A question about 2012

[DonCoquixote]

OK, I ask this question specifically to those that do NOT plan to vote for Obama in 2012. So that you know where I stand, right now, I am at the nose holding point. I do not like how, even though he ran ton the left of Hillary, he is now right back in DLC territory. Yes, I will admit, I am one of those people whose stomach rots at the thought that any GOP will get into the Oval office. But, seeing as how the democrats seem to want to keep tilting rightward, I would like to give those of you who do plan to not vote Obama a chance to "talk me down."

If a GOP person wins in 2012, where do we go from there? What can we do to actually get control of POWER, and not just be the people who lose elections every so often? I am trying to avoid snark here, because i want to get to ideas beyond snark. Is there a way to take a GOP winning 2012 and make lemons out of lemonade?

[BzaDem]

1. Wouldn't Democrats just move more to the right in the future if they lose?

Why do you think a Republican win would move the Democrats leftward? Wouldn't they simply conclude that they lost because they moved too far to the left, and proceed to move rightward in the future?

After all, convincing a center-right-leaning independent to switch from R to D would increase the D-R margin by 2 votes. But convincing a Democrat to switch from 3rd party to Democrat would just give them 1. So they get much more "bang for the buck" by moving rightward than moving leftward. Similarly, if the move leftward, they lose a margin of 2 for every independent they lose, but only gain a margin of 1 if they convince a liberal to vote Democratic.

In other words, the more people stay home or vote 3rd party, the more right-leaning the party would move. Is that what you want?

[leeroysphitz]

7. Dems seem to move inexorably rightward regardless of election outcomes.

They seem to treat everything as an excuse to run to the right.

[Tesha]

11. Democrats as a whole don't, but our Democratic "leadership" does.

It's a shame they're so far out of touch with the
feelings of the rank-and-file in the Party.

Tesha

[BzaDem]

12. How could they be out of touch when Obama's approval is in the mid to high 80s with every basically

every poll taken of liberal Democrats?

Have you considered the possibility that it isn't "everyone else" that is out of touch?

[Tesha]

18. Then again, they may be lying to polsters in order to try and prop-up this obviously-failing...

...poor excuse for a Democrat.

Tesha

[BzaDem]

22. So let me get this straight -- you are saying that those who dislike Obamas performance so much that

they wouldn't vote for him, would respond "yes" in an approval poll, to "prop him up?"

Are you serious?

I agree the poll result signifies something obvious -- have you considered though that what it signifies is the exact opposite of what you are saying?

[Tesha]

24. I've spoken to people who have stated essentialy this, yes.

It was clear they deeply disliked Obama although
it was unclear whether or not they would vote for
him in the General Election. But they definitely
stated that because they were partisan Democrats,
they were answering all the polls (and here in
New Hampshire, we're polled a lot, even in "off
years") stating that Obama was doing "great".

These folks are real and part of your "87% love
him" number. How big a part? Who knows? But a
not-insignificant part.

Tesha

[Tesha]

10. This assumes they can "obtain" independent votes.

At a certain point in the spectrum, those votes
are really Republican votes and it doesn't matter
how far the Democrats shift rightwards; those
voters are still going to vote for the real
Republicans rather than the faux-Republicans-
come-latelies.

And meanwhile, the party has bled off millions
of voters from the left, either by these voters
directly voting for more left-leaning parties
or by these voters simply saying "Fuck it! I
used to think Democrats were different but it
turns out that none of these politicians are
any damned good!"

You speak of a +2 for every independent swung
to the Democrats and only a +1 for a left-voter
or non-voter brought back into the fold, but what
you didn't describe is that it would be FAR, FAR
easier to regain all those +1s than to switch the
remaining +2s. We could have millions and millions
of new and returning Democratic voters if we simply
*ONCE AGAIN STOOD FOR DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES*
instead of being faux-Republicans-come-latelies.

Tesha

[BzaDem]

13. "And meanwhile, the party has bled off millions of voters from the left"

Do you have evidence of this whatsoever? The evidence I have seen indicates that its approval from the left is extremely high relative to past Democratic presidents.

"but what you didn't describe is that it would be FAR, FAR easier to regain all those +1s than to switch the remaining +2s"

That's total nonsense. It is pointless to try to please an irrational entity -- especially one so irrational to think the country would somehow be better off by enabling the election of someone like Romney or Palin. There is very little difference between Republican enablers who claim to be on the right, and Republican enablers who claim to be on the left -- and this is no less true for the question of the likelihood of one of them voting for a Democrat.

In reality, it is much easier to win over independent voters, since they are generally rational (even/especially if they don't hold strong opinions). You are correct that there are diminishing returns at some point, but if we were at that point Democrats would be winning every elections by landslides.

I personally hope the party will not need to move right to win, and so far I am hopeful (since Obama's approval rating among liberals is at a multi-generational high). If you have any evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it.

[Tesha]

19. 2010 was all the evidence any sane person needed.

2012 will be a further education but at a great cost
to many of us.

Tesha

[BzaDem]

21. Except in 2010, the electorate had the same percentage of liberals as the last midterm

and they voted for the Democrat in a greater percentage than the last midterm.

So I agree that 2010 is all the evidence any sane person needs -- to see the obvious truth (that Democrats favor Obama in numbers greater than any President in decades). Or to put it another way, 2010 is all the evidence any sane person needs to see that your theory is nonsense.

[Scuba]

2. Our two-party system. The party of the right, and the party of the far right....

Where's the left? Who is supporting a platform anywhere close the this:

The 2012 Democratic Platform


We will pass new tax laws that spread the tax burden fairly across the economic spectrum, with those benefiting most from our society contributing commensurately.

We will pass law to protect the right of workers to organize and have a voice in the operation of US businesses. This will include raising the minimum wage to $20.00 per hour to ensure a reasonable standard of living for all working families and to stimulate our sluggish economy.

We will pass law to provide Medicare for All so no American is denied care or has to suffer financial hardship because of health problems, and no American businesses are saddled with health costs that keep them from competing fairly with foreign competitors. This plan will include a “safety net” to guarantee every citizen is provided the food and shelter necessary to survive difficult challenges in their lives.



We will withdraw of all US military and contracted personnel from Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of the hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives being wasted on these wars, we will instead provide aid to these countries, and to other depressed areas where atrocious conditions breed terrorists.

We will order the Department of Justice to investigate those who led us into these wars to determine if war crime charges are warranted. If so, they will be prosecuted with vigor and any ill-gained profits shall be returned to the people.

We will order the Commerce Department to present a holostic plan for maintaining and advancing the infrastructure of our great country.

We will order the Secretary of Education to present new plans to guarantee all Americans have access to our public schools, from pre-kindergarten through advanced degrees.

We will order Homeland Security to present a new plan for securing our borders from those who would do us harm while allowing appropriate travel and visitation to our many friends around the world. This plan is to include a path to citizenship for those who serve in the US military, or who came here as children and are now productive members of our society.

We will order the Department of Energy to begin another “Manhattan Project” to enable us to cease our dependence on fossil fuels. At the same time, I am announcing the nationalization of all US oil and gas reserves, as well as other reserves owned by the citizens of the US that are currently being extracted from our soil for private profit without regard for our environment.

We will order the Department of Justice to begin immediately to root out crimes of corruption within our government. In concert with this, I want Congress to pass laws to ensure elected officials are serving for the benefit of the American people as a whole, not to gain wealth or power for themselves or their friends.


And finally, we are asking you, the People, to help with the most critical problem facing our Democracy today. We’re asking you, the People, to pass a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting political spending by corporations or any other entity or individual not qualifying as a person with citizenship in this great country.


These and other policies we will put in place will cause a sea-change in how our country serves the citizens - We the People - rather than a tiny handful of super-wealthy who would subvert our democracy and plunder our wealth while denying even the most basic services for our citizens. Thank you for your support and thank you for standing up for the rights of all citizens.


Vote Democrat - 2012


Shame on the Democratic Party for capitulating at every turn !!!

[Safetykitten]

3. I'm voting for him, but he will loose anyway, because of our two constants.

Underestimating republicans by us as a pastime and the shit economy.

[bluestate10]

6. If unemployment is at or under 8% by November 2012,

President Obama wins in a walk. Unemployment is at 8.8%, with that number dropping more that a percentage point within the last nine months. President Obama is making sane policy decisions, unlike some here on DU seem to want. President Obama realize that energy costs are at the core of economic instability and his administration is working to produce REAL, temporary fixes to stabilize the economy at the same time his administration marches to a 100% green economy. Left, laud Kucinich and Sanders and liberal politicians all you want, the fact is President Obama has done more to deliver changes that the left wanted in just 2.4 years than all liberal politicians combined have delivered for the last thirty years. I thank god every day that I awake that I am a moderate and not Left or Right. With the lenses of life that I wear, I can divorce Solutions from Wants and am able to see and measure real progress toward a more progressive, economically fairer america. Lastly, not to defend the mythical 1%, but to correct a misconception about what President Obama is doing in that space. Sanders and Kucinich run a round getting in front of cameras delivering their diatribes against the 1% and only hardening the hard heartedness of some 1%. President Obama engages reasonable 1% ers and drive home the absolute necessity of those people putting their wealth to use creating jobs and opportunity for the less fortunate. At that end of each day, President Obama accomplishes more than a Kucinich or Sanders can accomplish in a decade.

[bluestate10]

4. Apologize for hijacking your thread.

I don't fall into the category that you want comments from. I have no intention of voting for anyone other than President Obama in primaries and the general. There is no nose holding or doubt involved for me. I want a democratic candidate that is capable of winning the general, not some far left person that makes some feel good and shout with joy but will absolutely get his or her ass kicked by the republican nominee in the general. In my mind, some tangible progress from a democratic President far exceeds the cultural and economic setbacks that the nation will suffer under a republican president. Rachel Maddow showed a graphic during her show last night of the gains in the stock market under the two Bushes, Clinton and Obama. The graphic was startling and drove home why a republican must be kept out of the Oval Office with all legal remedies. Maddow could have extended that graphic to cover economic growth, job growth and reduction of poverty for democratic versus republican Presidents back to the time of Wilson. She would have seen the same trend, democratic Presidents produce economic growth and improved economic well being for americans, republican Presidents produce decline in those same qualities. My problem with the left and far left, as I have posted here in infinitum is that both groups demand immense change on a turn of a dime. Real life does not work the way the two lefts envision, in real life incremental but meaningful change is made, proves itself out, then more change is made in a progressive direction. President Obama is not moving rightward, President Obama realizes, unlike leftwing heroes like Kucinich and Sanders, that the best chance for progressive change centers around making it possible for blue states like Vermont to shape their future, with some assist from the FEDs. If Vermont want to tilt left and it's citizens want that, so be it, although I don't consider policies like single payer health care and forward regulation of the environment to be leftward tilt.

[DonCoquixote]

5. No problem

I mean, yes, I did tend to ask people for the other end, though, barring snark, there is not such thing as bad input, indeed, three months ago, I probably would have said the exact same thing as you, for the exact same reasons. However, what gets me worried is that, for whatever reason, there is no hint of moving leftward, as the right gets to define the argument, first through the GOP, and then this bogus tea party. Part of me would love to see a left wing version of the tea party that at least pulls the debate back left.

Not that it matters much, because again, I was in Florida in 2000, and I had to hear two sets of people whose faces I wanted to smash, the Right wingers who bragged about how they sent money to Nader (with the urging of local talk radio) and the Greens who kept screaming "it was not our fault" when the numbers proved otherwise.

[bluestate10]

8. I see you position but disagree.

There has been much progressive change. Change that was long dormant has happened under President Obama. I will name a few of the more obvious.

-Health Care Reform: What existed before President Obama and a democratic Congress delivered an admittedly imperfect, but real policy that had eluded politicians like Kennedy and Sanders. Now, the progressive governor of Vermont is set to move health care in his state to single payer, I am sure my blue state Gov and Lt.Gov are watching and taking note.

Equal pay legislation for women: Again not perfect. But what existed before?

Don't Ask, Don't Tell repeal: Implementation slow. But what existed before?

Green Energy projects and research funding: The Left complain loudly about drilling permits on land or sea, yet they are mute about the reality that this administration is marching lockstep to a 100% green energy future. More funding is coming to green energy research, green energy projects that were ensnared in red tape have been approved or are nearing approval. Left, I ask you one question. Some of you pointed out that two Vermont utilities will not buy power from Vermont Yankee. Where do you think they will get the power to meet their demand from with Vermont Yankee out of the mix? The fact is, alternatives are available to them that did not exist two years ago, because of Obama administration policies. You on the Left don't want nuke plants, but you fail to connect the dots on how to eliminate them in a sane way. I admit, nuke plants are working now and some are on the drawing board, those plants are the bridge that is needed to a 100% green future and will get decommissioned, to never exist again. You on the Left seem to have little faith in the good power of science, I do have that faith, research on safely decommissioning nuke plants happens as I write, that research has been more than the Left has been able to get for decades as that group has railed against nuke plants and wished for green energy that the Left had no concept of how to make a reality.

Credit Card Reform: Imperfect. But what existed before. The reality is that more than what was gotten could not be had. But once reform proves out, politicians can come back for more, without facing the insane opposition faced the first time around.

Saved GM, Chrysler, and Ford: GM and Chrysler were near dead, Ford could not have survived without the suppliers shared with the other two around. Jobs and lives were saved.

Managed a messed up on creation bank bailout: The bailout has been managed so well that taxpayers MAY make money instead of getting hosed. Left, explain how a Kucinich, Dean or Sanders could have made that result happen? Again, be real, no fantasies.

[Tesha]

9. You understand that the rules of this site make it *IMPOSSIBLE* for anyone to "out" themselves...

...as being certain they will not be voting for
Obama in the General Election should he emerge
as the (likely) Democratic nominee.

To stay within the rules, it all has to be done
in terms of hypotheticals, what-ifs, and the like.

Tesha

[JoePhilly]

16. Lots of folks have said they won't for him and they seem to still be here.

[Tesha]

20. Try it and see what happens to you. (NT)

[JoePhilly]

25. I plan to vote for him, why would I claim otherwise?

But almost every day you can find a thread here in which some one wants Obama to have a primary opponent AND indicating that they would vote against Obama.

Happens all the time.

[Tesha]

29. Stating that one will be voting against him in a *PRIMARY* election is fine.

You're talking to someone who, as a New Hampshire
Democratic Primary voter, didn't vote for Obama in
2008 and probably won't do so in 2012 either.

I've also predicted here that given the way NH
runs its primaries (allowing party members *AND*
undeclared voters to vote in a given party primary),
it is quite within the realm of possibility that
Obama will fail to gain a majority or even lose
the NH Democratic Primary outright (because Repub-
licans will see this as a golden opportunity to
"Monkey Wrench" our primary).

Tesha

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. I'll vote for the most progressive, anti-war, candidate on the balllot ..or write one in.

If Obama should renege on his ongoing wars, stop selling out to the Republicans and, miraculously, become a Progressive, he'll get my vote. If he wants the votes of the left he'll have to appeal to them rather than count them as owed to him or threaten us with Republicans.

[BzaDem]

15. It's not really a threat -- more of a promise.

And it's not even one Obama needs to make. Usually, a threat is of the form "you do this or I'll do that." But in this case, the latter is outside Obama's control -- a Republican will get elected in the alternative scenario, REGARDLESS of anything Obama does.

The only question is when various people figure it out. Fortunately, the vast majority have (and that's probably the best one can hope for in any democracy, regardless of the issues or candidates).

[Modern_Matthew]

17. I'll vote for him, but it won't be a proud vote. I'll consider it a strategic vote. nt

[DonCoquixote]

23. sounds like my plan

And, to be fair, I am glad I have at least THAT option, unlike many who do not. Eating a smelly, nasty tasting bowl of gruel is awful, but it beats the hunger many deal with.

[Flubadubya]

26. I will definitely be voting for Obama but...

of course, I have been sorely disappointed by so much of what he has done and where he has taken this country. Needless to say, however, he has done far less harm than any Republican in that office for the past two years would or could have done.

Nevertheless, I do wonder if it is not going to take having the GOP get full control again and carry the nation to near ruin before the dumbed down American public finally "gets it" and eschews their policies forevermore. There is just a gnawing fear in me that says this may have to happen. Lord knows I don't want to see it, but I DO want to see the pendulum start shifting in the other direction... soon!

[Shagbark Hickory]

27. Hi. Unless you're in one of these states: co, oh, fl, mo, nc, va, nv, pa, your vote is useless.

[ReggieVeggie]

28. Our choice is between worse and way worse?

Republicans are horrible, terrible, evil, etc. The Democrats do good things most of the time but bad things fairly often and don't really fight back against the tide of the Republican agenda, which effectively neutralizes any real opposition to the right-wing power lurch. Democrats have no fear of our side not voting for them because "we have no place else to go...do you want the Republicans to win?" is the argument de jour, and, in the end, there is no where else to vote and so the party establishment has no fear of screwing our side on idelogical grounds. So the voting interests of a large segment the party voting block are virtually ignored in service of "winning" Effectively, we're screwed and don't seem to want to do anything about it, i.e. exercise our voting power to go somewhere else.