General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo Not Vote for the Lesser Evil; Vote for the Greater Good
In every election in this country, particularly presidential elections, voters really have a binary choice, despite any third party candidates. For Democrats, the choices are simple. You vote for the nominee or do not vote for the nominee. The second choice is equivalent to a vote for the Republican.
Do you not like the nominee of the Democratic Party in all areas? Well, I've never met a presidential candidate who met all of my criteria. I vote for the greater good. I vote for the candidate who will deliver more on the positive side. It's not voting for the lesser evil. I will never get all that I want. History has demonstrated that at every election.
So, I vote for the greater good. For every office. I do not withhold my vote. I do not vote for some third party candidate who has zero chance of winning. I do not vote for the Republican, ever. I do not vote to "send a message." I vote to elect the better choice. I vote for the Democrat, because that candidate is better than the Republican, in every election I can remember. I will get something of what I want, if not everything.
Vote for the greater good, not the lesser evil. That's my recommendation for all Democrats.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Sorry, I'll behave now.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)
TNNurse
(6,926 posts)I love that movie.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I figure why settle for the 'better' candidate when you actually have a choice to vote for the 'best' candidate. Why do 'third party candidates have no chance of winning'? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy from people who are only willing to vote 'better'.
It's why I encourage the Democratic Party to be unafraid to actually run the best candidate in each race, so that people can vote for the best candidate AND the Democratic Party candidate with their single vote.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)In my congressional district, for example, we will readily elect a very progressive representative. We do that for all offices. In other districts in Minnesota, however, the candidate we elect in CD-4 could not win. Keith Ellison and Betty McCollum, who are both outstanding progressives would lose in most other districts in my state.
But we do have other Democratic House members in Minnesota. They are not as progressive as my representative nor Keith Ellision. But, they vote with the Democratic caucus. Because of that, progressive measures get their support, even if they cannot run as progressives in their own districts.
The office of President is not at all dissimilar. The Presidential candidate must win in enough states to get the electoral votes to win the election. Not every state is progressive. In fact, most states are not progressive in their voting habits. That's why we don't elect progressive candidates to that office very often. We've tried. In 1968, we tried, and lost miserably. We've tried in other years, and have had similar results. We all know what happens when Republicans are in control of our federal government. I prefer times when Democrats are in control. So, I vote for the Democratic candidate. You will do what seems best to you.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)I am not being sarcastic, I am indeed serious.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)It's just words. Those who disagree cannot harm me in any way. I risk nothing. So, I don't have to be brave. I just have to say what I think. It's easy. I'm not brave. I just write what I think.
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)subject to an alert from certain corners.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)I've said nothing that should result in a hidden post. I didn't attack anyone. I simply made a recommendation on voting. Besides, what would be the consequences of a hidden post, anyhow? Will someone alert on this OP? Could be. Do I care? No, I don't. I'll rely on the good sense of a jury of DUers, I think.
BumRushDaShow
(128,981 posts)is what gives the GOP what they want. People fought and died for the right to vote. There is no other issue that has as many Constitutional Amendments dedicated to the right of a continually changing set of individuals to be able to do so without hurdles (4 Amendments to date), coupled with a Voter law that sunsets every 10 years that is in danger of being completely thrown out, with draconian means for trying to get around it and the Amendments.
Whether it is at the national level, or more importantly this year at the state and local levels (e.g., here in Philadelphia, we have a mayoral, City Council, and City Commissioner election this year), people cannot give up this critical means to voice their will by apathy or disappointment or assumption that a candidate's stated platform cannot be changed for the more positive. Otherwise this "right" will be taken away.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)have no voice in the course of the future. And we must vote in a way that makes sense and advances our goals. The right to vote can be taken away from us, or we can choose to simply not vote. Either way, we lose. I can't imagine taking the second of those options, and would fight against the first with all my might.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)MineralMan
(146,308 posts)I'm just trying to put it in different terms. I think that some don't recognize the good in their zeal to detect the bad. I can find something in every candidate that I can disagree with. If that's all I see, however, I'm not being sensible.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)than vote for any of those bastards.
Forgot to mention that I really fucking despise Republicans.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)But then I also have a definite idea of what I want this country to be. It turns out I'm a Democratic Socialist. I want to see every person have the basic human right of universal healthcare, housing, education and nutrition. Every one. And after that if some want to be millionaires or billionaires then they have the freedom to pursue that dream as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else's basic human rights.
And yeah, I know all about the snowball in hell thing, so I'm willing to see it all happen in increments, thus the definition of Progressive. As long as there is progress in the right direction I'm willing to be patient. That's why I'm more satisfied with Obama's Presidency than not. In spite of every effort on the other side he's actually managed to 'progress'.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)My goals are far higher than what appears to be possible today. I will not, however, work to let things get worse, rather than better. As you said, President Obama has had some very positive accomplishments, despite many things working against him. I'm glad I supported him and voted for him in both elections.
DerekG
(2,935 posts)If that Medusa's head Hillary Clinton, or any other Terror Warrior, nabs the nomination, I'll be voting third-party in '16. Blame me all you want.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)I'll be voting for the Democratic nominee, whoever that is. That's the greater good. It's not the ultimate good, but it is the greater good. You will, of course, do as you think best.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)will make the GOP very happy, just like they did in 2000, 2004, and 2012.
think
(11,641 posts)In reality this is what we have and this is what we'll get. If we're lucky we wont get another war based on lies....
by Michael J MooreChristine Harper - 11:00 PM CDT May 2, 2012
~Snip~
Goldman Sachs as an institution doesn’t have a view on who should be elected U.S. president in November, Blankfein said in an April 25 interview on CNBC. While the banker publicly supported Hillary Clinton’s campaign for president in 2008, he said he hasn’t made up his mind about whom to support this time.
“I’m a Rockefeller Republican -- a registered Democrat and a Rockefeller Republican,” he told CNBC, referring to a person whose views on fiscal policy tend to align with Republicans and positions on social issues align with Democrats. “Where that will get me, I’m not sure yet.”
~Snip~
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-05-02/blankfein-s-gay-rights-support-shows-wall-street-s-obama-dilemma
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)My activism is in the legislative area, and in my own districts. That's where I can get closer to what I want. I vote for President along party lines. I have no influence on who the nominee for President will be.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)You will still vote for evil if it's labelled "Democrat". Of course you can rationalize why.
It's hard to face the truth that big money gives us the choices. We are allowed to choose between Corporate Thing 1 and Corporate Thing 2.
If candidates try to fight this truth, they will be crushed. Sen Sanders understands this and has expressed his concerns for his and his family's safety. I wouldn't be surprised if Sen Warren hasn't been warned.
So I understand the need for people to pretend we still have a choice. For them rationalization is the key to happiness.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)We all will. My congressional representative is Betty McCollum. Look her up. I've worked hard to help her get elected. Nothing I do will affect the Presidential nomination. There, I'll vote for the Democrat, whoever the nominee is. If you think you can influence that nomination, I encourage you to do so.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)And the offensive drumbeat of disingenuous propaganda pretending we have a choice will, of course, continue.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)
pintobean
(18,101 posts)is a vote for the Republican. Voting third party or not voting is not equivalent to voting for the other side.
As to the greater good, that phrase indicates good on both sides. To many, lesser evil is more accurate because they see evil on both sides.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)It was just a recommendation.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... Jesse Ventura yet?
Sorry, not being sold that bill of goods this go around. Put up a candidate I can vote for without holding my nose, or lose my vote. It's just that simple.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)I can't believe that Minnesota elected him to be Governor. That was before I came here, though.
I will not be "putting up a candidate" for President. I can become a delegate to our state convention with a little effort. I have absolutely zero chance of being a delegate to the national convention. I have nothing to do with who the candidate for President will be. I will vote in November, 2016, for the Democratic candidate, though. That's what I've done since 1968. That is what I will continue to do.
You will do as you think best, I have no doubt.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Be sure to tell the riders of our light rail what a "clown" the guy who got it built is.
Bernie Sanders, 2016
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Or Pete Wilson, for that matter.
Jesse became the Governor because of the tangled mess caused by the Republicans putting up worthless candidates who kept screwing up the economy after they were elected to office, and Democrats who couldn't unite behind candidates who wanted to raise taxes to pay for all of the services they wanted.
In 1990, just 10 days before the November election, the Republican candidate for Governor dropped out of the race after allegations were made by his daughter that he had made sexual advances to his daughter's girlfriend while they teenagers enjoying some time in the family's hot tub in their backyard at his home.
The wife of that Republican candidate for Governor filed for divorce, and she moved out of their house that same week, as a result.
Yet, that November -- even though this sex scandal and resignation was reported by all of the newspapers in the state and was reported on by all of the local television stations every single night for more than a week -- the Republicans went to the polls and acted like robots . . . they elected the guy that the former Republican candidate for Governor had whipped like a rented mule in the primaries held earlier that spring.
They didn't even have time to reprint the ballots, the other guy's name was still on the ballot!
That's how Arne Carlson became the Governor.
And Arne Carlson was such a lousy Governor that he drew criticism from both parties in the state, the Republicans as well as the Democrats.
And that was when Jesse stepped in to the picture.
You can go to the library and read the newspaper articles from those days.
If you do, it could change your opinion of Jesse.
Party lines in Minnesota are not as hardline as they are elsewhere.
Martin Eden
(12,867 posts)With a binary choice, what is the difference between greater good and lesser evil? You (and I) are voting for the Democrat, regardless. The distinction you make is nothing more than the perception & attitude of the voter who casts the ballot. It has no bearing on what the candidate, if elected, will actually do in office.
Of course, perception & attitude are important and words do have meaning. If (for example) our binary choice consists of two corporatist candidates, the term lesser evil may be more accurate because both candidates will serve the deep pocket interests even though one may be better on social issues and the environment. In a larger context, the greater good will never truly be served until the American people break the shackles of this status quo and demand fundamental change in how our electoral process functions.
That's why perception & attitude are important. If we believe the binary choice presented to us can somehow achieve the greater good, we have become tools for maintaining the status quo.
I'm not suggesting the Third Party route. I'm saying our representative democracy is highly dysfunctional with a system of campaign financing that is intrinsically corrupt. Until that changes, our binary choice will be the product of that dysfunctional, corrupt system. And it will never change until we recognize it for what it is and DEMAND change.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)And, true to form, it pretends to be about policies while utterly avoiding any mention whatsoever of the most important. While absurdly avoiding Hillary's vicious record of predatory corporatism and warmongering at the expense of human lives.
What predictably vapid Third Way talking points. More Third Way manipulative rhetoric utterly devoid of issues.
The corporate MO: Try to get people fighting over the shiny horse race while avoiding at all costs discussion of the actual policy positions held by the candidates. There is no defense of Hillary's vicious TPP here. There is no defense of her right-wing coup in Honduras and the vicious consequences for human beings. There is no defense of her murderous warmongering that drains our treasury leaving millions of American children hungry.
There are six or eight OP's like this every day, repeating this Third Way manipulation disguised as "discussion." But there is no political discussion here: only avoidance of the actual record.
This vapidity is now what passes for political discourse in a pseudo-democracy with a well-funded propaganda machine.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)to my "vapid" post.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Each and every time.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)and otherwise. All replies are welcome, of course. Some are more revealing than others, I guess. I'll just keep right on posting, in any case.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)There is no defense of Hillary's policies, at least not a defense on liberal or progressive grounds. Of course the only thing that keeps getting posted is this "Lesser of Two Evils" canard - they've got nothing else.
Gothmog
(145,242 posts)The next POTUS will get to pick two or three justices to the SCOTUS and these justices could control the direction of the court for a generation. Nader's stupidity gave us Roberts and Alito who voted for Citizens United and the gutting of Voting Rights Act.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)Thank you.
Gothmog
(145,242 posts)The Texas law is horrible.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)And it has nothing to do with scapegoat Nader. Those that use Nader as a scapegoat are afraid to look for the real problem as they might end up looking in the mirror. Nader legally ran for office. The over confident DLC ran Al Gore for 8 more years of DLC policies. The public wanted a change. Had Nader not run, the outcome would have been the same. Now we are faced with a rebranded DLC and what do you know but another Clinton. If she loses to Bush who will the DLC supporters blame?
If you don't want a repeat of 2000 don't nominate another DLC'er. We can not afford 8 more years of Corporate control.
forest444
(5,902 posts)The art of the possible.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)the former is better. How can you resist "greater good"?
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)Lesser evil does not equate to good.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)or Good without evil.... they are Yen/yang
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)They simply make Evil A and Evil B.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)You can not have Good without Evil ,,,,,.
neither can exist by themselves.!
If everybody has good and Evil , then whoever has the lesser evil will have the greater Good,,,,, it can be no other way.
Now you can two people who both have more evil than Good. but still the person with the most good is the lesser Evil.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)That has faded away due to relentless right wing propaganda and their resistance to what they called our 'nanny state' where public sector jobs were plentiful. It also undergirded the state economy to take care of folks when times were lean. The system of public transportation made living miles from downtown a feasible thing for all classes of people.
There were community centers, pools, sporting facilities with parks and public housing in most areas. Then came a different mindset, that those with money were the only ones deserving of the privilege of living in those more pristine areas and also began what I call a Mad Max mentality.
We have suffered from the baleful influence of Rovian money and candidates, and now Libertarians. They have preached utter disdain for all public works, held up the budget in their own version of shut down, refused to allow any transportation bills for road maintenance or new ones unless there were tolls on the roads and privatization of the work force. That applies to all other agencies and public endeavors, they want it all privatized and within that change people have died as there is no accountability.
They are implementing the Koch platform without saying what it is and convinced many people to go along with it based on conspiracies. Those are straight from the Birchers but they don't know it.
The same elitist mindset that says you have to pay to be on the road in some areas has cut down job opportunity for those who need public roads and public transportation as we came to expect. It's been an all out assault on every publicly run operation.
They want open carry here and no gun control at all, even though this state has protection for gun owners. In its own way, more protection for other things than the US Constitution. The voters had a choice to go one way or the other but they chose some meager gun control and those, a lot of whom came from out of state, exploded at the capitol because the voters didn't agree with their ideas. That's not a democratic world view.
The nihilists want it all of government gone, all sold off, parks, schools, roads, etc. This is not the FDR's America that some people seem to think it is. The mental landscape is very hostile to public anything, at least in the voting booth. They will take their government subsidies and checks though as if they deserve them, but scream that no one else does.
They extort and hold hostage essential services and the state is indeed getting inefficient simply due to lack of hands. They have taken over the legislature as an implacable force that must be dealt with and have knocked liberals off the courts and other elected offices. They've been deceptive in some cases, with at least one Tea Partier who ran as a Democrat, but whether he won or not, IDK.
They put in a Tea Partier in charge of elections, and I knew there would be trouble. That new official did indeed join forces with a national vote suppression scheme data base, but did not implement it. But certainly would have if there had not been as many Democrats in office to stop it.
Don't vote and you will indeed lose the right to vote which has been proven since 2010. Some people are in deep denial that we have time to make this right in the future. The GOP is playing for keeps, they have for a generation, steadily eroding rights and government and they are in the home stretch.
Watching Obama near the end of his Selma speech, one could see that he felt the urgency of voting before it's too late. He has more data and facts than most people have, and his voice broke in one sentence about the need for voting. He knows what the Right and Koch types are doing to this nation.
This is not the progressive era of the seventies with Democratic majorities and even GOP allies who saw the necessity of making the system work.
The business community, as my state senator said, has broken the system. They were always given benefits in return for providing high wage jobs for people our schools turned out. It was a circle that had been profitable and productive for many years. It was the normal way of doing things.
They were to keep their end of the bargain, given breaks, but now they want to take the money and run. The revenue is going down with this attitude, we have a very regressive tax system that they have put bills to remedy, but the GOP is backed by the public to not pay any taxes. Those who resist paying fees and taxes and waiting for the rich to pay their fair share are falling for the wealthy's game, leaving government in their hands.
We still have a good job situation and high wages but rural areas, which the urban areas paid for in terms of social and physical infrastructure, are content to pay next to nothing in wages, accumulate great wealth with no taxes no matter how poor the people serving them are.
The social stratification in such areas is apparent. If you are born into money or your family has land, you are set. If you are a worker, you are trash.
The propagandists have won. We have been hit with 'Starve the Beast' initiatives that devastate and make weak our social and physical infrastructure, eliminating employment positions and endangering the most vulnerable and lending a helping hand.
My representatives did not want this, but the demagogues of talk radio and the influx of out of state money and more demagogues and CT being sold is winning. Add to that an intolerant version of Christianity is on the rise and attacking all forms of government because it favors 'others,' when it has only sought to follow a secular model to not discriminate.
The barbarians are at the gate and howling for blood. It's impossible to ignore them and they want a red state without rights for all, theocracy and vote to increase income inequality.
It's depressing when we run progressive young candidates who believe in our ideas without the 'official' label of socialist to get elected. There is no panacea in voting for those labels, and they cause more GOP to be elected and hurt more people. There is no time for such luxury.
As far as the right wing voters here, they are a bad if not worse than RWNJs we see in D.C. in terms of women's and other rights. They say they are religious but are extremely hateful and are ALEC members.
Some years ago state Democrats were in ALEC and when the activities of the Koch brothers and the goals were made public, they left the organization. But they are serving in the state capitol and have to work with Koch heads from the other side. And they are ruthless, not playing by the rule book that government exists to serve all people equally.
It's as if many voters are hypnotized and vote for whatever hate radio says. I'll leave this quote on voting:
I kept the faith and I kept voting. Not for the iron fist but for the helping hand.
~ Billy Bragg
He is heavily criticized for not being doctrinaire enough but I won't indulge rantings on him.
Life is lived in the present, not the past which is gone, or the future which is unknown. When people can't get help, death or lack of freedom and no choices to make their lives better can result and they will never make it to that fabled future utopia.
JMHO. Thanks for the thread and the work you do in your district, MM.
calimary
(81,267 posts)And it's NEVER gonna be the guy from the CONs team.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)A conservative SCOTUS can do enormous damage, as we have seen. A progressive court can do much good. For the best results we need both a Democratic President and a Congress with substantial majorities in both houses, but particularly in the Senate.
I think some believe that letting the Republicans gain control of both will somehow force people to recognize the danger. Sadly, by the time that happens, the damage will have been done.
calimary
(81,267 posts)Enough people bought it that ... well, whatever. Lots of denial about that, too.
But at one point during that campaign, in addressing increasing allegations of just-trying-to-be-a-spoiler, he said something similar. Paraphrasing - "sometimes it's just gotta get REALLY bad before we can affect positive change." But you seriously need to stop and then drill down into a statement, or a strategy, like that. "Sometimes it's just gotta get REALLY bad..." WTF??? Um... just how bad is "REALLY bad"? What does that infer that we will have to go through - before we supposedly open our eyes and affect that "positive change"?
Let's look at that, shall we? Beyond and deeply beneath that tidy, trite little slogan:
How many of us will die - needlessly? How many of us will be falsely incarcerated - and it could have been prevented? How many of us will be shot by the "shoot-first, ask-questions-later" mentality (including white cops) - and it didn't have to happen? How many of us will be sickened and unable to pay for it - and it could have been avoided? How many of us will go hungry every night - how many of our children - and it could have been at least a wee bit mitigated? How many of our cities will deteriorate because the "I-hate-taxes" crowd won't agree to fund anything because their knee-jerk "I-just-hate-the-government" reflex? How much of our environment will be ruined - possibly irreparably? Do we really need to wait til it gets catastrophically bad before anything can happen to reverse it? SERIOUSLY?
I just fear that if we wait on any one of those things - especially something like the climate change conflict-of-opinions - by the time any of these blockheads finally decide something really does need to be done, it'll be too late. Too late for ALL of us.
I don't think ANY of us, in this country or anywhere else around the world for that matter, can afford to wait til things get "REALLY bad"!!! Time is NOT on our side here. Do we REALLY want to wait til some imaginary moment when society at large thinks it's finally time to address some big problem - LONG past the time when anything could realistically or effectively have been DONE about it? I think that's just totally reckless and stupid. Just like ralph nader was. And the biggest loser was him. And his previously admirable consumer-protection agenda. His presence in that campaign, and his spoiler position, ended up pissing all over whatever good work he'd done. Because the GOP got back into the White House and was able to undo, reverse, pick apart, get around, hobble, or otherwise shit all over what he'd fought for and accomplished in years past.
I used to like him a lot and support his work. He fucked that up, too. I think that happened with a lot of his former fan base.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)shows your op quite well
"those who are willing to sacrifice a generation to achieve some ideal are the enemies of mankind."
W. was one, Nader is another.
Vinca
(50,271 posts)7962
(11,841 posts)Go read some of the right wing or GOP sites. Just pick any article about Jeb, Christie, Rubio, etc. And then read the comments section and see all the "I wont vote for another RINO" comments.
Yes, they are that stupid.
Here, on the other hand, we have many people who would prefer Hillary NOT be the nominee. But Ive seen no one comment that if she is, they will not vote for her.
MineralMan
(146,308 posts)I'm not taking about Hillary Cinton, in any case. I'm talking about the eventual nominee. It could be her, of course, but nobody knows.