"I'll vote for the nominee, because anyone's better than Bush"

[Mairead]

There seems to me to be something deeply flawed about the thinking behind statements like this (I was motivated to write by the one I read only moments ago here, from which I took my headline almost word for word).

To me, saying 'I'll vote for the nominee, because anyone's better than Bush' seems as unthoughtful as an unemployed person saying 'I'll take whichever of the six jobs has the best title and is pushed at me hardest. I won't ask about pay or working conditions, because any of the ones I'm being offered is better than staying unemployed.'

Do you see my point?

It's framed as being a binary choice (job vs no job), but that's not really the kind of choice it is. There are important differences between the jobs, and there's no reason not to take them into account.

Whose interest is being served if you're persuaded to treat the jobs as equivalent?

[SeveneightyWhoa]

1. So you're saying one or more of the six Dems left..

..is worse than Bush?

You have a major problem.

[Mairead]

28. No, I'm not. How did you manage to misread it so badly?

[HereSince1628]

2. I'll vote for a democrat even if I have to write one in!

[childslibrarian]

3. You know this

was the problem in 2000. There is no difference between the candidates...Guess what, that theory was sooooo wrong...

[Frances]

6. Tell the families of the 500 plus Americans who have died

in Iraq that there is no difference between Bush and Gore.

[Catch22Dem]

17. You're exactly right!

I'd love the morons who said there was no difference between Bush and Gore to tell me what they're thinking now. These are the ones who invaded DU in 2000. There used to be huge Green vs. Dem debates here back in those days. Haven't seen any of that lately, but I'm catching a whiff of that shit in the air.

I'm tellin' ya right now, if "insert candidate name here" is the nominee and you plan on voting for someone else, I'll consider you a disrupter here on DU.

[displacedtexan]

21. Man, you've nailed it!

This 'my candidate or the highway' attitude will guarantee us 4 more years of this long national nightmare.

[lancdem]

4. There's nothing flawed about it

Do you really think any of the Dems aren't better than Bush? It is a binary choice. Bush or the Dem nominee. Period.

[rucky]

5. When you're unemployed, every day is like an election year.

With *, we're stuck with him for 4.

[janx]

7. Mairead, I agree with you. Thanks for raising this point.

Getting rid of Bush is most important, yes, but there are also other considerations. I'm not very happy at seeing politics as usual all over the tube--Kerry and Geppy hugging eachother, etc.

Man. It reeks.

[INTELBYTES]

8. Very valid point!

I've always thought what a bunch of goons it makes us look like blindly saying we will vote for "anybody". How can that be good for our party? How does it make us look to independents looking for an "intelligent" choice for a party? Like I've said in a previous post, I'm ABB in spirit, but I'll not just vote for anyone. (I'm ABK also!)

[Maddy McCall]

11. We are on the precipice of national, if not international, crisis if Bush

is reelected.

Knowing that, I will cast my vote for any Democrat of the present field.

I'm very comfortable with my decision.

[Dogmudgeon]

9. All-or-Nothing?

There's only one place where you have a "binary" choice: Whether or not to choose Bush as the President.

If you vote for a Democrat who isn't to your liking, you think you have nothing. That just ain't so.

"Your guy" is going to be much more receptive to your issues than Bush ever will. So after the election, if Bush is out, you have improved your access tremendously.

Social change and justice are won one battle at a time. Insisting on perfection will just increase cynicism -- and the chance that Bush will win.

--bkl

[Maddy McCall]

10. I'll vote for the nominee, because any of the present Dem candidates

is MUCH BETTER THAN BUSH.

Why is that so hard to understand?

I will vote for the Dem nominee, because the past four years under Bush have been HELL for this nation, and none of the present field will govern with the conservative zeal with which Bush has governed.

Bush is the worst president in the history of this nation. I will vote for any Democrat of the present field to see his ass removed from power.

It's really not that controversial of a position.

Your comparison re employment is ridiculous. You are saying that ABBers at DU are brainless party zombies. In truth, I know the platform of every Dem candidate, as well as the history of each, and I am completely comfortable with casting my vote for any of them.

[Kanary]

49. Why? I'll tell you WHY it's so hard to understand, if you'll listen...

Because there are some so-called Dems who will do what Clinton did, and vote for cutbacks for the poor. Some of us won't survive any more cutbacks. It matters not to us whether it was a Dem or Rep who cut us off... we're just as dead. Dead is dead.

So, my question is... Why are there so many here who can't grasp THAT simple idea?

Kanary

[Maddy McCall]

51. Kanary, I agree with you. "Welfare Reform" was the most despicable

legislation Clinton signed. At least in my opinion. It left a bitter taste in my mouth in 96, and I even considered voting for Bradley in the primary just because of Clinton's opportunistic betrayal of his constituency. He knew if he didn't sign it, he would lose a lot of his swing voters who bitched and whined about the mythologized "Welfare Queen."

Still, though, Bush has taken Welfare Reform and made it EVEN WORSE than when Clinton signed it. Under Clinton, college was a work-related activity that fulfilled mandatory work requirements for TANF recipients.

Under BUSH, however, college is no longer a work-related activity. If you want to go to college, fine, but you had better be working 36 hours a week in a "real job" while you are in college. And any parent (most TANF recipients are parents--most single-parents) who is enrolled in college will tell you, working a full-time job while attending college full-time means that you probably will drop out of college.

Under Clinton, if you went to college full-time and did a few hours of work-study, you were considered in compliance with the JOBS welfare requirements. Under Bush, women are picking up garbage on county roads--this is now considered job training!!

In other words, Clinton had problems, but in NO WAY was he as terrible a president as Bush has been. We will have to elect another center-Dem candidate because whomever our nominee is will have to appeal to middle America-the majority of the electorate. And I will take a centrist Dem over a zealous Republican bigot any day.

Just like the 19th amendment--until the majority of Americans demonstrated the desire for the ratification of the amendment, the amendment would not pass. It took a century and a half to bring the majority of Americans to support the amendment. We can't expect mainstream America to accept our leftist ideology just because we feel we are morally superior to the "sheeple" (and god how I detest that word).

We won't have a liberal, leftist president until America wants one. Until then, we have to swing like a pendulum back from the right, to the center, and hopefully to the left in the near future.

A truly leftist candidate is not going to be possible this election, through. But if we can elect a Democratic president who can demonstrate to Americans that "Democrat" is NOT a dirty word (like O'Reilly, Hannity, Scarborough, and the rest of the zealot chorus claims), perhaps we can slowly swing that pendulum back to the left, so that middle American can see the Democratic positives and possibilities. Then, maybe THEN we can elect a true leftist Democrat--and I would LOVE to see that be Dennis.

I completely concur with what you said about Clinton. But Bush has been horrible, and whatever you want to blame Clinton for, Bush has been the most conservative, nastiest, hateful man to ever occupy the office. And he has pulled Middle America along in his wake.

Middle America is waking up. I want them to join us. I want them to vote with us. Eventually, maybe they will see the good of the core values of our party, and things will proceed to the left.

I hope you see that I invested time and thought in responding to you. Please don't rip up what I have said--I hope you will respond, though. I appreciate you engaging me in a discussion that is not hostile, and is truly aimed at understanding our differences and our similarities.

:-)

[RichM]

12. Part of being a Democrat is being unable to understand the logic here.

You're absolutely right - but don't expect a bunch of Democrats to be able to see it. People on this web site, for example, still can't discuss Nader and the Greens rationally. It's just no use arguing with them; reason & explanation won't help. :shrug:

It's like trying to explain to a little child why (s)he shouldn't be allowed to do something he wants to do. Maybe one kid in 30 will see your point; the rest will just throw temper tantrums.

[gate of the sun]

32. very well said

as we are seeing all over this board right now. There are the people who are looking at this issue with real thoughtfulness about what we are doing.

The other's are just whinning anyone but bush.

[w4rma]

13. You vote for the nominee, because the primary is supposed to nominate

someone that enough of use can vote for to get someone we somewhat agree with elected in the general election.

[NashVegas]

15. No, Not Really

The primaries are there so the people who really decide who's going to be the nominee will have time to convince the rest of us that we're the ones making the decision.

It's time the pretense stopped and they return it to the smoke-filled rooms. Those of us who see the game for what it really is are tired of being jerked around.

[genius]

14. We need to stick together. I'm hoping Kucinich emerges but

if it's Kerry or Edwards or Clark, they are definitely better than Bush. Dean's so inconsistent. I don't know which Dean would take office if he were elected. Fortunately Dean's probably out. Kucinich has a good shot if the convention is brokered.

[polmaven]

16. Your analogy is flawed because

by the time the Democratic Convention is over, and a nominee is chosen, the number of jobs being offered will be only two.

One will be the one you have now, except it will pay less than you are getting now, because the company is going broke, and the working conditions will be brutal and dangerous. The retirement benefits, if you make it that far, will be cut in half.

The other will offer higher pay, safe working conditions, freedom from workplace conditions and will allow you to plan for your retirement. The work may not always be exactly what you want to do, but, what job always offers 100% satisfaction.

[Catch22Dem]

20. You nailed it!

perfect

[A J]

18. General election day is not the time to change the Democratic...

... party. To think otherwise is selfish. Trying to change the Democratic Party by not-voting or voting against the nominee is like deciding that your team's game-plan is wrong, and therefore intentionally running all the wrong plays (or all the plays you like) IN THE SUPER BOWL.

It is nothing short of sabotage and I will not have anything to do with it.

I will be voting for the democratic nominee, no matter who it is.

[displacedtexan]

24. Excellent point!

Join your local party and get a seat on the board if you really want change. Thinking that you can affect the party at the national level is just not possible. Change is a bottom-up deal.

[A J]

26. Exactly!

Grassroots action can not only exist within the party, it can thrive there. Think of how the party has changed over the years, even since Jefferson!

[Maddy McCall]

40. Much more applicable analogy than the one in the thread-starting post

[Crunchy Frog]

55. I think that

changing the Democratic party is important and necessary, but we have to prioritize. If we don't get rid of Bush, I'm worried that we'll move to a one party system, and then changing the Democratic party will be completely moot.

We have to get rid of Bush before we can do anything else.

[bluestateguy]

19. I'm sorry, but I don't have time for this

I can't live with another 4 years of this guy. Some of us don't have the luxury of New Age self-discovery by voting for Leftist fringe candidates. We have to live with the consequences.

[snoochie]

22. Boy is this depressing

RichM is exactly right. :(


People... Mairead was not talking about the GE.

It's obvious. If we have a choice of Dems, we're talking about the primaries, aren't we? Yes.

So calm the F down, and think.


Now is not the GE, so let's consider the real statement Mairead was trying to make.


To change the analogy a bit, I'll change it to a car.

Now, in the primaries, we have several models of new cars and prices to evaluate. Some of us are ready to snatch up any one that's close and easy to get. Some are being more choosy. It's perfectly understandable that since this is a community car that we're all going to have to share, that those of us who would care to be more careful about our choice to wonder why those that don't want to be choosy feel that way.


As to the question, Mairead, it's obvious whose interest is being served. In all three situations, whether a job offer or a new car or a primary, there are two interests at stake: yours and the corporations'. So if they're not yours, then...

[Maddy McCall]

23. Not according to her thread title

[snoochie]

29. I misread

I stand corrected. Oh well. I guess I disagree then. It's not job vs. no job, IMO. It's bad job vs. worse job.

[Mairead]

31. No, Snooch, you were right the first time. You, Rich, Janx, and I'bytes

are, I think, the only ones who got it.

Yeah, depressing. Oy vey, depressing!

[snoochie]

34. The wording implies what they're getting.

I see what they're seeing, but I get what you're saying too. :)

[Mairead]

35. Which suggests that they're not reading any further than the title!

:(

[Maddy McCall]

41. No, your title doesn't reflect your content

and your analogy isn't applicable to what you state in your title.

And your logic in your analogy is not applicable to the current political situation.

I read the post--but your thread title is a binary choice, and the body of your post--well--frankly makes little sense, considering 6 democrats won't face the republican; only one will.

People who don't agree with you aren't illiterate; they just don't agree with you.

[Mairead]

52. Yes, it does, and I'm really sorry that you aren't able to grasp that

Because my point, explained by my analogy and understood perfectly by several people beginning with Rich, is that there are important differences between the candidates that are ignored by the simplistic 'anyone is better than Bush' mantra.

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

50. Then you are mischaracterizing what others have said

If you mean primaries, or choice between the 6 candidates, then that is not the same choice as saying I will vote for THE NOMINEE. There is only ONE nominee. Thus, a binary choice.

[A J]

25. But the quote is "I will vote for the nominee"

Clearly, we are talking about whether or not to vote for the nominee, which would mean the general election.

Vote for whoever you like in the primary. That is what ABB is all about!

[Mairead]

61. "Clearly, we are talking about whether or not to vote for the nominee"

No, because as you noted it's a quotation. And that's what we're talking about: the quotation and the mindset it implies.

[liberalpress]

63. If Kucinich get the nod...

...I will vote for him in the GE

Vote with your heart in the primaries. It's your right.
Vote with your head in the GE. It's your duty
ABB in 2004!

[Doomsayer13]

27. Flawed analogy

First - this is the office of the President of the United States, not a personal job we're applying for. When it comes to something as important as President, I think that we can all sacrifice some self-interest and principle for the greater good.

Second - It's framed as a binary choice becuase IT IS a binary choice. Realistically, only one of two parties will win in November and you're either gonna have the better one or the worse one. And if you want to vote your concience, it's your vote, but don't insinuate that the ABB people are sheeple becuase they're willing to cede some of their principles for the greater good

[John_H]

30. LOL! I don't think we spoiled children dim bulbs need analogies

from the far left to understand what this election is about.

This Novemeber, every American has three choices. You vote for Bush, you vote for the Dem nominee or you vote for someone who has no chance of winning.

Bush would rather have your vote, but he won't be pissed if you deny a vote to the only person who has a snowball's chance in hell of sending him packing.

If you think Edwards or Kerry or Clark is indistinguishable from Bush, fine. Why not just tell us you believe this, an urge us to enable chimp just like you apparently plan to do.

[MoonRiver]

33. Are you related to Meldread?

[Mairead]

36. if that's a serious question, then: No, not to my knowledge

[OutlawCorporatePolls]

37. current score

2004 Democratic Primary Election

Current Delegate Count

2,161 Delegates Needed To Win

1. John Kerry --- 271 (12.5% of delegates needed to win)
2. Howard Dean --- 121 (5.6% of delegates needed to win)
3. John Edwards --- 110 (5.1% of delegates needed to win)
4. Wesley Clark --- 82 (3.8% of delegates needed to win)
5. Al Sharpton --- 5 (0.2% of delegates needed to win)
6. Dennis Kucinich --- 2 (0.1% of delegates needed to win)

Source Data: CNN
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/scorecard/index.html
Updated: 5:44 p.m. EST February 06, 2004
Percentage Calculation: scandidate.info

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

38. It is a binary choice. Sorry

There will be two guys with big numbers behind them on the ticket party wise. One of them will be Bush. One of them will be someone else and then a handful of poorly organized smaller parties.

If the other guy gets more votes than Bush...buh-bye Bush.

If Bush gets more votes...4 more years of OMFG posts and threads.

Sorry.

Don't blame me.

I didn't make this shit up.

I was born into it just like you.

[Terwilliger]

42. not just like me!

:-)

:-(

[Nederland]

39. Agreed

When Democrats say "Anybody But Bush" they are basically saying that the Democratic party stands for nothing. It stands only against something--namely Bush. When you have a group of candidates ranging from Kucinich to Lieberman and you say that you don't care which one of them wins, you are saying that the vast policy differences between them doesn't matter. This is sadly misguided. You can't win an election if you don't stand for something.

[Paulie]

48. Please try not to be reasonable

it may make some heads explode.... sigh....

With all the ABB floating around, why are we trying to nominate a lesser instead of a greater? Why not go for the brass ring, since a ham sandwich can beat bush, ya know? Why are people so stuck on canidates that are part of the system that lost us the house, senate and the whitehouse?

How about voting for a honest to god Democrat? And give the people some serious CHOICE!

[liberalpress]

64. The Democratic Party does indeed stand for many things...

Would I like to see it move more toward the left? Certainly.

Will I work as hard as I can to see it get there? Absolutely.

When the convention is over and the candidate is chosen, if my particular favorite doesn't win, will I piss and moan and cast my vote for some third party with no chance of winning? No chance.

The next President will be either a Democrat or a republican.

If it is the latter, we're screwed.

(edited for spelling)

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

43. Your analagy has problems

There won't be six Democratic choices in November. There will only be one.

We have a two party system. Those are the cards we are dealt. There will be two choices come November, (that means binary) the Republican or the Democratic contender.

There is NOT ONE of the Democratic candidates that would not be better than Bush. NOT ONE.

With few exceptions, in every single primary in history, it always comes down to one winner, and the party in question stands behind the collective will of the voters within that party and then votes for the nominee in the general election. Why would it be any different for this one? Why do you have a problem with someone saying they will vote for the eventual nominee?

I have difficulty understanding why ANYONE here on a Democratic forum would have any problem voting for any of these remaining candidates over Bush. I guess it all boils down to deciding whether you are a Democrat or not. Only you can decide that. I know exactly where I stand.

[Kimber Scott]

44. You're really pushing this line tonight.

Seems you might have another agenda? Just wondering...

on edit: Added link to similar post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=283751&mesg_id=283751

[Mairead]

56. "Added link to similar post"

You should check that link a bit. "http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=283751&mesg_id=283751" is THIS thread, not 'a similar' one.

[kodi]

45. what a stupid syllogism

worthy of herr goebbels.

[OneBlueSky]

46. Chief Justice Antonin Scalia . . .

Associate Justice John Ashcroft . . .

that's all you need to know . . .

[Maddy McCall]

47. Bye Bye Roe v. Wade

Bye Bye Lawrence v. Texas

Bye Bye any semblance of even centrism from the SCOTUS.

[Crunchy Frog]

53. Now that Lieberman is out

I can safely say that I will happily vote for whoever the nominee is. That doesn't mean that I don't still have my own very strong preference, but I'm reasonably comfortable with everyone whose left, my main concern being electability.

[Mairead]

54. If the majority of responses in this thread are reflective of the

Democratic Party's 'best and brightest', then we have little hope.

[kodi]

59. so, if others disagree with your specious comments we're dumb

your argument was poorly thought out, poorly presented, ignored factual realities, and the internal logic of it non-existent.

but we who point this out are the dumb ones.

tell you what, i'll send you a crucifix so you can nail yourself onto it and show us your purity.

[Mairead]

60. "we who point this out are the dumb ones"

Yes, that's so, because there was no 'this' to be pointed out.

My thesis, stated clearly, was that there are important differences between the candidates that 'anyone is better than Bush' ignores. Instead of unable, are you unwilling to see that getting us to ignore these differences is a corporatocratic wet-dream? Because those are the two possible explanations for failure to understand: unable or unwilling.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[Mairead]

66. Yeah, right. Whatever you say, pal.

[Iverson]

57. the seduction of dualism (and its limits)

Of course there's something deeply flawed in that thinking. Why else is it necessary for discussants to jump all over your analogy? Dealing with your core point is painful.

The ABB mantra is designed to get you to stop thinking once you acknowledge that there are only two mainstream national parties. If you continue thinking, then you may ask what it means to be one or the other. You may wonder about the causes of the radical shift to the right over the last generation. You may even wonder about the necessity of shutting up the discourse of the left.

Those are impermissible thoughts, since they may impede the continued rightward drift.

Consider what a reaction you've gotten on a progressive discussion board if you doubt for a moment the idea of hostility to the discourse of the left even existing.

[quaker bill]

58. White a pile of steaming dog excrement

is better than Bush*. I am not voting for it.

[liberalpress]

62. It isn't just about Bush...

... with Any Democrat in office we get rid of...

Ashcroft
Cheney
Rice
all members of PNAC

The List goes on....


ABB? You bet!