Request: don't vote in the primary if you don't commit to supporting the nominee

[CreekDog]

Doing otherwise pretty much means that you think this process is all about you and not about US.

If that's your attitude, save it for the general election, but primaries are where the party's voters decide who the party puts up. Some only want to take half that deal.

[illinoisprogressive]

1. Oh please. I will vote for who I want to and not vote for who I don't

[CreekDog]

3. Then you're a free agent, not really a party supporter.

That's okay, but let's admit it.

By the way, I like Obama.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Blind loyalty - a key ingredient for totalitarianism. nt.

[CreekDog]

6. It's not blind loyalty, it's called deciding with your peers

on the best nominee, democratically, and then supporting them, even if it's not your first choice.

Stupid selfish Americans. So typical. Me me me me me me me. Never us.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. So, hypothetically

Joe Lieberman wins the 2008 nomination, do you vote for him? Or do you decide that perhaps 'my party right or wrong' has limits?


"Stupid selfish Americans. So typical. Me me me me me me me. Never us."

piss off.

[emulatorloo]

25. Lieberman is not going to win the 2008 nomination. EOM

[Warren Stupidity]

31. that is why it is a hypothetical

So Joe Lieberman wins the 2008 nomination. Do you vote for him?

[emulatorloo]

58. it is so hypothetical that it is impossible -- just as it was in 2004. And no, Zell Miller is not

going to be nominated either.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. It really is not that tough a question.

So why can't you answer it?

[Yukari Yakumo]

67. If you're not going to support the nom, whoever it is...

...why are you even here?

[Warren Stupidity]

71. I am not going to sign a loyalty oath.

But obviously I am here as a traitor and disrupter seeding discontent and wreckage. Thanks for asking.

[CreekDog]

75. Yes you are, thanks for clearing that up for us

I kid. ;)

[onewholaughsatfools]

108. i can answer it this way,

if hillary wins, she is not a democrat, she is clearly a republican to me........

[CreekDog]

26. Yes, I won't support Nazi's or KKK members, but the point of the primary

is to decide together who to support.

Joe Lieberman? I can't stand the guy, but if he won the primary, I'd hold my nose and vote for him, probably. I did for Dianne Feinstein, though she's much better than him.

[dansolo]

60. That sounds like DLC crap

The point of the primary is not only to pick the candidate, but also as a lead up to deciding on the party platform. The more votes that different candidates get, the more they might be able to affect the party platform. By committing your unqualified support ahead of time, you then lose any possible influence you may have in determining the platform. It is the candidates job to earn my support. They aren't automatically entitled to it.

[rinsd]

87. Asking Democrats to vote for the Democratic nominee is totalitarinism?

[CreekDog]

88. Yes, and 2+2=5

to understand this thinking, visit the Kucinich threads, it seems to be in prominent display there.

[Gravel2008]

66. Ah, the Party über alles, eh?

Sorry, I vote for my country, not for my party. Your blind party loyalty crap stinks of fascism. It's actually none of your G-D business how, why or for whom other people choose to vote. I can tell you right now that if Hillary is the nominee, I'm absolutely, positively, with 100% certainty voting third party. Deal with it, or don't. Either way, you have no say in how I vote.

[CreekDog]

69. Kinda touchy aren't you?

I don't really care who you vote for or against.

And honestly, if the nominee spent all their time trying to please you, it might not be worth it.

[LWolf]

83. All voters are free agents.

I like to call it democracy.

Hopefully, the Democratic Party understands and supports democratic principles.


If you would really like to purge those who don't vote and march a straight party line from the party, and therefore from the primaries, here's the way to accomplish that:

Elect democrats who are willing to work to do away with the 2 party system and give many parties and independents a legitimate place at the table. When that happens, instead of staying in the party to influence platform and primaries, people who don't like the direction the party chooses to go have other viable options.

[CreekDog]

84. the nominee is decided by primary voters like you

But you say that "hopefully the Democratic Party understands..."

No, those are primary voters, people like you that are making the decision, not some monolith with a secret cabal picking a candidate that you won't like.

Seems like you don't really understand how nominees are selected by the party's voters after all.

[LWolf]

85. I understand more than you think, and possibly more than you do.

I understand that while rank and file party members get to participate in the process by casting a primary vote, or caucusing, they are not really "selecting" the nominee.

Who is it that decides which nominees get the press, the air time, and the focus? Who decides if the media is friendly, or less than friendly, to candidates? How much influence do those media decisions have on name recognition and voter choice?

How are the donations from individuals and groups decided? Who gives the most money? How much influence does big corporate money and support have on whose campaigns get heard?

I understand that there is a very well-oiled propaganda machine that works overtime to convince those rank and file voters that their primary choice should be limited to those select few preselected by the media and big money.

I understand that it's a self-perpetuating cycle.

I understand that Democrats who see the corruption, and don't choose to enable that corruption by playing along, are going to be the targeted scapegoats. I see another bit of organized propaganda to make sure that the "right" candidate gets nominated, and that voters are too cowed to refuse to play along.

[CreekDog]

86. Plenty of individuals give donations

And plenty of them give to candidates based on sound reasoning, whether they are giving to Kucinich or Clinton.

What bugs me is the constant harangue that Kucinich supporters are smart, aren't Republicans, and Clinton supporters are tools, unaware of why they support her and unable to control or make the decision without manipulation.

What a condescending pile of crap.

You can bet I won't be voting for Kucinich because I don't want to give a loudspeaker to that sanctimony which I hear enough from his supporters now that he is in the primary race. And if you doubt me, go to the other thread and read all the comments about how anyone who doesn't vote for him is a Republican, or not a true Democrat, or scared to be a real Democrat, etc. etc.

He may have all the right positions, but his supporters are poison when it comes to persuading all but the true believers to vote for him. Sanctimony repels.

[LWolf]

89. I didn't realize your post was specifically targeting

Kucinich voters. If so, your OP is disingenuous, at best. Why not just come out with a nice, satisfying little hate-fest for Dennis Kucinich and his supporters, if that's your point?

Of course it's true that plenty of individuals donate; I do, myself. Individual donations don't pack the punch of corporate donations, though.

That also doesn't address the media portion of the equation, does it?

Interestingly enough, in my so far 14,872 posts and 4.5 years at DU, I've yet to hear a single "harangue" like the one you mention. I do read most threads about DK, if I happen to be online when they are on the front page. I suspect that you are inferring, rather than quoting.

You vote for whomever you like. I will do likewise. Just don't suggest to me that I NOT vote.

[CreekDog]

91. My OP wasn't targeting Kucinich voters, but *just now*

after visiting the Kucinich threads, I thought I'd make note of what I saw that corresponded to your post.

Keep in mind that there are plenty of folks that won't vote for Clinton that are conservative Democrats, so this is not just about Kucinich primary voters. Also there are plenty of folks that won't vote for Kucinich that ARE Clinton voters --my OP was aimed at them too.

My OP is essentially about what the primary is supposed to accomplish for a party to be successful and I've explained that numerous times in this thread, so that you shouldn't be confused unless you simply didn't read those posts.

[LWolf]

93. I went back to read a few.

I only read the op, that I responded to, and your responses to me.

I understand that you think those of us who don't go along with the eventual nominee are "selfish." I understand the democratic process.

Do you understand that I don't think the current process, weighted unfairly for a few, is a fair and just practice of the democratic process?

I should also point out, since I haven't in my responses to you, that there are plenty of Democrats I'm willing to vote for that aren't my "favorite." Not too many ended up on the ticket this time.

Give me a ticket full of non-dlc, non-dlc-like, non-corporate candidates with strong, consistent records walking their talk, and supporting the masses and opposing republicans, corporate government, and corrupt government, and I'll vote for which ever one wins the nomination.

In this crop of candidates, there are only 2 that I've permanently deleted from my list of possibilities. That leaves 6. I don't like Dodd. Biden is ok, Richardson is good on many things, with some things I don't like, and Edwards talk this time around is strong. It's differs from his record in many cases, which leaves me distrustful, but still.

Richardson needs to disown the dlc, and then I'd consider him 2nd best. Edwards? I don't know that he needs to do anything differently but convince me that his change of heart since his term in the senate is real and lasting. Biden? Commit to ending war as a social policy with the neighbors, convince me that the U.S. will not be marching to expand the empire in his administration, and he might get the vote. Dodd? I don't know. Hopefully I won't have to consider a vote for him. Gravel? Ok. Kucinich? With joy.

Clinton/Obama? NEVER.

25% get NEVER. 50% have a fighting chance. 25% more get the vote easily. 75% of the pack have the opportunity to earn my general election vote.
I think that's fair.

[CreekDog]

97. I think the majority of primary voters are where you are

And most of that majority will actually vote for *any* nominee the party puts forward. Actually, in both parties, that appears to be about 40% apiece, or the party faithful (aka "the base voters").

I guess the conclusion I'm coming to is that there are stark differences within the parties these days. In the past there were also, however, with primaries, instead of party leaders trying to find the candidate with the right favorable/doesn't piss too many off ratio, we now have voters in primaries just voting for their favorite and the one with the plurality, not majority, typically wins, even when the plurality candidate may be distasteful to a big chunk of the primary voters --perhaps distasteful to more voters than he/she won the primary with.

Thus, the "smoke-filled room" approach, for all its disadvantages, really could produce a candidate with the right "ratio" and they would pick a candidate that would not win the primary outright, but would be a middle ground between activists on the right and left of the party. Unfortunately, in the current setup, activists on the right and left settle behind candidates in the primaries, which then become very divisive, then one of those candidates wins and the supporters of the loser get alienated, perhaps embittered.

In that case, for the party's sake and for it's goals, the candidate most likely to "UNITE" the party is the one that should get the nomination, it's just that the primary system and voters not willing to compromise when voting in the primary on a candidate that is acceptable also to people they hate will not choose a candidate that can unite the party after a bloody primary.

This isn't a brand new idea. Primaries are democratic within the party, but they don't actually elect anybody and often leave the party's interests in 2nd place, behind the personality and ideology of the winning candidate who only owes their voters and not the party in general anything for their success.

[LWolf]

119. We have different perspectives.

I am fully aware of the focus on and strategies to achieve the candidate who will win the general election.

I'm interested in your definition of "the base." According to that definition, it's not policy that counts, but just the "D." The base would vote for the "D" no matter what the platform looked like, and no matter what the "ds" did in office. I always think of the "base" as those who stand for the democratic principles the party is supposed to stand for. Your "base" can shift all over the map, as long as they vote "D."

That makes the whole process irrelevant to me. The only reason to participate at all is to move forward with policy on issues.

I just don't think that winning the general election is a "win" if the "winner" doesn't support, and won't act on, the issues that bring me to the table to begin with. When my issues are "off the table," I haven't "won" anything.

That doesn't mean I don't recognize the need to compromise. Any candidate is a compromise. There is a limit, though, to how much compromise is appropriate. I know my limit, and won't step past that. Again, the possibility of compromise is possible with 75% of the candidates on the ballot. It's not just "pick my favorite or I don't play." If you pick one from the 25%, I won't be there. Since you are talking smoky backroom strategies, I suggest you nominate one of the 75% more likely to get the compromise votes from those on my side of the "compromise" line.

Or, we could just nominate the candidate with the best platform and record, thereby keeping the Party relevant to citizens like me, whose sole purpose in participation IS the platform and the work to move it forward.

[rucky]

98. We're ALL free agents.

the party supports US.

[CreekDog]

100. But it can't really support you very well if it can't get the votes to win

And you can't be part of a winning party unless you provide it with votes to win

It's a two way street.

You can vote for whomever you want, you cannot make them win without having enough other people vote for your guy. The party brings a lot of people to *your* guy.

For your guy to get elected, it's got to go both ways.

[Mojambo]

2. I'll pass on that proposal, thanks. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

4. uh- piss off.

I'll vote as I choose for whatever reasons I choose in both the primary and general elections.

[CreekDog]

7. Then why participate as a party member in the primary?

It's a party activity.

[Mojambo]

10. And the general election is not. n/t

[billyoc]

13. To influence the outcome. n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

19. I don't. participate as a party member in the primary.

I participate as a registered voter. I am not a party member and never will be, at least not with the Democratic Party as it currently exists. In my state I register Democratic at the polls on the way in to vote, and drop my registration back to independent on the way out. If you have a problem with that: too bad for you.

[CreekDog]

27. Then that explains your attitude

And your stance.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. In my state you had better pay attention to us independents

as we are the vast majority of voters. We are not blind loyalists. We actually think about how we vote and who we vote for. We, not the loyal party base, tossed out the entire Republican legislature in 2006, re-elected a Democratic governor, and tossed out the Republican congressional delegation. We handed your party a clean sweep. Do try not to piss us off too much with your stupid party loyalist crap.

[CreekDog]

37. The rules let you participate in some states

But those rules don't have to.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. Get to work then. Abolish open primaries.

Make sure that the Democratic Party is clearly identified as opposed to open primaries. Why you could turn my state of New Hampshire back to solid Republican in no time at all. But you would have a very loyal cadre of robotic Democratic voters. Never a doubt about their loyalty. Go for it.

[billyoc]

8. Request:

Denied.

[CreekDog]

9. World leader pretend?

[KaptBunnyPants]

11. Oh, that's rich.

The right wing of the Democratic Party threatens to vote Republican every time Democrats fail to pander to them loudly enough. But as soon as that's turned against them, they rediscover Party loyalty. You won't be compelling anyone to vote for anyone, no matter how much you might like to.

[CreekDog]

12. This applies to right and left within the Democratic Party

Whether it's conservatives that won't vote for Dennis Kucinich or liberals that won't vote for Hillary Clinton.

[Progressive Friend]

106. Exactly, just like when Lieberman was defeated in the primary election

Then he created his own right-wing third party to be on the ballot in the general election. Yet we never hear a single word of protest when a right-wing Dem does something like that. But my god, if someone even votes for a Green, then according to the right-wing Dems, they're worse than Bush.

[CreekDog]

110. We heard tons of protest against Lieberman for doing that

That's why he's so hated here, among other reasons.

[Zodiak]

114. But not from establishment Dems

The establishment let Lamont rot on the vine while welcoming Leiberman back to the fold.

[CreekDog]

115. So that he wouldn't vote for a Republican Senate

And many Senate Democrats campaigned with Lamont.

So just who are you criticizing, specifically?

[Zodiak]

116. Not one Senator campaigned with Lamont..they whispered it across borders

I can start my criticism there.

Let's see, Schumer and the DSCC. Tepid suport at best.

"We reported yesterday that Schumer pointedly declined to rule out supporting Lieberman even if Lieberman's allies were to mount an independent bid on his behalf. Schumer seemed to say that as long as Lieberman promised to caucus with Dems and vote for Harry Reid as majority leader, Lieberman would still be in Schumer's good graces."


Here is where Dean did the right thing and the establishment Dems balked:

"Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has called on Mr. Lieberman to drop out, but other Democratic leaders have questioned whether it makes sense to take on the senator — and perhaps anger him — when he appears determined to run and relatively formidable right now.

“No one is going to say anything that is directly related to trying to hurt Joe Lieberman,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said to reporters on Friday."

How many Senators appeared with Lamont during his campaign? The answer is none. Edwards did, though.....I'll give him credit for that.

The Clintons offered to camapaign for Lamont, but never showed up in Connecticut. They sent a check, though.

Here is another article that outlines the reasons.....and the Democrats letting Lamont rot on the vine is a very big one:

"The story of the national Democratic Party’s abandonment of Lamont will likely be written more fully in the coming weeks, with explanations of both how this happened and even more importantly, why. But the broad strokes are obvious: Almost every major figure in national Democratic politics save John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Wes Clark and John Edwards refused to seriously help the Lamont campaign. We saw this coming when, right after Lieberman lost the primary, he was welcomed with a standing ovation back to the Senate club by his Democratic colleagues. Subsequently, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid indicated that Lieberman’s seniority would be preserved if he won reelection, despite the fact that he officially abandoned the party. To understand how much this abandonment affected the race, consider that Lieberman bragged in October to the Associated Press that he was actively using Reid’s promise of seniority to promote his key “experience and seniority” argument—and that such an argument was helping him win over voters. On Election Day, Lieberman appeared on Fox News to thank the national Democratic Party for refusing to help Lamont, the Democratic nominee."

"Lamont, by contrast, had none of that. It wasn’t just that people like Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former President Bill Clinton refused to campaign for Lamont even though they had both whispered official endorsements of him. It was that most of those who did nominally help the campaign only agreed to voice positive statements about Lamont, but refused to forcefully take on Lieberman for attacking the Democratic Party or violating campaign finance disclosure laws. Take, for instance, the behavior of the major government watchdog groups. Except for Public Campaign Action Fund, not one of them made a peep after the New Haven Register exposed Lieberman for abusing campaign finance law to create an illegal $380,000 slush fund. Similarly, other than Wes Clark who filmed an ad going after Lieberman by name or Kerry who issued a press release nailing Lieberman for his Iraq position, not one national surrogate really went after the incumbent senator."

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/2917/

So that is who I am criticizing. They wussed out because the Bush/Cheney squad put their muscle behind Leibermen and no one wanted to piss off the little traitor or his tinpot dictator hero. Typical cowrdice and risk aversion that earned the Democrats the "weak" and "wishy-washy" label for so many years.

I don't see weakness coming from the progressive wing...just the establishment types.

[Zodiak]

113. They unfortunately do not threaten

they vote with Republicans after signalling to the leadership that this is what they are going to do. And the leadership lets them, time and again.

A "threat" would indicate that they could be persuaded to vote with the Democrats, but they cannot.

Both our leadership and the DLC can take a hike. The DLC for dragging our party through the mud and giving us a reputation for standing for nothing (besides corporatism and neocon foreign policy, what do they stand for?), and the other for letting the DLC get away with it over and over without consequences (see also: Leiberman still sitting on committees).

[mitchtv]

15. I guess i'm the odd man out here

I will vote for my choice in the primary, and later support the winner. I am a long time Democrat. and as liberal as they come

[Mojambo]

17. I think a lot of people here will end up doing that.

What we resent is being told we HAVE to do it that way.

It's total bullshit.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Indeed.

I've voted Democratic since my first vote in 72 but I'll be damned if I'm going to accept being told that I have to agree up front to do that no matter which asshole corrupt corporate creep gets pushed to the top of the ticket.

[CreekDog]

28. I didn't tell you to support the nominee

I said if you are helping decide on the nominee, don't bail out if he/she is not your choice. If you can't handle that, I request that you don't help decide, because you aren't seeing it through.

Why is this logic so hard to understand? I didn't say you have to agree, but you are being thick headed in even understanding the point of COLLECTIVE decisionmaking, where it's not about you but about what the group decides.

[Mojambo]

30. You're saying I only get a choice in the primary if I give up my choice in the general

It's a fucking bullshit idea and nobody is buying it.

[illinoisprogressive]

16. creek, you sound republican. party over all. good or bad.

[CreekDog]

29. I'm a Democrat and you're missing the point

The point is that if you participate in the primary, it's pissy behavior to not be willing to support the nominee if that person is not your choice.

Now, if that doesn't apply to you, don't be offended, like the other guy who said most of us will support the nominee even if we aren't crazy about him/her.

[Joe the Revelator]

40. your "logic" is mind boggeling...

I'm really at a loss for words, and I hope for your sake that you don't really believe the drivel that you're spouting.

[MuseRider]

18. HaHaHa

sure thing. How is this? I will caucus in the Democratic primary but I will most likely end up writing in someone in the general election. AND I am not even a Democrat! Heavens!

Don't like it? I suggest you might think this process is all about your side without question and without thought.

Good one. I am certainly tired of being asked for loyalty pledges and being told I can't use the process the way it is meant to be used if I am not on your team.

[CreekDog]

32. God, can't you read? What was the request?

Don't vote in the Democratic Party Primary if you don't plan to support the nominee should that person not be your choice.

The process is for the party to decide the nominee, it is inherently a party activity and yes, the rules permit people to participate without loyalty oaths, and I'm not aiming to change them, but it's hypocritical to participate in the primary without regard to supporting the nominee of the party. You are part of a group making a decision, it is not about you ALONE.

[MuseRider]

45. God, YES I CAN!

By god I can read but you do not listen.

It is perfectly fine in my state to caucus with the Democratic party even if you are not a Democrat.

Perhaps it is you that does not understand. Look at the posts in this thread that respond to you. Do you NOT GET IT?

You go on now and play in your party and be a happy person in the group letting them tell you what is good and right and one day you may wake up and think for yourself and find out you have been screwed and that it is smarter and safer to actually use your own brain to figure things out for yourself. A D after someone's name does not mean anything. How old are you anyway? Good lord. :eyes:

[Forkboy]

21. Dah,comrade.

[AlCzervik]

22. Are you SERIES!!11? Why thats a really ballsy request.

[CreekDog]

34. It's asking you to participate as a party member

Why should any conservative Democrat vote for your choice as the nominee if you won't vote for theirs as the nominee?

See the whole point of a party? To get people who just have some similar opinions to band together to win elections.

[AlCzervik]

35. i would be really surprised if du'er would stay home on general election day.

I voted for Dean last time but in the general i went and voted for Kerry.

[CreekDog]

39. I'm sure you're right

In 2004, almost every avatar was "I voted" and you know many of those people voted for someone other than Kerry in the primaries.

[MuseRider]

46. An "I voted" avatar

does not mean that they voted for Kerry it just means they voted and it is not anyone's business how they voted. If it makes you feel better and stop harassing people who don't do what you think they should then by all means think that it really meant "I voted for Kerry".

[Ethelk2044]

23. I will vote for who I damn well please

[havocmom]

24. Sounds like the fix is in AND 'who cares what you think' all rolled up in party bunting

Sieg... ah, Fuggitaboutit

[CreekDog]

36. No, it's about collectively deciding things as a party

Nobody is forcing you to do anything.

But when you decide to become a group only for when it gets you your way, then you are just acting as a free agent and that doesn't help liberals get elected.

[havocmom]

43. The LIBERALS seem to be in no jeopardy of getting the nomination

if some polls are to be believed. Hard to elect what you don't nominate.

Then, about the issue of campaigns hiring paid posters for the internet. Do ya think they have a bonus program or anything?

[Joe the Revelator]

38. This thread should be locked for stupidity.

I'm serious.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. What did I do?

[Joe the Revelator]

44. heh. nt

[MuseRider]

47. You crack me up!

This is a moranic thread, how is that? :hi:

[flaminbats]

48. in 1996 I voted for Arlen Specter in the other primary..

IMO he was the least divisive Republican running against Clinton that year, and there wasn't a contest for the Democratic nomination. I quickly discovered that voting in the wrong primary made it impossible to be a delegate at the Democratic convention, and sanity is the easiest way to crucify someone running in the Republican primary.

if a Democrat wishes to vote for Ron Paul or Mitt Romney in the Republican primary, that still means they should support the Democratic nominee if Romney or Paul is nominated!

but I was wrong to vote in the Republican primary in 1996, while hoping to be a delegate at the Democratic Convention. even in uncontested primary battles, only those who vote in our primary should be allowed to participate in our caucus. yet I have no problem with Republicans voting in our primaries, or vice versa.

[AtomicKitten]

49. I can see your point but --

I have pledged not to proselytize about voting anymore. It's a personal issue that's really none of my beeswax. People get kind of cranky when pledges are proposed. I hope you have your flame retardant suit on.

[flpoljunkie]

55. Sounds like yet another "Vote for Hillary or else" post. Is "resistance futile?"

[CreekDog]

63. Well, it isn't. Who will the nominee be? I don't know.

Nomination isn't happening for a year, I know that much.

As they say, a week is an eternity in politics.

[More Than A Feeling]

50. Who the hell do you think you are, to think you have the credibility to suggest such a thing? nt

[CreekDog]

51. I'm one guy with an opinion about the point of voting in a primary as a party

If every Democrat pledged to both vote in the primary and accept the winner (not pout and stay home on general election day), then we would all be free to vote our consciences in the primary though keeping in mind who would likely win the general election.

In doing so, we are acting in two ways:

1) acting as a coalition of liberal or liberal leaning voters (aka Democrats) pledging to support whomever can get a plurality of our votes alone
2) strengthening the vote of liberals and liberal leaners in the general election by committing to a nominee in advance so that our party can work on centrists who may or may not be affiliated with the Republican Party.

And being a highly ideological voter who supports winning candidates means being disappointed but not devastated. For instance, Gore would have been centrist in many ways (disappointing), however, we got Bush because enough liberals voted for Nader and suffice to say with Bush we are DEVASTATED.

This is the point of having a party, having a primary, supporting the winner and thus letting the winner do what they need to do to wrap up the general election.

In the general election, generally the candidate that needs to cater to his left and right loses. The candidate that is free to cater in just one direction is MUCH BETTER OFF and MUCH MORE LIKELY TO WIN.

[sandnsea]

52. You're right

But I think the way you worded your post is a little agressive. The primary is for Democrats and people should be reminded that if they aren't intending to vote for the Democrat in the GE, then they don't really have the right to decide who the party nominee is going to be.

[CreekDog]

56. It was a little agressive, I'll grant you that

And I vote in every election, no matter how supposedly "minor" or distasteful the candidates and feel like everyone else should vote as well.

But a political party can't be a very useful if the nominee has to round up the support of his/her own party members AFTER the primary. It's like fighting a war on two fronts when your opponent is fighting a war on just one.

[MadHound]

53. Gee, nice to see that the 'Pugs aren't the only ones who want to decide who does and doesn't vote

Thanks, but it is my Constitutional right to vote for whomever I choose, both in the primaries and the general. Frankly sentiments like yours run counter to our democracy and is both unConstitutional and unAmerican.

Just goes to show you how low a certain candidate's supporters will go in order to insure a victory.

[CreekDog]

57. Wrong on point 1, Wrong on point 2

First, I support and encourage your constitutional and democratic right to vote (and would even rag on you if you didn't vote in government elections).

However, a party primary is not an election for office and it can be limited by the party itself --this is not unconstitutional or undemocratic. For instance, if open primaries were allowing Republicans to vote for weird choices in Democratic primaries, it would not be illegal or even bad to limit participation for the sake of the party's nomination process. These processes are open more because of the good thought to come out of them and the negatives publicity associated with restricting them.

Second, I haven't made up my mind who to support in the primary. First, I thoought Barack, then for a while Edwards, then Hillary doesn't look as bad as I originally thought, but then I think she's too timid. If that sounds like I'm a supporter of a "certain candidate" perhaps you could tell me whom I am supporting --because I don't even know yet.

And by the way, you just slandered "a certain candidate's supporters" by saying "just goes to show you how low they will go". I assume you mean Hillary's supporters. Charming.

[lojasmo]

54. I decided long ago that I wouldn't be caucussing this year. EOM

[sniffa]

61. i have a request

i wouLd Like reese's peanut butter cup sundae.

[ecstatic]

62. In a way I agree, why should traitors get a say in a Democratic primary

If you have decided not to support the nominee, then you are not a Democrat. You are a selfish ass person who doesn't give a damn about your fellow Americans who might not survive another 8 years of repub rule.

[Warren Stupidity]

65. Let's have them all shot!

By the way, how are we going to determine who the traitors are before they vote in the primary?

How will we know who they voted for in the general election?

[CreekDog]

68. Wow, I guess you chose well when you selected your screenname

[Warren Stupidity]

70. Oh that hurts. What a low blow!

"In a way I agree, why should traitors get a say in a Democratic primary"

So how do we root out these traitors and prevent them from voting their traitorous votes in the primaries and how do we determine if the traitors have voted and how they have voted in the general question? Certainly we must do this if we are to get all the traitors out.

I realize that I am a stupid person asking a stupid question, so certainly somebody as brilliant as yourself can readily provide an answer.

[Iris]

64. In my state you can vote in either party. Since it's a red state, I frequently vote in the

Republican primary and then unequivocally support the Democrat.

[ProudDad]

72. Wow

Wow is all I can say...



Yavol, mein fuhrer!!!

[CreekDog]

77. Wouldn't be complete without someone making a Nazi reference

Maybe we should ask folks who survived or have relatives that survived the holocaust if my request is really equivalent to Nazi-ism.

Do you think it is, or were you a little hasty?

[ProudDad]

101. Yep, pretty fascist republican OP all right... (n/t)

[hfojvt]

73. that's an odd request

Can you go further? Don't vote at all, if you will not commit to supporting the winner. Thus, if a Republican wins, I must commit to supporting tax cuts and other policies to favor the rich.

[Warren Stupidity]

74. Or leave. Love it or leave.

Stop your whining and get with the program.

[onewholaughsatfools]

109. i am glad you added Stupidity to your name Warren

love it or leave, truly a republican statement........

[CreekDog]

76. I never said that and I didn't go further

I just said, AGAIN, if you are going to join with your fellow party members and help select the nominee, support the winner, even if it isn't your first choice. If not, maybe you should reconsider participating in the nomination process at all since you are not in it as a party supporter, but as a free agent only furthering your own personal choice.

The larger point is that for the party to actually get anything done it needs to encompass people who disagree, but that put aside their differences to support the nominee with the most support within the party. If half the party bolts when they don't get the nominee they want, there is really no point in holding a primary at all.

I mean, think about it. The point of the primary is not so that you can vote for Hillary and then if she doesn't win, you vote third party. The point isn't so you can vote for Kucinich and then if he doesn't win the nomination, you stay home or vote third party.

And no, nobody is forcing you on this, but what you're doing is pretty pointless. Worse, when you threaten to take your votes away after the nomination, the candidate is weighing which is harder, to get votes from the middle or to get your votes. If he/she thinks there are more votes in the middle and that getting them easier than getting yours, guess what, a smart politician will do that, just like water seeks the easiest path.

[hfojvt]

79. it's not pointless at all

It's democracy.

Lots of people get to October and say "dang, both of these candidates suck". It's the old saying though, if you don't vote (in the primary) then you can't complain.

I have read that if Giuliani wins the nomination, it will be over the dead body of the religious right. Clinton is much the same way. If she wins the nomination, it will be over the dead body of progressive democrats. My commitment is to progressive ideals and not to a Democratic candidate or a Democratic party that wants to blur the distinction between Democrats and Republicans. By talking the way he talked, Bill Clinton already shifted his party to the right, just as surely as Reagan did with the Republicans. Now instead of Stevenson vs. Eisenhower, we have Eisenhower as the Democratic candidate versus Goldwater on steroids.

If history is any guide, after winning the nomination, Hillary will not attempt to woo progressives, she will instead try to woo 'moderates' and count on progressives to once again hold their nose and swallow their bile to vote for her.

[CreekDog]

80. They always run to the middle after the primary

If a Democrat keeps getting further to the left after the primary, they are probably headed for a loss.

If a Republican keeps getting further to the right after the primary, they are probably headed for a loss.

The primary battle where the bases decide who the nominee will be. The winner should have the support by then.

Or else we need to simply go with powerful central committees to choose nominees because primary voters see the primary vote as a one way street where they get to make a choice, but if their choice is outnumbered in the party, they have no responsibility to listen to others in the party.

A strong party central committee can account for all this and pick a candidate more palatable to everyone. Everyone clearly is not up for "majority/plurality rules" when they are snubbing the candidate that got more votes in the primary than their own.

[hfojvt]

95. excellent idea

Or we could just have a king, or a pair of royal families like Clintons and Bushes that could trade off every 8 years.

There must be some way we can make our 'democracy' even more of a joke. Some way we can keep people from having any real say in the process.

[CreekDog]

96. A party primary need not be democratic

Anyone can run (apart from a party in the general )provided some minimum level of support. Just get your candidate on the ballot.

But a party primary is to advance the interests of the party.

The right to vote isn't about a primary vote, but about the general election where candidates are actually elected to the office.

This is drifting from the original point, but semantically, many here just don't understand that the reason you can vote in a party primary election is not because of the constitution but because the parties allow you to. If the primaries stop helping the parties win (say, when party voters don't support the nominee), the party delegates and leadership will probably try to make some changes in how the nominees are selected. After all, the right to vote in party primaries is largely a recent development and it isn't in every state.

So right away, there is a difference between primary votes and general election votes.

[CreekDog]

81. Also, you misunderstand a primary, which is not "democracy"

The right to vote in primaries was won by party activists who didn't bail out but stuck around to give nominee selection to the members.

But it does not have to be this way and if it stops working, such as when the fairly nominated candidate with the most votes gets boycotted in the general election, then the primary is not working.

[hfojvt]

94. primaries have already been corrupted by entrenched interests

It was already changed by the party bigshots so that a populist like McGovern could not win with the grassroots. Because of super-delegates and crap like that, Hillary can win the nomination without being the 'person who gets the most votes'.

If there is no primary though, then Democracy is a sham. The ruling class hand-picks two elites and then the masses rubber stamp one of them.

The same way Hillary was selected to be Senator from New York.

[CreekDog]

99. But I'm putting the responsibility for "fixing" this on you voters

To get together with voters in the party that you don't typically agree with to settle on 1 candidate that serves both your interests. Thus, instead of being a zero sum game where you get behind a candidate and that candidate has to beat the one you really don't like, and vice versa for the other candidate's supporters. Instead, you both choose someone you can handle and pool your votes behind them. They do unite the party and they go into the general with the whole party behind them (instead of a divisive primary) and work on the opposition.

So, me instead of simply voting in the primary for my favorite candidate, I might say, well, I'll vote for Edwards, or whomever, because I think the activists would prefer that to Hillary (or even Barack) and while I don't see Kucinich getting anywhere, I can see his supporters giving Edwards some consideration (at least enough of them). Likewise, if Kucinich supporters were thinking about, well, their second choice and that worked with Hillary voters' second choice, we might be onto something and spare ourselves a lot of acrimony.

Besides, ultimately, on most issues, most of the candidates are going to pursue similar policies --where they don't could provide very large differences, I'll grant that.

If voters here want third and fourth parties, given the winner take all system they are going to have to figure out how to vote in coalitions where they take into consideration what other people favoring other candidates want and decide that if they want to win, they will compromise and support a candidate that can grab the others as well.

But our system and our voters just don't do this. It's not working now and if more parties are given a shot, it won't work then until Americans learn how to proactively vote cognizant of the coalition they are in and where their choice is based on that and not their favorite.

[CreekDog]

78. Okay, here's another alternative to my request

Apparently it's an abomination to even suggest that you party members should support the nominee, even if they get more votes in the primary than your candidate. Which means the primary system is simply not going to work.

Thus, because you won't accept a plurality win among other voters who are largely like-minded, move the whole nomination process behind closed doors.

A committee within the party will not select the nominee based on which nominee has the most support, but will decide the most "palatable" nominee for the most voters within the party.

So, even if Hillary has more votes than any other, because maybe 15% might sit home, she won't get the nomination

So, if Kucinich would make 25% stay home, he won't get the nod.

Edwards, probably currently in third place is probably who they would select.

Like I said, you either believe in the primary nomination process or you don't. There is no law saying primaries are required and if you only think your responsibility in that process is to pick your candidate and it ends there, then it is simply not going to work. Time for committees to do their guessing and pick the guy that will get the most votes and offend parts of the party the least. It's less Democratic, but is more fitting of the expectations on this thread.

A party primary is a waste of time in comparison because it doesn't unify the party behind the nominee, it was just a launching pad for heightened rivalries.

[ProudDad]

102. Ok, here's another suggestion

We all vote our hearts, minds and consciences in the Primary.

Then we all vote our hearts, minds and consciences in the General...

How about that?

[Vidar]

82. Request denied.

[Desertrose]

90. Oh puhleese....

then why bother with primaries at all?

Just pick one & make us vote for him/her.

What a bunch of BS.

[CreekDog]

92. The primary is designed to have the *party* decide who its nominee is

But the primary won't serve its purpose if the primary voters bail on the candidate that got the most primary votes.

In that case, if you are one of those folks that is unlikely to support the nominee if he/she wasn't your first or second choice, then you would actually do better under a "back room" scenario because there, instead of a plurality of voters in your party essentially ignoring your wishes, the back room guys would want a compromise candidate. In this case, instead of Clinton who might likely win primary voters, they might pick someone who can bridge the gap, like Edwards who might have a shot with Kucinich voters, but would also be able to hold Hillary voters. Without party loyalty, the primary could never accomplish such unity, which is why if we aren't going to have loyalty, we should simply let a committee pick the most agreeable (not most popular) candidate.

[ProudDad]

103. Not any more

not in states that have cross-primaries or significant numbers of people who switch parties in order to screw with the other party.

I wouldn't vote for a right-wing Dem that was "nominated" by right-wing Dems and republicans.

[dannofoot]

104. Dear God, you are actually asking people...

...to NOT VOTE...to Not exercise this right, which few across the world are allowed to do.

Some earlier poster asked you to "piss off"... I'd like to go one better and tell you to fuck off with your totalitarian shit.

[MuseRider]

105. It is amazing isn't it?

All the poster has to do is look at the majority, large majority, of responses to realize that he may need to rethink his statements but no, he is the only one who understands how the process works. I can't believe this thread is still here. I would have thought he would have stopped responding so it would disappear as fast as possible. Of course I just kicked it but I wanted to say :hi:, I agree with you.

[CreekDog]

111. How about instant runoff voting for the primary

That might be a less offensive way of getting to what I want.

[MuseRider]

118. IRV is wonderful

but it still is not going to guarantee that people vote for the eventual nominee. If someone is offensive to the ideals of our constitution, of country they should not get your vote no matter what party they are in. I refuse to vote for someone who will not undo the wrongs done by this maladministration. I will not vote for someone who will leave troops in Iraq. Do you see what I am getting at? I don't agree with what you want, I don't care how the nominee is elected. I will not vote for someone who supports those things. Add to those things the other policy choices outlined by our D's and I can tell you that there is a very narrow choice out there. Selfish? Don't care, I will not vote for a D just because they are a D. First they need to act and govern like one, then I will think about it.

[bobthedrummer]

107. So you think that DUers aren't wise to these PSY-OPS i.e. "US/NOTUS"?

"Reframing Perception-Space (P-space): A Quick Overview of a Unifying Concept" by Col. Michael McKim USAFR (ret)
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc/reframing-p-space.htm

Btw, Col. McKim's unifying conceptual framework was originally derived from the First Earth Battalion US military intelligence cult that included Col. James Channon and Col. Michael Aquino.

We know where your "Request" comes from, notus. If I'm wrong about this enlighten me and US.

:thumbsdown:

IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

[CreekDog]

112. You're wrong, I'm not military and don't have any security clearance

Nor did I come up with my "request" from anything other than reading the news, politics, etc. and all stuff easily available to all of you.

K?

[Forkboy]

117. I have to give you some credit CreekDog.

I don't agree at all with your post (in fact,that's me being polite about it),but you've stuck around and answered people,which is fairly rare around DU these days.Most people make their proclamations from on high and then bail on the thread.Hats off to you for not doing that. :thumbsup:

[CreekDog]

120. thx

since what i posted was provacactive, I thought I should stick around and not a bail after starting a fire.