General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA Party that loses an election and blames voters for not showing up at the polls . . .
Last edited Fri Nov 7, 2014, 08:59 PM - Edit history (1)
. . . is rather like a widget manufacturer who blames consumers when his product doesn't sell. Just sayin'.
(On edit, and as stated in #38 below: I don't mean to suggest that voter turnout isn't crucial to winning elections. Of course it is. But low voter turnout is a symptom; it is not the disease itself. And so long as we remain focused on the symptom instead of addressing the condition that caused the symptom, that symptom will recur time and time again.)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)The unconcerned, those trying to send a message which has been well received by the GOP as it is a good time to stuff their crap down our throats, those who complain about old white men voting, hell yes they vote and get who they want in office.
Let me ask you, do you think those like Cruz offers something better than our Democrat candidates? If one does not think this and does not vote for whatever reason it allows the Cruzes to win elections.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . but in the aftermath of a loss, the first thing we should be asking ourselves is not who voted or didn't, but rather why our product and/or marketing strategy failed to motivate more people to go to the polls.
MH1
(17,600 posts)Oh well, clearly you don't think that, and 2/3 of Democrats don't think that.
Which is why Republicans win.
branford
(4,462 posts)Our candidates, platform and message, however, certainly are.
Votes are earned, and if we cannot get people to vote for our candidates, it's not the fault of the voter. Moreover, not voting is definitely a choice, it's an abstention that goes to the majority, in this case the Republicans.
Blaming the voters for not voting the "right way" or choosing to not vote, is not a winning electoral strategy.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I would assume the GOP has presented a better strategy.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . that "not voting is a good strategy?" The point is, low turnout is a symptom of a deeper problem.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Poster said
Blaming the voters for not voting the "right way" or choosing to not vote, is not a winning electoral strategy.
So my question back to the poster did the poster think not voting is a winning strategy.
branford
(4,462 posts)My point is simply that we, as a party, need to provide voters with reasons to get out and vote for our candidates (and recruiting well-qualified and charismatic candidates certainly would help).
Complaining that the voters didn't do want we wanted is unproductive, and insulting or alienating many of these voters is not an advantageous strategy to win their votes in the future.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)Branford's quote does not remotely suggest that "not voting is a winning strategy." That cannot be inferred from his statement.
You seem to think you are merely inferring the inverse of Branford's statement, but you are not. The subject clause of Branford's sentence is "Blaming the voters"'; therefore, the opposite condition from that stated in Branford's sentence would be, "NOT Blaming voters is a winnable electoral strategy." But you cannot even infer that much. Let's say that 'A' equals "blaming voters, " that 'B' equals "not blaming voters" and 'C' equals "a winning strategy. Branford's sentence is thus:
A = not C (or A <> C)
But you cannot infer from that that since B = not A (or B <> A), that therefore B=C.
The point here is that Branford's statement was not even about whether voting or not voting was a winning strategy; rather, it was about whether or not BLAMING voters for not voting is a winning electoral strategy.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)strategy.
You keep blaming the voters. Funny how the voters came out and elected Obama twice, and as soon as anyone complained about anything.. I believe the first complaint was about Rick Warren, the voters were yelled at for wanting a "pony" and told to STFU.
Yeah that strategy is doing so well for you so far.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)That is precisely the point.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)It's frustrating... They just want to do the same thing over and over and blame everyone else when it doesn't go their way.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . it is those of us who are calling the party to take an honest look at itself who are accused of blaming "someone else."
Amazing, isn't it?
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Another DU'er claiming that no one takes "personal responsibility" anymore, but the fault of the losses lies with the voters.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)...people "chose wrong" without ever caring about the REASONS that people "voted wrong".
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Now this is not a good strategy getting our issues solved.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Yes Republicans were elected. Why? Because leaving out DU and the rest of the political junkies, actual average Democrats didn't see a lick of difference in the two parties. When a commercial for a Democratic Campaign has video of the candidate shooting a shotgun and claiming "I'm not Obama", then people probably fucking believe her.
This loss falls at the feet of the Dems and until you and they figure that out, you will continue to lose. When Dems start running ads about income inequality, student loans, health care, minimum wage, legalization, an end to endless wars, then the Democrats will come out and vote.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Losing the midterm election is tossed like a used tissue. It is like sending a quarterback into a big game without any other players on the field, the quarterback can't do it alone. When the other team mates stay home and say I wont be scoring touchdowns so it isn't my issue and I don't care.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)Low voter turnout.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Came home with nothing. They just weren't biting.
Goddam fish anyway.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)Guess we have just find ourselves some better fish then! 
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)I didn't like.
Liberal_Dog
(11,075 posts)
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Fuck... that was perfect. Brilliant even...
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)It may even prove necessary to teach others to fish looks like we will need other means to supply food for the next several years.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
ctsnowman
(1,903 posts) 
treestar
(82,383 posts)It's traditional thinking, but now I wonder. These have to be people happy with things as they are, and that's conservatism.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)"Did you vote, only those who are eligible to vote should stand up and bitch. BTW, holding a no vote gun to my head does not open my ears.
treestar
(82,383 posts)What would "earn their vote."
If it is some one issue that won't allow the person to be elected, you have to wonder. People not willing to work with others can't do politics. They could do dictator sure, but they can't work in a legislature. If they somehow got into the legislature, how many progressive bills would get passed by their telling their fellow legislators they are corporate toadies if they don't vote for this?
TiredOfNo
(52 posts)and the crew, then you are a fool who is going to drown. Sometimes you just have to work (vote) to keep things from getting far worse than they are now.
Trust me, things will get far worse in the next few months for those (so called Democrats) who did not vote.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)the first thing to do would have been to give him another ship and climb aboard.... And you call me a fool?
I have been working for and voting for and donating to the Democratic party for over 30 fucking years. I have stood up for them even when their values have strayed away from mine.
Now it's time the party stood up for me.
treestar
(82,383 posts)A person who wins an election is not really in charge of anything, either. They become part of a legislative body. Or can exercise the powers of an executive.
There is no guarantee bad things won't happen or that any government person could have prevented it or handled it so nothing bad happened, ever. That's life.
At least we have some say in who the people are and can and do change them. Unlike say North Korea.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Why don't you vote for them. They gave out something to vote FOR and the Ds didn't. You should vote for the Republicans. Since that's what is the issue for you.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)Welcome to ignore.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)If we don't want a repeat, we at least need to understand voter disaffection this cycle.
deafskeptic
(463 posts)Ridiculing those that didn't vote is not going to help get new voters or converts to your party's side.
If anything, some will be like *$#! you, I'm not voting for your man and then refuse to vote. Alienating those non-voters is not going to gain you an alliance especially if the candidate is running as Republican lite.
Democrats got dealt with a bad hand in the first place and many of Democratic candidates made some key mistakes that helped compound the bad hand they got.
It is the job of the party to convince people why they should vote for the member of that party.
I think it is upon the Democratic party to educate future voters. engage future voters and to actually run on a pro 99% platform.
It's time to regroup and discuss strategies that work and work out ways to win people over to your side.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)out how to do more to get the "drop off" voters to the polls. Fine. We absolutely need to do that. Agreed.
However, INDIVIDUALS HAVE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. This SHIT about saying the non-voters need someone else to come into their house with some giant spatula to lift their lazy asses off the couch and go to the polls is a bunch of shit too. They need to get off their asses and VOTE.
So BOTH things need to be done.
treestar
(82,383 posts)These people won't vote no matter what we do and they are staring to convince me here we should give up on that and try to persuade actual voting people that Republicans are no good.
treestar
(82,383 posts)they should take responsibility for every republican policy enacted.
Though of course we assume they would vote D but that's no guarantee any more. I remember turnout was good in 2004 and it was because the idiots wanted to be sure Dumbya got another term. It did not turn out well. So that's a lot of assumption. The type of people who don't vote these days are as likely to vote R. (Excepting the ones who think they are sending the Ds some message, which they aren't, they are only being more sure they won't be part of the process, if there really is any such persons).
Also are you claiming the Rs earn votes? You are admitting they are better at selling the candidates? But then you are admitting most voters don't really care, they want to be sold something, not have opinions of their own.
branford
(4,462 posts)I fully agree that many of the voters that stayed home could very well have voted for Republicans, but that is not the issue.
If we did a better job, the voters who lean Democrat would have voted in much larger numbers, and may have made a difference. Moreover, we could have possibly swayed some of those Republican-leaning and independent voters, both those who stayed home and those who actually voted, to choose the Democrat as a better choice, as we obviously did when Obama was elected twice.
My primary point is absent proven illegal conduct, we are responsible if our party wins or loses elections. Blaming the voters and a host of other excuses (e.g., gerrymandering in statewide races!) does not absolve the party from its own failings. Focusing on such matters is not only foolish, but self-defeating. We cannot affect who the Republicans nominate or how they choose to campaign, but we most certainly are responsible for our own candidates and message.
treestar
(82,383 posts)that money runs everything.
LuvNewcastle
(16,844 posts)
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)now to describe it.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . whenever someone has reacted to fair criticism of the President with a statement along the lines of, "at least he isn't as bad as Bush/McCain/Romney," for Democrats to use merely being better than {fill in the Republican} is to set a very, very low bar indeed.
branford
(4,462 posts)I'm sure that's also a winner . . .
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Somewhere in the Beltway, some political consultant is copying yr words, so he or she can present them as the Third Way's slogan for 2016. (Not that you will get any of the credit.)
The other meme, that of "Lesser of Two Evils" is getting too stale.
StarlightGold
(365 posts)when they told women, almost literally, "You gals rely on emotion too much and are immoral sluts who can't just keep your legs closed. Vote for us Republicans!"
And you know what, many, many women DID.
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)teh stupid is too much to bear
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)We have heard it here for a long time now, and now it's come home to roost.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Gawd, this is getting boring.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts).. or like singing "It'e my party and I'll cry if I want to".
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)lame excuses. We lost because more of them voted. Even if it was just counting those that showed up not casting a vote for anything it was still their responcibility to show up.
Voting is not like walking into a store and deciding not to buy anything because there isn't anything you want to buy.
It is something you do because you live in a democracy and that is your part of it. If repubs stay in power they will never vote again because there will never be anything they want to buy.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . rather than excoriating them for their decision not to do so.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)People here are still reacting emotionally to the drubbing. Realistic assessment will become possible after the bruises fade a bit. Give them time.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . Thanks for making it!
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)their issues through a repub Congress. They won't vote in 2016 either because they are not going to get anything for the next two years. And my anger at them is never going away.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)For example, all those votes to repeal Obamacare. They were never going to actually repeal it. But it gave Republicans a reason to vote.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)is stupid. When we have both Houses of Congress and the White House we can solve those issues but it will take us to out voting their money. We can't afford to sit it out. No one can. Unless you accept living under right wing government.
branford
(4,462 posts)and all those "stupid" votes to repeal the ACA motivated the Republican base to vote, if for no other reason than to express their displeasure with Obama.
If the Senate Democrats wanted, they too could have held votes on issues relating to immigration, labor, the environment, gun control, etc, and forced the Republicans to filibuster. It certainly would have appealed to the liberal base, including many here on DU. Reid and many other Democrats, however, did not want to take those votes because they believed them too controversial and unpopular in many states with Democratic Senators up for reelection. Even without such votes, most of these Senators still lost.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Think it is standing on principle to take part in our democracy even if you can't get what you want this time.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)the people on DU are political junkies. I am one of the Obama Administrations biggest detractors. Yet 5 ballots left my home all voting "D" tickets. Because I get it. But we are just the base, the voters we need at the polls need to be motivated to get out there. Like they were when Obama ran for President. Twice...
Dems2002
(509 posts)Great, be angry at people who have nothing and have no hope of getting anything more through the corrupt political process. There's a reason even many of the Kennedy family have chosen to work from without rather than within -- they think they can do more.
People are cynical for good reason -- no matter who's been in charge over the past two decades, the plight of the middle and lower classes has gotten worse. Obama is the one who even opened the door to cutting Social Security benefits that are already miserly as it is.
At the same time, there's a reason the monied interests didn't even bother to spend money to defeat minimum wage measures in conservative states. They didn't stand a chance of winning.
If liberal issues are winning but Democratic candidates are losing, maybe it's time to face reality -- our party is not the party of the people or liberal issues. We're a party of wishy-washing, poll testing wimps who are terrified of pissing off the monied interests more than the people.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)If you are waiting for your issues to come up you'll have to wait until us who vote find enough votes to defeat the right
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)upaloopa
(11,417 posts)ever4lasting
(10 posts)I was one that did not vote. Why?? because none of them would of done a good job. I don't vote just to vote. I vote for people who I think could make a difference in my life and this country. I don't vote just to keep a republican out or vice versa . This is why we have so many politicians that are elected that should not have the job to begin with. This really has an unforeseen benefit. After the Republicans support the rich over the rest of us. They have a tract record they do the same thing over and over again and again that does not work for the majority. They are also known for taking from the most vulnerable of our society like the poor, elderly,veterans and students so they can give to the rich. Who are they going to blame now that they have the power. Now they must govern these last 6 years they had the luxury to blame the democrat's and president, now they have the power and if you look at history they will blow it. Plus we removed the weak links out of the democratic party the ones that failed to support their party and the President, who ran away. We have those that are committed to the party and the people, instead of them just looking out for them selves.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)trumps all you posted IMHO
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... more people on the left give up and stay home.
That's what's happening.
And the result is going to be that the GOP dismantles the government, and everyone who stayed home, and their children, will get screwed even worse for letting it happen.
If that doesn't motivate people, nothing will.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... once you realize it is a futile exercise.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)It is so very odd that disenfranchisement is completely ignored by those doing the blaming. Sort of like how some still excuse the coup of 2000 to blame Nader.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)JI7
(89,247 posts)and Harry Reid won because his was ?
in that case Reid deserves to be leader of the Senate Dems.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)The fallacy of illicit transference is one that fails to recognize any differences in how a particular statement may apply to a group versus how it applies to individual members of that group. More specifically, the statements you suggest concerning Feingold or Reid would fall under the subcategory of the illicit transference fallacy known as the fallacy of division, which assumes that a characteristic or statement that is true of a group as a whole must also be a true of each of the group's component members.
There are myriad reasons why any individual race, in any election, might have been won or lost -- reasons that are unique to that particular race, and may or may not have anything to do with a party's aggregate election win or loss across many races nationwide. To say that voter turnout was low in the aggregate does not preclude the possibility of individual races where it may have been high. But by the same token, to say that a political party may have failed to sufficiently "sell" its message to voters in the aggregate doesn't mean that such failure must have been operative in every single race in which a member of that party lost.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Republicans are better sellers. You admit as much by implication.
How could Feingold have lost? It makes no sense. Wouldn't he be the guy who gave those in his district something to vote FOR, not just saying he's not republican, not a person who would vote for anything remotely Republican'light, or third way?
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I'm surprised it took so long, but now that you have brought him up, there is no other way to view his loss in 2010 other than as a complete money slam by the Republican corporatists, who spent 10s of millions of dollars to beat him at the polls.
Russ wouldn't "play the money game" of raising money for his campaign to try and get re-elected, and as a result, he was unceremoniously defeated!
davishenderson265
(108 posts)Republican's love low t urn out elections.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)Please see my clarification at #38, or my edit on the original OP.
Johonny
(20,835 posts)There are, of course, in most places tons of non-partisan offices, referendums, bond measures, and propositions on the ballot. So your telling me people stayed home because they didn't like one, two candidates. This makes no sense as there are tons of things to vote on besides these partisan offices. If that's why you don't vote then you don't understand the voting process. I weep for voters like the ones you insinuate. Personally I don't the reason Democratic leaning voters didn't show at the polls has anything to do with this. I wouldn't want to insult them by even pretending it did. Voting turnout generally tracks income level, home ownership, education level... it's almost like the more you have to lose the more engaged in the process people are. Democratic voters tend to be poor, hence low turnout. Why people are more engaged in presidential elections and not local and off year elections is something that could fill pages in sociology and political science books. If your scenario was correct it would be easy to fix, but it is likely is very, very wrong.
branford
(4,462 posts)Most people understand the "voting process" just fine, but simply do not care enough to vote. Not voting is still a valid choice, despite the fact almost everyone on DU, including myself, believe it a foolish and irresponsible choice.
If we want the purportedly lazy or apathetic voters to turn-out, we need to improve our messaging, fine-tune our platform, and recruit charismatic and qualified candidates.
LeftInTX
(25,258 posts)Prior to that , I don't think Rs were enthusiastic about mid-terms. (They hadn't held the House since 1952) Then Newt Gingrich came along with his impeach Clinton movement. Since then mid-terms seem to be a protest movement.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)The Republicans rewarded Rush by making him an honorary member of their caucus.
Which is probably what led him to start abusing Oxycontin by the end of the decade.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)
randys1
(16,286 posts)watch tv the way I do so they dont see the ads.
etc
we better engage them though for 2016 or what you see now will all disappear
LeftInTX
(25,258 posts)Even though there are ads 24/7 a lot of people "tune them out". Like Cialis commercials or something.
Then there is the hassle of trying to remember to vote. When there is presidential election the entire country knows who is running. Mid-terms require more concentration on local politicians.
Prior to 1994, Dems and Independents trended in mid-terms. After Gingrich, it riled up a different base.
When Republicans realized they could take over the House and get a president impeached, they became a new mid-term base.
randys1
(16,286 posts)there was such a measure.
Pretty sure he still didnt vote
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . because (a) unlike midterms, which, as you say in your post, many people are barely even aware of, EVERYBODY knows when it's a Presidential election; and (b) there's a certain cachet or "sexiness" about Presidential elections that midterms simply don't have, and thus people invest more of themselves emotionally in casting their vote for President.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . First, I don't mean to suggest that voter turnout isn't crucial to winning elections. Of course it is. But low voter turnout is a symptom; it is not the disease itself. And so long as we remain focused on the symptom instead of addressing the condition that caused the symptom, that symptom will recur time and time again.
rury
(1,021 posts)Democracy is not a product. And voting is a solemn responsibility as well as a right. Democrats who failed to exercise that privilege and duty share blame with those who did go out and vote Rethuglikkkan.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . at message #15, Democracy is not the product that is being sold. Our candidates, platform and policy ideas are the product, and yes, they very much have to be marketed and "sold" like any other product.
randome
(34,845 posts)Marketing and ledgers and accountants are supposed to save us? How about subliminal advertising? A constant stream of emails asking for donations? Oh, wait...
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)There is no conflict between the need to "sell" (figuratively) an idea and being principled about it!
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)If you look at the Republican "marketing", you will see that they get it. They understand that it is important to sell the voters on the issues that are important to them....at least to their base.
As long as Democrats act as if elections are not to be "reduced" to marketing the brand, they will continue to have problems.
Cha
(297,154 posts)bed. 
That burden is for the rest of us to carry who aren't whining because we do know what's at stake.
Congratulations, Voters. You Just Made This Climate Denier the Most Powerful Senator on the Environment. And, NON voters
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120134/climate-change-denier-james-inhofe-lead-environment-committee
MisterP
(23,730 posts)the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
erlewyne
(1,115 posts)Money Talks and Bullshit walks
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)May be listening damn sure needs the support of other members to get bills passed which may be for issues near and dear. One member can not do anything alone, once the bill is sponsored and sent to a committee which needs a chairman who is going to bring the bill to vote, without Senate and House in the hands of Democrats, our issues will die in committee. Think again about not voting, the Democrats could own Congress, now it will be the 1% getting showtime
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . nor has anyone else in this thread. I have already pointed this out to you above, but you persist in mischaracterizing what I and others have said.
Let me further clarify: I am in full agreement with those who say that a decision not to vote is an irresponsible choice in a democracy. But whether we like it or not, people DO have that option under our system, and some WILL choose that option. In the wake of an election where apparently a large number of folks chose that option, we can either clutch our pearls and talk about the character defects of those who didn't vote, OR we can take a hard, close look at what we, as a party, have been presenting (and not presenting) to voters that has had the effect of either motivating or demotivating people to show up at the polls. In my experience, very few adults respond well to be scolded. Typically, scolding makes the person doing the scolding feel good, but only causes deeper resentment in the person who is scolded.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Advocate for voting, the excuse of "not having my issue to vote" does not make for anything but making sure the pampered 1% has their issues handled.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . but if the Party fails to reach, and to motivate voters, what do you think is most likely to work in terms of better motivating them the next time around: (A) focusing on whatever character flaw might have led them to that decision and scolding them for it, or (B) taking a long, hard look at our Party, its messaging and its priorities to try to better understand why the Party was unable to motivate them in sufficient numbers to go to the polls? My money's on (B).
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)I motivated myself, I wanted better working conditions, better pay, safer job sites, better health insurance, better and safer pensions, better environments and ways to leave this world better than when I arrived. I did not expect to have to be motivated to vote because I knew inaction from non voters, those too lazy, the whiners has existed all of my life, I would think at least another one third of eligible voters would be able to motivate themselves.
Spazito
(50,311 posts)the non-voters didn't. 36.6% showed up, 63.4% didn't.
One is a voter because they take their civic responsibility seriously, a non-voter ignores their civic responsibility.
Edited to correct percentage figure.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]
Spazito
(50,311 posts)I know better, damn. Thanks for the heads-up, will edit.
DrBulldog
(841 posts)... who always goes to the back of the room and sits without saying a word whenever the discussion up front becomes critically important. Six years of this sickening "it's up to you, people, not me" attitude and two more to go. Oh gawd.
ollie4
(59 posts)Even on a good election, half of the eligible voters vote. And another half are not eligible because they didn't even register.
You can't blame all that on the politicians!
The vast majority of Americans don't vote on any given election.
Actually, it is probably a good thing they don't.
What's important to you? Facebook?
blackspade
(10,056 posts)Shitty messaging, candidates, and platforms.
So, yes, politicians are to blame.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)then if we stop buying, they say, "but it's got 3% LESS shit than the other guy's!"
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]
yurbud
(39,405 posts)it benefits the already rich and benefits the rest as a mere side effect.
tooeyeten
(1,074 posts)It's one man, one woman, one vote. We dont vote in a gaggle, we're not sheep following each other. Voting like not voting is an individual choice. Lazy? Apathy? Whatever. If you vote own it, if you don't vote own it!
There's no excuse or someone else to blame for not taking personal responsibility if you don't vote.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . is indeed a personal one. It has nothing to do with the question of whether scolding those who chose not to vote is an effective way to mobilize those folks to vote in the future, which is the subject of this thread.
tooeyeten
(1,074 posts)If you don't vote why shouldn't you be chastised? It's my perspective, my experience, and my opinion, I just don't agree with you that it's somehow inappropriate to complain about the non-voter. People suffered snd died for a citizen's right to vote, so why shouldn't one be criticized for not exercising their civic duty. In this case the Dems didn't show up, and the GOP won Congress, and governorships. Shame, because Dems didnt go to the polls we're stuck with the 1% party in control.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)tooeyeten
(1,074 posts)We need to stop coddling, speak up, tell the truth. Maybe we need to have a list published of who didn't vote in all elections, make it a law.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)I voted, Randome, and did my best to encourage others to do so as well. If anybody is intent on blaming "someone else," it is Democrats who flatly refuse to consider how the ideological incoherence of our party, and the mixed messages our party's elected officials have sent to voters regarding (what used to be, and should be) core Democratic principles (chained CPI or TPP anyone?), and how those things undermine voters' confidence in the Democratic Party, and instead choose to scold those for whom the party failed to provide sufficient motivation for them to show up at the polls.
randome
(34,845 posts)Poor messaging doesn't explain what happened on Tuesday, though. That was laziness. As usual. Better messaging would likely have resulted in people thinking, "Well, they don't need my vote, then, do they?"
I don't know what the answer is to laziness. Better messaging would help but it's not the answer. If the only way we can win elections is to have firebrands preaching from on high, then maybe we really don't deserve control of Congress.
I know, I'm depressed about Tuesday, too.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
Marr
(20,317 posts)You're blaming voters.
As the OP said, that's very literally like a manufacturer blaming the public for not buying their product. It's absurd.
Kablooie
(18,626 posts)It was the most dishonest pile of crap I've ever seen, next to Fox News of course.
They were using all the over the top, transparent, fake scare tactics that Republicans use.
I was tempted not to vote because it was so slimy and manipulative.
I lost a lot of respect for the Democratic party from that garbage.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)You are right that low voter turnout is a symptom. The people blaming the voters are showing their ignorance of social science and sounding like social-conservative ideologues by treating a systemic societal problem as a moral fault of the voters.
Another issue is that many blue-collar white voters are turned off by a perception of sneering technocratic elitism among the Dem Establishment. They often end up voting Puke because they connect that perception of elitism of with propaganda about "liberal elites in academia". This is made even worse among my fellow Millennials because of the STEM circle-jerk, which reinforces the hate of "liberal academic elites" and drives the popularity of shit like the "Men's Rights" movement and the Gamergate hysteria.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)Kablooie
(18,626 posts)The Dems have a terrible marketing machine.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... but doing the "next best thing" by voting against Obama's party!
There wasn't much logic being used to determine who had the best support for issues they cared about, since many people in a growing percentage of people becoming independents in this country are feeling alienated by both parties.
If our party was more engaging to try and work for people and their issues and not making that a secret at all, then yes, it might hurt corporate lobby contributions, but it would help them reach more voters. We need to find creative ways around the corporate controlled media to do this engagement more effectively than relying on their slanted "news" reports.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)which blame voters.
DAMN IT! Don't folks realize if you have a PARTY, then ACT LIKE A PARTY?! Condemning the polis from Mt. Olympus is the OPPOSITE OF POLITICAL CHANGE.
Get over it. TAKE OVER THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.
I hate liars
(165 posts)Is there anyone here who can honestly claim that the turnout wouldn't have been far higher if the full slate of Democratic candidates came out in favor of:
- Obamacare (even though single payer would be far better)
- Real job creation programs
- Real bank executive prosecutions
- "Defense" department cuts
- Real privacy protections
- Real personal freedoms (reproductive rights, LGBT rights, marijuana decriminalization, etc.)
- Voter rights
Micro-targeting of voter constituencies and issues is one of the big problems we have as a democracy. Micro-targeting by Democrats and Republicans fractures support for overall reform by focusing on narrow issues.
We need to step back as a people to reach agreement on a vision for the kind of society we want to live in.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)Which is precisely how the MSM wants you to see them.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . As candidates, however, they are both a product and the peddler of that product.
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)The MSM sells the product of their own imagining. It is how the top ten most conservative person on choice was labeled a moderate.
Bring back the fairness doctrine and that would not have worked. This view shows a pure degradation of common civic duty. To minimize representatives as mere products to be sold on a market.
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)and almost everywhere. I do art shows as a sideline, and nearly all the artists who don't sell well blame the ignorance of the consumers. That this type of thinking is a dead end occurs to very few. In fact there is no excuse for not voting, so the sentiment is hardly unfair. It took me 15 minutes on the way to work.
Even in the lack of anything to "vote for" there is always a raft of republicans to "vote against". I always vote against republicans, because encouraging that sort of thinking, even by simple inaction, or the lack of prompt rejection, just seems wrong, basically a disservice to humanity in general.
All that said, we really could use some better candidates, and need to stop the soft selling.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)You are right that there is no excuse for not voting, and to be clear, I did not intend to make excuses for anybody's choice not to vote. My concern is rather with the issue of focusing on the moral failing or character flaw of those who did not vote instead of taking a long, hard look at our party, our candidates, our messaging and yes, our policy positions to try to understand why they have been unable to motivate voters to go to the polls.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)My questions, where are the solutions? If 40-50% are not even registered what specific messaging do you offer to get them involved? If 10-20% are registered and don't vote, what specific messaging applies to them? If you can't answer those questions then your party or you have unfinished research to do. Politicians are public servants at all times if they freely choose to pursue that calling. Never will I consider them as a box of Cheerios. Politics are always local so these varied answers to the above questions must come from the grassroots and ground movements, the citizen's boots on the ground. Laying blame helps no one but brotherly concern helps all. You will never be successful having messaging coming out of the D.C. bubble. This is like meeting an unregistered homeless man and telling him the stock market is soaring and gas prices have fallen and being confused when he decides not to vote. We must stop donating money to these political committees and organizations until we know where every single penny is going. Spending billions on dying cable tv ads and watching media giants laugh all the way to the bank has got us nowhere (how many grassroots jobs could be created with these billions). I agree with one of the posts that said emotions are high now, give us time to mellow. We must take our party and country back because if not we be left with good cops ( Wall Street dems) and bad cops (repubs).
quaker bill
(8,224 posts)but here is the thing, our opponents will lie, cheat, steal, manipulate, falsely propagandize, and if all else fails selectively block access to the polls to win.
So it is not just a matter of offering a better product, while that indeed is necessary, a ruthlessness is required on the part of operatives at a level we are apparently not used to. Further the candidates need a gift at oratory, and be far less inhibited about using it. During debates we need to corner the opponent and then pound them till the ref calls you off.
The people need a reintroduction to simple facts like
Rich people become rich by getting money and then keeping it, there is no trickling down involved.
"Job creators" are generally not rich, they are more often people who would like to become rich. Most of them fail to do so.
If all schools were acceptably good, there would be no "market dynamic" to drive "reform". However allowing "failed" schools to exist as a social experiment in market dynamics means that children's lives and time are being wasted. Further market dynamics are always inefficient, as they only can work if there are more desks available than children to sit behind them. "Choice" means there has to be at least two desks available, or there is no "choice". This is wasteful by design.
The poor are not "stealing money" from your paycheck, if they were, they would not be poor. If you want to know where "your money" is going, look for the pile of money. (Hint, you will find the 1% have it).
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Think I'm kidding? Google voter turnout Nov. 4 2014 and check the headlines for that night. State after state, all over country, were reporting bigger than expected turnouts. Surprise, now we're hearing about record low turnouts, just like we were before the actual election.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Sell the damn brand as a united front! And stop relying on fear of the other guy to "win" for you.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)it's the exact opposite.
What the fuck is a political party for, if not to engage voters in politics, and get them out to vote? The reason for having an official party platform is to give potential voters a basic idea of what their candidates stand for before they voters even get to know the individual candidates themselves.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)up for? As others have said, even if you have a "let it burn" attitude towards things like climate change and don't care whether your senator is a Democrat or Republican, there was a lot more to vote for this election cycle than just senators and governors. If you honestly think low turnout indicates a bad product, then it turns out lots of progressive issues are bad products (since many people don't think they're worth showing up and voting for), and progressive candidates are bad products (since primaries, which usually have more progressive politicians, have much lower turnout).
Not voting is a terrible idea, and if someone thinks that there isn't anything worth voting for on the ballot, the chances are they're ill-informed.
fredamae
(4,458 posts)is crunching the national numbers regarding the impact of Voter Suppression And Gerrymandering...as well as the voters who Chose not to vote.
Then lets see where we are?
branford
(4,462 posts)These were state-wide races, and our most pronounced defeats.
Moreover, in many of the races, such as Georgia and Arkansas, the margin of victory in favor of the Republicans was sufficiently large that even if unlawful voter suppression could be proved, it would not have affected the outcome of the election.
I fully support opposing illegal voter suppression regulations and activities as well as gerrymandering (even when done by and in favor of our party, which happens in blue states like NY and CA), but that's only a very tiny component of why Democrats so badly this election.
I find it disheartening and foolish that so many here try to find every excuse, including blaming the voters, for why we lost. Instead, it would be most prudent to ascertain what we did wrong, and try to prevent it from happening again.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... then you have to ask yourself if it is not just a question of whether it is "legal" or not in terms of voter suppression, but if the laws are contributing to that voter suppression to make voter suppression "legal".
branford
(4,462 posts)but it doesn't change the basic point of the OP or my post.
First, a lot of what people complain about what they claim voter suppression is protected First Amendment activity. Discouraging people from voting by statement and similar conduct is unquestionably terrible, but is not, and cannot, be illegal.
Second, if your argument focuses on issues such as which means of identification are acceptable to vote, you've basically conceded the Republican point that identification is in fact appropriate to cast a ballot. Moreover, often when you dig down, the reasons for not allowing student identification cards to vote makes sense to many voters and the courts. For example, many students maintain their primary residence outside of the state and the risk of double voting is far higher than types of identification, for private schools, the student card is not state-issued, and and if a student claims the given state as his or her residence, they should already easily have (or have access to) another acceptable state identification like a driver's license.
Third, and most importantly, voter suppression is not why we lost so many elections last Tuesday. Voter suppression should be zealously fought when it is illegal, but blaming it, gerrymandering (no less for statewide races), and the actual voters for our loss is nothing more than making excuses for our own failings, and is ultimately self-defeating. In order to improve, we need to acknowledge what we did wrong, so that it does not happen again.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Just that by forcing it in certain ways the way Republicans do, it can be used for voter suppression.
Before the "photo ID" voter id requirements that basically is a poll tax, people still were asked to do something like show a utility bill receipt or something like that to help establish that they are who they are. If you are flexible to allow for documents that pretty much anyone can get and routinely works with as a part of their everyday life, then it is in my book sufficient to establish a voter's identity without making it an obstacle for them to vote. Bottom line is that there shouldn't be any barrier for people to vote that they can't easily achieve. If we are concerned with out-of-state student ID's being used to allow in state voting, then we should be forcing the schools and other educational institutions to put on these ID's what the state of residence is for that student to allow it to be used properly. That way you don't push the costs and barriers on to the voter. But of course Republicans choose the latter, because they don't want to make it cheap and easy for even legal voters to be able to vote on a selective basis.
branford
(4,462 posts)or support the exclusion of student identifications to vote. I was simple providing an example of how the student identification issue is not the best example to use when opposing voter identification laws.
Again, my actual point was that alleged voter suppression efforts were not the reason why we lost, particularly in Texas,
In support of your voter suppression because of photo identification requirements, you cite Texas's acceptance of a hunter ID, but not a student ID. I basically agree that the law is foolish. However, it most certainly is not the reason why we lost in Texas. Could you honestly make a good faith claim that if they accepted student ID's or didn't have a photo identification requirement at all that Wendy Davis would be governor-elect in Texas?
Simply, Wendy Davis lost badly, despite an accepting press and ample funds, and no complaining about stupid or lazy voters, suppression or gerrymandering changes that basic fact. If the Democrats want to be competitive in Texas in the foreseeable future, we either have to change the political and cultural positions of Texans (e.g., guns, abortion, environment, etc.) or realize that running a candidate that made a name for herself by filibustering a popular late-term abortion law in such a conservative state was foolish and a waste of resources.
randr
(12,411 posts)The nation did as a whole. We lost the ability to change the game, to right the wrongs, and to force politicians to listen to "we the people".
Political parties are businesses, they do not lose. They only create situations in which they can seek more money.
Marr
(20,317 posts)If you lose, you've employed a losing strategy. It's as simple as that. You can whine about the referee, you can cry that the fans didn't cheer hard enough, you can shout that the rules were against you-- but you lost. If you ever want to win, you'll adjust your strategy.
They don't want to acknowledge this very simple, adult reality. They're clinging to this fantasy that the party is performing optimally-- and it's just the world that's broken.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Those in power with our two party system basically saying vote for us or you'll get it worse from Republicans, and if you try to complain that we aren't doing what you want, then you're "f'ing retarded"! That is basically saying just "vote for the team" or suffer, instead of saying vote for us because we hear what you want and will try to work on your behalf to get it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Having the right of self government and failing to use it is not the same as not buying a widget. You don't have to buy a widget. You don't have to participate in self government either, but then you will be governed by the wishes of those who did participate.
In short, there is no advantage to someone in not voting.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Don't bother arguing-- we just had an election that proves it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)You have a right to participate, a right to vote, to be involved in electing people to office. Staying out of it is of no advantage whatsoever. You could vote Green or what have you.
For that matter, why aren't people blaming the Greens for not giving these people something to vote FOR? Or the Socialists? Why don't the leaders of those parties step into the void? You'd have thought that was what people here wanted if they gave up on Democrats. Yet all they want to do a trash Democrats.
Marr
(20,317 posts)You can talk about what should be all day. It doesn't change what is. I think cinnamon buns should grow on trees. But if I want one, I'll go buy it-- not just sit here cursing the flora.
If the party wants people to vote for it's candidates, they're going to have to adjust the strategy. What they're doing now does not work-- clearly.
I can't speak to how the Green or Socialist partys' leadership will respond to this election cycle, because I'm not in those parties.
treestar
(82,383 posts)some of them have full time jobs to do that.
Maybe the voters are not the liberals they are said to be.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)It is BS crap like these the corporate Democrats do behind the scenes and making false promises to the contrary which turns them off and has them feel that the whole exercise of voting is useless...
Seeing the dialogue and frustration expressed from independent voters online here in Oregon in the discussion of Prop 90, which lost worst than any other ballot measure tells me how much people are tuned out right now the way that the two party system "controls" us rather than is responsive to us the way a democratic process would dictate.
I think where we saw a lot of synergy in those discussions was that even though people are frustrated with the current system and the way our two parties control it, there are better ways like Instant Runoff voting, and lowering the threshold for the primary season to allow third parties to have their own primary ballots to allow their members to participate in voting for their own candidate the way Republicans and Democrats do then, instead of being forced to have their own outside convention or election to pick who represents them outside of the primary process. Democrats, Republicans and independents as grass roots entities in those discussions started to see the light that this was big money trying to warp our system and take away *PEOPLE* representation of their party candidates by taking party identities and endorsements out of the picture, and how measure 90 is a step back from real democratic processes, which many in California and Washington also feel after they put in place that mess of a system earlier.
BlindTiresias
(1,563 posts)You spend the majority of the time calling third parties a waste of time and a threat to progressivism and browbeat leftists for supporting them, and then you turn and wonder why concerned leftists don't vote for them as a means of evading your own position's failure? Get a grip.
branford
(4,462 posts)would have won the elections where the more "orthodox" Democrats lost?
Do you really believe a Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders-type candidate would have done better than the more moderate Democrats in Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, Alaska, North Carolina, Kentucky or even Iowa or Colorado?
If you want to support third-party candidates, that is certainly your prerogative. However, do not be surprised if Democrats continue to lose elections, even when the prevailing political winds are in our favor, such as they were in 2008 and 2012.
Sometimes, in order to win elections, and advance as much of a liberal agenda as possible, you simply have to choose the lesser of two evils in the voting booth, both in the primary and come the election.
Marr
(20,317 posts)After decades of third way triangulation, voters are apathetic and don't think the party stands for anything. The party needs to change its orientation to something unapologetically pro-working class, and stop playing this 50%+1 game where they see just how little they can get away with actually doing for working people, while servicing Wall Street.
This "lesser of two evils" thing you're promoting is what's led us to this point. Every cycle, the evil one gets a little more evil and the lesser evil becomes a little bit less lesser evil.
branford
(4,462 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 8, 2014, 09:01 PM - Edit history (1)
and the "50%+1 game" is what allows us to advance some, if not most, our a liberal agenda, rather than regress with republicans in control.
The "working class" is not always as progressive as many suggest and their interests often are in opposition to other members of the Democratic coalition. Are working class and union voters, particularly in the South and Midwest, who may hold some views that are religious, pro-gun, pro-life, anti-SSM, etc. still worthwhile and valuable Democrats, particularly if they side with the Democrats the majority of the time? How about the coal miners in West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Kentucky who see Democratic environmentalists from other parts of the country advocate policies that will throw them out of a job?
The lesser of two evils is simply about compromise, some of the social, political and economic pie is better than nothing. Given the views of about half our country, it is the only realistic option, at least for the foreseeable future.
Most of the more moderate and conservative Democrats have now been thrown out of Congress. Republicans control both chambers and a clear majority of governorships, as well as totally dominating a majority of state legislatures. The Democrats that remain more clearly suit your political preferences. Would you kindly explain how these remaining "pure" and "better" Democrats will now advance any of the "working class" agenda?
Marr
(20,317 posts)ok with conservative/corporate Democrats defining the party.
A pro-working class agenda has nothing to do with guns or abortion or any of the other window dressing bullshit that corporate frauds have used as their liberal bona fides for the last two decades. It's very simply policy that puts more money in the pockets of working class people; progressive tax policy, reducing the shipment of jobs overseas, limiting H1B visas, expansion of Social Security, etc. These are things a whole lot of working class Republican voters support as well, according to the polling data.
The party as a whole needs to be talking about this and pushing for this with the same constancy that Republicans show when it comes to lowering taxes on the wealthy. Even when they couldn't do it, Republicans promoted it. Constantly.
It's not going to be fixed in a cycle. But continually supporting the lesser of two evils will never fix it at all.
branford
(4,462 posts)For instance, what were the Democrats offering to the working class coal miners in West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and other states where fossil fuels are their livelihood? Moreover, many of these working class individuals are socially more conservative than many other members of our party. What are you willing to compromise on social issues to maintain their confidence and votes?
A "pro-working class agenda" means much more than just economic agenda to many of the very real people who are actually part of the working class, and Democrats and our policies often do not meet these other needs and positions. The fact that certain policies, particularly as they concern the environment (e.g., coal, Keystone XL, etc.), are actually immediately detrimental to some of the working class, certainly cannot be ignored.
Marr
(20,317 posts)No one is going to get everything they want. Working class liberals might be willing accept something like the Keystone XL if it means raising taxes on the 1%. Working class conservatives might be willing to ignore issues like prayer in school if it means broadening Social Security.
The way the issues are divied up right now is mostly the result of our political leadership over the last couple of decades, which has been very DLC/triangulation/socially liberal, economically conservative. That needs to be shaken up and rethought. Things have changed.
branford
(4,462 posts)Our platform already supports environmental causes and the working class. However, as with any coalition, sometime our priorities are at odds.
Individual candidates have to thread the needle, and the desires and priorities of the local electorate will always trump the party. Moreover, what you consider an acceptable trade-off, might not be acceptable to those for whom you claim to speak.
You presuppose that if the party was both more socially and fiscally liberal that it would become more popular and appeal to a much broader electorate. I've seen no evidence to support this hypothesis. In fact, under the Dean's 50 State Strategy, which incorporated significant numbers of moderate and conservative Democrats, Democratic influence was at apex in recent history. The more liberal gains attributed to Obama were immediately reversed in the next election because of the unpopularity of health insurance reform, and continued to decline through the recent election. Conservative Democrats cannot now win elections in areas where we once dominated, such as West Virginia. Other than hope, why would even more liberal candidates succeed?
Marr
(20,317 posts)I think the party would be vastly more successful if it was just more fiscally liberal, and unabashedly so. Social issues are currently all that separates many of our politicians from Republicans, and it isn't practical. Bill Clinton bragged that he was more economically conservative than Bush Sr. Obama said he would've been considered a moderate Republican during the Reagan years. Ceding the economic argument to conservatives and just scrimmaging along social issue lines isn't viable anymore.
The focus should be left-wing economic policies, party-wide. They can sort of out social issues as they need by region-- it is a big tent, after all. But the party has to actually stand for something. It's not surprising that Democrats have such a hard time in red states right now. The economic policies pushed by the party are already conservative, and liberal social issues aren't going to help them... so they're just lesser Republicans.
whereisjustice
(2,941 posts)the entire crew of smug, arrogant, out-of-touch conservatives get flushed from leadership roles, we will make progress again. Not a second before.
As long as leadership keeps covering their asses and circling their wagons, things are going to get worse.
It's like a corporation who is bleeding market share but the CEO and executive staff give themselves a 15% raise every year. Plus bonuses.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Just keep yelling your OP over and over.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Response to markpkessinger (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)This was a failure of leadership.
IronLionZion
(45,430 posts)You know there was an organized effort to discourage and demoralize dem voters who flanked us from the right and left. People closer to the center aren't nearly as passionate about issues as those on the right and left, so that's whose opinions are shouted the loudest. RW voters were angry at Obama and fired up to get out and vote. Liberals were angry at Obama from the other side,but what can you do? And many moderate voters are busy trying to find jobs and pay the bills and survive rather than expect solutions from politicians.
