To the Lazy Lefties and Slothful Centrists: F*** all y’all.

[riqster]

Disclaimer: I seriously doubt if we have many (if any) of this sort of person at DU. The post is directed to those who read, but who aren't activists, or do not participate, but somehow expect the country to be run the way they would like.

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2014/03/12/to-the-lazy-lefties-and-slothful-centrists-f-all-yall/

"Once again, we see just how screwed we are as a nation: Dems and their lassitude lost another election because too many of them were too f***ing lazy to cast a f***ing ballot. So now we have a corporate whore, lobbyist, and proto-Teabagger winning the FL-13 special election. And he won because Teabaggers and “Republicans” turn out and vote in off-year elections, but Dem voters can’t be bothered to spend a few minutes to vote, once every couple of years.

And it’s not like Democrats don’t know about the problem; Hell, the punditocracy is constantly talking about it. Obama has been bringing the issue up ad nauseum. And when Dems get off their asses, they tend to win.

But this time, the lazy left and slothful center have once again screwed the pooch by inaction. Another corrupt, lying, partisan Wingnut is headed to a Congress that is already full of such creatures. And a sensible, factual, hard-working public servant is staying in Florida.

It is the fault of lazy voters who are so stupid, unmotivated, and useless that they can’t even scribble on a piece of paper and mail it; or drive a few miles and poke at a computer screen for two minutes.

F*** all “citizens” who let us down this week. And the same for all those who do the same later this year."

Source material at the link.

[pipoman]

1. Lefties have long outnumbered righties

Righties usually have a better turnout. ..been that way for a long time. If the same percentage of people claiming to be dems went to the polls as those claiming to be retugs, dems would win every time.

[riqster]

2. S'truth. Sad and infuriating.

[Fumesucker]

4. Red meat, people turn out for red meat

The right at least acts like they are throwing the base red meat, they talk about throwing red meat to the base.

Those supposedly opposed to the right talk about rice cakes and communion wafers.

[riqster]

7. Nice analogy nt

[pipoman]

41. Obama has given red meat to the base

Not as much as I would like, but he has. We are in election mode now, both parties will be courting the center until 2015 now.

[Rex]

46. You need moderates to win an election.

Hopefully they will show up, unlike in 2010.

[riqster]

62. True.

That's why they were included in my rant.

[Rex]

79. I appreciate you being fair about it.

Since we both know how depressingly few people go and vote. IMO, you don't vote - you don't have the right to complain.

[riqster]

82. Me too. That is one reason to vote

...we humans DO love to bitch, don't we?

[Rex]

83. I think besides curiosity, it is our number one trait.

We are GOOD at it!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

98. sadly, i suspect "moderates" use that name to cover

A moderate amount of interest.

They're smart enough to know something's wrong with the "right", but aren't motivated enough to get outraged and do anything.

They want "the facts" handed to them on a silver platter, because they havent gotten the message about repuke talking points that have permeated the Commons.

Also, a day off work, and a ride to front seat at the polls.

[riqster]

106. Sounds plausible.

[BlueCaliDem]

60. Exactly!

The AlwaysWrongRight know how to hurl red meat into the sea of hateful sheep that vote for them.

Democrats and Liberals need to learn that skill. We just can't seem to get our people out in midterms - even presidential elections.

Voting should be mandatory, like in Australia where you get fined for not voting.

[riqster]

65. Or give a tax credit FOR voting.

And make Election Day a holiday.

[lostincalifornia]

35. to play devils advocate then why have traditionally blue states gone purple?

Penn., Wisconsin, and others

The so called ray gun "democrats" which at the time included labor caused Carters loss and the country's unfortunate shift to the right

Why do people vote against their own interest?

[pipoman]

37. A different question

My belief is...If all voters were put on a continuum, the far left and right would be about 20%, 80% would be in the center left or center right. Every election is decided by slight movements left or right at the center. This is why both sides court the center instead of those firmly left or right.

[lostincalifornia]

43. I agree with that, but to the original point, I am far from convinced that the left outnumbers the

right.

[Scuba]

3. Fear and hate are powerful motivators.

[riqster]

8. True. But fear of even more Teabaggery doesn't seem to motivate many who vote Dem.

And after seeing how much damage Teapubs have done, voters should be scared shitless.

[Scuba]

13. Yeah, but our side doesn't really call them out on it. We've never made voters afraid of Teabillies.

[riqster]

15. True. There is the whole "stare into the abyss too long" bit to consider.

But you'd think people would notice, after a while: "I didn't vote. The other guy won. Things suck. Maybe I should vote."

It isn't "Rocket Scientry", after all.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

99. i think the time lapse between cause and effect is too long.

Recent experience falls into the memory hole with the next fanfare of the Pravda US media newsfotainment cycle.

Also, judging from discussions with colleagues, there are many who support liberal values, but truly think ALL politicians lie yet know zero about a variety of actual events, which the M$M carefully keeps away from the airwaves.

[riqster]

100. You are probably right about that. nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. But honestly ...

is that fear being communicated?

A lot of what I hear is "We're not the gop" is not a good enough message ... when I would argue that is exactly the message that needs to be communicated!

"The gop has done this and that and the other to you ... kick them out so that I can do ..."

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. So very, very true ...

The other day, I posted links to a couple academic studies showing that people are far more moved to action to prevent a loss, than to acquire a gain ... republicans seem to know this and frame their entire campaigns, not around "what I will do for you"; but rather, "what I will stop from happening to you." And, people respond by coming out to vote in mid-term special elections..

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Personally, I never blame the audience, it gets you no where. Sink sucked.

The Florida Democratic Party is a disgrace. She lectured about bipartisanism during a partisan election. She announced that Democrats will never, ever control the House, during an election to win a Democratic House seat. Sink sucked, and she was the candidate because the FDP is a disgrace.

[riqster]

6. Fair points, but voters are not the audience.

Voters are supposed to be the key decision-makers, not passive observers. Such passivity is a core weakness of ours.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Audience is not passive either. The point is, if you can't draw the people, it's on you.

No one is owed anyone's vote, laugh, applause or even presence. To assume one is entitled to those things is the fasted way to loose those things.
Sink lost her election with the help of the Florida Democratic Party. They could have won, but they are too much like Republicans to defeat Republicans. She spoke of bipartisanship and her opponent spoke as a partisan, she said 'either way is good' while he said 'she is unacceptable, as is her Party'.
She lost. She failed to win. It is on her and the leadership, period.

[riqster]

11. That post is, itself, an argument for passivity.

It de-emphasizes the voter's role in participatory democracy, leaving them as consumers who do nothing unless sufficiently motivated by parties and candidates. It also absolves voters of all blame, casting it all on the elected officials.

I must vehemently disagree with that philosophy. Why even have elections if the voters are such marginalized and disengaged parts of the process?

No, we the people have the responsibility to do our part. The public is not blameless.

[Maedhros]

36. If there is passivity here, the lion's portion of the blame goes to the candidate.

Votes are earned. Candidates can't just show up on election day and expect their side to vote them in.

The bottom line is that Sink did not motivate Democratic voters, while her opponent motivated Republican voters.

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. Wow ...

Audience is not passive either. The point is, if you can't draw the people, it's on you. No one is owed anyone's vote, laugh, applause or even presence. To assume one is entitled to those things is the fasted way to loose those things.

I completely agree!

[riqster]

63. I'll quote a counterpoint

"If you can't be bothered to vote because a candidate just didn't wow you enough, didn't get you psyched up enough, well, that might be partly the candidates fault, but it's also your fault for acting like it's all about you rewarding the candidate for impressing you, and forgetting that it's ultimately about what kind of government you end up with, and if, unimpressed by a particular candidate or not, you wouldn't have been better off with a lackluster politician than his or her opponent."

The voters should be in the saddle. For too long, we have put the onus on our candidates and given ourselves a pass. It's high fucking time we remembered how this country was set up and took responsibility for what we own.

[1StrongBlackMan]

74. I ove it ...

wait ... that means that I have to DO something. Nahhh ... I'd rather whine about what THEY didn't do!

[riqster]

75. Yeah, that is the sneaky subtext.

[Silent3]

59. This has nothing to do with anyone being entitled to anything.

A better, more informed, more activist electorate would look at votes as something they owe to themselves, not to the candidate. Thinking of the vote, or the office a vote possibly leads to, as something the candidate is working for like a prize, a reward, or something earned isn't the best way to think about voting.

It should be (or at least half-way should be) the voters thinking about what kind of government they're going to earn for themselves when they cast their own votes, and when they encourage others to vote.

If you can't be bothered to vote because a candidate just didn't wow you enough, didn't get you psyched up enough, well, that might be partly the candidates fault, but it's also your fault for acting like it's all about you rewarding the candidate for impressing you, and forgetting that it's ultimately about what kind of government you end up with, and if, unimpressed by a particular candidate or not, you wouldn't have been better off with a lackluster politician than his or her opponent.

[DonCoquixote]

61. signature worthy

"If you can't be bothered to vote because a candidate just didn't wow you enough, didn't get you psyched up enough, well, that might be partly the candidates fault, but it's also your fault for acting like it's all about you rewarding the candidate for impressing you, and forgetting that it's ultimately about what kind of government you end up with, and if, unimpressed by a particular candidate or not, you wouldn't have been better off with a lackluster politician than his or her opponent."

[Fumesucker]

64. We go to the polls with the electorate we have, not the electorate we wish we had

h/t Rumsferatu..

Voters are smart enough by now to realize that the government they are promised by the candidates doesn't much resemble the government they actually get when those candidates are elected.

Candidates who give the impression to the voters that they actually mean what they say tend to get votes even if what they say is nuts.

[steve2470]

10. Seniors are heavily Republican and...

tend to turn out heavily even in off-year elections. Hence, I'm not surprised Jolly won. Sink was not a good candidate for FL governor, so I'm not shocked she lost a House race.

[riqster]

12. Thing is, she was doing well leading up to the election.

Better than she did in her previous outing. We even had a Libertarian siphoning votes from Jolly. This was winnable.

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. Actually, ...

I read in a article link here in DU that the libertarian candidate likely siphoned off more votes from Sink.

[riqster]

34. Wow. Link?

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. I'll look for it ...

I recall it was in one of the "why Democrats need not panic over the Sink results" threads.

[riqster]

50. Thanks.

[PhilSays]

14. There are no valid excuses not to go vote. Ever.

Even if the candidates are not ideal, it's your duty to get off your ass and go vote.

I have no respect for people that sit out any election, big or small.

There's always a candidate to vote AGAINST if you're not keen on voting for their challenger.

Don't allow people to give excuses for their laziness. If you don't get off the couch and go to the ballot box, you're a bad American. Simple as that.

[riqster]

16. I typically vote against Repubes. But I always do that at least.

[greatlaurel]

21. Well Said

That is it in a nutshell. I am sick and tired of the rightwing propaganda on this site encouraging people to not vote for a Democratic candidate because they are not the perfect progressive. The right has been extraordinarily effective in depressing Democratic voters since the Nixon years using the "they are all crooks" theme while energizing the right wing nut voters that Democrats will take away their guns and prayers while killing babies.

We see it here on DU all the time with the anti-Clinton propaganda. I am all for calling out Democrats when they side with the corporations, but out right saying you will not vote for Clinton if she wins the Democratic nomination is right wing propaganda. It also depresses the vote for all Democrats when we see that sort of thing over and over. Another example, is the complaining about Ms. Sink. Saying it is all her fault is playing right into the GOP playbook to suppress Democratic voters. I have less problem pointing out the problems of the state Democratic organizations. Some of them seem like they are operated to help the GOP win, that includes my state of Ohio.

Great post. Thanks.

[riqster]

22. Another Buckeye here.

I know people who don't vote because the state party pissed them off. WTF?

Yeah, I think Redfern is 10 pounds of crap in a 5-pound bag, but that is no justification for sitting it out.

[1StrongBlackMan]

38. Buckeye in Exile, here ...

Couldn't agree more with you and the previous poster.

And I can't help but think that a lot of this talk is by design to do exactly that ... discourage Democratic voters.

[Demo_Chris]

17. Get used to the feeling, because you will experience it a lot in '14 and '16...

We have spent the last six years proving that we don't give a fuck about anyone outside the 1%. Our master plan is to do whatever the oligarchs direct while blaming the GOP. The only thing we are apparently good at is illegally spying on the people.

[riqster]

18. If we get off our asses and vote, that can change.

If we do not, it will not.

[Demo_Chris]

19. We elected Obama with a majority in the house and a SUPER in the Senate...

There was literally nothing on god's earth to stop them from passing NewDeal2009 along with a thousand other liberal reforms.

Instead they extended (and have now made permanent) the Bush tax cuts, and passed the greatest corporate welfare program in American history with the Heritage Foundation authored GOPCare. From that bold beginning we have evolved into the party of austerity = prosperity and Big Brother you see today. We are down to celebrating Obama performing poorly on youtube comedy skits because that's all we have left to celebrate.

Get out the vote and reelect these fuckers? Seriously?

[riqster]

20. A bare majority in the House , and not a practical super in the senate.

The devil's in the details. Remember that we didn't actually have all of our senators seated, healthy, and present. And even that theoretical majority lasted only a matter of weeks. So your thesis is fatally flawed and thus fails.

On edit: a link to prove my point: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/did-the-democrats-ever-really-have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/

Then we lost the House because too many Dems followed your "perfection or nothing" ideology in 2010 and didn't fucking vote.

So you advocate a repeat of 2010? Sit it out? Really? I mean, seriously, really? Why, because it is working so well for us?

Christ on a trampoline.

[Demo_Chris]

24. It wasn't perfection or nothing, it was nothing FOR nothing

They sent Obama to Washington with unprecedented majorities in both houses of Congress and all they got in exchange were excuses and votes in favor of the very things Democrats had told them they would vote against. Obama himself vowed to veto any health care reform that lacked a public option, then took the public option off the table the minute the votes were counted. Kinda like jow he spent the last election pledging that he wouldn't touch social security, then he offered to destroy it before he was sworn in for his second term.

Your position is weak. You claim that they had a super majority in the Senate, but not a big enough super majority, and they had a majority in the house, but they just need a bigger one. Always more, more, more, Democratic representatives need more, and until then they just have no fucking choice but to shrug and pass GOP legislations.

My position is this: if this is the best that they can do then there is no point wasting our time voting for them, because we are never going to get better. We need to send this batch of jackass clowns home and start over with new Representatives who will actually fight for the things they pledge to fight for.

[riqster]

27. You are ignoring facts.

Obama NEVER had "unprecedented majorities" in either house. Your argument is based on a lie.

You want to see huge majorities? Look at two-thirds of the Congresses Roosevelt had to work with. Compare the numbers to what Obama had.

Your argument fails because it is not based in reality. All it is is emotional venting.

[1StrongBlackMan]

40. exactly. eom.

[Demo_Chris]

45. Tell it to the voters. In the mentime compare what we handed Obama to what other Presidents had...

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

The whole "It's the nasty mean Republican's fault!" talking point would probably work better had our party actually tried to pass the legislation they were elected to pass. They didn't pass it, they did not even try, and in too many cases to list they went to Washington and they did the exact opposite of what they promised.

Six years of excuses and bowing to their corporate owners.

[Maedhros]

39. 2006: "Give us a majority in the House so we can get subpoena power!"

2007: Immediately after winning the House majority, "We need to keep our powder dry for the Presidential election, so no subpoenas."

2008: Obama rides a wave of popular support into the White House, Democrats maintain a majority in the House and gain a majority in the Senata.

2009: "We must look forward, not backward."

They will keep promising us things to win our votes, and they will keep breaking those promises. This will not change until we show them that unless they make good on their promises, we won't vote for them anymore.

[Demo_Chris]

47. Many here would vote for Dick Cheney if he changed party. nt

[NYC Liberal]

23. Bullshit.

If you think there was "nothing to stop them" in 2009, you haven't a clue as to the reality of the situation. Where were you? There was incredible obstruction -- unprecedented, in fact. That "supermajority" included people like Joe Lieberman and Blue Dog conservadems.

The ACA is a starting point, but it is an incredible one that is helping millions of people. We'd have NOTHING if we'd stamped our feet and held our breath and refused to support anything but the bestest most perfect bill -- that also NEVER would have passed. Some here wanted us to do that and thankfully it didn't happen.

Extending the tax cuts was not done in a vacuum, and to leave out the other part of the equation is dishonest. It was done because the Repugs refused to allow the extension of unemployment benefits otherwise. Refusing to extend the tax cuts would have meant millions of people - including kids - going hungry and without heat in the middle of a brutal winter. So sure, we could have refused to compromise. And fucked over millions of poor folks struggling just to survive.

Not everyone is secretly a liberal who would support every progressive law if Obama et al "would just fight for it". Almost half the country voted for Mitt-fucking-Romney - the perfect poster boy of the "one percent" - last time.

[dionysus]

26. +10000. the fillibustering blue dogs always get a pass.

Lieberman and a handful of blue dogs would have filibustered a public option, never mind the republicans.

but we're supposed to believe we would have had single payer if not for mean ol' Obama...

and most of the tax rates returned to Clinton levels. I believe one bracket kept them... so the bush tax cuts weren't "made permanent", either...

with attitudes like that, and by distorting facts, no wonder we lose..

[Demo_Chris]

48. Would have? Show me the vote. Which Democrats vote against a public option? nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

54. Yes! nt

[Demo_Chris]

28. You are talking GOP obstruction AFTER we flushed our majorities...

In any case, feel free to write the history in whatever was makes you feel good. Here's what's going to happen in 2014 and 2016. The American people are going to kick our party in the teeth, we will have bloody well earned it, and these forums will be flooded with posts blaming liberals for our loses.

The American people will be offered a choice between two parties:

Democrats: who after six YEARS still have us locked into a war in Afghanistan and who are merrily slaughtering men, women, and children across the middle east with our drone murders. We are the party of the police state and corporation, the party of domestic spying, the party who thought BP was the perfect company to decide when the Gulf was clean enough, who thinks a toxic pipeline across the breadbasket of America is a swell idea, and which thinks fracking is fucking awesome. We are now the party of Free Trade and the party fighting to gut Social Security.

Six years of hopelessness and stagnation and depression, no hope in sight, and we are claiming that the economy is fine and even if it's not we have no fucking clue or plan how to fix it. Six years is a long time, and all we've gotten out of it is excuses and lies.

And then there's the GOP. They're like Democrats, except they have some crazy Christians in the fringes and they claim they know how to get the economy moving again. That's how the American people are going to see them, and after the midterms the party leadership is going to kick social conservatives to the curb and focus on '16.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

55. Great post. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

51. Your post is replete with the notion that Magician Obama has absolute control

That's pure fantasy.

[Puzzledtraveller]

90. You said it

And "they" hate hearing it. There is a lot of these folk here, who are more about being just anti-republican than anything else. This attitude insures that eventually the only difference will be the color and the letter. Ego plays a large role in this attitude as it shields them from realities that do not "compute" as if they could ever be wrong, about anything. I flat out asked someone here a while back who constantly defended, and still does, the illegal spying as they also try to make the message about the messenger in their demonization of anyone who dares challenge the oligarchs if they would also be defending a republican administration, all else being the same and they quickly and unabashedly stated no. That person probably thinks they are a good American, and a good Democrat.

[flpoljunkie]

25. Here's your typical Republican voter…

[dionysus]

29. !!

[bluestate10]

49. Doesn't matter, they show up in off years, we don't show up. As a result, they are setting

an agenda that they should have lost control of a decade ago.

[flpoljunkie]

69. Somehow Dems must be persuaded to vote in mid-term elections

Mr. President...

[Art_from_Ark]

78. It's the party that is out of the White House that makes a showing in mid-terms

at the national level, and it's been that way, with only 3 exceptions, since at least 1910.

[riqster]

81. And we very much need an exception this year. Nt

[Art_from_Ark]

109. Yes, we do

It's interesting that two of those three exceptions have occurred during the terms of Obama's immediate predecessors-- Clinton in 1998, and bu$h in 2002. I think the reasons for those exceptions were a public backlash against the clowns in the Clinton impeachment circus in 1998, and public support for bu$h's year-old war against Afghanistan in 2002. Maybe there will be public backlash against the Teabaggers this year that will swing the pendulum towards the Democrats.

[riqster]

110. Maybe so, but let's help it happen.

[Art_from_Ark]

111. Well, I'll do what I can

I will vote for the Dems on my state's ballot, including Senator Pryor, even though I would much rather have his dad in there. However, my Congressional district is a lost cause since there is only a Libertarian running against the incumbent Republican

[riqster]

113. Yeah, my district will go Red.

I'll still try to make it closer. Frustrating.

[Art_from_Ark]

112. There may be a glimmer of hope in Arkansas for the House

I see that the field for the 2nd District (not mine) is wide open, with the incumbent Republican retiring and 3 Republicans vying for the nomination, versus only one Democratic challenger who is a former mayor of North Little Rock. The district includes Little Rock and North Little Rock which are traditional Democratic strongholds in the state.

The Democratic challenger's name, by the way, is Patrick Hays.

http://ballotpedia.org/Patrick_Hays

[riqster]

114. Go get 'em!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

52. That's a perfect description of a GOP!! Love it. nt

[Jamaal510]

58. Disturbing image, but accurate. eom

[0rganism]

44. "Dem voters can’t be bothered to spend a few minutes to vote" - give me a break

That right there shows a misunderstanding of the problem. Democratic voters are often working class and live in more densely-populated districts. Republicans are often retired or people who can afford to take a day off, and tend to live in lightly-populated areas. Thanks to Republican domination of state voting infrastructures, there can be 10 voting machines to service 1000 rural voters and 10 voting machines to service 30000 urban voters. Add in the new voter ID laws, and what you get is a real pain in the ass for a lot of people who might otherwise want to vote.

When a Democrat votes in an off-year election, they're probably taking time off of work to do it, and it probably takes a lot more than "a few minutes". Excoriating those who fail to vote is a lot less credible than thanking those who did, regardless of the outcome.

IMHO, of course.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

53. You're right. Many are. Some Dems, however, think that by sabotaging Dem elections...

something magical will happen and the country will turn around magically.

[riqster]

68. As was said in 2000 by third-party types,

They wanted Bush to win. The idea was, let the public suffer so they'd move to the Left en masse.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

96. And it didn't happen. That tactic never, ever works. Handing power to the enemy is never bright

It leads to nothing good. Ever.

[riqster]

97. But some people still believe in it. Sad.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

102. I agree. It's tantrum-like behavior. Strategy helps. Tantrums don't. nt

[riqster]

66. I specified "lazy" throughout my post.

Many others are prevented from voting. That is not laziness.

[0rganism]

107. fair enough, but i think you'd find a lot less "lazy" voters under less-preventive circumstances

When the commitment to cast a vote is a 2-hour trip to a local precinct hall including a short hassle-free wait in line and filling out a clear, easy-to-read ballot, people will vote like the dickens.

When the commitment is leaving your hourly job early to engage in a 12-16 hour ordeal, including standing outside in inclement weather, followed by getting fucked with by some GOP-activist poll watcher, to gain access to a beat-up flaky touch screen machine that misrecords votes or maybe just fill out a provisional ballot that will probably never be used, well that's going to depress turnout. It takes some real high-profile campaigning with strong party leadership to get people to make that kind of sacrifice, the kind of sacrifice it took to get winning turnout in 2006, 2008, and 2012.

This situation did not arise by coincidence, but by design. Discouraging liberal turnout is the #1 mechanism conservatives have for winning elections, when they bother to win them legitimately.

Now I'm not going to say that there are no lazy Democratic voters, and to them your criticism might be fairly leveraged. However, I'm also not convinced that they compose the main ingredient in our recent midterm losses. On the other hand, there are a lot of discouraged voters who don't want to face down the bullshit that awaits them in the off-year elections, and without some major changes in our GOTV systems, they will remain discouraged and continue to show up only for national elections. And every off-year, the conservatives who dominate most state legislatures will gain the opportunity to make it harder and harder for Democrats to vote. It's a vicious cycle, and we need leaders who are ready to put some serious effort into turning it back the other way.

One thing I'd like to see is making the November election day a national holiday. That alone would significantly change the whole dynamic.

[riqster]

108. There are a fair few of each - lazy and prevented.

I am a loud and constant election integrity advocate, so I'm hip to what you're saying. That is why the lazy specification was called out repeatedly.

Hell, I have to vote absentee because I can't get time off to do it in person. I agree, national holiday: I think a tax credit should also be given to voters.

[delrem]

56. My experience of electoral maps at campaign headquarters during an election

is that amongst other things they (I'm "of the left" so have a no-doubt imbalanced experience) painted districts demographically in terms of relative affluence. And those maps inspired the greatest scrutiny.

It wouldn't matter to the maps whether some neighbourhood designated "affluent" in terms of my country and my city weren't quite so affluent according as some other criterion. Affluence is relative. What mattered was that in terms of voter turnout there was a persistent and recordable proof that potential for voter turnout rose as income rose -- so those maps demonstrated how the poor fucked themselves over in each and every election cycle.

[Auntie Bush]

57. Let's face it...too many Dems don't get off their asses and vote, soooooo

accept the fact! Don't push the word "vote". Say go get your absentee ballets and mail them in and you won't have to miss work, stand in line or whatever. Write and ask for an absentee ballet! It's so much easier and your wishes will have a chance to be heard. In other words...SELL the idea of applying for an absentee ballet.

I'll bet it never occurred to many people to do that because they are not going to be absent. They think it's only for those who can't vote because there not going to be home to do it in person. EDUCATE them!

[Jamastiene]

87. And most of the unaffiliated people who do not vote,

are progressives who do not even know they are progressives. That means there are potential Democrats galore out there.

[idendoit]

67. Persuasion isn't about getting someone to do what you want.

It's about giving them reasons to do what they want.

[riqster]

73. Very true.

[LWolf]

70. I always wonder why

people write and post to people who aren't present in the forum they are writing in to read it. It doesn't make sense to me.

[riqster]

71. Lurkers abound, and so do unregistered readers.

Anyone can read posts on DU; to comment, etc, you need an account.

But lots of people just read.

[LWolf]

85. "I seriously doubt if we have many (if any) of this sort of person at DU."

That seems to contradict this:

"Lurkers abound, and so do unregistered readers."

Personally, I think it's more a rhetorical device to preface a rant that isn't expressed to the primary audience.

I'd rather see people speak directly to the primary audience; it seems kind of inefficient and ineffective to post rants to the wrong group.

Kind of like hoping your boss sees you kick your dog.

[riqster]

88. I should have said "registered users" or such.

A fair point. Thanks, I will keep it in mind.

This also got posted outside of DU, and there is NO such disclaimer in those environs.

[LWolf]

89. Good to hear. nt

[NM_Birder]

72. It's part of a recruiting campaign,

"Fuck All Ya'll" is the motivational expression meant to inspire and motivate the casual reader into believing in the Democratic Underground feeling of "unity" toward a common political goal.

[LWolf]

86. In that case,

it's an epic failure.

[NM_Birder]

105. of course it is, yet excuses abound.

Anyone that might be snooping around for political awareness, that happens upon DU, ....... it could easily seem like the most hate filled site around.

On any given day, FUCK the Rethugs, Rethugs are FUCKING morans, How can FuCKING re-thugs be allowed to exist, and on and on and on are threads with a symphony of agreement.

question the pre-approved status quo, regardless how questionable it is, and that post will be attacked with the same relentless vigor. The behavior isn't rare, all political websites are designed and monitored to create the largest amount of unified hate as possible, and split groups apart into specific mono-message themes that point fingers at every other mono-themed group, as stupid.

The gory answer is, people today are not entertained with the truth anymore, the only thing that get attention is an overinflated sense of self importance, an over exaggeration of some facts along with ignorance to the entire story, in short, .......... the biggest flash bang LOOK AT ME is all that matters, regardless the truth.

It's not just one site or another, they all do it. It's all theatre, rational people don't talk like that in life because nobody pays attention to stupidity. On-line, with anonymity, .......... everyone is a crusader.

[winter is coming]

95. It's easier to "win" arguments when your opponent isn't around?? n/t

[riqster]

104. Turns out, a few of them are here.

Surprising, people on this board who advocate NOT trying to elect Dems. I mean, it's in the DU TOS.

I am a firm and consistent advocate for electing Dems, because the Reeps are an obvious cancer on the country. Why anyone here would oppose such a stance is a mystery to me.

I get argued with on the blog and by email when people either do not wish to join here, or who read it via another channel. So, posting here is no protection (shit, I get death threats on the blog site).

[sendero]

76. When Democrats give people..

... a REASON to vote for them, they will vote. When their message is just "we don't suck quite as hard as the other guy", who gives a shit?

2010 and this election are not rocket science and people who don't understand what is going on baffle me. NOBODY is going to GET OFF THEIR ASS to vote for something that is .0001% better. In the case of 2010 it was clear there was going to be NO REAL CHANGE, so people said "fuck it".

Figure it out.

[riqster]

77. OK, I was wrong in my OP.

There ARE People like that on DU. Several on this thread alone. Including you.

So you really think there is no difference between Bush and Obama? Between the parties? Christ on a pogo stick.

A vote for anything other than a Dem (and that includes not voting) is a vote for Repubes. So you are a supporter of the GOP.

Why are you even on a board that is intended to elect Dems, since by your own admission, you have no interest in doing any such thing?

[sendero]

80. Not "no" difference..

.... just not enough difference for many people to care. People who are struggling to survive and see things just getting worse and worse no matter who is in office. Reps do the god, guns and gays dance, and Democrats have no cultural equivalent, nothing to rile their base, or when they do, refuse to frame these issues with any facility.

There is another component, passion. The right, from the lowest councilman to the president, relays their views with PASSION and Democrats by and large do not.

It's a good thing that demographics are on our side for the longer term, otherwise Democrats would have little chance of ever taking real power again, unless the economy falls further and the new New Deal is mandated.

[riqster]

84. To quote your post:

"In the case of 2010 it was clear there was going to be NO REAL CHANGE, so people said "fuck it"."

That is the lazy way out, and is why we lose. Blaming the party for not being wonderful enough is a slacker cop-out.

[sendero]

91. No...

... we lose because when we were given the power we did nothing with it. Yes, people DO tend to decide not to keep doing the same thing if there is no good result.

[riqster]

92. Not true.

Obama and other Dems may not have done enough, but to say that "nothing" has been done is false on the face of it.

[sendero]

93. "Nothing"...

... as compared to the promises made. "Nothing" compared to what Bush was already doing, which most of the country was well sick of.

Study after study has shown that independents, independents who voted for Obama, stayed home in 2010. If you need a weatherman to understand why I cannot help you.

You are free to have the last word, neither of us are going to change their minds about this.

[riqster]

94. I respect data.

And the data says that more of us have jobs, insurance, and are home instead of at war, than was the case when Obama was sworn in.

And if such data matters not to you, then you may not be moveable. But that is sad.

[Trajan]

101. That is your blog, correct?

[riqster]

103. Says so on my profile.

Last edited Thu Mar 13, 2014, 02:43 PM - Edit history (1)

On edit: I like your Disraeli quote. Fantastic.