The prospect of folks writing in a candidate instead of our Dem nominee is a republican's wet dream

[bigtree]

That act would be an gimme to republicans. The most popular candidate for the write-in proponents around here is Dennis Kucinich. His supporters are the most vocal and animated opponents of Bush and the republicans that our party is graced with. That's why it make absolutely no sense that these folks would do ANYTHING to enable republicans. But that's what sitting on your hands, or writing in someone other than the Democratic nominee will result in. Republicans will be enabled by that action.

Again, it is the height of irresponsibility to oppose the actions of Bush and his republicans and then turn around and enable them by refusing to vote for our party's nominee. These folks who go ahead and take that action are no friends to those of us who want an end to the republicans' decade or so of absolute power.

All of the excuses of some Democratic candidate being 'republican-lite' or the like don't cover for the prospect that a write-in movement could give the republican candidate the margin they need to advance to the White House. That would be a disaster which could never be matched by some perceived drift from party orthodoxy that may be attributed to our eventual nominee. Study the history of the worst Democratic presidency you can recall and compare that to ANY republican administration, and you will not be able to draw any true comparison that would lead to the conclusion that there wouldn't be a difference if your action enabled the republican into office.

Writing in a candidate other than the nominee in the general election is a self-defeating act which shouldn't find ANY support among those who profess to be so anguished and concerned with the actions and abuses of the Bush administration and their republican enablers in Congress. To me, that act would be an amazing retreat and a gift to the opposition party. It's never produced anything except one less vote in the effort to remove the miscreants from power. It would be, in many ways, despicable.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Who's talkin' about writeins? Last time I...

voted for a writein was against my thievin' lyin' foul-smellin' Mayor back in NJ. He only got about 50% of the vote that year, and he ran unopposed!

(One of those cities where there are no Republicans and the primary is the real election-- but they called off the primary that year.)

Presidential writeins are just giving it away. OK, if you really, really hate both major candidates, and there's no minor party to vote for, write someon in. But anybody who hates any one of the crew we've got running this year just shouldn't be here.

Any talk of writeins in the general should simply be ignored, if perchance no tombstome is involved.

[bigtree]

2. saw one just this morning

without calling anyone out . . .

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Musta been one of "those" threads I tend to hide. n/t

[LWolf]

4. That's your pov; your opinion, of course,

and you're welcome to it.

From this Democrat's pov, voting for a Bush enabler is the same as voting for bush.

Voting for a corporate dem ensures that the party will continue to put big money before people.

Either one of the above is bad for the party, and bad for the nation.

We all have our pov, we all have our opinion. You may feel the need to talk to us about that opinion, to change our minds.

I can tell you that the talking points you are using in your OP here won't do it. Those talking points ignore the reasons why a Democrat might abstain or write in a candidate. As Democrats, we've heard them all before, ad nauseum, every single election. You aren't "showing us the light." We've already seen the light, and the light is shining on corrupt politicians who work for big money and their careers, not for the people. Politicians whose talk doesn't match their walk, or whose talk and walk don't match the changes we wish to see.

If you can't address the reasons why we might refuse to vote for a big money/msm chosen candidate, all you are doing is widening the divide.

Of course, I guess that could be the point.

[bigtree]

5. the effect of that write-in action might be another round of a cretin like Bush

all of your criticisms and concerns become moot when that occurs. On the other hand, there will be many more Democrats radiating out from a Democratic administration - thousands - perhaps the appointment of someone you would support to a cabinet position or a seat on a court.

I made the argument you're asking for in the OP. You just brushed past it.

[LWolf]

6. Again, that argument doesn't win anyone to your pov.

Again, we've already heard, election after election, that voting for anyone but the annointed party prince will benefit republicans.

I didn't "brush past it," I told you that those talking points aren't working this time, and that trumpeting them over and over again is more likely to widen the divide than close it.

Again, if you really want to bring the disenfranchised back into the fold, it won't be with that argument.

If that's really what you want, of course. If you are not just setting up some good scapegoats for when another election backfires.

What if you accepted that nominating a candidate that divides the party isn't a good idea, and worked to find a candidate that can unite the party? What is so hard to understand about this concept? It seems simple enough to me. Instead of trying to force Democrats behind a "divider," why not work to nominate a "uniter" instead? In this particular crop of candidates, there are some that most of those talking about write-ins would probably support. They just don't include Clinton or Obama. I'm not sure about the rest. Why not work to make sure the nominee is not one of those two? That would be a compromise that those you are criticizing might agree to make. If you think compromise is a good thing, of course.

Or, if you don't think any of the current crop can unite Democrats, work harder to convince Gore to run. I know he could do it.

My point is that, if you really want people in the party to unite for common cause, give them someone to unite behind. Don't scream because they are not uniting behind the poor candidates the mainstream has chosen to put at the top of the heap; find someone else to put there.

[The Vinyl Ripper]

7. Well put,,

Thanks for saving me the trouble of typing all that out. :D

[LWolf]

10. Any time.

:hi:

[leftchick]

8. Amen LW!

:applause:

why would I vote for this?.....

[FreeStateDemocrat]

9. Hillary will do anything to regain power. Fuck the ruling class.

[bigtree]

21. if Sen. Clinton did manage to get the nod from our party members,

and was elevated into the presidency, she would bring many progressive into positions of authority and influence which they have been locked out of for the duration of the current republicans' reign. The action of refusing to support our Democratic nominee after the convention does nothing but threaten to allow the republican opposition to gain ground. If they get back in they will continue to infect all branches of the Executive and the Pentagon with their republican tripe. That, much more than the elevation of any of the Democratic candidates already announced, will do more than perpetuate the 'ruling class', it will codify and extend the republican one we have now.

[LWolf]

11. You and I wouldn't.

Why not find someone, who, whether or not they are our "favorite," whether or not we agree with them on everything, we can at least work with? Someone with positions and records that show them willing to work with us.

For me, it starts here:

No corporate/dlc strings, and no "third way" positions even if they aren't officially "dlc."

Candidate must walk their talk, and their record must provide evidence of this

Their "talk" must share some key common goals

[cali]

12. You won't be voting for a dem then.

They all have corporate strings, except possibly for Dennis, and he's unlikely to get the nom.

I'd ask you to please consider the Supreme Court.

[emilyg]

14. Good point.

[bigtree]

22. That's the point

There will be countless satellites of a Democratic administration (a republican one too) which will be critical to our future. Those don't necessarily have to be in lock-step with the president, and they can be influential.

[NoPasaran]

19. You would prefer this?

[Individualist]

15. Hear, hear!

Damn the corporatist, warmongering DLC.

[bigtree]

20. that 'finding someone else' is pretty much a fantasy at this point

and you should know that. To hold that out as an option is really not a credible argument at all. We will continue to work to propel our choice into the lead, but, it appears, we will be asked to choose from one of the current crop. My experience tells me that, although the race might shift when we actually get a chance to vote, one of the current announced candidates will get the nomination.

It's at that point when we will be faced with the prospect of either our Democratic nominee or the republican one, by virtue of the support they will have ammassed by that time.

I may have not been clear. Primaries are there to elevate your ideal choice. Work at it. It may happen. Folks haven't voted yet. There is still a chance (slim) for some maverick to jump in and win us all over, but it's a longshot.

When our nominee is advanced at our convention, we will have one realistic chance to upset the republican choice. That will be to take those numbers of voters we have attracted to our nominee and build on them. At that point, there will be almost nothing that a Dennis Kucinich or anyone else in opposition to Bush can do to propel themselves into a lead over the nominee, save some catastrophe or crippling scandal.

At that point, you will have a choice whether to support the Democratic nominee, or do something short of that which, in effect, is just a gimme to republicans. That's the reality. Remember that when you are sitting there after the convention facing a republican idiot with your virtually empty hand. The ONLY chance at that point to stop the republican will be to try and elect the Democratic alternative.

If we do get a republican in office I'll be remembering your appeal, and the others like it, which promised to allow that republican to gain ground without any intervening action other than to write-in someone with absolutely no hope of winning; no help at all. You might as well leave politics altogether at that point. You will have had absolutely no impact against the advancement of the republican opposition. You will have made no difference at all at that point, except as a drag on those of us who have bothered to coalesce together to defeat the republicans.

It's an unbelievably cynical position to advocate a write-in after we've chosen our nominee. It's nothing more than a gift to the republican opposition. That's the effect of our political system, agree with it or not. All of the idealism won't mean shit at the point where our Democratic nominee is directly challenging the republican opposition. It makes no sense at all to hobble or disadvantage that Democratic opposition just to further or feather your ideals which would be washed COMPLETELY away if a republican managed to achieve power again.

Writing a candidate at that point is not opposition to the republican candidate. It's an epic pout. It's an action which will be irrelevant to the challenge of stopping the republican nominee. You might as well be doing nothing at all at that point. I won't follow you there. No one else who is actually interested in stopping the republican nominee should either.

[LWolf]

23. And we come full circle.

That's your point of view; your opinion. It isn't fact, it isn't law, it isn't sacred. It's your opinion, and you are welcome to it.

I disagree.

I disagree about the "fantasy" part. More improbable by the day, I concede, but I believe that Al Gore could have unified the vote, had he decided to run. I don't think he will, but it's not outside the realm of possibility at this point.

If we must limit ourselves to the 8 on board now, then narrow the field to the least objectionable. The candidate that will cause the least division.

Another simple concept.

And, finally, I'm not asking you to "follow me anywhere." We also have totally different goals. Your goal, as stated, is in "stopping the Republican nominee." This is not my goal, although it is definitely a beneficial side-effect.

My goal is to clean up the corruption destroying our nation, and our planet, and the Democratic Party. Electing the least corrupt candidates, those with the best records of representing people, of working to move social and economic justice forward, those candidates who are honest enough to take a stand and courageous enough to fight for that stand regardless of the strength of the opposition...

Voting for a candidate that cannot be trusted to put the public good before the good of their big donors and their career does not achieve that. It simply continues the status quo, and therefore works against the goal.

I'd like to address the sources of our ills, not the symptoms. If I want the Democratic Party to lead the way, I have to reserve my votes for Democrats that will do just that. An enabler of the status quo is not a "win" for anybody.

[bigtree]

24. I think a Democratic administration provides, at least the opportunity

for the changes you want.

A republican administration would be nothing but an obstacle to that.

Good luck with your efforts. I'm pretty much at a loss at what to do to elevate someone else over these 'leading' candidates in our primary. It has certainly been a corralling so far.

[LWolf]

25. I appreciate your thoughts, and your good wishes. n/t

[bigtree]

26. More talk here today of abandoning our eventual nominee

kicking as a rebuttal

[TahitiNut]

13. "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists!"

This seems to be a very popular attitude. :eyes:

[bigtree]

18. there is the reality that another republican president could be devastating

To deny that seems to undercut all of the handwringing over the policies, actions, and administration of this one we have in office now.

[Odin2005]

16. The delusions of the Kucinichites are pathetic.

If the Kucinichites think Hillary is a corporate whore they must think Al Gore and John Kerry are Fascists.



http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm


Kucinich:




Hillary:




Gore:




Kerry:




Obama:




Edwards:

[LWolf]

27. Personally, I find this one to be more accurate;

it certainly matches the way I see the candidates and their positions, anyway:



Delusions.

Way to hang on to those fringe votes, lol.

[Colobo]

17. No need to write anybody in. Just vote for Obama.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. The votes of the left are available to the candidates if they want them.

So far, they don;'t appear to want them as they, instead, seek the "moderate" votes and ignore the left.

I'm a Democrat, but the party doesn't own my vote. I do.


"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

[NaturalHigh]

29. Then maybe the Dems should nominate a candidate...

that we could vote for without holding our noses. If the party wants my vote, it will have to earn it. Mrs. Clinton is not an acceptable option for me.