The Greens helped to elect Kirk...

[MellowDem]

when will some liberals and progressives learn that under the two-party system, it ain't worth it?

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. When will some people learn it's time to change the system?

[aquart]

4. Well, you changed it real good tonight.

Be proud.

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Not my fault former Dem controlled legislatures didn't have the

forethought to have fixed it already.

[rpannier]

20. As of now the numbers are

Kirk (R) 1,696,235 48.4%
Giannoulias (D) 1,613,762 46.0%
Jones (G) 112,422 3.2%
Labno (L) 83,177 2.4%

Kirk + Libertarian Votes is 50.8
Giannoulias + Jones 49.2%

In a two party race Kirk still wins

[MellowDem]

31. But without the Greens...

that is my point. The Libertarians would lose it for the Republicans. That tells us all something. The Greens, by being on the ballot, did indeed help elect Kirk, just as the Libertarians hurt the Republicans.

[Nite Owl]

7. +1

we're in this mess because of the two party system. All it's brought us is more DLCers who are no more than republicans with a D after their names.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[MellowDem]

15. I want to change the system...

but voting third party is not the way to do it. The system is set up to sucker third party voters, especially liberal third party voters. There's a reason I hope that the Tea Party becomes its own party. And it's not because it will change the system.

[GreenPartyVoter]

19. So what do you suggest, then?

[MellowDem]

27. Voting for Democrats under the current system...

as it's the best choice out of bad ones right now. Until the system is changed to allow for other parties, it seems to me that the Democrats are the ones most likely to bring the infrastructural change needed to even have a legitimate third party, much less a progressive party I would feel more comfortable voting for. We can't split the vote under the current system, as frusterating as that may be, because the Republicans are lock-step and about as extremist as ever. As long as the Republican Party is as dangerous as it is and unified as it is, I understand why I hold my nose.

[GreenPartyVoter]

30. And yet the Democrats haven't done it yet, and if we all vote for them then what is

their reason for changing the system? That's where the problem lies, in my view, and it leaves us permanently in this terrible mess of vote splitting and nose-holding. :(

[MellowDem]

32. I understand your reasoning...

but change is slow in my mind, especially under this system, and the danger of having Republicans reverse that change seems greater to me than electing stodgy Democrats.

[GreenPartyVoter]

35. I understand your reasoning as well. :^)

[readmoreoften]

73. +1

[LAGC]

2. Wow, I was wondering how early the Greens would be blamed.

I think there's bigger factors in play here, don't you? Let's point fingers at the appropriate scapegoat...

[GreenPartyVoter]

12. See post #9

[MellowDem]

21. It's just one race...

so it's not like I'm blaming them for everything. But in this close race, it definitely played a large factor. And it has nothing to do with the "Green" party per se. Just any third party that liberals generally vote for. Considering it was a senate seat, and Obama's seat at that, I think it is somewhat significant enough to note.

[rpannier]

3. Ummmmm

Had Lirk lost the Republicans could have blamed the Libertarians
Face it, if there were only 2 parties Kirk still would have won

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

6. Nominating fucking Giannoulias helped to elect Kirk. I knew from day one the banking issues would be

hammered into people's heads. It should have never been this close. Let's not forget that piece of shit Blagojevich.

[Tatiana]

17. Yep. Not the strongest candidate we could have fielded.

He was very young, not all that experienced, did not forcefully address or clear up the issues regarding his family's bank. Not to mention his campaign was not as strong as it could have been downstate.

[depakid]

22. Having a nominee with bankster connections wasn't the brightest move

as some of us noted at the time.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

25. Which is why I voted for Mr. Hoffman in the primary. nt

[Luciferous]

29. Exactly.

[madrchsod]

10. yup...the govenor and senate canidates...

both had good green records...good luck with the new gov and senator greens.

[SoCalDem]

11. The post '08 debacle of Blago helped elect Kirk...n/t

[MadHound]

13. Darn those all-omnipotent/impotented liberals and progressives,

The Democrats now need a scapegoat, so they omnipotent. Next year they will be impotent. Liberals and progressives, the perfect Democratic foil.

[MellowDem]

33. Or in this case, Republican foil... nt

[MadHound]

36. Thank you for proving my point. n/t

[depakid]

14. Yet another who can't take responsibility for the Democrat's failures

and looks for scapegoats.

[MellowDem]

38. It's actually just the truth in this one case...

I don't deny there are lots of factors, but this was one of them in this case. I think it is a good opportunity to point out what might be good strategy. What is more worth it? Having some Green Party voters (3%) and a Republican Senator or having some progressives hold their nose and a Democratic Senator? IMHO, the latter is more worth it in the short, long, or whatever run I can think of.

[QC]

16. Nominating a crook probably didn't help. n/t

[mike_c]

18. when will you learn that in a democracy, voters still want representation...

...from the candidates they select, and they don't owe the candidates ANYTHING. On the left we know that democrats often don't represent us. Republicans don't either.

[KharmaTrain]

23. Was It Their Fault That Halverson, Hare, Foster & Bean Lost, Too?

As an Illinois Democrat and a damn proud one, I was sad to see some good people lose tonight but c'est la vie. Giannnoulis was a flawed candidate with a target on him. The flaws were poor campaigning (we NEVER saw him out here in a critical collar county) along with the Rezko and Blago scandals.

It pains me to see a weasel like Kirk elected, but we've elected them before and the people have spoken. Now time to pick up pieces and work to on 2012.

[nemo137]

28. Yep.

Oddly enough, I knew some people who were really into Giannoulis, but I was never terribly optimistic (although, Kirk... jesus, what a fucking weasel). I don't think we elect another senator until 2014, though. Still, time to get shit done on the state level. And make sure Illinois gets as many Blue reps as possible and goes Blue for our guy in 2012.

[lunasun]

41. Bean too now ??OMG

My husband always laughs at the TEA PARTY crap _ I kept telling him do not laugh be scared of these creeps bet he freaks when he wakes up-Iam already Illinois is it purple now or red ?? Chicago is still blue

[KharmaTrain]

62. It's Real Close...Too Close

(IL) U.S. HOUSE - DISTRICT 8
Walsh 96,270 48%98%
Bean (I) 95,544 48%
Scheurer 6,396 3%

Actually in this race, the Green, Randi Scheuer (who I know and like) could be the turd in the punchbowl.

[nickinSTL]

24. I'm really getting sick of this

The Greens had fuck-all to do with this loss.

The Dems didn't earn enough votes. Period.

What about all those Independents that didn't vote Dem this time? What about them? Blame them.

Better yet, blame the Dems themselves for fielding a weak candidate and running a crappy campaign.

Jones way underperformed expectations.

The Green Party is simply an easy target. That's all. The Dems failed. period. Address that and stop sniping at the Green Party.

[MellowDem]

39. It is just a matter of strategy...

I'm not looking for a scapegoat, but rather discussing a very relevant strategy of unity. There are many factors obviously, but in close elections, this is one of the big factors. The other factors should be addressed as well, no doubt about it. Bad candidates, etc. etc.

[Umbral]

43. "...a very relevant strategy of unity." is that what you think you're doing - Really?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


"...not looking for a scapegoat", that's rich too.

[MellowDem]

57. Yep, that's what I'm doing...

I really don't care about scapegoating or blaming, but if you want to pretend something is there to avoid the strategy discussion, go right ahead.

[Umbral]

64. "I really don't care about scapegoating or blaming", then you should stop scapegoating and blaming

or, alternatively, you could cut the bullshit.

[MellowDem]

67. Maybe you should stop accusing...

this is Democratic Underground, not Green Underground. I don't see what you're so upset about. I'm not blaming or scapegoating the Green Party. I'm saying it is a bad strategy to vote for a third party as a Democrat, progressive, liberal, etc. So stop the outrage routine and discuss this, or please just stop responding as you are bringing nothing to the conversation.

[Umbral]

70. "The Greens helped to elect Kirk", are you unwilling to own your own words?

You're blaming others for the failure of the Democrats. Maybe a better strategy would be standing for principles liberals are willing to vote for? The only reason Greens even exist is because of the Democrat's incompetence. You want me to bring something to this conversation? Why should I try? You're still stuck blindly blaming others for Democratic Failures.

Then again, what the Fuck ever, I'm out, some people will never learn.

[MellowDem]

75. That's an opinion...

you are characterizing it as "blame". I was saying it in terms of explaining how it is bad strategy. I never blamed the Greens, just stated that their presence on the ballot helped Kirk, IMHO. I think there are a lot of places to place blame, and the Greens are pretty low on that list. But just as pure strategy it is worth discussing.

[LoZoccolo]

45. Everyone is responsible for their vote; no one is forced to vote Green by Dems or anybody. n/t

[That Guy 888]

56. I have to agree with you. n/t

[HuckleB]

26. If Scott Bruun wins, we can blame the Progressive Party in Oregon.

We're killing ourselves!

[depakid]

34. He's not going to win

but if one want progressive votes and progressive turnout it's usually wise to progressive policies. And not backhand and insult progressive constituencies

6-7 point difference Republican vs. Democratic in turnout in Oregon.

[HuckleB]

37. This is the kind of year where that three percent could make a difference.

It's funny that one is not allowed to be critical of so-called progressives, but one must take their criticisms blindly, without recourse. That does seem to be the mantra for many at DU, anyway.

I learned my lesson in 2000. It's not one that we should forget so easily.

[quakerboy]

44. Apparently not

The lesson was "the supreme court will select their friends for president whenever they feel like it.

[HuckleB]

46. That wasn't the only lesson.

[quakerboy]

48. It was the telling one

If you prefer, you could just leave it at Who counts the votes determines the winner.

[HuckleB]

49. There were more telling ones than that.

[depakid]

72. Race called for Schrader

[kevinbgoode]

40. And what about the Libertarians?

Didn't they have a candidate who "took" votes away from Kirk?

[MellowDem]

42. Yes, and without the Green Party...

they would have helped the Democrat win. As a matter of strategy, I think third parties are counterproductive in the current system.

[BolivarianHero]

47. IRV stupid

This happens all the time to Democrats in IL, and they still refuse to pass IRV for gubernatorial and senatorial races. Doing so would make it much harder for the Repukes to subvert the will of the people.

[some guy]

50. Then Yay Greens!

Give the Democrats a reason to move left.

Though, like GPV I'd like more viable parties as a general thing.

[MellowDem]

58. Something tells me they will just go farther right...nt

[fishwax]

51. I'm not sure that's true even going strictly by the numbers

Right now Kirk is up by about 81000 and the green candidate pulled about 114000. But I don't think it's a certainty that all of those 114k would have voted if there weren't a green candidate in the race.

The green party candidate also polled higher than one might expect (5% or more) among voters who are supportive and/or neutral towards the tea party, who are dissatisfied and/or angry at the federal government, who think that government is doing too much, and other characteristics that you would expect to indicate a conservative mood. So I don't think it's a safe bet that most/all of those votes would have gone to the democratic candidate in different circumstances.

[MellowDem]

59. It's safe enough to say...

that it is close enough that it may have helped Kirk.

[fishwax]

68. may have ... may not have

But it's definite that Blago's scandal helped Kirk, as did the issues with Broadway Bank.

[inna]

52. garbage of a post

[MellowDem]

60. garbage of a post

[Unvanguard]

53. Never, apparently. They brought us Bush and still haven't learned. n/t

[Chisox08]

54. The libertarian had the same percentage of votes as the Greens

So blaming the Greens is not fair. The Greens and the Libertarians canceled each other out.
I for one blame Alexi for a piss poor campaign. He based his campaign in being Obama's buddy so that is why he deserve to win Obama's former senate seat. He had no ground game to speak of. He didn't go after Kirk hard enough. On top of that his family urged him not to run due to the problems of his family's bank.
Kirk ran ad after ad talking about the Broadway bank failure. With the anti bailout and anti banker feeling with voters Alexi was the wrong choice at the wrong time.
So don't blame the Greens for Alexi's failure

[MellowDem]

61. I am not "blaming" them...

just stating that they helped Kirk. There are lots of factors, but the Greens were a factor that helped Kirk.

[Chisox08]

63. The percentages between the Greens and the Libertairians was equal

they canceled each other out without the Greens and the Libertarians Kirk still would have won. I hate that Kirk won but this isn't helping. The Green Party candidate was polling at 7% he only got 3% of the vote so that means that some people who where going to vote for the Green voted foe Alexi. If they didn't vote at all Alexi still loses. Get over it and focus on 2012. We need to make the Teabaggers gain short term

[MellowDem]

65. Just in terms of strategy...

for the future, like 2012. I realize the Libertarians hurt the Republicans. Without the Greens and with the Libertarians Kirk might have won.

I can't think of any way these third parties help the Democrats. They don't push them left. The Democratic Party will always go for the much larger moderate vote.

[Chisox08]

69. I don't think that third party help or hurt either side

They often cancel each other out. Alexi was just a bad candidate for this election.

[roody]

55. A two-party system is not worth it.

[Radical Activist]

66. Most liberals and progressives know that.

Don't blame the entire left for a smaller group of morons spinning their wheels on self-destructive crusades.

[jgraz]

71. Pure crap.

[Ramulux]

74. Its true

I support the Greens and I am glad that they are on the ballot in so many states, but in races like this where it is extremely close and the Green candidate is pulling a decent percentage they need to concede and endorse the democrat. It sucks and I hate our system as much as the next person, but the hard truth is that until we fix it we have to work within the system.

The Illinois Greens put Mark Kirk in the senate. That is the hard reality, and I hope they come to understand what a massive travesty they just helped create.