Serious Question... How Do You Get Democrats To Do The Correct Thing Without Withholding Your Votes ...

[WillyT]

Or at least threatening to.

I'm not advocating working against Democratic candidates, I'm wondering how we counter the influence of money (corporate money) in the voting habits of our own side.

:shrug:

[mmonk]

1. I wouldn't know. I haven't withheld my vote yet.

[WillyT]

5. Well Me Neither... But I'm Getting There Quick...

:shrug:

[mmonk]

10. In my state, I have found out that I can still vote in the primary as an

independent. I have been active in state and local politics for the Democratic Party for a long time and have attended its conventions and the Jefferson Jackson dinners. I'm planning to send the state party chair a letter telling them I'm changing to independent (since I can still vote in the Democratic Party primary). I've never tried this before but I have no intentions of helping the foes of social security and public schools (with the charter school push and teacher union purge) move the yardstick for their cause further along. What it comes down to is I don't want to be a hypocrite any longer. I will wait and see if they return to our traditions while voting for progressive Democrats.

[WillyT]

12. I'm Pretty Sure I'll Be Following Your Path...

Guess I'm still shell-shocked from the 2008/2009 switcheroo...

:shrug:

[abelenkpe]

2. Million dollar question...

Seriously. I want to know too. Anyone have suggestions?

[blondeatlast]

3. They need money to get votes--the reverse is also very true.

The politicritters still really do need us voters--perhaps it's a good time to remind them.

[tavalon]

23. Do they really?

$1 now equals one vote. Monsanto, Exxon, BP are now their constituents.

[blondeatlast]

43. Monsanto, Exxon, and BP still cant' walk into the voting booth quite yet.

The key word being, of course, YET.

[tavalon]

69. They don't have to

Their money is their vote. And they vote often and early.

[AndyTiedye]

71. Diebold

[Capt_John]

87. +1000

nt

[frazzled]

4. Well, obviously withholding your vote doesn't work

Because then, when they don't get elected because you withheld your vote, they can't vote for anything at all. And the other side is sure to prevail. So, no. Don't withhold your vote.

Have you tried meeting with your Congressperson or Senator? Do you call and write effectively? Hell, we called a zillion times to our new (Republican) senator Mark Kirk to press for a vote on repealing DADT, and that actually worked. (It didn't work for the Dream Act, but I'll keep calling.)

[dkf]

6. Talk to them.

Show up at town halls. Know when they are in town.

In the end, they will vote as their conscience or lack of one dictates. But if they don't know then it isn't their fault if they are unresponsive to you.

[TBF]

8. lolol nt

[WillyT]

9. I Don't Believe That In The Least Any Longer... Unless You Are Talking En-Masse ???

:shrug:

[dkf]

14. Actually I would suggest you get involved with your local party and help out a campaign.

I made some pretty close friends by working on campaigns. I feel like I could call someone connected to our Governor and my Rep if I needed to. Being there and showing up when a campaign needs help is a Godsend to these pols.

[WillyT]

18. Too Late... I'd Get Kicked Out For A Bad Attitude...

But thanks...

:D

:hi:

[Raine]

72. I really think that is the only way, call them,

email them, telegram them and when any congresscritter has a local meeting with voters attend and let them get an ear full ... raise hell!

[flvegan]

7. Become a billionaire who owns several large corporations. Threaten to withhold money.

Oh, wait...that's not what you wanted.

I got nothin' then.

[Ozymanithrax]

11. Create an organization similar to the teabaggers to advocate loudly for liberal policies.

Find out where you congressmen and Senators offices are in your state. When they come back to the state, get people together and chain yourself across the door. You will get arrested, but you will have a chance to air our views.

For those who can, get people to support you and walk to Washington. People can pledge a quarter for every mile you walk. Use that money to advertise.

Get loud...
Non violent non compliance of the law.

Go to Washington and chain yourself and friends to a monument.

Think about way you can bring pressure on both Democratic and Republican elected officials.

[Exilednight]

21. I would love if the left decided to do this, but sadly many seem contempt with

mediocre change.

[Ozymanithrax]

80. Are you part of the left, or...

JAFO.

At some point, we need to quit looking for leaders and lead.

[Exilednight]

84. Asking someone if they are a JAFO is the reason people within this party don't come together. n/t

[Ozymanithrax]

85. If we don't want to take the direct action of withholding a vote...

not that it matters a didly to them...then we have to look at actions that get our message across. We can't exspect someone else to do it for us.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

90. That and the fact that the Dem Party is split...

...I find I'm too far left of the party to promote it's agenda. I need to find a group that will push the Dem Party. I think for the first time in years we are seeing a schism in the Ree-Ree Party. Granted that most of the Tea Party groups are Republican hacks, but some are not, and they are not happy with today's Republican Party.

Hmmm... I'll have to check out this group, the Coffee Party Movement. I've only heard their ad on the radio, but I've yet to check it out.

http://CoffeePartyUSA.com/

[AndyTiedye]

22. Teabaggers are Astroturf, Genuine Grass Roots Would Never Get That Kind of Media Attention

[Ozymanithrax]

81. No, they are noisy assholes. We, too, can noisy assholes. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

32. Liberals/Leftists do this all the time. You don't know about it because it never gets reported.

And when it does, many Democrats deride it. Witness the treatment of Cindy Sheehan or Code Pink.

[Ozymanithrax]

82. Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink can't do it alone...

We can not champion a person or an organization.

We do it as a movement, or we are JAFO.

[pnwmom]

13. How do you get them to do the correct thing BY withholding your votes? n/t

[WillyT]

16. Apparently... They Prefer To Be Re-Elected...

It's amazing... they hold rallies, pay for TV commercials, and even send MAIL TO YOUR HOUSE... asking for your vote. Hell... they even manage to get their names on official state ballots!

So... logic being logic... if they want to GET into office, or STAY in office...

They need to get more votes than their opponent.

And therefore... if they thought some position they took, some policy they were willing to support... would actually cause people they should normally be able to count on for their votes, to WITHHOLD those votes...

They might actually think twice before fucking with their own base.

:shrug:

[AndyTiedye]

25. It Has Been Done Before. That's How Bush* Was Able to "Win"

Withholding our votes only causes our side to lose.

Then the next Democrat who tries will be more conservative than the one who was defeated.
This has been going on for decades.

[Jakes Progress]

45. What side?

The problem is that the party is not on "our side".

The OP didn't ask for conventional wisdom, but for ideas. Got any?

[Jakes Progress]

49. Delete - wrong place.

[mmonk]

27. That decision is determined by professional advisors.

[WillyT]

34. Don't Give Away The Answer !!! - Sheesh !!!

:rofl:

:evilgrin:

:hi:

[mmonk]

56. .

;-)

[Terry_M]

26. The way Evolution Works

unfortunately, evolution takes whole generations and this would take whole election cycles...

[stranger81]

86. By ensuring there's a consequence when a congresscritter does not represent your interests.

Bottom line, the only messages that get through are (a) diminishing campaign contributions; and (b) diminishing votes. Everything else is just noise.

[AndyTiedye]

91. Withholding Your Vote Only Pushes Them Further to the Right

If they can't get our votes, they'll move rightward in search of the mythical "center".

[neverforget]

15. Become a CEO

[mmonk]

20. Incorporate! It's a superior personhood.

Better than flesh and bones persons

[BzaDem]

17. Perhaps the reason Democrats aren't doing what you consider to be the "correct thing" is that most

Democrats actually approve of most of the things Obama is doing?

In other words, there are two possibilities (and a mixture in between). One is that Obama (and others) aren't mostly doing what most Democrats want. The other is that they are mostly doing what most Democrats want, and you just happen to be in a minority of Democrats that wants them to do something else.

Perhaps it is the latter?

[WillyT]

30. I Want You To Embrace This... For Later...

On what most people want.

60 Minutes/Vanity Fair Poll: January Edition


Link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/22/60minutes/main7175226_page8.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

:shrug:

[BzaDem]

33. OK, and guess what? Obama would prefer to increase taxes on the wealthy!

That doesn't mean he would prefer to increase taxes on the wealthy when the only way to do so is also increase taxes on everyone else (including taking thousands away from families at the poverty line).

In fact, if you ask whether people prefer the tax cuts remain in effect for those below 250k, you get around 84% who say yes. So sounds like Obama is doing his best to get what the people want, contrary to your assertion.

[WillyT]

37. So Let Me Ask You...

If all we get soon... in the name of "compromise" is... cuts in Social Security and MediCare...

You will say... what?

:shrug:

[BzaDem]

39. Depends on what the alternative is.

If nothing is a viable alternative (unlike the tax case) to whatever proposal Republicans put forward, then I would prefer nothing.

In general, I would prefer the best alternative out of the choices available.

[Hello_Kitty]

42. So, IOW, the Republicans get to determine what the choices are.

Great.

[BzaDem]

48. Um, yeah, that's kind of what happens when voters elect Republicans. n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

54. When they take over the House it apparently means they've taken over all 3 branches.

Good to know. :thumbsup:

[BzaDem]

55. Who said that? The Constitution allows a single house to dictate what it will pass and what it wont.

Of course, that house can't dictate what the President will sign into law. But it can certainly say "I will not pass what you want, and if you don't sign what I want, we'll just see what happens when people get their January paychecks and who they will blame."

You seem to be acting as if you need all 3 branches to block anything, which is obviously untrue.

[Hello_Kitty]

58. Oh obviously. The Republicans didn't need any branch to block things the last 2 years.

[BzaDem]

60. OK, but now you seem to be backtracking on your argument that they somehow need 3 branches to

dictate terms.

You are correct that during the times we didn't have 60 votes in the Senate, 41 Republicans can block things on the Senate side. Not sure how that supports your argument.

[Exilednight]

19. Run for office, and before you laugh, let me share this story with you ........

I had a friend who was pissed off that his Rep would not listen to his concerns, so he decided that if you can't beat them - join them.

A group of about 10 of us got together and ran around all over the district to collect signatures. We collected more than enough to get him on the ballot. Polls showed him pulling down about 4% of the vote. That's a very small amount, but with MOE it was just enough to swing a five point election.

His rep took him seriously then.

[krispos42]

24. Thom Hartmann would say take over the local Democratic committee

And work upwards from there. When the local (city or county) parties get more liberals on them, they have more influence on internal party politics, such as fostering and supporting more liberal candidates.

[mmonk]

28. Sounds good in theory and maybe it worked in Oregon.

But our state party platform we hammered out seems to be something the candidates ignore once elected. I think they must think it keeps us busy and happy.

[krispos42]

36. In the perfect system, if they ignored the platform they would be primaried out next election

The party would throw its weight and money behind somebody else to represent it. But the power of incumbency is so great that a) the primary challenge might now work (e.g., Blanche Lincoln), b) the discarded politician might run as an independent (e.g., Lieberman), and/or c) the fighting might lead to the opposition taking the seat.

[GeorgeGist]

29. I suppose you could spank them.

[unkachuck]

31. "How Do You Get Democrats To Do The Correct Thing..."

....you can't....

....it's like the old Elton John song said, "...It's like trying to find gold in a silver mine, It's like trying to drink whiskey from a bottle of wine..."

....they can't deliver on our kind of work....they can't handle a Progressive task without faltering....

[BzaDem]

35. Republicans say the same thing about their politicians.

Their ultimate betrayal is that Bush didn't shutter several executive departments in his first year.

This is nothing new.

[mmonk]

38. But he still gave them what they are told they want.

That's the part that doesn't work as easy on our side of the aisle. We can't be told what we want as well.

[BzaDem]

40. He did not give them what they want.

That's why he is held with disdain by a group of conservatives. Is the group very big? No. But it is much bigger than the tiny portion of liberal Democrats that don't approve of Obama.

[Hello_Kitty]

44. He gave them war, tax cuts, attacks on gay rights, and attacks on choice.

The only thing he disappointed them on was immigration (because his Big Bidness donors like their cheap workers) but they didn't complain all that much about that because he mollified them in so many other ways.

[BzaDem]

46. Actually, they wanted far more than that. That is so tiny it isn't even relevant to them.

Both parties have small groups that will never be satisfied with any presidential candidate of their party that actually wins election. They would of course be satisfied with certain people who would never win, but not with people who might actually win.

[mmonk]

51. Is that why they have been putting up signs of Bush saying Miss me yet?

[BzaDem]

52. Oh, most Republicans still like Bush, just like the vast majority of Democrats like Obama.

All I'm saying is that both parties have their members that will never be satisfied. Not that MOST of their members think that way.

[mmonk]

53. I could be satisfied if the Democrats ever return to being the party

they have been most of my life. Nobody is 100% satisfied 100% of the time unless they have no convictions about anything other than belonging to a group.

[BzaDem]

57. The party of McGovern? Or Mondale? Or Dukakis?

As I said, this small group I refer to will of course be satisfied with candidates that will never be elected. That is precisely my point.

You might say that you will be satisfied when the Democrats become the party of FDR, or LBJ. But you should keep in mind that the reason we had the majorities we had in the 30s and the 60s (that allowed SS/Medicare/New Deal to pass) was an alliance between actual Democrats and anti-civil-rights Southern Democrats). If the South were solidly Republican during the time of FDR or LBJ, as they are today, we would have gotten nothing passed like we did.

So something tells me you aren't talking about wanting a Democratic party like the one we had then. So aren't you only talking about wanting a Democratic party like we had when we lost elections in landslides? If not, what is this mythical period of your life, where we passed massive social programs without the aid of an alliance with southern racists?

[mmonk]

64. Look, I would be happy with preserving social security and medicare,

medicaid, a progressive tax system, labor rights, constitutional rights and liberties, habeas corpus, checks and balances, a funded public school system for all. etc. If that's too liberal, then maybe I shouldn't vote at all. Because much of that is under attack by both parties. Why wasn't it too liberal or extreme before? I want no part of disassembling it.

[BzaDem]

67. I'm just saying that the period of time you speak of is imaginary.

Most of the policies you identify with would never have passed if the South were Republican back then.

Each of those issues probably could take up a whole post. (For example, you should be blaming Republicans for refusing to vote for a tax package that Obama prefers, not Obama. Or, to take education funding, Obama has pushed through tens of billions in increases to education funding, while Republican's plan is to reverse it and then cut the previous baseline by a further 20%.)

But in general, looking objectively as what Democrats want to do and are doing versus what Republicans want to do and are doing, there is a huge difference (similar to the difference between Bush and Gore that Nader claimed not to exist). If you can't recognize that difference, I don't think any changes in reality would change the perception you want to have. Both groups in both parties have perceptions they want to have, and they stick to them. But these perceptions are not necessarily accurate, which is part of the reason both groups are unsatisfied with any leader who is actually popularly elected.

[mmonk]

75. Just because there are differences doesn't make it necessarily enough of a change in direction.

This tax cut deal is bad. Really bad with a Republican House coming into play that would like cuts to "entitlements" and to gut government further other than security, military, or war. Add in more "free trade deals and it looks even worse. We can't sustain this. The fact it was done with Republicans and thrown out in a take or leave it manner didn't help. I worked around 20 years advocating for the advancement of education for disabled children so the charter school expansion idea sucks, especially with new Republican Governors and legislatures coming to power. I would have expected a president from my party to stand up for the rule of law and habeas corpus. Seems pretty basic. I wanted real change back to what made us strong economically and morally at times. Sorry but I'm not unreasonable and others like me aren't either. One can disagree, sure. But to make out like we're a lunatic fringe demanding or wanting "everything" seems disingenuous.

[TheMadMonk]

41. Well there's always the radical route. Try giving them to a DEMOCRATIC.

For most of the people at the top, there is no real influence available for the little man to shift him, except as you point out, through (greater) self harm.

If you're serious, either take the bloody party back, or get a serious third (and beyond) party movement happening.

It works, not marvelously, but still a shitload better that what you have, here in Australia. It even self corrects quite nicely. Don Chipp broke away from the Liberal Party and formed the Democrats, back in the 70s "To Keep the bastards honest." and true to that ideal, the voters destroyed the party when it got too cozy with the wrong people. The Greens have since had their turn in that role, and even a nutcase like Pauline Hanson had a few good points to make amongst all the racist drivel she spouted.

In fact, you're probably too late to be #3. So lacking a quaternary leftist party to ballance the Tea Party, the ballance of power in the Senate could well fall to the worst of White Mainstream America. It would only take a small handful of senators who can't be broken apart to make what is already happening, impossible to stop.

Get your finger out, and you might become the one who makes it impossible to proceed.

[Occulus]

47. You find a way to give individual candidates more money than corporations can or

eliminate the influence of money completely. Let's face it; it's all about the money these days. They will never vote for less money for their campaigns through a complete ban of all form of corporate donations or strictly public financing of elections and political campaigns, much in the same way they will never vote themselves a pay cut.

I'm starting to think that the only way to fix it is via a Constitutional Convention called by the People. Remember, the Constitution allows for exactly that, and I'm starting to think it was built in as a mechanism to allow the People to force Congress into doing things and enacting laws that are of a detriment to Congress.

How would we go about that? It would take a very large effort by a few very wealthy individuals to bankroll it, for one thing. Maybe we could enlist a few Powerball winners, I don't know.

We clearly need to consider changing things in ways Congress would never countenance. The only lawful method is the Constitutional Convention.

[Jakes Progress]

50. My cursory understanding of the nihilist movement

was that one reason given for opposing all sides is that it would bring about the collapse of the system, which is necessary for reform.

We all thought that 8 years of bush was bad enough to convince the nation that it needed a progressive leader. I believe that is what most people thought they were getting when they elected Obama. With no real progressive leadership, it is easy for the other side to muddy the waters, especially with an electorate with such a short memory.

So maybe withholding your vote (not something I advocate yet) would probably result in someone bad in office. Maybe the country needs 12 years, or 16 to show them the error of their ways. Again, I don't want the crap that such a corporate controlled government would create, but I guess you might argue that wandering slowly, but ever so surely, into the realm of corporate control of the masses means you still end up there. So perhaps the shock of something even worse than our current slow boat to Wal-Mart government would create the awareness needed. Now the country is just a pot of frogs in simmering water. A (shudder) palin or (omg) randian paul administration would let everyone know the water is near boiling.

My real feeling is that we are headed to riots and chaos first. And the outcome of that won't be good.

[AndyTiedye]

73. There Is No Way Back From There

That way leads inexorably to hard fascism.
It likely also leads to World War III (aka Crusade II),
since they are also Fundie nutbars.

This must be avoided at ALL costs!

[Jakes Progress]

79. Where is there?

What way?

We are moving towards WWIII now. We are moving toward fundamentalist control of government. If we do it slowly, it will happen without anyone being upset. We will wake up with darryl issa as our Homeland Czar and wonder how we got there. The is no way back from where we are currently heading, from the course we are currently on. I would guess that some think a shock to the system might be the only thing to wake people up.

Your last line is the giveaway. When we give up everything ("all costs") to try to achieve the very things you give away, you will never get there. What costs are you willing to give up? Right to choose? Civil rights? Separation of Church and State? Privacy? Do you really mean all costs?

[stranger81]

88. This deserves its own OP.

Whether you cut off your arm an inch at a time or all at once, you're still missing an arm.

[Jakes Progress]

89. And you won't get it back.

If the arm removal is only slightly painful or not noticed (say you have a job and health insurance) you will lose the arm. Perhaps you would remove it from the machine that is eating it if you felt the pain more acutely.

(I guess this is a new definition for arms reduction. Sorry about that.)

[AndyTiedye]

92. We Lose All of those Things Immediately If The Teabaggers Take Over

Right to choose? Civil rights? Separation of Church and State? Privacy?

I'm not willing to give up any of those things, though if it came to a choice between a candidate who promised to protect some, and one who promised to obliterate them all, I would be inclined to vote to save what we can.

[hulka38]

59. This is a question progressives should mull over

frequently and exhaust all options. The other issue is be careful to the extent you can that your progressive candidate doesn't turn against the progressive/liberal agenda after the election - apparently not a strength of mine.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

61. If there's a choice in the primary, vote for and work for the NON-corporate candidate

I am a strong advocate of voting for who you REALLY want in the primary or caucus, not the person you THINK other people will want or the person the media tell you you should want.

[brooklynite]

62. I use my money as entry...

Many people here talk about withholding their financial support from DCCC and DSCC because they don't represent "our" concerns (strange - our FRiends on the right say exactly the same thing about the Republican Party groups). While I primarily support candidates I'm in agreement with, I also support the Party when it comes down to ONE Democrat vs ONE Republican. As a result, I have the opportunity to talk directly to the Party organization about my opinions on both policy and politics. This Monday, I'll be having breakfast with Congressman Steve Israel (DCCC) and lunch with Patty Murray (DSCC).

[mmonk]

66. I used to. But it only gets you so far unless you are a bundler.

Your opinion most likely won't be on the top list of priorities. You're better off picking a particular member of congress or senator to work on who may share or sympathize with your position and act on it.

[brooklynite]

78. I did that too...

He lost in the last election.

[Hannah Bell]

63. you need to do it with other people, in an organized way, after putting pressure

on them in an organized way.

one voter means diddley to legislators.

[notesdev]

65. You can't

The game they play on you leaves you with three options:

1) sit out
2) aggressively promote primary challengers
3) vote for another party

You can banish any thought of actually influencing an elected official, unless you have the cash to hire a high-powered, well-connected lobbyist.

[Puregonzo1188]

68. Demonstrate. Mass protests, strikes, other forms of nonviolent, civil resistance.

It worked in the 30s.

Though than again a lot of people also voted for Norman Thomas and William Z. Foster, as well as, supported the formation of a labor party. That also helped get the Dems in line.

[AndyTiedye]

70. We Had a Free Press Back Then That Would Actually Cover That Sort of Thing

Same in the '60s during the Vietnam war.

Not anymore. Notice how little coverage our protests get nowadays?
Even really big antiwar demonstrations that we had in 2003 got very little.

[kster]

74. Support everything the republicans want, confuse the shit out of

the dem politicians, if we and the supposed dem/politicians cant beat em we might as well join them. Support everything the repugs want. What do we have to lose?

Use Reverse psychology.

Let the repugs undo everything, its the only way to wake up the people in this country.

[NuttyFluffers]

76. vote for someone who does represent your ideas, regardless of results.

if you're pissed at your reps tacking right, then voting for them again = reps assume you must like them tacking right, thus more rightward results.
if you're pissed at your reps tacking right, then voting for someone more right = reps assume you want more rightward results.
if you're pissed at your reps tacking right, then not voting and letting someone more right in = reps assuming you want more rightward results.

however...

if you're pissed at your reps tacking right, then voting for someone more left -- even if it lets someone more right win = reps see you are pissed enough to go more left; no confusion involved because you clearly state you want more leftward results.

"but you lose the chance of compromise", "who do you caucus with", blah blah blah. extraneous questions. you asked what to do. well, there's only these 4 possibilities: vote for current rep, vote for righty rep, vote for lefty rep, abstain. which of these results can be unmistakably understood? yes, that's right, the one DU says is verboten.

now go back to being quiet and let the great literati fete flower with witty zingers and imploring platitudes as the nation burns... (no, i'm not bitter. not at all...)

[eridani]

77. Primary the bastids

And ferchrssakes encourage more progressives to run for local office.

[EFerrari]

83. Hedge Funds Spent $10 Million to Help GOP Win Election

Hedge Funds Spent $10 Million to Help GOP Win Election

The Center for Public Integrity is reporting a small network of hedge fund executives pumped at least $10 million into Republican campaign committees and allied groups in last year’s elections to help Republicans win control of the House. Much of the money came late in the campaign or was funneled through obscure “joint fundraising committees” in order to avoid disclosing the names of big donors. In one case, executives at the hedge fund Elliott Management Corp. raised at least $195,800 for Republican Congressman Scott Garrett of New Jersey, who has just become the new chair of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Capital Markets. The Elliott contributions provided about 96 percent of all the funds raised by Garrett’s victory committee.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/1/6/headlines