Can we stop with the "Your candidate will energize the Republicans to vote" posts?

[beaconess]

The "Hillary will increase Republican turnout," "Obama will bring out the racists," blah blah blah argument is getting really wearisome.

Here's my take - we should NEVER decide who we will support based upon a fear of how the Republicans will react. That is tantamount to allowing them to pick our nominee. Do we really want our standard bearer to be the Democrat the Republicans are most comfortable with? (How would Joe Lieberman work for you?) I don't care how many extra Republican votes our nominee attracts - since I'm certain that whomever we pick can STILL get more votes.

Have you heard a single Republican whine about whether any of THEIR potential nominees might upset the Democrats so much that it will increase our turnout? I haven't. Instead, I see them going right on about the business of selecting the person THEY want, without paying the least bit of attention to what the Democrats think they should do.

Instead of worrying about how the Republicans will react to our nominee, we need to select a nominee that WE think will make the best president and then work like hell to get out the vote. There are more than enough Democrats - and disaffected Republicans - to create a groundswell of support and elect a Democrat in a landslide - if we campaign hard and go after them and seek their votes.

But, in my view, it's ridiculous, counter-productive and ultimately self-defeating to try to convince people to support YOUR candidate by arguing that opposing candidates will bring out the Republican vote.

[NMDemDist2]

1. if Jesus H. Christ ran as a Democrat it would 'energize their base'

no matter who we pick the Pukes will make them into the devil complete with pitchfork and tail.

[beaconess]

2. Exactly!

The fact that the Republicans are going ape over Hillary means that, at least for now, she's the one they see as most formidible. If Obama or Edwards or Biden overtake her in the polls, THEY will be the new target.

Unfortunately, many Democrats fall right into the trap!

[acmavm]

6. Exactly. No matter who the candidate is the end is the same. They don't

want (obviously duh!) to let go of the power, of control. The can't afford to. They have more than their jobs to lose. They have everything they've gained over the last few years going down the toilet if they lose. They're going to lose what's left of their benefactor's if they lose control and can't do them any favors. More than a few (if there is any justice left in this country) might just have a prison cell in their future's if they lose control.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

3. Yes, yes and yes! K & R.

When will the institutional Democratic leaders stop making the foundation of the policies they craft one of not upsetting the Republics?

Good post! :kick: MKJ

[beberocks]

4. Yep! The MSM is just dying to swiftboat whomever the nominee is.

They've just been warming up--just remember what a cow they had over the price of John Edwards haircuts and the Osama--oops, I meant Obama crap. Repukes are so hateful and brainwashed they be energized by any Dem candidate.

[rucky]

5. It's a legitimate factor.

But only one of many, and definitely not the most important - unless we nominated Carrot Top or something.

[slick8790]

10. I agree.

Of course it's not the first factor we should be looking at, but it's to be considered. The way I look at it is, more than likely the GOP are gonna nominate a) a semi-liberal pro-gay right, pro gun control NYC mayor, b) a mormon, or c) someone who's recently been shot down by james dobson and has a reputation of laziness. If we pick someone who doens't infuriate republican enough to make them vote against them, i think a decent amount of repub voters might just stay home.

[iamjoy]

7. They Will Swiftboat Anyone

if they could try to make a war hero look like a traitor, they will attempt anything. This time we must be ready.

Speaking of which, where was the Senate resolution condemning the Swift Boat Lies in 2004? Hmmmm....

[old guy]

8. I hear ya!

[Sparkly]

9. Hear, hear!!

:applause:

[emilyg]

11. Kick

[bettyellen]

12. the Republicans want Hilary to run because they know she will energise their base

is there something wrong with acknowledging the truth of that?

[Rageneau]

13. Yes, if 'by 'acknowledging the truth' you mean 'wild prognostication.'

In the first place, LET the godammed wingnut base be motivated! I hope they ALL vote, and that we win in a landslide anyway. At least that will keep them from bitching for four years that they *would* have won if only they'd turned out in big numbers.

In the second place, Hillary is going to win over a lot more former Bush voters than anyone yet appreciates (my prognostication). Because, like her or not, she excudes competency, and this coming election, American voters are going to prize competency as never before.

[creeksneakers2]

20. The GOP does not want Hillary

They are terrified about her. Another thread today exposed a Justice Department plot that started in 2001 to get Hillary with campaign finance investigations. Just last week the right wing was carrying out a synthetic slime uproar that tried to trap Hillary on the MoveOn.org ad, which she had nothing to do with making. There's endless coverage of Hsu with nothing about Romney's fundraiser getting indicted.

No matter who the Democrats nominate, the big sludge landslide is coming. The question is, which candidate can fight back.

All the candidates refused to vote for the MoveOn.org condemnation in the Senate. That shows me they get what's its all about and they'd all make good candidates.

[bettyellen]

21. lots of GOPers have touted her. they talk as if it's a fait accompli

and it's wishful thinking.

[Perry Logan]

14. Good point. For some reason, Democrats love to believe what Republicans want them to believe.

It's a very strange criticism. A candidate who doesn't "energize" the enemy's base is probably not a very good candidate.

[Vincardog]

15. Exactly we should be talking about how any candidate represents OUR values.

The fact that candidate H for example might turn out the rePIGS to vote against him does not matter as much as his stand on the issues. Does he stand with us or with the corporatist REpigs?

[PurityOfEssence]

16. We shouldn't; it's a valid point: different people have different vulnerabilities

We should be fighting an offensive and defensive campaign.

No ideas should be shut out of the debate; the more we parse this crap out, the better our chances.

[Sapphire Blue]

17. Kicked & HIGHLY Recommended

:kick: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[robinlynne]

18. great advice! Now if you can just convince congress to do the same....

[fenriswolf]

19. i agree

i agree so much with that statement that we should not pander to the republicans, i think we should go even further. I think we should not pander to the democrats who want to get behind someone who is ahead in the polls, i think we should just focus on a positive president who really represents our ideals and beliefs and who will protect those interests. Dennis Kucinich for president