Third parties on the Left *only* help the GOP.

[benburch]

Just a note to those of you who are thinking of supporting a third party this year;

Don't.

They way the American electoral system is designed, third parties only EVER spoil the chances of the mainstream party most in accord with their ideology.

The Libertarian Party takes votes away from the GOP, for example.

The Green Party, similarly, takes votes away from the Democratic Party.

Why do you think that the GOP funded Ralph Nader?

Many of the most strident online proponents of the Green Party are, I believe, GOP moles.

If you vote for a third party in anything but a local race, you are either a total fool or a traitor to the ideals you say you believe in.

Your cause would be best served by becoming engaged in, and taking over, the Democratic Party.

[mcar]

1. Exactly

Let's get elected first.

[pnorman]

12. Yeah, Right!!

Joe Lieberman would make a good rallying point. Perhaps McCain can be "persuaded" to bolt the Reptilican Party and and run alongside Joe. (Or perhaps Lieberman can be "persuaded" to bolt the Democratic Party and run alongside John).

pnorman

[hippiechick]

2. mmmm ....

:popcorn:

[Neil Lisst]

3. You get an Amen from the Amen Chorus. Preach it, brother!

[walldude]

4. What if there is another Ross Perot?

You know the loonies that voted for him certainly wouldn't have voted dem.... Just sayin...

[benburch]

7. If not, we should invent one. nt

[PsN2Wind]

14. As one of the "loonies"

that voted for Ross Perot, maybe you can explain to me all the benefits the American or Mexican workers derived from NAFTA. The so-called free trade Clinton twisted arms to get passed is something we're still paying dearly for. The only candidate correct about NAFTA was Ross Perot.

[leftstreet]

5. OH MY GOD I DIDN'T KNOW THAT!111111

:eyes:

[JanMichael]

6. It's a shitty fuckfaced system.

I HATE being forced to do anything let alone who to vote for.

However this is Amerika so god forbid let's not let people have an opinion and act on it. Only two parties so pfffht!

Choice? Not here.

Accountability? Not bloody here.

Democracy? Not a fuckin' chance.

Yeah I'll vote Dem then go take a shower.

[benburch]

9. Sometimes it does make me feel dirty.

But I have been living in shit since the GOP took over. I'll take a bit of Democratic Dirt any day.

[ClassWarrior]

8. i.e., If you want to support a third party...

...send a donation to the Libertarians.

:rofl:

NGU.

[benburch]

10. Exactly!!!

http://www.lp.org

[GrpCaptMandrake]

11. Damned straight, Ben!

Third parties lose. Losing is their job. When they run national or congressional candidates, they lose big. They talk high-flown policies and lose.

Third parties are the party of choice for those who fear to succeed. They are a classic case of the "perfect" stopping the "good" dead in its tracks.

Why is there even a Green Party at all? Why aren't the Greens knee-deep in Democratic Party politics, where their help is both needed and welcomed?

I'll tell you why: because if "Greens" did that, they might succeed. And success is the last thing they want. If they succeeded, they'd run the risk of being held to account. And they don't want that. They're happy with their .0017259% of the vote.

And more than that, they're happy with George W. Bush and his cronies. 2000 proved that.

:popcorn:

[radio4progressives]

27. No Worries Folks, Repukes will be facing significant Third Party

contests in 2008 i predict.

it's going to be interesting. but i would be happy if it resulted in a full on revolution of our anti-democratic election system.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

34. They fear to succeed! You got that right!! Start a separate thread on that

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[Initech]

13. A freaking men!!!

I'm the same way - I was at one point just going to say "fuck it" to both parties but I just couldnt bear the thought of the fundies running things another four years. :puke:

[Warpy]

15. That's a limited viewpoint and here's why

Parties on the far left that cost the Democrats elections early in the last century advocated strict labor laws, an end to child labor, a 40 hour work week, universal suffrage, and a host of other goodies we associate with liberals in power. Guess where the Democrats got those ideas? They got them from splinter parties that were costing them too many votes. Guess why the Democrats adopted those ideas? They adopted them to woo votes back from those third parties.

The Democratic Party has always been the centrist, slow to adopt change party. The GOP has oscillated from fascist to progressive to fascist again, depending on whether the rich men in charge had consciences. Right now they don't, so their party is the fascist party.

It is clear that we need a change of leadership in the party, clean house of all those Eisenhower Repugs turned conservative Democrats and get our party back. It seems that Dean is focusing more on party structure and grass roots organizing than on party platform, and both things need overhaul. Only when they start seeing a larger defection to all the progressive splinter parties will they realize they'd better do something about that, and in that case a third party vote is an essential vote.

Spend them very wisely, though. My milksop DLC senator is up for reelection and is considered a shoo-in. I don't know if the GOP has fielded a candidate yet, but I anticipate another of their party hacks and a win for Sen. Milksop. Since he's stabbed me in the back on too many issues, I'll be spending my vote on the Green candidate. There is a hideous Repug Representative to get rid of, though, and I'll be voting Dem in that race. The Dem candidate is a good one, thank goodness.

If the Senatorial race were a close one, it would be a more difficult decision.

[ClassWarrior]

18. So there's a place for third parties... Agreed.

Combine the Greens' creativity and drive with the Dems' electoral power, and you have a winner.

But don't ever juxtapose that equation. B-)

NGU.

[benburch]

19. So you'd be willing to tolerate losing several more elections? nt

[Warpy]

24. If that's what it takes to reverse the decades of

running conservatives against rabid conservatives, you bet.

I will no longer actively participate in the destruction of my country. If voting third party is what it takes to slam a two by four between the party's eyes and let them know they've been doing something WRONG, then I'm willing to let it be so.

There's a reason the Democrats aren't runing a single branch of government: their traditional base stays home. When neither party is looking out for my interest or my country's interest, either I stay home or have my vote counted as a progressive. I'll choose the latter, thanks.

[benburch]

45. What will be left to save by then? nt

[ShortnFiery]

29. Very well written.

You describe my thoughts and sentiments almost to a tee. I'm confident that I'm not the only liberal-leaning green democrat who thinks the same.

Thanks for being so clear an succinct. I only wish that I could be as talented of writer. :hi:

[Minnesota Libra]

16. I COULDN'T AGREE MORE especially about the neocons and Nader nt

[IndianaGreen]

33. Don't forget the neolibs and their flip side of PNAC, the evil PPI

They are both imperialists and globalists!

[Minnesota Libra]

85. The term "neolib" is a new one, haven't heard that, so what is...........

....a "neolib"?? Don't even tell me a neolib is something similar to "republite" or anything like that.

If it is then I say, The Worst Democrat/Liberal Will Always Be Better Than The Best Neocon/Fundie.

At least there's hope for the worst Democrats/Liberals but there's no hope for those neocons/fundies.

[Occulus]

96. It's always been my understanding

that neoliberal and neoconservative mean basically the same thing. Regardless, I'm not willing to put neo- as a prefix to anything having to do with political leanings.

The neocons have tainted that beyond hope of recovery.

[IndianaGreen]

132. "neoliberalism is commonly associated with the Third Way."

There is a lot of information about neoliberalism on the web and in books. It has caused untold harm across the world, particularly in Latin America.

Here is wikipedia's take on it:

Neoliberalism is widely used as a description of the revived form of economic liberalism that became increasingly important in international economic policy discussions from the 1970s onwards.

In its dominant international use, neoliberalism refers to a political-economic philosophy that de-emphasizes or rejects government intervention in the domestic economy. It focuses on free-market methods, fewer restrictions on business operations, and property rights. In foreign policy, neoliberalism favors the opening of foreign markets by political means, using economic pressure, diplomacy, and/or military intervention. Opening of markets refers to free trade and an international division of labor. Neoliberalism generally favors multilateral political pressure through international organizations or treaty devices such as the WTO and World Bank. It promotes reducing the role of national governments to a minimum. Neoliberalism favors laissez-faire over direct government intervention (such as Keynesianism), and measures success in overall economic gain. To improve corporate efficiency, it strives to reject or mitigate labor policies such as minimum wage, and collective bargaining rights.

It opposes socialism, protectionism and (in some, but increasingly fewer, cases)environmentalism. Neoliberalism is often at odds with fair trade and other movements that argue that labor rights and social justice should have a greater priority in international relations and economics.

In its US usage, neoliberalism is associated with some of these positions such as support for free trade and welfare reform, but not with opposition to Keynesianism or environmentalism. In the American context, for example, economist Brad DeLong is a prominent defender of neoliberalism, although he is a Keynesian, supporter of income redistribution, and fierce critic of the Bush Administration. In US usage, neoliberalism is commonly associated with the Third Way. Supporters of the US version of neoliberalism present it as a pragmatic position, focusing on "what works" and transcending debates between left and right.

The overlapping of these usages can create considerable confusion. In international usage, President Ronald Reagan and the United States Republican Party are seen as leading proponents of neoliberalism. But Reagan was never described in this way in domestic US political discussion, where the term is most commonly applied to moderate Democrats like the Democratic Leadership Council.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

[WildEyedLiberal]

17. A-MEN

Tell it like it fucking is. Kicked and rec'd.

[Johonny]

20. I think there is a place for 3rd parties.

On a local and state level. For whatever reason 3rd parties are unwilling to build from the ground up. Without much national support or any political track record they some how feel they must run for the biggest offices in the land.

[ToeBot]

21. Sit down, shut up and get in line. Where have I heard that before. eom

[benburch]

23. Or lose.

That's the part you seem to have missed.

[radio4progressives]

31. we lose anyway...

that's the part that the STFU strategy ignores ..

[benburch]

35. Did I say STFU?

Don't put words into my mouth, and I won't put words into yours.

You were NOT listening at all, were you?

I said to get engaged with and take over the Democratic Party.

[Radio_Guy]

99. Are you running for an office, Ben?

I'd back you 100%.

[TahitiNut]

22. People will and should support the candidate that best ...

... represents their values and principles. If any Party can't offer such a candidate, they haven't earned that vote. Just as I agree, in principle, with the maxim "the customer is always right," I also agree with "the voter is always right." In a democracy, after all, the People should share the fruits (whether sweet or sour) of their own wisdom ... or lack thereof.

There are far more people who DON'T vote than there are third party voters. Far more.
There are far more people who vote conservative than there are third party voters. Far more.

As I've said, we liberals kept our mouths shut for too many years, preferring to avoid being called the bad name of "liberal." Even now, the less definitive term "progressive" is employed by folks who run from words. It's about confronting fascism and shining the light of facts on it everywhere we go. It's about informing others. Every day. Every way.

It's real comforting to blame the suppurating boils that currently hold office. They wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the corruption in the body politic itself. There are no shortcuts. Either fight in the trenches or die.

[BlooInBloo]

As things CURRENTLY stand, voting 3rd party = voting republican...

... And you deserve what you vote for.

Let everyone go and vote for whatever they want. And may the people achieve what they deserve.

[IndianaGreen]

32. Not in Indiana

and the fearmongering from the Beltway Democrats has worn thin!

[benburch]

36. I am NOT a Beltway Democrat

I am a radical Democratic reformer.

OK, Mr. Indiana Green - How many local races have you won in Indiana? How many seats in the Legislature have you won? How have your votes done ANYTHING other than elect GOP candidates?

[IndianaGreen]

38. Consider the post in the link below...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=842179&mesg_id=843169

You know what they say in the military about assuming anything? Oh, you never served in the military!

You are assuming I am a member of the Green Party. How foolish of you!

Democrats yet to field an opponent to take on Lugar

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - With less than a year left before he faces his next election, Richard Lugar, who's Indiana's longest-serving senator, appears poised for a stroll to a sixth term.

State Democratic Chairman Dan Parker says the party hasn't fielded a candidate yet to challenge Lugar because few people want to take on one of the most popular politicians in state history.

Former Indiana Congressman Tim Roemer floated a possible bid but dropped the idea in July, saying he wanted to spend more time with his family.

Former state Democratic Chairman Robin Winston says he's heard of no Democrats expressing interest since.

http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=4111892&nav=9Tai

[The Gunslinger]

48. As things CURRENTLY stand, voting 3rd party = voting republican

Unfortunately voting for many Democrats=voting Republican theese days.

[radio4progressives]

25. Gosh Ben...

I'm a little bit surprised by this screed from you, today.

So Leftists are Traitors? GOP Moles? Really?

Do you really believe that? And really, how are Leftists to deal with the likes of Schumer picking out which candidate is going to run for whatever race? Like this anti-Choice Casey guy in PA.. ?

thereby, completely making all efforts to "get engaged" in the party , essentially null and void. Again, tell me the GOP Mole is, Ben?

[IndianaGreen]

26. I have to vote third party this year, no choice!

There is no Democratic candidate running against puke Senator Dick Lugar. According to Indiana Democratic officials, they couldn't get anyone to agree to run against Lugar, and they were also told by the DSCC that there wouldn't be any money for the Democratic challenger anyway.

I might have to vote Libertarian for Senate, at least they believe in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, oppose the war and PATRIOT and could care less about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom.

Greens are not on the ballot in Indiana!

[radio4progressives]

30. That's a Schumer Strategy at work..

and that's why analysis presented in the OP is flawed.

[DanCa]

49. Question what does the abbreviation OP mean?

Just wondering and thanks. :)

[IndianaGreen]

54. OP = Original Poster

the person that started the thread.

Cheers!

:toast:

[DanCa]

56. Thank you

I thought it was for original piece. I just wanted to be sure :)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Fortunately, my ballot comes with more than 2 candidates.

I get to choose which one best reflects what I believe in. I'll be voting for the anti-war candidates this November.

[benburch]

37. And if you vote for any one of the other than a Democrat...

...you have thrown away your vote and elected a Republican.

Thats the cold, hard mathematical reality of it.

[IndianaGreen]

44. Even a Dem that is prowar, anti-LGBT, anti-abortion rights?

You are deluding yourself if you think any self-respecting person is going to vote for a candidate that opposes one's basic core values.

[benburch]

50. Did you run for office?

You should have.

And yes, even a DINO is better than a Republican because they can be goaded into voting with the Party on occasion, and because the control of the House and Senate are more important than any one member.

[IndianaGreen]

51. Only wealthy people get to run for office

In case you haven't noticed, I am not a member of the investor class.

No, I won't ever vote for a prowar, anti-LGBT, and anti-choice candidate. I don't share white hetero male values!

[benburch]

55. Bullshit.

Absolute bullshit.

And the stupidest excuse for the status quo I have ever heard on DU.

I worked hard for Ruben Zamora in the most recent Primary for Congress, and he is not rich.

He was defeated by John Laesch, who is also not rich, and who WILL defeat Dennis Hastert.

You either get involved or you don't deserve any opinion that others ought to note.

[IndianaGreen]

58. Are you raising any children or does your wife do that sort of work?

Are you one of those that can actually afford to miss a day of work, and not get fired?

Trying to figure out how much leisure time you have...

[benburch]

67. Raised my kids as a single father.

They are now grown up and on their own.

I work archiving Liberal and Progressive radio shows, making only enough money to get by.

And I have very little leisure time. I devote essentially all of it to politics.

[IndianaGreen]

68. I got teens!

And they take more time and effort than they did when they were much younger. Very complicated being a teen nowadays!

[benburch]

69. Good! They can canvass neighborhoods with you!

Teach them how Politics is DONE.

[IndianaGreen]

70. They believe in anime, not politics

and most people I know are turned off by a political class that does not speak to them.

I am fortunate to have good Democratic officeholders in my community. A blue spot in the middle of a red sea.

[benburch]

76. Time for you to have an effect on their beliefs, then! nt

[IndianaGreen]

78. They will be Marxists if I tried to sway them my way politically

They know Bush is a war criminal and that the Iraq war was wrong from the gitgo, and that human rights are important, and that nationalism is another form of tribalism. They know enough but it is up to them to decide what they want to believe in politics or religion when they grow up.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. The cold hard mathematical reality is number of dead in Iraq.

And, the cold hard mathematical reality of it is that the pro-war Democratic Senator in my state is going to have to whistle for my vote between planting her kisses and votes on Bush's butt.

[benburch]

52. Did you run against that person?

Or work door-to-door on that person's primary campaign opponent?

Or give money to defeat that person in the primary campaign?

Or phone bank to defeat that person in the primary campaign?

Look, the Democratic Party is not something that just happens to you, it is something you earn by your actions or inactions.

Unless you are tooth and nail in this fight, you get the Senator you deserve.

[LoZoccolo]

39. People who advocate third parties already know that.

They generally don't care. They're acting delusional, narcissistic, or being attention whores.

Or maybe they're Republicans as you say.

[DanCa]

40. The Supreme Court in 2008

Please answer this question. Do you want another conservative put on the bench?
The battle lines are drawn the gop will hold together no matter what. It's sink or swim time. Please voters think hard before your cast your ballot for a third party this year and in 2008. We need you if were ever going to take back this country from the rethugs.

[Generic Other]

41. Then we Dems need to form a coalition with our ALLIES

Fight for their/and our shared causes in exchange for their support of Democratic candidates.

[IndianaGreen]

62. Let's see what the Democratic establishment is telling our ALLIES

Q: What are you going to say to the LGBT community?

A: No marriage equality for you!

Q: What are you going to say to the reproductive rights community?

A: We won't filibuster Alito!

Q: What are you going to say to the antiwar community?

Ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/03/real_security_t.php

[Generic Other]

82. Those positions are hard to sugarcoat

I am waiting for my party to catch up to my progressive thinking while voting for folks that continue to fall short.

[Terran1212]

42. Democracy hurts the Left?

I think democracy hurts no one except those who want to keep power and democracy centralized and in the control of a few.

[undeterred]

43. Thanks for saying this Ben- it applies to working on campaigns too.

I am going to work as hard as I can for Bryan Kennedy, Sensenbrenner's Democratic challenger- and I don't even live in his district. (I am in Tammy Baldwin's district and she is safe for re-election.) Since announcing that I am doing this some people have said they can't believe I am not working for a Green Party or other third party candidate. I have nothing against the Green Party (except for the constant Democrat bashing!) but they aren't even in the game for most of the higher offices.

I care desperately whether the Democrats have a majority in the House of Representatives, and I want John Conyers to be the head of the Judiciary Committee. That's the prize my eyes are on. Getting Sensenbrenber out and Kennedy in his place is just icing on the cake!

I wish we had more choices, but we don't, and voting for or working for a third party candidate who can't possibly win is not going to make things better.

[benburch]

57. Amen.

Either get involved or give money. Either will do. Both are preferable. But nothing replaces shoe leather. Door-to-door canvassing of each and every precinct for your candidate.

[The Gunslinger]

46. I dont agree

"If you vote for a third party in anything but a local race, you are either a total fool or a traitor to the ideals you say you believe in."

I will vote for a canidate who Support the ideals I believe in, not someone in a particular party. I rwant to vote Democrat, but if they keep supporting the republican party line, like many, not all are, I will vote for someone else who does support my "ideals"

[Rosco T.]

53. absolutely correct. n/m

[Blue_Tires]

59. i voted for nader in '00

in a state that bush won by 30 points without even needing to set foot in (Kansas)...my conscious is clear

[jzodda]

60. The Green Party has hurt us, devistated us

If those people voted for Gore all those people from the Iraq disaster would be alive today. So their actions have real world consequences. They try to wear a suit of armor by trying to state how close the parties really are, but we all know thats bullshit to make them feel less guilty. Gore would not have taken us into Iraq, plain and simple. So congrats green party people, go try and play spoiler again.

[IndianaGreen]

64. The Green Party didn't vote against the Alito filibuster

or opposed the censure or impeachment of Bush, or voted for PATRIOT extension, or for Iraq War Resolution. I suggest to you that the only ones hurting us, is those with "D" after their names that found it easier to sit back and allow Bush become dictator.

BTW, were aware we had an election in 2004? What has the Democratic establishment done about voting machines and electoral fraud?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

71. Because the Green Party can't get elected to Congressional office

What has an elected Green done about electoral fraud? See title to post.

[IndianaGreen]

72. but those that did get elected, with "D" after their names, failed us

on Alito, as they did on PATRIOT extension, and on censure.

What has an elected Democrat done about fraudulent electronic voting?

[GrpCaptMandrake]

74. I guess John Conyers doesn't count

Of course, the reason he can't do more is the Democrats' fault, not the fault of that Repiglican rat-bastard James Sensenbrenner, who wouldn't even allow the microphones to stay on; who wouldn't allow a hearing room for an inquiry into the issue.

But it's the Democrats' fault. OK. I've got the memo.

[IndianaGreen]

77. I don't see Pelosi supporting Conyers's Downing Street Memo

inquiry!

[GrpCaptMandrake]

84. Your query was about "an elected Democrat"

So I gave you an example.

That's where you say "OK, I was wrong."

Nope. Instead, you try to shift the inquiry to Nancy Pelosi.

Oh, well. I get it. It's the democrats' fault, not the majority party.

[sweetheart]

61. Ben... tsk tsk

I dare you to head on over to
progressive independent dot com and
say that. The persons who would flame
you are not here, or banned... give
them fair airtime to point to your rather
flatlined logic.

[jzodda]

63. Had Gore won......

all you need to say. A lot less dead people all over the world. The green party provided the difference Bush needed. What more is there to say then that? That "is" the logic that ben is speaking of and how can you debate it, unless you argue Gore would have done the same as Bush. I don't believe that for even one second. Bush has done his best to destroy this country and Nader and company have played a major role in allowing this.

[IndianaGreen]

65. Gore won Florida in 2000 and Kerry won Ohio in 2004

and we will lose in 2008 because we have yet to confront as a party the issue of fraudulent electronic voting.

[sweetheart]

66. blame nader for election fraud

Gore won that election plain and simple. You know it.
I know it. It has nothing to do with nader, he's just
a convenient scapegoat so we can avoid dealing with the
real fact that the election was thrown.

Get all in a ABB, hate-nader muddle, but the fact is that
nader did not throw that election, nader did not arrange
to cheat the databases, to shut down the counts, to hide
the overvotes of punch-gore, writein-gore, and to allow
the past-date military votes.

As long as we blame nader for an election fraud we
cheat ourselves of the truth and our power to
resolve future fraud.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

73. I don't see anyone blaming Nader for fraud

Personally, I blame Nader for all that unmitigated bullshit he tossed around about how there wasn't a difference between Bush and Gore. I remember that. I remember Radiohead appearing on Saturday Night Live and displaying a "Let Nader Debate" message. I remember the hackey-sack-and-cheese-sandwich crowd actually buying into Nader's lie about there being no difference.

I don't know what you call it where you come from, but where I come from, we call that "lying." Nader was, and is, a liar. He set out to stop Gore. Period. I don't know why. Vanity? Then he's not just a liar, he's insane.

"Vanity, all is vanity, sayeth the preacher."

[sweetheart]

79. this whole thread is about that

The whole thread blames third partys, casting their
supporters as GOP members... Clearly the blame is for
something, and it seems to have something to do with losing
elections. Well, then we're blaming them because they are
a threat to electoral majority in a 2 party system, if and
only IF, the system itself is not corrupt and maligned.

I agree with you about nader himself. I've not a drop
of respect left for him after the antics of these past polls.
That aside, "he" is not third parties. Third parties are
not the enemy, the incompetence of the party that should
garner those votes, not getting out there and doing just that.

[ourbluenation]

75. spot on Ben - I've been chasing this thing all day. ...

Can't understand how a vote for someone who will absolutley not have an elected position the day after the election accomplishes anything but a contribution to a GOP victory. What the hell good is that?

[Lindacooks]

80. AMEN!!!

[K-W]

81. There are times when a third party makes sense in a two party system.

But only when the third party has more potential than the party in power. If for instance one were to conclude tha the democrats are structurally unable to adapt to the future and there were in existance a party that seemed more capable of doing so...

regardless, you are right about the green party in national elections since it has not demonstrated the potential to supplant the democratic party even if one deems that neccessary.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

83. Well said

The one thing that people fail to realize is that there will *never* be a viable third party. The moment a third party becomes viable, it will be the second party, and the party it supplanted will wither and die.

Now, I'm sure the Greens are all for the Democratic Party withering and dying, but it's not likely anytime soon.

Whigs, anyone?

[mmonk]

86. I don't plan to vote third party

but that's not where the blame lies (in third parties).

[Jose Diablo]

87. So called moderate corporate maggots only help the GOP.

Same argument, another slant.

Why do you think the corporation's contribute to DLC candidates? It's because the politicians don't want to depend on the goodwill and money of the people to get elected. They would prefer to get their money from corporations and pass laws that benefit corporations over people because it's easier and more personally profitable.

[AndyA]

88. Agreed. The focus this year must be on removing Republicans from office

in any manner that is most efficient. The power of a vote is strongest when it is consolidated, and the Democrats are in the best position to take advantage of that. Forget all the third parties. We must save America. Even if the Democratic Party doesn't represent a person's interests 100%, the focus has to be removing Republicans.

Things can be fixed, policies can be changed, but the balance of power must be restored above all else this year.

[LeftHander]

89. Bend over grease up, and like it in other words?

As long as the candidates in the Democratic party represent values that are true democratic values. then they have my support.

If a Dem is opposed to peace, is opposed to same sex marriage, is opposed to choice and is a Democrat in name only I won't vote for them.

PERIOD.

[mdmc]

90. two legs goood....

there is kool aid... we think that only bushbot drink it..

[motocicleta]

91. Anyone care to share the documentation that the GOP funded Nader?

Not that it would prove anything. Every party takes every advantage they can. I don't blame the GOP for doing it, and I don't blame Nader for taking it. He is trying to push the agenda left. Good on him.

I voted for Gore, while holding the puke in my mouth, and Bush stole the election. Then I did the same for Kerry. Same result. I always support Dems, even though they continue to sell me and mine out, for the very reasons Ben states. But I feel like a fucking coward for it. It's anti-democratic, it's un-American, and it makes me sick. Most MFers with a D after their name give not one tin shit more about my issues (rights, environment, economy) than the repigs.

Nader didn't cost Gore the election! Fraud and malfeasance and media corruption and Gore cost Gore the election. You know who cost Gore the election? We did, because we didn't march on Washington and demand the Supreme Court get it right.

Get over it. It's 2006. Enough about Nader.

[VOX]

113. Why would a right-wing tool like Ben Stein give $3,750 to Nader in 2004?

While at the same time giving big dough to right-wing PACs and candidates? Check out Stein's donations here:
http://www.newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Ben_Stein.php

While this isn't exactly "the GOP funding Nader," it's still clear what Stein was up to (and who knows how many others like him). And this was in 2004, after it was evident from the 2000 election what can happen when a third-party candidate like Nader is in the race.

While Nader is not the single source of Gore's downfall in 2000, his presence did not help the Democratic Party. Forget Florida in 2000 -- look at what happened in New Hampshire:

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
Bush -- 273,559
Gore -- 266,348
Nader -- 22,198

If just 7,300 of those Nader voters could have envisioned the consequences of having BushCo run the country, New Hampshire would have gone to Gore. Gore gets New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes, and he wins the presidency, even with losing Florida, 270 to 267.

Note that in 2004, New Hampshire voters were able to make the adjustment:
Kerry 340,019
Bush 330,848
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/elections/2004/nh/

[motocicleta]

118. I see your point, I just disagree

I remember people blaming the naderites back in 2000, and I disagreed with it then. I suppose it is one in a long list of reasons Gore lost, but in my mind it is nowhere near the top. Therefore, why are we on the left still fighting about it?

Let's find a way to unite people instead of dividing them. Screaming about Nader in 2006 seems to be worse than a waste of our time; it will only serve to keep more people from voting, rather than inspire them to vote. And I believe the polls: if we get a big turnout, any election fraud will be too great to keep covered up.

[Festivito]

92. We are born into a two-party, NON-instant-runoff-voting system.

Also, we have a run-for-money system that pays third parties to skew elections, and
pays people to pass adorable statements that convince others it's okay to throw away their votes.

[mdmc]

93. cut and paste

from madhound...


Every time I see somebody showing off their political/Selection '00 ignorance again. OK, here goes.

First off, Gore, due to his connections with BP Oil, pissed off nearly 200,000 registered Dems, and almost 400,000 self described liberals in Florida. The reason that he pissed them off is because of his pro-drilling stance off the shores of Florida. In fact he pissed the registered Dems and liberals so much that they decided to double screw Gore and voted for Bush. Think about that for a moment, almost 600,000 votes lost, all due to the fact that Gore didn't want to cross his oily master. Whoops, there goes the election.

Secondly, the journalist Greg Palast handed the whole vote scam package to the Gore camp on a silver platter, while the recount process was still undreway. Now think about this, you've just been handed the key to not only winning the election, but to also banish your opponent and his cohorts to the political wilderness for a long time, if not forever. What would you do with that information? Well, Gore, on the advice of his handlers just sat on it. So much for wanting to win.

Third, even Al From, head of the DLC, concluded long ago that Nader didn't adversely effect the Gore campaign. From the 1/24/01 issue of Blueprint, the DLC house organ: "The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."<http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=127&subid=179&conte... > Get that? Gore did better with Nader in the race that he would have without Nader in the race.

Fourth, Gore and his handlers bungled the recount process, and handled the media madness poorly. Rather than jumping out in front of this and going on the attack, he decided to play defense and got his ass handed to him.

Fifth, Oh, and there was the matter of the Supreme Court and their Selection. Was Nader on the court? Did he influence the court's decision? No. And as a '04 election side note, who were the people who were crying fraud in Ohio in the '04 election? Yeah, the Greens and Nader, Kerry was mysteriously silent, and continues to be that way until this day.

Sixth, And at the end of of it all, when the votes were finally all counted(though it didn't matter then) it turns out that guess what, Gore actually won.

I'm sick and tired of Democrats using Nader and the Greens as their whipping post. The only reason that they are doing this is in order to divert blame and attention away from their own failures, both before and after the election of 2000. It is easier to scapegoat somebody that to perform the sort of in depth self analysis that is desperately needed concerning Democratic party practices and campaign strategies. So before you continue to play the Nader card, I would suggest that you stop, and take a hard, long look at the failings of the Democratic party and how they handle campaigns. The answers that you seek are there, not in blaming the person who had the least to do with the Democratic failings of '00.

[Festivito]

94. Oh, it's a failure alright, but despite your cut and paste, we're stuck.

Stuck in a two-party system, and worse, a two-party system with rigged machines.

Can we look back and find and issue that we'd like to have had different, and then put on numbers that cannot be accounted any more than the actual votes were not accounted properly.

A key is nice, but the MSM hid the locks.

Some said Nader hurt Gore, From said not.

Could Gore have done a better recount process? Sure. In retrospect. Hey, with a time machine I'd have beamed into the RepubliCON flown-in shouting and drown them out.
The media were stacked in favor of CONs and even DU didn't believe it back then.

Gore was RW-media-framed into being defensive. We see the CON process better now. Even if you do see it ahead of time, one can still be damned if you do, damned if you don't. I doubt Nader, or anyone, would have done any better.

Nader had nothing to do with SCOTUS.
Both Gore and Kerry ceded too quickly in my opinion. Again, due to MSM.

Yes, Gore had won Florida in '00.

And I'm also tired of well-funded third party intervention against Dems. No Green, no Independent will ever be devoid of failures, nor will Dems. CONs have over-arching failures that we must unite to stop. We are born into a cruddy system.

We have little choice.

[mdmc]

95. perhaps the gop and the dems can join up and form a

coalition govt. Then there could be a conservative third party.

[Festivito]

98. Well, that makes as much sense as tooth decay on modern art?

Trying to find a way of being less corrupt and less conservative and so you suggest joining corrupt conservatives and adding ... conservatism as a choice?

It would take a miracle to get a third party candidate into the presidency. I'm not adverse to miracles. I just don't see one coming.

I'd love a conservative third party, but Dems would have to be separate from Republicans in order to take advantage.

[mdmc]

106. in my county, most dems that get elected also run on the con line

Locally, there are no progressives, just dems+con, gop, and gop+con. The big divide is not between the dems and the gop, it is between the rtl neo-cons little govt folk, and the moderates.

[Festivito]

127. I see it as the MSM fails to inform, sometimes on purpose.

We have to run some of the CON line, because people are so ill-informed. Those strawmen are REAL to too many voters.

The reality of our country's situation dispels the strawmen, a little. We can move a little more left. But, the money system for supplying the MSM via Rush, et. al. is still active, large, and strong with a near permanent infrastructure.

[mdmc]

129. rush is not part of the msm, imo.. he is a wingnut

msm is pro corporate, but not conservative or liberal. MSM is a money maker, and they report on the news that "sells".

If you need the con line to win as a dem, then use it. I think we need to be this pragmatic.

[Festivito]

131. Fine. It's pragmatism that votes Dem and NOT third party.

Mind you, if the polls gave a third party a significant lead, I'd jump on board. I'd fight hard for the once third party, and fight anyone voting for the old D party. Pragmatism.

But, it would have to be a significant, reported, clear, and more of a lead. The MSM would have to bend to it, Rush nearly silenced by his own foolhardiness, along with the rest. A miracle. I don't see it coming, but I'd love to.

[ShortnFiery]

97. Yes, and the Democratic Leadership take for granted that the liberals

and African American voters will ALWAYS be there for them come election day. Why, because the republicans don't even try to hide their Pro-Business over the Average American bias.

I've always stood in line and was a good little democrat, but no more. I am beginning to think that if the republicans continue to rule, the sooner we hit CRISIS point, the sooner we can kick out all those smarmy bastards, both Republican and the DINOS.

I probably will submit again and vote the party line but still, I'm very tempted to stay at home this time.

What to do? Guess time will tell from now until Election Day.

[benburch]

105. Then why aren't YOU the Democratic Leadership.

Get off your ass and engage in the process, and you will be.

[ShortnFiery]

110. No, I will not ...

I am tired of the Democratic Party on the national level putting up these ruling class, silver spoon in mouth, Dynasty Driven - Presidential Nominees.

Yes, in both 2000 and 2004 I behaved like a "good democrat" and voted for these people but since many of you are helping to destroy a liberal, working class ICON, for whatever reason ...

Well let's just say when the warmongering, business loving DLCer's approach me for campaign contributions and/or my vote, the door's slammed shut.

Don't ask liberals and greens after all the abuse we have tolerated and still voted for your, yes YOUR presidential nominees, to come through again.

I'm sincerely sorry it turned out this way because I know this beautiful country is destined for a whole lot more pain until they WTFU and realize "being a liberal" and anti-thug-authority is not so bad a stance after all? But all indicators are that those with big-money in our party don't wish to compromise with the left. Therefore, many of us pro-labor unions and pro-REGULATED Big Business minded liberals "won't hear you anymore." <door slams shut>

[benburch]

115. Give up your rights as a citizen if you like.

That is what you are advocating.

Me? I intend to run the Democratic Party with or without you.

Silver spoon my ASS, though. The only reason those people are there is because of people like you who will not get off their buttholes to go out and make a difference.

[ShortnFiery]

119. As we all continue to degrade into poverty (sans investor class)

because the money-Dems were too fraidy cat to recognize the liberal base of our party. You'll also have plenty of time to wonder, "how it could have been" if only we didn't buy into all this bullshit warmongering, authoritarian and pro-big business.

If all the moderate dems will call us and the people we hold in high esteem bat shit crazy, then don't call our name come election time.

It just may take another depression for people to wake from their "Big Brother will protect us all" DELUSIONS ... and IMO, it just may be best that the republicans continue to garner all the blame.

I get the impression that a number of folks here are a part of the big money stock market crowd who loves unregulated business. Democratic or Republican, you are not my ally. ;)

BTW don't give me that "get off your ass" jack boot! I volunteered for both the Gore and Kerry elections at my local democratic party headquarters. I have a right to be disgusted that my beloved Democratic party, has truly left me in so many ways. :cry:

[benburch]

121. When I have two pennies to rub together, I have a celebration.

I don't know what you are smoking to think that I am in the big money stock market crowd, but don't Bogart that Joint!

[ShortnFiery]

122. I never said YOU were ... but the money is with the Moderate-Righties

We both can agree on that fact if on nothing else.

Best regards - we differ - and I pray to God that you prove to be right and that I am wrong.

[Ignis]

103. So work for instant-runoff voting!

Aim for the cause of the problem, not the symptom!

[Festivito]

126. I am. w/Ds got spit's chance on hot sidewalk, w/Rs in a blast furnace.

What we need is computer printable, voter markable, computer readable ballots that are checked and rechecked, then saved throughout the term of office for as many recounts as the people want to make, until the people are through counting them.

But, Rs only intend to steal our system and our money. They laugh at fair voting, either to our faces or behind our backs. There is not much chance with Ds, but what Rs are doing is hideous.

[benburch]

128. If you get involved with the party, you would have a better chance.

RUN FOR OFFICE.

I Suggest your state legislature would be a good place to start. Your typical state house district is small enough that one person could literally visit every voter personally to ask for their vote, so this need not require a vast sum of money, just a major commitment on your part.

[GeorgeGist]

100. Thanks for the incite...

I couldn't agree more that telling people what not to think is a useful way to avoid changing the design of the American electoral system.

[benburch]

104. I was telling you how to change it.

But clearly you were not listening.

[Pithy Cherub]

101. I will only vote and spend money on candidates that best

represent my views and values.

[benburch]

102. Wouldn't rather have your views and values represented poorly...

than not at all?

And my message to you is that it does NOT need to be poorly!

GET INVOLVED.

A political party is ruled by those tho get off the sofa and get to work for it. If you involve yourself at the local level, become a precinct committee person, run for office, canvass door-to-door for your candidate, phone bank using your free weekend minutes, etc, then you can finally influence who makes it to the general election, and who then represents you in your state and national Democratic Party!

And here is a secret they don't want you to know; If you work hard enough for a candidate, that person will actually talk to you personally when in office. How's that for being represented? It could only get better than that if you were the candidate yourself.

[Pithy Cherub]

109. My vote represents me, no longer the lowest common

denominator. It is more important to suffer an ignoble defeat while standing up for principle, values and the common good. So many more people would be alive today if that had been a common theme in practicing what the politicians preach while voting in Congress before the Iraq War. There are many Democrats who embody the best of public service. Those noble defenders of the common good will get the resources and the votes.

In real life I am involved in ways that I choose to be and more influential. My vote is no longer as cheaply held as it was nor as easy to get. The vote is an end result. Money also speaks to politicians and I choose to spend my time, money and vote on those that have demonstrated that my trust will not be abused.

Reagan Democrats, the Greens, and Perot voters to name a few voting blocs that impacted politics, were all told to adhere to a letter or an ideal that no longer served them. There was no public outcry, just determination to make people notice they existed at the ballot box. The party has some extensive outreach to conduct because there is a silence amongst the rank and file voters that does not bode well unless that body politic can be inspired. Everyone will contribute in their own ways, big and small, to ensure that the Democratic Party can attract talent and voters. The pols have a responsibility to then demonstrate they want to keep the voters long term.

Those who have broken faith no longer get a do over or a pass or a vote or money or volunteer efforts.

[benburch]

116. Enjoy losing?

Might as well wipe your ass with your ballot if that is your attitude.

I just revealed to you the keys to power, and you threw them back at me.

Your loss.

[Pithy Cherub]

120. Your version of power is for some not for all.

I have many other means and ways to make my voice/vote heard. You also have no clue how I choose to make that happen. My vote is held in much higher regard than it has been previously. How cheaply one holds their individual vote is not my call.

[benburch]

123. You hold yours very cheap if you vote for anybody but a Democrat.

Might as well stay home election day and enjoy your home, while you have it, because the GOP plans to take it away soon.

[Pithy Cherub]

125. Fear is not a motivator for my vote.

The candidates and their behavior will determine who is vote worthy. Fear is how the GOP has stayed in power. Everyone gets an opinion, but not my vote. That's for the more inspirational liberal pol who deserves it.

[drm604]

107. Hell YES!

You're speaking the hard mathematical real world truth here.

It would be great to live in a world where it made sense to always vote for the candidate that best represented your views. It would also be great to live in a world where money grows on trees and all of our energy is supplied by cheap non-polluting perpetual motion machines.

Unfortunately the real world isn't like that. Unfortunately we all have to live in that real world and that often means having to choose the least evil.

You can argue till your blue in the face trying to convince some people of that.

[Cats Against Frist]

108. I agree

As a pretty serious anarchist/libertarian, I will, and have always voted Democratic. Until there's no chance that the GOP will win elections, I consider it my moral duty to oppose them in whatever way possible.

And I'm telling you: I'm a radical. And I will vote for the Dems, again.

[DrunkenMaster]

111. you should be proud, preaching to the choir

like that. What a risky thing to say around here. You demonstrate parrhesia at its finest....

[benburch]

117. Clearly the chior is in revolt...

if you had bothered to read the rest of the thread you'd have known that.

[DrunkenMaster]

134. awwww

it must suck to throw a pep rally and have no one show.

[savemefromdumbya]

112. in a 2 party system yes

give me PR

[berni_mccoy]

114. While I agree with the point of the post, I think the problem is

That we don't have instant runoff elections...

Since that isn't likely to happen anytime soon (Americans in general don't seem to care about voting), I agree with you. If enough of the public was upset about this (more than the 80K at DU), then we'd be likely to change the election practices across the nation, which would make 3rd party candidates viable choices instead of spoilers.

[JStuart]

124. true dat.

n/t

[warrens]

130. Word up

I have talked three well-meaning but naive friends out of the Green party. They're in blue states, so their votes didn't really change much, but the idea is to starve these ego freaks so they can't get on ballots in tossup states. Which Nader, obnoxiously, concentrated on. At least M. Moore repented before the election and begged his readers in battleground states to vote Dem. Not Nader, though.

[depakid]

133. Talk about flamebait

and a total lack of understanding of politics.

As long as the Dems legitimize the far right and support their policies policies they're going to lose. Just as they have for the last six elections in a row.

And nope, sorry- but I won't be voting for the DINO in my district this year, nor will a LOT of other people I know. It would be better for the party if he were out of office- and that holds true for about a dozen others I can think of.

[petgoat]

135. Simplistic Analysis

There's no harm in voting Green if the Dem is going to lose anyway or going to win anyway.

With Instant Runoff Voting people could vote their consciences without throwing away their votes.