Is the 2004 General Election the optimal time for a protest vote?

[eileen_d]

I no longer give a rodent's read end how anyone on DU votes. So I am not going to make any sort of "ABB" case here. I firmly believe that people have the right vote for whomever they choose, whether it be the nominee, a write-in or a third party. And I agree that there are problems with the current Democratic establishment that need to be fixed.

I have a simple question for people who are considering withholding their vote from the Democratic Party nominee in November:

Given the risks inherent in a second term of the current Bush administration, why do you believe the General Election of 2004 is an appropriate time for a protest vote? (edited to clarify: as opposed to any other election)

Make your case...

[NWHarkness]

1. What happens if Kerry loses?

If John Kerry is nominated and loses, does any one think that it will result in a more progressive party?

The more likely outcome of a Kerry loss, it seems to me, would be for the party establishment to decide that he lost because he was too liberal. They will circle the wagons even closer, close ranks tighter against activists and ensure a generation of GOP misrule.

I would rather have an imperfect Democratic administration than a perfect but ineffectual Democratic opposition party.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

25. You nailed it. Kerry is the last liberal hope.

If somehow he loses it is all over in too many ways.

[RetroLounge]

44. Kerry is the last liberal hope?

we're screwed then...

[Crunchy Frog]

36. I think that it may.

Kerry is being touted as the safe establishment candidate, and is being promoted as a moderate choice, whatever his real politics are. If we were to run Howard Dean and he lost badly, the Democratic party would come to all the wrong conclusions and would be pushed further in the direction of appeasement and spinelessness. If Kerry loses, I believe that the Democratic party may finally begin to do some real self examination and begin asking itself the right questions.

This is one of the reasons that I support Kerry over Dean, even though Dean's message resonates much more strongly with me. It's the price I pay for being a pragmatist by nature.

[eileen_d]

50. That is an excellent point.

I just want to thank everyone for their responses to this thread - I had to leave the house soon after posting it, so I'm glad to see it got some thoughtful discussion.

Personally, I'll be voting for the Democratic nominee in November with a clear conscience. Not sure what I'll do in my late primary since Clark has dropped out. :(

[vi5]

2. You're not going to convince anyone on here....

At this point I believe that the "I will never vote for Kerry in the GE" people on here, if totalled up:

1)Would not even come close to being a majority of the population or even making a difference in the outcome. Think about it. Even if 1/4 of the 39K people on here did not vote for the eventual nominee that would be 9,750 votes spread out over the whole country.

2)Half of those people are saying this now but if they are treated with respect and a case is genuinely made will probably end up voting for the nominee in November, albeit holding their noses.

3)The other half will not be convinced no matter what.

In any event we need to focus our efforts on winning over the swing voters and independents who can be convinced, and just trying to generally all around be nice to each other so that these people on the fence who COULD go either way don't decide to sit it out or vote third party because of other people on here.

[eileen_d]

4. I don't want to convince anyone here

I want to hear them make their case. I don't come to DU to convince any kind of voters, just to share my opinions and defend candidates I like against slams on their character.

I believe that this post is respectful to people who don't share my opinion (although goddess knows, I've been impolite elsewhere)

[vi5]

5. You are right.....I didn't mean you personally...

Your post was very respectful. But the fact is that there is a core group of people who see antagonism where there is none.

[Iverson]

3. per your request

No time is the optimal time, but if one waits for the optimal time, it may never come.

2004 may be one of those times that a third party may deserve my vote. Without knowing who the nominees are, at this point it's all speculation. However, the truest expression of democratic choice is to vote for someone who comes close to representing your preferences. Drinking the milder poison, while it has its logic, is ultimately self-defeating.

Also, since no one has a proprietary claim on my vote, the Democratic candidate does not own it as a ground state from which I react by withholding, as your second paragraph assumes. A candidate must fundamentally earn votes, not claim them automatically and cry "foul!" upon change.

It has been demonstrated that abandoning the discourse of the left shifts the whole discourse to the right. The long term consequences of that strategy have been antithetical to progressive values. At some point, any individual must say that more of the same is just not good enough. More of the same will make things worse, and next election cycle the panicky centrists will again invoke the Principle of Unripe Time for the left.

Do as you like, but I'm all done with that particular scam. I will cast a vote for, not against, and with a good will to do so.

[eileen_d]

6. Thank you for your honest response.

It is this type of explanation that I am looking for.

[Iverson]

8. You are certainly welcome.

Glad to help without locking horns.
:toast:

[NV1962]

7. Very well put - well dôh, I agree! :-) n/t

[democratreformed]

23. Bravo to you!

I, too, will cast my vote FOR someone instead of AGAINST.

[Crunchy Frog]

34. With respect

this is not only not the "optimal" time, it is absolutely the worst concievable time for a protest vote. I don't think our democracy can survive another four years of Bush.

I myself cast a protest vote for Nader in 2000. I may very well cast 3rd party votes in the future. But NOT in this election. This election may be the most critical one in our country's entire history. Let's get our piorities straight here.

[hippiegranny]

40. very nicely put

and polite as well. this is the kind of discourse i find to be constructive. a refreshing change from the "my guy or i'll cry" folks that are becoming such a turn off here in the primary 2004 forum.

one point i'd like to make is that this election really is going to be the boiling point of the us-and-them division this country has been building towards over the past several years. while i sympathize with those who are concerned about voting their conscience, i cannot help but feel that is a selfish action with what is at stake. when faced with the probability of many of our family members marching off to fight in bush's next folly when he wins his first term, i don't think my conscience would allow me do do anything other than vote for whoever can remove this cancerous growth from the white house. if it isn't the guy i really would have wanted, i still know that anybody with a "d" behind his name is more worthy than bush. and if we all pull together - JUST THIS ONCE - we can do this.

it seems like a few short weeks ago that the general concensus here was that we had a great field of candidates, and while each of us had a favorite, we agreed that (except for possibly lieberman), we could all unite behind whoever got the nod. now i keep reading stuff like "i could NEVER vote for (insert the guy who isn't your favorite, but is ahead in the primaries here).

it is disheartening even when you understand that it comes from disappointment about the primary outcome so far. face it, we all thought *our* personal favorite would win before the first votes were counted. some of us should have been better prepared for the possibility that he or she wouldn't, so that we could focus on the end goal - getting rid of the mutant war-monkey regime without all this bitterness and drawing of lines in the sand.

[BurtWorm]

9. I would only withhold my vote from the Dem under very specific

circumstances: First and foremost, if he took positions on war and peace that totally turned me off--i.e., if he sounded like a member of the ruling coalition more than what I believe a Dem should sound like; second, if I felt my vote could be spared without electing Bush.

[rucky]

10. Here's my case:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=303576

[waldenx]

11. its the only time to do it

The goal is the fastest road to progress, not baby steps.

[democratreformed]

24. On top of that, the current climate may make it the optimal time

I don't really know, of course. But there seems to be quite a bit of unhappiness with "politics as usual".

[MaineDem]

12. Absolutely not

A protest vote for someone other than the Democratic nominee will be throwing away every right we now hold sacred. It could mean the end to civil rights, a woman's right to choose, the right to assembly, the right of free speech. Social Security and Medicare will erode. Clean air and clean water will be things of the past.

The Supreme Court will be filled with right-wing idealogues who care about nothing but the almighty dollar.

The United States will continue to lose face in the world.

And the little tyrant in the White House will have a madate to destory everything we have now.

I do not think this is the time to make a statement. I think it's much better to get involved in local politics and, trite as it may sound, work from within.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. Only if one accepts that "all or nothing" by definition runs the risk of

getting "nothing." as long as they know that, it's an informed choice. Not one I agree with, but no less informed than mine.

[Iverson]

14. That is a mischaracterization.

I have never met anyone who demands "all." On the other hand, DU is thick with discussants who characterize others as demanding "all."

It is a way of not taking others seriously to reframe their non-identical minimum needs as a demand for all.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. I disagree

One can easily read the discussion boards and come to either conclusion.

The country has taken a hard rightward swing. I have long sympathized and even agreed with those that would criticize the "third way" sham for what it is.

People are calling for wholesale reform while ignoring the realities that a two party system grants, let alone the barriers to a one party control of senate and congress no matter who gets the nomination or the WHite House.

IMHO, there would be GREAT reform inherent in simply getting rid of Bush. Call it a first step.

BTW, read the threads wherein people give their reasoning for risking "nothing" and you'll see someone calling for "ALL." They are two sides of the same coin...lack of the ability to negotiate. I've been in a labor bargaining game long enough to know where it leads.

[Iverson]

27. non-sequitur

Your points do not address my rebuttal, except possibly at the end.

I don't know what threads you've read or whether they are relevant to the context here. However, I can tell you that the impulse to look at a third party is not an all-or-nothing demand. You can believe me or not, I guess.

Generally, I find that recasting others as extremists is a way of discounting their arguments without looking at their merits. I would think that experience in labor negotiations would lead you to that conclusion, as would a careful reading of Elkouri & Elkouri.

What I find perverse is to consider the merits of an argument, to understand some shades of grey (e.g.- there are reasonable critiques of the "third way"), and to STILL conclude that considering a third party is an all-or-nothing demand.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

46. Sorry but your responses are a non sequitur in the context of the thread

question of which we need to make a few reliable assumptions as follows:

1. Bush is the worst president in modern times if not ever.
2. The electorate was extremely divided on the last election.
3. Most evidence points to the electorate STILL being extremely divided.
4. One of the two major party candidates will win.

All 4 are reasonable assuptions for the sake of this argument.

Since I didn't use the term EXTREMIST, I'm not going to argue that point. I'm aware of the subtleties as noted by E and E. Arbitration and two party presidential elections are not comparable for the sakeof this argument.

In a closely divided electorate where one of the two major parties is guaranteed to prevail, placing a protest vote based on an agenda that goes FAR beyond at least PROTECTING what has been won thus far is mutiny.

[Iverson]

49. not exactly

You have made an assertion. It is that those who would consider third party voting are engaging in an "all or nothing" gambit. Nothing you have written supports that assertion.

You have argued against the wisdom of such voting, but that is not the same question.

The argument that it's all or nothing because it's mutiny is essentially a circular argument. It also rests upon a warrant that my vote and I belong to the leadership against which we are supposedly rebelling. I reject that warrant.

On the other hand, I am telling you and anyone who will care to listen that voting for a third party is not an all-or-nothing strategem. I speak from experience. What I'm seeing, though, is that a minority care to listen. In the context of the thread, my responses are germane, if unwelcome. Thus, the necessity of attacking the motive of anyone who dares deviate from partisanship (note 38 et seq).

[Terwilliger]

20. or that "all" is somehow grounded in reality anyway

which it ain't

[BurtWorm]

21. Prezackly. "All or nothing" is a false dichotomy no matter who offers it.

I want something between, a bit closer to all, as opposed to the way it is, which is too close to nothing.

[Options Remain]

15. the 2004 vote IS a protest vote

Against the NEO-CON's

This is a classic example of choosing your battles. Crush one and the other will follow.

TearForger

[Terwilliger]

16. Is there EVER a time for a protest vote?

"Oh sure! You can protest next time...unless I say you CAN'T protest, which I will"

:eyes:

[JVS]

28. Amen!

[SadEagle]

47. Primaries are a good time.

eom

[eileen_d]

52. Sure, there's a time for a protest vote

My question was, why GE 2004? Is your answer, "Why not?"

[nancyharris]

17. On the contrary

A protest vote, if it came in large numbers, would indeed move the party to the progressive left. In 2000 the Green Party received about 5% of the vote nationwide. If that were to double in 2004 you can bet that the Democratic Party would wake up to the Progressive movement.

[goodhue]

18. no, 2004 primary is optimal time for protest vote

2004 GE is worst time for protest vote

[eileen_d]

51. That Kucinich photo is hilarious!

Gotta love that guy. :)

[bowens43]

19. What makes you think that a vote for a third party candidate

would be a protest vote? Perhaps they actually prefer the third party candidate.

[eileen_d]

53. You're right about that

"Protest vote" is probably a fuzzy concept, all tied up with "voting for" or "voting against."

I was thinking along these lines: if you are presented with a relatively clear choice between "voting to achieve a majority" (i.e. get Bush out by voting for the Democratic nominee) and "voting to send a message" (knowing that one's preferred candidate will most likely get the majority), what is one's rationale for choosing the latter.

Of course everyone has different concepts of what "voting to win" means, and that's where this discussion comes in.

[Walt Starr]

26. Oh it definitely could be!

If on November 1st, polls have Bush leading whatever Democrat is the nominee by greater than 10%, absolutely it is time to vote third party!

voting for the Democrat under those conditions would be throwing a perfectly good vote away when your vote could be helping a third party to become legitimate and actually get to participate in the debates come 2008!

[JVS]

29. The optimal time for a protest vote is when people are paying attention.

Thus 1996 would probably not have been so good.

2004 is ideal

[MadHound]

30. If not here, where? If not now, when?

Look, the reason a lot of people are thinking that third party votes are a good thing. We realize how uttlerly corrupted both parties are, a corruption brought about by greed and corporate influence in our government. Many of us have been party faithful, disparing as we watch the Democratic party slip further into the abyss. Though we've pleaded and begged, screamed and shouted, our words were not heeded. Our attempts at reforming the party from within have met obstacles at every turn, usually put there by those in power wishing to retain the status quo. So we are finally sick of it all and decided to go third party vote.

Why this year in particular. Well, one reason is hoping to catch a wave from 2000. Nader and the Greens agitated and energized a lot of voters who had dropped out of the election process, thus it is best to strike while the iron is hot in order to pick up these grass roots activists and put their energy to good use. Another reason is that if you are going to make a third party a going and growing concern, the magic number for federal matching funds(and other electoral niceties depending upon which state you live in) is five percent. Being as that the Greens didn't achieve this number in '00, it is imperative to try for it this election. If the Greens simply sat this one out, well what little momentum they had would be gone.

But why do it and run the risk of retaining the single most dangerous man in history in office. Well, first off, a lot of us have heard that same kind of hyperbole before, in regards to Nixon, Reagan, and Bush the elder. And yet, while we did have hardship during these regimes, the world as we knew it didn't end. Why should this year be any differen? Besides, what use is voting for a Dem when all he is going to be doing is changing the speed with which we approach the cliff edge rather than changing direction in order to avoid disaster.

Also many of us see the Democratic party self destructing in the next decade or so. Rife with corruption, uninspired and uninspiring, with the Dems going down, it is best to start work on a replacement party ASAP. Otherwise we will truly be under a one party system of government.

And many of us simply don't feel that the Democratic party deserves our loyalty or vote. Many of us worked long and hard for the party, giving generously both in time and money. And now to see it all falling into the lap of the DLC/New Dem corporatists, while we were kicked to the curb, well that rankles a bit, to say the least. With everything but a "NO LIBERALS ALLOWED" sign tacked to the Democratic door, well, honestly, can you blame us for leaving a place where we're no longer wanted?

Then there is the matter of the party itself. I honestly never thought I would see the day that a so called Democrat would advocate for, and get, that abomination known as welfare "reform". And quite frankly can the fact that the Dems passed NAFTA, which ships UNION jobs overseas, be excused as anything else than pandering to the corporate interests at the expense of your ever loyal base? The radical influence of corporate money, and the programs enacted to get that corporate lucre, have twisted the Democratic party into a shape that is hardly recognizable except as a caricature of the greatness that once was.

So many of us have come to the conclusion that it is time to start backing a new party, since we are no longer represented or wanted in the old one. And if we are going to do this thing, then now is the time to start. Perhaps this exodus will sway the Democratic party into realizing the error of their ways. If so, great, then we can perhaps reach some sort of reconciliation. But if it doesn't, then we need to press on ahead with all speed. Hence, as the old saying goes, if not now, when?

[eileen_d]

54. Thanks for your comprehensive reply. n/t

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[JVS]

32. Is this for real or has the site been hacked?

[Crunchy Frog]

33. Abso-fucking-lutely not!

Look, I understand how alot of people feel, I feel the same way myself. I think this primary has been rigged by the corporate media, and that the Democratic establishment has screwed over the true grassroots candidates. I think my candidate has been the victim of a royal screwing. However, the biggest issue in this election is getting the fascist asshole out of the white house. That's the whole reason I became a Clark supporter in the first place. That issue is far more important than any single candidate.

As far as I'm concerned, if you don't support and vote for the Democratic nominee in this election, you will have absolutely no right to complain about the consequences of your choice.

Changing the party and the way Washington works are important and necessary goals, but the number one priority is getting Bush out. These other things will be meaningless if we don't first get rid of Bush.

And to think that so many Clark supporters like myself were accused of being closet Republicans on this board by so many for so long. People have no right to call us that when we will support the Democratic nominee even if it isn't who we wanted, while they will enable Bush's reelection by not voting for the Democratic candidate. The irony is amazing.

I apologize for the rant, and hope it doesn't get deleted.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

35. If your intention is to be a spolier and throw the election, absolutely

A loss this time would cripple the Democratic party and provide an opportunity for another party to take it's place - that happens once every 100 years or so - and we are due for another.

[hippiegranny]

43. yep

and if you look at the sheer numbers, the large number of percentage points that kerry is winning in the states he's taking, you can bet that the majority will vote that way in november, further rendering any protest vote to the scrap heap of no 3rd party and possibly another election close enough to steal.

the answer to "if not now, when?" is maybe never, but DEFINITELY NOT NOW!

[The Magistrate]

37. It Is The Worst Possible Time, Ma'am

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[mitchum]

38. Only for fools and ninnies who want to feel noble...

by not really doing anything.

[Iverson]

39. This is the kind of name-calling ...

... and straw man that makes it very difficult to join forces at any point. It is the arrogance of the majority.

[mitchum]

41. Sorry if I touched a nerve...

and I guess I did

[Iverson]

42. wrong a second time

It's called weariness.

[mitchum]

45. Apparently it's not too wearying...

considering that you replied and all. Thanks

[YouMustBeKiddingMe]

48. That depends on your motive.

If your motive is to play spoiler and force a Democratic loss, and essentially effect a victory for Bush, then yes 2004 is an optimal time for a protest vote. Their reasoning is that this will force the Party to then completely restructure itself to the far left to capture the votes of these hostage takers, but it will never happen. There are many competing interests within the Democratic Party, and efforts would be better spent picking up 10 moderate votes for each one lost on the left fringe.

If you understand the simple fact that ending up with nothing and the “scorched earth” theory is horse shit then 2004 is the worst time for a protest vote. Risking a one party political system for a far as the eye can see is not can see is not the way to go, and that is where we are headed if Bush wins in 2004.

[maddezmom]

55. not for me....ABB all the way

[quaker bill]

56. There are moral implications to this.

The term "protest vote" makes light of the moral quandry many anti-war voters will feel when faced with a choice between two architects of the war on Iraq.

Yes, I know the various lines about Kerry and how he was against the war, but for the results. Bottom line, I have actually read the man's record on this issue and his statements on Iraq over the years in the Senate, not from a blog, but the original source documents. I don't buy what Mr. Kerry is selling in this regard.

Mr. Kerry has been a significant part of the "Saddam is a threat we need to deal with" movement in the Senate for at least 7 or 8 years now. He has been an active part of the movement that created the pressure to warp the intelligence toward this result. He had plenty of help from the republicans, no doubt, but he has been one of the most important Democratic leaders on this issue for some time. The record is there it is detailed and far more damning than his IWR vote.

I opposed this war. Tens of thousands of people died for no good reason. Mr. Kerry played a much larger role in this than his IWR vote and his eloquent statements around it suggest.

What is a person of conscience who opposes war and the preparations for war to do under these circumstances? Clearly, I cannot vote for Bush*. But knowing as I do that Mr. Kerry played a key role in the run up to this war and was heavily involved in it well before Bush moved into the Whitehouse, can I square a vote for him with my conscience in this regard?

I honestly do not know the answer at this time. Were the vote tomorrow, I would probably pass on it.

[LTR]

57. Kerry at his worst is still better than Bush at his best

It's all about ABB this year!

Let's face it. The Dem nominee (likely Kerry) will still be a fairly decent president. And a drastic improvement over what is there now.