What Are We Going To Do About DINOs?

[Cosmic Kitten]

Interesting read about how the democratic
establishment is enabling DINO's and
sabotaging real progressive changes.

If you give even one dollar to the DCCC there is a 100% chance that at least some of your money is going to elect or reelect candidates who are anti-Choice, anti-LGBT, anti-environment, anti-health care, pro-Wall Street, pro-NRA, pro-war and who will get into Congress and vote with the Republicans on issues that mean a lot to you and to your family-- but are laughed at by the cynics at the DCCC.

May I suggest that instead of giving money to the DCCC or the DSCC or the DNC or any of their fake front groups like EndCitizensUnited, to give directly to progressive candidates with proven track records? This list has House and Senate candidates who are solid progressives whom you can contribute to directly. And this list has House incumbents with stellar congressional voting records who deserve support for their reelection battles.

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/12/what-are-we-going-do-about-dinos

[mmonk]

1. Complain I suppose. The party is a top down model currently.

[Cosmic Kitten]

2. OR...starve their fundraising?

As the linked article suggests,
don't contribute to funds that
support DINOs.

[mmonk]

4. I stopped funding the apparatus a while back

and decided to pick a couple of candidates each election cycle that are true progressives to contribute to. It works well and I have a clear conscience.

[merrily]

9. You assumed that you had stopped funding the apparatus. Guess what? The apparatus

is at least a step ahead of us.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778505

[mmonk]

17. I give during the primary process primarily and usually to a progressive challenger.

It's the best I can do in an unjust system of control.

[merrily]

18. I do as well, but learning what is in that post was an eye opener for me.

[mmonk]

20. As I'm sure to most people.

Knowing any of your hard earned money can go to a person once in power will screw your family from a perch of power is disheartening. Voting is no longer a form of citizen power voting in their interests and neither is contributing, but it's rather a game of self-defense.

[merrily]

21. Our contributions, like our emails and calls, have become irrelevant. Only our votes matter.

I think they urge us to contribute mostly to keep us invested, so we get to the polls. And to preserve the illusion of our impacting our government in some way.

The exception, of course, is the Sanders campaign. He really needs our money--which is exactly why I am happy to give him mine.

[mmonk]

25. Me too.

But voting is just the start. It takes engagement after all the votes are counted. Everyone has a right to petition and work to gain an audience with their representatives to address grievances.

[merrily]

29. The right to petition is meaningless if petitioning does not change one single vote.

When big money talks, our politicians listen.

[mmonk]

37. True but you might be surprised at what you can do on the local level.

Besides, what choice do we have?

[merrily]

40. My local level is Boston. Strong machine.

But, yes, I agree that the local level is more promising than state and state is more promising than federal

[RKP5637]

43. He's the only one I contribute too! n/t

[merrily]

52. I contribute to Sanders, but also to others, despite what the post I linked in Reply 9 says.

As mmonk posted, we do what we can within an imperfect system. (I would have said "rigged" but mmonk is probably a better person than I.) However, it's good to do things with our eyes as open as possible.

[merrily]

10. Yes, but

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12778505

[SidDithers]

3. Whine about them on the internet?...nt

Sid

[MohRokTah]

5. It's the DU way. eom

[FrodosPet]

89. That is SO much more comfortable than having to leave the house...

...and engage with other humans IN PERSON.

Making phone calls, stuffing envelopes, arranging campaign events, getting petitions signed, it's all too much boring work, sometimes with people who are physically scary (or at least unattractive).

Nope. It is much safer and nicer to stay at home.

[Katashi_itto]

90. Possibly

Or just not vote for them.

[pintobean]

6. The republicans will appreciate it.

[merrily]

11. The Koch brothers had reasons to donate to the DLC and serve on its board.

[RKP5637]

46. I dumped my DNC membership and any contributions in support of the DNC. n/t

[whatthehey]

7. You mean the ones who don't support the party platform?

[Katashi_itto]

8. I simply don't vote for them.

Whoever they are.

If it means not voting period, then it is what it is.

[merrily]

13. I understand. Personally, I'd rather write in someone than stay home.

I don't want anyone spinning my vote, or lack thereof, as not caring or being okay with the status quo.

[Katashi_itto]

14. Thats what I plan to do at the GE.

Bernie, even if it's written in.

I stayed home for Mary Landrieiu.

3rd Wayers think we are kidding.

[bigwillq]

12. I won't vote for any of them (nt)

[pampango]

15. I want liberal Democrats to control both houses of congress.

I would love to have every member of the Democratic majorities in the House and Senate be liberal but that is further down on my wish-list.

[merrily]

19. Abandon DINOs and trojan horses if you want to elect lots of Democrats

The first rule in my book is that we have to stick by the liberal principles of the Democratic Party. We are not going to get anywhere by trimming or appeasing. And we don't need to try it.

The record the Democratic Party has made in the last 20 years is the greatest political asset any party ever had in the history of the world. We would be foolish to throw it away. There is nothing our enemies would like better and nothing that would do more to help them win an election.

I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

But when a Democratic candidate goes out and explains what the New Deal and fair Deal really are--when he stands up like a man and puts the issues before the people--then Democrats can win, even in places where they have never won before. It has been proven time and again.

We are getting a lot of suggestions to the effect that we ought to water down our platform and abandon parts of our program. These, my friends, are Trojan horse suggestions. I have been in politics for over 30 years, and I know what I am talking about, and I believe I know something about the business. One thing I am sure of: never, never throw away a winning program. This is so elementary that I suspect the people handing out this advice are not really well-wishers of the Democratic Party.

More than that, I don't believe they have the best interests of the American people at heart. There is something more important involved in our program than simply the success of a political party.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=1296

[leftynyc]

47. Abandoning everyone that DU considers

a DINO is so fucking counterproductive, I can't believe you would even suggest such a thing. When did this board become the arbiter of whose a REAL Democrat?

[jeff47]

55. Well, they have a long track record of utter failure. Why should we continue to support failure? nt

[leftynyc]

57. Do tell

of all the Presidents the far left has gotten elected. Then I'll give the list of those that have lost us elections. You go first.

[jeff47]

58. You do realize that there is more than one elected office in the country, right?

And that "Republican lite" has caused our party to lose enormous numbers of House seats, Senate seats, governorships and statehouses, right?

[leftynyc]

61. Not so

There are many districts where a liberal would NEVER get elected and those districts run candidates to the right of the national candidate - that's just good politics. Blaming the loss of seats on the moderate left is so laughable my stomach hurts from keeling over.

[jeff47]

62. Yeah, that's why those districts used to be reliably Democratic

because they'd never vote for a Democrat, only Republican lite...who then lost the seat due to shitty Democratic turnout.

Makes perfect sense!!!!

[leftynyc]

63. So now we're blaming the voters

rather than the candidates. Anyone who stays home or skips races is meaningless to me. They make themselves irrelevant.

[jeff47]

64. No, that's you blaming the voters.

After all, you're the one claiming those voters are utterly incapable of voting for a Democrat who runs as a Democrat instead of as Republican lite.

I'm in a state that was reliably Democratic for decades. We accomplished many "liberal" goals. We built great things. Lots of public infrastructure. Good schools. Strong state safety net.

Then people from New York and DC decided that no one in this state would vote for a Democrat, and we needed to run Republican lite candidates.

That strategy utterly failed. And then utterly failed. And then utterly failed. And now we have a large Republican majority in our statehouse and a Republican governor. They're doing an excellent job dismantling decades of hard work.

Run as a Democrat? Don't be a fool! That can't possibly work here. We have to run as Republican lite. Again. It's the only way to win, despite its record of utter failure.

Now, tell me just how much you respect me and the rest of the voters of my state by insisting we are too stupid to vote for anything other than Republican lite.

[leftynyc]

65. Perhaps the demographics changed

You don't say where you're from (I'm good with that) but to blame the candidates without knowing the history of the state is a fools errand. Are these states that vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate ALWAYS? I didn't call you or anyone stupid - I said anyone who sits out election day makes themselves irrelevant - that's my opinion and I stick to it.

[jeff47]

66. Nope. Demographics actually went in our party's favor.

Black and Latino populations went up, white population down. Highly educated population went up. Rural population went down, urban population went up.

And the party drove off anyone who was not trying to run as Republican lite.

Are these states that vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate ALWAYS?

Once again, there is more than one elected office in this country. Focusing only on President means injecting the foibles of an individual campaign. Is it impossible for a liberal to win in NY because they voted for Reagan in 1984?

I said anyone who sits out election day makes themselves irrelevant

When you have zero other options to affect the local party, what do you propose? The local party would rather have a blank on the ballot than run the "wrong kind" of Democrat. And will work very hard to make that happen.

Run for local party positions? They literally reduced the number of seats to prevent an election where the "wrong" Democrat might win.

I didn't call you or anyone stupid

It's the implied result of your claim that we will only vote for a Democrat who runs as Republican lite. That we just can't understand liberal policies, and will cling to God and guns and hatred of gays instead.

[jeff47]

16. Wait.

"DINOs" and support for them is not common among anyone under 40.

[merrily]

31. Isn't that now the largest demographic group in the US?

[jeff47]

34. Yep. And it's only going to get larger, since the Boomers are shrinking. (nt)

[baldguy]

22. The ones that use RW talking points to attack other Democrats

Then trumpet their own supposed "progressivism"?

[NYCButterfinger]

23. Leave them alone. You need the South.

You need a Joe Manchin, and a Heidi Heitkamp. You need to win the South and the Plains.

[jeff47]

36. You don't win the South by being Republican lite.

If it worked, we'd have the South right now. Instead, we've lost the entire region.

[NYCButterfinger]

39. Don't run on gay marriage

Talk about jobs and a military might. That is what wins the South.

[jeff47]

41. And throw in other dumbass stereotypes about grits. (nt)

[Skittles]

91. because human rights mean jackshit there?

[NYCButterfinger]

92. Not everyone wants to hear about it

[Skittles]

93. not everyone wants to hear about human rights?

UGH

[hifiguy]

94. I will see that

and raise a

Jebus Haploid Christ.

[Skittles]

95. mass narcissism

there's no gay folk in the south, don'tcha know

[hifiguy]

97. Lincoln should have let them go back in 1861

and embargoed the Confederacy. They'd have starved like dogs and begged to rejoin the union on ANY terms within 25 years. Then the Army could have gone in and rebuilt the whole damned shitaree from the ground up like the Marshall Plan did Germany. All that was accomplished by the Civil War was to replace slavery with Jim Crow. IOW, jack shit.

[joshcryer]

67. John Bel Edwards would be considered Republican lite here.

But I consider him a strong southern Democrat.

[jeff47]

69. Then you have no clue about southern Democrats.

Edwards won because he wasn't a fucking coward about beating Vitter over the head with Vitter's history. Edwards did not win because he's pro-forced-birth.

[joshcryer]

72. The most anti choice state in the country...

...consistently for years in the rankings was not going to vote pro choice.

http://www.aul.org/2015-life-list-state-rankings/

Seriously. It sucks, but it is what it is.

And the dude literally saved a quarter million people from suffering.

[jeff47]

74. Based on a poll about what a woman would do for herself, not force upon others.

"What I'd do" is not the same as "What I'd make everyone else do".

And the dude literally saved a quarter million people from suffering.

So would a Democrat who did not support forced-birth.

[joshcryer]

75. That Democrat would not get elected.

We are going in circles now. We can poo the win but I'll be glad.

[jeff47]

76. Based on you knowing nothing about southern Democrats.

Udall lost. So clearly Colorado Democrats will not vote for a pro-choice Democrat, right?

Or perhaps that's just a wee bit uninformed about Colorado Democrats.

[joshcryer]

77. Udall lost because he went for gun control.

And that liar Gardner went pro choice.

You picked the exact wrong example. If Udall didn't go after magazines he'd have gotten re elected. It's one reason I think Clinton's gun rhetoric is a land mine politically. But gun regulation has been in the platform for years so hopefully it won't be too bad regardless of the nominee.

I feel like we had this discussion before, on my phone or I'd look it up.

[jeff47]

78. Actually, picking the "exact wrong example" was the entire point.

The point was to show that people outside your local area can be incredibly poorly informed about politics in your area. Hence the second sentence in that post.

Now, tell me again about your expert analysis of all Southern Democrats. And continue to not notice you are doing the same thing.

[joshcryer]

85. I happen to have lived in Louisiana...

...and voted for Mary Landrieu, who happens to be one of the most conservative democrats, nearly a DINO in my eyes, but she voted for the ACA (despite putting the public option on the chopping block), she voted for minimum legislation, etc.

Would I vote for her again if I was in Louisiana? Yes, if she didn't have a credible challenger. We have primaries for a reason. If the challenger can't win the primary against their own party then they are unlikely to win a GE.

[jeff47]

86. You're using the wrong tense. We had primaries.

Now, local parties work very, very hard to ensure only the "right kind of Democrat" ends up on the general election ballot. Even if that results in a blank in the Democratic column on the general election ballot.

voted for Mary Landrieu, who happens to be one of the most conservative democrats, nearly a DINO in my eyes, but she voted for the ACA (despite putting the public option on the chopping block), she voted for minimum legislation, etc.

And she lost. Largely due to low Democratic turnout. Becoming yet another example of Republican lite not being "the only way we can win in the South".

[GoCubsGo]

79. Sadly, you are right.

In some places, they're the best you are going to get. People here used to bitch up a storm about John Barrow of Georgia. Well, he is gone. Unfortunately, his replacement is FAR worse. Instead of the DINO, we just have one more RWNJ in Congress. That's what we're dealing with in the South, and things aren't looking like they're going to change any time soon. Folks in these parts fight to prove they're "more conservative" than the next guy.

[Scuba]

24. Hell, with the DCCC and DNC we don't even get DINOs ...

Democrats have lost 900+ state legislature seats, 12 governors, 69 House seats, 13 Senate seats since 2009.

[pintobean]

27. Is that the chicken, or the egg? /nt

[Scuba]

28. It appears to have been the fucking plan.

[haikugal]

87. ^^^THIS^^^

[hifiguy]

96. DWS doesn't want to hurt the fee-fees of her Repig BFFs.

That woman is more goddam useless than a submarine with screen doors.

[mmonk]

30. Lack of real choices in views of the people.

[merrily]

33. After they've both been fried to a crisp, does it really matter?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7434181

[liberal N proud]

26. You could follow Trumps lead and kick them all out

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

[NCTraveler]

32. Embrace them.

Sanders is out there trying to expand the party and bring republicans in. How bad is that going to piss you off. lol. The stories are all over the place and being supported by Sanders supporters. So, if this is really a concern of yours, how do you feel about courting actual conservatives? Will you love them? Seems everyone but a small group is trying to expand our base, including Sanders. Ohh how angry that must make you.

[merrily]

35. Why would gettng votes from the Republican rank and off piss anyone off, besides Republicans?

What an odd post!

[NCTraveler]

38. The op is concerned about dino's while their candidate of choice is courting actual conservatives.

The line of thought is simple and clear.

[merrily]

42. Not at all. If Sanders had become a DINO in order to get (R) votes, your line would be more direct.

However, it's Third Wayers who triangulate policies in an effort to get (R) votes.

[NCTraveler]

45. I support Clinton who rightly attacks conservatives. Guess that's why I don't get this. nt.

[merrily]

53. She attacks conservatives while triangulating policies, so....

Did you have a problem with Obama courting Republican votes? The "Obamacans" his campaign bragged about in 2008?

Giving a speech at Liberty about the value of traditional Democratic policies is not a problem for me. Abandoning, even condemning traditional policies is a problem for me.

In any event, the line of your thought in Reply 32 was not as direct and self evident as you assumed. Several posts later, I still have no clue why you think rank and file Republicans voting for a Democrat with traditional Democratic values would be a problem for any Democrat, including the OP or, for that matter, you.

[mmonk]

49. He courts people by explaining his positions and his remedies are furthest away from the Republican

Party. People can respond to conviction and explanations when given a chance.

[hifiguy]

98. This.

[MohRokTah]

44. This thread reminds me of Teabagger threads on FR decrying Orrin Hatch as a RINO.

Cut off that nose to spite your face!

What silliness. This is the same sort of crap that drove the Republican Party into the hands of Donald Trump.

[NCTraveler]

50. Sentence one: What are we going to do with DINO's!!!

Sentence two: My candidate will get tons of conservative support.

The hypocrisy is stunning.

[MohRokTah]

51. The political naivte is stunning. eom

[mmonk]

59. Not this person. People who really do their homework aren't either.

Then the choice based on what you want to accomplish.

[hifiguy]

99. "We may all be living in Hoovervilles

BUT we got the SCOTUS! Ain't that dandy?" ain't much of a battle cry to rally the troops.

[KansDem]

48. Go after their families?

That's the solution advocated by the current GOP frontrunner for any persona non grata.

[MrWendel]

54. OH OH I know...

Run a purity test! And that way you can either keep some from entering the country or others by internment camps

[Agnosticsherbet]

56. Encourage them to vote for Democrats.

We need to be in control of he House and Senate if we want to get anything of importance done.

[TeddyR]

68. Agreed

[joshcryer]

70. And run more John Bel Edwards types.

And rejoice when guy like John Bel Edwards save, literally, a quarter million people with the stroke of a pen.

[ibegurpard]

60. Well since we are most likely going to have one

At the top of the ticket that's a really good question.

[TeddyR]

71. I'll start with the caveat that I'm not a fan of purity tests

But that aside, I need to know how we are defining "DINO" to answer the question, since the Democrats in Congress take all sorts of different views on all sorts of issues. For example, some might call Manchin a "DINO" but he's been good on the gun control issue. And while there's a lot of love for Liz Warren, she isn't getting elected in West Virginia or North Dakota. So which DINOs do we no longer want in the party?

[mmonk]

73. What do you stand for?

just curious. Is it a question of "purity" or right or wrong or what is in your best interests and those of your family? Is it a sport with teams or real life with consequences beyond a game of conquest between two sides? All relevant questions.

[TeddyR]

84. Are you asking theoretically?

Not sure I understand your question but will try to answer. The party nationally should advance the interests of society and the president is the point person for that. Senators, due to the power they hold, should also support the party's key policies, but ultimately a senator is elected to represent the interests of the citizens of his or her state and might legitimately vote in a way that isn't supported by a majority of Dems. Members of the house also should support the president's broader policy proposals but, again, are elected to serve the interests of their constituents.

For me personally I have always voted for the local/national Democrat each election because I believe the party best represents the interests of both my family and the country as a whole. For example, I strongly support same-sex marriage so even if I might disagree with the Democrat on the local ticket on some issues I vote for that candidate because our party is light-years ahead of the Republicans on this issue.

I vehemently oppose the idea that we should hold every single candidate to some sort of purity test because it harms the party. For example, one of the most important decisions a president faces is who to nominate for Supreme Court justice. The Supreme Court makes policy decisions that impact millions of people and the next president might be tasked with nominating 1-3 justices, certainly enough to change the outcome on key cases addressing voting rights, gun control, or affirmative action (as potential examples). So if a bunch of Democrats wants to pout and refuse to vote because their preferred candidate wasn't the nominee, leading to a republican president (and God forbid it is Trump) appointing more justices like Alito then I say those people aren't true Democrats, and their abstention will have directly harmed the party and the future of this country.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. I suggest voting for the Democrats you prefer, in the primaries

Amazingly, the article doesn't mention primary elections once. It thus seems woefully incomplete.

[KamaAina]

81. Depends. If they're in Red states or districts, support them over repukes.

If they're in Blue areas, like DiFi in CA, throw 'em under the bus.

[Android3.14]

82. Until DWS is gone, not a penny is going to the Party in general

Only specific campaigns for specific Democrats.

[Renew Deal]

83. Most of the DINO's I've seen say they registered just to vote for Sanders

And yes, I can provide links.

But maybe he can get them to stay in the party.

[CharlotteVale]

88. I always tell Democratic national groups to piss up a rope when they call.

Just did it the other day when the Democratic governors association called me especially since my own governor is a DINO.

I give directly to the candidates I support, like Bernie Sanders.