Skip to main content

I know I am mostly preaching to the choir about this, but I have seen this idea floated on my facebook newsfeed a couple of times, and now a "half kidding, satirical" diary about losing our majority in the Senate or even losing the Presidency in 2016 as a way to refocus the Democratic message to a more pro-worker, anti-neoliberal agenda.

I totally agree with the sentiment of refocusing the Dems message about the economy. I think all of this economic conservative/social liberal thing sweeping our party is a big mess, makes us seem like republican lite with no message of our own, and will cost us if we can't find our roots. That being said, this "big idea" that we should actually make an attempt to throw the elections so that we can once again be in opposition to the governing party is probably the worst idea I have ever heard.

Look, even though the party is searching for its soul right now, it behooves us, to this day, to still hope for and vote for Democratic majorities. I know that many progressives are not thrilled about the prospects of voting for another crop of Republican-lite Democrats, neither am I. But lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. There is still plenty of good in the Democratic party, and still plenty of Democratic politicians fighting for what is right. Should we really sink them in our quixotic quest to refocus the Democratic message? I say no, absolutely not.

I know that raising the specter of a potential Republican majority in Congress + Republican president has fallen out of style here, but I still fear the bad old days of Republican control of the legislative and executive branches. If another Republican majority in Congress and Republican control of the White House were to come to pass, I think things would get much, much worse before we could get our own house in order enough to mount a fighting opposition. Imagine how much damage could be done in just one or two years of Republican control. Look at what is happening at the state level right now, and has been happening ever since 2010. They promised jobs, and gave us culture wars. Believe me, that same strategy is going to be used at a national level.

What that means is the wholesale dismantling of what little progress we have made in the past 6 years. What that means is new wars, massive amounts of debt, new tax breaks for the rich, redoubled efforts to dismantle the ACA piece by piece. Not to mention Republican appointees sailing right through, including the supreme court. You think that its bad now with the weak-kneed Democratic Caucus we have? Imagine that same caucus being all that stands between this country and a gaping chasm of conservative policies.

If you think that the Dems would have the strength to stand up to the Republicans after an electoral shellacking like that, go ahead and test this losing strategy for yourself. I personally am not betting on it. I would rather win, ensure that the side that at least agrees with me in spirit is at the reigns, and duke out ideological differences later, than face an uphill climb with Republicans controlling the government.

My two cents, if you'll take it.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  And Dems will veer even more to the center (13+ / 0-)

    to win votes, seeing that the far left voting block is unreliable.

    Thanks for the diary. I completely agree.

  •  Very small typo in third line from bottom: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rexymeteorite, Youffraita

    thEn should be thAn.

  •  This site pulled together (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rexymeteorite, DiesIrae, FiredUpInCA, Sylv

    when it came down to the nitty gritty in 2012, and I think the same thing will happen this year.

  •  It is a tradeoff (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    red ear slider, The Dead Man

    between short term gains and long term success.  By failing to establish and defend a solid political brand, Democrats might get marginal improvements in the next election, but at a cost of longer term failures.  Question is, do you aim to win the battle or do you aim to win the war?

    •  If that was true (15+ / 0-)

      We should have made more gains during the Bush years. Instead, we found ourselves even farther behind, and the GOP got a stronger foothold.

      "Losing to win" just means losing, period. It's a ridiculous strategy, and has been debunked over and over again - usually to the detriment of the poorest among us.

      "We have only the moral ground we actually inhabit, not the moral ground we claim." - It Really Is That Important

      by Diogenes2008 on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 04:19:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You seem to forget that the Democrats in (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mindful Nature

        congress during the Bush years were frequently spineless cowards and were foiled many a time by traitor neoliberals.

        Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

        by The Dead Man on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 04:27:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly what could (4+ / 0-)

          the Democrats do when they didn't hold either house of Congress or the presidency? Bush passed his tax cuts with 50 votes/reconciliation. He could have passed the Iraq war vote with just Republicans. The only reason we let his judicial nominees through was that they threatened to remove the judicial filibuster, and they had 50 votes.

          •  Boner may be a putz, but he's gummed up the works (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tarkangi

            plenty.  Which is what the Democrats should have done (just a but more strategically, the Republicans are blind raging animals in their recalcitrance and have no style).

            Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

            by The Dead Man on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 04:35:27 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Boehner has a majority. n/t (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              katesmom, tarkangi, KMc, Shawn87, Sylv
            •  My lingering anger (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              edrie, Sylv

              is directed at the Democrats for allowing the Bush Tax Give Away.  It passed with Cheney casting the deciding vote in a 50:50 Senate stalemate, but no serious effort at a filibuster.  The memory stings all the worse given the way that, after years of obstruction, many people have come to accept a 60 vote supermajority as normal Senate operations.

              But throwing elections to the Republicans, on the thinking that the bad outcomes will redound to the benefit of the Left, is a bad idea.  The strategy has been tried, and it doesn't work.

              I would much rather have a tepid progressive majority that pushes forward good law than any firebrand opposition that can at best obstruct the bad guys, unless there is a very specific argument that sacrificing a very specific candidate should lead to a very much better endpoint.  Vague statements about 'we need to punish the Democrats, or they will never respect the Left' simply do not work.

              To the larger point of this thread, while it is possible to trade short term loss for long term advantage it is also possible to turn short term loss into long term disaster - viz Bush and the fourteen years of disaster we are still working through.

              Short term gains leading to long term victory, now that is a strategy to work for.

              o caminho d'ouro, uma pinga de mel: Parati

              by tarkangi on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 08:57:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Aren't they still being foiled (0+ / 0-)

          when it counts the most? Last I looked, this continued beyond the Bush years.

          foiled many a time by traitor neoliberals
          What can they do? They can damned well start "punishing" these turncoats. No cushy committee nods. No extra bankrolling and extra help getting re-elected. The list is endless, yet it's never happened that I'm aware of.

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 04:53:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Both, IMO. (3+ / 0-)

      I've never understood why this has to be a trade-off (though that seems to be an implicit assumption here among pretty much everyone). Fight for the best candidate in the primary, but if you lose the primary, fight for the better candidate in the general.

      •  because the better candidate may not win the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mindful Nature

        primary.  Take Arkansas recently.  The better candidate in the primary was a progressive.  The neoliberal incumbent had Obama's endorsement and stumping support, the support of the DNC and other party machine.  She won the primary, but iirc, lost the election to a full on Republican.

        Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

        by The Dead Man on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 04:29:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The long-term lesson there is, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        offgrid

        'if you're a Republican-lite Democrat, go as far right, and as cutthroat, as you possibly can in the primary.'

        I agree with the diarist. I always vote Democratic. And I agree with you: I support the more-liberal candidate in the primary, then vote whatever Dem is in the general.

        But it's still a bad strategy, standing alone. It leads precisely … here.

        I suspect it may be wiser if we all withheld support for anyone except truly excellent candidates. Eventually that's all we'd have. The only problem is, there's no such thing as 'we all' and 'eventually' covers a lot of terrible damage and tragedy, and 'suspect' is a slender reed to hang all of that. So I will continue to vote for the lesser of two evils, and often to get it.

        "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

        by GussieFN on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 04:34:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks for the diary. (6+ / 0-)

    Sometimes it can be easy, especially for those who have mostly lived in liberal areas surrounded by like-minded people, to ignore the harmful consequences of Republican control. Roe v. Wade is just the start.

  •  Sighhhhh. (0+ / 0-)

    Once again, I'll check that "D", voting for the lesser of two evils.

    Strategy.

    •  until it changes, thats the plan yeah. (6+ / 0-)

      and its the best one I've got.

    •  Do you have a better idea? (10+ / 0-)

      Mine is being involved in local-level politics to elect more progressive Democrats with sane ideas as well as to try to continue to get rid of PAC monies and campaign contributions from big businesses.

      Additionally, the internet is actually now able to do what it could not prior to the 2008 election: have an influence on electoral victory and help voters with information about candidates, again, including at the level of a primary.

      Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

      by mahakali overdrive on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 04:25:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Have you ever heard of a (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        red ear slider

        progressive being talked off a primary ballot, in favor of the "centrist", because The Party supports the centrist?

        No, really--that's a serious question. What do you think of that as a strategy? Because it appears to be thought of as one for some reason....

        (disclaimer: I am currently researching "how big a strategy it is" for a future diary--I'm sure nobody calls it a 'strategy' per se, but it's....really something if this turns out to be a habitual ritual. At any rate, I'm not sure what word actually applies yet, just using "strategy" to keep with the theme here...)  

        This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

        by lunachickie on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 05:01:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I live in such a Progressive district that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lunachickie, Sylv

          I have never actually heard of anything like that whatsoever, to be honest. I don't think most of the area Democrats have much concern for the party that I discern. A lot of third party candidates run as Democrats, on that platform, and do get voted in here, and then they are able to be more mobile with what they do.

          We did lose our last election cycle to a lot of Centrists though because of some horrible attack ads along with Rep. Woolsey retiring (she was very nice and very good overall).

          I'm not sure where you're at. Remember when you discuss political strategy, there are going to be tremendous geographic differences. For instance, almost 7% of my area conservatives voted for Ron Paul in the '08 primary and 15% voted for him in 2012.

          That's a spoiler. For the GOP. If we'd had that on the Left, we'd be pretty fucked. So my area is wired to vote for Progressives or Libertarians, and it tends to skew like that more strongly than in other parts of the nation.

          Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

          by mahakali overdrive on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 05:15:56 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Also, how does this respond to my question (0+ / 0-)

          about having a better idea?

          What is your better idea then?

          Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

          by mahakali overdrive on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 05:17:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thanks for at least answering (0+ / 0-)

            the initial question. IMO, though, it doesn't matter what kind of district you live in, where primaries are concerned. That's what primaries are for.  

            Beyond that, putting aside that no one is required to "have a better idea" in order to have a discussion, "primaries" are part and parcel of "an idea", period.  People are always telling others "you don't like it? Do something about it. Run yourself. Get your candidate in.". So...that's what prompted my question: "what happens when you try that, and you get "talked out of running"?

            I have never actually heard of anything like that whatsoever
            It happens. And like I said, I'm currently looking into how frequently. It might be "not a lot". It might be "off the charts".

            Hell, it's not limited to primaries, apparently. The 'special election', in FL-13 just lived that experience, courtesy of Alex Sink and whoever champions her.  
             

            This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

            by lunachickie on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 05:53:39 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  My point about a "better idea" was to move (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sylv

              beyond discussion, into the level of action. I feel that taking action is valuable. As an educator, of course I also see the incredible value of discussion preceding action, but at the same time, I think discussion without action is pointless.

              And I would strongly guess you would agree with that too.

              So we can talk and talk and talk, but I think we're all at the point where it's like, "Okay, but what do we do?"

              Maybe not. Maybe more discussion need still happen first. But it better happen fast and in a focused way because if we want any sort of better candidates, we will need to be backing them fast by fundraising and getting all this stuff together. Personally, I'm not really content to sit around waiting for someone else to pick out my primary candidate for me. I'd rather be involved in that process by interjecting whatever ear worms I can into the PTB, either through local elections OR through online social media, such as here.

              So that is my bottom-line: we can talk, but we damned well better act soon or else all the talk in the world won't make a bit of difference since the candidates are being decided as we speak. And I am not very content with most of them. So I am going to be active about that, and vocal as well.

              Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

              by mahakali overdrive on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 06:01:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And if not fundraising, basically shouting (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sylv

                emailing, sending messages, stating what it is that we want from our candidates to our candidates, not to each other, because that's just kind of pointless. I'm not running for anything. You aren't either. So let's be sure that if we want BETTER FUCKING CANDIDATES we make that heard loud and clear, "Dear better fucking prospective candidate, I would like you and only you to represent me in the next election. I will hang your signs from my ears if you run. I will knock on a thousand doors and praise you. I will sell cookies to girl scouts to fund your campaign, and you know they owe the world some there. But damned well run, and run on what I believe in. Thanks for listening."

                Or else we're flapping our gums.

                Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

                by mahakali overdrive on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 06:04:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Primaries are one way we "move" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sylv

                within the system we have.

                So let's be sure that if we want BETTER FUCKING CANDIDATES we make that heard loud and clear,
                I agree--there's plenty of shouting going on outside this forum. Please don't assume people can't do both, because they can (and are) :)

                This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

                by lunachickie on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 06:23:02 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Lieberman/Lamont (0+ / 0-)

          "The political arena leaves one no alternative, one must either be a dunce or a rogue." Emma Goldman, Anarchism and Other Essays

          by ZhenRen on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 09:11:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The Ds from my state are BETTERS, not lessers. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      red ear slider
  •  The SCOTUS is at stake (11+ / 0-)

    as well. Let us NOT forget that appointment. That's huge. It's bigger, potentially, than many four-year candidacies for president have ever been.

    Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

    by mahakali overdrive on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 04:22:37 PM PDT

    •  Indeed. Who will appoint (5+ / 0-)

      the replacements for Ginsberg, Scalia and Kennedy?  Remember, those people will be around, determining the nature of our system,  for 20+ years.  

      With the Decision Points Theater, the George W. Bush Presidential Library becomes the very first Presidential Library to feature a Fiction Section.

      by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 04:57:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can't understand why someone with your... (4+ / 0-)

        ...moniker would make a comment like this. ;)

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 07:52:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the problem (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dallasdunlap

          with "just vote for the Dem because of Scalia" is that it gives up any leverage we might have to change things.

          The basic job of the party is to read the polls and do popular things.  Instead the party cuts food stamps, runs people like Alex Sink and refuse to create a carbon tax, knowing that you will vote for them.

          What influence do we have, apart from votes?

          When will Democrats learn the lesson from the story of The Scorpion and the Frog

          by GideonAB on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 09:07:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Plethora of primaries, street politics to "make... (3+ / 0-)

            ...them do it," recruiting and working for good candidates to build a progressive bench of future candidates for higher office.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:00:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  exactly. we don't have as much power (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sylv

              as the billionaires we fight against, but we do have numbers. And that is incredibly important in a one man one vote system. Even one that is transitioning into a plutocracy.

            •  okay but (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sylv

              street politics did not stop the cuts to food stamps.

              We worked for Warren and she voted in 2012 to cut them.  She is supposed to be a "good candidate".

              Do we have any candidates at all, taking on Steve Israel and his undermining of progressive candidates?

              When will Democrats learn the lesson from the story of The Scorpion and the Frog

              by GideonAB on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 11:45:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No Congressperson is going to vote... (2+ / 0-)

                ...the way we want them to all the time. If you or I were in Congress, we'd probably raise hackles of some Kossacks with a few of our votes. We strive for the best we get and we work hard to move candidates and incumbents leftward.

                As for street politics, it took from activists from the 1930s to the 1960s to make significant progress on civil rights. It took activists from the 1790s to the 1860s to abolish slavery. It took activists from the 1840s to 1920 to get women's suffrage. It took activists from the 1880s to 1934 to get union organizing legalized. The list goes on and on. As does the struggle.

                As for Steve Israel, we work to replace him.

                The speed of changing things is frustrating. The defeats, sometimes at the hands of people we trusted enough to vote for, are infuriating. But if anyone knows of a shortcut to power, to gaining more political clout, to moving much faster (except on rare occasions) I'm all ears because after 50 years of being politically active, I don't have that many left in which to see progress.

                Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                by Meteor Blades on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 01:40:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  well (0+ / 0-)

                  I think we should consider making demands on Democrats, with a threat to reduce the vote if the demands are rejected.

                  Politicians care about election.  If you threaten that and the polls are already in support of the chosen issue, perhaps you can make progress on that issue.

                  When will Democrats learn the lesson from the story of The Scorpion and the Frog

                  by GideonAB on Fri Mar 21, 2014 at 02:01:18 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

  •  But we -do- need a strategy for losing: (4+ / 0-)
    The presidency is, in important respects, a rhetorical office it's a bully pulpit as TR called it. And one of the things Ronald Reagan was very good at was losing well. When he lost lost a fight, let's say when he had to raise taxes, he was very good at using that to drive home his fundamental message: "I have to raise taxes because those liberals made me do it. That's just what liberals do." Ultimately, everything, whether he won or lost, he made that a generational project of telling a story about how the world works that kept on hammering home what he wanted the presidents after him to do.
    Rick Perlstein

    We often think that sticking a flag in baby-step victories, and claiming them as Progressive Triumphs is wise strategically. I suspect Reagan had a wiser approach, politically-speaking.

    Though, erm, that's all kinda tangential to your point.

    "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

    by GussieFN on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 04:23:07 PM PDT

    •  Good point, Gussie. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GussieFN, Sylv

      If I understand you, we should be proclaiming LOUDLY from the rooftops every GOP victory over the 99 percent.

      The GOP lowered taxes on rich people but raised yours!
      ...and so forth.

      It will work. It will work because we outnumber the rich, and this message even plays well with GOP voters.

      English usage is sometimes more than mere taste, judgment and education - sometimes it's sheer luck, like getting across the street. E. B. White

      by Youffraita on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 04:31:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's sort of the mirror image of (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lunachickie, Youffraita, Sylv

        what I think Perlstein is talking about.

        I think that instead of 'The ACA is a BFD!' it might've been wiser, politically, for Biden to say, "We had to include mandates and crazy rules because those conservatives made us do it. That's what they do, instead of offering Medicare for All."

        "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

        by GussieFN on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 04:45:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Vote lesser evil is the losing strategy (0+ / 0-)

    and the evidence is 40+ years in the making.

    By for the neoliberals, you are entrenching them: Investing them with power, money and the party machine.  They in turn change the party and the government to suit their clients -- the corporations.

    The real power to change this nation lies in economics, not the myriad of social issues that are treated like a soccer ball by both parties.

    Obama: self-described Republican; backed up by right-wing policies

    by The Dead Man on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 04:24:15 PM PDT

  •  Not really our problem (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dallasdunlap

    We don't have control over who runs and what issues they run on. If the Democratic party loses it's on the leadership of the party. And save me the nonsense about people power.

    I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

    by jbou on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 04:28:52 PM PDT

    •  well, I dunno, you could always vote in a Dem (8+ / 0-)

      primary for who you like...

      That is, by definition, a bit of control over the candidate selection process. Not much, but it can change the tide of an election.

      •  Why are you lying to yourself? (0+ / 0-)

        Primary? The last time we tried to Primary a sitting Democrat we lost in the general election to the guy we defeated in the Primary. It really is a joke. We sit around arguing about party and loyallty but when all is said and done it's the people in power that make the decisions we just deal with the consequences.

        I sing praises in the church of nonsense, but in my heart I'm still an atheist, demanding sense of all things.

        by jbou on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 04:57:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You can get involved with local politics (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Meteor Blades, rexymeteorite, Sylv

        I do that sometimes. It's worked. I didn't get my desired candidate voted in, but she was a friend, and she was like 1% behind or something. It was a very close race, and she had no prior political experience.

        My ex has been voted in on a few things now, and he's an Anarchist on a Dem. platform, backed by Dems, so that's kind of funny, but well, I can't say too much about it, but he's doing great work anyways. He's very, what's the word, revolutionary. He's asking me for help all the time these days with all kinds of stuff we used to collaborate on that he can't remember (his memory is swiss cheese; mine's intact -- also, I kept the records). So that's directly impacting our area politics. If he keeps it up, he could run for something larger and be furthermore elected.

        We have tons of Kossacks who run for local stuff.

        Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

        by mahakali overdrive on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 05:24:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  If only.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades

    This meant more than clubbing dissenters over the head and insist they're just not being "patient" enough.

    duke out ideological differences later

    This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

    by lunachickie on Thu Mar 20, 2014 at 04:50:25 PM PDT

  •  Yes, voting for a blue dog isn't pleasant (8+ / 0-)

    believe me, my rep (Kurt Schrader) is no progressive hero. In fact, I feel like I have to take a shower every time I vote for the man. But he is still a democrat who is subject to democratic rules and democratic leadership. I'd rather him be a part of the dems, who have a more left platform than the republicans currently do, than be with the republicans.

    I don't like it, its not fun, but its what I have to do. There are candidates I like voting for, but some I do not. Its something every democrat has to face, and it sucks that you are not being represented the way you want to be represented. I would much rather all of us have a voice than to never be heard. But its also the way the game is played currently. Sure, you could try to not play the game their way, and in generally it wouldn't affect the process one bit.

    But in those rare situations where an election actually counts, and even rarer situations where the balance of government is at stake, I would, and I expect my fellow democrats, progressives, liberals and leftists to take a bite of that shit sandwich. Because in doing so, you ensure the balance of government doesn't sway away from the side you are (very roughly) aligned with and risk even the baby steps you thought were too little too late, and our country resets to the bad old days. I'd rather preserve what we have then go back to square one on the off chance that we may be able to get a stronger party out of it in one fell swoop.

  •  You are right. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shawn87

    Losing isn't a strategy.  It's an outcome.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site