Voting for Dems shouldn't be "a defensive crouch to prevent the insane sociopaths from taking over."

[madfloridian]

I am not sure I completely agree with that statement, but I am pretty close to doing so.

I will vote for Democrats because I know the dangers of not doing so. I have always voted. I don't remember a time when I did not vote. I am an informed voter who sometimes votes for the better of two candidates because one is likely over the edge and the other is far better.

It is not those like me we need to worry about. It is the apolitical, uninformed, mostly unconcerned voter who doesn't keep up with issues and the news.

A Hullaballoo post says it better than I can.

Alternatively, Democrats could give midterm voters something to believe in

Obama was totally correct in what he said recently:

“The challenge is that our politics in Washington have become so toxic that people just lose faith,” Obama told a group of top Democratic donors gathered at the home of former Miami Heat star Alonzo Mourning. “They say, ‘Y’know what, it doesn’t matter, I’m not that interested, I’m not gonna vote.’ And that’s especially true during the midterms.”

....“But in midterms, we get clobbered, either because we don’t think it’s important or because we get so discouraged about what’s happening in Washington that we think it’s not worth our while. And the reason today is so important, and the reason that I’m so appreciative for all of you being here is because we’re going to have to get over that. This is a top priority.”

Here are some ideas offered by the poster. Good ones.

Right now the conversation on healthcare is between one side that wants slightly less expensive corporate healthcare, and one side that wants much more expensive corporate healthcare. It's between one side that wants to cut Social Security and Medicare just a little bit, and another that wants to cut it a lot. It's between one side that wants to implement some very gradual climate change policies that won't stop us from crossing runaway greenhouse barriers, and another side that doesn't believe in climate change at all. It's between one side that wants a very slow, painful set of immigration reforms, and another side that wants no reforms at all. It's between one side that wants to raise the minimum wage to something that still doesn't meet what it was back in the 1970s, and another side that wants to eliminate it.

For a young voter or voter of color, voting for Democrats isn't a matter of hope for a better future. It's basically a defensive crouch to prevent the insane sociopaths from taking over.

I will vote. I always do. My concern is that we need to have more sharply defined issues that have been loudly communicated to the voters....issues that are more than just being a little better on serious things.

My personal addition to what the blogger said....let's stand for public education. Having both parties pushing the agenda of George Bush is really a bad idea. Lets start giving the resources back to the public schools instead of diverting them to private companies to enrich their coffers.

On Edit:

To clarify. Many very informed voters will take another path.

I should have made that clear in the OP. I speak for myself only.

It's not too late to get them on board though. TPP is just one example. Back away from it.

Take a firm stand that the safety nets for seniors and the poor and needy ARE sacred cows. They should be.

[madfloridian]

1. The GOP uses slogans and memes that uninformed voters fail for easily.

They just repeat them over and over.

[blackspade]

2. I completely agree with the title of your OP

The Democratic Party needs to give voters something to vote for rather than to vote against.

Offering republican lite is not a winning strategy.

[newthinking]

3. Dems haven't figured out not retreating from populism will WIN

They keep trying the same failing approach.

[Fumesucker]

6. Oh they know all right

But those who own them demand that they keep on pushing the failing approach.

"Money doesn't talk, it screams" -Bob Dylan

[sendero]

11. Exactly..

... and it really could not be more obvious.

[pnwmom]

4. The bolded quote misstates the situation. The Dems wanted millions of people who couldn't

obtain insurance AT ANY COST to be able to purchase it for a reasonable cost; and they wanted to prevent babies from being born with pre-existing conditions that prevent them from ever being insurable; and they wanted to prevent insurers from taking premiums for years and then dropping customers as soon as they developed expensive illnesses.

And they wanted a major expansion of the Medicaid program, and in that, they succeeded -- for the states that have caring Governors.

[Dawgs]

9. No. It states it perfectly.

The point is that Democrats think that getting anything better, even if it's not anywhere near where we it needs to be, is good enough.

[pnwmom]

10. Millions of people have insurance now who couldn't get it before. The Dems think

it's better to make some progress than NO progress.

The ACA, with all its flaws, was the best that could be done after Kennedy died. With Kennedy's vote, the Senate had passed this version of the law. The Rethugs weren't about to budge after we lost the super-majority. So the House had to pass the same ACA already passed by the Senate -- word for word -- or get nothing at all.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. ACA was passed with no Republican votes. What it is is on us, the Democrats

We can not claim we compromised to win votes we did not win. That would be ludicrous.

[pnwmom]

16. Many members of the House voted for the Senate bill who preferred a bill with a public option

because that was the only bill that could be enacted after Kennedy died.

Once he died and was replaced by a Rethug, the only way to get any healthcare bill passed was for the Dems in the House to approve the only ACA version that had already been approved by the Senate -- with Kennedy's vote when he was still alive.

[quaker bill]

5. yes but "a defensive crouch to prevent the insane sociopaths from taking over."

works in a pinch my friend....

One hopes for better alternative states.

[madfloridian]

19. Didn't work for Alex Sink in FL

Tea Party candidate David Jolly was able to define her as anti-Social Security because of her support of Simpson Bowles. Unbelievable he could do that. She took wishy washy stands on such issues, he went after her.

[Enthusiast]

21. +1 a whole bunch!

Either we learn that or suffer the consequences. Anyone supporting cuts to the safety net will lose.

[quaker bill]

22. You said that voting for dems should not be....

I would have voted for Sink, if I lived there.

Ms Sink is a weak candidate for more than just policy positions. She would still be a weak candidate with all the right positions.

Some people light up a room, others don't.

I went to a Kerry / Edwards rally. Edwards lit up the room, then Kerry took the podium and put everyone back to sleep. He had plenty of good positions but could not have fired people up with a blowtorch.

[Democracyinkind]

7. No matter how unrealistic it is in "toxic D.C."...

... We should boldly proclaim what we are fighting for - by "we" I mean the voters, not the donors.

Public education. A living minimum wage. Effective measures to counter climate change even where it hurts.

There's so much to list here. Let's just start by making the Democratic party re-embrace the Second Bill of Rights.

[xchrom]

8. indeed. nt

[MineralMan]

13. One candidate at a time. That's the only way it works.

Every election, other than the Presidential election is a local election, even if local means statewide. In every district of every jurisdiction, it's one candidate running for office at a time. As local voters, we all have the opportunity to help select the candidates who will run in the general election. Whether it's a primary election or the caucus and convention system, it's up to us to help choose our local candidates for Congress, state legislators, and local elected officials.

We know our own local area and its issues and politics. That's where we need to start, finding excellent candidates who can run and win, based on local issues and politics.

We can move toward a progressive nation if we:

GOTV 2014 and Beyond!

[randome]

14. Focus, focus, focus!

When the collage of problems gets to be too numerous, too complicated, find just one issue, one candidate on which to focus.

Instead of trying to get everything done, if each of us focuses on getting just one thing done, one candidate elected, we can move mountains.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[MineralMan]

15. Yes, focus.

By focusing on the election races we can actually influence, our influence becomes stronger. If there's a close race near you, focusing on the Presidential election and ignoring that local race makes no sense at all, yet many people do just that.

It almost cost Al Franken the election the first time he ran for Senate. Many voters, including many newly registered voters went to the polls with only one goal: Electing Barack Obama. I saw it in my own precinct. We have election day polling place registration here in Minnesota. As I watched the election at my polling place, I saw many people come in, register to vote, get their ballot and come out of the voting booth in just seconds. They voted for Obama, but ignored the rest of the ballot.

The Franken campaign missed a bet by not pushing hard to inform all of those Obama voters that it wasn't just a matter of voting for Obama and that ever race on the ballot was important. Fortunately, Al Franken, for whom I also campaigned, eked out a narrow victory in a very long recount process and took his seat in the Senate, but later than it should have been.

Every race on every ballot is crucial. And each of us has an opportunity to influence who wins in our local districts, from Congressional and state offices to city government. We must focus on those, even though we think the Presidency is of overriding importance. It's not. In many ways, our votes down the ballot are even more important, since those local races often hang on just a few votes.

[madfloridian]

18. Unfortunately not always possible to choose.

I have written about many examples of those pushed out of primaries by party leaders in Florida. One really hurt. There was a handsome, intelligent, well-spoken liberal guy running. His family background was highly respected. The problem? He was openly gay.

The powers that be in our party pulled all kinds of nasty stuff, and they replaced him with a man who was anti-gay, anti-choice, had an ugly personality....in all ways he was just like the Republican he was running to replace.. I know all this because we helped the liberal candidate get a start.

Things like this happened all over Florida, still do.

[madfloridian]

17. To clarify. Many very informed voters will take another path.

I should have made that clear in the OP. I speak for myself only.

It's not too late to get them on board though. TPP is one example. Back away from it.

[hatrack]

20. Boom

nt