General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsVote third party and
spend four years complaining about Republicans and blaming Democrats for enabling them.
Obama-Biden 2012, it's the smart vote!
h/t
mike_c
(36,281 posts)Now how is this OP anything but worthless flame bait? It's EMBARRASSING.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)I nominate your post for a DUzy!
Warpy
(111,245 posts)that really were bait because they encouraged people here to join him in voting third party.
You only get one vote. Mine's going to the party that will protect the Supreme Court the best. I won't get sucked into third party stuff, that's how Reagan got in.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)as well as the folks who don't understand why cutesy threads skirting the rules around advocating the same might piss a lot of people off.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)Like I said, it can't even stimulate honest discussion because that would veer into rule violations. It is designed for no other purpose than taunting DUers with a different opinion. If we can't discuss it, then what other purpose can it serve? It's ugly and mean spirited. Well, I suppose with Newt in the race that's the level of discourse we should all come to expect.
"I think stuff like this does deliberate harm to the sense of community here...."
...advocating against a third-party vote, supporting the Democratic President's re-election and calling out Republicans does "deliberate harm to the sense of community" on Democratic Underground, where the overwhelming majority of members support Democrats?
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)they're not part of the 'community' to begin with.
It's right there in the rules. There are plenty of places on the internet to gush all Naderesque; just not DU.
paulk
(11,586 posts)what is the purpose of this thread?
to remind people that it's against the rules?
dionysus
(26,467 posts)Hugabear
(10,340 posts)Remember the PUMA wars of '08? Looks like we're going to get a second helping of that, even without having a primary challenger for Obama.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)The OP is not flame bait at all. It's patriotic!!
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)PhoenixAbove
(166 posts)This lesser of two evil things is getting old. The DNC is like the vatican; time to open the windows and air out the noxious fumes.
I will vote for Obama while holding my nose. I will happily vote for Elizabeth Warren but after that, all bets are off. The Democratic party will get no more free votes from me unless they start marching from right to left.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)President Barack Obama sucks, but he's better than them.
Makes me want to puke...
NNN0LHI
(67,190 posts)I sure have.
Having a Republican or Democratic administration makes no difference to them.
They will be fine either way.
They are pond scum.
Don
mike_c
(36,281 posts)I do have about as secure a job as someone in my socioeconomic position is likely to have, I mean, I'm a tenured university professor and none of the rest of my family has much education or many prospects. I make a decent salary too, although between the years of unemployment while in school, student loan debts, state worker furloughs, and not having had a raise to speak of in over a decade, I'm ambivalent about the characterization "well-off." I certainly cannot afford to buy a house in my neighborhood, which is a tiny, rural, blue collar town in northern California. My salary has been flat since 1998, and professor's salaries at state schools are not spectacular.
Still, I can't complain. I do have a secure job, I have retirement benefits to look forward too-- I work for them and pay into the retirement system in lieu of making more today (which the state isn't going to allow anyway, LOL). I have a union to watch my back (but as an officer of that union, I see how tenuous our gains really are). My salary is higher than the average wage here, although not greatly, I don't think. I rent because I cannot afford to buy a home, but I like my house and landlord-- I've been in the same place since 1999. But we've no savings to speak of other than SS and my pension. At nearly 57, I'm only one pay check from homelessness, just like most working class Americans.
Pond scum, huh? I don't know what to say.
on edit-- actually, I do have something to say-- like I mentioned above, I think posts like the OP are divisive and corrode the community here, rather than foster it.
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)I know I'm broke as hell and only voting for Obama because I have no other choice. I believe he's the most liberal of all the candidates. Which is to say he's a right leaning centrist.
If I thought a third party candidate had a chance in this election and they were more liberal than any other candidate I would vote for them in a second. But there is no chance at all, so I'm stuck with Obama. I guess that makes me Pond Scum even though I'm poor.
amyrose2712
(3,391 posts)much of her life. I grew up poor and on welfare. Presently, I have ZERO income, so your logic doesn't really work.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Of course, we can expect the usual rationalizations about the Democrats being powerless because they "don't have the votes", or "represent a red state", or "you have to give a little to get a little".
If they don't want progressives to vote 3rd Party they could try earning our votes instead of chasing the "middle" by turning right.
PhoenixAbove
(166 posts)and if, in the future, another Nader incident should happen the blame will lay at the feet of the Progressives instead of at the feet of the DNC where it belongs.
Big tent doesn't mean you completely ignore, insult and harass a large part of your base.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Big tent doesn't mean you completely ignore, insult and harass a large part of your base."
Large? People who vote third party consistently are not the Democratic base. The Green Party base is not the Democratic Party base.
PhoenixAbove
(166 posts)I was under the impression that the Green party was made up of a lot of disillusioned democrats. I may very well be wrong but keep in mind, you're talking to a disillusioned democrat who plans on jumping ship after the next election. Where else would I go?
ProSense
(116,464 posts)...up to you. I'm sure anyone who decides to switch party affiliation goes through some soul searching. No one can decide for you.
Still, the Democratic Party is going to cater to its base, not the Republican, Green or Libertarian base. The Democratic agenda is pretty clear, but anyone looking at the political landscape and believing that it's going to be an easy path is kidding themselves.
There are obstacles ranging from intra-party disagreements, egos, deception, money and other external factors.
What I don't get is when people started equating pressure (you know, the kind that stopped SOPA or Keystone) with complaining and running away.
That is how I view a lot of the calls to vote third party or withhold the vote.
What you decide to do with your vote is up to you.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"We'll be blaming Democrats who pander to Republicans no matter who wins."
Apparently it doesn't matter if Republicans or Democrats win if you vote third party.
Sound like this: Vote third party and spend four years complaining about Republicans and blaming Democrats for enabling them.
Thanks for paraphrasing.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)to have more liberals in office, then complain that we got no liberal policy outcomes!
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Unfortunately, a lot of Democrats are DLC, 3rd Way, New Democrat, centrists.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)more progressive by NOT voting for them!
What the fuck kinda sense does that make?
Then, the Rethugs/Teabaggers gain MORE seats and what do they do? Complain that Obama/Dems aren't progressive enough.
Again, what the fuck kinda sense does that make?
NONE!! Absolutely NONE!!!
It's irrational and absurd!!!!!!!
PhoenixAbove
(166 posts)Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)rational manner since we didn't work to get more progressives elected.
You have to get more liberals in office first BEFORE crying about the Congress we have, then punishing Democrats by allowing MORE Blue Dogs and Republicans to get elected.
That's the part that makes no sense.
Yes, you need to yell, scream, shout, and get angry!!
HOWEVER...
Unless you get more progressives in office, nothing will change.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)candidates as those candidates queue up to retake Congress. I don't give a shit that I don't agree with those candidate, they are democrats and worlds better than the alternative. The people that I see on DU throwing out litmus tests for their support are posters that claim to be progressives. The question that I have for you is if I, as a moderate, can put aside my differences with progressive democrats to get them elected, why the FUCK can't some progressives reciprocate?
I have differences with progressives, but they are democrats and as such, I trust progressive democrats to do what is right. I can't say the same about any republican that I have ever met, listened to or voted against.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)and conservative Democrats have seldom been asked to modify their principles in order to get things done.
I understand this. I truly do.
But I agree with you that since we can't get purist candidates, we should punish those candidates by not voting. It makes our cause that much worse.
I just wish that people would exercise more rational judgement. Change in government has ALWAYS been incremental. Nothing changes overnight. Never has. I wish that people would understand this; it is a critical aspect of the governing process.
PhoenixAbove
(166 posts)In the last ten years my family has been decimated. My parents are dead. My grandmother's house may be going into foreclosure. My blue collar brother who used to work as a mechanic for $25.00 an hour is now working as a mechanic for $11.25 an hour with no benefits. I have been medically bankrupted and am now disabled and living on a fixed income and...
what do I hear out of the mouth of my democratic president? Quotes from Saint Ronnie and "eat your peas." Insanity. I am not running away from the democratic party. It is doing its' best to run away from me. At least Occupy Wall Street has changed the rhetoric.
From my point of view (considering my current economic status) jumping ship to another party after this election is rational. We need help NOW. Not ten years from now.
You don't understand. Truly you don't.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)truly understand.
And I'm not suggesting that NO criticism of the president and the Democratic Party is unwarranted.
What I am suggesting is that we get busy and start being more proactive. If we really want and desire change, it MUST come from the bottom up. The Republicans are killing us at the state/local levels.
But unless we have a more progressive Congress, nothing will change and all we can then do is become demoralized and further disengage in the process, thus handing the Republican Party--who I believe are our TRUE enemies--the victory.
The Democratic Party isn't perfect. Sadly that's the consequence of having the Big Tent, if you will. But it's damn sure not like the Republicans. If we want to change this party, it has to happen from the bottom up.
It's easy to point the finger at one man and charge that he is responsible for all that ails us. But, it's not fair and it's irrational.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)"Stuck Up Ass Syndrome". The condition is characterized by assuming one is so pure that no vote but an ultra-pure vote should EVER be cast. "Stuck Up Ass Syndrome" is cured by "Oh Shit, Neocons are Fucks" syndrome. "Oh Shit, Neocons are Fucks" syndrome leads to "I will Send Money to Any Democrat with a Pulse and Stomp Pavement For" syndrome. Voting with a brain leads to success, but the ultra-pure become pissed with the steady rate of REAL progress and decide to shoot themselves and anyone else that wants a progressive society in the ass and the ultra-pure sit idlly sulking while neoconsretake control of governments.
PhoenixAbove
(166 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)assmouth after too much salsa dip. That kind of sense.
Number23
(24,544 posts)to run for office as a Democrat in this country.
Your opponents (Republicans) are so mentally deranged and devoid of anything even resembling integrity it is nothing short of terrifying. And your supporters (some Democrats) seem to be a single bill passage away from branding you a failure and vowing to never vote for you again.
You could handle the first group if you knew that the second group had your back. But shit, with supporters like this, I'm sure that there are probably HUNDREDS of wonderful, qualified, good decent progressives all over the country that would rather have hot pokers plunged into their eyes than represent these folks in Congress.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)standards for its members.
We are quick to give up as a party. We expect quick results and when we don't get those results in the manner in which we believe they ought to be delivered, we quickly give up.
If the Republican Party behaved as Democrats, they'd never win, too.
They can lose historic elections in 2006 and 2008, for example, and NEVER hold their heads low. In fact, when they lose, they act as if they've won! They never quit or stop pushing for what they want.
And what's most important is that the Republican Party has witnessed incredible gains at the local and state level because that's where they put the most money into.
We Democrats? We hang our heads in shame, allowing them to kick us when we're down.
A great example is the abortion issue. Republicans know that they'll never overturn Roe v. Wade. Rather than vote their leaders out of office because they're disappointed that Roe hasn't been overturned, they regroup and work at the local level to strip away at reproductive rights.
The Political Left has failed at this. They give up on their leaders way too easily!
I swear, it's like we have some inferiority complex. We just don't know how to keep on playing until we get what we want. We have no patience.
Number23
(24,544 posts)I read a really interesting article in Vanity Fair last night about the birth of Occupy Wall Street. You can read it online here http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/02/occupy-wall-street-201202
Now, what I have always found interesting is that the president's incessant detractors have always touted that the reason Occupy Wall St. was born was because "Obama failed us" and they believe that Occupy is some sort of referendum on the president. When presented with facts that show that the president has voiced support for Occupy and that many of his strongest supporters also support Occupy, of course they just shrug that off. Doesn't fit the preconceived narrative, you see.
What is most striking about that Vanity Fair article is that they interviewed dozens of people that were there when Occupy was conceived and first put into action. These folks do put some blame at the president (angry that bankers weren't put in jail) and logically, put MUCH more emphasis on the overall corruption and inadequacy of the American political system (which has been going on for decades longer than this president has been in office). But really quite startlingly, some of them also ascribe some blame squarely on the political left for many of the reasons that you already noted.
Snip:
Co-founder, Adbusters
The left had been chattering on about revolutions for a long time, but weve basically been howling at the moon. And then, all of a sudden, a bunch of young people [in Egypt] using social media were able to mobilize not just 500 or 5,000 people, but 50,000 people. They inspired us with their courage and with their techniques.
The left has the ideas and the heart but not the MEANS to implement the change that they seek. Apparently, it was this frustration with the political left that was the impetus (along with many other factors) that led to the creation of Occupy. Folks really need to understand this the next time that loud handful of serial malcontents tries to drop everything at the feet of this president -- as usual.
Erose999
(5,624 posts)rather than a dislike of Newt and the GOP. What other force is there besides voters voting 3rd party or staying home to pull candidates back to the left?
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)elect more progressives at the local level. Staying home does NOTHING. It is absolutely self destructive, especially if you punish local level Democrats who ARE doing right and who ARE the progressives that you desire.
I can't change your mind about Obama and I don't intend to try to convince you otherwise when it comes to him and his accomplishments.
But, if I can press on you to stay involved and work to identify and elect more progressives to local level offices, I think that I would have done my job.
Erose999
(5,624 posts)writing in candidates or voting 3rd party was what I meant to say.
We've got to send a message to the party leadership that its not OK to field candidates that are "GOP lite".
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)probably think about leaving DU because advocating for non-Democratic Party candidates is clearly against the rules.
lonestarnot
(77,097 posts)unkachuck
(6,295 posts)....but it would be better if it was a little more, dU
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)RL
progressoid
(49,978 posts)I'm rec'ing your post.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)Republicans outright if you're voting 3rd party. It's more honest.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)"More flypaper from Spinderella. Yawn."
...cute.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)maybe if you try really, really, really hard you can get some people not to vote this year!
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)RL
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)RZM
(8,556 posts)Hugabear
(10,340 posts)What the fuck do think this is, Democratic Underground?
Rex
(65,616 posts)smart.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)the Gingrich/Chuckie likeness is uncanny!
DeathToTheOil
(1,124 posts)I see nothing wrong with this OP.
Rectangle
(667 posts)great white snark
(2,646 posts)Don't make the rest of us pay for your indifference.