[riqster]

86. These days, being a Centrist isn't what you describe.

Ideologically, I am a Truman Democrat. But in a country whose media promulgates the extremes, I find myself a centrist, because I vehemently reject the idea of revolution.

So, your first assumption was completely off-the-mark. Assumptions often are.

I suggest you examine the rest of your assumptions, to see if they are also wrong.

[TheKentuckian]

101. Nah, it is as described. Every "Centrist" politician is a corporate stooge asshole.

They run from Evan Bayh to Joe Lieberman to a Nelson to a Landrieu to a Snowe back around to a Warner, and on and on.

They like to be parts of "No Labels", the DLC, New Democrats, Blue Dogs, and anything else but Democrat and sure as the day is long not to be confused with liberal by any stretch.

It also is an indicator (though I have to grant not indicative) that what I describe is in play when the absolutely astonishingly absurd proposition is laid out that the media in any way promotes anything resembling an extreme left for anyone to have a need to establish themselves in a "center" between the furthest point left in the acceptable spectrum of mass politics and the furthest point right because if you did such a thing you would be posting up to the right of Reagan based on a nonsensical calculation and an ideology that revolves around 'Goldilocks and The Three Bears' or something.

There is no magic in the medium cup and the actual volume of what is offered as that medium cup may change with time. Depending on the actual size sometimes the same person may be fine with a small at one place, need a large the next stop, and a medium is bang on at a third place. You believe in what you believe not some strategic calculation in relationship to mass media narratives. That doesn't make sense, it sounds between misleading and nonsensical, but maybe that is just how it hits me.

[riqster]

103. ALL politicians are corporate stooge assholes, regardless of label.

And I was describing myself, not elected officials. But I do have an example with which to refute your premise: Angus King.

Mr. King, an independent from Maine, is working to revise Glass-Steagall. Yes. A centrist Independent is pushing a Dem initiative. Granted, Dems are on board with him, but he is the prime mover behind it, which illustrates the point I am making, and illustrates it quite well.

[TheKentuckian]

128. I'll grant you the first point but will add the self described "centrist" are more brazen and proud

of their stoogitude.

As far as King goes, I'm not super familiar but a lot of his positions seem actually moderate to liberal. Seems more liberal than most of the weak tea Democrats nowadays. He sure as hell doesn't seem to be splitting the difference at all to me.

[wavesofeuphoria]

120. Awesome post! In multiple ways! :)

[Savannahmann]

42. Here be the rub.

Most of us on the Left are people for whom Principle is our moral anchor. We believe in things, and we believe others should too. We believe our party should represent us, because we are the ones that are the core of the party. We believe that the Party, or at least those who we campaigned for, donated to, and voted for, should represent us. When they don't how can we show them we are upset?

Imagine for a moment, you drive a Patriot Motors Sedan (I made up the car company so nobody would get upset and start telling me how great their car was) and you have always driven a Patriot Motors Sedan. Every car you had, each of a dozen in your lifetime was a lemon. It was nothing but a long history of problems wrapped in different metal. The electrical system was garbage, the lights came on when you slammed the door, and turned off if you set the clock. Now, at some point it's no longer just one bad car out of a million, it's going to be that they make only cars that should be painted lemon yellow, they are POS's.

Do you keep going back and supporting Patriot Motors despite the fact that they can't make one car by accident that works? At some point, you buy another car, or you refrain from buying one of theirs until they get the whole car working off the showroom floor for more than a day.

We people on the Left feel like that all the time. We watched as our party voted overwhelmingly for DOMA. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/104-1996/h316

We were astounded, it being obvious that it was a vote against GLBT that was veiled so thinly as to be nude. But 120 Democrats voted for it. Now, when your party betrays the fabric of your belief, how do you rush out and throw yourself into the idea of giving up your time, your small amount of free time, and work for free for them? How do you justify donating money to that party? Oh sure, seventeen years later the abomination was ruled unconstitutional, but how many have suffered for that time? Sure the Rethugs might have passed it without us, but why drive the nail into the hearts of your supporters?

I can name vote after vote. Issue after issue where we have been betrayed by our elected Representatives. In each vote, having the letter D following their name was utterly meaningless. They voted in the PATRIOT ACT. They voted for the War in Iraq. They voted the bailouts to the banks, and screwed Main street while saving Wall Street. All the while, we're expected to slobber and nod our heads and tell them how wonderful they are and how happy we are to donate to whatever candidate sends us an email, or flyer, or letter telling us how important we are to changing Washington.

So as time goes by, I'm less enthusiastic about the Politicians, but still absolutely bound by principle. Those principles are still my anchor, setting me against the changing winds and tides of this weeks thing we're for or against because someone else said so. Those principles are often all I have to hold onto as my Party rushes to the floor of Congress as fast as they can to sell me and my brothers and sisters out. The idea that sometime, in the future, it may be better.

Then the election comes around, and the same D after his name politician who voted the way I wouldn't have every single time now wants my vote. He wants me to show up and vote for him, when he never once voted for me. He's spent months telling me how I need to buy a yard sign and put it along the road to help him get elected. He's told me that my property along the state highway would be a perfect place to get his name out. Please won't I please consider putting a sign up. He can't help those folks in his district if he's not in Washington. Now, I need to vote for him, because if I don't then the Republicans will win.

And where was this concern for what I would do when he was casting votes to shoot down the Amash Amendment? Where was this concern when he was voting against the ACA.

Now you tell me I have to go out there and Vote for any old douchebag with a D after his name or else I'm a horrible person, and a worse democrat than you. But who am I voting FOR? How long must I throw everything behind a party that throws every lump of crap on me? I've already said, I'm not donating this election cycle. I sent the money I was saving, I set a bit aside every month, to the ACLU. At least they are fighting for things I believe in.

While you are pounding the proverbial table and screaming vote democrat. Vote democrat because if we don't, we'll lose. Lose what? DOMA was law since 1996, and it passed the house with 120 Democratic votes. Fewer Democrats voted to authorize the Iraq War than voted to shit out our own citizens. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

How about the PATRIOT ACT. Every time it comes up for reauthorization the Democrats can't wait to show the constituents that they'll do whatever it takes to make sure the nation isn't attacked again. Which is an impossible standard, and a stupid statement. No Civil Right is safe when there is a chance for a Democrat to look tough on something.

So pound the table, make it look like I have a duty to support my party. But I ask this question. When the hell is the party going to support me? When the hell are they going to put principle ahead of Wall Street big dollar days for the few? When will they stand up and say that GLBT community deserves equal rights, instead of waiting and hoping that the Supreme Court does something in a decade.

[LWolf]

56. The loyalty drumbeat seems to be starting a little early.

What that says to me is that the party gestapo recognizes that the mainstream majority party has gone too far, has pissed off too many traditional supporters, and is desperately starting the bullying to round up all the support they depend on.

fwiw, I agree with you re: the rub.

[riqster]

79. Lose what?

Look at Ohio.

[riqster]

87. I notice all you mention are the bad things.

The Dems are not 100% bad. Nor are they 100% good.

You mention DOMA, and how the Dems fucked up in supporting it. You do not mention the recent events, where Obama and others worked to undo the stupid fuckups of the past and help finally advance pro-equality legislation.

And much of your post is similar. The Dems did THIS bad thing, the DEMS did THAT bad thing, but you leave out the good.

You think your DINO isn't better than the Teabagging nutter that would replace him? Ask any Dem who has had their DINO replaced by a Teabagger, they'll put you wise.

Yes, the Dems suck. Yes, they are too far right. They are still the only defense we have against a Teavangeliccal Repub nutjob government.

It stinks to play "Lesser of two evils". But that's what we've got.

[Savannahmann]

88. To the Contrary

You mention DOMA, and how the Dems fucked up in supporting it. You do not mention the recent events, where Obama and others worked to undo the stupid fuckups of the past and help finally advance pro-equality legislation.

I specifically mentioned that it took seventeen years to get overturned by the Supreme Court. Pro Equality Legislation? In the Federal Government? The pro equality legislation was nothing more than the departments abiding by the Supreme Court Decision.

So you're back down to the lesser of two evils. That will turn out the voters in 2014. Vote for the Democrats, they're not as evil as the Republicans, but they're still evil.

This is what happens when you sell out principle, for power. This is the shape we are in, and how we got here. The path forward is more of the same, lesser of two evils, and an argument the other side says too. I've heard Conservatives say the same thing about their vote.

So the question is this, when is our party going to make a stand, and stand out. When are we going to stand FOR something. When are we going to put principle forward, and say this is what we believe and this is why we believe it?

Until we do, the best selling point we have is that we believe we're the lesser of two evils, and that isn't a selling point to get people to the polls as we learned to our sorrow more than once.

I've said before, there should be a mandatory Court Jester with every elected official. Someone who can come up and kick the elected in the shins, and shout at him to wake up and realize what is important. Then shake a rattle at him and prance away. We'll never do it, because the Elected don't give a shit about us, except when they want our money in the form of donations, or our votes to keep them in their jobs.

Lesser of two evils, Nuts. When they passed TARP, all of them said it was a shit sandwich and we all had to take a bite. I've been on this planet for more than 40 years, and I've been chewing a shit sandwich all my life, and I've read enough history to know that they have had plenty of time to do something else. They just won't. What we don't get is this, if we are unwilling to lead on the issues, then the voters won't bother showing up. They rarely show up to vote against something, they always show up to vote FOR something.

[riqster]

89. So, you'll let the Republicans win?

Let me know how that works out for you.

[Savannahmann]

90. I am continuing the call I've made since I first came here.

I'm continuing the call for principle over power. I'm continuing my call that falls upon so many ears that can, but will not hear. I hope that one day, my ideals will cross that mythical 10% mark, and will grow on their own.

We Democrats need to first figure out what we are FOR. We need to stand for principle. We need to educate those who don't understand our ideals, not adapt to theirs. We need to show them we are not crazed communists hiding our true ideals, because our true ideals will be out there for all to see. We won't have to vote for DOMA like legislation that stigmatizes a portion of our population to prove we care about the larger part. We'll be able to explain our ideals because they will be based in principle.

Then we can lead, then we will have a destination, and this people when they move as one, are wondrous, and terrible to behold. Terrible when we are angered as we were in World War II. Wondrous as when we went to the Moon in 1969. When we move as one, we can move mountains, but to do that, we have to aim for something. We have to offer something to the people, something to believe in. Something to strive for. A principle to aim for will unite us too.

That is what I am saying, and what you and so many others reject as unworkable. It is unworkable, so long as we reject it as a party.

We shouldn't be less evil than the Republicans, that shouldn't be our battle cry to get people to the voting booths. We should be better.

[riqster]

91. Should is a useless concept in reality.

There is only what is.

If we work to create a better reality, then that will be what is.

Should, said repeatedly and quickly, sounds much like another word that starts with the same two letters. And is worth the same as that described by the near-homonym mentioned.

[Savannahmann]

92. Then you are left with the lesser of two evils.

Which is much harder to sell to people. Much harder to get them to the voting booths with. Good luck with that.

[riqster]

93. Better that than to cede the field to the greater evil.

The only sure way to lose is to not show up.

This "army" of elected Dems may be comprised largely of sell-outs and corporate whores, but until we get more real progressives to nut up and run for office, we must fight with the army we have.

[Savannahmann]

94. Then you truly do not understand what is going on.

What has been going on for a very long time. It isn't a battle, it's a race. The race to the bottom, to the pure evil you now claim. Both sides are racing to the bottom, appealing to the lowest of mans (forgive the use of the masculine pronoun, blame the inadequacies of the language) basic instincts.

Psychologists and Sociologists teach us that man has four basic needs. Clothing, Shelter, Food, and Security. Both sides are using the fourth to put in place immoral programs, it is a race to the bottom. Bush started a war, a war we could never win in less than a hundred years. President Obama changed it, turning it over to the Drones whenever possible. This reduced the body count that was such a daily fixture on the news, but it continued the same unwinnable war. So President Obama removed the unpalatable portion of the war from the diet of the majority, and continued in secret the killing of the "enemy".

So now we have Drones that fly all over, with pilots and weapons officers located thousands of miles away, who kill impersonally for them. Very personal for those who die, and those who survive. For those who survive, the resentment is even more pronounced. It is one thing to be killed by an enemy that is there, and you can argue has killed in honorable combat. You might even learn to respect that enemy, history shows that has happened many times. It's another to be killed by an unseen enemy, who is so far away you'll never have a chance to shoot back.

No, I am not saying we should line up our troops on one side, and their troops on another. I began this by saying the war was unwinnable. My point is much like Themistocles our politicians are using fear to get the military they want. Unlike Themistocles, we don't have an enemy that military can defeat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themistocles

We are racing to the bottom, and it doesn't matter who reaches it first, the Republicans, or us. The destination is flawed, so either path is equally repugnant. We need to change the path, before it is too late. If it is not already too late. If it is in fact too late, then our nation is doomed, and there is no hope of saving it.

In that case, history might as well show us going down swinging. So many other empires have gone out that way, we could join a fairly exclusive club. Because now is the time to act, to turn this path around, and climb out of the spiral into evil. For if we accept the lowest common denominator, the lesser of two evils argument, then we are certainly doomed. In that case, the question is not if we get there by a race car, or a family car. The problem is that we are getting there. It's well past time we realized that.

It doesn't matter if the police state martial law is implemented by the Republican should he be the 45th President, or the Democrat who may be the 47th or even 49th President. It only matters that the police state martial law is the inevitable destination at the end of this path.

[riqster]

96. I understand that you think there is an inevitable outcome.

And that nothing can be done to stop it, save for miraculous intervention.

I reject the notion outright, and always have. Defeatism is a Siren's song that I tune out.

Look up "Siren's song" in an encyclopedia and see how Odysseus dealt with what everyone told him was an inevitable outcome.

[Savannahmann]

100. My father used to ask me a question from time to time.

What would you rather have fall upon you, a ton of feathers, or a ton of bricks? Either answer is bad. No matter which you choose, a ton 2,000 lbs is going to be dropped on you. I could be anything. Paper, or anvils. Either way, you are getting squashed flat by the weight.

The Republicans give us a Shit Sandwich. The Democrats put a little chocolate on the sandwich, to make it more palatable. It is still a shit sandwich.

If we are serious about winning, if we are serious about maintaining control of the Government. We have to first give the people a reason to vote for us. That reason has to be based in principle. Without that principle, we are left with the argument that if they vote for us, we'll give them some chocolate for the shit sandwich.

We can do much, but we're not. Do you know how disappointing that is to a history lover like myself? To know that JFK inspired America with a call to do something that wasn't hard, it was considered impossible.

Everyone knows the speech. Where JFK proposed a rocket, consisting of materials that have not yet been invented. Techniques not yet developed, and technology not yet discovered.

I've read books, including one by Dr. John P. Craven. A man described as a mad scientist for the Navy. He led the development of the Polaris project. When they set forth on that project, they needed a missile that did not exist. A launch system that did not exist. Guidance software that did not exist. A warhead small enough to fit on the missile, that didn't exist either. They had an idea, and there were many who considered the challenges insurmountable. They also had a deadline, and it was like the Apollo mission, nearly impossible.

Obviously they did it. But where is that inspiration today? Now we look at a problem, and we don't see a challenge. We see something that is impossible, and it is much easier than launching a missile from beneath the waves. It is far easier than sending men to the moon.

We've gone from JFK's "We choose to do this and the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard". From that beautiful sentiment we've gone to the other extreme. "We can't do that, it's just too hard".

So why go, why should people show up and vote. Nothing is proposed, nothing is promised, nor delivered. No inspirational visions for the people to get behind. Just excuses, and accurate statements. We're the lesser of two evils. No wonder so many people just blow off voting. No wonder you started a thread trying to gin up motivation among DEMOCRATS about an election that is at least fifteen months away. After years, we still have nothing to rally the people behind us except that we have chocolate for the shit sandwich, and everybody knows that everything goes better with chocolate.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

97. Yes, the Centrists do not understand or care that

the U.S. is turning into what it professes to be fighting against: a terrorist state.

[Douglas Carpenter]

55. As Job said to the Lord -so say I to the Party,"Though you slay me yet shall I serve you."-Job 13:15

[Agnosticsherbet]

57. If you are a registered Democrat, you are by definition a Democrat.

What you are talking about is policy and platform.

With the current system, try as I might I can not see a realistic alternative to either a Democrat or a Republican. Republicans seem to be doing their best to run candidates that can not win nationwide, but they can gerrymander the hell of states and pass laws to keep people form voting, which keeps them in power.

Democrats never deliver on the big things. Part of that is the nature of the divided system, but it is also partly the fact that neither Democrats nor Republicans ever deliver on the big promises. They blame the other side for it, but still doesn't happen.

[AgingAmerican]

62. Last midterm the Independents and Youth vote stayed home

You can blame it on the Dems all you want, but facts are facts.

[Savannahmann]

66. Likely, the youth will stay home again

The NSA spying scandal is most offensive to the youth. Poll after Poll has shown this, and yet the Democratic leadership have done nothing to reach out and listen to the ones who have all too often been the last nudge we needed to win.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

98. The youth who supported Obama in 2008 wanted REAL change, not

furthering of Bush's policies.

It seemed as if every young person I saw was wearing an Obama campaign button or T-shirt or had a sticker on their car or bike. I have never seen such enthusiasm for a presidential candidate.

At the time of his inauguration, he had the youth of America eating out of his hand.

Now a REAL progressive would have marshalled that enthusiasm to campaign for progressive causes, such as single-payer health care and job programs and affordable housing.

If Obama had said at his inauguration: "I'm asking all of you who campaigned for me to go out into your neighborhoods and gather support for single-payer health care, to pester your Congressional Representatives and Senators for single-payer health care, to talk to your health care providers about single-payer health care, to publicize people's horror stories about our current profit-driven medical system..."

They would have done it.

Obama won re-election in 2012, but only because nobody really liked Romney, not even the Republicans.

[xchrom]

76. fuck centrists. more nafta, tpp is all that says to me. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

80. Bush couldn't have done half the stuff he did without Dem votes

The Patriot Act? Check.
The War in Iraq? Check.
DOMA? Check.
The Bush tax cuts? Check.
The bank bailout with the crooks still getting their gazillion dollar bonuses? That was a Bush initiative (one that aroused strong opposition from every stretch of the political spectrum) that Obama actually implemented, saying that the white collar gangsters deserved their bonuses because "contracts are sacred." (Yet shortly afterwards, he made the auto workers concede wages and benefits. I guess some contracts are more sacred than others.)

You name whatever horrible Bush initiative you can think of, and Dems voted for it and even supported it in large numbers.

I've been on DU since February 2001. I'm like the 1600th person to have joined, and you know what?

Every time the Dems handed Bush his wishes on a platter with a bow and a flourish and a "Look how bipartisan we are!" and the traditional New Deal Dems complained, the Third Way Gang would come out with

"It was going to pass anyway."
"We did it in the spirit of bipartisanship."
"Your opinions are too far left."
"It's useless to vote against Republican bills because a) we don't have the House, b) we don't have the Senate, c) we don't have the White House, d) we don't have a veto-proof majority, e) we don't have a filibuster-proof majority."

Then in 2009, we couldn't have single-payer or even a public option because:

"The Republicans will never vote for it."
"The Blue Dogs will never vote for it."
"The insurance companies won't like it." --Wait a minute! Who else gets to CHOOSE which laws to obey? Not real human persons, that's for sure.

Do you know that most of the people I talked to in 2009, whether for or against what the right wing calls "Obamacare," believed that the proposal was a single-payer program?

The Democrats talked about it because that's what most of them wanted. The Republicans talked about it because Rush and company were feeding them horror stories from British and Canadian tabloids.

Oh, yeah, it was easy to fool people because there was no easily accessible way to find out what the plan actually consisted of. I know. I looked long and hard and finally found an executive summary by the Kaiser Foundation. That's when I found out that it was actually an extension of Mitt Romney's plan, an insurance company corporate welfare plan with a few tidbits for consumers.

When I objected, I was told, "We'll fix it later. Social Security and the Civil Rights Act evolved gradually." Yeah, like Social Security required people to invest in the stock market and the Civil Rights Act required African-Americans to be vetted by private companies to receive civil rights...NOT.

See, here's what's wrong with the Third Way approach. If you never object to Republican proposals, if you vote for them, even advocate them, you're telling the voters, "There's nothing wrong with the Republican approach. It's so great that I, a Democrat, am supporting it."

That evokes a number of responses:

1) "Both parties are the same," (Frankly, most so-called mainstream Democrats these days would have been Republicans in Nixon's day, and the Blue Dogs would have been comfortable in Reagan's Republican party, and both parties are awash in corporate cash, sometimes from the same corporations) so either a) I'll stay home, or b) I'll vote third party in protest.
2) "If the Dems think the Republicans are OK, I may as well vote Republican."
3) "That Democratic candidate is a corporation ass kissing sleazeball, but the Republican is freaking nuts. Sigh, I wish I could eagerly vote FOR someone instead of against the greater of two evils."

What the OP is saying is that we should settle. That we should just accept the rightward drift. That the Dems can't do better. That the Dems can't stop making excuses for all the stealth right wingers in their party. That the Dems can't show a little party discipline on a left-wing issue (as opposed to forcing the Progressive Caucus to vote for the ACA without a public option). That the Dems can't fix the filibuster once and for all. That the Dems can't do this. That the Dems can't do that.

And that anyone who expects the Dems to act like a real opposition to the Republicans is:

1) Too far left
2) A hater of President Obama
3) A Naderite who secretly wants the Republicans to win
4) Naive

Get it through your heads. The point of having two political parties is for them to be noticeably DIFFERENT from each other, to present different visions of what America should be like. The Dems talk a good game about half the time (when they're not saying "me too" to Republican proposals), but they wimp out when it comes to actually fighting.

[Fumesucker]

84. BOOM! .... And small pieces of the OPs argument fall slowly back into the water n/t

[riqster]

106. I did not say we should settle. I said we must show up.

I too would prefer a more assertive and progressive party. That is why I supported Koovh in 2008. And pushing the party is important work.

My point was that we cannot sit it out. We have to work to get our candidates during the primaries and then kick the Repubs in the nuts during the General election.

Much of your post speaks to points that I did not make. So, I think my OP remains intact. Perhaps your other points would be best addressed to people who actually said the things you are responding to.

[wavesofeuphoria]

122. Excellent post!!!

[Autumn]

81. May I ask what your philosophical reasons are for not registering as a Democrat?

I've been a registered Democrat for over 40 years and have never missed an election.

[riqster]

104. My objections to party membership may be found in Washington's Farewell speech.

In it, he describes with great prescience the corrosive effects of political parties, and how they ultimately take power away from the people.

I'd say he was correct. However, the parties are now a fact of life, and the Dems are the party that best represents my views.

I have been a reliable Dem vote since 1976, and have never missed an election either.

[Luminous Animal]

102. Who says Independent voters are "centrists"?

And why centrists with a capital 'c'?

[riqster]

105. I certainly didn't say that all Independents are Centrists.

I am, but I am just one guy. Other people hold their own views.

And capitalizing "Centrist" is common usage, much like "Left" or "Right".

[whatchamacallit]

108. I've voted democratic my entire life because I chose to

not because an internut loudmouth demands it. In the age of endless war and vanishing liberty, I don't fear republicans any more than the right wingers in my own party.

[riqster]

109. If you think DINOs and Repubs are the same,

then you need to compare Ohio in 2014 with Ohio in 2010. A huge difference since the Repubs took complete control.

[mick063]

110. I will not pay the ransom

I hate the casualties from not paying the ransom, but I despise the hostage takers as well. Very tough decision but year after year, the ransom goes up.

Let the Republicans win and perhaps the continuous ransom might go away. I can no longer condone extortion.

[riqster]

111. That was Nader's thesis in 2000.

Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[mick063]

112. so start learning

Give us a decent candidate or repeat 2000.

Apparently you have much to lose.

[riqster]

114. I will vote against the Repubs. Because I have much to lose if they win.

You want Repubs to win, by your own admission. Because you think you would gain.

[mick063]

115. I don't want to pay your ransom anymore

It never goes away and the price always goes up.

If you lose enough, you will be tossed for incompetency.

As it should be.

[riqster]

116. So you are helping Repubs. Regardless of reason, you are out to hurt the Dems.

Enjoy your victory. Like Vidkun Quisling no doubt enjoyed his.

I will keep fighting the Repubs.

[mick063]

117. Our priorities are different.

I want to defeat the GOP, but of much higher priority is restoring the Democratic party to pre Clinton.

#1 on my list. Then I will worry about Republicans.

[riqster]

118. My priorities are women's rights, child welfare, and other vital matters.

You don't have to care about them, consumed as you are with political theories.

How many more will die as a result of your priorities?

[mick063]

119. Nothiing gets resolved until the goverment coffers are filled to resolve them.

A strong middle class fills the coffers. Over the last two decades my limited political options have resulted in shrinking the middle class. We tried it your way. It doesn't work.

If we had taken a different path, your concerns would have been long resolved. It is you that lives in political theory. Your path has not realistically changed anything and has instead made it worse.

[riqster]

123. We tried it your way, too. In 2000.

"Let the Repubs win: it will be so bad, the people will elect Progressives in response".

If you'll bother to remember, your way resulted in tens of thousands dead, historic levels of inequality, and the worst economic crisis in a century. And we did NOT get that liberal oasis.

And you STILL say we should follow that course?

Christ on a pogo stick.

[mick063]

124. I recall. Clinton's protege was offered up.

That explains the loss. Apparently eight years of Bush wasn't enough for you to get a clue.

[riqster]

127. Look in a mirror.

Eight years of bush should have taught you the folly of "let the Repubs win so people will turn Left", but it obviously did not teach you anything.

There is none so blind, and all that.

[Bluenorthwest]

126. One of my complaints about Centrist politics is that lacking solid positions to advocate they

often degenerate into personal attacks and hyperbolic nonsense. The lexicon indicates an empty philosophy that must be pushed stridently.

[NCTraveler]

113. I think it is funny when individuals....

I think it is funny when individuals need to create a narrative about others in order to foment divisiveness. So, it can only be three things. They fall in category one, two, or three. Can you come up with a fourth assumption? Three is just too narrow. I like assumptions in fours.

[Bluenorthwest]

121. So you don't do any of the hard work it takes to run a Party, you just vote and preach at those

who show up on days that are not election days? Well, if you don't mind me saying, that does much to explain why your State had such great midterm losses and such deeply shitty voter turn out in years when other States had Democratic victory and record breaking turnout.
The last people on earth I give any standing to about how to win midterms are those who keep losing them. If that shoe fits, wear it. If you are so deeply committed to your Centrist candidates no matter how many times the voters reject them you are crazy. Candidates who lose are losing candidates. To keep insisting in the face of enormous losses that the only way to win is to repeat the same set of Centrist candidates who then fail again is delusional.
Why not look to the States that did not have the issues you had with midterms, compare and contrast the candidates and results and see if there is anything to draw from that?
Some guy from a State that can't even get Democrats elected trying to preach at me, in a State that does elect Democrats is one thing. When that guy is a self proclaimed Not Democrat it is just funny.
How do we win? We don't listen to Centrist interlopers who refuse to help build a Party but who still want to shove their candidates, always failing and without a real political home, onto a viable Party.

[TBF]

125. Maybe the question to be asked is why the candidates

of the democratic party are more amenable to centrists and Reagan democrats than anyone else who used to identify with this party?

You can call someone whatever you like - but actions speak louder than words.