In the general election I will....

[expatriot]

[PopSixSquish]

1. Hey it's ABB for Me.

and if anyone has a problem with that...So be it.

[Padraig18]

2. ABB here, too!

:thumbsup:

[expatriot]

3. you can tell by the way I slanted the options, I'm ABB 100 per cent.

[Padraig18]

6. LOL!

I like your slant, frankly--- it separates the REAL Democrats from the 'cult followers' who would rather be 'right' than get rid of the crypto-fascists who STOLE our right to self-governance in 2000.

[Darranar]

7. What if it's...

through a series of strange events, David Duke on the Democratic ticket?

[Padraig18]

9. My head will explode

:P

[Ediacara]

10. that isn't part of the equation

1) Duke is not running

2) Duke is not a democrat

3) etc ect

[expatriot]

11. well that would be in some wierd alternative universe in which...

...we couldn't assume that I would have posted this thread.

Write a screenplay for an episode of Twilight Zone where that might happen.

[Ediacara]

4. ABB

even if it's someone I really rather dislike or a sure loser, ABB is my vote.

[bicentennial_baby]

5. ABB

even if it's Lieberman... :P

[MercutioATC]

8. ABB, baby.

.

[redwitch]

12. ABB here too!

:dem:

[expatriot]

13. Oh I forgot the "any Dem except Carol Mosley Braun" option...

[MercutioATC]

15. That's actually pretty funny...

:toast:

[BloodyWilliam]

14. If Lieberman's the party's candidate

It doesn't deserve my vote. I'll compromise to a point, but not past that point.

[AP]

16. I think we all have to agree that we don't point out other candidates'

weaknesses for any other reason than we think it's our candidate for whom most of the electorate will vote.

I have criticized candidates for whom I would definitely vote. I have even crtiticized my favorite candidates. But the whole point, for me, of pointing out weaknesses is that I'm hoping that they'll either be addressed in a way that will help that candidate win and/or I'm hoping the criticism helps people realize the relative strengths and weaknesses of the candidates so that they suppor the one with the best chance.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. I will vote for the MAN IN THE MOON if he is on the Dem ticket

[MercutioATC]

18. What about a yellow dog?

;)

[sleipnir]

19. Not thrown to * necessarily

Just because several of us on DU won't vote for one or two candidates, for me, Lieberman and Gephardt, doesn't mean that * will automatically win. We're a small minority and I don't believe that it will swing the election, but who knows.

Personally, I just can't bring myself to vote for those two. It's my frickin' choice, democracy here please. I don't trust those two at all, almost as much as I distrust *. They both have kow-towed to * and the Pugs too much and they have absolutly lost my support. For me, Liberman (especially) and Gephardt have shown their true colors in the past, and it's been in support of * and his policys. And yes, the vote on the Iraq resolution was the clencher for those two.

[kayleybeth]

20. ABB

We need to get shrub out of our white house!

[starroute]

21. I've got a rather different take on this than most people here

As I see it, the real control of this country is in the hands of the establishment, or the military-industrial complex, or the power elite -- whatever you choose to call it.

This elite generally prefers to work through the Republican Party, because it has 100% control of them, while it only has, say, about 60% control of the Democratic Party.

However, sometimes the Republican Party becomes less useful as a tool. This can happen when it completely discredits itself, as it did at the start of the Depression or (far more briefly) after Watergate or during Newt Gingrich's heyday. It can also happen when the Republican Party comes under the influence of radical ideologues, such as the Neocons or the Religious Right, who threaten the commercial interests of the mainstream establishment.

At such times, the establishment will temporarily shift over and work through the Democratic Party instead, even espousing a program of moderate reformism if that seems necessary to get its candidates elected or to damp out genuine progressive movements.

One effect of this strategy on the part of the establishment is that we as a country seem to alternate between popular Republicans defeating Democratic liberals and unpopular Republicans losing to Democratic moderates. This is often taken as evidence that the Democrats can only win with moderate (or Southern) candidates -- but I see it instead as the hidden hand of the power elite.

I have no doubt at all that Bush is going down, because the establishment is already washing their hands of him. A year from now, the Democrats could run a mangy hyena and still win. In that sense, I think "defeating Bush" is a phony problem that only distracts us from the real issues.

What matters far more is whether we can take advantage of the upcoming moment of massive disillusionment to elect a real progressive -- someone who will initiate a generation's worth of meaningful change -- or whether we will see one more god-damned Democratic moderate acting as a caretaker for the establishment until the Republicans get their act back together. If we can't do even that one small thing, there is no hope for working inside the system.

It isn't clear to me at this point who the best choice of a "real progressive" might be. FDR was far more conservative in his thinking when elected in 1932 than he became by 1934 -- his greatest virtue was to be flexible in his approach and to try more radical strategies when conventional ones didn't work. But I'm starting to develop a clear sense of which candidates could never have that sort of flexibility, and I see no reason to vote for any of them.