Democratic (Party) Direction

yes! over half of (looks up voter turnout) 38.5% of eligible voters went for him, definitely a sign of a strong message that's resonating with the majority

For decades I have been hoping something would somehow motivate all those eligible voters who either aren't registered or have registered but do not vote. In that time we've had several wars, a financial crisis rivaling the Great Depression, swiftly growing income inequality, the impeachment trial of a sitting president, and the first African-American president. You'd think some item on that list would motivate the 30% to 40% of eligible voters who rarely or never vote, but nope.

If anything on the list did, the first African-American president did motivate some of them, but a good half of the newly motivated voters turned out to be die-hard racists.

It should probably go without saying, but 'work requirements for Medicaid' is meant for the die-hard racists, and is exactly the kind of thing that resonates with at least close to the majority in Louisiana...

Why would crises and controversies motivate non-voters? We've never had a lack of either. On wars and income inequality, it's not like there was a party that constituted an opposition to their progress.

Pretty sure those die-hard racists were already voting Republican. The Tea Party wasn't a groundswell of new voters, it was a coming out party for the white nationalist wing of the GOP that had been there for 50 years.

Why would crises and controversies motivate non-voters?

Because there is a very direct correlation between government policies and each of those crises and controversies, and voting exerts an influence on government policies. But these facts do not avail.

As I have pointed out before, if voting was a purely symbolic or impotent act, those in power would not be doing all they can to disenfranchise voters, discourage voting, and to gerrymander voting districts so as to neutralize as many votes as possible. That's a huge clue, imo. It is pure cynicism to dismiss voting as not worthwhile in the current system. Voting is a key piece of changing that system.

voting exerts an influence on government policies

nope. i would say it doesn't and this has been proven time and time again. having multiple wars and a financial crisis and doing nothing to address either probably turned a lot of people off from voting. Dems not addressing the financial crisis when they had power helped drive that economic inequality and disenfranchising their own voters.

voting exerts an influence on government policies.

why would an impeachment trial get people to vote? how does that affect anyone other than the president? this isn't a policy issue, it has nothing to do w people's daily lives. political theater works for some people but most dgaf.

our turnout problem has more to do with Tuesday than anything else

xps

If you view voting as a purely individual action, unconnected to other voters, then you're never going to see how one vote will influence policy. The major problem with our current politics is not that it is based upon the right to vote, but votes are impotent to accomplish anything, but rather the lack of strong organization among eligible voters, through which they form effective voting blocs large enough to influence policy.

If you expect that one or the other major parties will simply align with your point of view and then you will happily vote for its candidates is to view the process from the wrong end. Parties follow power and individual votes are only tiny fragments of power which must be consolidated to be effective. But, for most of us, votes are among the best instruments of power that we have, once we understand them.

So if I, an anti-war voter, vote for the pro-war candidate, that’s going to somehow transform the pro-war candidate into the anti-war politician?

No one said anything about a party aligning perfectly with beliefs. You raised three recent crises as reasons for non-voters to turnout - but all three issues are those where the parties differ relatively little - whether the growth of wealth inequality will be rapid or slightly less rapid is not a flashpoint for political consciousness.

So if I, an anti-war voter, vote for the pro-war candidate, that’s going to somehow transform the pro-war candidate into the anti-war politician?

If you drew that conclusion from what I wrote above, then I have no confidence you would understand anything I say in response.

xps

If you view voting as a purely individual action, unconnected to other voters, then you're never going to see how one vote will influence policy. The major problem with our current politics is not that it is based upon the right to vote, but votes are impotent to accomplish anything, but rather the lack of strong organization among eligible voters, through which they form effective voting blocs large enough to influence policy.

If you expect that one or the other major parties will simply align with your point of view and then you will happily vote for its candidates is to view the process from the wrong end. Parties follow power and individual votes are only tiny fragments of power which must be consolidated to be effective. But, for most of us, votes are among the best instruments of power that we have, once we understand them.

― A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 11 February 2018 20:00 (three hours ago) Permalink

This is massively otm. Our ultra-individualistic/consumerist paradigm has really eroded our ability to think in terms of collective and organizational politics, which are really the only kind of politics that mean anything unless you're a billionaire with billionaire friends. That's why we get these idiotic, freakonomics type arguments about how it's not rational and utility-maximizing to vote, because that kind of thinking uses the individual as its only unit.

And of course unions were once the best way for most ordinary people to understand this, and those have been eroded too.

man alive otm. the atomistic/retail voting model is so damaging. (What LGM refers to as "I just can't give my vote away to someone who doesn't make me feel special.")

If you drew that conclusion from what I wrote above, then I have no confidence you would understand anything I say in response.

Your fixation on the importance of voting, then, is misplaced if that's not your intent. If you're saying 'use collective action to force parties to adopt your views,' voting has nothing to do with that - depriving a party of votes is a more effective tool, in that case. If you can be reliably counted on votes regardless of policy, there's no reason for the party to serve you.

If, as a party, you want non-voters or unreliable voters to come out, you have to appeal to their needs - on the issues you raised, Democrats cannot with a straight face argue that they're a party opposed to war and income inequality.

I will no longer accept donations from corporate PACs, and I wanted to share why I’ve made that decision. I hope you’ll join me in doing everything we can to fight to reform our broken campaign finance system. pic.twitter.com/v2oWvEiUCe

— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) February 13, 2018

Wow

Whatever else she does/says down the line, taken on its own, that's good stuff.

That might belong more in an Election 2020 thread, lol.

Will be interesting to see if anyone else does the same.

Cory Booker held his nose and voiced support for Medicare for All last year, it’s certainly interesting to see what all these people who want to be president are doing

More good news!

Democrat Margaret Good defeated Republican James Buchanan by a 52-45 margin in a special election for Florida House District 72, marking the 36th state legislative seat Democrats have flipped in a special election since Donald Trump’s election.

Trump carried the district by a 51-46 margin, so this isn’t a huge upset, but it does continue a pattern of downballot Democratic candidates performing substantially better in 2017 and 2018 than Hillary Clinton did in 2016.

A 12-point swing is pretty big.

Cory Booker held his nose and voiced support for Medicare for All last year, it’s certainly interesting to see what all these people who want to be president are doing

Well that’s how it works, isn’t it? You build enough of a headwind towards a more progressive policy stance, and everybody wanting to be considered valid has to scramble towards that position

Imagine that – coalition building!

why do you have to hold your nose to support Medicare for All?

I don’t!

Cory Booker though

why does Cory Booker have to hold his nose to support Medicare for All?

igdi is a pharma CEO gonna fart in his face

why does Cory Booker have to hold his nose to support Medicare for All?

― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau),

Because he's a politician and politicians only bend when there's enough weight pressing against them?

yeah it's a shame people dislike the concept of free healthcare. you can pry my aetna card from my cold dead hand!

literally!

also would be nice for a politician to grow some fucking balls and lead for once

i first became aware of US politics when i was 11 when Bill Clinton was on the Arsenio Hall show. health care was a big issue back then. even in the idiot rural south we knew that it was an important issue that the Democrats stood for. we had classroom debates reading about the candidates and doing presentations, dressing up and giving speeches as Bush, Perot, Clinton. one kid did a real good Bill Clinton modeled after the Darrel Hammon SNL Clinton, holding a pen and saying "I feel your pain."

health care reform was a well known part of the Democratic platform in 1992. the Republicans didn't want people to have health care but the Democrats did. that was 26 years ago. since then we have had 2 two-term Democratic presidents. we have had two national pushes to get this health care thing taken care of. it is a quarter of a century later. where is our health care?

The push for health care began with Harry Truman, tbrr.

My friend with diabetes now has health care when he didn't before 2010. He'd punch you for saying that.

But, yes, I appreciate your proposing universal health care paid for by the federal guvmint, a goal of everyone on ILX.

My friend with diabetes now has health care when he didn't before 2010. He'd punch you for saying that.

Eh, I don't punch people that often these days. But I think about it a lot.

yo Bruneau my man Darrell Hammond didn't join SNL until 1995. 1992 steez Clinton was done by Phil Hartman.

I appreciate your proposing universal health care paid for by the federal guvmint, a goal of everyone on ILX.

― morning wood truancy (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, February 15, 2018 3:11 AM (twelve hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

he's running

only if you'll be my consigliere.

<3

Washington's Senate is on fire. In past month, it has passed automatic & same-day voting registration, a ban on conversion therapy, stronger protections for trans students, stronger financial disclosure rules—and today death penalty abolition. https://t.co/scgDLWp55j

— Taniel (@Taniel) February 15, 2018

makes me wonder - is there a state route towards dealing with firearms somehow? i mean i know dealers just truck 'em in from other states

A state government could slow down the easy access to guns through new legal requirements, but this would be a minimally preventive measure. Truly meaningful restrictions would be adjudicated away in the federal courts due to the current case law regarding the second amendment.

The best solution would require banning weapons and accessories that permit the greatest lethality, followed by a buyback period where such items could be safely disposed of. No state government could effectively impose such a solution in isolation from the rest of the nation.

Still, at this point almost anything is worth trying and state governments are the only political venue where any measures at all are likely to pass. Lately, state legislatures have been going down the path of easier access and fewer restrictions far more often than not. The NRA fear and hatred machine is a marvel to watch in action.

so what did we expect the Dems to manage re DACA? cuz we got nothin'.

They managed to force Trump to boldly contradict his public promise that he'd sign any bill they put on his desk and that he would 'take the heat' for it. This revelation will certainly result in Trump's base realizing he is erratic, impulsive and cannot be trusted to keep his word!

https://splinternews.com/what-democrats-lost-by-caving-on-immigration-yet-again-1823069718

makes me wonder - is there a state route towards dealing with firearms somehow? i mean i know dealers just truck 'em in from other states

― illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Friday, 16 February 2018 08:57 (ten hours ago) Permalink

Building a wall, iirc

so what did we expect the Dems to manage re DACA? cuz we got nothin'.

― ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), 16. februar 2018 19:23 (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

A longer shutdown. There really was no way that they could force Trump to extend DACA protections, but they showed their lack of spine/interest on the issue. And I'd think a lot of the bad polling recently has to do with this.

Nothing is exactly what should have been expected, but apparently lots of people paid no attention in math or government class