OK, let's have the test now, who here refuses to vote for Kerry in Nov.?

[sleipnir]

Poll question: OK, let's have the test now, who here refuses to vote for Kerry in Nov.?

Simple question, and please answer honestly, no spiting anyone's candidate. I'm very interested to see how this feeling progresses over the next few months. There's a lot of ABB, but there also seems to be a lot of ABK recently. Let's have it out now, honestly, vote your true position.

If Kerry does become the nominee, as of your feelings and knowledge right now can you say....

[jmaier]

1. These polls seem pretty silly

There is almost always an emergent anybody but candidate X movement temporarily when that candidate becomes the front-runner. It just shows how strongly people feel about their candidate of choice. It's not surprising and not dangerous.

If you strongly support one particular person, it's pretty hard to entertain the others as alternatives until your choice is no longer available. That makes sense to me.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. Would have gotten more accurate results

if you presented the actual choice people will face:


Bush :vs: Kerry



I can't help but think it is going to be easier for at DU people to vote:

"I WILL NOT vote for Kerry in Nov."

than it would be for them to vote:

"Bush"

[corporatewhore]

4. I live in texas so it dont matter who i vote for

[girl gone mad]

13. Me too..

I'll probably vote for Kerry, even though it won't matter, especially since he's apparently already decided to ignore us.

[mermaid]

131. Me Three

I also live in Texas.

I will vote AGAINST Bush in November. I will support the Dem nominee in that regard. but, if Kerry is the nominee, my vote will be a vote AGAINST Bush...not a vote FOR Kerry. I hate Kerry. My hate of Kerry is overridden only by my hate for Bush.

See my other posts if you want to know WHY I hate Kerry so badly.

[corporatewhore]

134. you could vote against kerry and bush and you can still feel guilt free

[TexasMexican]

164. Yeah thats probably what I would do.

If Kerry is the nominee I would vote for a 3rd party knowing that I could help them while not hurting the main effort.

[surfermaw]

180. You would be voting for Bush

That is what a third party runs for is to get people to throw their vote away....Think Man

[0007]

194. I live in Texas also and I will vote for the Dem who came to the party

A lot of folks in West Texas aren't that big on junior anymore and every vote does count.

[Hippo_Tron]

60. Don't count Texas out...

Texas is a huge state there could be untapped voters there that we could use to win.

[freetempe]

8. There will be more than 2 choices

on the ballot in Nov for the president. There will be a Green Party candidate (especially IF Kerry is the nominee) and there will be a Libertarian candidate and many, many others. Finally, there will be a write-in spot, which I will use IF Kerry is the nominee.

[library_max]

29. I'm pretty sure Feanor meant "actual choices."

You know, people who stand an actual chance of being elected. People for whom a vote would count more than if you wrote in the name of your dog.

[WWW]

35. And who will you write in? n/t

[sleipnir]

18. Not true, there are many options besides Bush...

And to suggest that voting anyone other than the nominee is voting for Bush is hogwash and simply ludicrous. By that reckoning, all votes are worthless, because Bush will win anyway, so why vote at all?

[displacedtexan]

37. It's not hogwash; it's just not what democrats do.

You're not a democrat unless you belong to the party (pay dues) and vote for the party's candidates.
It's assumed that progressives, liberals, et al will vote for candidates from various parties on the left of the political spectrum.
Democrats, however, vote for democrats.

[sleipnir]

45. You mean lock-step party members.

One can declare a party and not pay "dues" or be forced to vote for a selected candidate. You refer to the "lock-step" Party members. I for one do not and never will pay "dues" to the Party, yet I am legally a Party member.

It's that sort of attitude from the Party Elite that got Bush selected in the first place..."Sure, the Dems will vote for whoever we put in front of them..." Could they have been more wrong? I fear they may be repeating the mistakes of 2000 all over again, but who am I to question the Party, as I don't pay "Dues..."

[Hippo_Tron]

63. I would stop voting for democrats...

If they ever became worse than the other side. But the democrats now are NOWHERE NEAR THAT so I'm sticking with democrats.

[Eloriel]

84. Well, then, there aren't that many Democrats to start with

And they could hardly by themselves elect anyone.

Us poor non-Democrats who don't pay dues (partly because the Dem Party is so freakin' USELESS), then don't have to be concerned about any ABB loyalty oaths, do we?

Whew, what a relief.

And here I thought my voter registration made me a Democrat. I'm sure glad I finally got the memo.

[bowens43]

96. Bullsh*t.

Being a Democrat doesn't mean rubber stamping any nominee that come down the pike. That's called being a sheep. I've voted a straight Democratic ticket in every election since 1976 but if Clark is on the ticket I won't vote for it but I will still be a Democrat. It isn't you who gets to decide who is and isn't a Democrat.

[Bucky]

146. Wow. You really wouldn't vote for Clark? How come?

He's openly liberal, have a VERY progressive tax proposal, champions expanding and enforcing voting rights of minorities, even in the Kingdom of Florida, proposes dramatically expanding healthcare coverage, wants to ditch don't-ask-don't-tell for full acceptance of gays in the military, supports civil unions, regards them essentially as marriages, wants to cut the defense budget, wants to protect jobs from going overseas, thinks that corporate wrong doers need to do hard jail time, and favors working with our allies to solve international problems.

What part of the above agenda do you find so offensive? If you're against those things, are you positive you're a Democrat?

[NashVegas]

159. Pay Dues for Being Dem?

And what might those dues be, pray tell?

Inquiring minds are dying to know.

[PVnRT]

3. Loyalty oath #4,000

n/t

[Eurobabe]

5. the alternative

is NOT an option.

Yes, I would support Kerry.

[goobergunch]

6. I can't vote for *anybody* in 2004

So I voted no.

[jpgray]

7. The results of this one are bound to depress me.

:(

[JohnKleeb]

46. Dont let it JP

It saddens me as well too.

[NV1962]

9. I'll reserve judgement, but he's moving close to #1 here

Edited to add:

By that, I mean it's neither of the two for me - as of now.

[rucky]

10. That sounds about right - 32% Drama Queens

[NV1962]

151. Actually...

The prize for most flamboyant drama queens goes to the frantic worrybodies who desperately try to point out that good Democratic boy scouts shouldn't be clicking on a link to express nuisance at a certain uninspiring candidate, even when that link says "I pledge to vote for Bush, steal your lunch and leave the toilet seat up!"

[Joseph Thule]

11. 35% will vote for Bush

disturbing.

[NNN0LHI]

16. Just goes to show we are not all Dems on this board n/t

[jmaier]

19. poor interpretation

You get a chunk who vote this way whenever the frontrunner is posited in a poll like this -- it happened to Dean. It would happen to Clark. Perhaps Edwards, because he is so inoffensive, wouldn't engender this response.

It is emotion FOR their candidate. It will subside if Kerry becomes the nominee.

[girl gone mad]

21. No,

a lot of it is emotion against Kerry. Some of it may subside, some people will probably stay home because he represents the status quo in the Democratic party, despite a liberal record, and others will get on the bandwagon.

[Joseph Thule]

23. One can only hope <nm>

[girl gone mad]

20. Not vote for Bush..

vote for "someone else"

I would do a Nader trader type thing, since it doesn't look like it's going to matter anyhow in my state (at least not if Kerry is the nom.)

A lot of these people think Bush will end up impeached anyhow if he wins, and a lot of them want to see him forced to deal with the mess he's made instead of passing it on to a Dem who up until very recently hasn't even been willing to acknowledge those huge problems Bush is creating.

[Joseph Thule]

24. Not voting for Kerry (or the nominee) is voting for Bush.

period

[0rganism]

28. This has been demonstrated false both mathematically and practically

...numerous times.

However, just as there are those hardcore religious fundamentalists who insist the earth is under 10000 years old, there are fundamentalist Democrats who push this tired old line as well.

[Joseph Thule]

31. It is true. Who is more likely to vote Green? A Democrat or Republican?

I hope you guys don't pull this again.

[0rganism]

52. It's false, see response to library max

I hope "you guys" don't nominate someone who splits up the Democratic party.

[library_max]

33. "Mathematically and practically" explain it again, then.

If Republicans vote for Bush and Democrats don't vote for Kerry, or whoever the nominee ends up being, Bush wins, right? Where's the mathematical or practical flaw in that argument?

Folks, whoever your candidate is, you're going to expect Democrats to unite behind him if and when he gets the nomination, right? So how can you expect to receive what you're not willing to give?

[0rganism]

51. OK, here it is again

First, mathematically.

Assertion: "Not voting for Kerry (or the nominee) is
voting for Bush."

Disproof:
Let D represent the number of votes for Kerry, R represent
the number of votes for Bush, Q represent votes for 3rd party
candidates, and N represent no-votes.

Let us look at four hypothetical scenarios:

1) Voter X votes for Kerry (or the nominee)
Kerry:     D'=D+1
Bush:      R'=R+0
3rd party: Q'=Q+0
no vote:   N'=N+0

2) Voter X votes for Bush
Kerry:     D'=D+0
Bush:      R'=R+1
3rd party: Q'=Q+0
no vote:   N'=N+0

3) Voter X votes 3rd-party
Kerry:     D'=D+0
Bush:      R'=R+0
3rd party: Q'=Q+1
no vote:   N'=N+0

4) Voter X doesn't vote
Kerry:     D'=D+0
Bush:      R'=R+0
3rd party: Q'=Q+0
no vote:   N'=N+1
 
Compare D and R votes from situations 1 and 2; the difference
is TWO votes.  
D'(1) - R'(1) = (D - R) + 1
D'(2) - R'(2) = (D - R) - 1
((D - R) + 1) - ((D - R) - 1) = 2
That, as you can see, is the effect of a Democratic voter 
switching to vote for bush.

Now, by contrast, let's calculate the difference from the
other two scenarios. 
D'(3) - R'(3) = (D - R) 
D'(4) - R'(4) = (D - R)
((D - R) + 1) - (D - R) = 1
In situations 3 and 4, the difference is ONE vote.  
Ergo, the net effect of voting 3rd party is identical to that
of not voting at all, and niether situation is equivalent to 
voting for bush.  

Therefore, Not voting for Kerry is NOT EQUIVALENT to voting
for bush.

QED.

Practically speaking, a candidate has to earn the votes of 
his or her constituents.  We may vote for candidates because
of their stance on issues or to prevent another candidate 
from winning, but it may happen that a candidate may not 
inspire us to vote for him on his own merits, the opponent 
is seen as insufficiently repulsive to merit a resistance
vote.  This is not the same as voting for the opponent; 
rather, it expresses a lack of support for both candidates.  

There it is, again.  Enjoy.

[library_max]

54. I'm impressed.

This is almost as cool (and almost as accurate) as the mathematical proof that bumblebees can't fly.

[0rganism]

58. Really? Show me the proof that bumblebees can't fly, I'd love to read it

In the meantime, if you find something inaccurate about the proof, please post it so we can discuss it in detail.

[library_max]

70. I will

when you show me what's inaccurate about the (infinitely simpler, more practical, and more compelling) argument I made in the first place - if Republicans vote for Bush and Democrats refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee, Bush wins, right?

[0rganism]

86. I bet you will, when pigs fly

> show me what's inaccurate about the (infinitely simpler, more
> practical, and more compelling) argument I made in the first place

Certainly. I'll be awaiting your equally concise (and equally accurate) proof of the inadequate aerodynamics of bumblebees, at your convenience of course.

> if Republicans vote for Bush and Democrats refuse to vote for the
> Democratic nominee, Bush wins, right?

How many Republicans? How many Democrats? Where are your quantities? Where are your proportions? Your argument is accurate only to the extent that it is so very imprecise. For instance, it's just as accurate to say, "if Republicans vote for bush and Greens refuse to vote for the Green nominee, bush wins." In order to differentiate the two positions, you would have to establish proportion and quantity -- something which your argument lacks as phrased.

Second, your argument is incongruent with the proposition originally disproven. That was, essentially, "not voting is the same as voting for bush." Your variant, and I hesitate to call it that, only applies if the number of Democrats who don't vote for the nominee exceeds the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Even then, it is confounded by the electoral college -- in 2000, 500,000 MORE Democrats voted for the Democratic nominee than republicans voted for bush, and bush still "won." So your argument is further weakened.

Third, your argument fails to address the possibility that Democrats could vote en masse for another candidate. If, by some horrible chance, John Kerry is revealed to be Kang the Space Alien (cf the Simpson's 1996 Treehouse of Horrors) after receiving the nomination, and all the Democrats chose to vote for Nader or Browne or write-in Carter instead, then bush would still lose -- electoral college permitting.

So, I'll leave you to find your exemplary proof that bumblebees cannot fly, but in the meantime please enjoy this thrilling excerpt from the Simpson's episode capsules...

Meanwhile, outside the Capitol, the candidates are giving their last electoral speach.

Kang: The politics of failure have failed. We need to make them work
      again. Tomorrow, when you are sealed in the voting cubicle, vote
      for me, Senator Ka... Bob Dole.
      (applause)
Kodos: I am looking forward to an orderly election tomorrow, which
       will eliminate the need for a violent blood bath.
      (applause)

From the sky comes a scream, as Homer is crashing right into the Capitol. A few footsteps later, he comes running down the stairs.

Homer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They're
       nothing but hideous space reptiles.  (unmasks them)
       (audience gasps in terror)
Kodos: It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about
       it? It's a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us.
       (audience murmurs)
 Man1: He's right, this is a two-party system.
 Man2: Well, I believe I'll vote for a third-party candidate.
 Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
       (Kang and Kodos laugh out loud)
       (Ross Perot smashes his "Perot 96" hat)

The next day, Kodos announces the result: "All hail, President Kang."

The field in front of the Capitol has now become a working ground
where humans are whipped by aliens and used to carry materials.

The Simpsons family is working too, with Homer and the kids carrying
wood, and Marge pushing a wheelbarrow of cinderblocks -- with Maggie
on top.

Marge: I don't understand why we have to build a ray gun to aim at a
       planet I never even heard of.
Homer: Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

-- Treehouse of Horror VII

[sleipnir]

93. That was an amazing smack-down, Organism!

Good work there! Putting down once and for all the silly canard that not voting for the DLC nominee is "voting for Bush." I must say, good work once again! This is the true spirit of the party, not one that toes a line and votes for whoever in Washington tells them too. And props on the great Simpsons quote! I feel it is quite relevant if Kerry should get the nomination!

[library_max]

165. Yes, it's really impressive

what one can accomplish in the way of a "smackdown" when one's correspondent has left the boards for the weekend.

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

176. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

182. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

186. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[library_max]

187. The accuracy of an argument isn't judged by its length.

Discouraging Democrats and other progressives from voting for the Democratic nominee (whoever it turns out to be) helps Bush. Will it help him enough to give him the election? Impossible to quantify, as you say. But it helps him and hurts us, that's basically irrefutable.

A third party candidate has never come close to winning an American presidential election. Quoting a purely fictional situation in a cartoon program does not seem to me to do much in the way of supporting your position. If it's a backdoor way of saying that Kerry is the same as Bush, that argument has been refuted so many times that it's not worth anyone's trouble.

To make a big issue out of a literal interpretation of "a vote against the nominee is a vote for Bush" misses the point. Encouraging progressive voters to stay home or vote third party helps Bush because it withholds their votes from the Democratic nominee. This is so painfully obvious that it doesn't require a mathematical theorem. In fact, if I had to trot out thirty lines of math to support my point, I'd strongly reconsider whether or not I really had a point at all.

We need to win this election. We need to get Bush-the-unelected, worst-president-ever, out of office. We need those two things much more than we need to quibble over semantics or argue about bumblebees or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OhioStateProgressive]

127. sorry, mathematical proof trumps emotionalism(nt)

[0rganism]

132. Where did I say I wasn't voting for the Democratic nominee?

What have I done to merit your ad hominem abusives?

Because I disputed the falsehood (which you openly concede) that "not voting for candidate X is the same as voting for candidate Y"?

Practically speaking, you're off the beam.

[formernaderite]

155. Hmmm...if all the Libertarians in close states had voted for Bush....

...then Bush would have won quite a few more states. It's a Circular argument assuming that all Greens have been democrats or would be....which is just not true.
If Ross Perot hadn't run in 92 or later in 96, Clinton who never garnered over 50% would not have won.
Do you hate all third party voters, or just some? Do you not recognize that many third party voters really have no other choices? I may be comitting heresy, but side by side, Clinton and Bush weren't very far from each other in terms of policy. Clinton waited until his final months in office to sign environmental legislation...that's like a duck and cover. He already suspended aspects of habeas corpus, instituted roving wire tap law changes etc. Are we forgetting NAFTA, welfar reform etc?
Funny how some of you accuse of us of being idealists...you look at your party through rose colored glasses.

[library_max]

168. You're wasting your time.

There's no point in trying to appeal to the better nature of people who are in love with the sound of their own voice, who think it is more important to be clever and win an argument than to be useful and win an election.

[0rganism]

173. It's called HONESTY

> it is more important to be clever and win an argument

In other words, to have integrity in one's assertions, even if it ruffles the feathers of fanatics

> than to be useful and win an election

which apparently means lying to generate fear and guilt, through which your favorite candidate will gain support.

[Name removed]

175. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Seldona]

152. Hmm

Shouldn't 1) be counted as a vote for the third party? Assuming he is a Democrat? And 4) as well?

Your equation fails to reflect that a Democratic vote was lost to a third party candidate or to not voting. It SHOULD look like this.

1) Democrat votes for Third Party or not at all. (not the nominee)
Kerry: D'=D+0
Bush: R'=R+0
3rd party: Q'=Q+1 or
no vote: N'=N+1

2) Republican votes for Bush
Kerry: D'=D+0
Bush: R'=R+1
3rd party: Q'=Q+0
no vote: N'=N+0

3) Third Party votes 3rd-party
Kerry: D'=D+0
Bush: R'=R+0
3rd party: Q'=Q+1
no vote: N'=N+0


I would assume since the discussion is about Democrats not voting for the nominee, or not voting at all, number 4 was meant as a Democrat?

You do not vote for the nominee, we are are vote short.

It is as simple as that.

Now the end result would look like the third party candidate would have the win, but again it is flawed.

There simply are many more Democratic voters than third party.

[0rganism]

172. Can you clarify your objection?

Keep in mind the assertion I'm disproving: "Not voting for the Democratic nominee is voting for Bush." I certainly agree with your assertion that, "You do not vote for the nominee, we are are vote short," but I'm also proving that, "You vote for the republican, we are two votes short."

I'll review the proof, for your convenience.

I'm already accounting for the 2-party dominance of our current political system by giving each of the 2 major parties their own case. I assume that the 3rd party is not viable, otherwise I would do another set of difference calculations. There are four possibilities, as I outlined in the proof:

1) vote for the (viable) Democratic nominee
2) vote for the (viable) Republican nominee
3) vote for a 3rd-party nominee/indy/write-in (assumes equally negligible electability for all such candidates)
4) vote for no one

We can look at the result of an election with 2-party dominance as the difference of D' and R' in each case -- i.e., if D' - R' > 0, the Democrats win. However, the actual result is not the question here, but rather the effect of a vote (not) going to a specific candidate.

In case 1, the Democrat is one vote up. In case 2, the Republican is one vote up, and the difference between outcomes in case 1 and case 2 is two votes. The relevant equation is

(D'(1) - R'(1)) - (D'(2) - R'(2)) = ((D + 1) - R) - (D - (R + 1))
                                  = (D - R + 1) - (D - R - 1)
                                  = 1 + 1 = 2 

In cases 3 and 4, neither the Democratic nor the Republican nominee gets a vote. The difference between outcomes in case 1 and (case 3 or case 4) is one vote.

(D'(1) - R'(1)) - (D'(3) - R'(3)) = ((D + 1) - R) - (D - R)
                                  = 1 

This equation is essentially the same for case 4.

Thus, the falsity of declaring equivalence between "not voting for the Democratic nominee" and "voting for the Republican" is demonstrated. Is that clear?

[library_max]

177. You're wrong.

There, that clear enough for ya?

[0rganism]

178. Excellent. Then you'll be able to point out exactly where I'm wrong.

That clear enough for you?

[library_max]

195. See message #187 /nt

[grisvador]

185. A lively but one-sided debate

Your logic and mathematical arguments are delightful to see. If interested - I would like to see your evaluation on a philosophical discussion. Albert Einstein a champion for peace, claimed "I do not know what weapons will be used to fight WW III, but WW IV will be fought with sticks and stones." Does that mean he thought peace unattainable - and WW III inevitable?

[sleipnir]

30. That's hogwash...If Bush is "destined" to win, why vote at all?

I'm sick of that sort of assertion. It's not true and reflects rather ineffective logic. It suggests that anyone will lose to Bush, so why vote at all? "A vote for candidate X is really a vote for candidate Z!" Sure, whatever...

[Joseph Thule]

32. The electorate is VERY divided in this country right now.

Votes are important.


Bush isn't "destined" to win anything.

[bowens43]

97. Nonsense.

period

[freetempe]

82. Yeah, its pretty disturbing...

When 35% of would be Democratic voters won't vote for their party's nominee.


Maybe Kerry isn't that "electable"????

[Terwilliger]

12. I don't know about refuse, as November is a long way

off

[krkaufman]

14. Not voting for Kerry in November....

I don't plan on voting for Kerry in November, since I don't expect him to be the Democratic nominee.

I will vote for the Democratic nominee in November, though, whether my primary choice or not.

[Democat]

15. There are some stupid or selfish people on DU

Maybe both.

If you want Bush for another 4 years, go play at some right wing site and leave us alone.

[Abigail147]

39. Don't sweet talk me now.

[Democat]

48. Might not have been my most charming post

But I'm sure it wasn't my worst, either. :)

[bowens43]

98. Stupid and selfish is insisting that others

do as you do. Not all Democrats will goose step into line . There are worse things then 4 yours of bush and the ABB attitude will certainly bring them about. Anyone who votes against their beliefs is doing a disservice to our party and to our country.

[LandOLincoln]

102. "There are worse things than 4 yours(sic) of Bush and the ABB

attitude will certainly bring them about."

Worse things? Name one. Just one. Thank you.

[jmags]

124. 3 more conservative Supreme Court judges on the bench

Oh..wait, that's happens with 4 more years but affects us for years after.

But I'm sure all of you who would not vote for Kerry in November (if he wins the nom) would have a clear conscience knowing you implicitly helped continue a Bush presidency over a Senator with a 92% liberal rating.

[Pepperbelly]

117. A Democrat who does not vote for a Democrat for Prez is ...

not a Democrat at all.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. All they are telling us is who will be absent after the primaries

Those of us who really want Bush gone will miss ya :hi:

[freetempe]

83. Sorry, but you can't get rid of * without us...

:)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

119. Nor can you...enjoy

[freetempe]

145. If the Dem Establishment changed

as a result of my not supporting their half-assed, Bush enabling, empty suit nominee, I could accept four more years of Chimpy. So, enjoy.

[library_max]

188. And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. /nt

[Forkboy]

153. I'll miss you too

but not the simple minded attitude that will dominate SycophantsUnderground.

[Sinistrous]

22. My loathing for * is so great, yes I would vote even for Kerry.

Although I would almost rather see Lieberman elected. At least then we would know up front that we are getting a dud. Kerry with his "go along to get along" half measures will just take longer to disappoint us.

[Samantha]

25. That poll seems pretty black or white

A third legitimate option is simply to abstain from voting. That's what happened in 2002 when many Dems chose to stay at home. I am fully aware that many here like to spin that as a vote for Bush* but the literal truth is that it is a statement of no preference. I certainly can understand a statement of no preference when the choice is between Bush* and a Bush* enabler.

However, I will suggest another option. For about three years now, I have been saying I would never vote for Kerry. Many people here who have read my posts know exactly why. Since I formed my original opinion of Kerry, my opinion of him has gone nowhere but down. There's zero chance I would vote for him for any reason.

Today I actually started contemplating registering as an Independent voter. I have been a Democrat for six years now and while I agree with this party on social issues, its mechanics for allowing the party elite to select, and I do mean select, who shall run and who shall not, who shall succeed and who shall be squashed, are starting to look suspiciously like that of the Republican party.

If one does not have a mob mentality which is very agreeable to simply acquiescing, the Democratic party might not exactly be a comfortable political place to be.

[sleipnir]

34. It is a "Black and White" question, in the end.

One who does stay home effectively does not vote for Kerry and thus should click response #2. I thought about 3rd party, stay home, but in the end, I came to realize that it's all the same, one either votes for Kerry or one does not vote for Kerry (stays home, write-in, 3rd party, etc).

No offense of course, I can see your point.

[Samantha]

38. No offense taken -- I clicked no

eom

[MrSlayer]

26. I'll vote for him if he's the guy but I'm hoping he's not.

ABB

[corporatewhore]

27. I will cast a vote for the opposition party (i dont kerry is a part of it)

[lovedems]

36. ABB. I will vote for whoever gets the nomination.

He isn't my first choice but I will rally around the democratic nominee.

[Snappy]

42. ABB

Even though I am in the Green Party, I will vote for whomever is the Dem candidate just this once. I'm not crazy 'bout Kerry at all. My choice would be Kucinich. America cannot survive another term of the Neo Fascists and their assult on the Working Class, environment, civil liberties or the economy and especially their assult on the world via their warmongering.

[LandOLincoln]

109. EXACTLY! Well said! I will vote ABB for environmental issues alone.

Something else to consider: If Kerry gets the nomination, the smartest thing he could do to unite the party would be to announce a shadow cabinet immediately. How's this for starters:

VP: Bob Graham
SecState: Wes Clark
SecDef: Max Cleland
AG: John Edwards
Health & Human Services: Howard Dean

& I'm too tired to think of the rest, but you get the idea.

There's surely a place for all of our candidates in a new Dem administration, and some of them might actually be more effective in Cabinet or other high-level admin posts than they would have been as Dem presidents facing a Repub Congress. Let an insider like Kerry take that heat.

Oh yeah--let's run the Kooch for Senator. We need Senators, and we especially need a tough, principled SOB like him in the Senate. We need our tough, principled SOBs in every level of government.

[oasis]

40. Members of the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation will

be relieved to find out that their Supreme Court picks will become confirmed during the next four years.

[sleipnir]

67. Kerry doesn't support that group, does he?

I sure hope not...for the betterment of humanity. Wow, if he does, that's, well....wow....scary

[amandabeech]

114. Supreme Court appointments are extremely important

as are all appointments to the federal judiciary, and each appointment is, essentially, for a lifetime term. The last election was determined by the Supreme Court in whole or in part. What would have been the outcome if five of the justices had been liberal/appointed by a Democrat? Maybe Al Gore would be in the White House and our troops would not be in Iraq, and this is just for starters.

The United States judiciary is often called upon, IMHO, to rein in right-wing attempts to gut both the Constitution and all kinds of progressive legislation.

I know that many of you very seriously believe that there is no difference between moderate Dems and Repuglicans. I can understand why you think this on many issues, but judicial appointments are one area in which moderate Dems differ strikingly from Repuglicans. No Democratic candidate, including Democrats as conservative as Joe Lieberman, will appoint anyone as wildly right-wing as Scalia or Pickering to any court.

Democratic/liberalish judges cannot save the country from Repuglican ruin, but they can hold the fort on important issues until progressive forces regain control. For this reason alone, I ask all of you to vote Democatic in November, whoever the nominee may be.


Amanda

[lastliberalintexas]

162. Not appoint, but they will confirm!

Maybe we would have been able to have that liberal majority on the Court if the DEMS who controlled the Senate had voted against the confirmations of Scalia and Thomas. A repub president nominated them, but a DEM controlled Senate confirmed them.

So tell me again why I should become one of the lemmings blindly following my party off a cliff? Because even this argument no longer holds water.


And btw, I am an attorney who fully recognizes the importance of the federal judiciary. But again, it has been the DEM controlled Senates who have rubber stamped almost every single nominee of Reagan, Bush I and Shrub. We only lost the Senate after 2002, so the appointments prior to that were approved by my very own party! It's ridiculous to say that Dems are our last hope for the courts, given our track record over the last 20 years.

[NashVegas]

41. If Kerry Is Nominated

He'll have my vote.

[maddezmom]

43. again for the record, I will vote for the Democratic Nominee

:)

[nancyharris]

44. Anyone not willing to vote for the Democratic candidate

(whoever that might be) is not a Democrat. None of the candidates would condone such actions on the part of their supporters.

[bowens43]

99. This post shows that

you know very little about Democrats. Are you a 'New Democrat'?

[Crunchy Frog]

47. I will vote for Kerry

in a heartbeat. Having said that, I continue to be very dubious about his chances in the general election.

[NoPasaran]

49. The only way to get rid of Bush

The only way to get rid of Bush is to elect the Democratic nominee. Whoever doesn't want to make that happen is only playing at politics.

[zoeyfong]

89. Does the democratic party stand *for* anything, or just against bush?

It is time to start thinking in the long term, and building a party platform that is worth voting for. I am as practical as the next person, and most of the time I will take a half of a loaf over no loaf at all, but when one of our own closes his eyes and lends his support to an unnecessary war that has cost America the most military casualties since vietnam, that is where i draw the line. What the 'Kerry's electable' crowd don't get is that for every vote kerry picks up in the middle (and frankly i don't think it will be very many) he will lose votes among anti-war democrats. Does anybody remember the world-wide protests leading up to the war? Sentiment against the war is much more intense than support for the war, and it is a big mistake if kerry voters assume that Kerry can count on universal democratic support in the GE.

[bowens43]

100. Apparently it doesn't .

When the battle cry is ABB , you know that winning is all that matters. There are people here and elsewhere in the party who would gladly have drafted Ashcroft or Cheney if they thought they could get them. There is no place for principle in this election. Personally , I have no problem with Kerry and will vote for him if he gets the nomination but I have no respect for the ABB attitude, because they really mean ANYBODY.

[Forkboy]

154. "Vote Dem....we're not quite as bad as Bush!!!!"

A winning motto if ever I heard one :eyes:

[NashVegas]

160. I Think It's Quite The Opposite

I'm more interested in good governance. If the Democratic Party fails to support the most qualified candidate to govern America, in favor of the guy who fits the Johnny Bravo suit, that's playing at politics.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

50. we need 600 votes on this

We need to see how warped people are here.

[Vis Numar]

53. nothing from kerry from me

no support, and certainly not my vote. I will likely vote Green, if Nader isn't on the ticket, or libertarian. I had no problem voting for Ron Paul in 1984 the for the inept Dukakis, and would do the same for the Lt Gov of Dukakis.

[Vis Numar]

55. Let me just add

I would vote for Dean, Clark, or Edwards, and support their candidacy. I am fully ABK, all the way, and I am not alone. I would rather see the Dem party in the wilderness for 4 more years, and elect a great president, then elect someone like Kerry.

[Hippo_Tron]

59. What makes you think that we will win in 2008?

What if the GOP nominates a candidate in 2008 who is much stronger than Bush. We will be stuck with another 8 or more years of neocon control. The GOP may not have such a vulnerable administration ever again and that is why we need to outst them while we can. BTW If you would support Edwards your reasoning for being ABK is not IWR so what is it?

[Vis Numar]

74. I just cant stand the guy

I don't want to listen/look at him for the next four years, he seems like a self-centered prick; and besides that, he has been mean to Dean.

[sleipnir]

156. That seems to be a common sentiment here on DU

Not sure if it's reflective in the "national" picture, but it sure is an odd situation we've got ourselves into here, at DU...

Kerry's hitjobs on Dean have soured a lot of people and I'm not sure they are ever going to return to support Kerry in the Fall.

[mandyky]

56. I will not vote for anyone who voted for the IWR

Listening to Scott Ritter this morning on CSpan really opened my eyes, and I am not totally anti-war. I live in KY, a red state, so I can stay home or write in my choice, and it won''t matter a whit.

[Hippo_Tron]

57. I'm sorry but I'm fed up with this...

Then no matter how far left or how far right your politics are you would vote for the nominee if for no other reason than they are the lesser of the two evils. No matter how much stuff you can dig up on Kerry or Dean or Edwards etc. about being hypocritical or corrupt or whatever, THEY ARE STILL BETTER THAN BUSH! They will all do a much better job of funding social programs, their foreign policy will not be dictated by PNAC, and they will not implement the draft. If these are not positive enough developments for you then you deserve what you get, a country ruled by a fascist neocon.

[oxymoron]

62. Hear, Hear!

My sentiments exactly.

[Pithlet]

75. I agree.

Completely.

[zoeyfong]

90. It is not simply a matter of the lesser of two evils.

The long term future of america and the democratic party must be considered. Besides that, given that the congress is likely to stay republican, and given kerry's inability to stand up to republican majorities, real or perceived, I don't see that he will be that much different than bush. All he will do is drag down the reputation of the democratic party. That is not good for anybody (except rich republicans.)

[LandOLincoln]

111. You got it! The thought of the Supreme Court appointees alone is

enough to make be firmly ABB, along with my concern about the environment. I can't f**king believe anyone who posts on this board can be so shortsighted as to put their "conscience" against practical political realities.

Oh yeah, I forgot 1968, 1972, 2000...thanks, guys, your "consciences" have given us Tricky, Tricky and the Shrub, the vile little liar and panderer who makes Tricky look downright liberal. 'Preciate it. Honest.

[Hippo_Tron]

139. Jeezus I wasn't even thinking about the Supreme Court nominees...

I'm starting a new thread on this.

[joshcryer]

61. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR KERRY BECAUSE HE'S NOT...

NECESSARILY THE NOMINEE. HOW HARD IS THAT FOR PEOPLE TO GRASP? It would be stupid for me to say "I will vote for Kerry in Nov." and him not be the nominee, huh?

FRAME THE QUESTION APPROPRIATELY. "Will you vote for the DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE come Nov?"

FUCKING FLAMEBAIT. SHIT! I'm pissed.

[mb7588a]

64. Amazing how easily people can make

Kerry seem worse than Bush, isn't it?

Must take some nerve. :P

[fujiyama]

65. Why the hell do we need these?

These "oaths" are FUCKING STUPID!

November is a LONG WAY OFF. Kerry may end up kicking ass in the polls in October, or he could be behind Bush by 25 points. It doesn't matter at this point...Then again, Kerry may not even be running against Bush. It could be Edwards, possibly Clark, or less likely, Dean.

If people are going to vote for a candidate, they'll vote for a damn candidate. Kerry is a seasoned politician. He should find a way to appeal to many different types of voters.

As for those living a swing state, that don't vote for the democratic nominee in the fall , they obviously don't care who's elected. That's their pejorgative.

[Doomsayer13]

66. I will gladly vote for John Kerry

you couldn't get me to mark my ballot fast enough

[jonnyblitz]

68. I don't think anybody will need to twist my arm.

If he is the DEM candidate of course I will vote for him.

[mzmolly]

69. I wont vote for Mr. Kerry if he is behind the Osama ads, as they could

have damaged our long term party goals...

[corporatewhore]

71. I am sick and tired of Lame ass excuses

a weak cannidate who wont stand up against bush will lose against bush (sniffle sniffle) it will all be naders fault cause he will challenge his record that he was responsible for

[LWolf]

72. Let's just clarify that statement:

"I will vote for Kerry IF he happens to be the democratic nominee in November."

[Skip Intro]

73. you presume Kerry will be the nominee

I don't accept that presumption.

:D

[frustrated_lefty]

76. Well, after this poll

he's clearly qualified to run as a "uniter and not a divider." :silly:

[fabius]

77. Some of you folks may change your minds

I'm not encouraged by the "No votes". Personally I would even vote for Lieberman over Bu$h* but that won't happen. Joe-mentum notwithstanding. I expect you folks to change your minds by Nov., even fellow Deaniacs.

[Edge]

78. ABB.

I'm ashamed a number of people put "No" as their answer! So, to those who put no, would you like another four years of Dubya in office? If you don't vote, that's what'll happen.

I just can't believe this. Grow up. :eyes:

[AlinPA]

138. I agree. ABB.

[mikehiggins]

79. I will vote for the Democratic nominee

even if he is HAMM!

ABB RULES, DUDE!

EEEEAAAARRRGGGGHHHHH

[jeter]

80. Anyone who doesn't vote for the Dem

Is essentially voting for Bush. I'm sick of convincing people. Vote for Bush - or the equivilant - if you want. I'd vote for Kerry or anyone else running against Bush.

Okay, so your candidate didn't (won't) win. Mine didn't either. Now it's time to grow up.

Get with the program. Bush is the enemy.

[zoeyfong]

91. The enemy is us, as well as bush, IMO.

[frustrated_lefty]

81. One of those evil bastages who said "no" to Kerry

I won't vote for Bush, I might even waffle and vote for Kerry at the last minute just because Bush is SO bad.

What my wife and I are talking about is my applying for jobs in Europe and Canada if the election turns badly. We want change in this country, in our government. Not a makeover. Change.

Bush vs. Kerry doesn't seem to offer that potential. If it comes down to that choice, what we'll do is move to a nation with a decent primary education system and a decent health care system. I have 3 kids and do not have decades to spend fixing what is wrong in our country.

We home school because we strongly feel there is so much wrong with the public educational system in our country. We want at least a hint of genuine change to come. And neither of us trust Kerry to bring that.

If you want to vilify me for that, go right ahead. In the greater scheme of things, my decision is based solely on what is best for my kids. If that means leaving my country, it will hurt, but those are my priorities.

[gauguin57]

85. ok, go ahead

Go ahead, all of you who don't think Kerry is the best nominee for the Democrats. Go ahead and vote for George W. Bush. Or vote for the Green Party candidate, or someone else who can't POSSIBLY F***ING WIN, and then STICK all the rest of us with four more years of a fascist dictator.

Go right ahead. See to it that the environment is ruined, that the country is bankrupted and that the ultra-con Fundies take over our lives. You won't be able to leave your house without baptizing yourself with Crisco (a la Ashcroft), you'll have the Ten Commandments tattooed on your asses and you won't have a job.

And you WILL be paying my moving expenses when I head for Canada or New Zealand. You WILL.

Haven't you all learned ANYTHING from the Nader debacle? When the election's close, you can't afford to wait around for perfection. WHATEVER Democrat is better than Bush.

If you're not down with ABB, then you can kiss my :kick:

[quaker bill]

110. To avoid the rush

Start shopping around when Kerry gets the nomination. I plan to.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

142. Found anyone interesting?

I'm looking at Norma Salzman but am willing to trade up.

[LandOLincoln]

113. Hear hear!! It's good to know there are some likeminded people on this

board. BTW, it's Canada for me--or maybe (eventually) back to my mother's people in Lincolnshire.

Although it's true that the very existence of a strong, principled and fearless man like Wes Clark makes me want to stay and fight these bastards to the bitter end.

I don't have young children, BTW, or I'm sure I'd feel exactly as you do.

[Melinda]

87. This has been an interesting thread, a good read.

Thanks for that. :hi:

[OneBlueSky]

88. Democrats who won't vote for Kerry if he's the nominee . . .

a) don't understand politics, and/or b) are just plain stupid . . . imho . . .

[bowens43]

101. It seems that you don't understand Democrats.

We're not freepers or bushbot clones, we actually think that there are some things more important to our party and our country then a win in any single election.

[kerryistheanswer]

92. There are too many bitter people on DU

Where is the positive energy? Why are we always so critical of each other. This board has gotten really sick with lots of really angry posts.

To continue the trend, I'd like to say "F$CK You" to all those who voted NO. I'll be moving to Canada if we have four more years of that asshole.

[Piperay]

94. I have no problem voting for Kerry

if he gets the nomination, I will vote for ANY Democrat that gets the nomination.

[CWebster]

95. No, and the more I see and hear him, an emphatic no

Anyone catch the C-Span candidates forum from South Carolina yesterday? How nice of them not to ask Kerry any real hardball questions about poverty, considering his advocacy of welfare reform as something to brag about. Nice easy lead ins to blabber on about Viet Nam.

Looks like Kerry has a problem suring up the progressive base---which is why they have to blast ABB from the ramparts.

Then again, the speculation is they intend to set up this election to lose, assuring Hillary a clear run in '08. If it came to pass and Hillary ran in '08, would you vote for her? ABB..Now, there is a poll.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

103. While Kerry chases "moderates" the liberals leave.

I'm one of them who will not vote for Kerry because of his IWAR vote, the other things I could hold my nose for. Not that.

[Lost4words]

104. Kerry really spoke out 'bout the junta didnt he.

or the stolen election. Oh Yea he IS a great Dont Make Waves Guy.

I think he is better than Bush but thats all I can say for him. I'm still not sure I can vote for another business as usual democrat who rolled out the red carpet for an unelected imbecile. But in the Southern and Repuklikan tradition I will entertain the notion for a small donation to my families unemployment fund.

Excited about a Kerry candidacy, not at this household.

[MaineDem]

105. As much as I love DU...

It gives me great comfort to know that DU does not equal real world.

[Lost4words]

106. I'll vote for Kerry over * but I dont think its a vote for change. n/t

[0rganism]

107. Very worrisome -- I figured No would rack up 20% at most, here at DU

What the hell? Kerry isn't THAT lame. He'd be light years ahead of bush. He's not frickin' Lieberman.

If Kerry wins the nom, I want to revisit this poll after he debates bush. You "No" guys will see them onstage together (yes, they're both "bonesmen", yada yada) and I just betcha half of you are going to change your tune.

You'd better, or we're in serious trouble.

[sleipnir]

115. Yeah, I'm kinda shocked at the results, too...

But that's why I decided to post the poll, to see the level of support vs opposition. I don't think this is a good sign for kerry, I do think it will change, but how much? Who can say, we'll see about it, I do think there will probably still be at 10-15% on DU who refuse to vote for Kerry even as late as October. But, that's just my thoughts.

[mitchum]

144. DU is not the real world or electorate...

so all of the "I don't think this is a good sign for Kerry" nonsense is just that. Correction: bitter nonsense.

ABB

[jpgpenn]

108. more then 1/3, that says alot!

[kstewart33]

112. Voting for Howard Dean would be difficult

But I would do it if he were our nominee. Because ANY Dem is better than Bush.

I am appalled at the 30% or so who refuse to vote for Kerry if he is the nominee. You want to know why the Dems continue to be thrashed and outmaneuvered in elections by the Repubs? The answer lies in the results of this poll. Say what you want about the Repubs but they win elections because they are united behind their candidate.

It's too bad, beyond pathetic, that we are not.

If you vote for Bush either by pulling his lever or by not voting, fine. But never again complain about the guy. Because you will have helped put him in the White House. He's there because of your support.

[texasmom]

116. Kerry has my vote if he's the nominee.

It's a no-brainer. I just hope we have a different choice at the top of the ticket. I think we can field a stronger candidate, but that's just my opinion.
I've never abstained from an election, and this year is far too important an election to do so. There's no way I wouldn't vote for our nominee. No way!

[funky_bug]

118. I refuse to vote in this poll

The democratic candidates have the majority of the democratic vote. As a matter of fact, the strong democrats would vote for a triscuit and a wheel of moldy cheese over GWB (as a previous poll showed.) Those who express concern over the possible nomination of Kerry are not worried about whether or not he'll get their vote... they're worried about where the votes of the Independant and Republican voters will go.

I hate what GWB has done to my country, and I want him out. There are those factions of America who may not feel the same way. Those who have no passion in any direction toward Bush may not feel inspired by Kerry's message, and will either abstain from voting, or vote for Bush. Those who love him will vote for him either way. Those who don't like him, but don't think the democratic nominee has anything inspiring to offer, may just decide to lay their vote at the feet of someone who at least has four years of experience, rather than take their chances on someone who will have to start all over.

This poll, I suspect, has been intentionally "freeped" in protest. The point - no more loyalty oaths.

[jsw_81]

120. I can't believe any Democrat would refuse to support our nominee

Grow up, people. This race isn't about "supporting my man Dean to the bitter end" or "anybody but Kerry," it's about defeating George Bush so we can enact a reasonable foreign policy that doesn't result in hundreds of young Americans coming home from Iraq in caskets; it's about getting rid of these ridiculous tax cuts for the rich; it's about protecting our precious environment; it's about defending a woman's right to choose; it's about defending gays and lesbians from conservatives who literally want them thrown in prison; and it's about upholding the wall separation of between church and state that fanatical fundy Republicans are currently trying to destroy brick by brick. Not to mention the CRUCIAL Supreme Court nominations that could literally shape this country for the next forty or fifty years.

If you still refuse to vote for Kerry after all of that, then I don't know what to say. Do really you care more about Howard Dean or Wes Clark (or whoever) than about taking back the White House in November? If so, that's pretty sad.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[funky_bug]

129. Well put

My vote will be a vote against Bush. Thanks... that will defintely help me sleep better at night after bubbling in Kerry. At least I can spin it in a way that won't make me cry.

[mermaid]

130. Thanks

No problem. Always glad to help.

Remember, if a guy you can't stand wins the nomination, you can still console yourself with the knowledge that you are not voting FOR the guy you hate...but voting AGAINST the guy we ALL really hate.

[ShaneGR]

133. I would vote for Dean, even though I'm not a Dean supporter

And I don't understand the kind of person who would help Bush win.

So there.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

143. Oh cut it out. Kerry has been standing up for gays forever

Getting a Democrat in is so important I would even vote for the volatile Dean.

[mermaid]

147. Yes...But Not For TRANSGENDER PEOPLE!!

You don't get it, do you?? THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GAY PEOPLE AND TRANSGENDER PEOPLE!!

And the differnce is incredible! Transgender people need this protection far more than gays do. You can HIDE the fact that yiu are gay. not that you should have to, BUT YOU CAN!!!
No one keeps a record of the fact that you are gay!
But, when you apply for a job, this involeves a background check, former employer/reference check, social-security number check, credit report check, and COMPULSORY DIVULGING OF ALL FORMER NAMES USED!!

It does NOT take a rocket sceintist to figure out what is going on when Job Candidate Cindy lists she was once known as Frederick! IF YOU ARE TRANSGENDER...YOU CANNOT HIDE THAT FACT FROM POTENTIAL EMPLOYERS!!

If you are gay...YOU CAN!! You shouldn't HAVE to...BUT YOU CAN!!

Transgender people do not have the luxury of being able to hide.

Why don't you get it YET????

[mermaid]

148. And HERE is the PROOF Kerry Does NOT Support TRANSGENDER PELOPLE!!

You will notice only ONE of the remaining Democratic Nominees OPPOSE a transgender-inclusive ENDA. Betcha can't guess which one!!

Subject:
2004 Presidential candidates positions on a trans-inclusive ENDA

< Double-click this line for list subscription options >

1a. As president, would you support and work for passage of a federal bill that outlawed discrimination in the workplace based on gender identity and expression?

CLARK: SUPPORT
Comments: All Americans should be treated with equality and dignity. I would work to enact the Employment Non-Discrimination Act now stalled in Congress.

DEAN: SUPPORT
Comments: As President, I will fight for enactment of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to remedy this gap in federal law.

EDWARDS:
Comments: I believe discrimination is wrong. I am an original
cosponsor of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which prohibits
discrimination based on real or perceived sexual orientation.

KERRY: OPPOSE
Comments: I oppose discrimination of all kinds and my office policy
prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on gender identity and
expression. I believe that we should focus efforts on getting ENDA
passed and signed into law, and I am concerned that adding gender
identity and expression to the ENDA legislation is likely to
significantly hinder that effort.

KUCINICH: SUPPORT
Comments: In May of 2000 Representative Kucinich signed a Gender
Public Advocacy Coalition pledge to publicly affirm that an
individual's gender expression or identity is not a consideration in
the hiring, promoting, or terminating of an employee in his office.
Mr. Kucinich reaffirmed this pledge in March of 2003.

LIEBERMAN: UNDECIDED
Comments: I do not believe that gay men or lesbians should be
discriminated against simply because they do not precisely meet
society's traditional stereotypes of how men or women should behave or
appear. I would support a law making clear that the ban on sexual
orientation-based discrimination cannot be evaded by claiming that,
for example, a man was fired not for being gay but for being
effeminate. As an employer myself, I have taken a pledge not to
discriminate in this way, and would follow through with this pledge as
president.

As for the broader category of gender identity, I am now studying it and have pledged to work with ENDA's other cosponsors to explore the issue and whether and the extent to which federal law should address it.

SHARPTON: SUPPORT
Comments: No American should be discriminated against on their job
because of sexual orientation.

Source: HRC's web site:
http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Campaigns_a
nd_Elections/Presidential_Candidates/Questionnaire_Responses/2004_Pres
idential_Questionnaire_Responses.htm



_______________________________________________
Trans-News mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.tgender.net/mailman/listinfo/trans-news

Oh, and by the way, the bolds and italics are mine. And if you read, iin particular, Edwards' comments, you will understand why I started out an Edwards supporter. The only reason I ended up a Dean supporter is because his anger at the rape of this country attracted me. If Dean drop out, I'm back in Edwards camp. As it is now, I'm pulling for a Dean/Edwards ticket. Or Edwards/Dean would be fine, too! I have long stated Edwards was my second choice. Dean became my number one only because he shared my point of view more closely on other issues, and still supported an inclusive ENDA.

In fact, ALL the candidates did...EXCEPT KERRY!!!
And this is why I do not like Kerry, and will never support him! My vote in November will be against Bush...not FOR Kerry, if he ends up the nominee. He wants to divide the gay and transgender communities, and force transgenders to take seats on the back on the bus!!
Screw that, we have sat on the back of the bus long enough!!!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

183. That's not proof. He just recognizes it would create controversy

where there need be none.
Kerry would absolutely support the rights of any human being no matter their identity or orientation.

[mermaid]

190. He STILL Oppses Equal Rights For Some People

And it is in his iwn words.
He wishes to make transgender people sit on the back of the civil rights bus, and he says so. why won't you acknowledge that basic fact?
His words say it all. What would you accept as proof then, that Kerry is firmly against transgender people, if not the very words fromo his own mouth, on his reply to a questionnaire sent out by HRC?

I documented and sourced where I got this from, and this is the actual answer John Kerry gave.

Now, how does his answer not translate into denying basic rights to not have to fear employment discrimination if you are transgender?

Please explain. I fail to follow why you think this is not proof.

Oh, and just by the way...since WHEN have civil rights for ANY oppressed minority NOT created controversy? Since when did we support linguine-spined politicains who will not stand up for the rights of oppressed people?

That does not seem to be the tradition of the Democratic Party, or the Democratic voter. At least not the Democratic Party I grew up with!

[library_max]

181. I'm supporting Kerry.

But I would be proud and happy to vote for Howard Dean in the general election should he win the nomination.

I don't see what good it does to attack candidates or their supporters like that. If Dean gets the nomination, you'll be wanting our support, right? Dean can't win without it. So why spit on us and rant about how much you hate us and the candidates we prefer?

[mermaid]

191. But I'm NOT doing What You Say I am....

I am NOT spitting on YOU...nor do I hate you. I never said that. Point out where I said that. I didn't.

I, on the other hand, have very clearly stated, for the record, my dilike and contempt for KERRY'S POSITION ON THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE...and the reasons why I feel that way. AND, BECAUSE OF HIS POSITION ON THIS ISSUE, I WILL NEVER SUPPORT HIM!! Believe me, if YOU ever faced job discrimination because YOU were transgendered, you would feel the same way as I do.

I believe my reasons are entirely valid.

I never said I hated you, I never said I hated people who supported him, I never spit on you or anyone else who supported him.

I have only attacked Kerry's position, justifiably, in my opinion, based on his record, and the very words from his own mouth, which I have documented and sourced. They came from an official questionnaire that Kerry answered for the HRC (The Human Rights Campaign) and I documented exactly where on their website you could find the same information for yourself.

How is pointing out the reason WHY I have such a dislike of Kerry'S POSITION (and backing up my assertions) ... how is that spiiting on YOU...or saying I hate you? I never said that.

And I want that made very clear.
I'll thank you in advance for allowing me to clear up this particular point...

I DO NOT HATE KERRY SUPPORTERS....BUT I DO HATE KERRY'S STANCE ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE!!! AND, BECAUSE OF HIS STANCE ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE, JOHN KERRY WILL NEVERGET MY SUPPORT!! WHY SHOULD I SUPPORT HIM?? HE DOES NOT SUPPORT ME OR MY PEOPLE IN THE VERY MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN OUR LIVES!!

[freetempe]

128. your argument lost all credability for me at...

"so we can enact a reasonable foreign policy that doesn't result in hundreds of young Americans coming home from Iraq in caskets."

If your man was for such a reasonable foreign policy, why did he vote to authorize the war which is bringing Americans home in caskets????

[Rhiannon12866]

121. I will vote for whomever gets the nomination. Period.

I can't imagine anyone else on DU who doesn't feel this way. Isn't that what we're all about?:shrug:

[Piperay]

122. Disgusting

that over half here say they wouldn't vote for Kerry. :wtf:

[corporatewhore]

136. how so i think its disgusting that some one would votefor a bush enabler

[Piperay]

150. Disgusting because

any vote that doesn't go to the Democratic nominee helps the chimp get another 4 years. :puke:

[Hippo_Tron]

141. Again my theory is that at least 60% of those are lurking freepers n/t

[Democat]

149. Freepers or Greens?

When it came to election time 2000, they both helped Bush.

[mermaid]

125. I Did Not Put My Vote In The Poll

It would mess up the results. My vote in November will be for the Dem candidate, whoever it is. But, unless that guy is Dean...my vote is NOT a vote FOR the Democrat...but a ote AGAIST Bush...therefore, I am not voting FOR Kerry, in November or ever.

If Kerry is the Dem Nominee, he gets my vote in November, but only by default. It is not because I am voting FOR Kerry...but because I am voting AGAINST Bush!

And I want that to be crystal-clear.

See my other anti-Kerry rants to know why I feel so strongly against Kerry.

[corporatewhore]

135. NAFTA, IWR ,NONONONONONONONONONO

[ButterflyBlood]

137. I will vote for Kerry if he is the nominee.

n/t

[NNN0LHI]

140. I will vote for Kerry, Lieberman, Dean, or any of the Dem candidates

And I will be damn proud of my vote too.

Don

[mtlipsc]

157. Invalid poll. Is broken?

I was told I cannot vote. I got this: Sorry, only users who were already registered before the poll was started may vote.

I WAS registered before the poll was started. The top of my confirmation message says:

From: <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Forum Registration Information
Date: Saturday, January 31, 2004 6:08 PM

[Skinner]

167. You registered on January 31.

The poll is dated January 30.

Welcome to DU. ;-)

Skinner
DU Admin

[Bonobo]

158. I admit it.

I hate these slanted polls and so I wanted to further slant it.

He will have my reluctant vote in the GE.

[Hep]

161. I voted no, but take comfort

I will be voting straight ticket. That way I can support my party without selling my sould by putting a mark next to Bush-Lite.

That's assuming Dean doesn't get the nomination, an end to which I still fight.

[jansu]

163. Need a third option....

I will feel dirty if my choice is Bush or Kerry. But, I will vote for ABB. How about the third question being, "I will vote for Kerry, but only under the ABB rule"? I wonder what the numbers would be with that third question. I am new to this, and don't know how to do my own poll. Could someone direct me to the page to find out and I will post this one? Thanks!

[sendero]

169. I will vore for the Dem nominee...

... whoever it is. I personally don't think Mr. Kerry is anything other than another "me-too" politician, but then anything is better than the Dim Son.

[ulysses]

170. dear god, surely no one would be ABK!

No one in their right mind would gang up on *my* candidate like that!

:eyes:

For the record, I'll vote for Kerry if he wins the nom. At least for now.

[nonconformist]

171. Anybody But Bush

I'm a Dean supporter, although I like several of the candidates (any of them would be better than Bush) and you'd be hard pressed to find me trashing any of them.

Admittedly, Kerry's always been low on my list and I'm not entirely convinced yet that he is as 'electable' as people keep saying he is over people like Dean and Clark - but there is absolutely NO DOUBT IN MY MIND WHATSOEVER that my November vote will go to the person with the (D) after their name. Period.

For everyone who says they wouldn't vote for (fill in the blank) if they happen to get the nomination - how can you call yourself a Democrat? This is NOT the time for that stuff. Vote your heart in the primaries, but in the 2004 Presidential Election vote your head. It's never been so important to do so. If the nominee doesn't inspire you, imagine 4 more years of Bush and let that be your inspiration.

[flaminbats]

174. Is this a test or an interrogation?

A quest for knowledge...or just another witch hunt?

[creativelcro]

184. Whoo HO! I knew I was not alone!!!

[ibegurpard]

189. I voted "not"

If Kerry's the nominee, it's most likely he'll get my vote, although I'll have to take a puke bucket with me to the polls. I voted "not" just because these stupid loyalty oaths and polls piss me off.

[sleipnir]

192. Thanks for all the votes

I think I probably got everyone who even occasionally shows up in GD:2004 to vote in the poll. Now, we'll just see how things have changed in a couple of months, more like towards the beginning of Summer. Humm..very intriquing results, I'll say.

[0007]

193. Wow, an almost 3 to 2 spread

I think this has been freeped. No way in hell I believe all these posters are DUers.

[Skinner]

196. I'm locking this.

I think we've discussed this long enough.

Skinner
DU Admin