Tweet
This is basically a cross post of a diary of mine at OpenLeft, called A Proposed Framework for an Expanded Dump Obama Movement I’ve re-titled it, partly because Jeff Roby said that I was describing an organization, not so much a movement. I view Dump Obama, from the point of view of a voting strategy, as strictly short term. But what long term voting strategies should be embraced by Dem-leaning voters who are sympathetic to Dump Obama? Also, please note that Dump Obama has been criticized as alienating to black voters in an OpenLeft diary Dump Obama? Not in my precinct!
(this diary is a comment on a new diary by Jeff Roby (jeffroby) re Dump Obama, called Dump Obama: for a Time of Crisis)
Dump Obama reflects an abandonment of the failed strategy of lesser-evilist voting.
What I’d like to suggest is keeping it as a primary meme (perfect for a bumper sticker), but nevertheless subsuming it under the broader flag of anti-lesser-evilism. Not that you would call it that. You’d be better off still calling it the Dump Obama movement, than calling it the Dump Lesser Evilism Movement. Eventually, you’d have to come up with a new name, especially after Obama is history. For now, though, the Dump Obama meme is a fine proxy for the Dump Lesser Evilism Voting meme.
Please see this link for a long-overdue awareness that voting more strategically (and even just threatening to do so) has paid dividends for the Tea Baggers: Tea Party will gain influence within the GOP
In practical terms, a Dump Obama movement will embrace, right from the get-go, not just the notion of dumping Obama, but also dumping Dems who cross some line or set of lines.
I also suggested (and reiterate that suggestion) that the Dump Obama movement urge progressives to vote Green at the state level
So, to summarize, the 3 pillars of the Dump Obama movement that I’m suggesting are:
1) Dump Obama
2) Dump Bad Dems at the Federal level
3) Dump all Dems (eventually) at the State level, and form a cooperative progressive Dem / progressive Green voting bloc. (Please see my diary on this subject: "Dump Corporate Dems" – Going Green at the State Level, to "make Dems do it" at the Federal level)
This will also help dispel any illusions that anybody might have that you are simply fixated on Obama.
re: 2) Dump Bad Dems at the Federal level
My recommendation for this is something like the Full Court Press at the primary level plus some reasonably agressive punishing type vote in the general election.
But not too punishing. Finding the right level of punishment votes (expressed as a percentage of Dem incumbents) is the job of a competent political game theorist, IMO.
However, if I wanted to take a stab at an optimal figure, I’d say something like 10% of the House Dem incumbents, and 7% of the Senate Dem incumbents. So, e.g., members of the Dump Obama movement identify the worst 4 Democratic incumbent Senators*, and then members who live in their states vote against them. If the race is close, and voting 3rd party might still allow the Dem to win, the Dump Obama movement must prove itself not to be wimpy, like the so-called leaders in the Veal Pen. Make no mistake about it, that means voting for the Republican.
If you want to create a credible threat in future election cycles, you need to be willing to pull the trigger…
For anybody who believes that targetting only 7-10% of incumbent Dems is too timid, well, you may be completely correct. Sooner or later (I hope sooner), vote blocs need to also vote on their strategy. In this case, because the Dems screwed up so badly, the Dump Obama participants may vote to dump 20% (e.g.) of the Dem incumbents during the general election. The key thing is that they need to do it with open eyes, do it publicly, not apologize to anybody for their vote, but also stoically deal with whatever consequences result.
* 7% of 59 = 4.13 ~ 4
50 Comments
As noted on previous posts on this topic, please refer to About Us. Diaries and comments expressed by each of The Seminal’s community members are the opinions of the individual community member author and do not reflect the opinions of The Seminal or Firedoglake and its affiliate sites. Any efforts to organize on Facebook or other social media in response to this post are not affiliated in any way with The Seminal or Firedoglake and its affiliate sites.
I find this whole “Dump Obama” thing incoherent at best.
If you guys mean “Impeach Obama from the left” you should say so and lay out reasons.
If you mean “Vote out Corporatist Democrats” you should say so and lay out a strategy as is somewhat laid out above.
But the fact is, we’re stuck with Obama right now until 2012. And as far as “dumping” is concerned, there is nowhere near the support for him now than there was in the past, so I would say many have indeed already “dumped.”
What you’re really saying is vote 3rd party, and that’s fine if you want to do that. But “Dump Obama” just sounds dumb to me, and puts you at the risk of being “useful idiots” for those that are to the right of the CorporoDems.
I really don’t think this “movement” is anything catchy beyond the “I am pissed off” phase of things, and the White House is surely doing a pretty good job of “dumping” support from Dem supporters its own self.
If you’re gonna dump Obama, you need to pick someone to run against him in 2012. Pick ONE left-wing Democrat to run a primary challenge against him, like Kucinich, and make sure he gets the votes to nab the nomination — or at least get enough of the vote to send the message that running and governing to the right is a losing proposition that will result in negative consequences.
At the same time, you need to be grooming an independent candidate to run against Obama in the general election. Ralph Nader and Mike gravel are about the only ones that come to mind, and they’re both getting up there in years. Whomever you choose, it has to be an unabashed lefty with the record to prove his credentials, and you have to be willing to go all out to get that person elected no matter what.
But at the end of the day, you’re gonna have to pick someone SOON, because the 2012 election will begin on November 3rd, 2010. Time is not on our side, either. We’re running out of planet. No more foot-dragging.
Rayne, there is absolutely nothing in the ‘About Us’ section that says we’re not allowed to discuss ways to mobilize the left to oppose a sitting executive in the Oval Office when he comes up for re-election. No one is going to mistake user diaries as being representative of FDL or its affiliated sites. We all know you only support criticism of Obama and the Democrats so long as that criticism extends no further than that and does not translate into actual action to remove right-wing Democrats from public office. We get it. These constant intimidation tactics you and the other moderators practice against activists is tiresome and unnecessary, and it is ultimately destructive to the left-wing movement. Please stop.
Worth while perspective on today’s political economy, and the left as a neutered entity. Quite damning, both the interview: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/18/slavoj_zizek_far_right_and_anti, and this article at Counterpunch: http://www.counterpunch.com/zizek10152010.html
“There is no lack of anti-capitalists today. We are even witnessing an overload of critiques of capitalism’s horrors: newspaper investigations, tv reports and best-selling books abound on companies polluting our environment, corrupt bankers who continue to get fat bonuses while their firms are saved by public money, sweatshops where children work overtime. There is, however, a catch to all this criticism, ruthless as it may appear: what is as a rule not questioned is the liberal-democratic framework within which these excesses should be fought. The goal, explicit or implied, is to regulate capitalism—through the pressure of the media, parliamentary inquiries, harsher laws, honest police investigations—but never to question the liberal-democratic institutional mechanisms of the bourgeois state of law. This remains the sacred cow, which even the most radical forms of ‘ethical anti-capitalism’—the Porto Allegre World Social Forum, the Seattle movement—do not dare to touch.:
—zizek
. . . . Ooooh. I like that.
I wish there were a way to make it clearer that it is PROGRESSIVES or LIBERALS who want to Dump O.
Explain to me in exact terms how voting FOR Ken Buck in my situation helps me?
He hates me (gay people) so just explain how that helps me?
Hi metamars. An interesting diary. I completely share your sentiment and impulses. I find Obama way more despicable than Bush for two reasons:
– Bush didn’t run against his policies before he embraced them.
– Bush didn’t destroy all significant opposition to those policies.
Obama has done both of those. Nevertheless, I’d advocate a quite different strategy.
I don’t have time to go into details now, but IMHO Obama will be at his most vulnerable right after the midterms as he gears up for 2012. If he saw a coherent third-party force looming on the left, not one that could defeat him but merely one that could Nader him, now is the time when he’d have to make concessions.
IMHO, there’s no way in hell we could “dump” him. And the Republican alternatives are unspeakably worse. But IMHO he’d have to make concessions to a credible third-party threat.
Well, first let’s distinguish between ‘Dump Obama’, as proclaimed by Jeff Roby, and my efforts to reframe ‘Dump Obama’ as part of a larger move to strategic voting (which would involve punishing bad Dems, by dumping at least some of them, also).
If you want to say that Dump Obama, as explained by Jeff Roby, is “incoherent”, you’re best taking that up with him.
I’m basically expressing my ideas about what sort of long-term voting strategies would empower the type of progressive voter that I think would support a Dump Obama movement. I actually don’t particularly want to argue the merits and demerits of various catch phrases to describe this – I’m really more interested in communicating the basic ideas. So, please comment on that, whether or not you agree that a Dump Obama meme is a good way to describe all 3 pillars of strategic voting that I listed (which includes Dump Obama, itself).
I’m trying to give the somewhat unfocused anger behind likely progressive supporters of Dump Obama some tangible targets to aim for, which nevertheless seem more achievable, than just dumping Democrats, wholesale. I do see a possible pathway for dumping Dems, forever, (which would mean dumping them wholesale in all future elections) but it involves a fusion progressive/libertarian party, which nobody (AFAIK) is working to put together. Hence, I ignore that possibility, and instead try and come up with a viable pathway for progressives to empower themselves, via the established and real Democratic Party, Green Party, and Republican Party. And furthermore, empowers them by freeing themselves of the trap of just thinking in terms of one election cycle at a time.
The most important way that I see progressive anger unfocused is in terms of not cooperating to develop a strategy that progressives are willing to pursue to achieve their ends. I’m on the MoveOn mailing list, which I read from time to time. Almost without exception, MoveOn never focuses voter anger against Democratic leadership. (To be sure, I’m on the Tea Party Nation mailing list, and they blame “the liberals” and the Democrats for everything. However, Tea Party Nation <> Tea Party people. I’ve also read about outspoken efforts by some of the Tea Parties to dump Republicans, but I’m not going to take the time to dig them up.)
You might say that I find the efforts of individual progressives to use their votes, strategically, to be incoherent. The only “coherence” offered by so-called progressive leaders smacks of the Veal Pen. It’s to be expected that different progressives have different idea of how to use their votes, but there seems to be nobody who is doing a game theory analysis of which strategy would be most efficient.
I have proposed a triune strategy that I think would be far more efficient that merely attempting to dump all Democrats, on the one hand; or, in the end, always voting for the Democrats in a general election, on the other (i.e., lesser evilisms). I consider both strategies not just extremes, but to be stupid.
This triune strategy is not based on any explicit game theory calculation, which I don’t have the expertise to make, but rather my own intuition. I was the best chess player in my high school, back in the day, so I really think that I do have something like a developed intuition about these things.
Anyway, I’m arguing that the triune strategy is coherent, and does indeed have the potential of capturing the devotion of progressives, who could thus be induced to vote in a more coherent (i.e., unified) fashion. Characterizing the entire, triune strategy by only it’s short-term aspect (Dump Obama) may not be too smart. So, yes, it’s incoherent, in that sense.
If you have a better name, which must also be catchy and fits on a bumper sticker, to describe the triune strategy I outline, I’m all ears.
In 1967, Allard Lowenstein launched the Dump Johnson movement by name, following a huge rise in protest against the War in Vietnam. Ultimately, Eugene McCarthy entered the race, got I think 42% of the vote in the Dem New Hampshire primary, and Johnson got out of the race. In other words, that movement Dumped Johnson.
I envision Dump Obama as being in that tradition. Of course we’ve got him at least until 2012. Dumping Obama would entail running against him in the 2012 primaries, and/or running against him in the general election. It would be quite concrete, not some “dumping” in our heads.
Hope this clarifies it a bit. p.s. metamars and I agree on many things but not all things.
Let me be clear. I am in no way suggesting that we vote for Republicans. On this, metamars and I differ.
Besides drawing some of my insights and intution re strategy from chess, I also draw some from my readings in, and playing of, basketball. For any basketball player, out there, I highly recommend Stuff Good Players Should Know: Intelligent Basketball from A to Z , by DeVenzio.
Your post, especially the part I quoted, made me think of the defensive strategy used by the Detroit Pistons when they had to play Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls. They would key against stopping Jordan, but everybody knew that he was going to score. In order to win the game, it wasn’t necessary for Detroit to completely shut down Jordan. That was generally impossible, anyway. But they did have to take a stab at containing him.
Likewise, the Dump Obama pillar of the triune strategy can succeed without getting a better Dem to replace him. In order to be a wild success, though, progressives have to embrace more than just the Dump Obama pillar. I mean, if lesser evilism is stupid in the past, and stupid over the next two years, doesn’t it make sense that it’s going to be stupid and counter-productive after 2 years? I am thinking ahead…
“We” can only build the base of support. I could pick Kucinich as the Dump Obama candidate (if I pretended that I somehow own or control this movement — which I don’t), but my (or our) doing so doesn’t mean Kucinich would therefore run. Michael, from your 3rd party perspective, which I respect, you are perhaps insensitive to the dynamics within the Democratic Party.
Obama is proving a disaster this November, and the anger at him within the Democratic Party is unprecedented. As long-time critic of the Democratic Party, I find myself stunned by it. I believe that forces within the party will entertain jettisoning him in 2012 if only for their own survival. Within this turmoil, there is opportunity for the left. But that doesn’t mean any of us can predict exactly how it will play out.
As for your sense of urgency, I share it. But Dump Johnson didn’t get off the ground until 1967, and there is time to build the foundation. In that regard, I am not waiting until after the coming elections.
Yes, this is quite true!
Also, Jeff and I are not like Superman and Clark Kent. You can indeed see us together, in the same place. (We’ve met in person, living in adjacent towns, as luck would have it.) I mention this partly because somebody once suggested that one of us was a sockpuppet.
Well, if so, I get first dibs on Superman. Jeff can be Clark Kent. :-)
BTW, the logic behind voting for a Republican is that, if the progressive voting bloc is determined to dump a bad Dem in a general election, they may fail in their task if they vote third party, thus depriving a real threat (generally a Republican) from getting enough votes to do the deed. The idea is to strike fear into the hearts of the Democratic machine, letting them know not to screw with you in future election cycles.
In a particular race, if a Republican is basically another Atilla the Hun, then voting that way may be too awful a prospect for the progressive voting bloc to handle. Fine.
OTOH, I can predict scenarios developing where the progressive voting bloc is comfortably large, and can thus decide to deliberately split it’s vote. One part of the bloc’s vote will vote Republican, to make sure that the bad Dem loses. The other part of the bloc will vote 3rd Party. What the percentages of the 2 segments of the progressive voting bloc are will depend on circumstance. This is a nicer problem to have than a voting bloc which is only big enough to have to vote for a Republican to make sure that it can dump the Dem. Ultimately, of course, you want the progressive voting bloc to be big enough to muscle through it’s own candidate, starting with a primary victory. This is the nicest ‘problem’ to have, of all.
In general, I think strategy options should be fine-tuned by a game theorist, with the final decision of which strategy to execute determined by the voting bloc. IOW, a game theorist could be employed to lay out options, with the options ranked by order of which is most optimal. If a voting bloc finds the most highly recommended strategy of the game theorist to be unpalatable, well, then, they should vote down pursuing that strategy in favor of one that they prefer.
IOW, vote blocs should make the final decision, not the game theorist. This is partly to maintain loyalty to the vote bloc, which will help it cohere through to the next election cycle. The voting bloc needs to accept the consequences of it’s own decisions, in good times and bad. They should never apologize for a joint decision, made in good faith. If a husband and wife both decide to go sky diving, and one of their chutes fails to open, at least the survivor can console him or herself with the notion that “we did this together”
Hmmm, maybe that’s not the best analogy. :-)
Dumping “lesser-evilism” can and has backfired badly.
I agree and would, for instance, vote for Sharon Angle over Harry Reid, who I consider to be one of the worst shills in all of Congress.
You’re not describing the same thing that I’m recommending.
Attempting to dump all Democrats, at the Federal level, through multiple election cycles, absent a strong 3rd party, is the most extreme position, which I have argued against. However, although I didn’t write about it, I also think that encouraging progressive voters to vote against all Democrats, but just for the next election cycle, is ALSO an extreme and foolish strategy. Yeah, it’s dumping lesser-evilism, but it’s not dumping it in a very smart way.
What I recommend is revealed by the following:
Dumping 7-10% of incumbent Democrats is very different from dumping 100% of them. Correct?
Here’s a bad analogy. Single teaming Michael Jordan was a stupid strategy, because he was such an awesome offensive player. However, setting all 5 of your players to guard Jordan is even more stupid. The remaing 4 players of the Chicago Bulls could guarantee a win by not even bothering to pass the ball to Jordan, but just taking turns at making uncontested layups.
I have personally dumped Obama because he dumped me first. I cannot in good conscience vote again for someone who reversed or worked against every publicly taken stance he had as a candidate, I just can’t do it.
My personal circle of friends are also mostly liberal Democrats who feel exactly the same way and we have frequent discussions about the best way to express our anger and to get better politicians who will represent the interests of the individual citizen/taxpayer over that of entrenched wealth.
I do feel that there is overlap with Tea Partyers, etc. – that overlap is “disgust”. Their solution seems to be government sucks so let’s just move ahead to anarchy and the lefty solution is to continue to search for better government that works as it’s supposed to.
My biggest concern in the coming election is to vote in a fashion that will register that my vote is out of liberal disgust and not Tea Party disgust. The best solution that I have read posited and the one that I plan to follow (at this point) is to write in a vote that says Public Option. I personally cannot bring myself to vote for my incumbant DINO and I personally will no longer embrace “lesser evilism” as my only alternative. So far lesser evilism is delivering a lot more evil than I have tolerance for.
I think the post here the other day about voting blocks/issues had a lot of promise. I’m not sure that the traditional Party structure will work through the next century, although I would welcome a party that embraced and actually worked for the faked, lip service platform of the old Democrats.
As to who coulds I personally get behind as a third party candidate should they choose to go for it? I remember taking some quiz at the very beginning of the last primaries and discovering to my surprise that the candidate who best represented my views on the issues was Mike Gravel. Maybe he could develop a following, but he’s completely out of the public eye as far as I know. He should write a book, get on the media circuit, etc. Dennis Kucinich is fine with me, I should have stuck with him all the way through the last primary with at least a write in vote. I could get behind Howard Dean. I could get behind Bernie Sanders. I could get behind Russ Feingold if he loses his race. I could get behind Byran Dorgan. I could get behind Katrina Vandenhueval, I could get behind the SEIU guy Trumka if he started a New Labor Party, I could get behind Elizabeth Warren as a VP candidate (she doesn’t seem aggressive enough to me) I could get behind any state AG that is willing to take on Wall Street in Forclosure Gate, I could get behind Elliot Spitzer, I could get behind Alan Grayson. These are the people who come right off the top of my head, I’m sure I’m missing a few obvious ones.
I also think that there is a third party in the works and I think it will be a fake moderate centrist Party that will abandon the Republicans to the Tea Partyers and will also absorb some DINOS. I think this party will be filled with Jeb Bush, Evan Bayh types.
I think in 2 years we have more than enough time to see 4 or even 5 parties running – Republican, Fake Centrist, Democratic, New Labor or a version thereof and the Greens (sorry Greens, you’ve had more than enough time to get your act together – it would have happened by now if it was going to happen)
I wonder if it wouldn’t be worth the effort to look at the people who are in the state legislatures right now. You know, just to comb through all of these state politicians until we hit on a real populist.
Rayne, I have to agree with Michael. I do not understand the purpose of you comment at 1. I’d refer you to a quick read of the first amendment, an no where in the diary is any hint of enticement to violence which is not prohibited free speech.
Shorter: Rayne, [Edited by mod].
I understand it completely.
There are lots of people/bloggers/sites out there who hate any progressive/left/Dem (I honestly don’t know what label to use) site and/or their leaders, owners or spokespeople if they stray too far from the accepted Democratic dogma and candidates. I have seen Jane Hamsher and FDL vilified to the max as a sleeper/Tea Party site cell because she once signed the same petition as Grover Norquist. It doesn’t matter how accurate the healthcare coverage was or how fantastic the forclosuregate coverage is, the site will start to be marginalized and demonized if too many people start pursuing this line of discussion.
So, I understand that Rayne feels it necessary to give the warning speech that FDL is not officially endorsing a Dump Obama movement. I have no issue with that. I am just grateful that this site is uncensored enough to allow people to start talking about and taking the next logical steps if they start to perceive that the Democrats and President Obama are not sincere in their commitment to serve average constituents above their corporate donars. I hope that policy doesn’t change.
I hear you, but even a grand cacophony of similar statements on a blog is probably not going to constitute a powerful political force. I have suggested taking things to a more effective level. The important question is not what can individuals do to individually register their displeasure with the Democrats, but rather what can individuals do collectively.
I suppose that, if the “cacophany” grew to the tens of millions, and lasted for at least 2 election cycles, it could force changes in the Democrats behavior by dealing them major sequential losses. However, what excuse do we have, collectively, for being so ‘incoherent’, over 2 election cycles, no less?? And why would we choose a cacophony of disgruntlement, when even making minimal efforts to get organized could make a big difference?
At an ABSOLUTELY BARE MINIMUM LEVEL OF ORGANIZATION, I think that Dem leaning voters who now feel (and rightly so) dumped by Obama, rather than just registering their complaints randomly through the internet, or just with friends, should put their names on a public list of former Dem supporters, explaining how they plan to vote in the upcoming election, and why, that they feel betrayed (“dumped”) by the Democrats, and affirm the fact that they are looking for further options.
Do you know of any such website? I don’t, and I think that’s symptomatic of the sort of leaderless malaise that afflicts progressives. If progressives can’t even bring forth the relatively trivial amount of leadership it takes to do that, what are the chances that they will eventually settle down and make the sustained efforts indicated by Rayne in her Roadmap diary?
It’s too bad that the Progressive Democrats of America are not more aggressive, and organizing such an effort. They’ve publicly contemplated supported Greens over independents, but they still haven’t risen to what I consider to be a minimal level of adversariness to RINOs and sellouts within the Dem leadership, to provide the kind of leadership that you and millions of other people need.
It’s also too bad that the Green Party hasn’t been clever enough to create even a minimal-level-of-organized-dissent-website for disaffected Democrats, as I mentioned, above.
Would you be kind enough to tell me if you’d support always voting Green, at the state level, as a means for developing political leverage against the Dems at the federal level? (That’s my 3) ). This is compatible with just about any means that voters can choose to register their displeasure with Democrats at the federal level. I don’t understand why the suggestion is not being met with more enthusiasm.
Perhaps it just happened a moment ago, right here.
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/77302
Metamars – I find it curious that on the same day, you post this article about “dumping Obama” and a couple of lengthy comments on another article that deny climate change science. What is your agenda? Are you some sort of right wing mole trying to simultaneously undermine the Democrats and the fight against climate change? Please explain yourself.
VOW is a good start for many. But where do we go on the bloody morning after? I had initially argued that worrying about candidates was premature, build the movement first.
Whether I was right or wrong about that, it seems clear that there is a Dump Obama movement afoot, however many ways it labels itself. I think it may be time to talk candidates.
I’m still not particularly interested in names. The problem with most of the names thrown out — candidates we would LIKE to see — is that there is no indication that they will throw their hats or any other garments into the ring. So let me raise TYPES of candidates.
(1) big names like Howard Dean, Kucinich, Elizabeth Warren. Liberal Democrats. I don’t rule them out. Whatever their professed loyalties today, a year from now they may see dumping Obama as a necessity to save the party from the disgrace he has brought upon them. There are times when moderate, or even conservative, figures are driven by the forces of history, and my crystal ball is in the pawnshop.
(2) small names, not on the radar yet, who could still enter some primaries, get media, get the right message, and be thrust forward.
We could then debate the merits of small and radical vs. big but only liberal.
Then there’s the matter of independents in the general. Greens? My personal belief is that they tend to think small. But ballot status is a major asset in many states.
Or a populist independent, running on a 3-point program (for instance) of jobs, peace and civil liberties. Could such a candidate go big? Especially if any Dem primary challenger failed to get the nomination? And if the Dem challenger was the Dem nominee, which would be better, a liberal but better-than-Obama Democrat, or a radical independent?
May we live in interesting times.
I’m an independent trouble maker, not a right wing mole.
There’s a difference.
I’m mostly interested in systems working for the masses of people, and those defective systems include our massively corrupt government. However, those defective systems also include irrational and tribalistic scientific groups.
If you have a problem with the systemic corruption of the Democratic Party, you shouldn’t have any trouble with my motivation for political writing. Likewise, if you have no trouble with the necessity for scientific ethics, as written about by Smolin in The Trouble with Physics, then you should have no trouble with my motivation for writing about AGW.
Now it’s your turn. What’s your agenda/motivation?
All right. I’m a Presbyterian minister by profession and progressive blogger by hobby. My chief concerns are poverty, economic justice, and environmental issues – although I dabble quite a bit in party politics and electoral strategy. All in all, my writing relates back to looking out for the basic welfare of the powerless and voiceless. Lately, I’ve been focused on climate change and whether progressives should give up on Democrats.
Two questions for you – what are your scientific credentials, and what do mean by “independent trouble maker”? Is that a nice way of saying “troll,” or do you have some underlying purpose?
I was speaking to the American left in general. I understand how the Democrat Party works, having so recently been a member myself, so I know what the odds are of voters swinging over to Kucinich. The last Democrat Ward Club I attended, one woman told me on the way back that she opposed Obama because she thinks he’s too liberal. That she is to the right of Obama speaks volumes about how far to the right even many lay members have gone. I threw Kucinich out there as an example. Obviously, he is not taken seriously even by his own political party, and at the end of the day he will do what the party leaders tell him to do. That was proven during the health care debate, and it makes him now less than ideal to run for president in 2012. I’m merely suggesting that if there’s to be a ‘Dump Obama” movement, there has to be someone the left can dump Obama for in 2012.
The 2008 dictatorial race began as early as 2006, not long after the midterm elections. Debates were being held by both major political parties as early as March or April 2007. So there’s ample reason for left-wing organizations to move quickly to pressure representative candidates to start forming their campaigns now. If we wait too long, we’ll have missed a prime opportunity to make this movement work, not to mention build up a solid voting block that is to the left of the duopoly.
I wouldn’t mind voting for a Republican if I could find one with any integrity – and I’ve looked. Not to say that the Dems are much better, but at least they do seem to have some responsibility to the community as a group.
I can probably count on one hand the individuals that actually do put their money where their mouth is.
Excuse me jeffroby, but despite your implication that VOW ends on November 3, that is addressed VERY CLEARLY INDEED across the three-election strategy laid out in a three-part series I posted here last week, which actually features key elements of Dump Obama, as you well know. You just continue pretending not to.
In fact, you have consistently – over the two months that the VOW strategy has taken shape here at FDL, as detailed in part two of that series – chosen to distract people from the opportunity the midterms present, at the apex of the crucial period leading up to those very elections.
You even agreed at one point that using Dump Obama as a stick AFTER the elections makes more sense than risking a false reading of the election results. Two years is an eternity in politics. But for the third or fourth time in recent weeks you seem to have set that truth aside yet again in favor of distracting Progressives from the message they might send November 2. A political tactician you – clearly – are not.
Certainly, it’s a free country – for now, at least – so go ahead and knock yourself out. But for myself, I believe I’ve now grasped the real problem with “Dump Obama,” and what’s causing the lack of focus within it to which others here have alluded. It is the same problem which resides at the core of too much of our politics already, and it’s spelled E-G-O.
For those still unaware, there is a VOW pledge available here. I hope you’ll take it, follow it, and join this lifelong Independent Progressive in pushing the Democratic Party LEFT.
I think it is hysterical that they are so nervous about being perceived (by who?) as unfaithful or apostate Democrats that they place disclaimers like that on top of posts like this.
my 2cents – dumping all Democrats except the miniscule percentage who have actually proven their values in office can be the default position, and this is therefore inclusive of Obama, and so folks who still strongly identify with him for whatever reason can’t feel singled out.
My scientific credentials are insignificant (BA in physics and math, some graduate work in applied math, including numerical analysis and dynamical systems), but they do confer a bit of an advantage, compared to most laymen, in getting a sense of whether or not serious scientists are making serious arguments, free of serious flaws. They also confer an advantage, compared to laymen, in that I can more easily think of real problems which don’t seem addressed, and caveats that seem missing.
“Independent” means not beholden to ideology, or whether or not what I write is conformist with any ideology. “Troublemaker” means willing to challenge BS, when I see it, whether or not that upsets people. It also means wanting radical change, and not incremental change. That means I’m likely, if successful, to upset large numbers of people who may be afraid of radical change, even if they profess to want it.
For example, a recent bit of BS that I challenged was in the laughable claim that global warming science is “settled”. I think Al Gore honestly thought so, when he made his movie. And he sure convinced me, at the time. But just a little bit of research shows you that it’s not so in 2010. Did you bother reading through my links that I posted?
The claim is only credible if you close your ears, eyes, and mind to the significant number of dissident scientists, some of whom I quoted. Perhaps you’d like to challenge their qualifications? Do you think your qualifications for making a valid judgement on global warming claims is stronger than theirs?
Since you are “looking out for the basic welfare of the powerless and voiceless”, I surely hope that your check out the writings of physicist Denis Rancourt, who is not just a lefty, but quite idealistic. He’s also interested in meta issues, and speaks against activists getting coopted.
Here’s his email to me, in response to a request to him to post a diary on the subject of AGW:
In particular, I highly recommend reading Global Warming: Truth or Dare?
Please don’t ask me any more questions about my “agenda” before you do a little research on the what qualified AGW dissidents have to say. And please don’t ask me any more questions about my credentials before your render you opinion about whether your credentials are more apt, than the scientists I listed here, with their specialties bolded. Their credentials and expertise don’t make them correct, of course, but in such large numbers, these elements demand respect and attention.
Finally, it wouldn’t hurt you to study a bit about the sociology of scientists, the problems with peer review, etc. You can skim through The Trouble with Physics, by Smolin, for just the relevant sections.
When Smolin wrote a paper, which he submitted to the Chronicle of Higher Education, detailing the problems of “me too” science (which is a function of the tribalism he describes in his book), his paper was rejected.
From “The Trouble with Physics”, p. 345
(emphasis mine)
Joining what you deem to be a righteous scientific bandwagon, which makes insulting, sweeping pronouncements about it’s qualified critics, and assures about it’s own certainty, while facilitating “finance sharks” and (in the case of some) being dishonest and obfuscatory, is something you may want to think twice about.
(ETA: I don’t mean to imply that the scientists are individually, or deliberately, facilitating “finance sharks”)
Done!
You think we have more time for Dump Obama, and Kwiatkowski is chiding me for moving too slow.
If you think me inconsistent or wavering, it’s that you miss my concentration on the organizational question. Dump Obama exists independently of me, but raises many questions. Dump Obama is a movement, there will be distinct organizations participating, but what organizational vehicle(s) can develop to consolidate a left-wing force?
Whatever the shortcomings of Dump Obama, I wouldn’t equate them with MY personal shortcomings.
You distrust the American progressive electorate too much. Dump Obama will develop largely on its own, is in fact doing so now. The word you need to keep hammering home is “primary.” But first to the task at hand: November 2.
Thanks for the sig and seriously – let it go for a few weeks. Even the disorganized protest non-voting that put Scott Brown in office did not completely elude the media, and predictions of Dems voting 3rd party now have begun to enter the MSM (notably last week, Mike Barnacle on “Morning Joe”).
So now, as ever, it is all about turnout. Every post we can put up or forward to friends will translate to more QUANTIFIABLE lefty votes in making our message clear.
You might not notice that I’m not telling you to let anything go. Nor am I competing with you. I’ll say it loud, I’ll say it proud: write in PUBLIC OPTION!
It will develop on its own, but HOW it will develop is not a foregone conclusion. One of the Dump Obama forces, for instance, is die-hard Hillary supporters. Other elements are more left to radical. I think progressives need to get in early to shape how it plays out.
As for distrusting the progressive electorate, you assume too much.
Well, I won’t get into a pissing match with you, but the Hillary folks have not a prayer, pure and simple. They will die, hard or otherwise, but die they will. The travesties of trade, economics, DADT and workers’ rights that administration’s policies wreaked – and continue to wreak – upon this country are simply too monumental to ignore, as are Hillary’s Pakistani sabre-rattling escapades of late.
The fact that primarying this president is being as widely discussed as it is at this early stage of his administration is – believe me – a very positive sign that the progressive base is fully awake. If the coming election doesn’t wake up the party establishment, that establishment will not long exist after the 2012 campaign – if indeed it lasts that long.
Agreed. I’m just saying that the more specific character of Dump Obama is very much up in the air.
Not as much as you might think. Our electoral system has a lovely way of taking real rage and turning it into something meaningful, and the anticipated losses among erstwhile progressives this fall will create all sorts of opportunity in the ensuring two years.
Think “President Feingold.”
Serious question: why do you think Feingold will run? Not saying he won’t, but why would he?
And just to be clear, I’m not saying he will. But win or lose in two weeks, he’ll be well positioned – assuming Obama doesn’t bare his progressive teeth over the next two years, and start walking his ’08 talk -as a “chastened” progressive who can more than believably say, either as an independent or from inside the party, “What we’re doing is not working.”
But why would he? What would be Feingold’s rationale?
I didn’t mean to come across like I was chiding you, and for that I apologize. I’m simply pointing out to the left in general, not you specifically, the realities of political campaigns these days. Election seasons now start the day after voting has taken place in the previous cycle. By the time we find a suitable third party candidate, for example, the Republicans and Democrats will have already settled on theirs. At this point, I really do believe that the Democrats are so far to the right now that there is never going to be a serious primary challenge to him from the left. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try, but it is pointless to expect a primary against him. 2012 is not as far off as we like to think, especially since 2010 is drawing to a close. We need to start getting ready now, and we’ve already wasted two years.
Because, as his voting record shows, he is a true Lefty, despite his bad decisions of late. I don’t think (and I could and may be completely wrong) that he is beholden to/believing enough in the party establishment as it now exists to go down with the ship – and it is clearly going down.
But I’d welcome the take of any Wisconsinite who may be reading.
No problem. That’s why I’m doing what I can now. But I see my role as movement building, helping establish a broad Dump Obama front that will at best form the foundation for a Dump Obama candidacy or candidacies. Right now, I go so far as to think about types of candidacies. I see roughly 4.
Within the DP:
(1) A major figure, such as Dean or Feingold, who decides to run in order to save the Democratic Party. That race would like more like a traditional primary.
(2) A left challenger running more on principle, less party muscle behind himself or herself.
(3) Outside possibility: Obama drops out and Hillary gets her turn.
Independent:
(1) A Green candidate. I see the Greens attracting more attention this go-round, and they have ballot access advantages. On the other hand, I fear that they tend to think small, somewhat over-focused on programmatics. From their website, insufficiently attentive to unemployment and homelessness.
(2) An independent populist, something like a Ross Perot of the left, running on jobs, peace and civil liberties. Someone with at least a minor name (Jane Hamsher comes to mind). Harder ballot access, but broader appeal.
Now for the Dems, I don’t think the Dem outsider will win the Dem primaries. If the party hierarchy turns against Obama (a possibility but I don’t know if it’s a probability), that more establishment candidate could win the nomination.
For the independents, we could end up with both (1) and (2). In that case, which to support? My sympathies lie with (2), but that would depend on a lot of particulars I don’t envisage at this point.
And in the general, possibly a more left mainstream Dem such as Dean, vs. Sarah Palin, vs. one or two progressive independents.
A lot to consider here. My personal bottom line: what does the most to develop a left independent force, the progressive independent, progressive independent alliance. Getting from here to there? Gimme a break, it’s still only 2010!
Then we could end up with that candidate going up against the independent.
My last 2 paragraphs should be reversed.
I have a question about Green Party recruitment strategy. Why doesn’t the Green Party embrace a strategy of “Dump Corporate Dems” – Going Green at the State Level, to “make Dems do it” at the Federal level)??
I.e., the civic value proposition to Dem voters, who are holding their noses whiile practicing lesser-evilism, is “Help us elect Greens at the State level, which will eventually allow us to pressure elected Democrats at the federal level, and we’ll help you get Dems eleected. We’ve got a list of X,000 Green voters in this district, who have pledged to vote for a Dem at the federal level if they can find a Dem who pledges to vote Green at the state level. We’ll trade votes one for one”.
If you hit up a complete stranger with this proposal, they will likely be an independent. However, you will have now broken the ice, and you can give them Green Party literature, and ask them if they have any Dem friends or family who would take up this offer.
Of course, you have to have that list of X,000 Green voters already established to make this proposal, not to mention a candidate….
I’ll answer your points as best I can in an entry. I’ll post the link in this thread once it’s been submitted.
OK, thanks. (I suppose you meant a diary, not an “entry”.) I’ll check back for it.
Here it is, along with a Closed Left entry pointing out why Martha Coakley lost that also contains a video of Bill Maher telling us all what we knew a long time ago.
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/77432
http://openleft.com/diary/17021/lessons-that-should-be-learned-from-coakleys-defeat-but-probably-wont-be
Whoa. I just realized a big mistake.
should be