General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis is what happens when progressives stay home on election day and claim both parties are the same
Not much progress:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/236918-republicans-block-warrens-student-loan-amendment
GOP blocks Warren's student loan plan
Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked an effort by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to attach an amendment aimed at lowering student loan rates to the budget.
Senators voted 46-53 against Warren's amendment to the Republican budget resolution.
Warren's amendment would have allowed people with college loan debt to refinance at interest rates from the 2013-2014 academic year. The Massachusetts Democrat, who is rejecting calls to run for president, said the move would allow undergraduates to refinance their loans to a 3.9 percent interest rate, with a "slightly higher" rate for graduate students.
"Millions of borrowers are still stuck paying interest rates at 6 percent, 8 percent, 10 percent and even higher," she said.
Her plan would have been paid for by requiring millionaires to pay at least a 30 percent effective federal tax rate.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)But you already knew that.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Funny most of us don't know a lot about Canadian politics (Rob Ford, who is that?), but Sid there is an expert in American politics! Blessed are the cheesemakers! 
morningfog
(18,115 posts)He is an expert in something, but it is merely in a certain behavior on a small American political discussion board. Such a sad hobby.
sharp_stick
(14,400 posts)well done. 
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Smarmy.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)did someone post on DU that they skipped voting to make waffles?
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)and was damn proud of it to boot.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Sid said "they" upthread.
I missed the whole thing, I guess. 
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)were the ones cheering him on and offering their breakfast requests.
It was all pretty smarmy as I recall.
If you missed it just stick around, he still pats himself on the back for this bit of brilliance.
Yuck.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)The OP was edited an number of times, as the poster got more and more negative feedback on their crowing about not voting.
Sid
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)This particular "DUer" maims a Democrat in the sprint while allowing a RW-Republican to make it to the finish line. With self-proclaimed Democrats as that one, who needs Teabaggers?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)
LiberalArkie
(15,703 posts)But every damn red necked tea head that I know did. And they got what they wanted here in Arkansas. My liberal friends just could not find the time to early or even same day vote. We have some crazy laws getting ready to come out of our state legislature. I don't even want to think of the mess Tom Cotton is going to stir up.
Edit: We even have out Democratic State legislators to worry about also. They are trying to be a little to the right of some of the tea heads
mountain grammy
(26,598 posts)me too. I have one good friend who I persuaded to register in 2008 for the first time in her life, and she voted in every election until last year. She said it was "just too ugly." whatever..
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)ran to the polls. We're in NC -- Moral Mondays land, and we knew the stakes. Our county commission went all Dem, but thanks to gerrymandering, Rs fared better at the state level. At the federal level, Tillis squeaked by Hagan. I attribute her loss to hatred of the ACA, dissatisfaction with Obama and the economy, and missing an ISIS-related hearing to attend a fundraiser. She was hammered on that issue, and that would be enough for some Sensible Centrist to vote against her.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)They know it's a lie, but they continue to lie anyway:
http://graphics.wsj.com/exit-polls-2014/
Ideology: Liberals were 23% of the vote in 2014, up from 20% in 2010.
http://www.thirdway.org/third-ways-take/the-impact-of-moderate-voters-on-the-2014-midterms
There is no doubt that moderate voters were crucial to the outcome in 2014, and though Democrats won them 53% to 44% overall, it wasn’t sufficient (in fact, they did 2 points worse with moderates than in the 2010 wave).
Did liberals really stay home and cause the 2010 rout?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/06/1003805/-Did-liberals-really-stay-home-and-cause-the-2010-rout
“So I went back to the exit polls and the picture I see shows nothing like that. If you are a proponent of this claim, I challenge you for empirical proof that some set of activist liberals "took their ball and went home" or whatever metaphor you prefer to make Obama's leftward critics appear childish and immature. Inside, the evidence I found that shows this just ain't so.”
http://blogforarizona.net/do-progressives-even-sit-out-elections-the-numbers-say-no/
“As you can see, Democrats did slightly better with liberals in 2010 than in 2006. Had there really been a collective we’re-sitting-out-the-election-to-spite-Obama pout going on, then there should have been a sharp drop in the liberal participation percentage. Yet notice the 9% in moderate voter participation and the concomitant 10% increase in conservative turnout. Republicans were pumped for that election but their turnout tends to be higher in midterms anyway. Millions of moderate voters either flipped to conservative or stayed home in 2010.”
“As you can see, all the Democratic groups dropped, but the liberal Democrats dropped least of all”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/progressive-movement/news/2012/11/08/44348/the-return-of-the-obama-coalition/
Ideology. Liberals were 25 percent of voters in 2012, up from 22 percent in 2008. Since 1992 the percent of liberals among presidential voters has varied in a narrow band between 20 percent and 22 percent, so the figure for this year is quite unusual. Conservatives, at 35 percent, were up one point from the 2008 level, but down a massive 7 points since 2010.
Ideology. Obama received less support in 2012 from all ideology groups, though the drop-offs were not particularly sharp in any group. He received 86 percent support from liberals (89 percent in 2008), 56 percent from moderates (60 percent in 2008), and 17 percent from conservatives (20 percent in 2008).
bvar22
(39,909 posts)The fabricated "story" about Liberals Staying Home is completely BOGUS,
Has been debunked many times on DU,
but that doesn't seem to matter to those who don't care about the TRUTH.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)I had a couple of those links bookmarked, but a few were new to me.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)It's the mushy middle...but hey, let's blame the left again.
WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)is advanced by Obama, DU is treated to these types of liberal-bashing threads. There's a pattern, and they're amusing in how consistently wrong they are. This crew was in rare form over Chained CPI, introducing Crap Blogs no one has heard of. But they can introduce Crap Blogs to their hearts' content -- doesn't change the fact that progressives did not sit out 2010 or 2014.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)it isn't the left who doesn't show up. But you might ask why voters are so unenthusiastic about voting.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)It was disgusting. Anything to avoid having to admit that maybe, just maybe, people aren't turning out because by and large they don't see them Democratic Party doing a thing to help them. When you have Democrats voting for bills that further entrench student debt, that hammer education funding, that privatize education, people won't vote for them. And I won't blame them.
840high
(17,196 posts)
iandhr
(6,852 posts)There were many Democrats who talked about investing in education and cutting interests rates. I got a daily emails from Grimes in KY talking about this.
What was voter turn out on the UK campus?
Yours truly moved to Wisconsin to help Mary Burke. Voter turn out at UW was pathetic. Now Walker is gutting UW. You get what you pay for.
RufusTFirefly
(8,812 posts)I guess when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The Dude: I don't see any connection to Vietnam, Walter.
Walter Sobchak: Well, there isn't a literal connection, Dude.
The Dude: Walter, face it, there isn't any connection.
Those f&@kin' liberals are going to ruin everything!
madokie
(51,076 posts)some here must think that is
Our worst democratic congress critter is leaps and bounds better than the best repukiCON
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)The replies don't agree with your assessment.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
betterdemsonly
(1,967 posts)I don't think you can blame progressives.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)Also, what I posted in another thread:
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Actually this is what happens when Dem politicians don't represent Dem voters
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)This is EXACTLY what happens. How much nagging does DU think will work to get back control of Congress which the goddamn liberals gave in 2006 and the Presidency with a cherry on top in 2008??? Why on earth did they not take all that good will and do so much good that they put the R's in their political graves and make them the loony minority forever?? When you can answer that question that you see behind the curtain.
Bvar's photo of "what could have been" is very appropriate here.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)"Actually this is what happens when Dem politicians don't represent Dem voters." Absolutely.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)They blocked some stuff and altered some other stuff. But that senate and house passed bills.
Not so much the do nothing congress that came afterwards.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Shit, this is news to me!!!!
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Although in truth the president never wanted healthcare either
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)That's hilarious!!!
demmiblue
(36,823 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)NRaleighLiberal
(60,006 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)get locked and the posters suspended or booted? Why is liberal-bashing allowed at this site?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)than the rest of us. But that's cool with me. They expose themselves for what they are when asked to actually discuss issues.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you should really provide a "Secure All Beverages" warning before posting stuff like that!
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)This is Democratic Underground which includes all Dems whether progressive or centrist or in between. What power?
MisterP
(23,730 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)basis. I wonder what the goal is. Maybe to piss off progressives? Now, why would we want to piss off progressives? Seriously, why are you pissing off progressives. And if you aren't a progressive, what do you call yourself? Maybe a conservative? You tell us.
PROGRESSIVES DON'T STAY HOME. Blame someone else. I wish to ask whatever group is pushing this bullcrap that progressive don't show up to vote to prove it. And please show proof that someone, anyone, has ever said that both parties are the same or please forever stop saying it. Unless you can prove that anyone said that, it is deliberate disruption.
From my perspective as a progressive that has always been out their GOTV with other progressives, it's those centrists those DLC Democrats that stay home.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)complete failure for the party and the country, they gain some self-respect and respect from the other rightists by lying and repeating the same tired sob stories.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)necessary to disparage progressives? What is their goal here?
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)What do they believe in? Unchecked corporate power
Why do they feel the need to disparage progressives? We oppose their vision of a world run by the Koch brothers and their ilk
What is their goal here? To shut us the hell up and smooth the path for Corporate rule
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Alternatively, you could realize that no candidate is entitled to votes, and has to earn them.
If a centrist candidate can't get liberal voters to the polls, that's the candidate's fault. It is the candidate's job to earn votes.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)If Hillary Clinton-Sachs loses to Jeb Bush (Babs fav son), who will the so-called centrists blame? W/o Nader they will have to come up with another scapegoat.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)the other day when they continued to blame Nader for the 2000 loss despite all of the evidence that proves Gore actually won Florida and beat Bush.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)happened. And to blame him belittles the more important faults to our system. And even if he didn't run, there is no assurance that those that voted for him (obviously upset with the system) would have voted for Gore. Those that voted for Nader comprised a very small percentage of people that didn't vote for Gore.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)candidates that had more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore. Never heard back from him.
They don't realize how foolish they appear. First they are being used as a diversion from the real problem. Second they give the impression that they would like to limit who can run for President more than the constitution stipulates. The next or other logical step is to limit who can vote. Both limiting who can run and who can vote seem so... well Republican to me.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)is that they thought they could run Gore who, right or wrong, looked like 8 more years of Clinton. The voting public wanted change and when faced with Gore v Bush some decided to take a chance with Bush while others stayed home. When Gore lost some decided that they needed a scapegoat because apparently they couldn't face the fact that we have a voting system so corrupt that The Powers That Be can manipulate a presidential election. We are looking at a similar situation with the people demanding change and the Democratic Power Machine is looking to run DLC Clinton. Now it makes perfect sense to me for the Democratic Power Machine to run Clinton but not that grassroots voters wouldn't recognize that it could well be a repeat of 2000. Maybe Nader will put his name in and give them a scapegoat again.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)If Clinton is the Democratic nominee whoever is the Republican will win, especially Bush. And once again they will find a liberal scapegoat and the problem will not be fixed.
But this next election they will have someone to blame. I will no longer vote for the lesser of two evils. I'm too old to waste my vote any longer. I will vote for the best candidate for the Country regardless of party. I do know it won't be the Republican and if Clinton is the Democrat, I know it won't be the Democrat either.
So I'm getting more complicated in my old age, no more lesser of two evils and I will always put Country before party too. But you can't have me kicked out of the party for my actions, I left the Democratic party years ago and belong to the largest growing constituency, the unaffiliated.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)As to whether Clinton will lose to Bush or not is a good question. If Bush wins the nomination I think it means that the Powers That Be are ok with either. If someone like Cruz wins, it means the Powers That Be choose Clinton.
People don't recognize the manipulation of being forced into a "better of evils" choice. They are in denial, wanting to believe that the election system actually works for the people.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)when they end up with Republicans in office. All they get is that satisfaction of having "punished" the Democrats and their fellow citizens.
People who refuse to deal in basic logic are frustrating. If they don't want to be criticized for stupidity, they should go and vote. If they don't and their reason is stupid, they will be called out on it.
Playing the victim is so typical.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)All of the "won't vote for Clinton" posts admit it could cause a Republican to win.
On the other hand, your side of the argument keeps calling them stupid, selfish and a host of other names. Just about the most utterly fucking moronic way to convince someone to change their mind.
You're doing an excellent job setting up the people you will blame if Clinton loses. That way you don't have to examine her (or your) decisions. It's all those stupid, selfish liberal's fault. If they'd only have listened when I was calling them stupid and selfish, then this wouldn't have happened!!!!
Again, candidates are not entitled to votes. Candidates have to earn votes. If Clinton fails to earn enough votes, that's her fault. Just like Gore failing to earn enough votes was Gore's fault.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)They don't live in the real world and are most likely well enough off that they can decide not to get out and vote against Republicans - because in the general election, that's exactly what everyone does. Even Teabaggers know that, and they're not the brightest bulbs in the electorate.
Unfortunately, if these so-called Liberals' anointed idol doesn't win the primary, these sore-losers sulk and go make waffles and then brag about taking down a Democrat not perfect enough for them, not seeing they'd just helped a RW-Republican wins. With Democrats/Liberals like those, who needs Karl Rove?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Oregon was 69.3% which is low for us, but twice the national average in '14.
Here's another one. If progressives stay home, why is the Progressive Caucus the largest caucus withing the Democratic Party in Congress? You tell me.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)What are those that keep spewing hatred towards liberals and progressives?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and they don't like it when liberals do so they use ad hominem attacks to belittle the left. Just ask them about any issue as see what happens.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Maybe he's onto something
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)And I'm still clinging to "middle-aged." 
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Well I tend to think for myself and not "follow" anyone.
I also think that it's easy to "explain away a loss" for someone in his position because very few people will question it.
If you look at the facts, progressive liberal policies won and wanna be Republicans on the Democratic side lost.
But of course, it's the voter's fault. Why didn't I ever think of that?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)AAs, Latinos, young'uns and unmarried women felt underserved by the Democratic Party. And I don't blame them. The people who lost their seats generally didn't do much for them.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I always do. This is where I vote. I always vote. By mail, as does the rest of my state.
I suggest that if not enough of the left are voting for Democrats, you actively pursue those votes by offering them candidates and policies that are not neo-liberal; policies and candidates that they will actively campaign for, rather than playing the blame game.
Or try scapegoating us and see how far that gets you on election day.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)go door to door to defeat a self claimed Democrat. Why, because that Democrat wasn't progressive. In fact, that Democrat caucused with the Republicons. Hundreds went door to door in the freezing rain to try to get a progressive Democrat to defeat a Conservative Democrat. Sadly the Republicons came to the rescue of the Conservative Democrat.
Don't tell me that progressives stay home.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)The ignorance is thick in this thread.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)fuck that shit.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)great...that explains a lot
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)"So it was better...." posts? It doesn't even make sense related to what I posted. Technically a Republicon didn't win. The Conservative Democrat won in an open primary over a progressive Democrat, not because the progressives stayed home, but because the Republicons supported the Conservative Democrat. This should be a lesson in a number of ways. Republicons like Conservative/Third Way/DLC Democrats, in this case better than any candidate they could come up with.
The OP implied that our woes are the fault of progressives that "stay home" from elections. This is total bullcrap I am guessing aimed at splitting the Party (why else). I have been involved in lots of campaigns and GOTV and it's the progressives that come year after year. Go door to door and stand in the rain on street corners, not the so-called centrists or what ever they like to use to identify themselves.
The point was that progressives came out in droves to go door to door in nasty weather to try to defeat a Conservative Democrat in favor of a progressive Democrat.
What does the comment "that explains a lot" actually mean? Exactly what did you get from my post?
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)YOU SAID:
go door to door to defeat a self claimed Democrat. Why, because that Democrat wasn't progressive. In fact, that Democrat caucused with the Republicons
You cheered the fact that DEMS caused a Republican to be put in office, because it was better than voting in a DEMOCRAT.
You forward the message that DEM and REP are interchangeable. Sick of that fucking shit.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)First of all I never indicated that a Republicon won. What you left out of my statement was, " Sadly the Republicons came to the rescue of the Conservative Democrat." It was an open election and I don't believe the Republicons even bothered to have a candidate. No Republicon won.
You seem determined to mislead what I said, I guess, because you are not able to address what I actually said.
Let me spell it out as simply as I can.
Progressives came out in droves to support a progressive Democrats.
Centrist/Conservative Democrats stayed home.
National Republicon money supported the Conservative Democrat.
Republicons liked the Conservative Democrat that they put him in office.
Bottom line is that it isn't the progressives that stay home.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)*I* didn't change your words and *I* didn't try to read between the lines. you said what you said
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)A REPUBLICON NEVER GOT ELECTED. a REP wasn't put in office. Progressives worked hard to elect a progressive Democrat. But Conservative Democrats are ok that this particular Democrat got elected by Republicons and caucuses with them.
Here are my exact words, " Hundreds (truthfully it was about 75 on the day I went) went door to door in the freezing rain to try to get a progressive Democrat to defeat a Conservative Democrat. Sadly the Republicons came to the rescue of the Conservative Democrat."
Since you won't say anything about your own ideas or positions I will have to guess. You, like the OP want, for some reason, to disparage the progressive wing of the Party. You are ok with Conservative Democrats that caucus with Republicons because they have Democrat behind their name.
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)Fucking pitiful.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)but would modify it by saying that many of the people who vote least are "natural progressives" in that they generally agree with progressive positions. So yes, many natural progressives do stay home.
The best way to motivate them is to have Democratic candidates who actually articulate progressive positions. Give people a genuine alternative to DLC types and perhaps this will motivate the stay at home voters.
greatauntoftriplets
(175,729 posts)We ended up with an asshole Republican governor.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Evidence is clear: the Left votes. Even for Third Wayers when that's the least-awful alternative.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)For example, among the youth vote, only 21.5% actually voted in the 2014 mid-terms
http://www.civicyouth.org/21-3-youth-turnout-preliminary-estimate-comparable-to-recent-midterm-years/
as to minorities and "natural" Democratic voters:
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/11/05/midterm-turnout-decreased-in-all-but-12-states
I think Cali has it exactly correct.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)"Natural Left" voters showed up in large numbers to vote for Change in 2008.
They won the election, but got little to show for their efforts. Now they're more apathetic than progressive. Hopefully real Democrats putting up a real fight for them will win them back over time.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)All they have to have in common is not representing the interests of the people they expect to vote for them.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)the GOP has been talking about abortion for many years. Under George W. Bush they could have eliminated it but did not because it is useful in fundraising and rallying the troops.
The Dems take minorities and union members for granted. "Where else can they go" is the thinking.
progressoid
(49,951 posts)On Wed Mar 25, 2015, 06:13 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
This is what happens when progressives stay home on election day and claim both parties are the same
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026415235
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
The title of this post is a flamebait lie. From a GD host, no less.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 25, 2015, 06:16 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: It's a fucking stupid OP title. And a fucking stupid supposition. Leave for all to see the fucking stupidity of it.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not over the top, not insensitive at all! Alerter needs a Valium.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Don't think it will work this time.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)when both parties abandon traditional Democratic values.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)10. I'm sorry, Manny, but while this WAS indeed part of the problem......
It cannot also go without saying that there were indeed certain factions amongst our fellow liberals who did indeed stay home in 2010.....quite a few of them, in fact.
Guesss who they were? That's right: the "professional left" emoprogs.....at least many, if not most of them DID stay home.
If we want to do better in 2014, we need to look at ALL the factors, Manny, not just a half-ass sweep job.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023773355#post10
You guys are adorable.
Enrique
(27,461 posts) Phlem
(6,323 posts)Damned for not showing up, Damned for voting for the wrong guy/gal.
The contrast between the "Ignorant" and "Informed with Wisdom" in this thread is stark and truly sad.
*sigh*
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)I am not sure they really understand how it works,,,,,,,,,
Phlem
(6,323 posts)Never the options available to them, just them. Damn voters.
Booo Voters.
How do you have 23000 + post's with logic like this?
calimary
(81,125 posts)Then get to the polls and vote. Every chance you get!
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)how frustrated I am with the shitty turnout in this country and with the lack of awareness that people have about the differences between the 2 parties. For me, I have a few disagreements with the Democratic Party, but they're good on far more policies than the GOP, and at least they don't hatemonger against historically disadvantaged people just to get votes. The fact that the GOP is trying to do bad things (both rhetoric and policy-wise) to people like me is enough motivation for me to stay active in every election. And this country's turnout is trash, even in presidential elections (less than 60% voted in 2012, and less than 40% voted in 2014). Even Iraq probably has a higher turnout than us. People say that they "need something to vote for", but what about the minimum wage? What about voting rights? Women's rights? A more diplomatic foreign policy? More appointments of the president's federal justice nominees? I could go on about how the 2 parties are like night-and-day and can hardly agree on anything, especially in Congress. Americans take voting for granted when in other parts of the world, it is much tougher.
Beartracks
(12,799 posts)... Vote FOR a Democratic majority in Congress, so that the few real progressives there have more influence in committees and more opportunity to advance legislation.
Generally, even if one's candidate is some kind of DINO, you should still vote for that Dem. Don't leave the few progressive candidates elected by your fellow liberals stranded in a Republican Congress.
================
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I vote for the specific people I feel will be the best if they get into office. Most often that happens to be a Democrat, sometimes some member of another party on the left, but the best way to make sure it's always a Democrat is to offer better Democrats.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Republicans control the legislative agenda because they have the majority.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Blaming this debacle on non-voting Democrats is simply incorrect. It's like blaming the loss of a battle on the troops when the real issue was that the general had no plan, no ammunition, and was marching his soldiers blindly through enemy territory.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)voters did not put Dem in office with numbers to withstand the REP shunt downs, plain and simple.
There are more Dems in this Country than Reps. The REP propoganda is more finely tuned. People (DEMS) become apathetic because they are brainwashed into thinking that their votes dont' mean a thing and the effort is wasted because "They're both the same", so why bother. See it here in DU all the time.
The fact that DU constantly forgets that the REPs vote as one big giant block of votes and the only thing that can counter that is a 60 seat majority, that lasts longer than 6 weeks, is way beyond me at this point.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Did I say Warren?
Don't insult me by intentionally twisting my words. The reason Warren's student loan plan failed is because there weren't enough Democrats elected, and that happened because the Democratic leadership gave us nothing to vote for (I voted straight ticket, so shut that line of insult down please) except "We ain't Republicans".
Now all we have coming down the Pike is Hillary (whose only credentials seem to be that she isn't Jeb Bush), and that is once again, nothing to vote for.
Blaming voters for this debacle is like blaming customers that keep eating at fast food chains while the better restaurant can only say, "We ain't McDonalds".
So fuck that back.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Of course back then it was Reagan Democrats. Yeah...if only people were not so short minded. Totally.
Ford_Prefect
(7,872 posts)I have heard this pathetic 3rd way rant for years. No one has ever shown stats which support it.
I know who got my party out to vote in North Carolina. I know who did the hard work to organize it here and to make sure we had every means necessary to enable as many voters as we could find.
I know who whined the loudest when we lost. I was at those meetings too!
The post-election research said over and over we had to move and motivate the "undecided and unaffiliated voters". They were the ones who saw little difference between parties. They are the ones who feel the process is so fouled up that any vote could be a waste of time! They are the ones the precinct voting records identified as no-shows.
The 3rd way crowd cannot look in the mirror and see how they are driving away votes by avoiding the reality voters live in. 3rd way insists on loyalty and party purity. They forget the most fundamental value of political life: you MUST give people something they can vote FOR! Loyalty must be EARNED. You sold the rest of the party down the river in order to raise Rahm Emanuel to the top in Chicago.
3rd way bullied our state organization to guarantee votes for Obama but did nothing to help local democrats. Neo-liberals have no place to speak from after they stripped the party of all but the most simplistic commitments to our party heritage. They want to be seen walking over the Selma bridge but won't show up when it really matters! Shame on you miserable elitists and all who sail in you.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)faction--why have they been blaming the left for everything from the Lebanon War to stubbed toes since 1988: they've basically become the MPAA of the Democratic party: they can put out pre-movie bumpers about how people recording movies are gonna make their hard-working daddy die--they're well-funded and strictly in charge, but still an open punchline that drags the whole party down, torpedoing every primary they can get their hands on
what's the genealogy of this countermovement? are they Dixiecrats? Reagan Dems? Birchers? Scoop Jackson neocons?
but they'd rather have either nonvotes or votes where the people just silently line up behind the appointed candidate and then go home afterwards: if it's worked for Latin America 1830-1990, why not the US? at least with machine poltiics you GET something out of it
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you should say ... "This is what happens when 'progressives' spend the 24 months between elections criticizing any and everything Democratic and telling anyone and everyone that will listen that there is no difference between Democrats and republicans."
I would guess that people that self-describe as "progressive", go out to vote at a higher clip than most other political descriptors because they tend towards activism ... it is what they do, and don't do, between elections that keeps them from accomplishing their political agenda.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)People should think about that. They have the money and control to influence all sides, and they encourage their side with red hot anti-government rhetoric and theocratic ravings. We laugh, but it gets votes.
For us, they have the both parties are the same mantra and your leaders are basically pond scum on your issues, might as well stay at home and rebel.
They win both ways.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)JoePhilly ... made that exact point about a year ago. And suggested (if not, said) that the both strategies/activities come from the same place.
think
(11,641 posts)why the party is in the state it's in...
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)The third way chair of the DNC refuses to campaign against Republicans.
Yep, the liberals are clearly at fault.
think
(11,641 posts)you may be accused of making a sexist comment by comparing her to a fish 
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Losing elections is ALWAYS the fault of the losing party AND it's candidates. Always.
ALWAYS.
ALWAYS.
ALWAYS.
ALWAYS.
If you can't motivate people to vote that's YOUR fault. Always.
ALWAYS.
ALWAYS.
ALWAYS.
ALWAYS.
If people won't vote for the candidates you run, that's YOUR fault. Always.
ALWAYS.
ALWAYS.
ALWAYS.
ALWAYS.
Run good candidates that WORK for the people and not the corporations and the people will show up and vote for them. Always.
ALWAYS.
ALWAYS.
ALWAYS.
ALWAYS.
And if that isn't clear to you yet, you have a bigger problem to deal with and it's not an over abundance of critical thinking skills.
840high
(17,196 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts).... Does as much damage as the GOP does, IMO.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)or is the party leadership so fucking sainted that its repeated losses are further proof only that they'd be winners if it weren't for all the electorate getting in the way?
Mnpaul
(3,655 posts)it is never the fault of party leadership(lack of). Someone else must be blamed. Where's Nader?
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?
--The Solution
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)That's cowardice sir. DEFEND the position you have taken, or retract it. Nothing less will serve.
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)Coward is the word.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)It's obvious the Republicans aren't going to help ANYBODY pay their debts off!!
Not even the American government's!!!!!
Number23
(24,544 posts)that this is what ACTUALLY happened? Seems like you are saying that things like this happen when progressives stay home, not that you are actually saying that progressives stayed home.
But don't let me interrupt the pre-emptive braying and whining about "dinos" and "Third Way" from DU's finest, for whom the phrase "a hit dog will holler" seems to have been invented.
Cha
(296,855 posts)results of not voting.
Those who stayed home and didn't vote because they saw No Difference and get Sucked in by US Mediawhore LIES.. don't have the foresight to consider Planet Earth. They'd rather whine and sit on their butts Election Day than think about future generations or help someone like Elizabeth Warren in the Senate.
Mahalo Cali
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Anyone agreeing with a demonstrable lie doesn't look real swift to the cognizant.
Cha
(296,855 posts)hobbit709
(41,694 posts)ALL the progressives/leftists voted. If you can't convince the people in the middle there's a difference their attitude becomes "Why bother, they're the same"
The TURD Way attitude is driving people away. The people start feeling they're getting screwed by both sides.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Did it ever occur to you that Democrats running as Republican-lite simply don't inspire anyone, and it's only the progressives who still turn out and vote Democratic?
neverforget
(9,436 posts)that Democrats showed up but lost because the so called "Independents" voted Republican. It's rarely responded too because the facts of the exit poll don't match the hippie punching narative. Democrats lost women.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010-midterms-political-price-economic-pain/story?id=12041739
Democrats and Republicans were at parity in self-identification nationally, 36-36 percent, a return to the close division seen in years before 2008, when it broke dramatically in the Democrats' favor, 40-33 percent.
Swing-voting independents who, as usual, made the difference, favored Republicans for House by a thumping 16 points, 55-39 percent. Compare that to Obama's 8-point win among independents in 2008. It was the Republicans' biggest win among independents in exit polls dating to 1982 (by two points. The GOP won independents by 14 points in 1994, the last time they took control of the House.)
Scuba
(53,475 posts)So stop it.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)They trot this lie out like clockwork, it doesn't matter how many times you show them actual facts. Like Republicans, they people that intentionally post this crap are impervious to facts.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)remember, they'd rather praise Jeb and Harris than praise Gore: these "true Democrats" and "true liberals" have proven that over and over--in poli sci terms it's a "particracy" they want: money goes in, votes go out, voters go home and shut up for 2 years
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)They are called low information voters, not progressives. Unfortunately, in their arrogance, think they are the smartest people in every room they have ever been in.
Still, hard to blame them for this. There is no single reason why they have the numbers. There are reasons that range in significance, but still no single group is at fault.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)here....all here on DU.
No more will I stand idly by. Every single fucking post I read with that mantra gets to be called out in no uncertain terms.
I hate the trolls and the fucking bullshit they are spreading to Dems. It's all a big fat whopping lie. When will you see that you are being led by the noserings of the likes of McConnell and that peckerhead Rove. GOP propoganda is working overtime and has been hones to a precision point accuracy....and the juvenile ideals of single issue voters are completely sucked in. It makes me sick.
G_j
(40,366 posts)you'll find that 99% of the times that meme is repeated here, it is done by those accusing some nebulous people of saying it (posts such as yours)
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)BUT...I gotta tell ya, I don't think I'm all that wrong. I have already read and responded to several of these types of posts (dem=rep) ....so it's not an empty threat or a statment made without presidence.
G_j
(40,366 posts)but nowhere near the number of times that people seem to think. There are certainly people who feel the Demicratic party has moved towards the Republicans. That's not the same. I think it's
far more difficult to find someone saying there is "no difference".
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)FWIW, even 1 is 1 too many
G_j
(40,366 posts)but you can do an onsite Google search of the "both parties are just the same" meme.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)I would tend to include those that attempt to state Hillary is promoting a Republican agenda, that Obama pushes and passes Republican ideologies, that all centrist positions are Republican "lite", etc etc. Look and ANY SINGLE FREAKING THREAD that tries to promote Obama's positive Presidential moves or makes a positive point on HRC...look any any one of them.
Why, even on this thread there are those that claim if HRC makes a SCOTUS choice it is unlikely to be a liberal or progressive appointment, she will make the same type of choice a GOP'er would make ....just look.
while you may chose to brush such examples under the rug, there are many many nuances to the Rep=Dem meme, then there are plenty that also outright make the claim...so the precious google search would come in handy.
G_j
(40,366 posts)is your quote...
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)G_j
(40,366 posts)directed at specific individuals within the party. What I thought you were talking about was the statement that 'both parties are the same'.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)post #53 refering to HRC
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)Don't let the facts get in the way of your righteous anger though.
http://graphics.wsj.com/exit-polls-2014/
Ideology: Liberals were 23% of the vote in 2014, up from 20% in 2010.
http://www.thirdway.org/third-ways-take/the-impact-of-moderate-voters-on-the-2014-midterms
There is no doubt that moderate voters were crucial to the outcome in 2014, and though Democrats won them 53% to 44% overall, it wasn’t sufficient (in fact, they did 2 points worse with moderates than in the 2010 wave).
Did liberals really stay home and cause the 2010 rout?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/06/1003805/-Did-liberals-really-stay-home-and-cause-the-2010-rout
“So I went back to the exit polls and the picture I see shows nothing like that. If you are a proponent of this claim, I challenge you for empirical proof that some set of activist liberals "took their ball and went home" or whatever metaphor you prefer to make Obama's leftward critics appear childish and immature. Inside, the evidence I found that shows this just ain't so.”
http://blogforarizona.net/do-progressives-even-sit-out-elections-the-numbers-say-no/
“As you can see, Democrats did slightly better with liberals in 2010 than in 2006. Had there really been a collective we’re-sitting-out-the-election-to-spite-Obama pout going on, then there should have been a sharp drop in the liberal participation percentage. Yet notice the 9% drop in moderate voter participation and the concomitant 10% increase in conservative turnout. Republicans were pumped for that election but their turnout tends to be higher in midterms anyway. Millions of moderate voters either flipped to conservative or stayed home in 2010.”
“As you can see, all the Democratic groups dropped, but the liberal Democrats dropped least of all”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/progressive-movement/news/2012/11/08/44348/the-return-of-the-obama-coalition/
Ideology. Liberals were 25 percent of voters in 2012, up from 22 percent in 2008. Since 1992 the percent of liberals among presidential voters has varied in a narrow band between 20 percent and 22 percent, so the figure for this year is quite unusual. Conservatives, at 35 percent, were up one point from the 2008 level, but down a massive 7 points since 2010.
Ideology. Obama received less support in 2012 from all ideology groups, though the drop-offs were not particularly sharp in any group. He received 86 percent support from liberals (89 percent in 2008), 56 percent from moderates (60 percent in 2008), and 17 percent from conservatives (20 percent in 2008).
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2010-midterms-political-price-economic-pain/story?id=12041739
Democrats and Republicans were at parity in self-identification nationally, 36-36 percent, a return to the close division seen in years before 2008, when it broke dramatically in the Democrats' favor, 40-33 percent.
Swing-voting independents who, as usual, made the difference, favored Republicans for House by a thumping 16 points, 55-39 percent. Compare that to Obama's 8-point win among independents in 2008. It was the Republicans' biggest win among independents in exit polls dating to 1982 (by two points. The GOP won independents by 14 points in 1994, the last time they took control of the House.)
G_j
(40,366 posts)as usual
neverforget
(9,436 posts)continue until moral improves.
marmar
(77,056 posts)
Sorry, but the scare tactics don't work anymore.
olddots
(10,237 posts)Its all we got .
So vote or you won't even have a dirt floor to sweep .
TheKentuckian
(25,020 posts)with the express purpose of capturing independents that has them running for the hills while causing great consternation for a fair number of the birds already in hand.
Your agenda fucking sucks ass and isn't popular and never was. Silly buggers have been beating chests for 25 years about winning 43% of the vote aka even lower than Dukakis.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)which issues you disagree with the progressives.
G_j
(40,366 posts)that it was progressives who stayed home?
I know I didn't.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)And even if I did, I'd insist that the correction be based on something true, and not something based on a lie.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)work with them to get bills passed, you are very correct in saying people needs to vote, I really don't care what one classifies themselves, voting is important.
Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)The worst Democrat is better than the best Republican....
MFrohike
(1,980 posts)Participation was up across the board in 2010 and down in 2014. But don't let facts get in the way of a convenient story.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)when they decide to "sit out elections and make waffles", hamstringing a Democrat in the sprint while allowing a RW-Republican to win the race. They contribute to the loss of Democratic power, condemning this country to go backward. Sometimes I wonder if that isn't their ultimate goal and reason for being on DU.
