Question about the 3rd Party threads

[Ficus]

I understand some folks feel the need to vote 3rd party or write in. I'm cool with that, I won't argue with you at all about that. Your vote is sacred, and I encourage you all to vote your hearts, whatever that tells you.

But why the need to announce your voting preference to everyone here at DU in Feb.? Ok, so you don't want to vote Democrat, or you hate Democrats now, or Democrats are neo-cons in disguise, great. But why have a million threads about it?

What is supposed to be the proper response from DUers to these? Beg for your vote? Feel bad that you won't vote or vote Democrat? I just don't see much point to it all.

Let's do something constructive here:

If you have picked a new candidate, tell me why Walt Brown or Ralph Nader or David Cobb are good rather than why Democrats are bad. Thank you.

[Lefta Dissenter]

1. Thanks, Ficus

Particularly for some of us whose hearts are still hurting over our candidates, reading the 'you all suck' threads can be pretty painful. I know, I know, MOVE AWAY FROM THE COMPUTER!!!

But we absolutely CANNOT forget the ultimate goal of getting bush OUT of our White House!!! That means that the dems AND OTHERS will have to unite before November.

[Ficus]

4. the more some shout ABB

the more others wont listen. The more some shout, "I'm taking my ball and leaving the party" the more the party won't listen. We just need to start finding common ground, if there is any.

[Pab Sungenis]

33. I tried.

I had, and still have, some grave doubts about John Kerry. Especially his support for the PATRIOT Act. I asked people to try and help me reconcile my doubts so I could vote for Kerry with a clear conscience.

No such luck. I got one good response out of thirty. The rest were people saying "go, then, who needs you?" or "vote for him because he's not Bush."

It's sad that at a time when we all should be more united than ever that the divisive people are keeping that from happening.

You have an entire wing of the Party who have massive doubts about Kerry, just as they had about Gore. Even more so, I'd say, since most of them are tired of "hold your nose" candidates.

If Kerry wants to woo us over, there are two things he could do. (1) Ask Dean to be his running mate today, or (2) Call for immediate (no sunset, do it right away) repeal of the PATRIOT Act. THAT might win many people over. I know it would win me.

[foo_bar]

38. Kerry's flexibility is double-edged

He could be a "stealth liberal" that plays the game for what it's worth, then reneges on his centrism after he wins. That's the model for winning Senate races: legislate liberally, campaign on right-wing agitprop (think Lieberman or Jeffords). So I see Kerry's campaign as part of the problem, but I suspect it's the only known formula for getting into power (per Dean, Eugene, Mo, McCain)

[Ficus]

40. who do you prefer

as a 3rd party candidate? (That has declared) and why?

[Atlant]

8. You must understand that I don't agree with your choice of ultimate goal.

> But we absolutely CANNOT forget the ultimate goal of getting bush
OUT of our White House!!!

You must understand that I don't agree with your choice of ultimate
goal. To me, the ultimate goal *ISN'T* getting Bush out of the White
House. That's just one small step towards my ultimate goal of taking
our country back from the Republican Corporatist Power Elite that
holds it hostile. We must also take back the Senate, the Congress,
the Supreme Court, the State Houses, the Governorships, and the Media.

And it may be that we can win the Presidency in 2004 and yet *REGRESS*
against all of those other goals. Right now, I'd say that's a very,
very likely prospect.

Atlant

[Ficus]

11. Great Point!

And it may be that we can win the Presidency in 2004 and yet *REGRESS*
against all of those other goals. Right now, I'd say that's a very,
very likely prospect.

Let's as DUers try to convince local candidate who are in this mold to run. Or run yourself Atlant! I disagree with you all the time, but I'd send you $$$! You seem pretty articulate, and it all starts at the bottom. (something the Green Party hasn't figured out in many ways)

[Atlant]

26. I live in NH. If God himself endorsed me, I'd still lose.

> Or run yourself Atlant!

I live in NH. If God himself endorsed me, I'd still lose to
the Republucan. (BTW, I used to be a School Board member until
the Religious Right people teamed up with You Must Always Spend
All Available Money On Sports All The Time people.)


> I disagree with you all the time

:)

Aww, c'mon; there must be *SOMETHING* we agree upon!

Atlant

[Ficus]

42. we agree I'm sure

Actually I bet we agree more than I notice. Like below. We both agree Terry M. sux.

[NNN0LHI]

12. Take back the Supreme Court? The president nominates SC justices

What is your point here. We should give up the presidency so we don't lose Congress or something? Come on now. Lets get real here. When you say that your ultimate goal *ISN'T* getting Bush out of the White
House I worry for you. No shit.

Don

[Atlant]

28. As I recall, the Senate has something to do with the Process.

Or at least did when it was time to block Clinton's appointees;
it's no so clear that the Senate has done nearly as much in
blocking Bush's appointees. Almost no appellate court appointments
have actually been blocked.

Atlant

[lovedems]

39. I am with you 100%

If bu$h gets 4 more years will there even be a party to save? I fear the redistricting will be minor compared to the steps the thugs have ahead should they win. The first step is to take the WH back and then focus on everything else. From what I have seen, dems aren't looking to good for the congressional races. I DO NOT want 4 more years of republican controlled government.

[XanaDUer]

2. I have always thought the same thing when seeing these types of posts

Start a post that is sure to garner lots of posts.

What is the point? I will not beg anyone to vote: as I have said in the past, voting is personal. People should vote for whomever they want.

And, if they don't want to vote, then that is that.

[Nashyra]

3. 3rd parties will accomplish nothing in this election

who are we going to send a message to? the current administration that makes alot of sense. The time for a 3rd party is the dau after the elction to put the Democrats on notice then we have a chance of making inroads. To vote third party this election cycle is pure suicide, it is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Principle is important, but it is more important to have an avenue where you can use it.

[Atlant]

6. The message is aimed at the people who pay Terry McAuliffe's salary, ...

> who are we going to send a message to?

The message is aimed at the people who pay Terry McAuliffe's salary,
among others. The message is aimed at the people who decided that a
large portion of people who self-identify as "Democrats" don't need
to be listened to. The message is aimed at candiidates who said one
thing and then did another.

There are plenty of recipients for the message that we soon-to-be-
third-party voters will be sending.

Will they get the message?

Probably not, but what else is new?

Atlant

[Ficus]

10. I think 99% of people here

hate Terry. Just a guess. Youre not alone on that.

[Kahuna]

16. I do not hate Terry. I see no reason why I should either.

:shrug:

[Ficus]

19. mismanagement

of the DNC.

[SEAburb]

22. I don't either, I think he's being scapegoated

I've seen Terry wipe the floor with three different RNC chairman.

[Atlant]

29. Great. Terry wins, mano-a-mano. He just loses all the elections. (NT)

[SEAburb]

34. Mark Warner - D Governer of VI thanks Terry for win in '01 nt

>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<

[tobius]

35. how do you define "wipe the floor"?

Because since 92 the # of Dem govnr's,senators, congesspeople, etc,has followed a straight line-down.

The squeaking wheel doesn't always get the grease. Sometimes it gets replaced.
Vic Gold

[SEAburb]

36. on air match ups nt

>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<

[tobius]

37. oh

[Ficus]

7. I will vote Dem

and I agree with you. I'd just like to see some of these threads be more constructive than reading over and over,

post #1: The media/DLC/DNC ruined the good candidates, and I'm going 3rd party

Post #2: Ok, thanks for electing bush

post #3: Well, _____ voted for IWR/USAPATRIOT Act/somehing I don't like.

Post #4: Karl Rove thanks you.

It gets old. Well, if you're going 3rd party, then who? And why? Not why not Democratic, but why them.

[beyurslf]

5. Tell us more than why those candidates are good

tell us why voting for those candidates and letting Bush win in 2004 is worth it.

Charles Pickering thanks you for your support of his Judgeship.

[Ficus]

14. no one has taken up my first question

yet. I hopefully will see someone trying to convince me to vote for their candidate rather than trashing ours.

[Atlant]

32. For me, the point isn't so much any individual third-party candidate.

For me, the point isn't so much any individual third-party candidate.
I have no illusions that my (eventual) third-party choice will
actually win in 2004.

It's convincing the Democratic Party that, without substantial
changes, the left wing *WILL* actually walk away. And the only
way we're likely to convince them that we *WILL* walk away is
to *ACTUALLY* walk away. I had hoped they'd get this message
in 2000 (when I didn't participate in the sending of the
message). But they didn't get it, so I guess the message will
be repeated in 2004.

I've been threatening it for years; this year, I'm sufficiently
angry enough with Democratic Party actions to actually do it.

Atlant

[Ficus]

41. you don't support anyone then

just stand against the Democratic Party?

Is it fair to say your vote will be a protest vote rather than a vote FOR someone you think is best qualified for President?

[Atlant]

44. Not entirely, but I'm sure that will be the *EFFECT* of my vote.

We'll see who the Greens or Reds run before I decide whether I'm
voting *FOR* someone or just against the Democrats.

Atlant

[Ficus]

45. thanks

at least your honest to admit you're not necessarily voting FOR anyone yet.

Many folks say I'm voting FOR a 3rd party. It seems more like they would be voting AGAINST another party.

on edit: I'd like to add, that ABB is the same philosophy. Against someone, just aginst the Republicans, not the Democrats.

[demnan]

9. I agree

the dialog should be more interesting at any rate and I would enjoy reading it even if it didn't change my mind.

I'm open to anything if my candidate drops out but you have to appeal to my mind like the original Dean supporters on this forum did.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. Yeah, I don't get it either.

I don't really understand how this is not against the rules, either.

From the rules: Democratic Underground may not be used for political organizing activity by supporters of any political party other than the Democratic party. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic party candidate.


On edit: After thinking about it more, the rules seem to allow saying "I won't vote Democratic", but disallow saying "I will vote for Walt Brown and this is why you should too"

:shrug:

[Ficus]

15. other 3rd party threads dont get locked

so why this one?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. Sorry I wasn't clear

When I said 'this one', I didn't mean this thread, I meant the threads you are complaining about. Poor writing on my part.

[mdmc]

18. Place those threads on ignore.

Post in threads that interest you.

[Ficus]

23. I know how to use ignore

that wasn't my point. I can read things that I don't agree with and not have to hide them.

I was just trying to make the debate on DU a little more constructive.

[jonnyblitz]

20. I don't like the loyalty oath threads

the threads/polls that are started 24/7 demanding DEM party loyalty ("are you going to vote for the DEM candidate if your candidate loses" threads).Even though I am voting for the DEM no matter who it is this November I can relate to these 3rd party threads and like reading them.

[Ficus]

24. I hate those too.

we dont need pledges, we need votes!

[HuskerDem]

21. Thanks Ficus, great post

my personal take on all the whiny little "I'm taking my ball and going home" types is

FUCK YOU

Don't let the door hit you on the way out. The grownups have work to do, go play somewhere else.

[Rowdyboy]

25. If we don't take the presidency in 2004, the Supreme Court is gone

for at least 25-30 years, maybe longer. The ultimate interpretation of the law will soon be in the hands of Chief Justice Antonin Scalia, with able backup from Clarence Thomas. Bush's second term will see justices such as Miguel Estrada, Phylis Owen, Jeffrey Sutton and Charles Pickering (dis)gracing the bench.

That's why I believe that winning in 2004 is crucial, above all else. If we lose-the Supreme Court is gone-at least for the rest of my life.

[Atlant]

30. Even if we *DO* take the Presidency, the Supreme Court is probably gone.

Do you really think that a heavily-Republican Senate is going
to approve any liberal justices? Or even *MODERATE* justices?

Atlant

[Ficus]

43. we have a chance to change it

I think we can take back the House & Senate both. We just need to get these primary voters out in November!

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.