General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWho more "progressive" do you want nominated, then explain just how he/she gets 270 electoral votes.
So some here think Obama isn't progressive enough and shouldn't be re-nominated. Hmmm. Ok. Please state exactly whom you would like to see nominated, and then explain just exactly how that person gets to 270 electoral votes. Kucinich? Sanders? (I know, Bernie is actually an "indy" but you know, assuming he ran as a Dem or even as an indy.) Sherrod Brown? Alan Grayson? Hmmm. Oh, sorry, even THEY are OUT because they are not "progressive" enough. Nope. NOT AT ALL. They all voted for that "terrible corporate cave-in capitulated giveaway" healthcare bill. No. Those four are NOT "progressive" by the standards set by some here.
So please, give us someone who meets the purity standard, and then explain just exactly how that person will get 270 electoral votes. Go ahead. Do it. Because even the four guys mentioned here could NEVER, EVER, EVER get 270 electoral votes. Please, offer up your candidate and then provide a state by state analysis of how that person would actually get the 270 electoral votes needed to actually win the election. Many thanks. 
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tridim
(45,358 posts)
MH1
(19,091 posts)Does everyone think he's got the election won already too, so there is no reason to work for re-election? Or do some of these folks think it would be better to elect the republican? Just asking ...
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Just sayin....
They won't be allowed to promote third party, but they won't have to stop the attacks on the Democratic nominee.
JohnnyRingo
(20,663 posts)Sure, they claim the whole country would get behind Sanders after he explains what he means by "socialism", or Kucinch and his "Dept of Peace" is just a concept that needs clarification before the majority of America embraces him, but the truth is there is no one eligible.
Just as the policies of Ronald Reagan would be shunned by today's Tea Party, even Bill Clinton would be dismissed as a corporatist tool on DU if he returned to office today. Tears would flow like a river here that Clinton promised us a progressive government but caved to corporate outsourcing and a Republican congress.
The left side of DU demands a candidate as real as Santa Claus and twice as popular.
tblue
(16,350 posts)Be grateful they Left is there. We don't need 2 Right-wing parties.
patrice
(47,992 posts)extortion (i.e. votes trending away from a candidate or office holder) as an opportunity to push their issues further rightward, which results in pushing the candidate/elect further rightward, which results in "the Left" threatening even more, then more votes leaning away, Reich-wing pushing its issues even more rightward, etc. etc. etc.
JohnnyRingo
(20,663 posts)I'm sure it's true that the far left in this country keeps the party from drafting Pat Buchanen as spokesman, and it's true that the Tea Party is pulling hard from the other side, but that's why the country (and even DU) is so divided these days. There seems to be no place for a moderate in either party anymore, and people are called "tools" and "lemmings" for supporting anyone but the most extreme prospects.
I've seen it here, I've heard it in bar room discussions, and I watch it on TV.
I believe politics swing like a pendulum. The political needle was pulled so far to the right side of the spectrum after 9/11, it nearly broke off. It swung back quickly when Pelosi and her Dems took over in 2006, but not as far. The pendulum has once again reversed direction with the advent of the Tea Party in 2008, but it's slowing already and will move to a position slightly left of center before finding the middle where it always ends up. Unfortunately, it seems a slow process that takes some patience.
AmericaIsGreat
(630 posts)You named one: Sanders. Being "eligible" for election is a different issue but they exist.
And, you're right about Clinton, although it should have been obvious he was a corporatist tool as soon as he signed the CFMA and repealed Glass-Steagal.
Grayson, Weiner, Warren, and Franken are some other progressives who would satisfy AND exist.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Although you'd think it'd be a walk in the park since the word is that Obama is destroying this democracy at a pace that puts GWB to shame.
...
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)ation; Tax-Cuts create jobs; No Gays in the military . . .
MrTriumph
(1,720 posts)How do you know not one of the 4 people you mentioned could win? It is just your opinion.
There are at least 50 real Democrats who could mount credible primary and general election campaigns.
RB, take off your blinders.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)JohnnyRingo
(20,663 posts)Have you ever heard of Fox News?
My God, they claimed Obama was the "most liberal senator in history", and added he was "even to the left of Ted Kennedy". They still trumpet that "Obama's liberal policies are destroying the American way", and you expect a pass with Komrad Kucinich?
Can you imagine what they'd say about a real liberal? Please don't pretend no one listens to Fox either.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)If we are supposed to base the electability of a candidate on what Fox News says about them then we might as well let the Tea Party pick our candidate for us.
certainot
(9,090 posts)because the left ignores it until their lies become fact. IMO fox is mostly visual reinforcement for radio.
the media, the GOP and the blue dogs get pushed around, intimidated, enabled by the made to order corporate constituencies talk radio informs and motivates, and that is a fact.
limbaugh more than anyone in the country, mostly channeling the think tanks, determines who and what is and isn't acceptable in media and politics. much of the entire 'debt crisis' is the result of limbaugh for months assuring the teabagger dittoheads that there were advantages to not raising the debt ceiling. the RW radio machine is loud enough and ignored enough to create its own reality.
team limbaugh made single payer unacceptable back in the clinton years and since then. the radio 2x4 is largely why an entire political party has to continue to deny the climate problem. it matters big time that there are a bunch of local and national blowhards on the biggest soapboxes in every state.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Yes right-wing radio is influential and we need to pay attention to what is being said by Fox and Limbaugh, but that does not mean we should run candidates who can win their support. The other poster seemed to imply that progressives can not win because Fox would talk bad about them, but Fox would talk bad about anyone with a D behind their names.
While we should know what Fox is saying it would not be smart to try to win them over.
certainot
(9,090 posts)media describes the center so they decide to a large degree who gets through the primaries- those limbaugh megastations do that on the local and state level too. we allow them to yell over our protests and protestors and our reps - they have the volume and repetition to convince millions that bernie sanders is too communist to win long before he can get anywhere.
we'd have a shitload more progressives in if we didn't let the radio blowhards especially take free potshots at our reps all day long. a few paid callers sitting in the heritage foundation basement calling radio stations with a rumor that those radio stations can turn from a molehill into a mountain in a day does make a difference. remember the dean scream, that took a day or two. and most of that shit wouldn't work without that coordinated unchallenged repetition that only RW radio can do. until that's fixed it's just not realistic to expect the kuciniches and sanders to get very far. and it's not fair to them.
pnwmom
(110,220 posts)Which states could this mythical progressive be assured of?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)We might have to lose a couple of elections to make any progress. Startling concept. Here's my plan: run actual progressive candidates who propose actual progressive programs, and when elected attempt to enact those same programs. If the vile loons win a few elections, oh well, they will be so thoroughly hated that a truly progressive democratic party will be swept into power in a landslide of New Deal proportions and we might actually get some of that change we were hoping for.
Otherwise it is just more of the same, more kowtowing to the oligarchy, more dead-end reaganomics, more thatcherization of social services. More of the same, or plan for a change? Your choice.
drm604
(16,230 posts)Let the vile loons win a few elections? What's that, 8, 12, maybe 16 years of a Republican White House?
Maybe you want to live in that world, but I certainly don't. With my health issues, I'm not even sure I'd survive it.
How many lives are you willing to sacrifice to this wacky plan? How many wars? How many lives destroyed by Republican repression and a right-wing Supreme Court?
The sad thing is that I don't think you're being sarcastic.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I am done with more of the same. As I said, the choice is to continue down the road we are on, or plan for change. It is all hypothetical anyway, as Obama is the nominee, and he will likely squeak through the general election and we will continue to do as we are doing.
drm604
(16,230 posts)I'm sure the people you're willing to sacrifice will thank you profusely for this. 
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)drm604
(16,230 posts)there are people who do vote who would suffer due to your plan.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)There will be no huge changes if one of the vile loons wins. We get a choice of right and righterer. You may think it is the apocalypse if the loons recapture the presidency, I disagree, it will be marginally worse than it is now, but basically just more of the same.
drm604
(16,230 posts)Do you think we'd be leaving Iraq if McCain had won?
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/200137-last-us-troops-leave-iraq
Do you think DADT would've been ended by McCain?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/18/john-mccain-dadt-repeal-_n_798726.html
"I hope that when we pass this legislation that we will understand that we are doing great damage," said the four-term incumbent before the vote, according to ABC News. "Today is a very sad day."
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Hardly proof of what would have happened if the roles were reversed.
Quote a Republican that agrees with the President! Now that would be believable!
drm604
(16,230 posts)
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)I mean, it will still be rainy out sometimes if I wake up in the morning. Does that mean it will stop being rainy out sometimes if I don't wake up in the morning?
No.
Logically, just because X implies Y does not mean that "not X" implies "not Y." It could simply be that Y is true, irrespective of whether you like it, and irrespective of X.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)Do you define this as marginally worse...
Or do you believe that it would've happened under a Gore or Kerry administration as well?
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)And neither does anyone else. It's a purely hypothetical question with an unknowable answer.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)and spreading their commercial for them.
The democratic party is not as disgusting as the republican party (even tho the Anderson Coopers of the media world will keep telling you BOTH PARTIES DO IT when there is an especially vile something the Pugs just did or said)
If you think so then tell me which democrats are as evil and despicable as Boner, McConnell, and this freak of nature:
So instead of carrying water for the message of 'they are all disgusting' why not do your part and explain why that isn't true.
MilesColtrane
(18,678 posts)"...no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks."
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)there will be anything left to become more Progressive after this crop of extremists has their way with things.
How much time DO you have, anyway?
patrice
(47,992 posts)workers unable to protect their jobs; degradation of climate & environments by enough more that it will take n more generations to stabilize . . . ?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)because the vile loons would be giving us more of the same only worse. That isn't going to change until we start demanding that our party stand for something other than 'not as vile as the other party'. So I reject the OP's argument that we can't run an actual Democrat because they would lose. I don't care. We will win eventually and then we will actually change things. So I will support real Democrats as alternatives to reagan-lite Democrats at every opportunity.
drm604
(16,230 posts)Whatever.
But no one is telling you that you should be happy. People are saying that we have to go for what is possible. They are not saying that we have to be happy about it, just that we're better off than we would be if the other side were to win.
Yes we have to fight to make things better, but let's not make things worse in the meantime. I don't understand how people can't get this.
Giving a series of wins to Republicans could result in them locking in power for themselves for a generation or more.
Maybe that's fine with you, but most of us want something better for ourselves and our children.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)but I hope to see some movement in that direction for my children and grandchildren.
The Republicans and the Democrats aren't going to do that for me or for my children. With them it is just getting progressively worse.
Change as I see it must come from outside the major parties. What Warren suggests would work but would be very painful. What you suggest hasn't worked for thirty years and just plain will never work. The system is corrupted and getting more corrupt every year. Don't expect the ones in power now to fix it because they don't want to.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)Just because you want X does not mean you are ever going to get X over the course of your life.
tridim
(45,358 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)LoZoccolo
(29,393 posts)I doubt it will do any good, though. We're seeing the true intentions behind the splinterists come out now that they can get away with it: to harm the general population. For political reasons.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)So now it is forbidden to support candidates who might not win? Seriously? That is in the terms of service you cherish so dearly?
Hey how did that whole Goldwater splinterization work out for the republican party, huh? They sure went down in flames in 64. Since then of course they have won in 68, 72, 80, 84, 88, 2000, 2004, seven of the last ten elections, and dragged both parties way far to the right.
Yeah I see exactly what sort of disaster that leads to.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)With Goldwater on the ticket, Democrats won so many seats in Congress that they were able to pass Medicare, Medicaid, and a host of other liberal programs that remain to this day.
This Congress could not survive another election without Goldwater on the top of the ticket. Democrats lost 47 seats in the House in the 1966 midterm elections (erasing the entire gain of 37 seats gained in the 1964 election). The great society would likely never have passed the 65-66 Congress without Goldwater on the ticket in 64. Despite 7 Presidential wins since, they have never been able to reverse the gains we made during that Congress. The Congress that Goldwater resulted in permanently changed America.
You really want to see what Republicans can permanently do to this country with a similar (but opposite) outcome?
"If the vile loons win a few elections, oh well, they will be so thoroughly hated"
In other words, you are fine nominating someone you know won't win, so that the tremendous harm that will befall the public will change their voting behavior.
Last time I checked, we had a word for the tactic of using harm to others as a tactic to get one's way. While I have no idea if support for this tactic is permitted on DU, I believe that was what LoZocollo was alerting. It wasn't the idea that you can't support candidates who might not win. (After all, every candidate is a candidate who might not win.) It was the idea that one would support a candidate that they knew would not win, so that the resulting harm to the public will change their future voting behavior.
patrice
(47,992 posts)what is expected, because things could get sooooo bad that more and more people will abdicate their freedoms to authority, especially economic authority.
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)question, if not for 2012 then 2016 definately. So who will win & get 200 something electoral votes & explain exactly how that works.
tridim
(45,358 posts)DU is for Democrats, it is not for people who apparently hate Democrats.
Iggo
(49,769 posts)
tridim
(45,358 posts)Iggo
(49,769 posts)I always vote Democratic and I strongly encourage others to vote Democratic as well.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)And where did I say I hate Democrats? Wanting progressive Democratic candidates running is 'hating Democrats'?
Seriously?
What a shameful distortion.
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)just wow, I agree with you Warren
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Perhaps you should read the DU Mission Statement
Mission Statement below:
Mission Statement
Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:
Interacting with friendly, like-minded people;
Sharing news and information, free from the corporate media filter;
Participating in lively, thought-provoking discussions;
Helping elect more Democrats to political office at all levels of American government; and
Having fun!
After more than a decade online, Democratic Underground still hosts the most active liberal discussion board on the Internet. We are an independent website funded by member subscriptions and advertising, and we have no affiliation with the Democratic Party. Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards. There is no other website quite like it anywhere on the Internet.
We are always looking for friendly, liberal people who appreciate good discussions and who understand the importance of electing more Democrats to office. So sign up today!
End of quote.
DU is first and foremost a liberal forum! I have heard very few people say that President Obama is a liberal.
From the Terms of Service:
Vote for Democrats.
Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.
End of quote.
It is not against rules to advocate for a liberal candidate nor is it against the rules to wish for a Democratic primary. We all want the best candidate in the general election, don't we?
Above all, I would hope we all want what is best for our country and liberal ideals.
patrice
(47,992 posts)what kind of candidate many of us REALLY want.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)LoZoccolo
(29,393 posts)Not necessarily. You always have a say in Democratic nominees the next time. And you always have a responsibility for gaining more consensus for your issues. There is no necessity for basically using terrorist tactics in the form of letting the Republicans ruin things against the general population. And it is terrorism, if you believe that the Republicans harm people; you are using violent tactics against the general population if you engage in this.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The OP has stated that we cannot run progressive candidate's because they will lose. I reject that argument. Even if running a real Democrat would lose in the short term, over the long term we would win, and win big, and actually be able to change the course we are on.
Some of us think that politics is not a sport, that having your team win is not the point, but a means to an end.
rtassi
(629 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)What I do know is that what we are currently doing is getting us absolutely nowhere, and in fact we are moving backwards. Our party is winning the presidency 30% of the time, and basically only to clean up the mess left by the other half of the duopoly, after which it is dismissed and the outright pillage resumes.
I'm a decentralized democratic socialist - a libertarian socialist, although that term confuses people. I want a society that provides an assurance of basic social services for everyone in exchange for our tax dollars, that does not intrude into our private lives in order to enforce other people's moral dictate, that regulates economic activity in order to promote sustainability, safe workplaces, living wages etc. within a market economy. The list goes on. It is pretty much where we left off 40 years ago - back when "the greening of america" seemed possible.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)of short term small wins without any regard for the long term misery caused or any plausible exit strategy from a race to the bottom limited only by finding a bottom to TeaPubliKlan depravity, the avarice of the wealthy, the stomach of the powerful to behave lawlessly, and Mother Earth's capacity to take the hits.
There is no responsibility taken by the proponents of the establishment for the results of seeking to join the opposition rather than beating them, assimilating their failed policies, or legitimizing and reenforcing their wicked ideology. How many times can you legitimize, coddle, defend, legitimize, and assimilate the opposition and still be credible as opposition.
Adjust the target of your game theory to stopping the Republican ideology, you'll find we aren't doing so well since our "successes" are built on such.
"Winning is the starting point of a long, tough road, not the end by any stretch.
Call it terrorism, I call it imposing will to survive and grow as a people with what tools that are available rather than the ones I wish I had or that those benefiting from or comfortable in a rigged game say are appropriate.
Especially, when can draw on memory of what they did and how they did it.
I have no issue with borrowing succesful tactics and have heard all of the excuses and self defeating platitudes before, right out of my own little toady, myopic, corraled, and hand to mouth mentality driven lips.
I'm good with giving the Turd Way an option between legislating to benefit the people instead of the multinationals, the MIC, the extraction industry, the insurance cartel, and the predator class in the financial sector or they can kick rocks and throw in fully with the TeaPubliKlans.
I see a dedication to a toxic ideology that is built on Reagan Republicanism but without the focus on the churchy horseshit (though not abandoned but measurable reduced) and with enough connection to reason to know that at least the idea of saftey nets can be valuable in keeping folks off the barricades and can make a tide piece of change for industry disquised as doing what is popular to win.
I think the long term interest of the people may be helped considerably by lifting this fog. We are being herded and we cannot be a free people being driven by a few for their own designs and profit.
I'm not much of a third party guy, I have not intention of ceding the infrastucture, brand reconition, automatic spots on ballots, history of accomplishment, and emotional devotees that are dedicated automatic votes to ideological intelopers. It is nothing but a clear choice presented.
Some folks point to the election and say their are only two choices, others can take the policy to black and white stark terms as well. I don't give a rat's ass who the candidate is or their race, religion (or lack of such), education, personal narrative, what their family is like or if they have one, orientation, sexual habits, personal habits, or gender.
Pick whatever package you like but it should be clear that certain contents will never make it to the game again win, lose, or draw and if they somehow sneak in there the consequences will suspend the game and push it to the point of breaking.
People going non-voter adds to the fog and token votes allow for the idea that a similar percentage can be mined from the "center" by becoming a bit more like the opposition. Hell, the actual game being played isn't really even that but much closer to being as close to the opposition as possible and maintain enough constituencies to win that are a distinct fundraising base that still emotionally feels the opposition is opposition rather than something more like competitive cooperation, like the NFL or the NBA, they are in league all one distinct entity working for a common purpose that uses the competion as a means to the common purposes profit, indvidual enhancement, and marketshare for the entity.
By the by, I wonder if this push on terrorism is in part to set up an atmosphere where one cannot say no to bad rubbish without "holding people hostage" or "throwing away lives with your own" and all the other poor me backwash of the sort. Especially, from those that live by just such tactics to forge an arguably false and obviously testy consensus.
I figure if there is to be a a testy and forced consensus in any event then it might as well be one that bends toward reducing economic disparity, equality, the strengthing of civil liberties, protecting our environment, away from corporate power and capture of our government, toward dismantling the police state, and redirecting resources from the military industrial complex.
Somebody is going to feel coerced and screwed over, let it be those that have another outlet for their failed and borrowed ideology.
Accept beneficial policy for the people and for the advancement of the concept of justice or get the religilous to lighten up, get the bigots under control, and sell the minimal social programs as pro-growth and stability for commerce that is more effective than imposed order to allow safe commerce, as you know they are.
I do appreciate the illustration that "terrorisim" is very much in the eye of the audience and how much relative power has in the context of a given system to dictate rules to their advantage in driving that narrative, though.
We have responded poorly because we assumed and cultivated a privileged position while being driven by fear and this is similar logic.
To b supposedly or genuinely afraid of the opposition that we accept executing their broad agenda under better management is a loss on my board, management is a backburner issue and arguable better execution of horrible policy is more dangerous than doing a bad thing poorly.
I honestly don't care what you call it or how it makes some folks feel, there is never much crying as the few exploit and extract as long as the right face is on it with palatble excuses and rhetoric tuned to the audience.
StarsInHerHair
(2,125 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)Thank you for taking the time and effort to lay it all out there.
O'Romney Care, an actual REDUCTION of financial prosecutions in the wake of the biggest rip-off in history, a refusal to prosecute the former regime's war crimes and the continuing and dangerous erosion of civil liberties, tax cuts for the rich in a demand-driven depression, increasing medical marijuana prosecutions to aid big pharma's financial interests, a brutal Dept. of Homeland Security coordinated crackdown on Occupy Wall Street and its many affiliates, a new provision that will allow the government to declare these very protesters terrorists and indefinitely detain them without any proof of guilt, continuing a captured regulatory regime, aggressive prosecution of whistle-blowers rather than the crimes they blew the whistle on, letting corporate lobbyists continue to write legislation, arguing against a financial transaction tax in Brussels to the EU, new and expanded "free trade agreements", doing absolutely nothing of substance for the millions of homeowners who are losing their homes, making sure the banksters get theirs while the rest of us get poor, no reinstatement of Glass-Steagal, not putting the exotic financial products on an exchange where they can be regulated, working against the left wing of your own party in favor of corporatist DINOs, delaying or subverting mandates of greenhouse gas reduction in the face of a coming and imminent environmental catastrophe that is very near to reaching a point of no return. This administration's views on education reform are nothing like how I view education. they're trying to produce the most efficient and productive human resources for the unregulated global corporatist labor market (the slogan I think is to "win the future" in a race to the top) rather than producing educated, well-rounded human beings that seek harmony with their world and are capable of critical analyses of the systems they are part of.
For much of the above list, one can argue that a Republican administration would be be a little worse, or that these policies were a result of Republican obstructionism, which is true, in my opinion by design. So the administration is given the cover of "relative merit", paying lip service to the 99% (while sometimes pistol-whipping them) but fully in the pocket of the 1%, the global corporate robber barons who have used the last 30 years of deregulation to accumulate vast wealth. And this administration seems to worship the military as much as the Republicans they replaced, when our nation is broke but not too broke to continue to spend more than the rest of the world combined on its military.
You don't get anywhere good by following this path. You get Geithner, Summers, Petraeus, the Clintons and their global corporate agendas running the State Department, you get Holder who is an utterly worthless A.G. for anyone on the left, you get the D.L.C. with the logo scrubbed from the masthead but the policies are all there.
There's a fundamental that really exists (in my mind anyway, seems quite real and fundamental to me), no matter how relatively people wish to frame the election, the fundamental that overrides the relative comparisons is that this fundamentally isn't good enough. We have incredible problems, and the administration we fought so hard to elect isn't fixing them. It's not even fighting for the right fixes, it's continuing in the same wrong direction.
Why? They may be true believers in the emerging oligarchy, they may be too wary of offending their corporate donors, or they may have seen the Zapruder film. Either way, they're not on my side. They will try to sound like they're on my side, especially when elections come around, but behind the scenes they're smoking cigars with the fat cats, comfortably enjoying their membership in the club of the global elites and all of its perks, rather than putting on comfortable shoes and marching with the people in their hour of great need (and I mean truly fighting for us to the degree that the situation demands, not campaign rallies or photo ops).
I am a Democrat, and the policies I believe in are much closer to what I think of historically as the Democratic Party than the policies this administration (and before that the similar, though probably better, Clinton administration) apparently believes in.
So, for me, it's not whether they're a little better than the alternative. The slower, more gentile approach to oligarchy (and that's what it is) might more successfully get us to that oligarchy than the more transparent and clumsy Republicans, whose inability to disguise their policies would lead to massive uprisings and fierce resistance. The likeable Obamas and their very reasonable and intelligent discourse could be a better vehicle for the oligarchs than the thugs on the other side. And of course the thugs are always there to validate the "these guys are better" meme that is so effective in winning support for the administration (this applies to the down-ticket races too, not just the administration).
So I really think we have to fight, with all of our resources, for something better, no matter the odds. People will always tell us it can't be done, or it's impractical, or we're enabling the other side. I don't agree with that line of thinking. I think it's all a game of good cop - bad cop, the Democrats are the ones who are allowed to keep some degree of credibility with the general public while they institutionalize the extreme measures championed by the dangerous Republicans. We won't get anywhere we want to go with either one, it's a false choice and a fatal one if we keep making it.
What to do?
Primary from the left at every opportunity. I can't stress that enough.
Work for constitutional amendments to get corporate money out of elections and to overturn corporate personhood. Occupy the streets.
Don't accept the "good cop" Obama without fighting like all hell for someone who truly represents our interests.
Finally, we have to Occupy the Democratic Party, take it back from the corporatists.
They planned this long ago, look into the roots of the DLC and the corporate Democrats if you don't believe me, our party has been co-opted and our country has been destroyed. It's up to us to take it back. We'll probably fail, but the road we've been on for 30 years is a guaranteed fail. We need to realize the scope of the mess we're in and fight with everything we've got. Our children's future depends on it. As does our planet, and as insane as that sounds, it's no exaggeration.
Itchinjim
(3,180 posts)Come on Warren, show America what a REAL progressive can do!
Stupidity 2012!
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)just like TV!
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)- and while it sounds good on paper, it is unrealistic to the nth degree.
Assuming your model, we "lose a couple of elections". We saw what devastation can be done by losing a couple of elections - we got W for eight years. People truly suffered, and continue to suffer now thanks to the economic meltdown under his watch, along with setbacks in any number of other areas.
You might be willing to see that happen again - most people don't.
Continuing with your model, you assume that a truly democratic party will be "swept into power in a landslide".
If the country survives a couple of conservatives in the WH, the Democrats would be even MORE likely to nominate a centrist or conservative Dem, thinking that they'd have more of a chance of winning back the WH with someone somewhat more progressive than the last two POTUSes, but not SO different that voters are scared off.
After seeing GOP nominees win twice or more, a VERY centrist Dem would be considered just different enough to be an alternative to the Republican nominee, but still able to capture enough middle-of-the-roaders to win a majority.
Parties will always nominate who they think can win, not necessarily who they think will make the most sweeping changes once in office.
That's not political prescience. It's a recognition of human nature, and common sense.
JohnnyRingo
(20,663 posts)Maybe you mean voters would get fed up with things like the housing bubble. You know, the one they successfully blamed on Barney Frank, or the bogus reason for the Iraq War that Clinton advised them on.
In assuming that 15 or 20 years of republicans in charge of the White House would sicken Americans to the party ignores the republican's amazing talent for claiming they caught the illness from an infected democrat. Do you remember the "Clinton/Gore recession" from Bush's first term? His second term was plagued by "uncertainty that a Democrat may win in 2008".
pnwmom
(110,220 posts)As bad as things got, it didn't make things better. Obama has barely had time to dig us out of the whole Bush put us in. Another Rethug victory now could cause irreversible damage.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Keep it up, I find it amusing and I promise not to alert on your nonsense.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)But I can understand why you would want to inflate the numbers.
And with the DU3 update, that 100-200 will no longer be able to grossly redirect the conversation of this board
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)And how exactly did we 'grossly redirect the conversation'? Please explain.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)The reason for the previous division of General Discussion was due to those who can't stand our President running off those who support him with nonstop derision.
At least now we can see that most of the derision comes from the same handles.
It's like finding out that an opposing army is mostly made of cardboard cutouts.
Edweird
(8,570 posts)Charlemagne
(576 posts)Thats counting me.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)Or at least that are in the Socialist Progressives group. IOW, almost 100 are left of left. There's GOT to be a MUCH larger number of non socialist liberals on this board.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)Heck, most socialist liberals will be voting for Obama.
The people he is referring to is a smaller group than you interpret.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)and voting against the alternative. And there's a difference IMO between voting for Obama and supporting him.
BTW, the Socialist Progressive group is up to 100 members now.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)or Progressive (but just not your super wide definition of it, where anything counts as progress).
People have answered you this 100 times, not sure why you choose to still go on mischaracterising the sentiments so widely shared on this board- and mixing them up with a few fringe people.
You should really be adressing this to Nader or Paul supporters. And apologize to everyone else for your confusion.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)someone "more liberal" did win the election a few years ago. You can "wosh" your opions were facts, dear, but they aren't. Maybe you need a better dictionary?
aka-chmeee
(1,226 posts), uh, OK, "philosophy"
(Damn! that was close)
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)You are absolutely bang on.
patrice
(47,992 posts)He wasn't my first choice, so I studied and LISTENED to him carefully. I'm a Liberal and I knew who I was voting for.
emulatorloo
(46,151 posts)All you had to do was look at his voting record to see that he was a slightly left of center Democrat.
He was my third or fourth choice, I can't remember which.
patrice
(47,992 posts)the withdraw of ALL of the troops from Iraq.
During the campaign he almost ALWAYS referred to a residual force being left behind in the highly fortified and very expensive bases we built there.
patrice
(47,992 posts)anyone's liberal expectations of Obama?
We went through almost an entire campaign year and then the Crash happened. Almost NO ONE was talking about the actual breadth and depth of the toxicity in our financial sector. The problem was presented as more or less fixable with a bailout and perhaps some follow-up. There was (still IS) very little information on the actual size of the losses. Do you think these facts allowed people to develop some very unreliable expectations of this President?
Charlemagne
(576 posts)is republican legislation? Because that is basically what he has presented. I guess, apparently, the republicans are right about how to handle the situation....I mean, that must be the case if the crash made the liberal Obama into a reliable GOPer in order to solve the mess.
patrice
(47,992 posts)What about the unknown private business contractual DETAILS that would have told him/them how much of what limited resources (resources that were/are getting sucked into the very black-hole that they were trying to fill) to make available to which financial entities involved across most of our financial spectrum. Given the fucked-up securities ratings, he had to triage the complex and many "tentacled" wounded on no more information than they would voluntarily give (for their OWN objectives not necessarily ours of course) and without being able to freely examine their conditions. Too much, too fast at point A, might blow point RR. Not enough, too slow at point Z might not work at all and would thus result in wasting resources that could have saved something else. Not knowing the overall size of the total losses and involvement of foreign partners would make it difficult to be sure that what help was available would cover as much as it could. The consequences of getting it wrong: more un-employment, inflation, higher interest rates, spreading defaults . . .
.....................................
And anyone who ever thought Obama was a Liberal doesn't know his voting record nor what a Liberal is. He's a centrist. He's always been a centrist, a POPULAR centrist. That's why the masters of the universe HIRED him.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)and people were taken in. I was never a big Obama fan last election. I listened to what he was saying, and it added up to a whole lot of vague generalities. I wasn't surprised that he turned out to be what I consider slightly right of center, but I can see how people thought they were voting for someone much more liberal.
tomp
(9,512 posts)centrism will be the death of us all.
JohnnyRingo
(20,663 posts)I've even seen the word "impeach" bandied about. Many here seem to want four years of a Republican just to teach someone a lesson.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)All he would have to do is pound those 4/5 economic issues that SUPER majorities support and that are leftist positions against a Newt Gingrich or even the super rich Mitt Romney and he could win. At least there would be a choice.
It's not 1980 anymore. The "Reagan Revolution" has PROVEN to be a disaster for the 99% and EVERYBODY KNOWS IT. If the Dems accomodate like they did from 1980 to the present, they could lose again even WITH Obama.
Ship of Fools
(1,453 posts)Personally, I'll never underestimate the power of corporate media again, in that
they will vilify any candidate that isn't enough of a looker. Well, if not
REALLY good looking, then at least TALL.
If you're a woman and overweight, forggedaboudit.
Obama gets my vote, fwiw, this time around again, because the alternative is
just too horrific. Then I'm gonna work my butt off for Warren.
libtodeath
(2,892 posts)Yes I know President Obama will be our nominee but the answer to the question is anyone that actually ran as a progressive.
Someone that got in the middle of OWS and said I am here to represent you and not the big money.
Take the mantle of righteous outrage and wear it proudly by telling people that real change will only come if they vote and in massive numbers.
Seaze the anger of the population and tell them their vote means no more of the corporate interests being the only seat at the table but the people will be the ones cared about.
The same goes for every Rep and Senate race,it would be a landslide of epic proportions no matter how much the cons and their corporate masters try to steal it.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)On what planet do you live?
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Answer: None of them. Not a single one. Why do you expect progressives to be able to win those states if you don't hold Obama to the same standard?
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)using good timing and public opinion to our advantage.
This country is ripe for it.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)We need to concentrate on electing more progressives to congress and in local elections.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)to challenge Obama now. He's better than any republican, so most of us will vote for him. No progressive/liberal would be stupid enough to run against Obama now, and damage the chances of a Democratic incumbent beating a republican.
Just the possibility of ending the nightmare of our current fascist SCOTUS should be enough to bring any reasonable progressive/liberal to the polls to vote for Obama.
If Obama and Congressional Dems continue to preside in their current corporatist vein for the next four years, they may permanently destroy the Democratic Party. Many of us are totally fed up with corporatism, and we want the Democratic Party to be the opposition to the republican corporatist party, not their ally.
And there is the possibility that Obama will actually govern more progressively, although the recent reversal of course in the decision not to veto the NDAA is very disheartening for progressives in this regard, so most progressives have little hope for change at this point. Habeas Corpus and the protection and preservation of civil liberties is dear to the hearts of real progressives.
Hopefully, the Occupy movement will continue to be successful and will pick up a great deal more support, and will have even more of an impact on the national conversation by 2016. People will be desperate for real progressive leadership by then; and with any luck, we will have forced Congress, through direct action tactics, to draft and pass a constitutional amendment that takes all the money out of political campaigns and prevents "bribery" of elected officials.
Occupy
There's no way someone else will run now. No use considering it. I'm going to vote for the President because he's way better than the Repukes, and if we get enough progressives in Congress, his 2nd term may actually be progressive instead of moderate. Maybe even changing the President's views on the Patriot Act and drone strikes. I'm fairly close to socialist myself, so maybe I'll look into that group.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)that he is very good and would be great next time around. Warren too downt he road, but let's get her in the Senate first.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)you really should refrain from purity attack, it is dishonest and insulting, kind of like calling some people here cheerleaders.
dsc
(53,342 posts)can get elected nationwide. Thus Sherrod Brown who got elected twice statewide in Ohio certainly could get elected nationwide. I will admit the rest would be problematic but not Brown.
Is pretty popular. He defeated Mike Dewine which is saying A LOT in the state of Ohio. Yeah, I havent heard any grumblings against him. May be a good choice.
Ter
(4,281 posts)What if it's a real rightist? Like Al Sharpton up against Pat Buchanan?
saras
(6,670 posts)Personally I judge politicians based on what the FIGHT for, not what they VOTE for. As long as our system allows the party in power to cram the "cat shit or dog shit" choice down the throats of the party not in power, ALL politicians will vote for evil shit they oppose both in private and public.
If Obama was publicly advocating for OWS, that they capture something uniquely American and necessary that the two-party system doesn't allow for, if he was consistently standing up for the Constitution over "war powers", if he was throwing all his energy behind prosecuting criminal bankers - Countrywide alone could get ten thousand fraud convictions and some RICO charges, with VERY LITTLE work on the part of prosecutors, for example - , and if he was standing up for and advocating for democracy over corporate control, especially for big issues like media, news, resource extraction, development, then the public would be more excited about him. But apparently they're not the people needed to get 270 electoral votes.
So you're saying that America doesn't want such a president. All I can say to that is that they get the president they deserve, and that will continue to be the case no matter which Republican comes out on top, in this election or the next one.
You seem to be really proud of how flawed, corrupted, and unrepresentative our current election system is. Why is that? Are you proud of the spoiler effect? Do you think it a good thing for popular representation? Would you be willing to advocate for it directly?
patrice
(47,992 posts)with some others on what to do about that.
This means that I see Obama as a means to an end, an end that will not be served, an end that WILL be delayed or completely lost if we dump him at this particular point in the country's social and economic history.
People make the mistake of thinking its all about him to his supporters and that's not true. To some of us it's about achievable goals, such as HR 676, that he will not go against if we can get some of those goals on his desk.
Ship of Fools
(1,453 posts)
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)And the only other candidates that might win in 2012 is a Teaparty approved right-wing Republican running on a far right agenda. But representing him as a progressive rather than a centrist is simply asking politically mature people to believe things that they know are not true.
Modern_Matthew
(1,604 posts)Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)I would be happy to vote for a reformer of capitalism. But we have not had that choice in the form of a major party nominee for almost 40 years.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Since 1980 every damn administration has done a lot to reform the mild social regulations of capitalism put in place by the new deal right out of existence.
Oh wait, that's not what you meant. Never mind.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)that the "something" you are sick of is ever going to change.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Interesting after 08's theme of 'Change'. Use that one when you go door to door!
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)encompasses elements that are not ever going to happen.
Most people have a much more realistic definition of change.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)Don't even TRY to change the evil system because the system won't ever be changed. Circular argue much?
Like it or not, it's NOT 1980 anymore. Capitalism has proven itself to be a failed system and more and more people every DAY are coming to that conclusion. The Dems can either get in front of that reality or they can try to salvage neoliberalism and Reaganomics. Because SOMEBODY is going to get in front of that failure of capitalism and tell the truth about it. Occupy has started the discussion and somebody is going to finish it. Capitalism won't last. Indeed it CAN'T last without destroying the world.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)This isn't to say that capitalism won't be changed to increase the safety net, provide more protections, increase healthcare for all, etc. But the idea that the means of production will ever be non-privately-owned is quite silly (though it will apparently take some people many years to realize this).
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)And who's going to "...increase the safety net, provide more protections, increase healthcare for all, etc."? The owners? They're too busy demonizing these very positions as "socialism". Do you REALLY think that they're going to change their stripes? Not on a bet.
The best recruiter for Marxism are the capitalists. But you can keep on thinking that the overlords are going to change and start giving the people what they need out of the goodness of the black heart of capitalism.
treestar
(82,383 posts)under the same system, so the cries of sellout and betrayal would be heard again.
They want an all powerful President - the Presidency is not all powerful no matter who has it.
Congress is supposed to be part of the equation, and the Courts and the states.
They just won't get what they want. They could get a red communist elected and it wouldn't change anything. The President they want would simply get nothing done. Would be pounding the bully pulpit with unreachable demands from a Congress that won't pass it.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)is so unnecessary and nasty. You speak of fellow DUers as if were were another species for not repeating 'one man, one woman, Sanctity' for 'support'. We do in fact reject that nonsense. We are still Democrats, and the surly is just so harmful to the Party as a whole, it needs to cease. The McCarthyite stuff is just going too far, way, way too far.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)The establishment parties will run the usual establishment candidates and drown the electorate with adds paid for by the establishment.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)5 billion electoral cycle right at the moment...
That is the reality.
Until that changes, we have PUBLICLY FUNDED elections, shortened periods AND proportional representation... but start with the first two, what ails the system cannot be fixed. I don't care who runs.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)In 2106, you can just watch and see how it is done.
castnet55
(62 posts)my vote has to be Vernim Supreme since just about everyone that's running is a joke
gateley
(62,683 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)When people write posts like this it is clear they will dismiss anything we say anyways. There have been many cases of "unelectable" candidates winning office, in fact in 2007 many were saying that your very own Obama could not win. Most of the names you mentioned in your post I would be happy with because contrary to what you claim we are not looking for purity, we are looking to get better leadership. The only people who I see demanding purity are those who can not handle any criticism of Obama or the Democratic Party leasership, if you expect us to be pure to the party then you are the real purist.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)
Enrique
(27,461 posts)by promising "change", and promising to fulfill a number of progressive priorities.
The difference would be that the progressive would actually do it after getting elected.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)When people see him and hear him, they like what he has to say. But, since he doesn't call himself a Democrat, I couldn't vote for him because his candidacy at this point would split the Democratic Party.
I would like to pressure Obama into raising and widening the tent that is over his administration. He needs to pick advisers with more liberal credentials and views especially for his economic team.
Obama needs to make sure he keeps the military in its place. He is the commander in chief. The generals are supposed to follow his policies. Not the other way around. Obama's area is foreign policy. I think he is doing as well as can be expected under the difficult circumstances in that area.
Unfortunately, at election time, domestic policy counts for a lot more, and there, Obama is weak. He is influenced far too much by the top 1%. They have flourished over the past three years. The rest of us have not. Obama needs to look out for the rest of us much more.
rtassi
(629 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)Any one of them would have my vote over Obama.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Maybe you and some 20% will be struck with Obama amnesia, but the vast majority will not.
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)I think I'll vote my principles for a change thank you very much. I believe I still do have that right...although who knows, of course on second though maybe I better check on that...perhaps I no longer do have that right under threat of "enemy combatant status".
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)You only get to say whether you approve, disapprove or are undecided. So, of course, Democrats say they approve. The alternatives are less correct than approve, but approve really isn't the truth either.
The outcome of a poll is often determined by the way the question is phrased. So poll results may suggest the outcome of a vote, but won't tell you what people really think about a candidate.
Obama may have the support of 80% of Democrats, but what percentage of those Democrats will really turn out to vote? What percentage will want to work for his re-election? What percentage will want to donate? What percentage will defend his policies around the water cooler in the office? Those are the questions that matter, not the questions you can answer with approve or disapprove or uncertain.
DRoseDARs
(6,810 posts)Two words: Candidate Obama
T S Justly
(884 posts)Might even get 150 delegates on the first go-around at the convention, if
it gets to a floor fight. Let's see what outside pressures might do first, if said outside
pressures were democratically, honestly, and sufficiently motivated.
lib2DaBone
(8,124 posts)He will be the next POTUS.
Obama and his 13-dimension-Chess-game will be trampled under the jack-boots of the Neo-Cons.
jimlup
(8,009 posts)Doesn't answer anything and helps further the divisions we are building.
Obama has me backed in a corner - I have no choice but to vote for him. So what? What is your point exactly? We get to keep the presidency? Well yeah we had better bloody well keep the presidency. We had also better make a good run at taking back congress and we had bloody well pick up at least some seats. We are in a quagmire of major proportions. If we can't dig out of it in 2012 we may well see a democratic party in shambles in 2016.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)and even if there was, that magic candidate would get their ass kicked.
My approach to 2012 has two parts ...
1) No matter who the GOP picks, that person will be an insane crazy person. And most of us here should focus on that.
2) Some here will continue to declare that everything Obama does, or that he does not do, is the biggest outrage ever. This will happen weekly, with a new outrage about every week or so. That is how we spent the last 3 years.
And so ...
#1 ... follow the insane shit the GOP says, and remind your right leaning friends, in the real world, of that craziness.
#2 ... follow DU so that you know what this week's "Obama is evil' outrage is, and then, be ready to counter it with your left leaning friends in the real world.
Obama can't be a socialist and a commie, and a fascist all at once.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)emulatorloo
(46,151 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)
ChadwickHenryWard
(862 posts)That's so deeply disingenuous.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
bluestateboomer
(541 posts)Obama is much better than his insane challengers on the other side. OK I concede this is a given, but how do we get Obama to move from his current policies, many of which seem to be only slightly better than the previous administration. We've got to keep pushing from the left and if our only lever is popular electoral outrage, we've got to use that lever. The alternative is to say, yeah you've got my vote, I'll work my ass off for you, no matter what. You guys just go on doing what the 1% wants cause the other side is just so inconceivably bad I have no other choice.
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)I dunno who their candidate would be, but I bet he has dreadlocks.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)People should vote based on who they think is the best candidate.
AmericaIsGreat
(630 posts)I've not heard that from DU progressives.
Moreover, I'm not sure what your point is. We know guys like Sanders and Grayson wouldn't stand a chance of being elected but that's because the American voters are a herd of mindless cunts who wouldn't know their best interests if they took the form of a giant dick and raped them six ways from Sunday. Otherwise, it says nothing about the quality of Sanders and Grayson as candidates; being a good, progressive candidate and being eligible for election are two different things and, unfortunately, mutually exclusive.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)Is that the best argument you can come up with? He can win, and he won't make things too much worse, unlike those Republicans? It certainly makes the election look as significant as a spring-training baseball game.
First, this is about the weakest Republican field we will ever see. If you're saying Kucinich or Sanders can't beat the likes of Gingrich, Romney, Paul, Perry or Bachmann, then I must be an illegal alien in my native land.
If it's just a matter of putting the smaller turd in the White House, then Joining the OWS movement and getting out into the streets, is more important now than the election. It has been demonstrated that the voting in key states is rigged anyway, (thanks to Diebold et al) and why hasn't the Democratic Party at the national level been concerned about this?
As far as we know, guys like Kucinich and Brown would win the elections.
GOTV
(3,759 posts)... by being the lesser of two evils?
gael
(35 posts)I would rather have a caandidate that stands for something, than our President.
I would rather see OWS, a real visible democracy than the Democratic Party.
I would rather attempt to fix the real problems than listen to paiid for rhetoric.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)*Make EFCA (Employee Free Choice Act) The Law of the Land
*Renegotiate NAFTA and the other "Free Trade" Treaties, and acknowledge that these treaties have cost Americans GOOD jobs
*Introduce a Publicly Owned, Government Administered robust Public Option to Keep the Insurance Companies honest.
*Fight against a Health Care Cadillac Tax on Union Plans
*Show up on picket lines where Unions are being attacked
* who would laugh at the idea of a Mandate to Purchase Health Insurance,
and ridicule it by saying that THAT is like solving Homelessness by requiring everybody to buy a house.
*who would protect Social Security and force the RICH to start paying their Fair Share by Raising the Cap on FICA Contributions,
NOT lowering them.
*who would fight to "Restore America's Honor" by restoring the guarantees of our Constitution,
and STAND on this principle:
The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
* who would introduce a new era of transparency in Washington:
forbid Lobbyists in the White House
expose Lobbyists in Congress
Televise Committee Meetings
Put legislation on the Internet for 5 days before signing it
Make it easy to track money influencing legislation
*Fight to protect consumers by forcing Corporations to label GM Food & Country of Origin
*Promise to put Progressive Voices in his administration
not just old establishment retreads
corporate cronies
and right leaning "Centrists"
Somebody who runs on a Populist/Progressive Platform like this ^ would do very well,
probably even get elected with majorities in BOTH Houses
a MANDATE to do all of the above
and an ARMY Standing in the Streets to help him.
....but whether he would actually FIGHT for the above after the election is the problem.
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their Campaign Promises.
[font size=5 color=green][center]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]
primavera
(5,191 posts)What about long term losing? I often wonder about this. I mean, I understand that Kucinich could not get the 270 electoral votes needed to win today, that's a given. But if we ran someone like Kucinich, who represented Democratic values, losing would at least afford the opportunity to make the country aware that there was, in fact, an alternative point of view, a better way. They might not be ready to hear it today, but tomorrow or the next day, maybe they would be ready to listen. If we preemptively assume that the public is only ready to hear one viewpoint and endorse that viewpoint with our middle of the road candidate, maybe we'll win an election today that way, but the price we pay is that we've sacrificed the truth that there IS a better way, which will never be discussed because it's considered politically unfashionable and not a winning platform. You make that same tactical decision over and over and over again - as we have been since Clinton - and, thirty years later, you find yourself in a country so far to the right that even the right's patron saints like Ronnie Raygun and Barry Goldwater would be horrified to see where we've wound up. Is there no point at which it's strategically - if not tactically - advisable to stand up for what's right, even if it means losing today, so you have at least some chance of achieving what's right tomorrow? Or is it just hopeless and we need to reconcile ourselves to making ever greater and greater compromises in a national debate led by the rightwing that isn't afraid to speak their minds?