The 2016 Presidential Election is Not the Main Event

[MineralMan]

On DU, we talk incessantly about presidential elections. Who will run? How much money can they raise? Are you for or against individual candidates? Can Hillary win? Should anyone vote for her? What about Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren? Here's the deal: Not a single thing we do will affect who the candidates end up being. It's just flat too big a race to be influenced by just about any efforts we might make.

Odds are good that in 2016, we'll be voting in an election with Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush as the major candidates. Is that discouraging? Well, yes, it is, but that doesn't really matter all that much. I'll be voting for the Democrat, just as I have done in every presidential election since 1968.

Here's what's really important in 2016: The House, Senate and 50 state legislatures. That's what's important, and that's what's always the most important thing in every even-numbered election year. That we don't recognize that is a potentially fatal flaw. If you don't want to work to help the Democratic presidential candidate get elected, what are you willing to do for the legislative candidates in your state and districts? Will you just abandon the election because you think Hillary Clinton isn't a good choice? Will you, as we have done so many times in the past, slice your nose off to spite some candidate whose election you can't really influence?

How about answering with a big, resounding NO! How about putting your frustration and discontent to work electing the very best possible candidates for every legislative race you can? Why not do that? It's those legislators who create the bills that get sent to the President and the Governors of every state. Those legislators, state and federal, are the ones who make the laws we have to live with.

If you do that, you won't have to worry about the Presidential election at all. The Democrat will win, due to greater turnout to elect Democrats to all those state and federal legislative offices. If we win those elections, whoever is President will get some decent bills to sign, instead of bills created by Republicans. Progress can be made, but not by a President who is stuck with an obstructive, defiant Congress.

You don't like Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate? OK. There are good reasons for that. But it's very likely that she will be the candidate. There's still much each of us can do to give the next President a Congress that will help, rather than hinder. We can do that. Legislative elections are local, and your participation can actually affect the results.

We're going to get the presidential candidates we get. The same is not true of legislative candidates. We can pick and elect them for ourselves, in our own districts and states. Lets do that! Let's put all of that energy to work actually accomplishing something! That's what I'll be doing. That's what I do every two years. Join me!

[Andy823]

1. I agree

On the other hand the right wants us to fight over Hillary, and they hope that they can get voters to stay home if she runs. They know that if that happens republicans will win in those state elections you mentioned, just like in 2010, and again in 2014. Republicans know they have to divide the voters so they can take over the local and state governments. Democrats need to wake up and see what is going on and stop listening to the BS about how both parties are the same, or your vote won't count anyway.

Everyday we see the right wing tactics being use right here on DU. People want to trash and bash the party and the president, but they never have any ideas that would make things better for the country, only ideas on how to divide the party even more, which in reality is what the right wants, isn't it?

[MineralMan]

2. Thanks for your reply.

Yes, the goal of the Republicans is to keep Democrats from voting. It's the only way they can win, really. It's up to us to see to it that Democrats show up at the polling place. If Democratic voters aren't fired up about the presidential candidate, then we need to get them fired up about their Democratic legislative candidates.

We have a job to do, and that job is to educate voters about why those legislative candidates are the most important to the voters. An additional job is to choose candidates who can convince voters that they'll do the job for them. Those are we can all help to achieve. We can only achieve those goals, though, if we're willing to work locally to choose and support legislative candidates.

I hope we can figure that out and get started in time. I truly do.

[stillwaiting]

3. They're all important.

Who is the President is very important. Cabinet positions are filled and governmental departments are run based on the management of those departments.

We won't make progress in stopping this hideous trend we've been on until we get proper progressive legislation at all levels in the Federal Government (Congress AND the WH).

Of course, state governments are so very important too. I'd say the Democratic Party has done a horrible job over the past few decades in order for such a horrible Party (Republicans) to have so much representation at the Federal and State levels.

A strong progressive movement and awakening has to occur or else things will continue as they have been.

[jwirr]

4. Absolutely. Here in MN we are somewhat insulated from what the R controlled Congress in DC is

doing because we paid attention to local elections in 2014.

[MineralMan]

5. True, but even our turnout was lousy in 2014.

We must do better in 2016. Everywhere!

[jwirr]

6. Yes, I know. Do you know who it was that did not turn out in 2014 or was it across the spectrum?

[MineralMan]

7. Well, I'm in a very progressive DFL district. Our turnout was down

to 45%. While I know that the candidates in the local districts were all shoe-ins, that turnout was lower than usual.

Since the margins of wins were about the same as normal, it looks to me like it was an across the board lower turnout.

We sure have to do better in 2016. We didn't lose any races, but that's not the issue.

[jwirr]

8. Absolutely. Tomorrow is our caucas up here I am hoping to go. Then we have a school election next

week. There are Yes signs all over the place so I would guess it will pass.

[Jim Lane]

9. I agree with your recommendation but dispute part of your reasoning.

You write, of those who don't want to see Hillary Clinton as the nominee:

Will you, as we have done so many times in the past, slice your nose off to spite some candidate whose election you can't really influence?

I agree with this general approach. In 2008 I volunteered for Obama. In 2012, disappointed by his conservatism, I no longer had the enthusiasm to volunteer for him, but he certainly deserved my vote. I voted early and then went to Massachusetts to do canvassing and phone-banking for Elizabeth Warren. If the 2016 nominee is Clinton, I'll probably do something similar.

Where I disagree is your statement that "we" have done differently. Yes, there are a few people on DU who, while pointing out that Clinton is a corporatist and war hawk (I agree), announce that they'll never vote for her. I suspect that, if we get to Clinton versus Bush, even most of those people will, by late October, think about Bush III (or about Walker I or whatever) and hold their noses and vote for Clinton.

I see this repeated idea on DU that Democratic losses in 2010 and 2014 came about because liberal purists ("professional leftists", as Obama's press secretary called us) sat out the election. I've never seen data to support that. My guess is that the people loudly criticizing Obama and/or Clinton from the left are more likely to show up and vote anyway. There are a few instances in which enough people foolishly vote for a no-hoper minor-party candidate (Nader 2000 being the obvious one), but in general, I don't think it's fair to blame bad results on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

Your use of "we" may not have been intended to place such blame, and if it wasn't, please forgive me for using your post as a rant trigger.

[kelliekat44]

10. What is really IMPORTANT are those state and local elections the voters need to be educated about.

That's where the political rubber hits the road...literally. Judges, AGs, sheriffs, county and city counsels, police chiefs, school boards...all important state houses where gerrymandering originates.