Dems who won't for the nominee (if its not their prefered) are no different than Nader voters

[wndycty]

Gore wasn't Green enough so vote for Nader and put someone in who FUCKED OVER the environment more.

HILLARYOBAMAEDWARDS is not dove enough for you so you will either not vote or vote 3rd party and put in a hawk, who will not only keep us in Iraq, take us into Iran (if we are not there already), dismiss gun control, bankrupt public education, screw your civil liberties, , threaten a woman's right to choose, screw over stem cell research, fuck over civil rights for everyone (especially minorities, women and homosexuals, and while they might not support gay marriage, they definitely wouldn't advance a Constitutional Amendment against it).

Talk about biting off your nose to spite your face.

[Dr Fate]

1. Is this thread about the DLCers who supported Joe Lieberman (I-3rd party)?

????

[Kelly Rupert]

3. Them too. n/t

[jpgray]

2. People don't want to believe punishing Democrats helps enable the GOP

It's an ugly, horrible truth, and I can see why people don't want to believe it. But it's reality. Split the progressive vote, and ask yourself who benefits. It's clear as day. We can build a progressive party, we can gain influence in the media, but not in thirteen months. In '08 I can't see why any progressive wouldn't commit to defeating the GOP. It should be everyone's primary goal--if you can do it and keep your conscience intact, great. If you can't feel 100% great about it, it's time to toughen up and face our current ugly reality.

[wndycty]

5. Have a vigorous primary and then move forward after the dust settles. . .

:kick:

[mudesi]

4. Well, obviously (nm)

[Tatiana]

6. Hypothetical: What if Clinton gets the Dem nom and Gore runs as an Independent in the gen. election?

Who do you vote for? Who has the best chance of winning?

(I know that would never happen, but this hypothetical does get to the core of why people vote for third-party/independent candidates in the general election.)

[wndycty]

8. Hillary and Gore is not Nader he is not selfish enough to do something like that. . .

The stakes are too high for him to fuck over the country by running as a 3rd party candidate.

[Tatiana]

9. But would you agree that he'd have the best shot in the history of 3rd party candidates at winning?

I'd probably vote for Hillary too, but Gore would certainly be a compelling choice.

[wndycty]

10. Its a hypothetical we will not have to deal with. . .

. . .and the best shot a 3rd party candidate has is still a losing proposition.

[blm]

7. I loathe Nader, but don't believe he had the effect that we are supposed to blame.

Let's say ALL the votes in Florida were counted because the DNC had worked to secure the election process before 2000.

Gore would have won - WITH Nader in the race - by well over a 100,000 votes.

The point being that even with Nader OUT, the RNC in Florida was set up to steal that race ANYWAY.

What Nader's run did do was make it SOUND PLAUSIBLE that Gore lost those votes because of Nader, not because of massive election fraud.

The other blame used is that "Gore lost because he distanced himself from Clinton" deflection - uh - the votes were being purged, suppressed and stolen no matter HOW Gore campaigned and they were doing it in the years BEFORE that general campaign was in gear.

And THAT deflection of blame is one of the reasons we still don't have a completely secure election process 7 years later.

Without accurate assessments of what happened - we will NEVER deal with the reality of election fraud.

[ashling]

12. There is seldom one reason for a plane crash

or other major catastrophe. It is a convergence of things. But one of those things, a major one in my opinion, was the Nader candidacy.

Another major prolem, as you mentioned, was the "running away from Clinton thing", which includes his picking Leiberman.

And Gore generally had a problem getting out of the starting gate.

An election campaign is a dynamic thing ... momentum and morale can change daily...not to mention money and energy available to handle the real threat: Republicans.

Anything that takes the campaign off messsage in that regard is a real problem. In 2000, Nader's constant carping and the percieved need to deal with that was a major problem. Not to mention that if even half of Nader's supporters had been adding to Gore's momentum and convincing Republicans to vote Democratic instead of saying Democrats and Republicans were somehow equivalent.

Was this the on crucial thing that allowedFlorida to be so close as to give Bush the opportunity to steal the election? I don't know.

Was it a major factor converging with other factors that converged to cause major disaster? I am absolutely sure

Was it wholely avoidale? You bet! If Ralph Nader and the Greens had decided to be praticle idealists instead of idealistic spoilers.

[blm]

16. I disagree - Florida theft was set up no matter what the campaign looked like.

If they needed 50,000 more in the NW they would have gotten that from cooperative counties doing the reporting.

Y'know the biggest discrepancies happened to be in GOP strongholds more than blue counties as the legend of 2000 gets told.

And all that voter roll PURGING happened long before election day - another way they stole votes from Gore. That had NOTHING to do with the campaign.

But I DO understand that there are corporatist Dems who do love to push the Gore lost because meme - when the fact remains that had the election process been secured Gore would have likely won by a landslide.

But that wasn't good politics, was it? Let's blame Gore for running as a populist or for distancing himself from Clinton - MAJOR EXAGGERATION that meme.

The centrist opportunists saw a way to scare the Dem party to move with them to the center and they just about had a cow when progressive Kerry ended up the nominee in 2004.

Sorry, but I SAW the look on From's face a number of times - He loathed Kerry and could barely conceal the contempt whenever he was interviewed in 2003 and 2004.

Secure the election process for real - as a concerted effort by the party, and we won't have to have these exchanges - strategist driven exchanges from some that strategists need to pay their DC mortgagaes.

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

11. Let me explain the "green agenda" to you

There are three options:

1. Vote for improvement (real ones)
2. Vote for a status-quo-corporate-shill
3. Vote for fascism full flavor

As Gores, Kucinices, Naders and other alikes won't be voted in anytime soon (as if there has been been a real vote anyway or has been for the last decade AT LEAST).

So 1. falls away

that leaves two choices

2. Vote for a status-quo-corporate-shill
will grant the dems a token victory and will probably pacify the masses enough to prolong this joke of a democracy for decades as more time is grantet to veil and entrench the powers of the top echelon

3. full flavor fascism
will fuck the country, the world and the people real hard. The subjects might even seriously consider exercising that 2nd amendment and do this thing that is written by that obsolete paper called "constitution" and remove/replace a cruel government by themselves.

there are also these two choices left.

One trying to repair that airy dream of old days where one could conveniently look away when others got hassled with some duct tape for now, or to face the ugly thruth face on what the leadership is about - economic slavery.

At one point someone will come to the conclusion that banding with counter-conscience leaders won't bring the solutions whether it be greater, or lesser evil. It's still evil. So you can vote "fringe" or rebel anything other ist just perpetuating the corpocrisy carussell whether your carussell horse is on the high or on the down.

The point greens/other thirdpartyvoters/write-ins make:

"Neither the current republican nor the democratic party stand for our principles. And we will not honor either of these exploiters with our vote we chose to make out of our conscience."


If you let yourself be forced to vote for someone you don't support, it defies the principles of democracy and makes you just a - subject. At one time the plebejans (you and me) will have to man the barricades to enforce profound changes. whose blood shall it be? ours? that of our children or of our grand-children?

Your attempt of moral guilt ride makes you an enabler for the corpocracy at the end.
Do you really want to be that?
i doubt so.

Thanks for reading.

[jpgray]

13. To my mind, a true leftist destroys fascists and doesn't enable them

In our shitty system, and lacking a viable third party, splitting the progressive vote by staying home or voting Green enables the GOP. If the GOP were significantly marginalized or if we had instant runoff voting, things would be a lot better.

[Niccolo_Macchiavelli]

15. there is no need anymore to "enable" them.

At the end it's not right versus left, it's top vs bottom.

[blm]

19. In my book it's Fascists vs Open Government Democratic Citizens.

And the Fascists are comprised of both GOPs and powerful Democrats.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. The votes of the left are available to the candidates.

Just as they were in 2000 and 2004.

If they want them, they can get them by offering the left something tangible rather than pandering to the right.

[derby378]

17. While dismissing gun control DOES sound good...

The person whom I vote for has to earn my vote. I'm not voting Republican (naturally) or for anyone else, but if you want my vote, earn it. I am a Democrat. How are you going to win me over?

[DearAbby]

18. "You're either with us, or you're against us"

I dont understand that attitude. If Hillary gets the nomination you better vote for her, or you are not a true democrat" Bullying tactic.
Fear tactic "You'll throw your vote away and another GOPer will win in 08. "

When did this happen. Why is this happening? This is the primary season.

Shouldn't we be trying to find some middle ground within our own party? Try going to the center of our own party and nominate a candidate from there, or the closest one there?

When did the "You're either with us, or you're against us" enter the party of the People?

[Solon]

20. And if we vote for one of those 3 candidate, and most of that shit happens anyways...

can we bitch about unquestioning Democratic voters who are assholes by definition because they ask for loyalty when none is earned?

[mdmc]

21. God bless them

:kick:

[mmonk]

22. Was voting for a dem held congress biting off our nose?

Sure ended up that way. Anyway, I'm not going to slam someone if they don't want to vote for president (but I will if they vote for the opposition). They can vote for dems at various levels of government and help out that way.

[sniffa]

23. whatever

:eyes:

[mod mom]

24. So if we truly believe voting for a DLC candidate is against the best interest of the nation,

then we should just do as the brown shirts do and blindly follow. Sorry, I would vote for any Dem candidate outside of the DLC and if the candidate is a DLCer I will do what I believe is in the country's best interest and write in Gore. I will not be any part of the corporate take-over.

[Perry Logan]

25. You're wrong. They are infinitely worse than Naderites. The Naderites stand for something.

[Lilith Velkor]

26. That "Fuck you, vote for me" attitude worked so well in '00 and '04, let's do it again!

:eyes:

[KG]

27. yep, just like those thousands of registered dems in FL that voted for bush in 2000.

just like those dems conveniently forgotten by the Fuck Nader crowd.

[Evoman]

28. Democratic Party: Vote for us, because the alternative is worse.

Don't blame me...I voted for Kodos.

[blondeatlast]

29. OHMIGOD! Only 399 days to go before we have to put up or shut upI

"When in panic, fear or doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout!"

Spare me, please.

[Ioo]

30. Well Maybe the Dems should make we WANT to vote for them...

not the other way around. My vote is not just given away for the hell of it.

So I think your blame is misguided. When you put up piss water shills to run for president, then don't get pissed if people say NO...

Make me want to vote for you, not have to vote for you.