My 2¢:
Go for the issues rather than the candidates

Balance of power (Where a group decides to make its support totally contingent on a single issue, the goal being to make a candidate’s willingness to endorse that issue the deciding factor in a close election.)

Contracts like FDL will give you X if you create 2 million good paying jobs the first year after the election. Fail and you and the Dems pay us back with interest.
Lobbyist are doing basically the same thing so why can’t Citizen’s have the Rights Corporations have?
The idea lobbying cash hookers, blackmail etc does not buy votes is a fairy tale so lets play by their rules they made and embarrass them.

That’s exactly what I put in my suggestion email. Endorse nobody – support issues only.

Direct democracy (Ballot initiatives, recalls and referendums.)

Like we did on healthcare type your address find a protest or find a local volunteer group or sign an online petition to recall your local GOPer one shop shopping!

3x.

The Electoral College

Red States tend to be rural White and have more representation per person than we do its no wonder they get more federal cash than they pay.
We can attack that on One Man one vote.

Lower Taxes end Red State Welfare every state must pay a proportion of the wealth their citizens and businesses located but not necessarily incorporated their have.
If not we withhold federal funds.

my hope for fdl is that we do not endorse or support obama. there is no other candidate on the horizon at this point but if one were to emerge, I could get interested in reviewing the issue (of endorsement and support). I’d like to see fdl play the roles of advocate for progressive ideas, gadfly, fact checker and information source.

Jobs we win this election if we say we want to create X amount of jobs by X date we need a specific number of jobs a million or more and a specific date so voters can feel they can hold Dems accountable.
If Dems would say 5 million good paying living wage jobs in 6 months we could take the House and Senate in veto proof majorities how do we pay for it end both wars, National Healthcare and the same way FDR got us out of the depression debt spending.
Its ridiculous that we can borrow trillions for wars and bank bailouts but we can’t borrow to create jobs.
We can tax the rich like FDR did and say we tried things Bush’s way how many jobs did that create? How many jobs did FDR create by taxing the rich to get us out of the Great Depression?
We need real world examples that worked to fix the economy. We don’t need myths rich economists and serial killer groupies spin to justify greed.

We are also a think tank:)

Electoral College is only for the Prez race, plus…

…and what is actually possible in this environment for an organization of FDL’s current size and resources.

So you tell us how li’l ol’ FDL changes the Electoral College System prior to 2012. Like Atrios says “NahGahHaPen.”

There are 435 House seats and 33 Senate seats up for re-election and that’s where the focus needs to be.

Election laws that favor exclusively two-party systems

There is a voting system I heard about where people write first second and third choice how many third party candidates would be our second choice and if the first choice candidate does not get 51% we force an election between the people’s top 2 choices.

The other thing I suggested was that the Members community pick some fixed number of issues. Say 5 issues, for example. And then fix the position on those 5 issues.

At that point, create a scorecard, like the NRA does and rank all 435/33/Prez candidates on those issues; as well as the polling that goes with those issues.

Constituencies are vitally important in elections.

Favors less populous states

“Every idea of proportion and every rule of fair representation conspire to condemn a principle, which gives to Rhode Island an equal weight in the scale of power with Massachusetts, or Connecticut, or New York; and to Delaware an equal voice in the national deliberations with Pennsylvania, or Virginia, or North Carolina. Its operation contradicts the fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. Sophistry may reply, that sovereigns are equal, and that a majority of the votes of the States will be a majority of confederated America. But this kind of logical legerdemain will never counteract the plain suggestions of justice and common-sense. It may happen that this majority of States is a small minority of the people of America; and two thirds of the people of America could not long be persuaded, upon the credit of artificial distinctions and syllogistic subtleties, to submit their interests to the management and disposal of one third.”
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 22.

As a consequence of giving more per capita voting power to the less populated states, the Electoral College gives disproportionate power to those states’ interests. Democrats often assert that the Electoral College system favors the Republican Party by disproportionately boosting the electoral weight of the less populous states, which have tended historically to vote Republican. In fact, on all three occasions that the electoral vote winner and popular vote winner has been different, the Republican party won the election. While this argument does apply to the 2000 election, it is debatable whether it helps to explain the 1876 and 1888 results, since in these cases the small states were more evenly divided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29#Criticism_of_the_Electoral_College

How do we change this a Supreme Court case one man one vote. Also the number of members of the House of Reps is not proportional to population the more Reps you have the more votes to rake in cash and of course advance Republican issues.
Either we stop this system or we keep fighting with our hands tied behind our back.
Another way to stop the System is insist that States must pay equal or more than they get back from the government or they lose federal funds.
We can call it a performance incentive, we can call it take the Red States off welfare if we push this idea hard the GOPers will give us everything we want.
After all why put up a military industrial complex factory in a state that might not be eligible to receive federal funds next year?
Why bother bribing a Red State politician if you can’t reward him with a contract in his state?
The Red State Pols were targeted by lobbyists for a reason they have more representation per person so its cheaper to win them elections. TV ad buys, radio etc all cheaper in Idaho than California. It costs less money to pay political campaigners to talk to every voter in Montana than it would in Illinois.

If the number of House Reps was proportional to population would the GOP have control of the House of Reps now? we might not change this in time for the election but it makes a great issue to rally our side with.

Campaign financing

Disclose everything no more hidden contributors if Target wants to give money to openly anti Gay GOPers fine we can boycott them. Its Karl Rove’s secret donor’s that worry me just what do they want to pay money for (not that we know what causes Karl’s group supports I suspect anti Union, repeal child labor laws, cut state transplant patient’s budgets etc) but the thing is these causes are so ugly that even Target would not want their name publicly linked to backing these causes.
Also spending everything lobbyists etc spend on a politician a party etc must be disclosed on the net so we can all see. Also no more lobbyists who use sex as the pay off you must be lobbied by a person of a sex you publicly claim at least you are not into.

There are many voting systems. quick runoff, instant runoff where you rank choices. There is party line proportional representations. There is ranked voting in multi-member districts, etc… Our is the least favorite to more than two parties.

I think we should target districts that are likely to favor Dems and make sure that DCCC chair Israel doesn’t do a Rahm – put conservadems or former republicans in those seats. The past 2 years showed us that a weak majority is basically no majority.

Low turnout primaries are where we can make the most impact.

Cool thanks we can debate this on the live thread:)

Plus close races but yes if we support dems in places where we think we can win but the Blue dog Dems won’t run a candidate that should give us the most bang for our buck. Failing that target very Blue districts with Blue Dog Pols running and give the very Blue areas a candidate willing to run on ending both wars now, creating jobs etc.
Notice both parties won’t talk about creating jobs…we have an opening the most important issue to voters is our opening. Voters don’t seem to buy tax cuts for the rich as a serious idea to create jobs:)

Electoral College

the number of House and Senate members determines the amount of Electoral College votes reduce the GOP’s House advantage to a more fair based on population number and we win.

This is the saddest post I have seen at firedoglake.

Over the last 40 years US productivity has doubled – this means your wages should have doubled also. But, wages have decreased by 7%.

The Democrats have done nothing, over four decades, to reverse this assault on workers.

The Democrats will do nothing for the left unless the left demonstrates that they will not vote for Democrats.

You only have four choices in 2012:
1. Vote Democratic and continue the 40 year assault on workers;

2. Vote third-party and decrease Democratic votes, thus helping to elect Republicans;

3. Don’t vote, this decreases voter turnout and helps elect Republicans;

4. Vote Republican and continue the 40 year assault on workers.

So, you can study all the tactics you want but you have been “socially engineered” so your vote doesn’t matter.

The only effect you can have is to vote Republican, throw the fake Democrats out and hope that enough of those 6 of 10 Americans who don’t vote will suffer enough to participate in 2014 to elect a veto proof congress.

Otherwise, enjoy your little exercise, because these Democrats are going to do nothing for you because you don’t have the guts to throw them out.

X4…! Have the candidates sign a ‘pledge’, similar to what Grover Norquist has championed..!

Sure, there are several alternatives both in use and proposed… all you have to do is pick one and set it up so that electronic vote counting isn’t required to be part of the process.

I didn’t sign up for the Webinar because I don’t have any ideas and don’t want to waste FDL’s bandwidth. In general I support Norske’s view (we’re both old men) that progressives have to work from the ground up, because the high ground is controlled by big money. In my view the most effective action FDL has taken concerns Bradley Manning, where I think we really counted. Electoral politics is an entirely different kettle of fish. FDL’s political influence, such as it is, comes from the quality of the posts and the readership it attracts. Our influence is mostly indirect. Speaking truth effectively, the way Jane does, is probably the best thing we do at present.

As to supporting candidates, the money is over at Move-on. One caveat. Jane’s work in Connecticut when we knocked Lieberman out of the Democratic primary was a good example of what we can do, but our candidate was a multimillionaire who was able to finance his own campaign. FDL’s work is probably more like staff work; finding facts, finding serious weaknesses in the Thug candidate’s position or previous actions, and getting our candidate to exploit those weaknesses.

There is a lot of talent here. The trick is figuring out how to channel it.

I’d like the group to address the problems with all the different types of voting methods and machines and the way the votes are counted. I’m thinking of the problems with the election Gore won but Bush stole. I’m also thinking about the recent vote involving JoAnne Kloppenburg and David Prosser.

I kept this quote from one of our members, but I didn’t keep who said it, “How can Republicans continue to steal elections right from under the noses of Democrats, even when Democrats know Republicans are going to try to do it? It’s outrageous.”

I think this quote says it all. Even though many here believe it doesn’t matter who wins the election, the rule of law should prevail.

I don’t know the best strategy but I can see what happened a few months ago. And I have a question? Had enough yet?

Republicans now control all the midwest states, Pa, NJ Maine and florida. As my favorite shill likes to ask: How’s that working out for ya? They have been enabled and emboldened. The Ryan budget is a shot at the heart of progressives. Think they won’t do that if elected in 2012 to the Presidency and control of congress?

One thing does impress me though about the Tea Party. While we sat here behind the keyboard during the last election cycle and during the health care debate they were out there showing what they wanted. I think direct activism has a place, no, more than that, without it we are doomed to take a strong second.

Of course I don’t want to continue the assault on the middle class, but the alternative of a republican repeal or reduction of needed social programs could put us in the wilderness for many years. Think women’s rights and other similiar issues will be safe? Talk about endless war? Third party? You’re kidding right?

While we sat here behind the keyboard during the last election cycle and during the health care debate

While “we” sat here behind…..
Don’t speak for others. You have no idea what action people did and did not take.

Agreed no more Diebolds or we can all go home.

While we sat here behind the keyboard during the last election cycle and during the health care debate they were out there showing what they wanted.

Speak for yourself. A lot of us, here, were quite active.

Waves to Kelly!

Good, I must have missed you in the crowd of republican activists. I guess they have better publicity and more people to carry the message?

dakine 01: “My 2¢:
Go for the issues rather than the candidates.”

x5.

Wavesback!

*sliding bev-of-choice-down-the-bar*

If you’re not out carrying the message yourself, well….

I agree FDL seems to be most effective when covering a specific issue and calling out all the spin on the issue.

I wish I agreed we need to build from the ground up because it’s been an exercise in futility from my middle aged vantage point. I just think the system won’t allow anyone outside of it to have a true lasting impact and it’s much more true now than 30 years ago.

Everything is setup for Obama to win 2012 pretty much because there is no one else, only if some truly viable candidate emerged is this worth touching, O is horrible and coming after W, that’s pretty alarming but going after him would put FDL against the world (or is it like that now?).

I don’t really see a meaningful difference between what became law prior to January and now. We’re just as apt to expand our wars, regulating Wall Street just as poorly, letting polluters get away with just as much, just as bad off with health care, just as slow on gay rights. What did we lose other than the illusion that Democrats were going to do something to help us?

The “Obama or Else!” crowd doesn’t care to hear about just how bad Obama has been because their task is to frighten us with images of just how bad the R’s will be.

Whether they are aware of it or not they have limited themselves to being servants of the oligarchy… and unfortunately they can become nothing more while they are busy carrying water for our owners.

maybe we should all just listen to George Carlin. He makes a lot of sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk&feature=related

stay home, its meaningless. Remember when you vote and then you only get a lousy t-shirt, who’s fault is that. Boy was I fooled in 2008, and I refuse to go down that road again in 2012.

Wait, so you have to be a member of FDL now to participate? What a fucking joke. And the even bigger joke than that, you are going to focus on “electoral strategies” and what role FDL should play and THEN talk about why electoral strategies are a red herring, worthless exercise?? WTF? That is just about as stupid a thing as I have ever heard of.

How about ignoring the electoral process altogether and working on the problems inherent in our electoral system. How about discussing organizing for direct action/civil disobedience campaigns to force critical changes to the electoral system? How about not LITERALLY putting the cart before the damn horse? Huh? Bottom line? Elections and “electoral strategy” don’t mean a damn thing right now and any energy used discussing them is a waste of time precisely because the electoral system is so bought and paid for, corporate corrupted.

FDL is just like all the other “liberal” netroots organizations – worthless. Worthless because it refuses to recognize the truth of the situation we are in and what it will take to significantly change it. The leaders of this site are leading everyone back to the same slop trough. FDL “membership”, yeah you should be so proud.

Your indignation about how worthless this site is that you’re commenting on is amusing.

Increasing the representation of progressives in congress is pretty simple, isn’t it? You support the democratic primary candidate that has the best positions on the issues and is electable. Then you work your ass off to recruit voters for that candidate.

Third party is a fools errand. Big third party presidential elections were e.g. 1980, 1992 and 2000. On all three occasions the fallout was that the third party voters got their least preferred candidate elected.

Raising the profile of one particular issue or the name recognition of the interest group may require different measures though… Ballot measures are obviously one way to bump the profile of an issue.

How about discussing organizing for direct action/civil disobedience campaigns to force critical changes to the electoral system?

These kinds of strategies are extremely dangerous in that you risk turning large parts of the voting population against you, thereby discrediting your position on the issue in the process. My 2 cents. Modern framing, messaging and organizing and getting some salt of the earth umricans to sign on sounds smarter.

Wait, so you have to be a member of FDL now to participate? What a fucking joke

Jon Walker is really plugging membership by posting the link not once, but twice. If it isn’t obvious, that’s called “selling your product”, in this case at 45-1000$ / a year. Here’s FDL:s piechart on expenses incurred during 2010:

http://members.firedoglake.com/money/

As I am far from a FDL regular myself and don’t know much about Firedoglake the legal entity, I would be extremely interested in finding out how it is organized – legally and financially. Is Firedoglake a profit making company? Is it fully owned by Jane Hamsher? Is the profit released as public information?

It’s not much use having a pie chart accounting for expenses if you’re also turning a profit but not accounting for that!

Think blink was replying to the topic, not the site, but thats me. Think s/he has a point(s) and just maybe some should be @ the top of the agenda.

I also have been waiting for all the so-called liberal media to start the push in support of Obama, telling us that as bad as he is, he is better than whats her/his name.

Just watch, I give it about 3 more months as we find out who the repubs are running for sure.

I also have been waiting for all the so-called liberal media to start the push in support of Obama, telling us that as bad as he is, he is better than whats her/his name.

If there was a “liberal media” they totally should, because it’s absolutely true. Not that any liberal should have to hold her nose while voting for Obama for the second time, they should do it with pride!

Work out all of misgivings about President Obama and continue to pressure him to make the right decisions. The webinar should be lively – where to begin? We’ve got Republican hoodlums like the ones in Texas who have just made it almost impossible for a common citizen to sue a big corporation – everywhere. We also need to network with Moveon.org – many of us are members of that group – who provide the foot soldiers for many movements.

Question to the moderators: I posted a few posts here with questions about FDL financing and whether it is a company, and they’re all awaiting moderator approval now. That never happened to me before! Is there some policy I should know about?

ETA: on reload the posts are back. Forget about it.

Increasing the representation of progressives in congress is pretty simple, isn’t it? You support the democratic primary candidate that has the best positions on the issues and is electable.

The “electability” caveat has been used over and over again to make excuses for Blue Dogs and to oppose primary challenges.

Third party is a fools errand.

Don’t tell that to Ross Perot. After he got 19% of the vote in 1992, Clinton dropped large portions of his domestic agenda and focused on reducing the deficit.

Don’t tell that to George Wallace. His candidacy helped pull the Republican Party to the right.

Don’t tell that to the Populist Party. Most of their agenda, including the 16th and 17th Amendments, the weekend, and banking and railroad regulation, was adopted by the major parties.

Don’t tell that to the Socialist Party. Much of their agenda was adopted, including the 19th Amendment, child labor laws, Social Security, and the public works programs in the New Deal.

Big third party presidential elections were e.g. 1980, 1992 and 2000. On all three occasions the fallout was that the third party voters got their least preferred candidate elected.

Not true.

1980: Reagan would have won easily in a two-way race. Exit polls showed 49% of Anderson voters supporting Carter in a two-way race vs. 37% for Reagan, which is a small dent in Reagan’s margin of victory. Reagan would have won even if every single Anderson voter went for Carter.

1992: Perot’s voters split almost evenly in a two-way race:

ASSOCIATED PRESS (11/4/92): Exit polls suggest Ross Perot hurt George Bush and Bill Clinton about equally.

The Voter Research and Surveys poll, a joint project of the four major television networks, found 38 percent of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton and 37 percent would have voted for Bush if Perot had not been on the ballot. Fifteen percent said they would not have voted, and 6 percent listed other candidates.

2000: Gore won Florida. Why do progressives still deny this?

I should vote for Obama with pride?

Pride in what? Pride in that he’s slow-but-certain poison to the interests of his base… as opposed to the fast-acting but erratic toxin that is the GOP?

The “electability” caveat has been used over and over again to make excuses for Blue Dogs and to oppose primary challenges.

In states where voter sentiment is far removed from mainstream progressive policy on a number of areas it would seem rational to go for a compromise. But that doesn’t adress the more interesting question of how one goes about changing voter sentiment. I don’t have any easy solutions and I’m no absolutist advocating no primaries in red states, ever. But one has to realize that if voter sentiment is tilted one way in a particular state, one can only trick them to have a person representing them that strays far off in another direction for so long.

Of course one would wish to see the Blue Dogs always working to slowly nudge acceptable policies and public opinion in the right direction, when there’s an opportunity to do so. (Something I see Obama doing all the time, btw, even if he is a long game player and frustrating to watch in the moment).

But what to do if the Blue Dog seemingly serves their own interests, or going in the wrong way when there’s no perceived need? There must be a framework to verify whether such agents are “friends of the movement”, and what’s expected of them should be clear from the start so there’s no confusion about what’s happening. And if he (she) wanders off the reservation, then yes they should be primaried, but by another electable candidate, a loyal one.

Don’t tell that to Ross Perot. After he got 19% of the vote in 1992, Clinton dropped large portions of his domestic agenda and focused on reducing the deficit.

Bush ran on reducing the deficit so the publicans would have gotten that any way, but with more cutting and less taxing. Perot delivered nothing for conservatives, except defeat. Democrats were once again viable for the presidency after 30 years in the wilderness (bar Carters four).

Don’t tell that to George Wallace. His candidacy helped pull the Republican Party to the right.

George Wallace was a democrat. Him running third party delivered nothing to southerners in terms of stopping civil rights, which were their objective. Only when the dixiecrats defected to the republican party did they once again gain influence – and kept it for a generation. They’re still losing out in the long run, but they slowed down the inevitable. But sure, if you got a certain issue (let’s pretend it’s a public option, that you think republicans could be willing to champion in the forseeable future, by all means go third party.

Don’t tell that to the Populist Party. Most of their agenda, including the 16th and 17th Amendments, the weekend, and banking and railroad regulation, was adopted by the major parties.

Don’t tell that to the Socialist Party. Much of their agenda was adopted, including the 19th Amendment, child labor laws, Social Security, and the public works programs in the New Deal.

On account of championing popular causes and having messaging that resonated with the citizenry. But note that you can start by championing those same causes, develop a messaging and advocacy strategy, and when it’s apparent that it resonates – then you can get democratic representatives to champion that cause in congress.

At that point, when it’s proven that there’s a strategy for advocacy that convinces voters, if the democrats are still not willing to make the policy part of the platform, then you go third party.

Hoping that going third party is a talisman that can make southern evangelists start believing in evolution is magical thinking. But crucially, on the issue of the public option (just to pull something out of thin air) there was a republican opposition unified in opposition, willing to filibuster whatever bills came along. That puts the number of democratic senators that must defect for the legislation to fail at one (1). And the general public, while liking the public option in the abstract, didnt know enough about it to care very much either way. The conservative movement has played a long game advocating their pet causes. They played it from 1964, and were rewarded in 1980. It took a lot of organizing, a lot of building up a infrastructure and hammering in their pitch, year after year after year.

That’s the right way to go with the P.O. Third party is a magic trinket promising to deliver quickly, and without effort. You know what they say about deals that are to good to be true?

1980: Reagan would have won easily in a two-way race. Exit polls showed 49% of Anderson voters supporting Carter in a two-way race vs. 37% for Reagan, which is a small dent in Reagan’s margin of victory. Reagan would have won even if every single Anderson voter went for Carter.

You’re forgetting the Kennedy primary challenge which, as it happens, is another one of your “clever” strategies to deliver results, promptly and painlessly. Now I’m not gonna sit here and argue some alternative history where Carter won. Who knows if there was any remedy, with the economy, Desert One and Carters communication skills?

But what is certain is that the Kennedy third party challenge, and all the hard work of the Kennedy’s followers, served only to weaken the candidate that eventually ran. As did Anderson. It’s not as simple as adding and subtracting poll numbers. And the other thing that is certain is what 1980 delivered, for those democrats on the left that were dissatisfied with the Carter administration and championed Kennedy. It delivered the dawn of movement conservatism hegemony, and you know where it got us because we’re still there, slowly pulling ourselves out of the ditch.

1992: Perot’s voters split almost evenly in a two-way race:

ASSOCIATED PRESS (11/4/92): Exit polls suggest Ross Perot hurt George Bush and Bill Clinton about equally.

The Voter Research and Surveys poll, a joint project of the four major television networks, found 38 percent of Perot voters would have voted for Clinton and 37 percent would have voted for Bush if Perot had not been on the ballot. Fifteen percent said they would not have voted, and 6 percent listed other candidates.

Perhaps, but Perot were running and campaigning against the sitting president, as populist sure, but his main pitch about the deficit was an attack from the right, which affects voter enthusiasm (which was low for Bush). Enthusiasm informs turnout and low turnout doesnt show in breakdowns of from where Perot stole voters. By your larger argument, best case win for defecting interest group in any of the three examples is the Perot election then, which was influencing Clinton on the deficit issue. It is far from obvious that they got more than if Bush had won. If he would have won sans Perot? We don’t know.

2000: Gore won Florida. Why do progressives still deny this?

Few progressives deny that he should have been declared the winners, but reasonable people agree that Bush was in fact inaugurated. Right?

What’s also hard to escape is thats it’s reasonable to assume that had Nader not run, Gore would have won. So the outcome for the defectors were once again (just like 1980, and perhaps 1992) the polar opposite of the objective, and in fact a world of pain for 8 long years. Or did Nader manage to produce lasting visibility for his issues or get anything passed by proxy of George W Bush?

I have no idea what issues you care about, let me know and I’ll make a pitch.

Obama can and does make his own pitches excuses.

Then he goes off and does something else that hurts the people who elected him.

Obama doesn’t need you to make excuses for him.

To those who’ve been observing this tool of the elites since the FISAA debacle Obama doesn’t need explaining.

Perhaps the person who needs you to make excuses for Obama… is you?

since the FISAA debacle Obama

It’s gonna be the usual “excuse” then – whatever your specific complaints re FISAA, the republicans are far worse. And in case you’re interested in civil liberties perhaps you noticed they are all over the channels pitching torture to the american people by scaring the h-ll out of them. There.

It’s gonna be the usual “excuse” then – whatever your specific complaints re FISAA, the republicans are far worse.

And so your solution is to have Obama continue doing the work of the uber-wealthy more slowly than the wingers but much more surely?

And in case you’re interested in civil liberties…

Civil liberties… the niche issue de jour!

… perhaps you noticed they are all over the channels pitching torture to the american people by scaring the h-ll out of them.

And so your solution is to pitch Obama to us by scaring the hell out of us?

Of course you are at something of a disadvantage as you cannot offer anything to build on with Obama… at least you cannot offer anything to anyone who’s observed the casual way he disposes of his promises.

There.

… and no matter where we go, there we are.

And so your solution is to have Obama continue doing the work of the uber-wealthy more slowly than the wingers but much more surely?

Obviously I don’t agree that Obama is doing the work of the über-wealthy… But: How the heck do you arrive at “much more surely”? I’d sure like to hear the details on that one! Please elaborate.

Anyway, Obama is not doing the work of the über-wealthy because he:

- Signed the PPACA, a bill that is estimated (by the CBO) to get ~30 million people on health insurance that have none. Every american below 150% of the poverty line gets single payer healthcare (Medicaid). Everyone making up to 44k/y get subsidized insurance, those that make less get more subsidies making HCI affordable. The way PPACA pays for that is by taxing the rich (>250k/y). It is in other words, trivially a progressive law that pays health care for people of lesser means by taxing the rich. Then there’s other stuff in it as well (the individual mandate, no denial b/o pre existing conditions, employer mandate, exchanges, levels of service etc, etc). But the medicaid expansion & the subsidies are central and paid for by redistribution of means from the rich, to the poor.

- Various poverty fighting measures on account of the recession, such as extension of unemployment benefits (multiple times), home owner mortgage relief, food stamps etc.

- SCHIP expanded to 4 million more children from poor families.

- Various stuff in the stimulus, including temporary poverty fighting measures, investment in infrastructure, additional funding for education and healthcare during the recession, etc, etc. (more detail here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act#Healthcare)

- Expanding americorps

- Finance reform (I’m sure you’ll have opinions on this one)

- Saved GM and Chrysler. Sure, this one helped two companies as well, but saved the jobs that would have been lost.

That’s a few. In summation: lowered the taxes on low and middle class americans, raised them on high income americans; Got a lot of children healthcare and 30 million more people, starting in two years, and some other goodies in regulation and services and civil rights. And brought us out of the recession. Jobs are lagging, people are hurting, it could have been much worse.

Civil liberties… the niche issue de jour!

Torture is a “niche” issue?

And so your solution is to pitch Obama to us by scaring the hell out of us?

Because I am scared myself, or maybe “disgusted” is more appropriate.

Of course you are at something of a disadvantage as you cannot offer anything to build on with Obama… at least you cannot offer anything to anyone who’s observed the casual way he disposes of his promises.

I swear, some of the time I don’t understand the language of you FDL regulars! What does offer “something to build on” mean for you? It’s all half-baked ideas, unspoken assumptions, dark allusions, all the time.

What specific broken promise are you upset about?

I hope discussion of the National Popular Vote bill will be included.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support is strong among Republican voters, Democratic voters, and independent voters, as well as every demographic group surveyed in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%,, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and border states: AR – 80%,, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, RI, VT, and WA. The bill has been enacted by DC (3), HI (4), IL (19), NJ (14), MD (11), MA (10), VT (3), and WA (13). These 8 jurisdictions possess 77 electoral votes — 29% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

http://www.NationalPopularVote.com