The Democratic Party faces an existential choice

[markpkessinger]

After all the post-mortems, I think it comes down to something very basic: the Democratic Party must decide what it wants to be, and whose interests it will ultimately represent.

Since the mid '90s, the party has courted the big money donors to be found in the financial/corporate sector, while simultaneously purporting to continue to retain its historical identity as a populist party of common people. Those two sets of interests are fundamentally at odds with each other, and ultimately cannot coexist in the same party. Those big, corporate donors will always expect their pound of flesh in return, and as recent elections have been demonstrating, voters are no longer willing to buy into a faux populism that tries to serve two masters. Whatever set of interests the party is going to represent, if it expects to have any success at the polls, it must represent those interests authentically -- being inauthentically anything will simply no longer cut it. I think this is borne out by the fact that across the nation, even in states where Democrats fared poorly, progressive ballot initiatives did well. So long as we continue to try to have it both ways, we will continue to lose.

[markpkessinger]

20. Thanks! n/t

[Major Hogwash]

37. What do you find in a nutshell?

Nuts.

[grahamhgreen]

86. As in our nuts, our balls:)

[LondonReign2]

87. So our current strategy is working pretty well then?

Stay the course!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

107. Which are highly nutritious, and one of the best things for you. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

120. Raw almonds are the best

True, simple, and filled with awesome - much like the op!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

121. Aren't the almond trees exacerbating the California drought, though?

There's some insane amount of water required to grow each almond, iirc.

[JustAnotherGen]

122. I don't know about out there

I get them from a local greenhouse nursery.

[grahamhgreen]

85. +1

[hifiguy]

96. Eeyup. Spot-effin-on.

This IS the question.

[Moondog]

97. Sounds right. n/t

[billhicks76]

104. What!?!?!?

You mean we shouldn't nominate centrist sell out candidates that are subservient to the Bush family and all their heinous crimes? We shouldn't select a fake scammer like Hillary Clinton? It's taken this long for the lemmings in our party to figure this out?

[cloudbase]

2. They'll follow the money.

It's more important that they keep their jobs than actually represent their districts. It also eases the road into lucrative post-congressional employment.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. And being in the (nominal) minority

pays just as well as bing in the majority as long as you vote right. And by "right" I do mean "RIGHT."

[markpkessinger]

6. +1 n/t

[Odin2005]

63. This is why the DLCers like it when we lose.

If the Dems are in the majority they don't have an excuse to suck up to corporate interests.

[Jackpine Radical]

84. And are more obvious when they do it.

[Gman]

4. The Democratic Party doesn't face a thing

Except how to get lazy, irresponsible apathetic people off their lazy asses and get them to go vote. Yet they'll turn out in droves to vote for Hillary.

[markpkessinger]

8. Of course, you're right . . .

. . . as evidenced by the great success blaming "lazy-assed voters" has had to date.

[marions ghost]

11. ++++

yeah blame the voters is getting ooooolllllddddddddd

[840high]

52. +1

[RiverLover]

15. So you don't see both parties are bought by Big Busine$$?

Really?

Do you work for one of Hillary's Super PACs?

[Marr]

40. It seems like all of our 'sensible woodchucks' are blaming the voters.

Would it be sensible for Ford to blame consumers if they failed to sell any cars, or would you expect them to reexamine their product?

[840high]

53. Like.

[corkhead]

80. But if your only other choice is a GM product that is 100% guaranteed to turn into a fireball

and both companies collude to prevent any other manufacturers from entering the marketplace, you should be happy that you at least have one other choice you ungrateful peasant.

[Eleanors38]

82. Well, folks kick FL, TX, the South, "flyovers," and half the country,

may as well go whole hog!

[SomethingFishy]

55. If they turn out in droves for Hillary like they did for Obama

then lazy isn't the problem is it?

[Odin2005]

65. Yes, insult us, that will get us to the polls!

[hedda_foil]

89. Insulting us while bombarding us with several sneering emails every day is exactly what the DCCC did

Last edited Fri Nov 7, 2014, 05:50 PM - Edit history (2)

Only they called it fundraising.

[jtuck004]

93. This is a really good book.

Here.

Blaming voters.

[ReRe]

103. Thanks for that book referral...

... after this election, I need it!

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. It seems to me ...

that until we get money out of politics, politicians will continue to chase the money ... after all, all the populous policy desires in the world, amount to nothing, if you don't get elected.

[Jackpine Radical]

9. Unfortunately, getting the money out of politics

is like getting the stink off shit.

[markpkessinger]

13. Indeed. And I would have to wonder . . .

. . . exactly how interested any politician who came to power under the current system would really be in "getting the money out of politics."

[1StrongBlackMan]

127. Well ...

There was McCain /Feingold ... which was a start.

I suspect to get it done there will have to be, first, state-level referendums ... which would likely be struck down as unconstitutional by this SC.

[LondonReign2]

88. I agree, approximately 1000%

Please tell us how, however.

[1StrongBlackMan]

90. Simple ..

Close our eyes, click our heels together 5 times, while chanting, by the power of the Unicorn. "

[LondonReign2]

95. So no answer then?

Or maybe we should put it all down to racism?

[1StrongBlackMan]

98. No need to be an asshole about it ...

BTW, denial and mocking of racism is the racist's go to play.

[LondonReign2]

109. No need to be an asshole? You mean like the unicorn comment?

[1StrongBlackMan]

117. Yeah, because a comment that a fourth grader wouldn't take seriously, totally ...

the same as mocking the/my protestations of racism. Riiggghhhhhttttt, Mr./Ms. liberal!

[LondonReign2]

124. Right, you're mocking is fine, no one else's is. Got it.

Racism most certainly exists. However, when people claim racism as the cause for every single criticism of the policies Obama has pursued the claim becomes nothing but a lame attempt at deflection.

[1StrongBlackMan]

125. First, only someone spoiling for a fight could possibly have read my comment as "mocking" ...

andI think you have me twisted ... when have I EVER said "racism as the cause for every single that criticism of the policies President Obama has pursued"? ... even as he HAS been subject to an impossibly double standard ... even as SOUTHERN candidates and the wide spread world of punditry, have said as much, i.e., ... when have I ever said that?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-e-dowlin/president-obamas-terms-in_b_5646431.html

But even in that, to attempt to claim that there is not evidence that some of the objections, are not based in racism is to be deeply blinded by denialism.

[LondonReign2]

130. If I had ever attempted to claim that you'd have a point

"But even in that, to attempt to claim that there is not evidence that some of the objections, are not based in racism is to be deeply blinded by denialism."

But since I never have, what you have here is a lovely strawman.

[1StrongBlackMan]

131. Yeah, ok. eom.

[kentuck]

7. (hands over ears) I can't hear you!

I have a plan. The CBC becomes an independent progressive caucus that offers an option for progressives in the Democratic Party. They would include the gun control crowd, gays, all minorities, pro-choice and other progressive causes. This would free the present moderate, DLC-type Democrats to represent the traditional Democrats without carrying any controversial issues. This would make them more competitive with the present Republican Party, since they could welcome NRA types and pro-lifers and stop losing those voters to the Republican Party.

In reality, that is basically what the Republicans are doing with the Tea Party. They come together as a coalition at election times. That would work for Democrats also and would grow our Party. We would compete with all Parties for the majority but we could still caucus with Democratic Party. Think about it. What would be the drawbacks??

[Jackpine Radical]

10. How would it differ from what happens now?

The corporate Dems already throw the Progressives under the bus as soon as their electoral usefulness has ended every 2 years, just as the corporate Republicans do with the Tea Party.

[markpkessinger]

14. +1 n/t

[kentuck]

27. It differs in that...

...if progressives were to leave the Party entirely, both would be too weak to compete with the extremists of the Republican Party. If the Progressive "caucus" could get a majority over the DLC, then it would be they that would need to do the compromising, instead of the usual routine. As someone posted the other day, the actual competition is between the DLC and the progressives, socialists, leftists of the Party. We should not be afraid to compete with them.

[salib]

33. Sorry, this election just reminded us that ideals matter

Not party. People voted for increased minimum wage in overwhelming numbers while letting Dems sink in underwhelming style.

Your "our tem" will be more "competitive" line is both wrong and so right-wing in its meme.

[kentuck]

38. Sorry, I didn't mean it that way...

I was thinking of how we could divorce the DLC's without surrendering all power. However, I do agree that it is an existential issue. I think as long as we continue the way we are, we will continue to lose voters to the Republicans and the House of Representatives will continue to shrink. And if you can't "compete&quot I know you don't like that word), we will not survive. Also, I don't recall saying "our team"???

[ballyhoo]

34. I like the idea, and I think it would work. The resulting Party would not be the same,

but it would get more votes. Also, and more importantly, if we could ameliorate our positions on guns somewhat, we could try for real change from inside the rather than the outside. The big problem I see is the Bible crowd.Maybe we could issue a Leviticus-free bible or start teaching acceptance from the inside rather than the outside again. Whatever, something has to be done, and it has to get started now.

[kentuck]

42. Thanks!

I would say let the DLC crowd have the Christians, we'll take the atheists.

Just as the Republican Party has figured out how to ship all their "crazies" to the Tea Party so they can pretend they are a sane Party, we could send all our "crazies" to the DLC crowd, or vice versa.

It's actually working quite well for the Republicans up to now. I think we would be much stronger if we did the same.

[ballyhoo]

46. I agree except for your first sentence. I believe much of the damage done

Tuesday was because of some of the statements made about Christians and religion. We may end up needing help from above even if that help is more perceived than actual. I still pray. I prayed for McConnell's shell to shut permanently Tuesday night.

[kentuck]

49. Oh, I don't mean that we shut out Christians or any religion...

But if they were uncomfortable, they would still have a place in the Democratic Party. Just like the NRA, they would not have to go to the Republicans, whom they have nothing else in common with.

[ballyhoo]

51. Okay, I thought that's what you meant. You have some good

ideas, Kentuck, and I'm going to ask a few people here what they think. Would have to formalize a game plan so that it's not another idea written on the wind. If you come up with some ideas, I can formalize it for you, if you want. Also, can you get Skinner to let us have a space for Storybooking?

[kentuck]

57. First of all...

We would have to get the CBC (Congressional Black Caucus) to be the base of the progressives. That would be the first step. With the way our first black President has been treated, they might entertain the idea?

[ballyhoo]

67. Okay. I am not real sanguine about that, but it's

sure worth a try. I'll sleep on it. Later.

[vi5]

126. What statements did anyone make about Christians and religion?

I don't recall seeing one single thing about a Democratic candidate anywhere, let alone several of them making comments about Christians and religion.

Or is this just one of those things where "well someone on a message board somewhere said something about Christians and that somehow managed to send people voting for Republicans."

Sorry, someone for whom that would be a factor is going to never vote for a Democrat anyway. I know plenty of liberal, Democratic voting Christians and they do differ on some issues with the party as a whole, but understand that most of our platforms on most issues, reflect Christian values. None of those people are so oversensitive that they are going to vote for a Republican because someone somewhere on the left said something mean about Christians.

Sure, they might if a particular Democratic candidate did, but again.......which Democratic candidate did that.

[ballyhoo]

129. There are statements made daily by Democrats

against Christianity and the Bible, Jesus, etc in every conceivable media, including here. I think your question is not sincere. I don't care what the candidates say ( they are usually lying anyway); I'm talking about Democratic Party members. "None of those people are so oversensitive that they are going to vote for a Republican because someone somewhere on the left said something mean about Christians." No, but they might not vote at all. And that's what many of them did. I know this for a fact.

[vi5]

132. Again, my question stands....

What person, in any position of even the slightest bit of power within the Democratic party has said anything against Christianity, the Bible, Jesus, etc. If it happens daily in media it should be easy to find a few solid examples.

Think about the absurdity of someone thinking or saying this: "Well there's nothing actually in the Democratic party platform that is anti-Christian, and most of the Democratic candidates are Christians, and no actual candidate or leader in the party has said anything anti-Christian, and many of their policies on helping the poor are very Christian in thinking..........but.........well I saw on a message board on the internet that someone who was a Democrat said something anti-Christian, so...forget it, I'm staying home and not voting." If that's someone's frame of mind than again they are not someone who would have voted for a Democrat anyway.

I'm an atheist and I have zero example of any representation within either political party. Yet I see lots of pro-Christiantity and pro-religion stuff every day in politics, INCLUDING the Democratic party. I see poll after poll indicating that a large percentage of people (including Democrats) don't trust me because of that and would never vote for me if I were a politician because of that. Yet surprisingly I couldn't possibly imagine using any of that as an excuse to not vote.

[ballyhoo]

133. We really have nothing more to say to one another. We have natural biases in

opposing directions. Believe what you want--

[vi5]

136. How very open minded of you.

Such confidence in your positions and assumptions, I see.

[1StrongBlackMan]

128. I don't understand ...

The moderate, DLC-type Democrats all support gun-control, are pro-choice, are supportive of "gays and all minorities" and most other progressive causes ... the only non-"progressive" stance of the moderate, DLC-type Democrat is on economic issues ... So, wouldn't such a caucus formalize what already is ... "traditional" Democratic values (where all of the "progressive causes you have mentioned have primacy) vs. "It's classism" Democrats (where battling the 1% has primacy)?

ETA: I suspect such a move would upset a bunch of folks ... first, it would expose the "It's classism" Democrats for the relatively small group that they are; but more, it would expose the racism within the Democratic Party, as it would force Democrats to openly side with the CBC.

[RobertEarl]

12. Lack of message

If not for the Dems, we'd not have SS, Medicare, Minimum wage, an EPA, and a host of other good government operations.

That history has been lost amid the jumble of the lies from the M$M.

We need to bring the message back to the people that our party has been, and will be, the party that cares about everyone. Doesn't matter who you are, the color of your skin or any of that. The Dems are the only ones who have looked out for everyone, and it is that other party that cares only for the rich, like Bush said "The have mores".

Obama spoke that message loud and clear in 2008, and the party already forgot.

[markpkessinger]

17. I would say it's a bit more than mere lack of message . . .

. . . I would say that the problem has been not so much one of lack of message, but rather mixed, conflicting messages. It's one thing to point to all of those things (great as they certainly were/are). It's another to demonstrate the Party's rock-solid commitment to protecting and maintaining, and even expanding upon, those accomplishments.

[RobertEarl]

23. That was my point

Obama used the history of the party as his message, then he threw in the Hope and Change part, which is still historically the Dem message.

But I've heard none of that in the last 4 years. The best message for us since that time was Romney's '47%' won't vote for him.

We have a message. It is based on history. Is factual. We have forgotten it.

One reason our leaders have forgotten it is that big money does not like our message. Pursuit of the big business dollars has clouded the vision of our leaders. Time we had new leaders. All new, except for Sanders and Grayson et al.

[markpkessinger]

24. +1 n/t

[ballyhoo]

43. I hate to ask a stupid question, but has anyone been out to field in predominately

Democratic voting areas and asked people--door-to-door if necessary why 1.They did not vote. 2. Why they did not vote Democratic. I have read the reasons put together by analysts but I never know if what they are saying is biased or not. We need some real solid info. There may be something being overlooked. Call it an Election Autopsy. And no arm-chairing.

[kentuck]

45. Excellent questions...

Would be good to know.

[ballyhoo]

48. I'm from Cincinnati and know people from Ohio

and Kentucky. They don't like the way Democrats demean religion, specifically the bible. And it's such a simple thing to stop doing.

[still_one]

58. KY also believes that they will lose their coal jobs under a Democrat

[kentuck]

59. Kentucky likes their guns also...

probably as much as any state in the union.

[still_one]

61. I think that is what happened in Colorado also, and that is a mixed state, neither red or blue

entirely

[kentuck]

68. The Governor that signed the bill that pissed off the gun crowd last year...

won re-election in Colorado. Even after he shot pool and had a beer with Barack Obama.

And the guy that won the race against John Morse last year, Bernie Herpin, was defeated by a Democrat from El Paso County. Go figure.

[Odin2005]

66. Their coal jobs will have to disappear eventually or else the planet is fucked.

[glinda]

71. I am not comfortable being part of conservative values such as fossil fuels, anti-abortion stances

and less gun control We already have shifted right. This is stupid as the planet is in dying mode.

[markpkessinger]

56. Good questions, certainly . . .

. . . but honestly, in cases where people were simply not motivated to go to the polls, I suspect the answer would amount to a shrug of the shoulders.

[ballyhoo]

64. That's what I want to see.

[Jamastiene]

72. red stater here,

One of my most liberal friends says this:
The difference between the Democratic and Republican Party is the Republicans will tell you they are going to fuck you over before they do it. The Democrats buy you dinner and make you think you'll be safe, then fuck you over anyhow.

Trying to appeal to the right wingers where I live would require something more right wing than the Teabaggers. I'm talking off the charts, batshit crazy right wing, up to and including the fact that many believe raping lesbians and beating gay men is fine and dandy, believe blacks and whites should live segregated, ffs, how they hate the Mexicans, etc. One area of my hometown prides itself on the fact that they will burn down any house in East Rockingham if a black family or Mexican family moves in. They routinely have fires over there too, but the place is so overly populated that there are plenty of houses left. The local cops are complicit until it looks like they won't be able to hide their own dirty deeds. The first ever hate crime prosecuted in my hometown was when they vandalized a house simply because a Mexican family moved into East Rockingham. Without a lot of hell raising, they cops would have let it slide like they do so often. In the town to my north, there was a special PTA meeting held because white girls were dating black guys. They didn't like that. One of the comments made was that in Ellerbe, the town where this happened, they usually "kept their blacks in line" and that is why everyone up there was so up in arms about it. This was back in the late 1990s, not 1890s, but 1990s. There is no way I would ever go along with trying to appeal to that bunch. So many where I live think like all of the above and worse. I could fill volumes of books with all of the hateful, backasswards, screwed up bigoted crap I have seen in this shithole. I went to mental health as late as 1998 and was told to "get right with God" because I am gay. This was after I got raped FOR being a lesbian. This was the county run mental health clinic, using government money. That is what they want, to be able to infiltrate all parts of government from the bottom up and impose their sick, twisted version of religion on people.

So, those are two perspectives I have heard, one from the left and many from the right. The moderates vote and the right votes. The left sees blue dogs and about half of the left doesn't vote unless they see someone who is actually more in line with what they believe in. In other words, the Third Way stuff won't work in red states and there is no way in God's green hell this Democrat would ever want to see the Democratic Party trying to appeal to this bunch of fucked up, backasswards right wing bigoted assholes in this area.

We gotta go left to round up the ones down here who evolved already are sick and tired of being sick and tired of being fucked over by the Democratic Party and tired of putting up with the "good ol' boys club" running local government.

And for the record, the only Democrat I have ever been super happy to vote for in this state was Elaine Marshall. She came out in favor of gay marriage before licking her finger and sticking it up in the air to see which way the political winds were blowing like the rest of the Democratic Party leadership did. The rest have been blue dogs. So, I'm down here suffering from lack of oxygen from holding my nose to vote for the fucking blue dog Republicans in Democrat clothing (yes, DINOS)...who lose any-fucking-how, 90% of the time. Truman was right. When faced with a Democrat trying to out Republican the Republicans and an actual Republican, people will choose the stupid ass Republican. Democrats need to start standing for something or we will continue to fall for anything. Shifting further to the right is NOT the answer.

The national Democratic Party values never do trickle down to the red states, because most Democrats running in red states aren't even really in line with most Democrats on but maybe one or two issues, mostly Social Security and Medicare usually. That is about it. The rest is pretending to be holier than thou Republicans and losing, losing, losing.

And, for the record, this is/was a "blue" county where I live. It consistently voted for Democrats, but not these last two times. These last two times, the Republican Party set up shop here and just about took the place completely over.

[Odin2005]

92. "I got raped FOR being a lesbian" Jesus Christ!!!

[Jamastiene]

134. What's worse is they thought they were doing me some kind of favor.

It was awful.

[Odin2005]

135. WAT???? I don't even...

[WillyT]

16. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[markpkessinger]

22. Thanks, WillyT! n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. The candidates and the party have to convince people to vote for them. They failed.

I believe they failed because most people are disgusted with politics-as-usual and the status quo. They either didn't bother to vote for more-of-the-same or rolled the dice and voted Republican.

[markpkessinger]

19. I agree . . .

. . . and I think the way the party and its candidates convince people to vote for them is to represent their interests authentically, and to stop pretending the party can serve two competing sets of interests at the same time.

[truedelphi]

21. I'd love to see everyone concerned about the future go to

www.MovetoAmend.org

Also I would love to see it stipulated that anyone serving as President will forego any honorariums after leaving office.

Would Clinton have signed off on the Banking Reform and Modernization legislation that removed Glass Steagall as a protective barrier between the greed of Wall Street and the needs of the Middle Class, if he had not been planning on his honorariums?

With all the favors that Mr Obama has done for the Big Industries, such as Health Insurers, Big Finance (Including the new Holder Doctrine of "Too Big To Jail&quot and Big Banking, and also the GM seed and crop Ag Interests, his honorariums will make Mr Clinton's look like chump change.

[RobertEarl]

25. Yep. Obama is set for life

He has just played the system as was set before him, so before any of the Obama is the messiah types get here, know that I can forgive him.

However, I am more concerned with the future of billions of poor folks like me than I am with a few richies like Obama.

This party has always been the party of the not-rich. The have less. We now have more of us to care for than ever, so why are the party leaders abandoning us? Big Money.

[MisterP]

26. this is definitely existential-crisis stuff for the party

the WalMart model of "vote for promises we openly say we won't fulfil, don't question, don't protest, knock on doors for us, and we'll keep giving the money to retiring Senators and focus only on cushy corporate and think-tank seats once we leave"

it's basically an elite political stratum sustaining itself either on past glories, populism without follow-up, and using people like the Black or Progressive Caucuses to legitimate continued corporate servitude and sliding rightward

this doesn't of course mean inevitable future losses--most Latin American "Liberal Parties" were split between populist or social-democrat factions vs. what they called "officialism": a pro-oligarchy stratum concerned mostly with perpetuating itself and encouraging people to vote por tradición--voting only because you've always vote that way, and your family always supported them since the 1860s

[markpkessinger]

28. Very, very well put!

Thank you!

[Kablooie]

29. But the people who decide the elections now are the big money corporations.

It seems to follow them is the only choice if the Dems want to remain in the game.

It's become a depressing reality that America's Democracy has been handed to the super rich and unless it can be wrenched from their hands, not likely in the foreseeable future, the country of and by the people is gone.

So I don't expect any move to support populist issues unless they can be demonstrated to improve corporate and wall street's pockets.

[markpkessinger]

30. I don't, for a minute, suggest that any of this would/will be easy . . .

. . . But as a party, we either take that risk -- and commit ourselves to doing the work necessary to make our efforts successful, or we continue to have elections in which we are unable to inspire voters to show up at the polls. Under the first scenario, we may (and I emphasize may) have a shot at succeeding; under the second, our party's fate is sealed.

[Kablooie]

73. Is being the second banana corporate stooge party really that bad a thing?

You don't have to answer this.

[99th_Monkey]

44. You are correct. There is no way out of this, except slogging through

until we can keep electing enough POTUSes to appoint enough qualified SCOTUSes to reverse CU ruling. Just sayin'

[stillwaiting]

81. Yes, the country of and by the people is already gone.

We have a lot of work to do to get our government to represent average American interests over multinational corporate and billionaire interests.

[DeSwiss]

31. Oh, that's already been decided......

...the only question now is, who can they find now who can convince everyone that they've ''CHANGED'' -- and that if given just one more chance, then there's ''HOPE'' for tomorrow.

- Battered-Dem-Syndrome is a viscous cycle. Rinse, wash, repeat......

K&R

[markpkessinger]

35. Sad but true . . .

. . . (he says with a bitter, rueful chuckle).

[woo me with science]

47. IMO this is why they want to run Hillary.

They need time to rehabilitate the Dem Party, and the best way is to have a Republican in office for awhile so they can play passionate (yet somehow still ineffective) opposition party.

I remember my manipulation detector going off like crazy a few months ago when the MSM started publicizing all those stories about Hillary's "gaffes" comparing herself to poor people. And we are still seeing an unusual amount of commentary in the media about her flagrant saying one thing to one group and the opposite to another.

I think the PTB plan for her to lose. IMO, the biggest mistake we make is in assuming that these politicians, bought and paid for by the same corporate interests, have the same loyalties to party that they breed in us. I think we've entered a post- partisan, post-Democratic era of governing in which the parties are quietly working together behind the scenes to guarantee election for whichever side can best continue the corporate agenda.

[pscot]

50. I would vote for her

if she promised to fire any remaining holdovers from the Shrub's administration and never to appoint any more republicans to anything unless they've been neutered. Maybe not even then.

[ReRe]

101. I guarantee you...

... you will NOT be voting for her, if those are your prerequisites.

[ReRe]

106. + 1 million

[DeSwiss]

32. Oh, that's already been decided......

...the only question now is, who can they find now who can convince everyone that they've ''CHANGED'' -- and that if given just one more chance, then there's ''HOPE'' for tomorrow.

- Battered-Dem-Syndrome is a viscous cycle. Rinse, wash, repeat......

K&R

[Andy823]

36. One problem

Until you can get the big money donors out of the picture, anyone who wants to run is going to have one tough time beating the Koch backed republicans. The means getting rid of citizens untied to start with, and that isn't going to be done as long as republicans can stop it.

So you have a good idea, but getting the money out of the picture isn't going to be easy.

[markpkessinger]

39. Chevron just spent over $3 million in the small community of Richmond, CA . . .

. . . trying to buy the local elections for mayor and city council, versus a mayor who had raised all of $40,000. Chevron failed miserably. No doubt it would be harder at the state and national levels, but I have to believe it could be done. And anyway, if we don't at least try, our party's fate is sealed in any event.

[Eleanors38]

83. Good point. Money has its limits...

I was intensely involved in elections where I live, and we put a Lot of progressives in office with a fraction of the $ spent on the other side. We have seduced ourselves into believing in yet another God of Economic Determinism, and in the quest to make it a theory of everything, paralyzed ourselves.

[Bluenorthwest]

94. The Koch funded candidate in Oregon just lost by about 20 points. The brothers and their ads

were soundly rejected, sent packing early and their candidate trounced. It wasn't that hard, really.

[99th_Monkey]

41. A-yup ... that sums it up pretty well. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

54. Agree. What our candidates are allowed to be about are ideas that are benign to their donors. n/t

[Odin2005]

60. The DLCers will soon be here to tell you why you are wrong, despite being 100% correct.

[markpkessinger]

62. Of that I am quite sure!

[kentuck]

69. Bet on it.

[Jamastiene]

75. They won't just tell you, they will excoriate and eviscerate you

and call you the worst names in the book, call you ignorant, call you racist, tell you you never loved him anyhow, and talk about unicorns and ponies. Gee, I wonder why their GOTV efforts failed so miserably? That is a sarcastic question. Imagine being an undecided and letting some "pragmatics" from DU into your home and then having to listen to that vile schoolyard bullying nonsense. Think an undecided voter is going to be convinced after that kind of taunting and hateful bullshit? I think no.

[Odin2005]

77. They are already doing that to me in the Politics 2014 forum.

[U4ikLefty]

76. You just want a pony that farts glitter

[Odin2005]

78. Eh, sorry, I'm too old to be in the Brony demographic!

[rhett o rick]

70. There are two "Democratic Parties". One is bought and paid for many times over. Can you spell Penny

Pritzker? The other is made up of hard working, principled Americans. The later has to kick the former in the private area.

[Rex]

74. You are either a yellow dog and support social issues or you are a third way type

and support your profit margin and nothing else.

[Exultant Democracy]

99. The question is how do we untie the knot, most elected Dems are not Raul Grijalva

Last edited Fri Nov 7, 2014, 05:32 PM - Edit history (1)

The people our party put into power played us like a banjo in the aftermath of Regan. I would trust Jack Abramoff more with the running of the US then Rahm Emanuel, I've spent time with both of them when their guard was down and I am deadly serious about that.

The groups we liberals give our money too are almost worse then the people we elect. Trust me when you donate to a non-profit based in DC that money they will turn around immediately to get spent at a for profit company owned by a friend or former member of their board of directors, its fucking disgusting. Not to even mention the working conditions that have for young people who want to join and make a difference. I wonder how many good future congress-people we lost because their first experience was working for a PIRG or a similar group.

Unfortunately this was probably the election where we needed to start our own tea party equivalent, in retrospect we had nothing to lose, but that window has passed. (and I was right with the rest of us sheep working my ass off to get dems elected)

We need a strong Progressive Party pulling the Democratic party to the left, unless someone has a better ideal that is.

[kentuck]

100. Perhaps we were so busy raising money that we forgot what we were running for?

Money and democratic values are like oil and water.

[Exultant Democracy]

105. A statement of absolute truth, too bad about citizens united.

[jeepers]

112. If Hillary were to get the nomination

and Sanders or even,( pray for it), Sanders and Warren were to run on an independent ticket, how would you make that decision? Stand in the middle of the road with the proven winner or Steer to the left and go with your ideals?

[samsingh]

102. we are afraid as a party to stand up for what we believe

seriously, where's the passion from our leaders? They're always restrained.

after winning in 2008, we controlled all the levers of power. Did we fix the voting machines? Go after injustices? No, we raided marijuana dispensaries. Alienated our own.

[ReRe]

108. K&R

Thanks for your OP. This subject needs to be discussed and acted upon. But first comes the discussion. "You can't have it both ways" really fits this situation. We need to be the party of the 99% and practice what we preach. Work on the Move To Amend. Be the Party of The People!

[kentuck]

110. I'm gonna bookmark this..

and see where we are in about a week or so?

[xxqqqzme]

123. I'll throw this into the mix

http://workingfamilies.org/2014/10/whoopi-goldberg-message-ny-voters/

I want to know more about Working Families Party.

[myrna minx]

111. I appreciate your thoughts and agree. K&R

[Doctor_J]

113. as I posted in another thread, this defeat was NOT caused by a bad campaign

It was caused by a lack of identity for the party as a whole.

[KrazyinKS]

114. I am not convinced many of them know what they voted for-

I talked to a lady today who was happy of the turnout. She has to be in her 80's. She did not seem to know the issues after a short discussion. I did not try to dig too deep, because I have to work with her for the next week and a half. So, we need to dig deep. Maybe address the issue of education, softly and gently, approach it from the angle of a concerned friend. I think many simply don't know what is going on. So we have to try to resist getting angry. We can't call them dumb fucks even though they are. Oh yes, the super pacs spent A LOT of money in this state. Did that make the difference?

[Progressive dog]

115. Of course, that must be why four of the six last

Presidential elections have been won by Democrats. That's the one office that the whole country gets to vote for, In one of the two losses, the Democrat still won the popular vote.

[markpkessinger]

116. Sure . . .

Last edited Mon Nov 10, 2014, 11:09 PM - Edit history (1)

. . . and we'll likely to continue to do well in Presidential elections. But until we take an honest look at why we seem to be unable to motivate voters to come out for midterms, we'll find ourselves in the same position time and time again when it comes to midterms, regardless of any success in Presidential races. And that will ultimately hinder our ability to get anything done even when we do have those successes in presidential election years.

[Progressive dog]

141. Democrats held the Senate from 2006

till now and the House from 2006 to 2010.
We certainly won't improve our odds of retaking them by catering to people who don't see the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

[TheKentuckian]

119. Don't get too overconfident even there, we can spineless ourselves into fucking that up too

If we chump around on immigration reform too much more those changing demographics will turn into fools gold on us, we are already in mid stride of fucking up the youth advantage, women care about other issues than reproductive rights and pushing those WHILE ignoring kitchen table issues appears to be wearing thin (see Udall, see Grimes losing women...I can't believe I wasted my weekends working for that train wreck), and yes while we may well maintain the percentage of the black vote there is plenty of risk of the raw numbers slipping between letting the TeaPubliKlans disenfranchise and doing jack shit other than pure taking that support for granted.

Plus, we've managed to erode our trust advantage even on Social Security playing stupid games with the TeaPubliKlans and there are STILL really out of touch folks talking about cutting it as long as there are "protections" for the absolutely destitute which is telling everyone else that we want to cut their's which is batshit insane.

[Progressive dog]

140. The OP is claiming the Democrats are already losers

and that is what I replied to.
Obviously, the stupid games did not cost President Obama the election, in spite of the attempts to pretend they would. In fact, he won pretty handily.
I think the stupid games are when even discussions about program costs and funding are treated as a surrender.

[blkmusclmachine]

118. Third Way spits in our face. Go vote Green, they laugh.

[markpkessinger]

137. Exactly so. n/t

[RiverLover]

138. This is the most meaningful interaction btn Progressives I've ever heard.

Thank you all for giving me hope. I'm sure there are others out there who feel the same.

May something solid result from the honest, non-posturing ideas floated here.

[RiverLover]

139. "Tax & Spend"

This is a message about democrats we've all heard ad naseum. The cons talk about it endlessly. And the 2014 gop campaigns focused on it as well.

As just one ex, Maryland, which is now a Red state, had the following ad against Dem Anthony Brown. He was running for gov, following a 2 term stint by democratic gov "Owe'Malley"~

He lost.

We need to fight this angle. I asked a co-worker how he votes after he said something hinting he was a righty. He said~

"I vote for who ever I think will be best for my family."

This is what we need to do. Show HOW we help families, not just save the planet and tax for the greater good...