Stop insane talk about voting for 3rd party candidates

[johan helge]

Some say they can't vote for Hillary if she's the Dem candidate, because she's a "warmonger".

This kind of insane talk must stop. That's the kind of thinking that gave Florida to Bush in 2000.

And remember - this is the DEMOCRATIC underground. If you don't want to be part of the fight against the Repubs (only the Democrats do that), then leave this forum. It's disrespectful to advocate not voting or voting for 3rd party candidates here.

But I'm sure you're all sick enough of the Repubs, and want to join the fight: Vote for the Democrat, even if they nominate a dog!

[halobeam]

1. you know you are gonna hear that the S. Court gave Fla to Bush,

imo, true... but the point you are making ought to be in all caps!

VOTE YOUR OWN PARTY. If you believe it should be a three party govt. then build the third party up from the grass roots... until it IS a viable 3 party govt.

but in major elections......

don't be a FOOL.. It still is only a viable two party government. Vote responsibly. PLEASE.

[johan helge]

2. Thanks.

Yes, I've seen this "S. Court"-argument, but it's amazingly stupid. If not for Nader and his voters, the S. Court couldn't have given Florida to Bush.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. Or for bush and his voters for that matter.......n/t

[EFerrari]

10. That's bull. I belong to a third party and voted for the Dem

and you need to do some research on what happened in Florida.

Black votes were "spoiled" in enough numbers to give it to Bush.

That is what you are denying with a post like this.

Shame on you. Last time I looked, the Democratic Party supports the Civil Rights movement and the Voting Act.

[johan helge]

18. Why do 3rd party voters say so much - I don't want to use the word - ?

The point is: If not for Nader and his voters, Gore would have won, in spite of spoiling of black votes etc. etc. Of course lots of black votes were spoiled.

[EFerrari]

19. "Of course lots of black votes were spoiled."

Thanks for making my case.

And, as I said, I voted for Gore. Voted for Kerry, too.

:hi:

edit to add: So when does the disenfranchisement of black voters become a given. Jesus Joseph and Mary and all the Saints and Powers.

[Hippo_Tron]

26. Because we can't control Katherine Harris, Jeb Bush, and the Supreme Court

On the other hand, we assume that because Ralph Nader and his supporters are politically left of center that they should be smart enough to know that there is a difference between Bush and Gore.

[EFerrari]

27. Non sequitur.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. That's your opinion

Ralph Nader used to be a supporter of Democratic candidates. While I feel that he's totally entitled to his opinions about the Democratic party, I don't see why it's unreasonable for us to expect him to acknowledge the fact that just because both of our parties should be the left of where they are now doesn't mean that one is still a hell of a lot better than the other.

[LWolf]

3. 1. I don't need to. 2. It's not insane. and 3.:

Saying that you won't vote for a particular candidate in the general election is not synonymous with saying that you will support or vote for 3rd party members, as you are alleging, or republicans, as other party attack dogs allege. It might mean not voting at all, at which point that poster becomes one of the majority of Americans of voting age. It might mean writing in a better Democrat. Or, it might mean a 3rd party candidate. If posters don't say which choice they'll be going with, it's not up to the self-appointed gods of DU to decide that for them.

Insanity is a mental illness. Those who don't agree with your point of view, and who don't vote or live the way you think they should, are not mentally ill.

Democrats are not the only people to oppose republicans; that's a falsehood.

DEMOCRATIC underground is not for democrats only; it is for Democrats and other progressives. While it is true that 3rd party or republican candidates cannot be supported here, it is not true that people who choose not to support a bad nominee are disrespectful. Perhaps they are smarter or have more integrity. My opinion vs yours. :shrug:

I don't need to "stop talking about voting for 3rd party candidates," because I haven't been talking about that. I have stated, and will continue to state, that I will not march like a good little democratic soldier to vote for a bad nominee, and if the majority of democrats choose to nominate a candidate that I cannot, in good conscience, support, they'll head to the general election without me. That doesn't break any forum rules, and if you don't like it, I suggest you find a good candidate to work for. Attacking that position sure won't change it.

[LoZoccolo]

9. Yes, it is the same.

Which is why you are going on super-duper ignore like the rest of them.

:hi: :nuke:

[Bonobo]

21. Coming from Mr. Lieberman]s top supporter.

Put me on your ignore please!

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

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

[LWolf]

15. Oh, darn. The "super-duper ignore."

:sarcasm:

[johan helge]

20. It's bizarre to discuss with 3rd party voters.

I'm still amazed at how bizarre it is to discuss with 3rd party voters:

You write: "Saying that you won't vote for a particular candidate in the general election is not synonymous with saying that you will support or vote for 3rd party members, as you are alleging, or republicans, as other party attack dogs allege. It might mean not voting at all, at which point that poster becomes one of the majority of Americans of voting age. It might mean writing in a better Democrat. Or, it might mean a 3rd party candidate."

But didn't you read what I wrote: "It's disrespectful to advocate NOT VOTING (emphasized here) or voting for 3rd party candidates here." And writing in a better Democrat is equal to not voting, of course, since your vote isn't counted. And what's the big point, anyway, voting for a 3rd party candidate has the same effect on the election outcome as not voting.

Insanity is a mental illness, true. But the paragraphs above illustrate the need for using strong words.

Only Democrats "fight" Repubs, I wrote. What I mean with that is obvious - they are the only party which takes the pain to build a coalition big enough to beat the Repubs. Building a small party of people who agree with you on almost everything isn't fighting, that's a (destructive) hobby.

"While it is true that 3rd party or republican candidates cannot be supported here, it is not true that people who choose not to support a bad nominee are disrespectful. Perhaps they are smarter or have more integrity."

Well, they definitely aren't smarter (and I'm not that smart!). And, of course, they like to think of themselves as having integrity. This kind of "self-love" from people who leave it to others to fight "evil", I just can't stand it.

"I don't need to "stop talking about voting for 3rd party candidates," because I haven't been talking about that. I have stated, and will continue to state, that I will not march like a good little democratic soldier to vote for a bad nominee, and if the majority of democrats choose to nominate a candidate that I cannot, in good conscience, support, they'll head to the general election without me. That doesn't break any forum rules".

This tires me - where did I say that you have talked about voting for 3rd party candidates? I don't know the forum rules. But if you don't break the letter of the rules, you obviously intend to break their spirit. What's the big difference?

[hfojvt]

127. Bothers me that he/she lists almost all the viable candidates

as Democrats they will not vote for. In my view if a candidate cannot even come close to winning the Democratic Party nomination, then they cannot possibly compete in the general election. It does bother me that the primaries themselves are very non-democratic, with delegates being hand-picked by, or as, party elites, rather than by the party members.

I voted fourth party for President in 1992 and 1996, but I was not deluded enough to realize that I was helping the Republican in a sense. I was deluded in that, perhaps because I only had M$M sources and not even a TV, I did not see much difference between Bush and Clinton. Looking back, Bush was worse than I thought and Clinton was better than I gave him credit for.

[LWolf]

142. I guess you and I differ in our

definition of "viable."

I think there are plenty of viable Democrats who are not on my short list of rejections. Are the only "viable" candidates those that the media choose for me ahead of time?

[LWolf]

144. I read what you wrote.

I just don't agree with you. I disagree with your opinion about how people choose to spend (or not) their vote, I disagree with your opinion that "D"s are the "only" ones who fight republicans, I disagree about your evaluation of others' intelligence. I disagree with all of those opinions.

I'm just pointing out that I don't share your opinions, and that your opinions are no more valid than mine.

I don't "disagree" about the "spirit of the rules." I can speak clearly about that, since I'm in the position to know more about my motivations than you are. This statement, "But if you don't break the letter of the rules, you obviously intend to break their spirit," is a blatant falsehood.

Frankly, you are tired of one thing, and I'm tired of another. I'm tired of having the status quo, whether that be the media, or some corporate party committee or group, or just mainstream party voters narrowing my choices, demanding loyalty pledges, and "campaigning" by smearing dissenters. I value dissent.

:shrug:

[johan helge]

151. Vote for the best candidate who can win

Remember, you are the one who brought intelligence into the discussion, saying that 3rd party voters "Perhaps (..) are smarter".

"This statement, "But if you don't break the letter of the rules, you obviously intend to break their spirit," is a blatant falsehood."

Does this mean that you intend to support a Democrat? From the DU rules: "Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

"I value dissent." Me too. And, in general, work for the ideas most close to your heart. But in a "winner takes it all"-election, don't vote for the candidate you agree most with. Vote for the best of the candidates who can win. That's also the best way to improve "the average quality of the two leading candidates" in the future. Why? Simply put: If the best of the two wins this time, both candidates next time will be better than this time. If the worst of the two wins this time, both candidates next time will be worse than this time.

[LWolf]

155. "Who can win" is a factor influenced by

many things, not the least its use as a "talking point" to keep the less attractive status quo in power by denigrating better candidates as "unelectable." I don't agree with the tactic, and I won't support that particular tactic. I don't agree that we should allow corporate-owned media and corporate-funded "groups" within the party to decide who "can win" or not. I think there are many great candidates who "can win" when voters pay attention to the candidate and the issues, instead of whether or not the corporate masters approve.

Does this mean I intend to support a Democrat? Absolutely. I'm glad you found the rules. Specifically, I am more supportive of progressive ideals than most Democrats, and I support many Democratic candidates for political office. I will, at the least, support a Democrat, or more than one Democrat, in the primaries. When it comes to the general election, I will happily support a Democrat if the party gives me one I can, in good conscience, support.

Regardless, as long as I don't campaign against that candidate, or for a non-Democrat, for any election on DU, no rules will have been broken.

[johan helge]

156. President Kennedy's favorite quote

So you may not vote for the Democrat in the general election. But if so, you won't campaign against him/her on DU. The last thing is good.

"When it comes to the general election, I will happily support a Democrat if the party gives me one I can, in good conscience, support." About "good conscience":

Voting for someone doesn't mean that you agree with the candidate on everything or even most things. It just means that not voting for him/her is even worse, it's effectively leaving it to others to fight "evil". From http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Dante+Quote.htm: "President Kennedy's favorite quote was really from Dante, 'The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality.'" I use this quote here not to be harsh, but to make you see my point.

[LWolf]

158. I don't really need my conscience explained to me.

I've never agreed with any candidate on *everything.* My conscience tells me that putting party above or before issues leads to corruption and stagnation, and won't move the issues that drive me to participate in the first place. My conscience also tells me that "us or them" is a talking point without the substance I'm looking for.

I'm just not moved by those sorts of arguments. There are a significant number of potential voters who share some of my pov, and who don't go to the polls at all. Those that are marginalized and disenfranchised by the status quo, and who won't be bought by standard talking points. I think the Democratic Party ought to be going after those votes, rather than compromising themselves into meaninglessness courting the swing vote and corporate support.

I understand that the party may choose a different audience to court. I just prefer honesty and transparency. If the party chooses to court that stagnant middle, Democrats ought not to express surprise, shock, outrage, dismay, etc., when some don't follow them, and more don't join them from where I sit. It's a pragmatic decision, and one the party ought to be accountable for. Democrats can be accountable by acknowledging that they choose to lose votes in one area to gain them in another. :shrug:

[demrabble]

76. This Confuses Me.

"I have stated, and will continue to state, that I will not march like a good little democratic soldier to vote for a bad nominee,"

This confuses me.

I believe that any one we nominate will be a good candidate. It's just not possible for us to nominate a "bad" candidate. Sure, some candidates may be better than others, but the fact that someone is running as a Democrat is good enough for me.

Besides, all voting for a third party candidate (or not voting at all) does is to reduce the possibility of having the next President be a Democrat.

If someone is going to post here on DEMOCRATIC Underground, shouldn't they at least be willing to be a "good little democratic soldier" -- especially after we have nominated OUR candidate?

[LWolf]

143. You and I disagree.

I don't agree that a "D" next to someone's name automatically makes them a good candidate. I rate candidates by their record on the issues that drive my vote, rather than the "D."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

133. Democrats are the only people to meaningfully oppose Republicans.

If by "oppose" you mean "declare opposition to" then non-Democrats oppose Republicans.

If by "oppose" you mean "take actions likely to hinder" then practically the only people opposing Republicans are Democrats; more or less the only exceptions on a national level are Bernie Sanders and (though people will hate me saying it) Joe Lieberman. Pretty much all independents aren't opposing Republicans in that sense, though.

[Conscious Confucius]

145. It's funny how opposing viewpoints and free-thought leads to resentment here.

Let the people say what they will. Why must we ignore people for having a different viewpoint than us? Why not censor everybody but yourself? That way you will always be right. I appreciate every bit of different opinion on this board. I agree with LWolf. Supporting bad candidates that are Democrats only hinders good candidates from running. If you don't like somebody, don't vote for them. That way all the duds unworthy of our support leave and allow fresh candidates to enter. Such thinking is why we have such poor voter turnout and such poor quality candidates. I would gladly vote for an Independent candidate that I do like over a Democratic candidate that I do not like. If you don't like that opinion, ignore me. It is your choice to perhaps learn something new from somebody different than yourself. I will not censor and I will not ignore people because they are different. I welcome debate.

[aquart]

4. There are many trolls working very very very hard.

And then there are the fools who do the work of the trolls for them.

[LWolf]

17. I am neither troll nor fool

and I consider both of those terms to be personal attacks.

[camero]

5. The way I see it.

I voted democrat in the congressional elections to restore the legitimacy of the government as a whole. Which means leaving Iraq (an immoral war to begin with), starting investigations that lead to impeachment, and extradition of the criminals in the government to the ICC. Enough of this crap about a constitutional crisis as we've had a rolling one for almost 6 years now.

Failing that, I'm better off voting for a third party that conforms closer to my beliefs such as Green or socialist than just for the lesser of two corporate evils.

[KT2000]

8. Haven't you seen enough

of the damage Republicans are willing to do to this country??

I guess the third party debate will go on throughout the election but as the lesser of two corporate evils - the Democrats would NEVER have ordered torture, shredded the Constitution as the repubs have, sold out the Supreme Court or killed American citizens through executive orders allowing greater pollution.
I will ponder this afternoon what the Democrats will be doing about Global Warming and a World War that bush wants to start in the Middle East.
I'll stick with the Democratic Party!

[camero]

13. The jury is still out

By thier silence or by inaction in the next two years, they will officially be condoning those policies. Time to go to work, Dems.

[LoZoccolo]

11. If you have any complaint about Bush*...

...then you know for a fact that you're not better off.

See you in 2008.

:hi: :nuke:

[caseycoon]

7. I would vote for...

a kangaroo if he/she was the democratic candidate. We CANNOT allow the repugs to win in '08! (or any other time for that matter)

[xultar]

12. KICK!

[Initech]

14. NO! 3rd party vote = vote for GOP.

That's essentially what the media said after the 2000 and 2004 elections.

[LoZoccolo]

16. And that's what my dad said before the elections!

My dad's smart about those things.

[mod mom]

83. Read this on the DLC (sounds like attached to the neocons to me):

So Gore "lost" because of decision to discard New Dems (ie DLC)?
Posted by mod mom in General Discussion
Sat Jan 20th 2007, 02:52 PM
"A key factor in that defeat was Gore's peculiar decision to discard the New Democrat formula that had worked so well in 1992 and 1996."

-snip
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAr...

This was written by Will Marshall. Who is Will Marshall?

Will Marshall is one of the founders of the New Democrat movement, which aims to steer the US Democratic Party toward a more right-wing orientation. Since its founding in 1989, he has been president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank affiliated with the Democratic Leadership Council. He recently served on the board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a committee chaired by Joe Lieberman and John McCain designed to build bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall also signed, at the outset of the war, a letter issued by the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) expressing support for the invasion. Marshall signed a similar letter sent to President Bush put out by the Social Democrats USA on Feb. 25, 2003, just before the invasion. The SDUSA letter urged Bush to commit to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning." He writes frequently on political and public policy matters, especially the "Politics of Ideas" column in Blueprint, the DLC's magazine. Notably, he is one of the co-authors of Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy.

-snip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Marshall

THAT'S RIGHT, THE GUY WHO SAID GORE LOST BECAUSE OF HIS DECISION TO ABANDON THE NEW DEMOCRAT MOVEMENT (IE THE DLC) WAS A SIGNER OF PNAC!

DO YOU THINK PERHAPS THIS IS WHY THE DEMS IGNORED ELECTION FRAUD AND ALLOWED THE APPOINTMENT OF bu$h?

[Zhade]

22. 1) This is not a Democratic party website.

2) YOU don't make the fucking rules.

[intheflow]

36. You're only half right according to DU's rules of conduct.

Per the DU Rules:

Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

So you're right that DU is not a Democratic party website, but it is also not the forum to endorse third party candidates.

[mmonk]

23. Heard all this before.

It's time to quit placing blame on others and to win votes and stand for the right things.

[Jim Sagle]

25. It's also time for us all to decide which side we're on.

[mmonk]

28. I want to be on the side of doing the right things for my country, truth,

and my family.

[Jim Sagle]

29. That's fine, but the reason this site exists is do all these fine things using the Democratic Party

as a vehicle.

[mmonk]

30. Well I am a democrat. However, I have noticed

recent third party bids have been taken votes away from us. Maybe we're not doing everything in the best or most persuasive manner.

[Jim Sagle]

33. That is for damn sure - too much triangulatin' goin' on.

But I believe things within the party have improved in the last couple years and are on track to improve even more in the near future.

[mmonk]

37. triangulatin'

That's it. It's why parties such as the greens say there is no difference between the parties. That's what we need to get a handle on. If some politician is that confused on where he or she should stand, maybe they should run as an independent or moderate republican. I wish they all would take Bobby Kennedy's approach (exemplified in my sig line).

[Hippo_Tron]

34. Honestly I'm not all that worried about it, Nader had zero effect in 2004

Despite all of the people calling Kerry another warmonger. While Hillary hasn't done much to oppose the Iraq War, it's a safe bet that she'll be less likely to start the next war with Iran than John McCain or Mitt Romney.

[johan helge]

80. I'm not so worried, either

most Nader voters DID learn a lesson in 2000. But it's important to react, when this kind of talk comes back.

[puebloknot]

35. DU: Love it or leave it ??? Don't want nobody bringin' us no bad news????

If you really want to know who gave Florida to Bush in 2000, you might talk to Greg Palast. He wrote "The Best Democracy Money can Buy." www.gregpalast.com

We all need to give serious consideration to whether a dog, either Dem or Repug, will save our country. I'm here because I agree with the basic philosophy of the Democratic Party. But I'm never gonna park my brain at the door just to enjoy a "hail, fellow, well met" sort of greeting out of anybody, anywhere. And some of us actually feel that it's time to vote our conscience, and demand that Dems measure up to what it means to *be* a Democrat, or risk losing their base.

Growing fascism has to be addressed. It we've basically morphed into a one-party system, anyway, we may have no choice other than to try something new. I'm not saying we *have,* yet, but disturbing signs are in evidence that Democrats *and* Republicans are in thrall to corporate money.

It's been my impression that DU exists as a place for people to express differing opinions. I'd just like to ask: Who says "this kind of insane talk must stop"?

[Mark E. Smith]

38. Greens 2000: "There is no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush."

Man have we paid a steep price for that one.

[nebenaube]

44. so maybe it's time to stop

supporting clearly compromised candidates?

[crispini]

51. Al Gore would've been a great President.

And the Presidential candidate is ALWAYS going to be more centrist than some on this board would like.

[Mark E. Smith]

59. Calling Al Gore "clearly compromised..."

... is pretty loathsome.

[intheflow]

111. True about Gore but...

it was his choice to run with Lieberman as VP that swung my vote to Nader in 2000. I was in college at UConn at that time, and I knew how evil Lieberman was even back then. Talk about a clearly compromised candidate!

[GeorgeGist]

39. I appreciate your frustration...

but I think your energy would be better spent demanding better candidates, than demanding I vote for your dog.

[youthere]

43. Could not have said it better myself...

you are my new DU hero!
:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[sendero]

40. Stifle dissent much?

I'll tell you what is unDEMOCRATIC, that is allowing a person like Hillary to get the nomination. She won't get elected, the Repubs have spent 15 years villifying her and damn near every Republican and way too many Democrats either hate her or don't trust her.

Count me in the latter category. I've watched her long enough to know her agenda is Hillary, not the country. This can be said about ANY politician but it is a much more accurate statement about some.

[ronnykmarshall]

118. Run, run ...RUN!!

It's evil Hillary!!!

[Greyhound]

41. Seems to me that it is the responsibility of the Democratic Party to ensure the nominee

is not so reprehensible that s/he causes voters to vote for a third party or, even worse, just not vote at all.

[Skidmore]

45. What greyhound said.

[we can do it]

42. Yeah - Jeb or McLame Would Be Better For Crissakes

Who the fuck do you idiots think were financing Naduh....get it together and keep it together at least until most of the damage done is corrected.....

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[Robb]

49. Nice.

Suddenly a few hundred posts means they don't know what they're talking about.

Disagree, but don't attack the messenger. Maybe once you've been around for awhile, you'll get that part. :eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. Low Post Count Means Nothing. Furthermore, Maybe You Should Address Context Rather Than The Poster.

You attacked the poster personally for having a low post count, yet failed to respond with any substance whatsoever about the point the OP was trying to make. Post count has nothing to do with the quality of a post or its substance. In this case, a poster with the lower post count is making a hell of a lot more sense than some who have been here for quite some time. Just goes to show you that your argument of post count is completely without merit.

Newer or not, the OP is at least wise enough to know the mission of this site and call out the bullshit of those working against our nominee, if she turns out to be such.

[depakid]

63. I get tired of these threads

where people purport to tell us what democratic underground should or should not be and what people ought to do. Such as anyone who's in a progressive third party- or dares to choose NOT to vote for a DINO should just up and leave.

It's insulting- particularly coming from a newbie.

Furthermore, if the nominee doesn't support traditional Democratic values- progressive values, there may well be a third party candidate who does- and if so, I may well support them.

In fact, I didn't support or vote for my Democratic congressman last time out- and I told him why to his face: because of his deciding vote on the Medicare scam and his voting for the bankruptcy bill (which despite being a lawyer, apparently hadn't read, because he lied to me about several of the provisions). It was quite the scene on westside light rail that October day.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

65. "a third party candidate who does- and if so, I may well support them. "

Not on here you won't bub.

Let's make that very clear right now.

[depakid]

66. Let's make it clear...

That these little "wars" among Dems and Greens have been going on a long time- a lot longer than you've been posting here.

If you don't like what I have to say, you can always put me on ignore!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. You've Obviously Missed The Point Completely. Allow Me To Try Again.

This isn't about me, as I don't make the rules.

The rules, however, are quite clear.

So again, after our nominee is determined, don't even think about advocating against them. Furthermore, at any time, do not even think about advocating for the election of a piece of shit Green on this website, if a Democrat is running as well.

I do not make these rules, but I am thankful for their existence. If you don't like those rules; tough. Either email the Admins and lobby them to change them, or go somewhere else.

I hope this is now clear. It is not acceptable on this site to work for the defeat of a Democratic candidate or work for getting votes for a 3rd party candidate. That's just simple and blatant fact. Deal with it.

[depakid]

84. LOL. I've heard all this self righteous talk before.

Many times before.

About every 3 months, one of these threads comes along- like clockwork. It's been going on since 2001.

That's a simple fact- Deal with it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

86. I Know They Come Along, As They Should.

Some around here need to be reminded that this is "Democratic Underground", not "I'm an ignorant narrow minded fool, who is going to throw my vote away and publicly declare that I'm voting for a piece of shit loser, no one takes seriously, could not possibly lead the country ever, worthless green candidate Underground".

Publicly declaring support for 3rd party candidates over the Dem nom is strictly prohibited. I hope you will remember that when it comes time. If you don't, please be sure to visit the latter website I mentioned above instead.

[depakid]

93. Keep at it...

Though you might try to hold the insults in your posts....

They make you sound like one who "doth protest too much."

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

94. I Shall, Though I Need Not Your Permission To Do So.

And there was no insult in my post. Just an accurate description of the website address that one who supports voting for the worthless greens might want to frequent, as opposed to here.

Not sure where the insult was. It was just the site name of their website.

[High Plains]

121. Wow, self-appointed net nazis.

I'll let the moderators worry about my posts, thanks.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

125. And I'll Be Certain To Make Sure They Are Aware Of Them, If They Cross The Stated Line.

Trust me; come election time any post advocating for the defeat of Hillary or the voting of some dumb ass green if Hillary is the nom, will be promptly alerted upon.

Anyone who wants to advocate for such things can take their desires to another board if they choose, but they souldn't expect such sentiments to be allowed to remain up for long. (And if you think I'm making this up, if she gets the nomination just try starting a thread that states "I refuse to vote for that warmonger blah blah blah" or "I think I'm voting 3rd party now blah blah blah" and see how long it stays open.

[johan helge]

102. Most people understand more than the 3rd party crowd

Most people, who've never posted on DU, understand more of this than the 3rd party crowd. What gets to me about these people, is that they don't understand anything, and are leaving it to others to fight - but, nonetheless, they think they are so smart (and having integrity, values, etc.).

[porphyrian]

47. This is just a reaction to past performances.

Until this last election, the Democratic party has let down the liberal side of the party a whole lot of times since (and possibly including) Carter. Lefties have a right to be suspicious, and the kind of threads you refer to are mostly over-reactions. I wouldn't worry too much about them. I think our currently-elected representatives are going to impress most of us (and they damn well better).

[MadHound]

48. So, say we wind up with two pro-war candidates, what's an anti-war person supposed to do?

Vote for a pro-war candidate just for the sake of party politics? Screw that pal. If we wind up with two pro-war candidates(and yes, that includes Hillary), my conscience won't allow me to vote for a continuation or increase in the numbers of lives lost.

Perhaps it is the party that should listen to the people, and pay attention to the polls in order that this situation doesn't arise. After all, the party is designed to serve the people, not the other way around.

[galadrium]

77. Well, we had two pro war candidates last time....

I still pulled the lever for Kerry, but the lesser of the two evils is still evil.

[bryant69]

50. Whatb if I have some SANE talk about voting for a third party candidate?

Particularly if our party decides to nominate Sellout Clinton?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[crispini]

52. On LoZoccolo's ignore list yet?

Puhlease. She's a damn sight better than a Republican.

[bryant69]

54. She's a sell out - when has she ever shown that she is willing to fight for

principles. Any principles, let alone, our principles. She hasn't. She's not that far from a Republican - particularly if they throw up Guilliani.

Bryant

[crispini]

56. Have you checked her voting record?

I am so tired of this whole "she's no better than a Republican" thing going around. It's bullshit.

Voting record-->
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

Interest group rating-->
http://votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

[bryant69]

57. yep it shows someone wiling to do the right thing when it doesn't cost

her anything. How'd she vote on the Iraq War Resolution?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[crispini]

58. Planning on ruling out the entire Democratic slate then?

Sheeeit, lots of people voted for it. Edwards was a cosponsor.

[bryant69]

61. Well Obama didn't if memory serves

How does it make you feel that the Clinton campaign is gearing up to paint Obama as a possible Muslim plant?

Bryant

[crispini]

67. Obama's not on this list of NO votes:

http://usliberals.about.com/od/liberalleadership/a/IraqNayVote.htm

And, look, Hillary is not my first choice, or even my second or third, mmmmmkay? I'm just tired of all of the DU Drama Queens^TM around here who are flouncing around comparing her to Hitler (yes, I've read that on DU) and loudly proclaming their intent to never, EVER vote for her if she is the nominee because she is a "corporatist DLC shill." :eyes: Well as far as I'm concerned, people who are so in love with their own Purity Of Vote that they aren't going to vote for the nominee --most especially if you are in a swing state; if you aren't in a swing state, I don't care-- well, they can think of Florida 2000 and kiss my blue Democratic ass. She's Just. Not. That. Bad.

Edited to add: It really makes me wonder where these people are FROM. I'm from Texas; we have some Democrats around here that would make your hair curl, no doubt, but bad as they are, they are STILL a long sight better than the Republican.

[bryant69]

69. I would have a hard time voting for her

look this reaction is all predictable - she's made it clear what she thinks of liberals in the Democratic party - she wants our votes and she wants us to keep quiet. You might not like it but she is a DLC corpritist. I'm pro capitalist and a moderate liberal so those aren't going to eliminate her as a poissiblity to me - but it's not a positive.

I don't like her for thee reasons - one she botched healthcare - two - she knows this is all happening and that in 2008 I'll have to fight for a candidate who does not represent my views, while energizing the Republican base to such an extent that we will probably get crushed, even with 8 years of Bush showing us how bad Republican policies are, and third - can't we have someone who isn't Bush or Clinton? Anybody?

Bryant

[crispini]

70. Good gad, I hope so.

Someone other than a Bush or a Clinton. She really is unelectable; the RW media will go after her like nothing we have ever SEEN, and they will bring every knuckledragger they've got to the polls. If Gore doesn't jump in, I think I might go for Clark or Edwards; I haven't made up my mind yet. Either way, I am going to go to a primary state this time to do GOTV work. Otherwise, I don't get any say in who the nominee is 'cause my primary is so late it's already decided by the time it gets to me, which I hate.

[bryant69]

75. I agree with this entirely. I hope Gore does jump in

I note with some amusement that LoZoccolo has chosen to prevent me from responding to his posts - I guess he must fear disagreement.

Bryant

[crispini]

79. It's LoZo's new hobby.

Everyone who has said they will be voting 3rd party if Hill gets it, goes on block/ignore. I'm not going that route myself, but it's an interesting idea. He said he did the same thing before 04 and had over 800 people on ignore by the time the election rolled around. :rofl:

[bryant69]

87. I don't know - I see the point.

Given a choice between a McCain and Hilary I'd vote for Hillary no question - and same with anybody to the right of McCain.

On the other hand I'd donate to a Obama or an Edwards - I'd man phone banks (which I hate doing) for a Gore - I wouldn't be likely to do any of that for Hillary. And if she swiftboats Obama, well, that will get me pretty fired up against her.

Bryant

[crispini]

90. Yeah, I know, I hate phonebanking too.

I'd rather doorknock any day of the week. I'll definitely VOTE for Hillary, but whether or not I am going to put my activist energy behind her remains to be seen. After all, there are going to be other elections going on as well.

[LoZoccolo]

73. I haven't heard any in the nearly four years I've been here.

I don't expect to hear any anytime soon. And if I do, it won't be from you until 2008.

:hi: :nuke:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

89. There Is Nothing Sane Ever About Voting 3rd Party/Green. Ignorant, Narrow Minded, Wasteful,

and futile, yes. Sane? No. Not ever.

[bryant69]

99. I don't get the narrow-minded part

I can see how it would look wasteful and futile - and maybe even Ignorent -if you know what a great candidate Hillary Clinton would be and I don't. But narrow minded? I would argue that it's quite the opposite - people who insist that I commit myself to Hillary Clinton two years before the election and ignore me if I fail to are the ones who's minds maybe could be a bit more open.

Bryant

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

101. That's Ok.

There's bound to be many more things that those who would vote for the green or 3rd party candidate don't get.

:rofl:

[bryant69]

103. Nice - so you are going to fill comfortable voting for the woman

who blew our best chance at healthcare, who voted to support President Bush's insane war in Iraq and who is about to paint Obama as some sort of Muslim Manchurian candidate?

Good for you.

Bryant

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

105. A Lot More Comfortable Than Voting For Some Worthless Dumbass Green. You Betcha.

[bryant69]

106. Maybe when the election gets a little closer you should

do a side by side comparison and see who's values match yours more completely.

I also think that as we consider who we want representing the Democratic party, we need to consider whether or not Hillary will get the full throated support of the base - I don't think she will. Do you?

Bryant

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

108. Maybe When The Election Gets A Little Closer You Should Realize That

you would not be allowed to offer public support for voting for some worthless green candidate over Hillary whatsoever.

What'cha think of them apples?

:rofl:

[bryant69]

117. I can see there's no point debating you. Your mind isn't up to the challenge.

Bryant

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

119. Nice Cop-Out. But This Wasn't A Debate To Begin With. Don't Advocate For 3rd Party Or For Some

worthless piece of garbage green party candidate come election time, as it is simply forbidden to do so here, thank God.

If this were a debate, it would mean there was room for comprimise or to bend on one's position etc..

But there is no room for debating this point. This is Democratic Underground and its members are expected to support the Democratic candidate for election, and not condone or advocate for their defeat or another party's victory; Period.

Now if you want to offer dissenting opinion or critique of a certain candidate or candidates, that's of course not only acceptable but also welcome. It would be an utterly useless exercise to have a website where only concurring opinions were tolerated. So feel free to express your opinions however you see fit.

But that concept is not what my comments are addressing. I'm addressing the concept of someone condoning or advocating for the defeat or non-election of a Democratic candidate, or the concept of trying to convince others that voting for some worthless garbage green candidate is a viable alternative etc...

Doing the former is welcome. Doing the latter is completely prohibited, and I'm thankful that it is. I think some here sometimes need a reminder that such behavior is not welcomed here.

Now if you are not one of those that would engage in such behavior, then you have no reason to mind the statement. But if you are, then you need to remember that come election time you are not free to post those wishes. That isn't something up for debate. It just is what it is.

[bryant69]

126. I'm campaigning for the defeat of Hillary Clinton in the PRIMARY

perhaps that nuance is lost on you.

And one of the arguments I have against her is that many of our more energized and politicized people will be tempted to look seriously at a green candidate if sell out Clinton is selected as our candidate. I don't have to advocate that they switch, they'll do it all on their own. Frankly, if push comes to shove I imagine I'll be supporting her.

But right now my goal is seeing that Clinton stays a Senator from New York, and part of my argument against her is the fact that she will discourage the base (while energizing and enraging the Republican base). And a discouraged base will start looking around for a candidate they can get excited about, even if that candidate is a "worthless garbage green candidate."

Bryant
Check it out -> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

129. Nice Try Bub. But This Thread Nor Your Comments Were About The Primary. So Try Again.

No nuance was lost on me. Our conversation has been direct and blatant. Your own words were:

"Whatb if I have some SANE talk about voting for a third party candidate? Particularly if our party decides to nominate Sellout Clinton?"

Those are your words bub. Notice two important 'nuances': Voting for a 3rd party candidate and party decides to NOMINATE.

Pretty damn clear cut there buddy. By definition, the nomination comes after the primary, so I'm not sure just who you think you're foolin.

My comments were in direct association with that post of yours that I just quoted. I sought out to remind you that though dissent is ok, come after the primaries if she is the one nominated it will be unacceptable to lobby for her defeat or try and make a case that voting for the 3rd party piece of garbage candidate is a viable alternative. It is a blunt and blatant point and it was made in clear mind of what our discussion is about.

So please spare me your back-peddling of your own statements. I know what you said and what you implied, and I have responded directly to it. If you want to work towards her defeat in the primary then more power to ya. I think we can do far better than her overall. But if that effort fails and she is the nominee, then as members here we are expected to support her candidacy and most definitely cannot come on here and advocate against her or declaring support for a worthless dumbass green candidate.

Hopefully since this discussion has gone around in circles, it can come to an end now. But damned if I'll let ya backpeddle on the premise of this conversation.

[bryant69]

134. We'll see what happens in the next year and a half

If this party nominates Sellout Clinton than I suspect no longer being able to participate at DU any longer will be the least of our problems.

Bryant

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. I Agree. Some Of The Head In The Sand Narrow Minded Stupidity Towards That End Is Ridiculous.

Thankfully, after the nominee is determined, no matter who it is, we won't have to put up with that ignorant bullshit since it would be firmly against the rules to then advocate against the person getting elected.

Some think that standing by their principles in this case actually means something. But that's narrow minded and ignorant, as they are doing nothing more than condoning the election of the repub nominee to the office of the presidency. And if they are going to do such things, they probably are not on the right board.

Some people are just small minded enough that they'd actually cut off their nose to spite their face. Pretty dumb, ain't it?

I hear ya. Good post.

[kdpeters]

60. If your post is representative of Democratic, big D, values, then lose for all I care

I'm loyal to principles not party. You are part of the reason people say the Democrats are no better than Republicans. Thanks for reminding me.

[High Plains]

123. I'll second that.

Sneering arrogance doesn't win many friends, arguments, or votes.

[johan helge]

137. I don't understand what you mean (n/t)

[genie_weenie]

62. beep beep beep MUST SUPPORT AUTOCRACY

beep...
beep...
beep...

MUST HAVE ONLY 2 CHOICES...

beep...
beep...
beep...

MUST SUBVERT MY BELIEFS TO GAIN POWER...

beep...
beep...
beep...

MUST ALLOW MASTERS OF WAR THEIR MONIES...

[LoZoccolo]

74. beep beep beep MUST FIND SOMEWHERE ELSE TO POST THIS JUNK

:hi: :nuke:

[Irreverend IX]

64. If voting third party isn't the same as voting Republican...

Why do the third-party candidates get so much money from Repubs? Anyone who really wants to know what's going on with Nader and his ilk should check out the stories from his former volunteers. Man's a total media whore, and he won't let anyone know where the money funneled into his campaign efforts really goes.

[helderheid]

68. This ain't "3rdpartyunderground.com"

:hi:

Agreed!

[SOS]

72. In 2008, the only significant third party

will be the McCain/Lieberman Unity 08 ticket.
2008 isn't 2000.
This time a third party might very well deliver the White House to OUR side.

[madville]

78. I hadn't even thought of that

If it was Hillary Clinton running against Newt Gingrich and McCain/Leiberman pulled a stunt like that they would win in a landslide. It would be fairly entertaining to watch everyones' heads explode though :)

Seriously though, I will be active in the primary season. If the nominee isn't my choice and I don't want to contribute to something that goes against my ideas I just won't vote. They have to earn my vote, I'm not giving it away to more of the same.

[mod mom]

81. WRONG: kind of thinking that gave Florida to Bush in 2000.

Election fraud/theft gave us bu$h in 2000, and it was the DLC/corporated media who helped prevent any meaningful protest of the seating of an unelected pResident. I applaud the CBC and other members of congress who were willing to cry fowl after the thefts.

I am a Conyers/Feingold/Boxer/RFK Jr Dem (ie a Dem willing to stand up and fight) and WILL NOT support any DLCer, who I see as a Dem who betrays the foundation of the party. Flame away if you like but that is my stance. I feel it's disrespectful to only look at a label and not what an INDIVIDUAL stands for. Would you vote for Zell Miller or Joe Liebermann is through election fraud they became the candidate?

[LoZoccolo]

82. Thank you for your lack of support.

:hi: :nuke:

[johan helge]

95. Voting for a 3rd party is leaving it to others to fight

Voting for a third party candidate is not fighting, that's leaving it to others to fight.

Many things gave us Bush in 2000 - election fraud, etc. etc. - and Nader. This isn't difficult. 2 + 2 = 4.

[mod mom]

109. READ THESE VALUES:

Grassroots Democracy

Social justice and equal opportunity

ecological wisdom

non-violence

decentralization

community based economics and economic justice

feminism and gender equality

respect for diversity

personal and global responsibility

future focus and sustainability

Now I would like to suggest that the Ds and Gs work together. Instead of creating a wedge between the two parties by hateful rhetoric, perhaps a constructive dialogue would be more appropriate. It would seem to me that the hateful right is creating and perpetuating this division to support their own evil agenda.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

85. Thomas Jefferson disagrees.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789. ME 7:300

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

Sentiments I agree with.

On edit: I expect that Thomas Jefferson will be on a certain posters super-ignore list.

[LoZoccolo]

88. Thomas Jefferson was the type of person who had better things to do than DU. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

92. Yes, like writing about the danger of knee-jerk support for political parties.

Not to mention the insulting idea that free citizens must follow their "leaders" no matter what they do or stand for in the name of party-loyalty.

[LoZoccolo]

112. This is not knee-jerk loyalty.

This is like, simple math. 2+2=4. Or that Hillary is better than any Republican they are fielding. It can be figured out and explained for any of the candidates running. It really should be simple stuff, which is why it's a prerequisite for replying to my messages. You have to be this tall to ride on the ride.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

114. I give in reply another quote.

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." Tom Paine

Hillary, on some issues, may be "better than any Republican", but she sold her principles in favor of her political ambitions.

[donheld]

135. "Jefferson was the type of person who had better things to do than DU"

You mean like screwing the slaves?

[RestoreGore]

96. Thank you for these quotes

Nice to see a tribute to a truly free thinking man since it is so rare in politics.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

97. Such thinking is obviously non-PC in some circles right here on DU.

Dangerous stuff - freedom, independent thinking, free moral agent, etc. Of course, Old Tom, was "too liberal" for many.

[RestoreGore]

100. He's just right for me. Thanks again n/t

[Lone_Star_Dem]

91. From my way of thinking talk of voting for a 3rd party is at best premature

What I mean is if you honestly feel you cannot support a certain candidate then work your fingers to the bone for one you can. Don't sit around wasting precious time moaning about how you cannot support so-and-so if they win the primary, get off your butt and do something about it. It seems it would be more satisfying than complaining and threatening to vote 3rd party this early on in the selection process.

[RestoreGore]

98. If the Democratic Party wasn't bought and sold as well...

And actually had a strong platform you wouldn't need to worry about any other Party stealing votes... and this BTW to remind you is America where people are free to vote for whomever they wish to. Perhaps the Democratic Party needs to then work on THEIR PLATFORM to keep people voting for them. I tend to place more of the onus on them for that than I do the people looking for something the Democratic Party of late has obviously been lacking in... GUTS. And if they don't impeach Bush and pass REAL climate change legislation this year as well, I will be looking the other way myself. I believe in Democratic principles, but that doesn't mean I will goosestep for any party over my country.

[mod mom]

110. Amen. What if through election fraud the vote went to Liebermann + Gore ran

as an independent? I bet there would be many folks choosing what is best for the nation.

We get on the Repubs for their blind devotion to following the party regardless of what is best for the country-well the same is true for us. The values of the individual are more important then blindly following the party.

[clixtox]

140. Mod Mom is absolutely correct, of course...

Only the "good Germans" or "Kool-Aid" drinkers, follow any political leaders or party blindly. One out of four "Americans" still think Bush's shit don't stink! How stupid is that? How out of it are they?

I would imagine that this site would be very boring if there was no input from those of us with different perspectives than those who believe all of the "conventional knowledge".

[johan helge]

141. 3rd party talk - frustrating

3rd party talk doesn't make DU less boring, I think, just more frustrating to read. The point is to vote for the best of the two candidates who can win. That's also the best way to improve "the average quality of the two leading candidates" in the future. Why? Simply put: If the best of the two wins this time, both candidates next time will be better than this time. If the worst of the two wins this time, both candidates next time will be worse than this time.

[clixtox]

147. What?

I do not understand your premise or the logic, if any, in your conclusion... You are apparently engaging in "wishful thinking", there is no certainty about the relative quality of future nominees regardless of the "quality" of their predecessor(s). The nomination process is too nuts for anyone to prognosticate.

Why is it frustrating for you to read opinions that differ from yours? Reading opinions here on DU is stimulating for me whatever the point of view, never "frustrating". Frustration is very near anger, an emotion that is useful for those who want to exploit us. Use your brain and do not allow your emotions to obscure opportunities to think critically.

[clixtox]

148. What?

I do not understand your premise or the logic, if any, in your conclusion... You are apparently engaging in "wishful thinking", there is no certainty about the relative quality of future nominees regardless of the "quality" of their predecessor(s). The nomination process is too nuts for anyone to prognosticate.

Why is it frustrating for you to read opinions that differ from yours? Reading opinions here on DU is stimulating for me whatever the point of view, never "frustrating".

Frustration is very near anger, an emotion that is useful for those who want to exploit us. Use your brain and do not allow your emotions to obscure opportunities to think critically.

[johan helge]

152. Stronger Dems means more liberal Dems

About my "wishful thinking": In general, the stronger the Repubs are compared to the Dems, the more conservative their policy proposals will be. The early Bush jr. years demonstrated this. The stronger the Dems are, the more progressive policy they will advocate (e.g. Johnson's "The Great Society" in the 60s). It's all about strength - and liberal 3rd party candidates weaken the Dems.

In general, differing opinions is a good thing. But this is the DEMOCRATIC underground. From the DU rules: "Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

[Individualist]

104. Stop attempts at coercion and intimidation

Those tactics only work on people who are incapable of independent thought.

[GreenArrow]

113. "Those tactics only work on people who are incapable

of independent thought." Which is why those tactics get used -- they have a large target audience and they are successful.

[Individualist]

115. Are you implying most people here are incapable of independent thought?

[GreenArrow]

122. it makes little difference how many here are

capable or incapable of independent thought. The point I was making is that those who are capable of it are not likely to be persuaded by coercion or intimidation.

Consider the thread title. Does it impress you as a plea to independent thinking? Reading the thread as a whole, I see a lot of knees jerking, insults, pressuring, appeals to authority, judgements...

[johan helge]

120. The 3rd party talk is not civil.

Usually, I'm more civil than in this thread. So why am I not so civil now? I think the 3rd party talk especially now is an outrage. If not for that kind of thinking in 2000, the Bush catastrophe would never have happened. But some of these 3rd party voters don't admit any mistakes, don't admit their responsibility. Instead, they ramble shamelessly on, with their disrespectful attitudes towards the Democrats' leading politicians.

So the 3rd party talk in this forum is not civil. It's analogous to preaching nazism after the second world war. Then someone should shout - stop it!

[Individualist]

132. "3rd party talk in this forum is not civil."?

"It's analogous to preaching nazism after the second world war."??

You certainly have some strange opinions. :eyes:

[johan helge]

136. Let me explain

Why is it especially bad to preach nazism after the second world war? Because this kind of thinking has led to a catastrophe.

Why is it especially bad to advocate 3rd party voting after Florida 2000? Because this kind of thinking has led to a catastrophe.

That's what I mean with "analogous".

[clixtox]

154. In Florida in 2000...

Nader's candidacy and votes were a minor reason for "shrub" getting to be the President. Besides the main reason, the Dems not pressing effectively for ALL of the Florida votes to be counted, no matter the obstacles. The next "smoking gun" was the masses of Democrats who's votes were counted in Bush's column. Now, I wasn't in the voting booth with these Democrats to watch who they voted for, so, who knows! But it seems that many tens, or hundreds of thousands of registered Democrats, voted for "shrub". There is still all of the blatent purging of eligible voters to factor in, plus all of the other crimes committed by Republicans, in and out of the Florida government, to carry Florida for "shrub" to consider...

Of course it is in the best interests of those who would wish to do whatever it takes to keep a new political party, one with truly progressive idea(l)s, from ever having a realistic opportunity to get started. Once it was created these same forces would do whatever it took to marginalize it's leaders, candidates and platform. They would subvert democracy, spread lies and propagandize relentlessly to demonize a true American hero, Ralph Nader. People have been programed to loath Nader for allowing "shrub" to be president. How convenient! It would be a lot more realistic to blame those who voted for the Republican candidate, and certainly more honest!

I would venture to guess that those propagandists are the saame type of "true believers", although with slightly different politics, who would go "down with the ship" like the 25-30% of Americans even now, probably overwhelmingly Republicans, who still believe the BS that "shrub" spewing.

[FlaGranny]

107. I am doing my best

and working very hard to convince the Democrats I know to vote for Clinton if she wins the primary. None of them want to vote for her. I don't imagine any will vote Republican, though (I hope). I imagine they'll either skip the presidential vote or else vote for a third party. There is such a dislike for her, it's hard to convince people that she's a better choice than a Republican and that a third party vote is effectively a Republican vote. Sigh!!

[GoneOffShore]

116. If, and it's a very big if, she wins the primary

I'll vote for her. The same way I held my nose and voted for Bob Casey.

And if she's on the ballot against McCain, we will see President McCain inaugurated in Jan 2009.

[StudentDUer]

124. What about at the local level?

And are you saying we should NEVER do it? If that was the case, we wouldn't have Bernie Sanders as US Senator right now. There's a time and place for it -- and this is coming from someone who voted near straight ticket Democrat last election.

[Recursion]

128. For my money, an "independent" who pledges to caucus with the Democratic party is a Democrat

n/t

[tbyg52]

130. IF NOT FOR @#$%ING KINKY FRIEDMAN

(and Strayhorn) Chris Bell would now be Governor of Texas. Enough said.

Edited to add (I guess *not* "enough said"... ;) )
And the people who voted for them, and the people who financed them (in which regard I have always had my suspicions about the Kinky campaign).

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

131. "And remember - this is the DEMOCRATIC underground"

If you are suggesting that ANY candidate with a "D" by their name MUST get my vote if I am to remain in this forum, no matter who it is, no matter what their values are, no matter their agenda, then I guess I need to get out of this forum. I'm not a lockstep supporter of the party line. I will respectfully listen to any candidate who presents themself as a potential candidate for the Democratic Party. But they will have to earn my vote. I'm not just going to vote for ANYBODY, ANYBODY AT ALL!

[johan helge]

138. Vote for the best candidate who can win

The point is to vote for the best of the two candidates who can win. That's also the best way to improve "the average quality of the two leading candidates" in the future. Why? Simply put: If the best of the two wins this time, both candidates next time will be better than this time. If the worst of the two wins this time, both candidates next time will be worse than this time.

[tbyg52]

139. Good strategy in the absence of instant runoff voting

I want my IRV! And my paper ballots.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

146. The two party Duopoly is the most perverted aspect of American Electoral system.

The two party duopoly is the most perverted part of the US electoral system. The two party unite to exclude other parties and so there is a bizarre combination of people lumped together. Case in point: Liebermann and Kucinich are in the same party.

[pork medley]

149. .

Mortal danger to whoever touches the worker's bread, or the bread of the worker's son. War is war: whoever seeks adventure must feel the iron jaws of the beast which he has let loose. All that the worker has created at the cost of his sacrifices, all that generations of workers have slowly and painfully wrought with blood and with sorrow, must be respected as something sacred. The tempest and the hurricane break when sacrilege is committed, and carry away the guilty like straws. Mortal danger to whoever touches the property of the worker, of the man condemned to have no property. War is war. Woe betide whoever unleashes it. A militant of the working class who has to pass into the next world, must have a first-class accompaniment on his journey. If fire dyes red the patch of sky over one street, the city must be provided with many braziers to warm the women and children of the workers who have gone to war. Woe betide whoever unleashes war. If America is not used to seriousness and responsibility, if America is not used to taking anyone seriously, if bourgeois America happens to have acquired the sweet and facile conviction that the American revolutionaries are not to be taken seriously either, let the die be cast: we are convinced that more than one fox will leave his tail and his cunning in the snare.

[NovaNardis]

150. Fight for the best candidate in the primary

A little short of no holds barred.

When it comes down to the general election, like it or not a third party candidate will NEVER be President without a massive shift of the electoral systems in this country. So you swallow your pride and vote for the candidate you think is better (not the best, better). If you are here, that's probably the Democrat.

Fight like hell for who you believe in during primary season. But you have to accept the limits of reality come the general election. Ralph Nader and those like him will NEVER be President because of the electoral college. Even with all his votes, beating George HW Bush, Ross Perot didn't carry a single state. There's something to that.

If it's Hillary versus anyone but Hagel, I'd vote Hillary unquestioningly. Even with Hagel, that's a though choice. But Hillary beats a Republican any day. You might not like her foreign policy, but it isn't any different than the Republicans and her domestic policy is sure as shit better.

And Nader DID give Bush the election, because if it weren't for Nader the Florida vote wouldn't have even been close. Without Nader, Gore wins convincingly.

[clu]

153. i consider myself far-left

i'll support kucinich in the primaries, and the dem. nominee in the general election. hillary is a bit too close to the DLC for my tastes, but i think her implementation would be different enough from a repub. president.

even though it's only opinion, i have no doubt that kucinich would fare better if there were equal-time rules for campaigning. considering the important role the media has in educating the populace about various candidates, it's clear they are failing miserably in that respect and at some point you have to wonder why.

regarding third-parties, i'm ignorant about a lot of the details in our electoral system, but i think that we'd be better off if the green and libertarian parties infiltrated the dem. and repub. parties to shift policy.

[Tom Joad]

157. Stop insane talk about Hillary being the nominee. ain't gonna happen.