A simple picture that shows why not voting hurts Democrats (and the Left as a whole):
Last edited Tue Jul 8, 2014, 10:18 AM - Edit history (1)
That is how American elections are decided:more votes carry more "weight", so whichever side has more votes wins.
Notice that any non-votes, on "balance", hurt the side that lost the vote and therefore help the opposition.
GOTFV. Rinse and repeat. Without votes, we lose. It really is that simple.
= new reply since forum marked as read
it's unbelievable. The gall of some people, to expect an elected representative to actually...represent....isn't that what their supposed to do?
What, doesn't that energize you 
1. The left that ran 3d party during the 1930s tended to be the Republican left, not the Democratic left. It occurred in states with a Progressive tradition, not in states that were solidly Democratic (i.e. the south).
2. Wallace did run on the left. Strom ran on the racist right as well. Strom took electoral votes, no less. It's disingenuous to cite 1948 without citing it in full.
3. The Adlai bit in 1960 was so irrelevant that I'm surprised someone else has heard of it. It was nothing but extreme wishful thinking. The threats made to not support the ticket weren't made by "the left," but by Walter Reuther, the head of UAW. He was a bit more important than some nebulous "left."
Incidentally, as an LBJ fan, I fully understand why Reuther would have been appalled at the selection of Johnson. He was solidly in the middle of the segregationist crowd, as evidenced by his 23 year record in Congress. There was nothing to suggest to the world at large that the most liberal president in American history was just over 3 years from taking office.
4. The people who protested in 1968 didn't prefer McCarthy. It's not disingenuous, it's a lie to claim it. They preferred to overturn the American political system, period.
5. You're right about Carter and Kennedy. I suspect the contribution of Kennedy to Reagan's win wasn't much, as Carter's image as a man out of his depth was solidified by 1979 at the latest.
6. It's received wisdom that Ralph Nader is the devil on this board (well, generally). I personally feel that the greater problem, the one that sunk Gore, was Clinton's embrace of the hardcore right after 1994. He went a long way toward legitimizing Gingrich, Armey, and Delay by agreeing that their priorities were valid ("the era of big government is over"
. Ultimately, from my own observation, most people didn't view 2000 as a particularly important election. Very little difference was popularly seen between the parties, especially by the voters who actually decide elections: unaffiliated. Neither Bush nor Gore ran particularly memorable campaigns. Hell, if not for 9/11 and its cascade of events, it's debatable whether the average person would even remember W (his father is barely remembered by the man in the street and that seems to be because of the son).
I didn't vote for Nader. He wasn't on the ballot in my state and I've yet to see a third party that could both address more of my concerns than the Democratic Party and have a viable chance at doing something on a national/state/local level. That being said, I think Nader's percentage, which was laughably low, has been blown out of proportion. Two lackluster campaigns resulted in a coin flip. Too bad for us that the coin flip was far more important that it appeared at the time.
1. Huey and the progressive label. I'm enough of a history nerd that I don't much care for the modern use of progressive. To me, it's a particular group of upper and upper-middle class Republicans in the early 20th century. That being said, under the modern usage, it'd be fair to describe Huey as a progressive, given that the old populist label is primarily used as an extremely ignorant perjorative these days. To some extent, I think we're arguing over labels. I view Huey as closer to an old time southern populist with some of the nasty authoritarian tendencies that were present worldwide throughout the 30s. Interestingly enough, if the Wikipedia entry is true concerning Williams' biography, Long sought to form a third-party with the support of Father Coughlin. That sort of alliance would cut against the description of Huey as a modern progressive given Father Coughlin's obsession with antisemitic conspiracy theories.
2. 1930, but point taken.
3. That's fine. It should be noted that Strom's run was precipitated by Humphrey's civil rights plank.
4. It was irrelevant because it was a blip. Seriously, it was less than a blip because only two nerds on a board full of nerds even remember it. 
I don't know if I'd view it so much as the left as partly bad political judgment and partly personal dislike. I imagine Eleanor viewed Papa Joe and co. much the same as Franklin. In addition, there were more than a few questions about Kennedy's age, his health (brought by John Connally at the convention), and his political tactics (Harry Truman commented in 1961 that the Kennedys had bought the nomination AND had overpaid to do it). Yes, when Eleanor Roosevelt spoke in favor of something, it was important. But, was it a bigger deal than Truman's stumping for Harriman, at the convention, for Harriman in 52 and 56?
5. The protest from the left was a protest from what could legitimately be called the radical left (not like today, where Barack Obama is somehow considered a socialist-wtf). I do have to wonder who did more damage in Chicago in 68, them or Daley?
As for people sitting out the election, I'm sure it happened. I'm also sure the number was tiny. Liberals and leftists thinking Humphrey and Tricky Dick were the same? No. Nixon was a known quantity in 68. One of Hubert's many problems in 68 was the fact Nixon siphoned off a lot of voters who'd later support Reagan or had sired those who did. Nixon made explicit racist appeals to law and order in 68. He and Wallace carried the south, except for Texas. Those results won him the election, along with Illinois, Ohio, and California.
6. George Wallace ran third party 3 times. He may have been a segregationist Democrat, but he was a Democrat prior to 68.
Ted was a very complicated man. I remember hearing about the proposed rule change, which, as politely as I can manage, was a bit audacious. As for the yelling at the convention, it wouldn't surprise me. Emotions run high during campaigns and they get positively absurd when a Kennedy is involved.
If you think I said "lack of liberal support cost people elections," then quote me directly.
So you have a KOS link specifically referring to the 2010 midterms with stats on liberals as proof, in general, that the left is a reliable voting block and they didn't contribute to presidential elections in '68 and '80?
... isn't kinda silly for you to claim I said it?
David Rosenbaum?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/24/us/2004-campaign-independent-relax-nader-advises-alarmed-democrats-but-2000-math.html
E.J. Dionne?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061903021.html
The sources change, the stats remain the same.
Oh, if Charlie Cook is a rightwinger, that's news to rightwingers:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2009/07/15/charlie-cook-another-out-touch-liberal
... "The left" didn't hijack the party. We've been here all along. There's allot more at stake in these elections than just "winning." Winning at what cost? Any cost? Winning is not everything, wildman. What's really good is when you can win and NOT sell your soul to the devil. Just imagine what we could do if we just did the right thing, rather than sell our values down the river to win an election. Look at this country...it's a GD mess! I would not be bragging if I was you.
I would just go on and get in the party I belonged in! 
... "selling one's values down the river in order to win an election would be A-OK?" "Don't minimize the impact of selling your soul to the devil because it makes an enormous difference to people's lives." All I can see from that way of thinking & running a political party is the negative difference it brings to people's lives! 
... I think we're talking past each other at this point. Money can't buy ya love, riqster.
Money can't buy 'ya love. Respectfully. 
And Timothy McVeigh, I mean Geithner - sorry, I get people mixed up when just sorting them b the reason they killed people - just wrote this book, outlining how this very plan. He even went on Jon Stewarts show and explained it to the voters in the audience. - it was purposeful and he suggests that we would have all been in the toilet if it hadn't been for his benevolence to his banker friends, like the ones whose couch he slept on when he got to D.C.
The audience, family members and voters, laughed in his face.
Not Republican obstructionism, but deliberate policy that forced austerity on working people while rewarding criminals. And the CDC says the deaths and disabilities are higher among the 7 million FAMILIES that were foreclosed on, and ARE higher among the 9 million home loans that are currently underwater. In housing "recovery".
He could have driven a bomb-laden truck up to their front door - they are still just as dead, and their families are still just as wounded.
http://www.amazon.com/Stress-Test-Reflections-Financial-Crises/dp/0804138591
Hint: It's really good...
So is this. I always think it's a great read when I point out why banksters are reporting record profits, and we have an increasing number, more than since FDR, of people classified as working poor. Growing.
http://field-negro.blogspot.com/2012/05/its-21st-century-but-house-negro-is.html#.U7xD4qbsbJM
...
To understand this, you have to go back to what [the] young brother here referred to as the house Negro and the field Negro -- back during slavery. There was two kinds of slaves. There was the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes - they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good 'cause they ate his food -- what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master's house quicker than the master would. The house Negro, if the master said, "We got a good house here," the house Negro would say, "Yeah, we got a good house here." Whenever the master said "we," he said "we." That's how you can tell a house Negro.
If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, "Let's run away, let's escape, let's separate," the house Negro would look at you and say, "Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?" That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a "house nigger." And that's what we call him today, because we've still got some house niggers running around here.
This modern house Negro loves his master. He wants to live near him. He'll pay three times as much as the house is worth just to live near his master, and then brag about "I'm the only Negro out here." "I'm the only one on my job." "I'm the only one in this school." You're nothing but a house Negro. And if someone comes to you right now and says, "Let's separate," you say the same thing that the house Negro said on the plantation. "What you mean, separate? From America? This good white man? Where you going to get a better job than you get here?" I mean, this is what you say. "I ain't left nothing in Africa," that's what you say. Why, you left your mind in Africa.
...
What I find most interesting is that after Malcom X came back form South Africa he had a completely changed viewpoint. No longer was it simply blacks enslaved by the whites, but the "minds" of all who were enslaved.
Had he not been murdered I would like to have had coffee with him. You, well, I'm sure you know
And now I turn the page...
bye.
Next up, I shall teach Rocket Scientry. When in America, vote. 