will there be mass defections to 3rd parties if a dlc pro-war "democrat" gets the nom?

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

something i've been wondering

[LoZoccolo]

1. No. n/t

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. Hell yes!

disclaimer: I speak only for myself and several other people with whom I have discussed this.

[LoZoccolo]

4. Well, you won't be speaking to me.

Your little threat has gained you...

SUPER!
DUPER!
IGNORE!

:hi: :nuke: :applause:

[Zhade]

19. Going for 95% of DU on ignore, eh?

One day, you'll have 99% - and the last person you'll put on ignore because you can't handle them will be... yourself.

I predict that you placing yourself on ignore will be like matter meeting antimatter. :evilgrin:

[havocmom]

23. Doncha jis luv the ones who don't use the DU nuclear option against stalkers

but ANYONE who disagrees with them? :rofl: Skinner must be having a grand ol time watching the 'toe the line or die' crowd paint themselves into little tiny corners.

[LoZoccolo]

29. I didn't even have 1000 people on ignore in the last round.

Even allowing for about 4000 people per week posting on DU (of course I'm going by numbers supplied by the CUckoos, but someone there supposedly has a program that does a count), that's still only 25%.

[Zhade]

33. You're actually arguing the numbers.

LOL!

You're amusing. :)

[havocmom]

24. Put me on too, while you're at it.

'agree with me or you disappear' is the philosphy of some in the WH. Sorta makes discussion pointless, so why show up here at all?

[LoZoccolo]

30. That is not my philosophy. n/t

[havocmom]

38. Philosophy aside, if one takes action to prevent discussion

just because the other holds a different opinion...

As they say, actions speak louder than words. Your actions point to not caring to listen to anyone who disagrees.

[LoZoccolo]

39. "just because the other holds a different opinion"

Again, that is not my philosophy.

Just because the other is wasting my time.

[havocmom]

42. You won't try to make the case for supporting Ms Clinton?

This is a good place to come to hone our skills at debate and other forms of persuading. But if we basically stick our fingers in our ears when someone disagrees, instead of using constructive discussion to try to win them over, we are missing much and not offering anything.

:shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

45. It's been made time and time again since the 2000 election.

I do not want to hear the same Naderite falsehood about there being no difference between the Republicans and Democrats again. It's been told, we've all heard it, I don't believe it, and will not listen to it. There are consequences to trying to inundate people with stuff they know is not true. Says me.

[patrice]

28. Doesn't that make you guilty of the very thing that you are putting

Viva on ignore for? Viva said s/he would, in effect, ignore the Dems if they pick a pro-War candidate and you don't like that so you put him/her on ignore. Do you realize that you appear to be a hypocrite?

[LoZoccolo]

31. I might appear to be.

But I'm not. I come here to get involved in getting the Democratic Party in power, and reducing the power of the Republicans. If I was interested in listening to people who don't share that interest, I would go to any number of other places on the web. Do I have to apologize for not going to some Green message board, or Free Republic too? For ignoring their opinions?

[patrice]

47. Viva says in effect "Exclude those who are not ________."

You say in effect "I exclude those who are not ________." You could fill in the blanks with whatever, it is still the same kind of statement.

How old are You? Your notion that "getting the Democratic Party in power, and reducing the power of the Repulicans" is a matter of bonding with people you agree with and punishing by exclusion those with whom you disagree is pretty simplistic and very un-Democratic.

Not to mention the fact that it won't work.

What I like best about DU IS the fact that I meet ALL kinds of people here and get a chance to understand how they think. Asking questions clarifies the differences and similarities between us and defines how/why I think the way I do. If I hide from those with whom I disagree, I don't learn enough to be genuinely relevant to what is really going on, with others or with myself. I also lose opportunities to contribute, either through persuasion or through concrete facts, to the perspectives of those with whom I have serious differences.

I know all of kinds of people come here with ALL kinds of motives, not necessarily to understand, or to be understood, nor to help, but often exactly the opposite. You're probably going to say such people, possibly e.g. Viva, aren't worth our time. But from my perspective either one or both of you could be that kind of actor.

Since I can't determine whether you/Viva and others really are trolls or not, I've decided to focus on the more global effects of interacting with same. I don't expect to change anyone, but I do believe in the constructive effect of that effort over time multiplied by every person who follows the same or similar approach.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

8. ref to #4...

huh? :shrug:




whatever.

[havocmom]

25. Good one

They haven't figured it doesn't really make YOU vanish. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[skipos]

If by "massive" you mean @3% of voters, then yes. nt

[Jackpine Radical]

13. A 12% defection a la Perot will guarantee a Puggy victory

in '08.

[ohio2007]

14. Ross took 19% of the popular vote and got "0"

electoral votes. 19 million people voted for him in '92. But thats how our two party system works. You can become president with 41- 42% of the popular vote
...but thats a whole other can O worms

[Jackpine Radical]

46. But he sucked off a lot of Bush1 votes & permitted

Clinton to be elected.

[skipos]

20. Which will never happen with the Nader/Badnarik crew.

And Hillary, arguably the most disliked realistic Dem hopeful, isn't going to yeild anywhere near a 12% defection. Most voters learned their lesson on vote wasting in 2000. Nader's support decreased by 85% in 2004.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

26. THAT

is what scares me.

But I won't vote for a pro-war dem. I just won't.

[MADem]

3. A pro war Dem won't get the nom. Someone who wants to bring the troops home

will. It may or may not be someone who wants to bring them home yesterday, but it won't be anyone who wants to expand the situation in Iraq.

[stranger]

9. like those idiots who voted for nader and got bush elected?

Hell no i am not voting 3rd party!!!

Personally, I would like to have Bernie Sanders or Barbara Boxer as the nominee-IF either
could win. But, I will support the nominee whoever he/she may be.

You got to remember we didnt get to this abysmal place in four or even 8 years-it began in
1980.

So to think that in one election we can get the american voters back back toa pre 1980 liberl mindset in one elction is simply unrealistic.

BTW: I dont know any "pro war" dems. We do, of course, have some spineless wafflers
like pelosi who wont "undermine" the troops by cutting off the funds for a surge.

What"s Nancy gonna say when the fool invades Iran? (which is imminent)>

will she then say we have to fund his next bellecose boondoggle
in order not to "undermine the troops"???-

I share your anger with the weasels in our party-but they are light years better
than any repub. vote your head not your heart.

[MADem]

17. I think you replied in the wrong place...I'm not rooting for a third party defection.

You responded to my post, and I think "take my ball and go home" types are assholes, actually. I think they waste my time, when we've more impoortant work to do...!

[illinoisprogressive]

5. That or a lot of stay at homes.

[ourbluenation]

6. great. ralph nadar part 2.

[ohio2007]

15. He is a non factor. nt

[ourbluenation]

21. yes I know that... n/t

[Bitwit1234]

7. Other than Liberman I don't know of any of the democrats

that want to expand the war. Name some. I haven't heard about that.

[saltpoint]

10. I think it's the GOP, not the Dems, who run the risk of rupture.

If the rightwing nutcase fundies decide they don't want to be toyed with again, they may refuse to support a Giuliani or a McCain and fund a Brownback campaign.

Politically, that would almost ensure a Democratic victory in 08, although I like our chances pretty well anyway.

Bush's Iraq occupation is a disaster of almost biblical proportions and it is going to cast quite a pall over the Republican effort in 08. As a consequence I think there's almost no chance at all for a pro-war Democrat to be nominated.

[ohio2007]

11. You have answered your own question

Depends on the # you consider to be a "massive" defection. It's early and of course, Ralph Nader has to legally do all his paperwork this time around ;)

[Xipe Totec]

12. pro-war "democrat"? Like Whom?

[Zhade]

16. Unlikely. The media in this country won't show the nom as pro-war.

Voting numbers might shrink, though, if people figure out that the illegal war will continue under either party.

[PFunk]

18. In a word Yes.

But many that do also wont vote for any 3rd party. They will just stay home. Either way the fear of this will problem make the party think twice before electing someone that can't carry these folks (I hope). Especially now.

[Captain Hilts]

22. No. Most folks learned their lesson when they said Gore/Bush didn't matter and voted Nader. nt

[Greeby]

27. Instead of worrying about whether such a candidate will get the nom

We all need to get involved so that the candidates who DO pass muster on the issues of war and peace stand a good shot of winning the nomination.

[pitohui]

32. not if there is any sanity in this world

ralph nader has probably cost us the planet, since those 8 lost years probably mean we've passed the tipping point in the matter of climate change

can't imagine too many folks going down that road again

we have some hard times ahead, turning on ea. other won't make it better, it will make it worse

[unkachuck]

34. change 'mass' to....

....'significant' and I'll say, yes....I don't know about others, but I'm packing my bag as we speak....

....oh me, of little faith....

[Redneck Socialist]

35. I don't know about "mass" but significant number will jump ship,

especially if Hilary wins the nomination. Something I don't think will happen btw.

[Lex]

36. Which Dems are "pro-war" going into the Primary season?

Besides, not that many refused to vote for Kerry based on his IWR vote.




________________

[Matariki]

40. oh and again - Edwards

I guess that leaves Kuchinich and Obama?

Wonder how Obama would have voted on the IWR back then?

[Lex]

41. Kuch and Obama would both make great Dem nominees for President.

I would get behind them 100% for President, but not soley because of their IWR stance at that time.



______________________________

[Matariki]

43. yep - probably make a great team too

I'm afraid that Kucinich never passes the 'charisma test' though. Pity. Politics can be so shallow. Especially US politics. *sigh*

[porphyrian]

37. Why don't we just focus on not letting that happen? - n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. It didn't happen last time