The Presidential Election is Less Important than You Think

[MineralMan]

On DU, we spend almost all of our time discussing Presidential elections. We torture ourselves over which Democratic candidate would be the best one. Here's the bottom line: All of the current Democratic Presidential candidates would do a fine job, but only if they have a Congress that will send them progressive legislation to sign. Each of the current candidates has ideas for changes that will help people. Those ideas are all different to one degree or another, but all would promote and sign progressive legislation in almost every area.

The problem is that we keep electing Republican-controlled Congresses. No, DUers don't vote for Republicans for Congress and state legislatures. What we do is to ignore Congress and our state legislatures. When there's not a Presidential election coming up, we bicker about other topics. Then, in mid-term elections, we don't work to get the outstanding turnouts of Democrats we did in presidential election years. It's not that we don't vote. It's that we don't make sure that other Democrats vote.

So, here in 2015, we have Republicans with majorities in both houses of Congress. There's a chance we might win the Senate back in 2016, but even if we do, it will be with a very thin majority. That's not enough. We need a super-majority in the Senate. The House? Well, we've let that get out of control altogether, and there's not a chance to take it back in 2016. Why? People will tell you it's because of gerrymandering, and they're partly correct.

In 2010, Democrats didn't turn out in strong enough numbers to prevent Republicans from getting control of many state legislatures. Even in Minnesota, we lost both houses of our state legislature to Republicans. Why did that matter? Because there was a census in 2010. State legislatures in many states control the redistricting that happens after every census. Gerrymandering was the result in states that don't have a trustworthy redistricting system.

We allowed Republicans to make it even harder to elect Democratic majorities in Congress. We did that through neglect. We flaked out in 2010. We flaked out in 2014. When we do that, Republicans turn up the heat, get their voters out, and win legislative races. When there's no presidential election, we put our feet up and forget that no President can accomplish our goals without the support of Congress.

2016 is a presidential election year. We'll turn out voters and probably win the Presidency for our nominee. That's great, whoever that nominee ends up being. But, we will still not have super-majorities in either house of Congress. We'll get more of the same obstruction and stalling that have caused so much problem since 2008.

Will we learn? Will we focus on every election, not just presidential elections? I have no idea. We'd better, though, or it won't matter a damn bit who we elect as President. That's my highest priority. It should be a high priority for all of us.

[libdem4life]

1. I agree, but how would that work here. Some who lives in Arizona would not care too much about

a campaign...Gov, US Senators and Reps. State Reps, and down...in Michigan. The one election that includes us all is the Presidential Election. I know there are State Groups, and are we sure they are not supporting down ticket?

[MineralMan]

2. Here's the thing in Arizona:

If every eligible voter in Arizona turned out and voted, Democrats would win every race there. If not, then Democrats lose those races, and the votes of Democrats for President don't matter, because the Republican gets all of Arizona's electoral votes.

The equation is simple. If more Democrats than Republicans turn out and vote, Democrats win. If they do not, the Republicans win. The presidential election is not a direct election. The Electoral College is who elects the President. If your state sends Republican Electors, your Democratic vote amounts to nothing.

However, if every potential Democratic voter goes to the polls, everything flips the other way. That is why turnout matters more than anything else, across the board, from your city council chamber to the White House. It's a simple equation.

[libdem4life]

3. That's a given. How does DU figure into that other than GOTV support online?

[MineralMan]

4. Each of us can do something.

Online activism is just one part of what we can do. DUers come from all over the country. We have DUers in every state. Each of us can get strongly involved in our own local area and make a difference.

DU is great, but it's no substitute for enthusiastic local activism. All too often, we feel that the time we spend here actually affects things. It doesn't. It doesn't affect anything in local elections, and local elections make all the difference. If each and every DUer could bring an additional 10 Democratic voters to the polls and convince those 10 to bring just two or three additional voters with them, we'd begin to make a difference.

If each of us worked on increasing turnout where we live, then turnout would increase. If some of us got even more involved than that, we'd have even more effect.

We accomplish little by arguing about the details of Democratic candidates for President. Next to nothing, really. We accomplish much more by working locally to get voters to the polls. If we work hard with our local Democratic organizations, we can do even more. Talk doesn't change things. Local electoral activism changes things. If we get that right, we'll win the larger race. If not, others will do the job and win instead.

I'm completely convinced of this, and elections like the ones in 2008 and 2010 are my evidence. There's a lot more evidence, but that should be sufficient.

[libdem4life]

5. Again, agreed. So GOTV is the focus for DUers. I read that a lot and to be sure there

should be more, but that doesn't pre-suppose what emotionally affects everyone that's on the political forums here...National Primaries and the General Election.

And this season it seems way early, but with two fascinating characters now in the race (that would be Bernie and Hillary at this time), seems to just beg for discussion ... we have already even developed "haters and lovers" and "attacks" and "shilling" and "trolls". I'm sure as O'Malley gets more coverage, the same will attach to his personality and policies, as well.

There is no discussion to posting about GOTV in any given state that I can see. That's something everyone agrees on. Maybe I'm missing something. But it's always good to be reminded, to be sure.

[MineralMan]

6. GOTV is my main reason for being, politically. That's why I'm on DU.

As elections approach, I bring it up frequently. Sadly, in years like 2010 and 2014, it's clear that GOTV efforts are not strong, and we lose ground. So, I guess not everyone gets the message. I'll keep trying.

[libdem4life]

9. Totally with you there. Recently been exiled...temporarily...to a really Red State

from a really Blue State. Wow, what an experience. Thank you for reminding me, however, to do my local research...see what's out there or if I'm just one of the Fruits and Nuts from California. LOL

I'd gladly hear about anyone in the OKC area who has already or is interested in starting a Bernie Group. I left an email on one of the websites, but didn't get a reply.

[Exilednight]

11. There is no doubt that local politics matter, but

Presidential elections do matter. We took the House, Senate and Executive in 2008, but we only did it because of coattails.

Obama won the majority of the vote in 2012, but failed to regain the House.

More people voted for the Democrat, but they didn't vote Demcratic.

[DFW]

7. The Dean brothers have been focusing on this forever

That's one of the reasons some of my biggest donations go to DFA rather than the DSCC or the DCCC.

[MineralMan]

8. Yes. We all need to be focused on it, in my opinion.

Nothing is more important than voter turnout in every election, from school board elections to presidential elections. If we neglect that, we will continue to lose when it is especially important not to lose, as in 2010, a census year. How could we miss that? I'll never understand.

[DFW]

10. I think too many of us underestimated the damage Citizens United would do

Rove and Cheney, on the other hand, I'm pretty sure were planning just that when they put up Roberts and Alito to the Court. Rove and Cheney probably realized that after the damage they did, no Republican would win the presidency in 2008. So they were already looking at 2010 for damage control, and control it, they did! Neither Roberts nor Alito were ever questioned by Democrats about voter fraud during the confirmation hearings because no one even imagined such an issue would ever succeed before the Supreme Court.

You'd have thought after Bush v. Gore, we would all have our danger antennae tingling like mad the second Roberts and Alito were nominated.

[jeff47]

12. We didn't flake. The party decided to run as "Republican-lite".

That suppresses turnout.

There's an obsession among "respectable" Democrats and strategists that there is a huge middle just waiting for an uninspiring, middle-of-the-road candidate. Polling shows that group does not exist. Instead, there's "marginally-attached voters". They will always vote Democratic or Republican, but they will not always vote. You can not get a Republican marginally-attached voter to vote for a Democrat.

Republicans have figured this out, so they don't even pretend to be moderate.

Democrats and the media insist there is a giant middle. If that moderate pool doesn't exist, then they have to stop pretending both parties are equally extreme. Which means actually addressing the insanity of the Republicans, which they fear will raise the ire of the Republicans. If CNN points out Brownback is batshit insane, Republicans will screech "Partisan hit job!!".

The party needs to realize we don't live in 1992 anymore, and adopt strategies that fit today instead of 1992. Democrats refusing to admit they voted for Obama is not such a strategy.

"We flaked" puts the blame on party activists. Party activists have been screaming "THIS IS STUPID! STOP DOING THIS" for a very long time, and are ignored by party leadership. The fault is the leadership.

[MineralMan]

14. I'll direct you to 1968, as just one example of why you're incorrect.

Bottom line: We have a Republican controlled Congress. That needs to change.

[jeff47]

16. I'll direct you to the calendar, which will inform you it is no longer 1968.

Also, 1968 failed precisely because the sensible leadership told the activists "Shut up and line up for Humphrey".

Instead, I'll direct you to elections in this century. 2014 and 2010 versus 2008 and 2012. 10/14: "We're Republican-lite!". We get crushed. 2008/12: "Hope and Change". We win. Hrm...must've been those lazy Democrats not knocking on enough doors.

[MohRokTah]

13. The more local the election, the more direct effect on your life and the fewer number of voters.

That's simple reality.

[MineralMan]

15. Absolutely, and our election works from the bottom up,

not the opposite.