Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
So Here's A Weird Idea... 2016/2018... No Matter Who The 2016 Candidate Is...
What I mean by that... is to use a Presidential Election Year to get commitments to turn out for the following Mid-Terms.
Get every Democratic contender of every stripe to put 2016/2018 at the end of every ad, the bottom of every lawn sing, and bumper sticker.
And have an ad campaign, not for any particular candidate, but for the party as a whole.
The point being that we are all tired of a step forward, to be countered by a step or two back...
We have a great Democratic turn-out during Presidential Elections, and fall flat during mid-terms.
Now if we were to do this, the GOP would scream bloody murder, and accuse us of not seeking bi-partisan solutions...
But that's easily proven wrong.
The biggest obstacle to bi-partisan-ism has been the GOP over the last couple of decades.
We need to... IMHO...
Hit the GOP over the head with their lying bullshit and get people angry at them in 2016... so we can knee-cap them in 2018.
An Article on point:
How the Democrats Could Win Every Election
The Democrats are getting populist, which is nice. But will it be enough to lure the millions who don’t vote to the polls?
Monica Potts - DailyBeast
1/15/15
The Pew survey asked people questions about their overall financial security, including whether they’d ever received food stamps or Medicaid and whether they had retirement savings, and then about political preferences.
The most financially secure participants were strongly Republican, which is no surprise. The least financially secure were much more likely to prefer Democratic policies. That included the mythical “white working class,” a group liberals have worried about the Democrats losing because of social-justice issues like race and gender relations. Even though white voters overall were more likely to tilt Republican, support for the GOP declines as we move down the income scale, and the poorest whites were more likely to say they liked Democrats better. Will this finally end the myth that the nation is full of poor whites voting against their economic interests?
The least financially secure group was more likely to say that the government should do more to help the needy, which might indicate support for a proposal like Van Hollen’s. But the bigger problem is that people who were the least financially secure were also the least likely to vote. On top of that, few of them ever wrote to their Congressperson or knew much about the current Congress or the current political field.
This is a big group of voters—at least 20 percent of Americans—who could be swayed by Democratic policies. Yet both parties leave their votes on the table.
Why might lower-income and lower-wealth Americans be so disengaged? The Pew survey didn’t make any claims, but noted that the least financially secure surveyed were less ideologically consistent than the better-off participants, so maybe they don’t strongly identify with a party and that keeps them from feeling moved to vote. Indeed, the least well off were more likely to say they had no preference between the Democratic and Republican candidates in the 2014 elections.
It could also be that, until now, the Democratic Party seemed as friendly to the big banks at times as the Republicans. See above: Warren challenging Obama’s Treasury nominee for being a Wall Streeter.
I think this group doesn’t see Democrats doing much to enhance their economic security. Even these voters know the game is rigged against them and don’t seen many politicians of either party rising to be their champion. Democrats seem ready to cede lots of ground on policies that will hit Americans with the lowest incomes the hardest, like raising the Social Security retirement age and cutting benefits.
The lives of low-income, financially insecure Americans are busy, insecure ones. They are less likely to be well educated and more likely to have a disability that keeps them from working full time. They are more likely to be women who have never been married, which means many are overwhelmed single mothers. The least well-off financially likely includes men who have spent some time in the criminal justice system, which means they are literally disenfranchised or believe they cannot vote even if they live in a state where they could.
More: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/15/how-the-democrats-could-win-every-election.html#
The Democrats are getting populist, which is nice. But will it be enough to lure the millions who don’t vote to the polls?
Monica Potts - DailyBeast
1/15/15
The Pew survey asked people questions about their overall financial security, including whether they’d ever received food stamps or Medicaid and whether they had retirement savings, and then about political preferences.
The most financially secure participants were strongly Republican, which is no surprise. The least financially secure were much more likely to prefer Democratic policies. That included the mythical “white working class,” a group liberals have worried about the Democrats losing because of social-justice issues like race and gender relations. Even though white voters overall were more likely to tilt Republican, support for the GOP declines as we move down the income scale, and the poorest whites were more likely to say they liked Democrats better. Will this finally end the myth that the nation is full of poor whites voting against their economic interests?
The least financially secure group was more likely to say that the government should do more to help the needy, which might indicate support for a proposal like Van Hollen’s. But the bigger problem is that people who were the least financially secure were also the least likely to vote. On top of that, few of them ever wrote to their Congressperson or knew much about the current Congress or the current political field.
This is a big group of voters—at least 20 percent of Americans—who could be swayed by Democratic policies. Yet both parties leave their votes on the table.
Why might lower-income and lower-wealth Americans be so disengaged? The Pew survey didn’t make any claims, but noted that the least financially secure surveyed were less ideologically consistent than the better-off participants, so maybe they don’t strongly identify with a party and that keeps them from feeling moved to vote. Indeed, the least well off were more likely to say they had no preference between the Democratic and Republican candidates in the 2014 elections.
It could also be that, until now, the Democratic Party seemed as friendly to the big banks at times as the Republicans. See above: Warren challenging Obama’s Treasury nominee for being a Wall Streeter.
I think this group doesn’t see Democrats doing much to enhance their economic security. Even these voters know the game is rigged against them and don’t seen many politicians of either party rising to be their champion. Democrats seem ready to cede lots of ground on policies that will hit Americans with the lowest incomes the hardest, like raising the Social Security retirement age and cutting benefits.
The lives of low-income, financially insecure Americans are busy, insecure ones. They are less likely to be well educated and more likely to have a disability that keeps them from working full time. They are more likely to be women who have never been married, which means many are overwhelmed single mothers. The least well-off financially likely includes men who have spent some time in the criminal justice system, which means they are literally disenfranchised or believe they cannot vote even if they live in a state where they could.
More: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/15/how-the-democrats-could-win-every-election.html#
Does this make any sense ???
11 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
to keep at it during the mid-terms.
