What did you say, history? Could you repeat yourself?

[JohnnyRingo]

20. I never heard our non-voting base referred to as "reserved".

That's a pretty polite term.

I get a bit more heated about it when I try to talk potential votes into the polls. I make it a point to sign up one new person every election to double my own vote, and it can be frustrating indeed. Republicans accuse us of voting more than once, and in my case that's often true in a way.

Considering the uphill battle I have every year, and the lame excuses I get for not registering, I use words like complacent, unmotivated, indifferent, or just plain lazy. I believe there are far more potential democrats in the country than there are republicans however. Democrats stay home, while republicans march to the polls as a birthright. That's why when the vote count is low, republicans win. They know this and work to suppress the number of people willing to cast a vote. We often say it's racism, but they try to bar white working poor people too who may vote blue, ex-felons and union members for two examples.

As for the great majority voting for a liberal, or a self described socialist like Bernie Sanders, I remain a skeptic. The party still has a lot of PR work ahead to convince the voting masses that they would be better off with a candidate from anywhere near the far left. Six years or so ago, I read here where people were sure that if we could just get Dennis Kucinich and his Dept Of Peace on the ballot, he'd win in a landslide. I think that was very naive. The majority wants someone who works both sides toward the middle. Much to the dismay of many at DU, that's what we got with Obama... and Clinton... and yes, even Jimmy Carter.

The RNC is already aware of this, and they knew it would be Romney from the very beginning because considered him a moderate. He behaved like one too, until he opened his mouth at a secretly taped fundraiser. The RNC even actively sabotaged Ron Paul's chances to keep him off the ballot. The RNC knew "libertarian" or "Tea Party" was not something that inspired the majority to their side on election day. The DNC knows the same about the term "liberal", and is unlikely to make such a suicide move like that that happen anytime soon.

I know it's frustrating, and I'm absolutely on your side, but before we can put up a candidate from anywhere except slightly left of center, we have to do some PR work on what's good for the so called working class. Just putting someone like Elizabeth or Bernie on the ballot is not enough to waylay the rooted fears of extremism held by millions of voters who don't follow politics every day like we do. I don't know who that eventual candidate is, but I'm sure the DNC has a short list by now.

I may sound like a Negative Ned to you, but I'm being sadly realistic. As I've pointed out all along, it's dire that we not give up the Oval Office in 2016 just because we have these deeply held liberal ideals for a candidate. Far right purity tests are what keeps the Tea Party from gaining anything other than local representation, and I look for a candidate perceived as a middle of the road do no harm candidate from the GOP next year. That's why the DNC is working overtime to tarnish Christie now before he gains more popular momentum in the public eye, an image the RNC was working on before finding themselves distracted by that confounded bridge.

If you think about it, "Bridgegate" isn't really the high crime we play it up to be. A couple people from one town were late for work, and that's about it, or at least that's how most people across the country see it. It was an act of stupid political pettiness on the governor's part, but the DNC is doing their job to turn it into a treasonous act akin to poisoning the water supply in an effort to disqualify him early. For that, I'm grateful. It'll hopefully narrow their potential field of what they see as common sense moderate choices by one, and he's a big one (enter bad pun groan here).

It's wise to assume that nothing really happens in politics by accident, anymore than a rook just "accidentally" moves into a check position while a bishop just "happens" to block your exit move.