General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNobodyspecial: Don't Vote Obama -- If you want some crazy-ass far-right extremist running the U.S.
With the added bonus of both houses of Congress being in GOP hands
But, then again, if your goal is to destroy America to usher in your vision of a glorious revolution...
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Nailed it.
Kicked and recommended, because some people still don't get the idea of an "either/or" situation.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)it's actually more about the GOP than about Obama.
Put aside Greenwald's characterization of Obama's politics (obviously he doesn't like Obama's strategy) and the article is about how Obama is clowning them at "chess".
SunsetDreams
(8,571 posts)The Greenwald Article is about Obama. He calls him a Centrist Republican, not a Centrist Democrat. BIG DIFFERENCE. This is the same as saying that Obama is just like a Republican, so what does it mean? It is meant for vote suppression. In other words: "Liberals might as well stay home or vote Republican if you are going to get one anyway" Total dishonesty and pure agenda. He loves Ron Paul though 
Glenn Greenwald meet Ron Paul
http://www.democraticunderground.com/100277632
"But what makes the media most eager to disappear Paul is that he destroys the easy, conventional narrative — for slothful media figures and for Democratic loyalists alike. Aside from the truly disappeared former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson (more on him in a moment), Ron Paul is far and away the most anti-war, anti-Surveillance-State, anti-crony-capitalism, and anti-drug-war presidential candidate in either party."
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Destroying the village to "save" it is a really dumb idea in the current political climate.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,957 posts)and when has that EVER been a good idea?
nobodyspecial
(2,286 posts)What about all of the people who will suffer? I've been told that people are already suffering. I agree, but shouldn't our goal be to alleviate that suffering, not create more?
Also, there is no guarantee what would replace our current system would be better. My bet is that it would be worse given the meanness that has infected us and the dumbing down of the people and control of the media.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,957 posts)what if a "revolution" ended up with the fundamentalists in charge (like say, Iran, Egypt, etc)? And we're supposed to already be a democracy anyway, so why the hell won't people just get the hell out and vote for people whom will fix our problems instead of letting regressives vote for people whom won't lift a finger for the 99% and move us backwards as a country?
Some people think that in order for change to really occur, the heat has to be turned up so high that people can't help but notice but it seems just about as evil and/or misguided as the people already inflicting the suffering on other people.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)if you don't mind.
CakeGrrl
(10,611 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,957 posts)This is the basic argument we need to make in 2012-that it doesn't matter who the Republicans nominate, they'll either be part of or beholden to the GOP Tea Party, especially if the Republicans win the Senate and hold the House and, I'm sorry but people whom believe that "both parties are the same" and/or that they need to LET things get awful in anticipation of a "revolution" that never came during 12 years of Reagan/Bush, 14 years of a lockstep Republican-controlled Congress, and, most recently, 8 years of Bush/Cheney, are not helping anybody IMHO.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine that for many voters, it will be a choice between serving their own conscience or a political party.
I can't really find an ethical fault with the first choice, even should it run contrary to my own agenda of Obama's re-election; but I have no doubt that many people believe the party is of greater importance than one's own convictions.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)good post 
Sid
Spazito
(55,500 posts)A good example of exactly this, relatively speaking, is what happened in Canada in the last election. The left vote went in four different directions while the right went only in one. We now have a neocon far right government busily dismantling public programs, lowering environmental standards, working on privatizing healthcare more than it already is, etc.
Our governance system may be different but, on issues like this, the results are the same, imo.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Makes me think back to Nader running against bewsh and Gore. Several factors led to shrub's selection, but Nader's splitting the vote didn't help.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)I will, unless he's up at least ten points in my state on the last poll. If it's close I will vote for him. But I will be voting for him despite the fact that he has betrayed and abandoned virtually everything I expected him to do. I will not vote for the lesser of two evils with any joy or enthusiasm. Same for the Senate, where Amy Klobuchar has been something of a disappointment. Thankfully my Congressional district is bluer than blue, and Keith Ellison is a great rep whom I can support wholeheartedly.
booley
(3,855 posts)Because if the best argument is the other guy is worse and you're a bad person for mentioning that even so this guy is still pretty flawed, you actually make people want to NOT do what you want. Even if you have a good point, it's lost among the douche-ness
And meanwhile our candidates can take deeper and deeper swerves to the right and all they have to do is say they still aren't as right leaning as the "other guys" (who are so far right reagan couldn't pass their Reagan purity test)
Which means even if we win...we still lose. Seriously, saying we would lose more in some hypothetical situation just isn't a good selling point since you are still reminding people that we are going to lose if we vote for "our" guy.
It's simple advertising principals. You don't sell your product with the slogan "Sucks less then most other brands, you idiot."
nobodyspecial
(2,286 posts)What's your strategy?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"What's your strategy?"
Voting my convictions. Sorry.
(reality doesn't suck-- try a new pillow, it helps...)
booley
(3,855 posts).... seeing as how this topic has been argued pretty extensively by people much smarter then me.
But how about:
First acknowledge this isn't "reality", it's a set of artificial parameters we set for ourselves in this game we call politics. There is nothing in physics that says we can't move the country to the left (especially when we have before many times just as conservatives have moved the country tot he right).
Yes we have to accept the way the system is now. But that doesn't mean we accept that that's how it always must be.
Second, stop acting like it's all about one guy and that if "our guy" wins that means we win. Many long term conservative victories were not done under Republican presidents but Democratic ones. Many progressive policies were not done in by Republicans alone but with the help of Democrats. We cant' fix the problem if we wont' even admit what the problem is.
Third, related to that, the Democratic party leadership doesn't have a lot of incentive to change since they believe (rightly or wrongly) that their base has no choice but to vote for them. And lo and behold here's people like the OP above making just that case. So why should Democrats get better then they will always have boogymen like Bachmann and Gingrich and Perry?
Even Tea baggers are smart enough not to fall for that. SO why do we?
Now you may say "gee that's a rather vague and sparse strategy" and it is since I cant' condense the words of thousands into this one post. And this is long term. There is no quick fix to this.
BUT what we have now is not working. And telling people to ignore that, shut up and vote to keep things not working so we dont' lose any more ground (even when we do keep losing ground) just ins't going to convince anyone.
"Because if the best argument is the other guy is worse and you're a bad person for mentioning that even so this guy is still pretty flawed, you actually make people want to NOT do what you want. Even if you have a good point, it's lost among the douche-ness "
...that is why we lose: flawed framing to hype the "lesser of two evil" BS. Depress the vote and end up with the other guy.
The "Bush = (insert Democrat's name)" equation has failed miserably and with devastating consequences.
There's no difference between Gore and Bush...and we got the Iraq war.
There's no difference between Kerry and Bush (evidently, the death and destruction of the Iraq war wasn't difference enough)...and we got the economic collapse.
booley
(3,855 posts)"The "Bush = (insert Democrat's name)" equation has failed miserably and with devastating consequences."
I was there at the election too. And again and again I heard the meme of how Kerry was better then Bush. Not perfect. Not even all that different. Btu somehow less objectionable.
And yet that didnt' push enough people over to Kerry's side either.
And the same with Gore. Sure he sucks in many areas for progressives but he's better then any conservative, right?
And yet in both cases the votes were close enough for Bush to squeak through despite being a clearly crappy president. People weren't just saying that the candidates seemed the same, candidates did seem the same and the only difference the left could come up with was their guy sucked less.
Now compare that to obama in 2008. He didn't just say how McCain would be a bad president, Obama made the case that he wasn't just not as bad as McCain but he was the best candidate over all, a break from the status quo. Ironically this caused the disapointment when he ended up being very quo with the status.
In short, the first elections we lost because we made it about the opposition and third one succeeded because it was about OUR candidate.
The OP's argument only works on people who plan on voting for Obama no matter what. And even there it's shaky. Certainly it's intellectually dishonest and insulting. So how th ehell is it suppose dot work with anybody still sitting on the fence?
The reason why what you suggest for Obama in 2012 wont' work is Obama in 2008.
"I was there at the election too. And again and again I heard the meme of how Kerry was better then Bush. Not perfect. Not even all that different. Btu somehow less objectionable. "
...you ignored the other meme? I mean, if being better isn't enough, then what's the point?
Still, this is not your argument. You claimed that simply arguing from a negative that's completely flawed.
"Because if the best argument is the other guy is worse and you're a bad person for mentioning that even so this guy is still pretty flawed, you actually make people want to NOT do what you want. "
If the Democrat is better, it's pretty obvious the other guy is worse. Why is that a problem?
The only time it's a problem to be better is when the negative framing "lesser of two evils" is used.
booley
(3,855 posts)Look at the OP above.
He's not making a case that Obama is better.
The argument is the opposition is worse.
And adding a little ad hominem to boot.
and it is flawed. Arguing from a negative reinforces the negative. Telling people the other guy sucks more also tells people your guy sucks too even if not as much.
Again that's not how Obama won by such a wide margin. Yes 8 years of Bush was awful. But so was 4 years yet Bush and conservative control sucking wasnt' enough to get him out of office.
Look at the OP above.
He's not making a case that Obama is better.
The argument is the opposition is worse.
...if you insist on taking the OP literally, "crazy-ass far-right extremist" qualifies as worse and makes a strong case for why "Obama is better."
That is unless you believe "crazy-ass far-right extremist" is misunderstood?
booley
(3,855 posts)clearly my problem is I take the OP at it's word, assuming the words are supposed to denote the authors meaning rather then assigning whatever arbitrary meaning will make it sound better and be more defensible.
(do I need a sarcasm smiley here?)
Anyway, I am afraid you still fail at advertising 101.
Arguing that you should choose A because B is worse still sends the message that A isn't great. Just because one guy is horrible does not mean his opponent is awesome. They can both be bad and the OP not only doesn't show why one is awsome, it feeds into the assumption that both may suck.
Which means you fail logic too (excluded middle).
And yet you all seem to think this will convince anyone?
I am going to vote for Obama and even I am not convinced. So if you turn off your own side, what chance do you have?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)clearly my problem is I take the OP at it's word, assuming the words are supposed to denote the authors meaning rather then assigning whatever arbitrary meaning will make it sound better and be more defensible.
(do I need a sarcasm smiley here?)
Anyway, I am afraid you still fail at advertising 101.
Arguing that you should choose A because B is worse still sends the message that A isn't great. Just because one guy is horrible does not mean his opponent is awesome. They can both be bad and the OP not only doesn't show why one is awsome, it feeds into the assumption that both may suck.
Which means you fail logic too (excluded middle).
And yet you all seem to think this will convince anyone?
I am going to vote for Obama and even I am not convinced. So if you turn off your own side, what chance do you have?
...of "fail," if you took the OP at its word, you wouldn't be rejecting the premise that "crazy-ass far-right extremist" is bad for the U.S.
I mean, do you envision a situation in which "crazy-ass far-right extremist" might be the better choice?
"Arguing that you should choose A because B is worse still sends the message that A isn't great."
Flawed! If someone tells you to choose A (a straight path) because B (a cliff into the abyss) is worse, that doesn't mean "A isn't great." It means use your head.
You're free to argue that A is better than B, but it would be silly to claim that A is only better than B because B is the abyss.
By that logic, given a choice between life and death, life is only better because death is worse.
That is the gist of the negative frame, absolutism.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)support collapsing in 2004 to 10% of what it was in 2000. Reality is often a good antidote to irrationality, though unfortunately it came too late to save the country from GWB in 2000.
That doesn't mean that Kerry would necessarily win. Two necessary conditions for Democrats to win are that progressives have to be mostly united, and moderates have to vote at a sufficiently good rate for the Democrat. In 2004, the latter factor was not quite there. But that has nothing to do with the benefits of explaining reality to uniting progressives around Kerry.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)in 2000, 2004, 2010?
You're arguing from a POV that only LIBERALS should be expected to cede ground in the name of winning elections.
Why don't the "Sensible Centrists" ever have to cede ground? 
in 2000, 2004, 2010?
You're arguing from a POV that only LIBERALS should be expected to cede ground in the name of winning elections.
Why don't the "Sensible Centrists" ever have to cede ground?
...do you have a evidence that shows "Sensible Centrists" stayed home?
not following me. If Liberals were discouraged by rightwing candidates who don't represent them, then let's not run any more rightwing candidates, rather than complain that the Liberals won't support the Centrists.
A person who really wanted to win elections (rather than just push "centrist" ideology) would be more flexible!
"You're not following me. If Liberals were discouraged by rightwing candidates who don't represent them, then let's not run any more rightwing candidates, rather than complain that the Liberals won't support the Centrists."
...I'm following you: Gore and Kerry were "rightwing candidates" so "liberals" were justified in not voting.
Ridiculous argument, but doesn't stop people from trying make it.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)Actual independent voters (who go back and forth between Republicans and Democrats) don't generally have to cede ground, because they have another viable choice on the ballot if the Democratic party doesn't cede ground. An actual independent actually prefers a Republican to sufficiently progressive Democrats.
Polls indicate that there are approximately 20% liberals, 35% conservatives, and 45% moderates. That means that a Democratic candidate has to win about 2/3 of the moderates and all of the liberals to win. If fewer liberals vote for the Democrat, then the Democrat has to move further to the right to get even more than 2/3 of the moderates, because the moderates that think the Democrat is too far to the left will happily prefer (and elect) a Republican.
So while hypothetically, a large block of liberals can end up effectively electing the Republican, they can't move the Democrat to the left. They can either go with the Democrat as-is (that gets the requisite moderate support), or go with the Republican. They can only move the country to the right -- not to the left.
The only way that is ever going to change is if the percentage of liberals increase and the percentages of conservatives and moderates decrease. That's it. As long as conservatives and moderates are both approximately twice as big as liberals, liberals will have little leverage. The way to get more progressive policy is to convince voters to vote for progressive candidates.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)It proves what may of us suspected--that the Democratic Party takes liberals for granted, ignores them, has no real principles, sees politics as a "game" merely to be won, and has lost its soul.
Of course, that may actually be true, but it's your argument (above) that proves the point.
-Laelth
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)The only remedy such a defector would have would be to move the country significantly to the right. Since that remedy is irrational (if one's goal is to move the country to the left), the vast majority won't do it. And for the small group that does, the consequences of that action will change their minds next time around (as after 2000). The politicians who lose an occasional elections because of this aren't really hurt (they end up getting multiple times the salary they were making before, in the private sector). The people that are hurt are the ones who take the action that elects the Republican -- not the former Democratic politicians.
That does not mean the Democratic party ignores liberals, or has no real principles. The composition of our house membership, for example, is more progressive than the composition of our party as a whole. Many such officials are liberals. It does mean, however, that elected officials do realize that winning is a prerequisite to moving the country to the left, and this means that most officials will attempt to win the median available voter in their district. There is really nothing someone on the left (or right, for the Republican party) can do about this in a general election -- voting against their party just moves the median available voter that much closer to the center. The only action that might actually work is to convince a majority of the primary electorate to nominate someone else.
treestar
(82,383 posts)How are you selling your brand to right wingers? Not at all. Just giving them ammunition for their being the lesser of two evils.
The lesser of evils argument merely assumes the worst of everyone else. It's just a slogan for negativity and negative people.
nobodyspecial
(2,286 posts)This is a special argument reserved for posters right here.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
bigmonkey
(1,798 posts)Not all voters think this way, in fact some are quite turned off by the entire voter-as-consumer frame. You are generalizing over much, and my impression is that you can't see how you could possibly be so doing.
Still, some percentage think the way you are portraying. I think we lose because they have to be pandered to, and it turns everyone else off of the entire political process. Not buying something is not a political act, but not participating in elections is. If you think the election is only an ad campaign, you can get disgusted, refuse to buy, and feel you've made a rational choice. On the other hand, if you think the election is about the country's (and the world's) future political direction, you can't let the packaging turn you away from steering in the direction of progress.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)a more just society.
nobodyspecial
(2,286 posts)than your children or grandchildren.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)IMO they romanticize "revolution" and aren't thinking through just how awful the experience would be for them, and for others.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)nobodyspecial
(2,286 posts)I really don't think the outcome would be better. I'm picturing a doubling down of the police state and real silencing of protest like we've never seen before. (And, no, I don't think not allowing OWS to build camps violate constitutional rights.) This would happen more in red areas, with no court intervention because it would be in the hands of the GOP. And then they can enact austerity measures like DeMint's, in which 70% of the impact would be on the poor.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And more local control, which in some places, could lead to very undesirable right wing outcomes.
These individuals have allegedly the "balls" to take these huge risks. They could find themselves in a for-real right wing tyranny as a result of taking that risk. You are absolutely right.
booley
(3,855 posts)Oh and worship satan or satin or something.
ALL FOR THE GLORIOUS REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!
I mean if you are going to make broad and rather uninformed generalizations, at least be creative.
Sigh.
BTW, I think you will find many who are angry with Obama do have children, do want a more just society and their anger at Obama's policies are very much in line with that rather then some nihilistic societal death urge.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)my generalization (and it is informed) is that people who want things to get worse in order for them to get better probably do not have kids. You are right, it is a generalization - yet one I believe has merrit. You are trying to broaden my comment to include all who are critical with Obama. Nice try.
booley
(3,855 posts)Because this thread from the OP on down has been characterising anger at Obama to the point where they don't want to vote for the guy as some kind nihilistic force that also is somehow anti children.
And yes your generalization is both uninformed and offensive.
I do read what these things you know.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)anything else derogatory. I will delete it and apologize if you can find such a comment on my part.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)Plenty of people don't want to vote for Obama, but will vote for him anyway, because they realize that in life, you often need to do things that you don't particularly want (to maximize the chances of achieving your goals). The OP is not talking about people who are merely angry about Obama.
The OP is talking about people who actually won't vote for Obama. And for those people, the consequences of that collective action could be similar to the consequences of that action in 2000, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in other countries and thousands of other parents' children from this country. Pointing that out is not a bad thing; without understanding and correcting for our mistakes, history is doomed to repeat them.
TBF
(36,669 posts)I have thought about it a lot. Right now in this country their are scores of right-wingers hoarding guns and just waiting for the opportunity to use them. Unless we seriously want another civil war (which we may well lose) this is not an approach I can support.
I also have children - perhaps that has made me soft. I just can't do it.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)but I'd prefer to fight them at the ballot box and talk of other methods is violent, inmature fantasy. And having children doesn't make one soft - but often makes one think through the long term concequences.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)...and I personally would rather it happen slowly than quickly. So that's why I am against the "let it burn" approach. Plus, I care about other people, and right wing ideology doesn't, so there's that.
Turbineguy
(40,076 posts)The sooner the GOP can finish off what Reagan started and Bush advanced, the sooner we can come out of the stone age and start over.
bigmonkey
(1,798 posts)Can you point to examples of this in history, this "Magical Reversal" theory of yours? Things get horribly bad, and then "naturally" get better?
nobodyspecial
(2,286 posts)that things will get better. Sometimes they just get worse, much worse.
Turbineguy
(40,076 posts)the stone age. That would be worse than where we are now.
Quartermass
(457 posts)Our political leaders continue to act like children, and people will continue to encourage it and support it so it continues, and it'll continue to fracture America until America tears itself apart at the seams.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But we don't. So, we vote for the Democratic corporatist rather than the Republican over-the-top-stupid-corporatist.
Neither choice is great, but the Democrat is by far less horrible.
kentuck
(115,407 posts)Doesn't he majority of this country favor "crazy-ass far-right extremists"? How can you fight it? 
slay
(7,670 posts)neither so called "choice" sounds very good to me. sure Obama is the better of the two, but we need much, much better.
nobodyspecial
(2,286 posts)but in a two-party system, this is reality.
Work on 2016 and getting more progressives in the House and Senate. A president can only do so much.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)I mean, people have to make choices in life they aren't thrilled about all the time. Pretending we have a choice that we don't have does not actually create progress; it moves us backwards tremendously.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Yea, that ought to work.
nobodyspecial
(2,286 posts)who take so much pride in "thinking for themselves," is there? If they are willing to sacrifice a Democratic victory and allow the likes of Gingrich or Perry or Bachman in the White House, nothing I would post on a message board would convince them otherwise.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)persuade with logic.
nobodyspecial
(2,286 posts)can't think.
On edit: Yes, because it is beyond imagination that others would have other valid beliefs or opinions. Smart, thinking people don't vote for Obama.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)In fact, the ability to think is sort of a requirement for anyone to have a horrible idea (or any idea), no?
Enabling Republicans is a bad idea regardless if the person who has the idea "dares to think." The problem isn't that they "dare to think" -- it is the idea that they came up with.