The problem is once they get the win, they do not work in our interest.
If that is the case, what is the purpose of the win?
This is why our voter participation is so low. No one is encouraged by this to vote.
'18 Midterms: Dems win House by largest midterm raw vote margin ever
- Thread starter acri1
- Start date
If that is the case, what is the purpose of the win?
This is why our voter participation is so low. No one is encouraged by this to vote.
If I could guarantee someone would work in MY interest, I'd run my damn self.
But thats how representative democracy works.
The great thing about a representative democracy is that you always have the option to vote for someone else, not vote at all, or vote them out. This isn’t a one way street.
Meaning that this “suck it up and like it” attitude is not some unassailable maxim. Democrats have lost governor seats, local seats, us congress, and the presidency. If they want to reverse that trend, then I don’t think a “ here is your candidate, vote for them and shut up” strategy will reverse that.
So if you keep down that road you will suffer consequences. That is another great thing about our representative democracy.
I personally encourage more Democrats to hold these people to the fire instead of blindly voting for them. This is how we get better candidates and people closer to our interests. It’s not about getting 100% what you want but there are some things that should be nonnegotiable and face consequences. Such as campaigning on expanding Medicaid , especially given the dire situation of our healthcare system, and then going back on that promise. You should not win another term and I encourage people to vote for someone else. If it means a republican wins the seat due to a splitting of the vote well Democrats better have learned their lesson not to do it again.
You just negated everything you said before, and after. :knowledge:
Smarten up.:50CentUMad:
Don't let the GOOD be the enemy of the PERFECT. :PutinTrollFace:
Not necessarily. There is more nuance to not getting 100% of what you want and unacceptable actions that you as an individual can make disqualifying. Its not contradictory. Also this will obvious vary from person to person which is great about being able to vote for multiple candidates. With a wide enough field, you can vote for the candidate you personally like, something we didn't get the option to do in 2016, yet Republicans did.
I can maybe vote for someone who is vehemently anti-gun, even though I'm personally a gun owner, but at the same time they are advocating for minimize interventionist military policy. I prefer they not be VEHEMENTLY anti-gun but can be on board still. Chris Murphy falls into realm. However, as an individual, I also care very much about healthcare reform and if he came out against the expansion of medicaid and other things to help rein in costs or even move towards more privatization of healthcare and worked to undermine any public efforts he may not get my vote. I'd just vote for someone, if given enough choice, who is more aligned with what I want.
This is how its SUPPOSED to work. This is why I dismiss any complaints about people whining about people voting for say Jill Stein or a third party candidate and use that to blame that for the loss. To me it just means the other candidates should have worked harder to win their votes. Maybe you're lacking something you need to correct to win more votes.
You literally just defended nuance and negotiation. You can make tradeoffs, but no one else can? The fukk is that?
What are you complaining about???
The chance to play favorites is during the primaries. Your candidate lost. Republicans chose Trump. Democrats chose Clinton. You act like people didn't vote for Webb, Chafee, or O'Malley.
Look, I want a system that facilities more political identities like parliaments and other forms of voting like ranked choice or mixed member proportional.
but we don't have that....and until we do, I'll pick the one who generally gets me MORE of what I want.
When you say no one else can are you talking about voters or the candidates? I’ve never made any statement about what voters should do. If you think candidates shouldn’t be held accountable to what the individual voter wants then I think you’re mistaken about what PUBLIC SERVICE is supposed to be.
You’re speaking to someone who voted Clinton by the way.
Also I never argued that the primary isn’t the place for this. But when the DNC is indebted to the Clintons and the whole organization is organized to support one candidate that can’t be argued as being fully democratic and fair. Thing is I don’t blame Clinton for that. I blame the DNC allowing the process to be compromised in that way through their deal. The DNC deserves the blame but let’s not act like that there was much choice realistically or that choices were presented with equal support.
But I’m not reliving 2016. It’s over. It’s done. What I desire personally is a wide range of choice in the future and to achieve that, just eating anything out in front of you and shouting down any scrutiny does not achieve that.
Ghost_In_A_Shell
Talk No Jutsu
But you can't pass anything with out painting your cause as moderate. How else will we get your agenda passed. You have to sometimes compromise.
I sound like a broken record using the same example but it’s the one that most infuriated me recently with Northam going back on Medicaid expansion which he campaigned on. That shyt should be nonnegotiable and should put an end to him imho. Now it’s up to the Virginia voters to make that decision.
There is a difference between maybe giving up a little bit of what you want to do to compromise and just straight up lying. I’m not arguing for zealousness in all cases. But at the same time voters can’t be faulted for setting a standard on people begging for them to vote for them. The power dynamic I feel needs to be emphasized. Even if we’re in a representative democracy and not direct democracy, voters should hold the power in this relationship. You need to win their votes. So this idea that voters have to give up something in order to please politicians and that their card shouldn’t be pulled has the whole process backwards.
The DNC was indebted because the DNC was broke.
Thats the DNC's fault.
And shame on Bernie for not being an actual democrat.
...and pressure forced him back on track.
You keep wanting these set-it-and-forget-it political engagements.
The last statement I saw from him after the shytshow response, was in the vein of “ making sure all Virginians have CHOICE of affordable healthcare”. Haven’t been updated beyond that.
The “ choice” euphemism is a classic used by republicans as we know and is disappointing to see him say something like hat.
Just looked it up and state Democrats are putting up the good fight to pass it through the house. I’m not seeing anything about Northams support or agreement to sign it if it reaches his desk.
I don’t disagree with any of that. I said as much.
As far “being an actual democrat” , as a voter who cares. I care about your policy. I’m not even thinking about specifically Bernie Sanders.
In practice, yeah, but Obama actually ran to the left of Hillary and then became a centrist as time went on.
I just want a Democrat to run that doesn't act like they're ashamed of being a Democrat.
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
