Could we just agree on this?

[Atticus]

We will campaign for and support the most progressive candidate in every race, whether primary or general election.

We will never vote for a Republican, even in protest of flawed Democratic candidates.

Elections are not games. Real peoples' lives and livelihoods are at stake.

(I already know the type of responses this is likely to generate, but maybe seeing them in print will educate a few people)

[movonne]

1. I agree..

[xultar]

2. Staying home is just as bad as voting for a thuglican..

[readmoreoften]

18. Quick math class. Stay home= 0, Vote Republican = -1

(Not to mention, Vote Democrat = 0) Not the same. Maybe it's the same as voting for a Democrat, voting for a big fat zero instead of a minus one.

[DevonRex]

3. No. The "most progressive" candidate to you might be Ralph fucking Nader.

So, no. I will vote for the Dem no matter what.

[Atticus]

6. I see your point. I wondered if I should add "and responsible" after "most progressive".

Anyway, I don't care if you vote for a few Naders in the primaries as long as you vote Democratic in the general election when the Naders lose.

Thanks for your response.

[DevonRex]

8. If you put the most progressive Democrat, then you'd have my agreement.

:hi:

[Atticus]

11. I accept that amendment. Guess I took it for granted. My bad. nt

[Marr]

13. So swear to vote for the Democrat, no matter what.

No, sorry.

I will never vote for another corporate servant. I don't care what party they claim.

There is no quick fix here. You can support real progressives and let Blue Dogs wither away, or you can blindly support a party because it's destroying the middle class at a slightly slower rate than the opposition.

[readmoreoften]

20. I'm with you. No way I'm voting for these cowardly plutocrats just because they're not fascists.

If Obama's okay with firing all the teachers in a RI district, I can sure as hell be advocate throwing out all the corporate political attaches in the Democratic Party. And they are legion. And they include the president.

[Fridays Child]

And, until some sort of radical ideological shift occurs...

...the worst Democrat will always be a better choice than the best Republican. Splitting the vote will only weaken us (see Nader, in 2000).

[DevonRex]

9. Amen.

:toast:

[readmoreoften]

19. Right, because radical ideological shifts just "poof" happen instantaneously.

Not like being willing to stop propping up thugs and economic hitmen isn't a step towards "radical ideological shift."

[Vincardog]

4. Yes The "most progressive" candidate INCLUDING Ralph fucking Nader.

[county worker]

5. Tonight I have a conference call with the DNC, on the 30th I meet with Obama organizers,

yesterday I trained with the Courage Campaign in CA, so I guess I'll support them.

[NeedleCast]

7. Sorry, no

I don't remember the last time I voted for a Republican but I reserve the right to vote for anyone I want and especially in primary races, it is unlikely that I'll support the most progressive candidate.

[pipi_k]

10. No. Much as I hated to one time....

I felt I had to vote for a Republican in a local election because the "Democrat" held some awfully vile positions on a few things. It wasn't a protest...it was an honest belief that this "Democrat" could be harmful.

I can't make promises on anything other than that I'll always vote for the person I think best demonstrates Democratic values. Even if that person is a Republican who sounds more like a Democrat than the "Democrat" does.

[Coyote_Bandit]

12. Ummmm......

A Dem that does not serve to advance and protect my needs and interests is no better than a Puke that does likewise. I won't vote for a candidate just because they wear the Dem label. Not all Dems serve to advance a progressive agenda. I refuse to vote for a candidate just because they are the best of two bad choices. A bad candidate is a bad candidate - even if they call themselves a Dem.

[pipi_k]

22. What I wonder is why some voters don't understand that concept...

Because you know, there are lots of people who vote Republican even when it goes against their best interests.

Like, for instance, the Log Cabin Republicans, or women (Repubs not being notorious for supporting gay or women's rights).

So we sit here and watch it happen and think to ourselves...geez...what the hell is wrong with those people, voting against their own self interests like that....


Just doesn't make any sense, does it?

:shrug:

[xchrom]

14. I'd never vote for a repuke -- or a stupak or baucus.

That's what I promise.

[varelse]

15. I can

:)

[inna]

16. I agree with you on this, and KR+4, to see what other people think.

[eridani]

17. I agree. n/t

[emilyg]

21. I always voted D - things

have changed.

[HopeHoops]

23. That really isn't practical, especially at the local level.

In general, I agree and tend to vote for Democrats almost to the point of exclusivity. I have NEVER voted straight party (meaning one check mark) but rather make absolutely certain that the candidates I want are selected, even when they are all Democrats. Straight party voting is dangerous, especially with electronic voting, because it will assign marks to Republicans who cross file as Democrats. I prefer to leave that blank to avoid registering a vote for that person.

As a specific example of a Republican who violates your second rule, I cite Patricia Vance, my representative to the State House of PA. She is one of the most honest, concerned, and dedicated elected officials I have ever encountered in my life and yes, I have spoken with her in person on several occasions. Sure, I don't always agree with her policies. That said, the Democrats have not been able to come up with a single reasonable alternative, and the ones they have fielded don't really deviate much from her stated policies because there's no chance in hell they would get votes if they did.

I know it freaks out the wingnuts when I've got signs up for Obama and Casey (or other Democrats) right next to one for Vance, but frankly I think that lends more credibility to the support of the Democrats. I'm voting for the candidate that best represents the needs of our community, state, and country. I'm not the only one either. Her signs sat next to Obama signs on countless yards around here.

Now I'll admit that the exceptions are few and far between, but can you in good faith vote for someone you don't believe will best represent you just because they have a (D) next to their name, especially when someone you know and trust just happens to have an (R) instead?