Some People Can Not Afford to Lose the Next Presidential Election

[McCamy Taylor]

In 2000, when some liberals sat out the election by claiming that Bush=Gore (bad math) and others voted Green as a protest and then Brother Jeb disenfranchised Black voters in Florida and the Supreme Court broke the law by voting based upon the identities in the case, it was bad for our democracy.

It was even worse for some of the most vulnerable members of our democracy.

At the time, I thought--and wrote an angry letter to Nader---in which I predicted another war for oil (We got two and an attempted coup in Venezuela!), delays in universal health care, negative action in reducing the world's dependence upon fossil fuel and global warming and a run on the bank, with the rich being allowed to plunder middle class wealth. It all came to pass, just as I and many others predicted.

2016 and here we go again. "Winning does not matter," we are told. "It is better to make a statement and lose than to support a candidate who is not liberal enough."

I am glad that so many people are doing so well that they can afford another 4 to 8 years of Bush style economics, environmental policy and war. Many of us are not doing quite so well. Some of us will probably die if we do not win the next election. These include:

The people who will lose their affordable health coverage right in the middle of treatment for their heart disease, cancer etc because the GOP Congress will not have a Democratic president to veto the bill when they get rid of the "no pre-existing clause" allowing insurers to drop policies for anyone who is sick.

The members of the military (including the National Guard and the military reserve) who will be shipped to Iran to fight another war for someone else's oil.

Children and adults with asthma who will die of pneumonia, because clean air standards will be rolled back once again in our major cities.

Everyone who lives on the coast, who will be at risk for rising waters and more violent storms like Katrina---which the GOP will exploit for social cleansing as they did in NOLA and Galveston.

Those who just barely scrape by on their Social Security and Medicare who will not get by at all when those program are "privatized" and benefits slashed to create more corporate profit.

Unions, which will see a decrease in membership as so called "right to work" laws become the rule of the land---which will cause all wages of all workers to drop.

Latinos, who will lose any chance of ever being more than underpaid, disposable citizens.

American born children of Latinos who will become the slaves of the 21st century, with no citizenship anywhere, they will be forced to work for any wage the employer sets in any condition the employer sets. And everyone else's wages will fall again.

Minorities will find that the DOJ is once against waging war on anyone who is not white.

Veterans will become sitting ducks again, easy targets for budget cuts.

Gay rights will be rolled right back to the Reagan era, when HIV was considered God's rightful curse on gays.

Women will lose their contraceptive options and end up stuck in pink collar ghetto jobs as they struggle to support children they were not prepared to have---

I am glad that some of us are doing so well that 4-8 years of another corporate fascist state won't impact our lives or our lifestyles. But some of us will not survive. Some women. Some children. Some old folks. Some immigrants. Some disabled people. Some folks really need to keep a Democrat in the White House to keep Congress in check and swing the Supreme Court back to the left and keep the military from being used as the private mercenary force of Big Business and to force the EPA and HHS and other agencies to enforce the law. Someone to follow in the footsteps of Barrack Obama, rather than the footsteps of Bush/Cheney.

Do not be like Nader, who back in 2000 declared that a Bush presidency would be good for the country, because it would mobilize the left. That is a fascist point of view which treats the most vulnerable of us as expendable. Instead, work to make sure that the GOP does not steal another election with voter intimidated, election fraud, Citizen United Money. Work to find and support the candidate who has the best chance of winning in the scary new post Citizen United election world of 2016---

If you aren't worried about your own future, do it for the women, the children, the elderly, the soldiers, the veterans, the immigrants, the unions, the gays, the minorities. They are just barely crawling out of the hole Bush/Cheney dug for them. They can not afford to lose.

[Hekate]

1. That is incredibly articulate, McCamy. TY for it, and TY for writing Nader.

imo, DU is in big trouble right now. Some here are downright delusional, and others want to see Dems lose again, so they can have their version of the Apocalypse. And then there's the trolls of various stripes running rampant. DU will be less-than-useful if it can't get its act together soon.

I am hoping for a robust primary, but since no one on our side has declared yet, we have no idea as yet what that will look like. Media pundits just want to see a brawl, so they natter on endlessly about only one potential Democratic candidate. On DU we've had any amount of reactionary emotional upheavals prompted by this MSM fetishism.

The citizens of this country deserve better than BushCheney Redux. You are absolutely right: there are people who will literally die, for all the reasons you give.

I hope your OP gets some intelligent responses.

[rhett o rick]

123. Blaming Nader is ridiculous. He only got to vote once. He didn't force anyone to vote for him.

Those that think that if he hadn't run that those that voted for him would have voted for Gore are delusional. Gore was a DLC candidate and the American people were looking for something different. What did DLC Clinton do for the country?

Now the Third Way (rebranded DLC) are looking to make the same mistake as they did in 2000. We need change and the DLC isn't about to give us any.

Why would you support HRC that clearly has ties to Wall Street and betrayed the American people when she bowed down to George Bush. The Democratic Party has some good people that are not beholden to the Oligarchy.

[Hekate]

124. I want a robust primary. Where did the OP or I say the Dreaded Name?

A robust primary means more than one candidate. Yes? No one has actually declared yet, right? The media is obsessing over just one Democrat, and some on DU are obsessing over one Democrat who has repeatedly said she will not run and one gentleman who is not even a Democrat at all.

So far, the only people I see here who are in high anxiety over the so-called inevitability of She Who Must Not Be Named are those who hate her with a white heat comparable only to Newt Gingrich. And they use similar reasons, once they get wound up. Any moment now I am going to read about her friend's suicide and her cankles.

The rest of us are facing purity oaths from DUers who are swearing they will note vote at all if Dreaded Name or anyone remotely like her is the nominee, but they offer no alternatives except a lady who is not running and a gentleman who is not a Dem. As I said, that seems to be the group that is obsessed with the inevitability of a certain person who has not yet declared her candidacy. Not me, and not those who simply say if she's nominated, we will vote for her. That's a far cry from what we are being accused of.

Where are our candidates? Plural. I want a robust primary, and I truly hope we get one.

[trueblue2007]

127. I think what Nader did was EVIL. If he had not been in the picture, GORE WOULD HAVE WON BIGTIME!!

[Savannahmann]

2. I'd like to live in your world, for ten minutes.

Your world sounds a lot better than the world that the rest of us live in. Perhaps we could make it an attraction at Disneyland. It has as much in common with reality as that entertainment venue by the way.

1) Corporatist controlled government. Guess what, we have that even with President Obama. We had it when Democrats controlled both houses of congress. We would have it even if Democrats sweep everything before them in 2016. The difference is who's rich people are in control.

Let's start with Keystone. Everyone who reads liberal sites knows that Keystone is financed and would push profits to the Koch Brothers. The Koch Brothers are horrible people because they use their ill gotten riches to fund the Republicans right? So how does the Oil get moved without this pipeline? It does move, just not by pipeline, so how does that happen? Railroad cars on railroads owned by Warren Buffett. Unlike the Koch Brothers who got their billions by stealing it from hard working people Buffett got his billions through hard work right? I mean, he never cheated anyone to get billions of dollars. I have to take a moment and pause until my eyes stop rolling. Then environmental impact of an oil pipeline spill would be bad. But thankfully the tanks that roll on rails are totally safe and never derail, spill, or explode. http://www.democraticunderground.com/112781373 While Warren Buffett makes the news saying he should be taxed more, he still hasn't fired any of those attorneys and accountants that spend every waking moment of the day trying to shave a few dollars off of his tax bill. He just thinks we should make him spend more on taxes, while he struggles to make sure he pays the least he can. Anyway, now that we know that railroad tanks explode there will be a big move to stop the transportation of oil by rail. Oh hell, never mind.

That is but one example, one small example of how our party is just as bad as the Republicans when it comes to corporate control. More Billionaires donate to Democrats than Republicans. That isn't hyperbole, or nonsense, or propaganda. It is fact.

So how is it that our Billionaires who get no bid contracts are somehow more moral than their billionaires who get no bid contracts? Obviously the difference is they support us, so that makes them nice members of the 1%.

Democrats like Hillary Clinton voted to overhaul individual Bankruptcy that meant we lowly individuals would no longer be able to write off our debt. So Corporations are still able to write off debt like employee retirement promises, but we individuals can't do so. At least we had Democrats making sure the Corporations were protected, well our Corporations at least.

2) Social Security and Medicare. Are we doing such a wonderful job with it? Are we meeting the needs of our elderly and poor? http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026285566

3) DOJ's war on minorities. Yeah, I bet Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and how many others that have been discussed here will be sure to let you know that the war on Minorities has ended thanks to Democrats being in charge. No charges filed against Zimmerman. No charges filed in any of those cases. In Virginia, a cop shot a man standing in his doorway, four police officers who were witnessess said the shooting was not justified, and no charges have been filed after a year and a half. So I'm not sure what metric you're using to say that the war on Minorities has been ended, because from where I sit, the only thing not against the Minorities is the planet.

4) Veterans. really? You really want to pretend that we're doing a bang up job where Veterans are concerned? Here's a link to the Huffington Post site. Take something for nausea before you start reading.

Because someone is marginally worse does not make us good. This is the mentality that got our asses kicked in 2014. The principle that we didn't have to be good, we just had to suck marginally less than the Republicans to win. Even if we suck less, we still suck.

Civil Rights? Sure, we stopped Stingray interception of cell phone signals and tracking of individuals. No wait, we didn't do that. OK, Well, we overturned the PATRIOT ACT. No, wait, we didn't do that. Thankfully we made sure that we ended the illegal spying on the people. No wait, we didn't do that. Well, I'm sure we considered the people who told us about these immoral and illegal activities that the Government was doing were heralded as heroes. No wait, we didn't do that either. Thankfully, under our Administration, Reporters are never jailed for telling the truth. Shit, just never mind OK?

Shall I continue? I can. Because I know the truth about our Party, warts and all. I know what we've done well, and what we've sucked at. I know that we throw tons of money at our rich backers while decrying the Republicans for doing it to their rich backers. I know that young black men are executed by Police. I know the Justice Department hasn't had even a statistically insignificant increase in holding Police responsible for their actions.

We can't honestly run around screaming that the Republicans are the only ones who do a lot of the things you are talking about, because we do it too. People know that. Then when we do give a warning about real threats, they ignore the warnings because they've seen so much of this kind of nonsense.

Frankly, it doesn't matter who gets the dollars to most people. Warren Buffett getting money for sending oil to the refineries on the Gulf Coast by rail, or the Koch Brothers who get the money for shipping it via a pipeline. Is the oil still flowing? The only difference is who gets the money, and if the pipeline leaks in the middle of the Prairie, or in the middle of some neighborhood.

We can deal with truth, or we can visit Disneyland where your version of the Democratic Party exists.

[RiverLover]

16. Awesome post.

Thank you Savannahmann!

We need a strong person who can bring us back to Democracy, not continue to enable the corruption & status quo of our downward spiral. And we need a person who stands behind what they say as a candidate once elected.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1277&pid=2914

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12773434

[VanillaRhapsody]

27. and we DON'T need to risk it on someone who doesn't have the polling numbers....

double digits over all Republicans...


Did y'all find one of those yet?

Oh wait.....we DO have one.....hmmm what was her name again...its right on the tip of my tongue...

[KG]

17. word.

[woo me with science]

19. [phone] Enough of the INCESSANT THIRD WAY PROPAGANDA

that denies reality itself.

The record of Third Way Democrats is clear.

Time to stop entertaining this absurd 2+2+5.

We know what corporate Democrats do. We have watched them doing it...AGGRESSIVELY and PROACTIVELY for years now.

Time to get this cancer out of our party.



Thank you, Savannahmann.

[Fumesucker]

21. This post has OP written all over it.. I urge you to post it that way

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. Who do you have that has double digit leads over all Republicans?

[tkmorris]

70. Which misses the point completely

[Doctor_J]

26. rec this reply. The Turd Way live in some sort of alternate universe

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. In whose alternate universe.......

Do you have that has double digit leads over ALL Republicans consistently?

[Doctor_J]

40. In what universe does having a corpodem president pull the country out of the death spiral?

Since the election is in 19 months, why do we already have to concede the nomination to another corporatist?

[VanillaRhapsody]

48. Who do YOU have that has CONSISTENTLY shown double digit leads against ALL Republicans

AND

Polls CONSISTENTLY leading the pack by a HUGE lead by the majority of Democrats?

Please let us know who this magical...invisible candidate is!

[tkmorris]

74. Who do YOU have that will significantly impact the issues Savannahman mentioned?

There are two different goals being discussed here

1) Having someone from our side win elections, in this case the 2016 presidency.

2) Having someone have a real and significant impact on the issues that affect us all.

You are focusing on number 1 while ignoring number 2. To be fair there are those who focus entirely on number 2 while not acknowledging that without number 1 it can't happen.

It's a ridiculous to and fro pissing contest that nobody ever wins.

[VanillaRhapsody]

88. Who do YOU have that CAN win?

because NONE of what Savannahman said means a hill of beans if we DON'T win!

Who do you have that you feel so confident about? Who do you have with the consistent polling numbers to show that they CAN win?

Oh that's right....you don't! You want to "roll the dice"......

Are you or are you NOT going to accept the decision made by your fellow Democrats in the Primary Election?

[Doctor_J]

78. Your premise may or may not be valid, 19 months out from the GE (doubtful), but even so

the theory that having president Hillary is a life or death issue is preposterous.

[Scootaloo]

131. It's fascinating that the only merits you tout are poll numbers

No policy, no positions, no statements or votes or principles.

Why is that, VR?

[geek tragedy]

32. So you are promoting the Keystone pipeline as an argument against Hillary?

Or are you just saying that all of the environmental activists who protested Keystone are just idiots?

[Savannahmann]

58. Actually, some of the environmentalists are idiots to oppose it.

They are arguing that by stopping the Keystone we can prevent the Tar Sands Oil from reaching the refineries at the gulf. Now, either they are fools who think that if we don't allow the Keystone pipeline to go through then no tar sands oil will find its way to the Gulf Refineries, or they are idiots who don't realize that the oil is already flowing. http://act.350.org/sign/tar-sands/? That is but one example. There are more. For a brief overview I suggest you check out this site. http://theenergycollective.com/robertrapier/2196196/growing-risk-transporting-crude-oil-rail

Check out where the trains go, a lot of vital rivers and wetlands right by them aren't there?

So presumably you are oppose to the Tar Sands Oil going to the Gulf, why is it preferable to transport that Oil in Tanker cars on railroads through towns and cities than it is to ship it via a Pipeline across the Praries?

Once I learned that the Tar Sands Oil was being transported already, I started to wonder why we were in opposition, and it turns out that we are opposed to the Koch Brothers making any money off it, while we presumably are totally cool with Warren Buffett shipping it all over the nation via the cheapest manufactured rail cars possible.

Because this is a preferable accident right? ?quality=65&strip=color&w=1100

So are you one of the astonishingly ignorant people who think that if we stop the Keystone Pipeline we will prevent Tar Sands Oil from reaching the refineries? Or are you one of the hypocritical people who thinks that it's just way better for Warren Buffett to make the money from shipping the oil than it is for the Koch Brothers?

[geek tragedy]

62. More tar sands oil would flow with a pipeline because it's cheaper.

The cost of truck transportation means the oil won't flow through the US unless oil prices are really, really high.

This is something that those "stupid" environmentalists you disparage have understood for some time.

kthxbai

[Savannahmann]

65. Oh it's a question of quantity.

Warren Buffett carries just the right amount.

[geek tragedy]

66. the more dirty oil that is extracted and burned, the worse for the planet.

understand that?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

67. I'm confused. Are "we" supposed to support the Keystone Pipeline or not?

Savannahman is getting Hosannas in this thread for supporting it and he may very well be right but if a DUer did a stand alone thread supporting the Keystone Pipeline he or she would be pilloried. However since it's part of an attack on unpopular Democrats on this board he gets kudos.


The hypocrisy stinks.

[geek tragedy]

71. just spout some crap about Hillary and corporations and about 20% of this site will nod their head

in agreement reflexively.

"Hillary supports a federal program that funnels taxpayer dollars to wealthy insurance companies who also then get their hands on the private medical information of almost every American over the age of 65. Crony capitalism at its worst! This program must end."

That would draw tons of recs if posted by someone with a solid anti-Clinton reputation.

[Savannahmann]

84. The question is one of reality.

If you like, we can discuss other industries in which we are taking care of OUR billionaires, while screwing their billionaires. Omega Air Refueling. This is a civilian company that has converted several planes to act as air tankers to refuel Navy and Marine jets. Now, this supposedly saves us taxpayers money. Now, I want you to explain to me how Civilian aircraft owned and operated by civilian's can do the job cheaper than the military. Do their pilots make less money than military pilots? Do their mechanics who service the aircraft make less money than the enlisted people in the military make?

No, this is another of those no bid contracts that you've heard about, and objected to when it was Haliburton doing the money making. Haliburton bad, they donate to Republicans. Omega good, they obviously donate to Democrats.

Goldman Sachs is a good company. It supports the presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton. This means they are a totally moral company that doesn't do anything wrong or unethical in making money hand over fist. This is in obvious contrast to Romney who made his money through totally underhanded deals and unethical tricks.

The point about Keystone was to show that we are manipulated to believe things that are untrue. We were told by several environmental groups that if we could stop the pipeline, we could prevent the Tar Sands Oil from reaching the refineries. Yet, that isn't true by half. The oil is flowing through Tanker cars but nobody is protesting that. None of the environmental groups oppose oil being carried in tankers. Why is that? Obviously, it's not because the tankers are safe. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026252693

In the 1970's and 1980's Solar groups were funded by Oil Companies to increase opposition to Nuclear Power. Many of us were ignorant of that at the time. I know I was. As I've grown older, and wiser, I've learned that a lot of the protest movements are supported and funded by groups that stand to benefit. So now, I try to learn as much as I can about an issue, including who benefits whichever way it goes. Keystone being Vetoed didn't do a damn thing about preventing Tar Sands Oil from reaching refineries. It just made sure that the oil was transported on trains owned by the billionaires on our side. That is honestly the only benefit of the Veto, making sure that our side continues to profit at the expense of their side. Now, is that the benefit you thought we were getting? Or did you believe that by stamping it Veto and signing his name with a flourish that President Obama was working to protect the environment from the dirtiest of oils? Because the Oil is still flowing, into tankers that are little more than Zippo Lighters, pulled by Diesel Powered locomotives, across rivers, alongside rivers, around lakes, and through wetlands. Through towns, and cities, neighborhoods and forests. And accidents are happening, but they don't get much press nationally.

And they don't get mentioned by Environmental groups as something we need to take action on. So a train crashes, so some oil bursts into flames and poisons some lakes and rivers and streams. So some houses burn to the ground and so what if some people die. At least we are making sure that the Koch Brothers are not making a dime off of the oil. That's the important thing to remember.

That's my point. The Environmental groups are not trying to stop the Tar Sands Oil. They're only trying to stop the Koch Brothers. Is that the fight you thought you were signing on to? Is that the goal you thought you were supporting? Because that was the goal we achieved, and that was the goal we were told was a tremendous victory over the RW and the polluters.

[OilemFirchen]

110. The government doesn't build planes.

All that outrage for nothing.

[Savannahmann]

112. Neither does Omega.

Boeing built the planes for both the Government, and Omega. Not to mention a few dozen other users. The question is one of operating costs. So tell me how Omega can operate an aerial refueling aircraft more cheaply than the Government does.

[OilemFirchen]

113. No, they retrofitted them.

I have no idea why the government contracted them. I can surmise, but that would be presumptuous.

You seem to be deep in the woods with this, why not show us how the government can own and operate refuelers cheaper than Omega?

[Autumn]

42. Thank you for that. A perfect Op and explanation as to where the democratic party is at.

That should be a stand alone OP. I would love to recommend it. Again, thank you for articulating what so many of us see and feel.

[Phlem]

52. Spot on.

[GoneFishin]

73. Excellent post. Thanks SM, because the first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one

[winter is coming]

108. +all the numbers. n/t

[frylock]

109. *mic drop*

[sendero]

133. Thanks for ...

.... eloquently exposing a lot of very deluded people with a sorely-need dose of truth.

About one year into the Obama administration I realized I had been had. As the years went by more and more of us realized that while Bush got *almost* everything he wanted as president, progressives were going to get a sharp stick in the eye and like it.

No more. Not voting for any more FAKE ASS Democrats.

[99Forever]

135. Thank you for laying truth where lies were tossed.

I agree with the others, this should be an OP.

[uponit7771]

136. BULL FUCKIN SHIT!!! FUD is the only one pushing "it doesn't matter"... on ANYTHING ...IT DOES MATTER

... and it's on FUD who's pushing the dems litmus of perfection and having EVERYTHING fixed or fuck it...

Dems do NOT have to fix every damn thing in 5 year or 8

There HAS been improvements, the opposite of that is a damn lie ...



FUD is pushing this homogenization of the parties because NOTHING PERFECT in dem world...


Naw fuck that, straight DNC for me

[Savannahmann]

140. So you approve of funneling money to Dem supporting billionaires?

I mean, so long as they mouth the words you want to hear, you're cool with that? Sure, their actions don't necessarily follow the words, but nobody's perfect right?

You're cool with appointees from Democrats screwing the Minorities over? Well, we can't expect much progress with that whole abuse the minorities thing. Who gives a shit. I mean, if they are killed the people who object are just spreading FUD. The minorities should be fucking grateful that they're being abused by Democrats, I mean imagine how much worse it would be if the Republicans were abusing them. Of course, the upside of that is that if the Republicans were abusing them, then we would behave much like the Democratic Billionaires mentioned above, we would pretend to care.

Oh, and those people like you, and me, who are still being spied on, thank our lucky stars that it's Democrats in charge of the spying, because imagine how awful it would be if Republicans were doing the spying on us. I mean, if we're doing it then you know we're violating the Constitution because we care. The Republicans are doing it because they want to shit on the Constitution. Our motives are pure man, we give a shit right?

Hey, Drone strikes are totally cool. The fucking Terrorists never see them coming. They're just standing around at a wedding, or a funeral, or whatever, and the bombs just drop out of the sky. It's like an angry god smote them for being assholes right?

Yeah man, DNC all the way. Because my party can do no wrong. It's awesome. Sure, that sounds totally juvenile, but the fucking Republicans are way worse when they bomb people. Republicans bombing people are war criminals, Democrats doing it are heros man. Fuck yeah. That's the way.

Anyone who objects to the spying has something to hide, and we should watch them really close man. They're up to something right? Those civil rights are to keep Republicans from doing shit man, not the good party.

That's what you're saying right? That the Democrats can do no wrong. They can do bad things all day long and it's fine with you. They can do bad things for years, and you don't care, because at least it's a Democrat who's fucking the people over. Imagine how awful it would have been if a Republican had decided not to press charges against Zimmerman. I can only imagine how fired up the Democratic Party would have been protesting the decision not to charge Zimmerman if a Republican had made the decision. We would have automatically concluded it was racism. But since Democrats did that, well they probably did the right thing man.

You may be willing to double down on the Democratic Party, but the numbers of voters who continue to abandon the party, and stay home, are apparently not willing to double down.

Four million fewer voters picked President Obama in 2012 than voted for him in 2008. A million more people voted for Romney than voted for McCain.

President Obama lost four million voters in four years. So four million fewer people felt like you do, that our party can do no wrong. But what did we give them to vote for? How many more can we afford to lose in the next election? How many more will such arrogance drive away from our side? Shut the fuck up it could be way worse if those assholes were in charge is not a campaign strategy. It's not even a strategy that works to get your children to behave. People are starving in China. That doesn't motivate the child to eat their vegetables.

But for some reason, it seems to be the only straw that too many in our party have to grasp. It's the we suck, but they suck way worse strategy, and it failed miserably in 2014.

But we can try it again in 2016. It might work this time, I don't think it will, but I've been wrong before.

Oh, one last thing. The gap between Romney and Obama in 2012 was five million people. So if we lose another four million voters, we're in real trouble and I think we're working on losing far more than that already. Or is that more FUD in your world?

[treestar]

139. If Ds are as bas as Rs, why are you one?

don't call it "our" party.

What do you suggest? A revolution? Are you working on that?

[Savannahmann]

141. Well normally I suggest a return to principled governance.

I normally wax on about how the Party used to be guided by principles, and then I contrast it to our current party who's principles appear to be simply explained here. We are in favor of winning. We are opposed to losing. That's pretty much it where core beliefs are concerned.

I've argued that we have to stand for things, and then when we stand for something, and we give the people something to vote for, instead of demanding that they vote against, we have a better chance of winning. But for some reason that obvious tact is beyond a vast majority of those who are involved in "our" party.

Silly me, I thought we should stand for principles, and ideals. You know, like the Democratic Party of old. When we had giants who stood up and spoke truth and the world gasped in amazement. When speeches inspired the people, and our actions followed the speeches. Yeah. I can see where this radical idea would upset some folks.

[madokie]

3. Spot on

I seriously doubt anyone on this board can afford to lose even though from some of the stuff I read here you would think that there is some here who could. I know I can't afford to lose another one like we did in 1980 and 2000. Those two about did this country in.

I'm a 100 percent yellow dog Democratic party voter, in other words I'd vote for a yellow dog before I'd vote for a republic'CON

[daredtowork]

4. Just to Clarify

Are you saying if we don't get behind Hillary now, we will end up with a split party Nader situation later?

There's just nooooooooooooo chance the country could get behind a different Dem candidate - like how we chose Obama over Hilliary before?

[davidpdx]

18. It's more of shoving Hillary down are throats

That's what their motive is. Then there is the claim that saying anything bad about Hillary is "Hillary hate" and hate speech. It gets pretty ridiculous.

[Hekate]

25. Did I miss the line wher the Dreaded Name was mentioned?

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. Who do you have that has double digit leads over all Republicans?

Also, please tell us of the strategy that your candidates have to win...

[Sheepshank]

45. Really? what a strange post. Did we read the same op?

I read that GOP does NOT equal DEM. And with a GOP in the WH, we as Dems will lose ground in the many areas the OP articulated.

Are you saying the OP required to you vote HRC?

sheesh!

[JustAnotherGen]

5. Very well said

You know - I work in Telecom. I've read enough about Net Neutrality over the past two years at DU - I fully expected to see a lot of threads applauding the FCC at DU yesterday.

Instead - my North East Republican Congressman's meltdown on Facebook over the ruling was the most "epic" conversation I saw yesterday.

The left won yesterday - and there is zero celebration over a win?

Tomorrow I'm focusing on people who want to see government actually work - Not on those who want to score points.

In 2013 and 2014 (we had a Governors race and special election for Senate in 2013) I noticed something at DU -

This isn't a place for activists. This isn't a place for canvassers and telephone warriors. Folks don't volunteer to take people to the polls. They use the excuse - well I'm not excited about the candidate.

The people who want an alternative to Clinton - why aren't they out there getting petitions together to deliver to the candidate of their choice? Telling said candidate - all of these people want you to run.


Just remember - these are talkers/posters. They don't do. I'm get real quiet at DU leading up to elections - because I'm too busy helping the Democratic candidate lose the 7th. We will always lose the NJ 7 th - but I don't stop trying. I don't think we have a lot of people at DU with that kind of steely will.

Start from there - and the fatalism you see becomes clear. .

[Fumesucker]

22. I celebrated the FCC ruling, I don't know if you did..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6285310

[JustAnotherGen]

23. I'm in telecom - wireless

I actually 'got' the morse code press release . . . we have a good sense of humour here!

It just levels the playing field -

Dear Municipality - Welcome to the world of SLA's. Now let's have a nice good clean game of keep the customer happy.

[Maedhros]

80. In all fairness, you do not know what posters here do or do not do in their real lives.

It's unfair to claim that you're an activist, and everyone you disagree with is a slacker.

[JustAnotherGen]

82. Not one fuck to give about what you think is fair and not ! :-)

Add me on Facebook. You'll see just how active I am. It's all there. I put it all out there.

So yep - I tell the truth. Not a liar.

I didn't call people slackers either. You took that away from my post? You are funny! randysf - he's one who walks the walk that he talks. His posts here and IRL are well - real. There aren't a lot of folks like that at DU. tabbycat31 - another one who I thank for their service - as it directly impacted me in NJ.

You want to know what I REALLY think though? I think there are a lot of people at DU that just post for attention and to bring other people down for their beliefs. They aren't trolls per se - they are just attention whores who don't care about anyone other than themselves.

And nope - not naming names.

[Maedhros]

91. I applaud your work, but your post made assumptions that just can't be confirmed.

This isn't a place for activists. This isn't a place for canvassers and telephone warriors. Folks don't volunteer to take people to the polls. They use the excuse - well I'm not excited about the candidate.

The people who want an alternative to Clinton - why aren't they out there getting petitions together to deliver to the candidate of their choice? Telling said candidate - all of these people want you to run.

[RandiFan1290]

6. 'publicons stole the 2000 election

Democrats were too scared to fight for us

[Agnosticsherbet]

60. Al Gore fought it all the way thorugh the state courts and the Supreme Court.

So your memory of Democrats being too scared to fight is not accurate. Democrats did not win those fights.

What Al Gore did not do was claim the election was a sham and stage a counter Coup d'état.

He recognized that once the Supreme Court had its say, there was no place to go except armed conflict, and he refused to go there.

[Scootaloo]

7. Point of order, nader did not cost Gore the election

Republican cheating cost Gore the election. because, of course, Gore won. I realize that in the 14 years since, these two facts have waned in popularity on DU, but, that's the facts.

Gore won.
Republicans cheated.
Nader is irrelevant.

Now, if you want to argue that maybe Democratic turnout wasn't what it could have been, that might be a worthy argument. Why do you think that might have been? Is it because we're a bunch of idiots, or because we love right-wing policy?

[Orsino]

28. And the difference between the parties has been shrinking.

Elections still matter, and we should never concede them. But what happens between them is even more important.

Lobby unceasingly. Demand the best from your candidates and the oppositions. Hold elected and appointed officials accountable with every legal means at your disposal.

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. Lets see...

GW Bush....Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, John McCain, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Huckabee, Gingrich, Bachmann


You think the difference is shrinking??????

See that....its the forest....you seem to be focusing on the trees...

[Orsino]

36. Republican didn't invent inequality, nor is it on the rise only because of the GOP.

Dems own this, too, and Citizens United has paralyzed many/most of our leaders.

[VanillaRhapsody]

39. Sure...whatever gets you through the night....

If you cannot tell the difference...YOU are just not paying attention....let me introduce you to a nice website created just for folks like you...

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

[Orsino]

44. Anyone paying attention can still tell the difference...

...and can see that our conception of what is possible, or of what constitutes success, has been corraled by Big Money. We need to fear this evolution and to act to undo it. Old dynamics, including blind faith in one party, are how we got here.

[VanillaRhapsody]

46. Anyone paying attention knows that

the kind of change YOU expect to happen....requires magic or a coup. Because you are simply expecting ALL of America to just go along with it...as IF the Mushy Middle and Rightwing do not exist!

So tell us who this magic person or coup leader is that can magically make all of them just get out of the way of progress?

Its called being a realist not an ideologue!

[Orsino]

55. We may or may not need magical leaders...

...but the onus has ultimately been on us. We've coasted too much in recent decades, and now all those jobs that needed doing are even harder due to the inertia of money. We have to engage representatives of both parties, and make them feel the heat, so our side can (and will) strike the best deals possible.

[VanillaRhapsody]

56. We don't need magic.....

we need to defend our Progress....and we need so-called Democrats....to stop shooting us all in the foot!

[KingCharlemagne]

51. People who blame Nader for the 2000 SCOTUS bloodless coup conveniently forget

that Gore didn't even win his own home state of Tennessee. Gore violated the first precept of American presidential politics: lock down your base before you move to the center. Instead, Gore moved to the center immediately, taking his base for granted and leaving his left-flank exposed. Even so, no matter how the ballots in FL were counted, Gore won (hence my 'bloodless coup' verbiage).

[Scootaloo]

61. Yeah, I thought about mentioning that

But 2000 Election 101a (remedial) seemed more needed at the moment.

Democrats need to give up on wooing republican voters. Republicans don't vote for Democrats and Democrats won't vote for democrats that campaign as Republicans. it's lose-lose.

[OilemFirchen]

111. That fetid RW meme again?

Bush was trounced in his home state of Connecticut.

So what?

[progressoid]

120. Oh c'mon.

CT was Bush's birthplace, but he was raised and spent most of his life in Texas.

Gerald Ford was born in Nebraska, but his home state is Michigan.

Birthplace and home are two different things.

[Jim Lane]

125. There were many factors. Nader was one. If he hadn't run, Gore would've become President.

Nod of the head to the usual Naderite response: No, I'm not saying he didn't have a right to run. I'm not saying there were no other factors. I'm not getting into a sterile debate about whether Gore won; I'm addressing whether Gore became President. My opinion is that he did not.

Nader had a right not to run, or to run in the Democratic primaries. Had he chosen to exercise either of those rights, it's highly likely that Gore would have become President.

So, no, Nader is not irrelevant, any more than Katherine Harris's illegal voter purge was irrelevant, or the butterfly ballot was irrelevant, or the SCOTUS decision was irrelevant. There were many relevant factors, including Nader.

[Scootaloo]

130. Anything to evade holding Republicans responsible, I suppose

The gravitational force of Jupiter was a factor too, but the only factor that matters was that the Republicans are fucking crooks and rigged Florida

[Jim Lane]

137. What an absurd misreading of my post

I pointed to the illegal voter purge of a Republican Secretary of State.

I pointed to the indefensible decision of the SCOTUS (in which the key vote was by five Republican appointees).

For you to accuse me of trying to "evade holding Republicans responsible" is ridiculous.

And, no, it's not the case that the only factor that matters was the rigging of Florida. Did you lose your copy of the Anything To Evade Holding Saint Ralph Responsible manual? You're supposed to say that one factor was Gore's choosing Lieberman. Oh, and Gore didn't even carry his home state. There are some other standard ones that I won't bother to list. The basic point is that other factors may, indeed must, be mentioned when the context is the exoneration of Nader. In that context, but only in that context, the argument is that an event can have multiple causes.

[Scuba]

8. Liberals sitting out, eh? Only took seven words for the first false premise. C'mon, McCamy ....

... you're better than that.

[KingCharlemagne]

57. I wish the OP would respond to you here. Bush v Gore 2000 is an excellent

heuristic for contemplating the contours of 2016 and contemplating its lessons for 2016 from the relatively safe remove of 15 years.

On a semi-humorous note, I thought I started frothing at the mouth about Bush in November of 2001 (when we started bombing the fuck out of Afghanistan). My wife has corrected me, though, pointing out that I actually started frothing at the mouth in November of 2000!

[Badass Liberal]

9. Excellent.

The holier-than-thou, moral & purity victory crowd won't be swayed, but you're spot on.

[RandiFan1290]

10. Welcome Back!

[anotojefiremnesuka]

11. If the Democratic Party wants to win they need to stop nominiating corporate canidates

When the choice is Corporate candidate (D) and Corporate candidate (R) the Corporate candidate will win and the 99% will lose.

In 16 if the choice is Corporate candidate (D) and Corporate candidate (R) I know I will not vote for neither one there are other parties and choices.

[VanillaRhapsody]

35. Okay....what is your Non-Corporate Candidate..that has polls showing double digit leads against ANY

Republican...

Also, without "corporate money" what is their strategy to win?

[BlueCaliDem]

59. Amazing how you've asked that question at least three times (as far as I read) here, and still

won't get an answer. Instead, you either get more frothing at the mouth hatred against Hillary Clinton. Makes you wonder...

[Sheepshank]

50. So throw up your hand and don't vote or vote for someone other than a DEM?

is that the premise of your 3rd post of DU?

I wish I could say "welcome"....but I shan't

[brooklynite]

72. Let's review what the current "corporate candidate" got you...

...revocation of Bush tax cuts for the 1%

...reduced health care coverage

...federal spousal benefits for same-sex couples

...net neutrality

...infrastructure investment

...passage of Dodd-Frank

...establishment of the Consumer Protection Finance Board

...extensions of unemployment benefits

Do you seriously believe that John McCain or Mitt Romney would have enacted any of these? And can you offer an example of a more acceptably "non-corporatist" candidate would could win? (nb - yesterday, I asked people to make the case for the electability of Bernie Sanders: I have yet to see a detailed explanation of how he does it).

[KG]

12. not sure where to start with this load of hooey.

Last edited Fri Feb 27, 2015, 07:52 AM - Edit history (1)

but first off, over 30,000 people in Florida voted for someone other than bush, gore, or nader. and none of those other candidates were liberals. so blaming nader is a lazy fallacy. i usually stop reading after that.

the rest is just the kind of hyperbolic hysterical fear mongering that's been trotted out here for 15 years.

[Android3.14]

13. It's not the "liberal enough". It's the "too conservative already"

We cannot afford to miss the point, because few are going the direction you outlined. It's a misleading argument.

War monger, uninspiring, corporate tool and half the country hates her.

Most of the people who are critical of Hillary recognize one thing, she won't win because voters will not come out for her in the same numbers as voters will come out against her.

"I'm not a republican man" is a campaign that just shows our party leaders have nothing to bring to the table.

[DCBob]

14. There is nothing more important than keeping the White house. .

Otherwise we are screwed.

Well said..

[Kath1]

15. Well said!

This country cannot take 4 or (shudder) 8 years of another Bush/Cheney-style regime.

I'll gladly volnteer for Hillary, despite my reservations, before I'll let that happen.

[McKim]

20. I am Voting Democratic For the Sake of the Poor

Yes, I agree. Very unfortunately we will not be offered the candidate of our choice. I will take some anti nausea meds and vote for
Killery. The reason is that I know for a fact that poor people will suffer more under Jeb. My niece died of lung cancer because she lived in Georgia where Obamacare was way too expensive for your average low income person. These are the facts. My vote may help others.
It is the least good I can do for this hurting nation.

[MineralMan]

116. "Killery?" No, you didn't actually say that, right?

Wait. You did. I don't believe you. Truly I do not.

[Cali_Democrat]

117. Enjoy your stay. nt

[jeff47]

24. Your theory is lovely. Democrats have failed to live up to it for 30 years.

Democrats are trying to defend the status quo on social security. Not expand it or increase payments.
Democrats have not raised the minimum wage.
Democrats have not turned away from free trade agreements.
Democrats have not strengthened and expanded the ACA.
Democrats have sat back and let the courts expand "gay rights".
Democrats have done nothing more than furrow their brows at attacks on unions.
Democrats continue to treat abortion as icky, and keep giving away abortion rights in little pieces. "It's only 4 weeks less time. It's not that long"

And that doesn't even begin to get at the party's approach to banking and business regulation.

We are trying to create the party you are seeking. Quiet acquiescence to the status quo will not create that party.

[VanillaRhapsody]

37. that is bullshit!

President Obama DID raise the Minimum wage for Federal Employees....and now So has Walmart and McDonalds and others..

Democrats have turned away from UNREGULATED Free Trade agreements
Democrats INSTANTIATED the ACA!
Democrats have been supporting GAY Rights....Obama ended the ban on Gays in the military for starters..

Republicans have tried to enact HUNDREDS of Abortion bills....MOST have NOT succeeded.

[jeff47]

92. Ah yes, time to ignore what was actually said for a post from you.

President Obama DID raise the Minimum wage for Federal Employees

That's nice. Where's the legislation to raise it for everyone else? Republicans in charge? Golly, if only there were periods where Democrats did hold one or both houses of congress. They could propose bills and either pass them, or have the Republicans block them in order to drive a wedge between white working-class poor people and Republicans....you know, one of their core constituencies.

Democrats have turned away from UNREGULATED Free Trade agreements

Great, point me to the vote to modify NAFTA. As well as the actual contents of the TPP.

Democrats INSTANTIATED the ACA!

No, Democrats copied Romney's health care reforms, which were the Republican Senate's response to Clinton's health care reforms. Like any major legislation, it has flaws. Instead of attempting to address the flaws, or even be vaguely supportive of the legislation, we get Democrats desperately running away from the ACA.

Democrats have been supporting GAY Rights....Obama ended the ban on Gays in the military for starters..

After losing a court case. So Obama "ended the ban" after the courts said they could not continue "don't ask, don't tell".

Democrats have let the courts do the heavy lifting instead of leading.

Republicans have tried to enact HUNDREDS of Abortion bills....MOST have NOT succeeded.

So where's the Democratic bills expanding abortion access? "We only gave a little ground" is not a victory.

[VanillaRhapsody]

93. didn't ignore anything....your post was abject bovine feces...

and here's why...

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

[jeff47]

97. And now we move on to "quick, change the subject!"

Obama will not be on a ballot again. On the other hand, many other Democrats will be. That's why the subject of this OP is "Democrats" and not "Obama".

Where's their bills expanding abortion access? Where's their minimum wage bill? Where's their "Gay marriage" bill? Where's their bill to rebuild the safety net that they shredded?

[geek tragedy]

43. You do a mighty fine job of supporting the OP's argument.

Democrats have not raised the minimum wage.

In 2007, the Democrats passed a minimum wage increase at the federal level.
Democrats have not passed an increase in the minimum wage over the past several years because they are in a minority. The state and local level minimum wage increases have been due to Democratic legislators and Democratic advocacy.

The lesson is very obvious--elect more Democrats.

Democrats have not strengthened and expanded the ACA.

Democrats passed the ACA. And then they lost their majority. Since Republicans are the majority party in Congress, that means Democrats have not been able to strengthen and expand.

Lesson: elect more Democrats.

Democrats have sat back and let the courts expand "gay rights".

Democrats repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell. The DOMA decision? 4/5 voting the right way were Democratic appointees. Every incorrect vote was a Republican nominee. And what is your beef with GLBT folks getting their constitutional rights vindicated in the appropriate venue, a court of law? Are Democrats supposed to circumvent that.

[jeff47]

94. You don't need a majority to make a point

Republicans are not voting to repeal the ACA over and over again for entertainment value. They're making a point.

So propose minimum wage hikes. Go ahead and let Republicans kill them. Then let white working-class people know Republicans blocked their pay raise. That might start driving a wedge between some of the Republican party's core constituencies.

Democrats passed the ACA. And then they lost their majority. Since Republicans are the majority party in Congress, that means Democrats have not been able to strengthen and expand.

And instead of proposing legislation to strengthen and expand, the Democratic party ran on "OH MY GOD WE ARE SO SORRY WE PASSED THE ACA!"

Democrats repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell.

After it was ruled unconstitutional. The courts did the heavy lifting.

And what is your beef with GLBT folks getting their constitutional rights vindicated in the appropriate venue, a court of law?

They are in a court of law because of bills Democrats did not oppose or did not attempt to repeal. A lengthy, multi-million-dollar lawsuit should not be the primary way we fight for civil rights. Legislators can do this novel concept called "legislating". Sure, their bills may not pass both houses and get vetoed. Doesn't mean it's a waste of time to do it.

[geek tragedy]

95. You're citing the 50 Obamacare repeal votes

as sensible, rational behavior we should emulate?

[jeff47]

98. I'm citing it as a vehicle to demonstrate where you stand on a subject.

You don't need 50. One or two would be plenty.

We proposed zero. Even when we held both Houses of Congress.

[geek tragedy]

105. Minimum wage went up in 2009 due to

the legislation passed in 2007.

Democrats pass actual legislation when they control Congress. Unfortunately, doing something is far riskier than doing nothing and they lose elections as a result.

[jeff47]

106. Hrm...if only minimum wage was the entirety of the issues I listed.....

And if only no time had passed since then when Democrats could have proposed other increases. Or to index it to inflation.

Democrats pass actual legislation when they control Congress.

No, Democrats pass a little bit of legislation when they control Congress. We don't need a little bit of changes.

Unfortunately, doing something is far riskier than doing nothing and they lose elections as a result.

Actually, quite the opposite.

Doing nothing and desperately trying to convince voters that you really aren't a liberal got us 2010 and 2014. When Democrats could not run away from Obama in 2012, we did quite well. Unfortunately, redistricting meant the House was unwinnable.

Compare the results of the 2014 House and Senate election to referendums. Liberal causes won. Conservative causes lost. Politicians desperately trying to distance themselves from liberalism lost. Kinda indicates that the plan to keep fleeing from liberalism is not a good one.

[geek tragedy]

107. "doing nothing" got us 2010?

Here's a nifty little challenge for you:

Name the last time a Congress passed more pieces of meaningful legislation than did the 111th.

In other words, name a Congress that did more than:

Pass comprehensive healthcare reform
Financial reform
an economy-saving stimulus/infrastructure package of $787 Billion (which incidentally kick-started our green energy industry)

Here's the list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_111th_United_States_Congress

[Bluenorthwest]

115. I assume that you are unaware of the history of ENDA

in the Congress. The first version of what we now call ENDA was the Equality Act. This was introduced in 1974 by Democrats Bella Abzug and Ed Kotch and prevented from passing by Republicans. Various versions of the bill have failed to become law in spite of being introduced in virtually every session of Congress for the bulk of my adult life. ENDA itself has been introduced into every Congress but one since 1994. Each year it is defeated by Republicans.
The solution of course would be to elect more Democrats to the Congress and WH. But to kvetch about a lack of legislation when there is a blizzard of legislation and all of it Democratic and purely Democratic, both on the Federal and State levels, is a bit much.
This would be a good line of questioning for Liz Warren who was a Republican for most of those years when Republicans were blocking this workplace equality legislation.

[Sheepshank]

49. what a bunch of hogwash.

are you really attempting to equate Dems with Reps? If so, you couldn't be more on the Right side of the most callous, ignorant, hateful, heartless, mysoginistic, assholes that are attemtping to squelch voter enthusiasm.

[jeff47]

96. No, I'm demonstrating that Democrats do not live up to the ideals in the OP.

They don't even come close.

"Lesser of two evils" is a way to reduce the descent into hell. It does not stop the descent. We need to reverse course, and slowing our descent doesn't do that.

We need better Democrats. We aren't going to get them by quietly acquiescing to the lousy ones.

[tiredtoo]

34. I like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren

But, you can bet your ass I will do everything I can to get the Democratic nominee elected as the next president of the United States. Whatever her name is.

[VanillaRhapsody]

38. Agreed!

I like them too!

[guillaumeb]

41. Interesting how people read and respond to what they want to see

in the post, rather than what was actually written.

Nothing in the post talks about HRC as "the inevitable" nominee. Yet the poster is criticized for that. Please reread the post and tell me where HRC is mentioned. Perhaps my reading skills are lacking.

The argument, to me, is centered around the idea that if Democrats sit out an election because the Democratic candidates do not pass a progressive litmus test than the country as a whole will suffer. If what has happened from Reagan through Bush the Lesser is not proof of that I do not know what could be.

It sounds simplistic, but the policies of the GOP are always worse than the policies of the Democratic Party. I am not saying that the Democratic Party perfectly represents working people, but I will always vote for the BEST AVAILABLE CANDIDATE.

It would be great if the best available candidate was also the best candidate, the perfect candidate, but that does not always happen. Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils, or not choose by not voting. But if enough people choose to sit out the election bad things will happen.
The post ends:
Do not be like Nader, who back in 2000 declared that a Bush presidency would be good for the country, because it would mobilize the left. That is a fascist point of view which treats the most vulnerable of us as expendable. Instead, work to make sure that the GOP does not steal another election with voter intimidated, election fraud, Citizen United Money. Work to find and support the candidate who has the best chance of winning in the scary new post Citizen United election world of 2016---


Great argument right there. A great counterargument for the "more liberal than thou" types who are awaiting a savior.

[tiredtoo]

121. This will never happen but

wouldn't it be great if we could vote for the best of two goods rather than the worst of two evils?

[Zorra]

47. So True. It's a very clever and effective trap that the 1% has devised for us.

The 1% buys and controls the global media in order to create, and control, cultures and public opinion. Give the voters in pseudo democracies a choice in order to continue the illusion of liberty and democracy.

The "choice": Either vote for the corporatist candidate who will support human rights, or vote for the corporatist candidate who will crush human rights. Meanwhile, economic injustice (particularly concerning the ramifications of the polarization of wealth), inequality (see previous parenthesized sentence fragment), and rule by oligarch continues to expand exponentially.

Marcos defines the maintaining principle of government of, by, and for, the wealthy ~

The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. The great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dictates of the financial centers. It will be this way until the dwarfs rebel...

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html

[bowens43]

53. this kind of lesser of two evils bullshit doesn't fly with me any longer

I will only vote for someone I believe will make a difference, that isn't hillary

[DCBob]

64. Almost every general election is a lesser of two evils situation for progressives.

We can try to get our preferred candidate but in most cases the final option is not one's first choice. So its going to be Bush or Walker or Paul or some other RW clown versus a Democrat. That's a no brainer.. for those with brains.

[mcar]

54. Thank you McCamy

This is very well put.

[jwirr]

63. Thank you. Almost everyone in my family fit into those categories. But more important our nation

fits in there. If we let them have 6 to 8 more years we will be lucky if any of us survive to vote again. But that is the point - they are working everywhere to obstruct the vote and given 6-8 more years we may not have a vote.

[seabeyond]

68. i used the importance of our supreme crt for womens rights on the thread about "party loyalty"

talking life and death for some. ya. that is a pretty big issue for me and what i stand for.

your points are right on.

it really is that simple.

[draytontiffanie]

69. Preach!

Absolutely right and well said.

[DescendantOfMany]

75. A majority of Democrats will do just fine under a Clinton presidency.

Electing someone a little bit more liberal is like opting for Pie a la Mode, instead of having the pie sans ice cream.

[Doctor_J]

79. And a bigger majority of Dems AND repukes will do fine under a more liberal president

your post is usually called a non-sequitur

[DescendantOfMany]

86. Then they need to do the heavy lifting and give me that choice in November 2016.

I'm fine with either outcome.

[TheKentuckian]

128. You are indicative of why we fail so it is important to give you no other option but to care.

Fine either way? Fine, let's take the other crutch away forever and see how you respond.

[SidDithers]

76. DU rec...

the "liberals" that think it has to get much worse before the progressive utopia will suddenly appear don't really give a shit about all the people that will be harmed before their hopes could be realized.

Good post.

Sid

[Still Sensible]

83. And this is exactly the point! n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

101. That's because

That's because DU is older, whiter, wealthier, more female, and more educated than the public at large, according to a survey of the site. Of course there are exceptions. Their real lives as opposed to their online ones aren't really affected by who is in office. As Joe Kennedy told his kids, "the rich can take care of themselves, it's the poor that need looking after."


It all came to me when another poster opined that much of DU is comprised of the ten percent who are upset with the one percent because they aren't one of them.

I'm more concerned about making sure folks in need getting needed housing, health care, and adequate food than I'm concerned about shaking up the kaleidoscope and building the land anew.

[TheKentuckian]

129. Like you give a damn about the generations you'd sell out to corporate run dystopia

Like you care about our party being destroyed as any kind of effective vehicle to oppose the capture of our government and advancing the interests, broad prosperity, civil liberties, and self determination for our people.

You must have a funky definition of liberal utopia but who would know what it is that you, yourself actually might think on any issue besides hating "woo" and loving snark that I can recall over the years.

Instead of weirdly playing enforcer of a faith you cannot share, since you don't have anything else to add or discuss just playing inquisitor, issuing rolfs, and spitting weak ass one liners in defense of the corporations and the wealthy why don't you focus on the mismanagement and looting of your own fucking country if that is what you want so bad or do you need a little even more hard right America to help with Harper's program up their since that seems to be the side your bread is buttered on?

Or is your job to make sure the "free trade" agreements stick and the tar sands flow? A foreign party purity enforcer? indeed.

[freshwest]

77. Thanks, McCamy. Yes, some won't be hurt. Others will die.

[Maedhros]

81. I refuse to be coerced into voting the way the Party wants me to vote. [n/t]

[DonCoquixote]

85. a signature worthy quote:

Do not be like Nader, who back in 2000 declared that a Bush presidency would be good for the country, because it would mobilize the left. That is a fascist point of view which treats the most vulnerable of us as expendable.

Jane Hamsher is sure enjoying NOT being the most vulnerable, as is Mr. Nader. Enjoy the money you made from the GOP because it makes 30 pieces of silver seem cheap, and human lives cheaper.

[zappaman]

89. Kick and rec!

NO candidate is perfect.
But, I'll take just about any Dem candidate over the clowns who will be running on the right!

[Corey_Baker08]

90. We Cannot Afford To Let Republicans Take Back The White House. Literally.

We will lose everything that we have achieved over the past 8 years. We will lose the opportunity to appoint Supreme Court Justices & possibly change the makeup of the court for decades.

We will lose the Affordable Care Act, Social Security, Equal pay for equal work, a living wage, an increase in the minimum wage, income inequality would be a non issue, & let's not forget if you think Democrats that voted for the Iraq War Resolution are ' war mongers', how many wars & how many lives would lost under a Republican Administration?

The stakes in the 2016 election are way way too high for any single Democrat to sit out this election...

[LynneSin]

99. How I vote in the primary and how I vote in the general election are two different mindsets

And right now too many people are already talking of the mindset of the general elections and we haven't had the primaries yet.

Primaries are for when we decide who is the best candidate and right now we haven't had any so it's fair game for any democrat to run and as we know from 2008 - the assumed front runner doesn't always win.

But when it comes to general elections - that is when I put the party first. Because there is absolutely, positively NOTHING you can say about ANY democratic candidate and their voting record, their donor list, their friends list or ANYTHING that would keep me from voting democrat in the general election. I really hope that the primary season does give me a candidate that makes me want to go out there and work hard to get him or her elected but I have fought hard for candidates that I had less excitement about in the past. Because in the end we need that Democrat in the White House - too much is at stake if we just say 'My values are so high that I'm willing to cast a vote that could help elect a Republican into the White House' then we just might get it. Eight years was enough with Bush.

Fight with me all you want in the primaries but as soon as the convention closes, even DU policy is that this is a site that supports the Democratic Nominee.

[PlanetaryOrbit]

100. No offense, but don't people say this EVERY election?

"2000 is the most important election! We cannot afford to lose this!"

"2004 is the most important election! We cannot afford to lose this!"

"2008 is the most important election! We cannot afford to lose this!"

"2012 is the most important election! We cannot afford to lose this!"

"2016 is the most important election! We cannot afford to lose this!"

[Doctor_J]

114. it's also the reasoning that saddled us with Gingrichcare forever

"We all have to pay extortion money to big insurance or people will die!!!!!" It's horrifying what has become of the party. No wonder it's almost dead

[randys1]

102. Now I am the one who is embarrassed, I think this is the best thing I have read in months.

My feeble attempts to say the same thing pale in comparison ...

I love this post.

[obxhead]

103. They can't afford another Clinton either,

especially this Clinton.

[riqster]

104. This:

If you aren't worried about your own future, do it for the women, the children, the elderly, the soldiers, the veterans, the immigrants, the unions, the gays, the minorities. They are just barely crawling out of the hole Bush/Cheney dug for them. They can not afford to lose.

Damn straight.

[we can do it]

118. Excellent.

[SomethingFishy]

119. Why is it folks never seem to think that maybe, if instead of decrying

everyone who voted for the person they think is best for the country, you joined them, things wouldn't change?

The reason liberals can't win is because you won't vote for them. And you won't vote for them because they can't win. It's a perpetual cycle and it needs to be broken. Yeah we can't afford 8 years of Republican rule, we also can't afford 8 years of Republican lite rule.

So who exactly is it that is ruining the country? The person who votes for the "least bad" candidate or the person who voted for the "best" candidate?

[Jamaal510]

122. Home run!

[IMG][/IMG]

[Behind the Aegis]

126. From page one of LBN (as of 3:16am CST)

Jeb Bush Reaffirms He Does Not Support Marriage Equality
Jim Inhofe Brings A Snowball To The Senate Floor To Prove Climate Change Is A 'Hoax'
Jeb Bush Gets Boos At CPAC, Pleads Unfamiliarity On 'Ways Of Washington'
Bush defends his conservative credentials ahead of CPAC
Jindal tells GOP Congress to 'grow a spine' on DHS funding
House Republicans Slip Anti-Abortion Language Into Education Bill

The writing is on the wall. Too bad it isn't just the right-wing who has to be battled. Of course, some of us aren't "real" citizens to either extreme.

Good OP!

[m-lekktor]

132. I have heard a version of this same overwrought, alarmist drivel about every

upcoming election since i have been old enough to vote. " this is the most important election evah and If we let the other team win the end of the world is here."

if that were actually true then we are totally DOOMED because, based on our leading "choices", neither "team" is going to stop that from happening.

Cognitive dissonance isn't my thing.

[vankuria]

134. Excellent Essay!

No matter who the Democratic nominee I will be supporting and voting for them, we have way too much to lose!

[treestar]

138. Yeah but then they will get out in the streets and start a Revolution

That will end in a Sweden-like socialist Democratic State.