General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThis will be my only comment on the bloodbath, that was the 2014 General Election ...
(I deleted a previous comment in order to expand on it in this comment)
Democrats, and the Left, need to spend far less time playing the "it's THEIR fault"/"Democrats are flawed" game, and more time getting out those that would vote Democratic to vote for Democrats.
We have far too many people that revel in criticizing Democrats, at every turn, on every occasion, and then are completely shocked (or, self-satisfied) when Democrats lose elections.
Yes, we need a more progressive/populous message ... that would satisfy/energize our "base" (however one wishes to describe it) ... But, what we need more of is an agreement among that base to "Do No Harm during the general election season."
Democrats won the ACA battle ... and rather than calling it a victory and trumpeting it's benefits, we spent nearly as much time as the gop, broadcasting that it's "flawed", not because it was/is flawed (in what it does); but rather, because it is not single-payer. Democrats won on Lily Ledbetter ... and rather than calling it a victory and tying it to the need for Paycheck Fairness, we ignored it to focus on "income inequality" ... and then, we cast the issue (when specific policy(ies) were at all mentioned) as taking something away from someone (e.g., "raising taxes on the rich"; rather than, arguing to raise the minimum wage, i.e., giving the people we seek to attract something). Take any Democratic "accomplishment", rather than calling it a victory; when we mentioned it at all, too many said, "we should have ..."
If there is any lesson to be learned from republicans is their party's (and their voters') adamant support for (if not, fidelity to the "Do No Harm during election season" idea to) whomever is their nominee. For example, Erick Erickson (and the vast majority of the tea party groups) was/were the establishment gop's most ardent critic(s) ... from the day after the General Election 2012 through the day after the last republican primary; after which, he/they made hardly a peep, other than to attack Democrats.
(Stereotypic Comment Warning: No one is encouraged to eat at the BBQ Joint that Black folks describe as garbage! Or, the Korean Restaurant that Koreans are constantly criticizing! Likewise, no one is encouraged to support Democrats, when those that are supposed to be Democratic supporters, have nothing good (and only bad) to say about Democrats.
End of Message.
(I know ... I know ... "lock-step" ... "Censorship" ... "Holding feet to fire" ... sigh
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
FSogol
(45,485 posts)and
We have far too many people that revel in criticizing Democrats, at every turn, on every occasion, and then are completely shocked (or, self-satisfied) when Democrats lose elections.
but especially this point:
This morning someone mentioned that Harry Reid should go and someone said they could see Chuck Schumer stepping into that position. This was followed by comments about making hedge-fund managers happy and 3rd way.
I can see where someone might not like Schumer, but is it necessary to tear him apart because he was suggested for a leadership position? Instead of the name-calling, couldn't they have said, no, Al Franken or candidate X would make a better leader?
If you don't like a Democratic candidate or his/her positions, propose your own candidate. People here should build up their favorite candidate and stop spending so much time tearing down every other Democrat. Aside from the magical Elizabeth Warren and the not-quite a Democrat Bernie Saunders, are there any elected Democrats that aren't considered 3rd way by the far left?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Publicizing merits; rather than, focusing on flaws! In the first case, no one is hurt; in the latter, the whole brand is tarnished.
brer cat
(24,565 posts)and also the added comments by FSogol. This is where we need to be today and every day through 2016 and beyond if we are going to be a party leading from strength.
Thanks. K&R
okieinpain
(9,397 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 5, 2014, 02:06 PM - Edit history (1)
We've endured the American Idol version of politics, where Simon Cowell, whose *raison d'etre* is to denigrate people for profit.
Some decided Obama had to be 'put in his place.' As Basil Fawlty said, 'Thank you so bloody much.'
And as John Lucas said last night, it's time to look for another way.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)That's one of the reasons that I stopped coming to this site on a regular basis. The negativity wore me down. I now only post occasionally. I don't have a problem with fair criticism, but the level of vitriol thrown at certain Democrats that they don't like rivals anything one can read on any RW site. For example, how many have adamantly said that they would refuse to vote for Hillary if she ran and won the nomination in 2016? Maybe people need to get their heads out of their asses and see the larger picture. This is the same attitude that liberals had in 2010 when many Blue Dogs went down in defeat. Who took their place? The Tea Party bunch, that's who.
Sigh............
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,986 posts)
dumbcat
(2,120 posts)And did it help?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"Funny" thing happened last night!
I had just poured two fingers and settled into the study (my "man-cave"
to watch the returns, without interruption ... when Mrs. 1SBM called out that a sink was plugged up. I, took a swallow, and grabbed my tools. Two hours later, the water went down and I returned to the returns.
About 15 minutes (and one swallow) later ... Mrs. 1SBM got a call from work, so I finished up cooking dinner.
So I made her plate and mine, and returned to the returns ... Then, I got a call from someone I had not heard from in better than 15 years. An hour latter, I took the TV off mute, and returned to the returns.
Then, BabyGirl 1SBM called from college.
At that point, I concluded that the Universe was actively intervening to spare me the distress of witnessing the bloodbath in real time (and what would have likely been a hang-over this morning) ... So, I joined Mrs. 1SBM to watch the TiVo'd episode of Gotham.
Thank you Universe ... you are much wiser than I.
riqster
(13,986 posts)My wife was ill, so I spent the evening caring for her. Much more fulfilling than watching the returns.
JustAnotherGen
(31,823 posts)
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)difficult to discuss suggested contributing factors that escape the majority of the voters. The reasons why so many eligible Dems stayed home requires some really difficult analyses and soul searching.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Instead of beating people over the head, scolding them to "eat their peas," and telling them how ungrateful they are because everything is doing so well, even when their reality is far from great, or even improved. How about instead of demanding a vote, earning it?
Examples:
- Headline reads, "Unemployment is Down" but whenever someone points out that high paying jobs have been replaced by minimum wage and part time or that they are working three jobs just to stay above water, the answer is "Shut up you racist libertarian! Be grateful to have a job!!"
- OP states "My ACA premiums are $0" but someone states their own story of how their rates have doubled, their deductible gone up and their coverage a joke and is dogpiled by people calling him a liar or worse.
In the face of this loss, it is those who did the most nagging and berating being the first to jump up and tell everyone what to do. As if criticism of poor performance--instead of the performance itself--is the reason people don't vote. How about a new strategy?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Very predictable. When the Democratic party actually stood for something (represented the left) we controlled the congress for 40 years.
Hopefully this 'halfpublican' experiment is over.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)1994 coincides with the halfpublican 'centrist' experiment early beginnings. Obama escalated it. The results were highly predictable.
EOM
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)You do realize that during those years, more than half the presidents were republican, right? And half of those Democratic presidents were "centrists."
The fact is ... with the Reagan election, America (including many Democrats) shifted right-ward due to social/cultural issues ... Our Congress has reflected that shift ever since.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Sure, if you say so.....
Good luck with your 'centrism'.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)was then voting against their own self-interest, and in the 34 years since most of them still don't get it.
It's truly sad.
The best I personally hope for is that the Republicans will make it so crystal clear that they are heartless bastards who don't give a fuck about the vast majority, that the majority will finally come to their senses.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)perhaps for the next 40 years you can fire up the electorate to pick and vote for your personal picks?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Time to go back to it's leftist roots where we belong. The experiment is a failure.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)any representation of the majority of Americans.
And your continued name calling continues to harm rather than help. What are you doing to actually encourage voting with that type of rhetoric?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)except you. Halfpublicanism is not a winning proposition, no matter how defensive you get in favor of it.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)why the name calling? It's NOT helpful in any way shape or form.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...something needs to change. I would suggest ditching the halfpublican experiment and getting back to our leftist roots.
We controlled both house between 1954 - 1994. We did it by being the party of the left. It's time to get back to what works and ditch this thoroughly rejected halfpublican nonsense.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)wish to ignore actual events, in favor of a romanticized version of the Party.
The change in the Democratic Party was NOT a shift to "centrism", as an abandonment of a "leftist" past; but rather, reflected the right-ward shift in America with the introduction of social/culture issues.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)It's quite amusing to see all those who claimed to be the "important" ones in the party trying to find reasons to blame the completely insignificant "fringe left" as they always do. Demanding more loyalty from voters instead of demanding better performance from elected officials/campaigns. Calling everyone a racist and a selfish child. Yeah, that'll do it.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)That we work for the politicians, not the other way around.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)I'm not sure people here will ever understand that many of us benefited from ACA even though it wasn't perfect. Instead of celebrating that gain, in spite of historical odds, people attacked it for not being single payer, etc.
And on and on. Time to drop those fantasies and deal with the electorate as it exists.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)too many see every in terms of a single battle.
And the best way to voice criticism would be to say:
Acknowledging imperfect accomplishments and pushing for more is far more effective in wooing supporters than casting what has been done a failure and offering something entirely new.
flamingdem
(39,313 posts)Not drama and negativity.
Let's hope something is learned from the current debacle.
treestar
(82,383 posts)For all their complaining about the ACA, they'll be lucky to keep it if they let the Rs win the WH too.
LondonReign2
(5,213 posts)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)there is a difference when many self-identify as "Democratic", as their 2nd, 3rd or, even, 4th political descriptor.
Hekate
(90,686 posts)Really 
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)is the overall messaging and countering (with reality), the whining, moaning, complaining, lying, vindictive, misleading, depressing, repressive, talking points the right is so adept at doing. The right did it for 6 uears, and their electorate was finally conditioned and heard them and nothing else.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the gop messaging doesn't come from the gop leadership, it comes from those "republican-supporters", outside of the leadership.
And that message is rarely, "We accomplished this; BUT ..."; rather it is, "we accomplished this; AND ..." (even when the accomplishment was no accomplishment at all.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)but for all of the complaining about the economy, regulations, ACA, jobs, the gay, the immigration...I strongly feel that the Rep leadership dictated and formed the overwhleming messaging on those any many more subject matters.
Moostache
(9,895 posts)Just take abortion as an issue and an example.
Roe v. Wade was in 1973.
For 41 years, the GOP has used this as a massive issue to motivate and turn out their base, to shape policy, even to use as a "purity test" for judges and candidates....yet in 41 years and countless attempts to over turn the law, they have failed.
Imagine the Democratic response to 41 years of failing to over turn something, anything.
The smoke and ash from the burning sackcloth would blot out the sun...(hey, maybe THAT would help with climate change...tongue in check).
villager
(26,001 posts)...imagining they can keep tinkering with the menu, to please palates that would never actually eat at their establishments in the first place...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)(i.e., Democrats "loyal customers" didn't vote?
ETA: We are talking about getting the disaffected vote to turn out, including the youth vote ... which can hardly be described as "loyal customers."
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)It's like a restaurant that drives off all walk-in traffic, telling them at the door that 'their kind' of on again off again traffic isn't welcome, and only the 'loyal members' can eat there.
villager
(26,001 posts)It's because they're caring less and less about the people who ate their originally.
Not gonna maintain your Yelp reviews that way.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I would have eventually got there!
But I was thinking ...
What we are doing is:
Posting a sign at the door saying, "We have BBQ; but it's too greasy and the sauce is bland ... Our Bread Pudding is soggy and we skimp on the peaches in our peach cobbler and I don't know why we don't serve chicken, too!"
Then, wondering why we don't get walk-in traffic.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)the BBQ is too greasy with a bland sauce, we don't serve chicken, the bread pudding is soggy, and the peach cobbler skimps on peaches?
If those problems didn't exist, neither would the sign.
Cause even if you take down the sign, you'll get that walk-in traffic exactly once, and then they won't return because of the sucky food.
We got a lot of our 'once' in 2008, when we opened a brand new shiny restaurant. But the food didn't match the nice restaurant exterior, it was tough to get anyone in again in 2010. And even though we claimed to have fixed the menu in 2012, it was a tough fight to get twice burned folks back in the door. And then they found out we STILL hadn't fixed the food and said, 'The Hell with it. This greasy pit next door will give me heartburn, but at least they're not pretending they won't, and all the extra fat and sugar tastes good at least briefly, before it gives me all sorts of health problems.'
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)BBQ is too greasy with a bland sauce, the bread pudding is soggy, and the peach cobbler skimps on peaches.
deaniac21
(6,747 posts)Bo ShingTong
somebody-else
(14 posts)that's telling 'em !
riqster
(13,986 posts)Best way to get the candidates we want.
In Ohio, the Impediment in Chief (Redfern) is finally gone. That'll help.
Erose999
(5,624 posts)to give to start with. It's not an effective use of resources to send us 20 fucking E-mails a day asking for money. Useful information gets lost in the shuffle. My inbox is so full of BULLSHIT that I have difficulty finding my work and personal E-mail.
And online petitions - what is the purpose of that? If you forwarded Bitch McTurtle an online petition with 200,000 signatures telling him to fuck off, he'd probably read it and say "good".
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Is the problem the person who did the bad thing, or the person who reported them?
Is the problem America torturing people at Abu Ghraib, or is it people blowing the whistle and making that torture public?
Is the problem America collecting data on everyone's phone calls, or the person who makes it publicly known?
Is the problem American helicopter pilots murdering first responders, or the person who made the video of them public?
Is the problem American troops urinating on corpses, or the person who made the photo public?
Is the problem police shooting unarmed black men, or the people taking video of them doing it to show the public?
Is the problem keeping the same Republicans who helped caused the economic crash on to run the economy, or the people who want to actually have Democrats run the economy?
Is the problem Democrats doing things the public doesn't like, or the people who point out what they're doing wrong? (And hoping they'll do something right instead?)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and finds the child hiding under the bed, throws him over her shoulder and dashes out the house ... is the problem that she didn't carry the child all the way to the ambulance?
We seem to focus on what didn't happen, rather than what did.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Far too many, indeed. I'm sick of it. They shit on Dems, and then kick 'em when they're down. Then play this sick "I toldja so" game when all they've been doing is bashing, trashing and playing every negative card they can pull out.
Why are they still members of a party they hate so much, I have to wonder?
Colorado Liberal
(145 posts)Just some small wording changes:
"We have far too many people that revel in criticizing liberals/progressives, at every turn, on every occasion, and then are completely shocked (or self-satisfied) when, despite their efforts, Democrats lose elections"
"Far too many, indeed. I'm sick of it. They shit on liberals/progressives, and then kick 'em when they're down. Then play this sick "I toldja so" game, blaiming liberals/progressives for the loss, when all they've been doing is bashing, trashing, and playing every negative card they can pull out."
Why am I still a Democrat? Because, despite the crap that people like you throw at me, I still believe they are the best chance to accomplish liberal/progressive goals.
Why are you so eager to kick liberals/progressives out of the party, I have to wonder...
MADem
(135,425 posts)centrists and moderates in the party. It was always, always, ALWAYS the "So-and-so is not LIBERAL enough" crowd even when the candidates were running in a deep red state.
All politics is local--not every candidate can be on San Francisco time, or have San Francisco atttitudes, and expect to win.
Colorado Liberal
(145 posts)and moderates, I can only assume you're willfully blind to it. I saw just as much criticism of liberals who dared post anything negative about a candidate as I saw the negative posts themselves. And I live in Colorado, so spare me the strawman about how liberals wants every candidate to have "San Francisco attitudes".
What I hate even more than righties putting words in my mouth is people who are allegedly part of my party putting words in my mouth.
Resume with your "hippie-punching"...
MADem
(135,425 posts)I only saw pragmatists refuting the "Waaah--you aren't pure enough--you SUCK!!!!" whines. They weren't the ones to light off the dust-ups.
You live in Colorado, where weed is legal--so...whatever. Rocky mountain high, and all that. SF with those "liberal attitudes" re-elects Pelosi every election cycle, yet people here call her all sorts of names and INSIST she's not "liberal enough" for them. Well, I think for some of 'em, nobody but contrarian do-nothings like Dennis "Where's My Paycheck Fox News?" Kucinich will do.
Well, to hell with them. I think Nancy Pelosi is a stand-up Democrat. Here, to some, though, she's a right wing corporate stooge.
Colorado Liberal
(145 posts)you sure can dish it out. "Rocky mountain high, and all that"? I'd have hoped that you could do better than pot-head jokes, but I guess not. I get it - this is a liberal name-calling thread. No worries, you don't want my kind in the discussion, I'll stop wasting my time.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's not legal here--just somewhat "decriminalized." That means the police steal your weed for themselves and write you a ticket.
So stow the finger-wag. If you have a question about my point, ask.
But don't play the aggrieved liberal living amongst the conservative evildoers when your state isn't that simplistic by any stretch of anyone's imagination.
Colorado Liberal
(145 posts)Where in the hell do you get that from anything I've written? The only "conservative evildoers" I'd refer to are the ones with (R) after their names - Gardner, Buck, Coffman, all of the right-wing whack jobs that just won their elections by telling all of the lies about themselves that Koch brothers money could buy.
You seem to be painting liberals with a broad brush, and if I take issue with anything, it's the subtext (perhaps not yours, it's hard to tell with all of the finger-pointing today) that liberals and progressives are to blame for yesterday's fiasco, because we didn't love the Democrats more centrist candidates enough.
And when did I even imply that Colorado was simplistic? Colorado's about as purple as it gets (more of a red state with a deep blue center, where most of the people live), and kicked Udall to the curb while keeping Hickenlooper (pro-big oil, but got in trouble for pushing for gun control legislation and for giving a temporary reprieve in a high profile death penalty case) as govenor. Don't lecture me about not understanding how Colorado is.
At the end of the day, I have two take-aways from this election, and neither of them have a damn thing to do with how dysfunctional the Democratic Party is. One - the Koch brothers now know that they can buy elections, and in the absence of legislation changing the post-Citizens United campaign rules, they'll just be more emboldened to throw money at 2016. Second, the NRA was a huge winner yesterday, which makes the odds of any meaningful gun control just about nonexistent in the next 2 years. Given that I work with someone whose daughter was killed at school in one of these shootings, that result is immensely disappointing. Hard to have much enthusiasm looking forward given those realities...
MADem
(135,425 posts)Unless we find a Blue Koch Brother, they will keep winning. They outspent us by 120 million. The GOP depressed the vote. And lots of snarky Dems just didn't show up. They showed US! 
I'm not fan of the gun nuttery either--I don't go near the gungeon because I don't want or need the aggro.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)There is a difference between criticism/negativity expressed towards the fans and towards the candidates.
While "Centrists" have been critical/negative towards those farther to the left; they have not been critical of Warren or Sanders, or their policy positions, even if they disagree with the efficacy of those position.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Or, at least, clearly not enough to win elections.
Colorado Liberal
(145 posts)Moderates/Centrists =/= Democrats either, and can't win elections on their own either. And if we don't figure out a way to co-exist in the party and work together, this country is in for a serious shit-show. And I continue to not see how demonizing liberals and progressives moves the party in a successful direction.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)perhaps ... just maybe ... we should focus on the successes of our issues; rather than, what could have been. Maybe ... just perhaps ... we can run, hard, with our individual positions; then, after the primary, work as hard for the nominee, or failing that, do no harm.
Rilgin
(787 posts)Your post can be boiled down to the following:
The way for liberals/progressives/leftists and centrists/Third Way Democrats to coexist is for leftists to ignore their beliefs. Centrists do not have to do anything. They do not have to actually fight for good solutions. However, liberals have to accept all the policies put forth by centrist candidates currently even if the policy is flawed or is a bad compromise. In fact, inherently you want liberals to repress their beliefs and express as a positive that the third way politicians were correct in enacting, compromising or not fighting for solutions favored by the left even though polls consistently show that the electorate is further left than the political class and favors left based policies and solutions.
Your point is that Liberals should accept or express centrist policies as victories. No matter if liberals see a Third Way policy or law as going in the wrong direction, they must express the opposite and trumpet all such policies as victories using whatever benefits they can find in the compromised law. In cases where compromise leads to imperfect or partial solutions, they must trumpet such laws as victories regardless of their belief over whether we reach solutions by political confrontation or incrementaism.
There could be a real debate on which way is better. I believe this is one primary intellectual difference between leftist and centrist democrats. Your request that all actions of our incumbents be trumpeted as victories does not admit that maybe you are wrong. Perhaps, the answer is to make it clear to the centrist politicians that band-aid solutions are not acceptable if they foreclose or delay or put long term impediments on actually solving a problem. That you will not just lose "republican moderates" but also the left will not support you and you will lose your seat no matter how much corporate money you try to raise. Third Way People want to say "dont let the perfect be the enemy of the good". I might respond by saying that maybe it is "silence that is the enemy of the good" or "acceptance of the bad or imperfect to chalk up a victory that is the enemy of the good." These seem to be what you are recommending, silence and acceptance of what some of us view as bad policy and direction.
Looking backward to an earlier post, I would ask you to consider if maybe the ACA is not a long term victory because it institutionalizes health insurance companies and passage of the ACA actually moves us in the wrong direction. This is my belief but I can acknowledge that I might be wrong. Your solution is to claim it as a victory and do not require the centrist to acknowledge any doubts that it might not be a victory but might actually be a defeat of a long term solution. Again, it is my belief, that ultimately it is because it is not a system that is simple and just benefits everyone. Its benefits are that the poor and sick now get health care. A lot of america is unchanged, the same or marginally worse. This has allowed openings for republican political attacks. I think it would have been better politically if one day a medicare card just showed up in the mail which gave the person government insurance. It would be universal and a good system for everyone while still giving the poor and sick health care. Instead, we are still in a battle. Despite claims of bending the curve, our system is still hugely expensive. As we are aware, if the republicans manage to get in power they might repeal the ACA anyhow and democrats will end up with a huge political defeat. Craven politicians will not bring up solutions for years after.
Using one of your prior analogies, instead of throwing a blanket over the baby and bringing her to the curb (not the ambulance), in passing the ACA, we simply moved the baby deeper into the house to the bathtub and put water over her. For the moment,the baby is no longer on fire but is sure to burn in the long term.
Personally, I believe the ACA, the security state, the new financial regulations (ignoring lessons learned from the 1930s on bank regulation) and some other current laws and policies which you would have us claim as victories all move us in the wrong direction. In many of these cases, we are simply trying to preserve a bad and decaying system. It is like what happens if the foundation of your house is bad, you can replace it or try to patch it. Patching it is less effort but does not really fix the problem. If you patch it, it will hold for a little longer and have some benefits but since you wasted your political money, you will not get to the root problems nor will you be able to fix it when the patch fails. If you patch it and everyone knows in their hearts it was not a real solution, you lose elections.
That is ultimately the problem with your post, you want leftists to stop being leftists. You want us to convince the electorate that centrist policies help them even though we do not believe the policies help. Further, I believe in their hearts most of the electorate does not believe in centrist compromises and i believe that a majority of the mushy middle would welcome a populist from the left. I think I would much prefer a direct fight for the heart and soul of first the democratic party and second the american people with a real clear choice between the two parties rather than intentionally blurring the lines to try to woo the electorate by hiding policy warts and bad compromises and trumpeting marginal victories as great victories.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
And that "real debate" period is called the "primary season", at which point the Party has made its decision ... whether you agree with that decision, or not.
Rilgin
(787 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 5, 2014, 11:22 PM - Edit history (1)
Your original post did reference the general election season. However, some of your OP and followups were more generalized and not limited to primaries. In particular, you discussed the ACA urging people to claim it as a victory without reference to the election period itself.
If we ignore the broader aspects and concentrate on the general election season, you are urging leftists to either be silent or lie (trumpeting policies they disagree with) in order to support candidates chosen in the primary. This may in fact add to votes but adds to cynicism and apathy.
It also deflects from what my post was about which is policies. If you want people to talk about your policies, victories, or that you fight for them, then pass policies and fight for policies that connect to them. YOu might lose some but you build trust and brand. Politicians will continue to pass milktoast policies if we allow them by putting a pretty dress or suit on those policies regardless of whether it is during, before or after an election. This seems to be what you are recommending, trying to convince people that the emporer is really wearing clothes. It may actually be effective in that some people might believe it but you will lose trust in others.
gordianot
(15,238 posts)What really burns me are the States that pass minimum wage increases and then elect Politicians who are opposed to Minimum wage on the same ballot. The big beneficiary is the myriad title and pay day loan busimesses that set up shop in conservative Republican Districts.
Wella
(1,827 posts)that got into everyone's household. EVERY American was affected by the ACA in one way or another. To drop the ball on that messaging was suicidal.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)"The United States is facing more inequality than in 80 years. We have increasingly segregated schools, and fewer good jobs, and more hunger, fear and powerlessness. A few very wealthy interests – the wealth is so secretive and concentrated that the numbers are difficult to parse – have made clear that they intend to keep stripping our country of its resources and taking it for themselves. The 1% owns more than a third of the wealth in America, and four years ago, the Citizens United decision gave constitutional permission for corporate America to shamelessly enter politics."
powerlessness is crippling the GOTV.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/04/manifesto-zephyr-teachout-election-american-democracy
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)It 'a a waste of everyone's time. We need to run progressives and champion Rooseveltian policies. Period. We ran a whole heard of bluedogs in Wisconsin and we got run. This is fucking stupid and I'm getting tired of it.
Ccarmona
(1,180 posts)we don't control the message and we don't have the organized deep pocket shadow organizations formulating to try and change that message. The right wing control the media that the majority pay attention to, and they get the funding to do so.
It may come as a shock, but 99.9% of the electorate don't come to this website or those like this to get their information and exchange ideas.
beerandjesus
(1,301 posts)Nice post, and kudos to you for expressing this opinion without slagging the "left".
I do think it's ok to keep criticizing, but what you say about running away from Democratic successes couldn't be more spot on.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and we can get much more accomplished with the cooperation of those that support Democrats.
I don't have a problem with criticisms of policy or Democratic players ... that is how we communicate our desires to our legislators. However, if we seek to win elections, I think it's imprudent to continue that criticism after Democrats have selected their nominees for the general election ... the Party's decision has been made.
At that point, ALL criticisms should be directed at the gop and their candidates.
The day after the general election, we can go back to doing what we do.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)All I could think of last night was...
"I've got political capital and I'm gonna spend it!"
We know where that got us...we're doomed.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)like the ones who turned their backs on the president...
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)and which candidates (blue dogs) adopt the Obama distancing strategy and where the support of that strategy comes from.
There are exceptions but say someone may have a policy beef with the President such as continuation in specific Bush-era policies when it comes to civil liberties for international detainees or a war on terror foreign policy, then those people do experience legitimate debate over policy but there is a lot criticism over the idea they have criticism.
Then when a lot of those people with policy disagreements from the left-wing perspective have criticisms over their spineless campaign strategies, a lot of the same people that criticize criticism are on the side of the spineless campaign strategies.
I had 2 major beefs with ACA, no public option & mandates but I thought the distancing approach was stupid considering you could counter with achievements that would survive a fact check name one person with left wing policy differences with Obama who is against raising the minimum wage? Or in favor of Grimes stated disagreement over the EPA and effects of coal to global warming?
The midterm results weren't significantly different than other based on recent trends. Do you know who you're blaming or should be or even the personal motivations of individuals choosing not to vote. I'm sure partisanship to the point its dishonest (a lot of hypocrisy in politics where people attack things they used to support) discourages some people from going out to polls.
In the end it is big money, media hype, and lack of familiarity with the candidates as well as other factors.
