Why do some of you believe voting Republican = Ending the War?

[CT_Progressive]

I read in thread after thread after thread, that people will not vote for a Dem who won't end the war.

The conclusion of that statement is, therefore:

"I will help elect a Republican who is pro-war, and that will teach the Dems to stop being pro-war and centrist, and bring them back to the Left."

What?

Sorry, thats crazy-talk. First off, the Republican won't end the war, either. Secondly, if the Republican defeats the Democrat for President, the Democratic Party will not shift left as a result. It will shift farther right, because if "America" voted for the Republican (Right) instead of the Democrat (Left), then (Left) lost, and (Right) won, and therefore the Dems need to be more (Right) to win in 2012.

Lets use an every day example.

Billy hits other kids.
Johnny hugs other kids, even though some kids say he should be kissing them, as hugs are not enough.
Billy is given an ice cream cone by a vote of all the kids.
Johnny doesn't get one.

Question: What did Johnny learn?
Real Answer: He should stop hugging kids and start hitting them if he wants an ice cream cone.
DU Answer: He should give kids kisses.

The DU Answer doesn't make logical sense.

Voting 3rd party or not voting will do nothing whatsoever to "teach" the Dems to come back to the left. All it will do is elect a Republican who is pro-war. You all need to come to terms with that reality. I know you want to change the Dems to a more liberal party, but they are what they are - a mix of liberal, moderate and even a few centrist conservatives. Not voting for ONE particular Dem (Hillary) will not teach anyone anything. What you need to do, is cast your votes in the Primary for the person you believe in, and then work hard to get a liberal nominee in 2012 if we do not get one in 2008. And work hard to get one in 2016. And work hard to get one in 2020.

Simply not voting or voting (R) or voting 3rd party only harms us, and will NOT accomplish a leftward movement in the Democratic Party. To think that is pure nonsense.

[Romulox]

1. Voting for the Democrat most like the Republicans so that we don't elect Republicans

Isn't terribly logical, either.

It's like a person at the bottom trying to figure out a way to "win" a Ponzi scheme. The game is fixed; there's no way to win.

[CT_Progressive]

3. That's why you vote for the most liberal Dem in the primary.

But in the General, its just 1 Dem vs 1 Repuke.

Clearly, if that Dem is a "Repuke light", then your choice is the (D), because I'd rather get a "light" version than a "regular" version.

Not voting for Hillary will have no effect on the Democratic Party and will not "Teach them a lesson" or make the whole party "move left".

The only way to move the party "left" is to elect liberals at all levels of the party - local, state and federal - and to get liberal nominees in 2012, 2016, 2020, etc.

[Romulox]

11. That's why the powers that be are so anxious to control the primary process...

If it were about democracy, it wouldn't matter who went first. But it's not. It's about quid pro quo and influence, and the money needed to buy it.

By the time most of us get a chance to vote, we will have been handed Hillary on a take it or leave it basis. :puke:

[Tesha]

18. Actually, if the sum of the Democratic + Green vote routinely beats the Republican vote...

Actually, if the sum of the Democratic + Green vote
routinely beats the Republican vote, the party leadership
would have to be a pack of complete idiots *NOT* to move
leftwards in the next election.

But you're right, they'll probably move rightwards anyway.

Tesha

[negativenihil]

2. based on the dem congress thus far...

what makes you think voting dem will end the war?

not that i plan on voting for a republican any time soon, but c'mon.

[tandot]

4. Thanks for making sense, CT_Progressive.

K & R

[dkofos]

5. your example is pure nonsense

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. The votes of the left are available to the Democrats.

Most of the "leaders" of the party obviously think that the "moderate" votes are more valuable and vote with the Republicans and for the war when they find it politically convenient.

They want our votes? Come and get them.

[CT_Progressive]

7. I think that is a very non-liberal stance to take.

Sure, our *ideal* candidate would be a very liberal one.

But, faced with a Republican or a moderate Democrat, I really think the (D) would be in our best interests.

Or are you saying that unless the party runs a liberal, you will vote (or not vote) against your own best interests?
What would that solve?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. You're right it's not very "liberal". And, neither were the votes of some of the candidates.

But, I'm not a "liberal". I'm an Anarchist.

I will be voting in my "own best interests" by not supporting the system if the Democrats decide to run a candidate that is against my interests.

"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

[Romulox]

12. Forcing people to chose from among two almost equally unappealing choices is EXTORTION

not democracy. I'm sick of being told to "hold my nose".

Why can't the corporate pander-o-crats hold their nose this time and vote for a candidate of the people? :shrug:

[CT_Progressive]

13. No one is asking you to do that.

Vote for who you want in the primaries.

Then, vote (D) in the election.

Then, in 2012, work hard to get lots of liberals in the primaries, and vote for one.
Then, in 2012, vote (D) in the election.

Then, in 2016, work hard to get lots of liberals in the primaries, and vote for one.
Then, in 2016, vote (D) in the election.

Then, in 2020, work hard to get lots of liberals in the primaries, and vote for one.
Then, in 2020, vote (D) in the election.

etc.

[Romulox]

15. Check my #11. They won't seat Michigan delegates anyhow...nt

[Tesha]

19. Yeah, that worked so well in Connecticut in 2006.

Unfortunately, the Right-Wing Democrats weren't willing
to "hold their noses and vote for the nominee" when the
nominee was too lefty for them.

So from now on, you can take your suggestion that we
hold lefties hold our noses and vote for a DINO and
stick that suggestion where the sun don't shine.

Tesha

[LeftCoast]

14. We had Al Gore in 2000 but were told there was no difference between him and Bush

Now suddenly the same basic meme comes up again.

Interesting.

[Romulox]

16. Terry McAulliffe and the same money men who ran Gore 2000 are running HRC '08

Maybe some of the blame lies with Gore and the national party for campaigning to the center/right? :eyes:

[Orsino]

42. I agree, though this attitude in isolation is as off-the-mark as the OP's.

The modern voter's ballot supports one candidate or another, whether or not it gets cast. Not voting Dem partially supports the GOP. It's also true that most major candidates fail to address the issues nearest our hearts on the Left. We have a difficult choice, and it doesn't surprise me that some vote third party in protest. I'm not there yet, but I can see it from here.

[Milo_Bloom]

8. Bzzzzt

First, let's correct the comparrison.

Billy hits other kids.
Johnny hugs other kids, even though some kids say he should be kissing them, as hugs are not enough.
Billy is given an ice cream cone by a vote of all the kids.
Johnny doesn't get one

Instead it is

Billy hits other kids.
Johnny hits other kids, while saying we should be hugging them.
Billy is given an ice cream cone by plurality vote of all the kids.
Johnny would have gotten the ice cream cone, but too many kids chose Sally, who never approved of hitting other kids in the first place.



I agree with one thing, voting for the R or NOT voting to teach the democrats a lesson isn't smart, because the message isn't sent. HOWEVER, if democrat choice isn't going to support a platform you can agree with, your best bet is to choose a candidate who will and show the democratic party that they WOULD have won, if they had embraced the proper platform, thus, forcing them to choose that platform in the future.

Voting 3rd party over a capitulation candidate DOES send a message.

[CT_Progressive]

9. Are you willing to let 4 years of rightwing rule happen to teach them this lesson?

I'm not. I'd rather just work harder in 2012 to nominate a more liberal candidate.

[Milo_Bloom]

17. You're kidding, right?

So your proposal is to allow someone like Clinton, Edwards, Biden or Dodd to assume the white house, spend 4 years capitulating to the right wing most likely lose the house and senate in 2010 and then work in 2012 to unseat our own incumbent president in the primaries with a more liberal candidate?

You understand, of course, this strategy will ASSUREDLY lead to a GOP victory in 2012 with an even more radical candidate, since they will be able to take advantage of the DEM infighting and will ensure 8 total years of war, with the dems set to have the exact same right all over again in 2016

OR

We FORCE the issue now, vote our actual priorities, instead of mindlessly supporting the candidate with the D next to their name, send a message to the party loud and clear. Heck, the 3rd party candidate could easy win, especially if you end up with a Clinton/Edwards/Biden/Dodd V Romney/Thompson/Guiliani type race. The worse case scenario becomes 4 years of gridlock with a GOP president and democratic house/senate and a smarter Democratic party who realize that if they had not embraced a capiltuation platform, they would have won.

[Raksha]

31. In 2000 we were told to "work harder" in 2004;

in 2004 we were told to "work harder" in 2008, and now you're telling us that if Hillary gets the nomination we should hold our noses and vote for her...and then "work harder" in 2012?

Nope, NOT buying it! Enough is damn well ENOUGH! If Hillary gets the nomination I am switching to the Green Party and writing in Dennis Kuchinich or Al Gore.

[Tesha]

20. Bingo! (NT)

[Orsino]

41. "Voting 3rd party over a capitulation candidate DOES send a message."

Yes. It's not always helpful in the long run (I'm looking at you, Naderites), but it's certainly true that the Dems are no longer completely ignoring us dirty antiwar hippie types. They've at least pandered to us, even if they're still going to ignore us.

The message has been sent, all right. It just hasn't been sent by enough people yet to make a big difference.

[robinlynne]

21. aint nobody here gonna vote republican. nobody. really. nobody.

[Nutmegger]

22. Hi CT_Progressive....

Hope everything is well in your neck of the woods. :hi:

[TahitiNut]

23. Gawd! Another "you're either with us or you're with the terrorists!" thread.

No wonder the Democratic Party 'leadership' thinks their base is stupid. :eyes:

[KaptBunnyPants]

24. Votes are earned.

If Democrats offer a compelling platform, this question is moot. If they don't, then blaming the people is just pathetic.

[DefenseLawyer]

25. I think what they really mean

is that they would rather not have our party be so self destructive and delusional as to give us a candidate that not only won't end the war but who has negatives in the 40's and will in all likelihood be the only candidate who could lose to a Republican in the current political climate. But then I am only speaking for myself. I obviously know nothing about politics, like say Bob Shrum does.

[PassingFair]

26. A Ted Rall Award Winning Post:

Pffflllltt! You win for your insipid comments!

[Swamp Rat]

34. Great toon!

:applause:

[HughBeaumont]

27. Sure. Because voting for a corporate-favoring windsock makes PERFECT SENSE!!!

I love the "loyalty oath" posts, as if we really DON'T know what this is all about.

This is all about "You're GOING to get a DLC candidate. You're GOING to get Hillary. You might as well accept it, because it's going to happen. And should it happen, you'd better choose and choose correctly, unless you want to get your Democratic card revoked!"

Um, NO. I don't have to do shit except stay half-Italian and DIE.

Here's the deal. I know I'LL be working to keep Madam Windsock out of the primary.

But if you're asking me to get behind a Hillary Clinton candidacy should my efforts fail, I'm not doing it.

I DO NOT SUPPORT CANDIDATES THAT THINK THERE ARE POSITIVES TO JOB OFFSHORING!

I DO NOT SUPPORT CANDIDATES THAT GIVE THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY THE GREEN LIGHT TO ATTACK SOVERIGN NATIONS!

I'm also sick of the "if I knew then" defense. If you knew WHAT? What 23 Dem senators already knew? That Bewsh and his administration was/are lying sacks of monkeyshit who wanted this illegal occupation since they captured the Blight House? That Bewsh was going to win both elections come hell or high water whether we wanted it or not for this very purpose?

Shit, a damned satirical newspaper got it . . . IN the beginning of 2001, no less. What did NO one understand about the way a Reagan-redux presidency operates going into this?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784

Sorry, Hillary's whole candidacy and the constant barrage of trolling, finger-wagging and tsk-tsking by her loyal supporters smacks of the SAME damned inevitability that we were resigned to with the Failure Fuhrer. I ain't doing it.

Let's toss aside the IWR vote, which don't get me wrong is a sore spot.

It's her trade position, which you gotta admit isn't exactly worker-friendly. Ohio (especially Cuyahoga County) has bled so many jobs, white and blue collar, due to free-trade policies which she continues to support and make no apologies for supporting (it dumbfounds me that ANY union would endorse her when she's made it clear she loves free trade, wants to increase H1B and L1 visas and wouldn't change the disastrous-for-the-working-classes NAFTA). There AREN'T two sides to outsourcing as she has claimed (look to my journal or previous posts, I have links). This practice DOES NOT work for Joe Dayjob; it only benefits the wealthy of the countries involved. She's WRONG on this issue.

And until she starts making a strong stand for worker protections, some compromise in amending the existing lousy trade agreements her husband signed and his friend's (41) administration authored and stands against greedy corporations and the Republicans that run them, I can't get behind that.

It's so important and critical for the future of the youth of this country that economic fairness be stressed as a top priority. You cannot have politicians and leaders keep telling America's young to go into Math and Science and Technology as a career, when the reality is, they'll likely already be priced out of a job when they graduate thanks to cheap offshore labor. Right now we simply don't have fairness or any kind of a plan to amend this course of rotten and it's getting worse. I'm not convinced that a Hillary presidency is going to change that.

Then there's the "well, that's the best you can HOPE for" argument.

Bills don't get paid on HOPE. Economies cannot recover on HOPE. People who aren't meant to go to diploma mill colleges can't just HOPE they'll qualify for a job that pays at least a liveable wage. 47 million people shouldn't have to go to sleep at night HOPING they'll not have a debilitating illness that bankrupts their entire family.

American soldiers can't HOPE they'll be done with this useless tax-wasting MORGUE they're unfortunately sewn up in.

There needs to be a plan to revive the economy to accommodate ALL workers, not just toss your hands in the air and give up. There needs to be a PLAN for single-payer health care system, not a shrug, sigh and a "Oh well, that's just the way it is". You want to know WHY all those jobs went overseas . . . one of the main reasons is that Big Insurance frowns on single payer, therefore the employer ends up holding the bag. I WANT to pay taxes to help myself, my family and my fellow citizens, not funnel it in the pockets of the Bushes, Cheneys, Rices and Chertoffs via the Pentasewer.

There needs to be a PLAN to BRING OUR SOLDIERS HOME!

I WANT a candidate that doesn't support corporate rights over human rights. I DON'T think that's too damned much to ask or expect from a DEMOCRATIC candidate. Hillary has not at ALL proven to me through her actions and statements that she can stand up to corporations or the MIC.

And FYI, I VOTED for Gore. I VOTED for and supported Kerry because at least he was honest, albeit a bad campaigner.

Hillary is just a baggage-ridden windsock who takes no strong progressive STANDS on anything.

And I'm frankly SICK of capitulating. I'm SICK of America's royalty worship, I'm SICK of corporations and I'm completely fucking SICK of Americans who AREN'T WILLING TO INSTITUTE CHANGE.

Over and over and over again until Dumberica gets it right, I guess: DON'T vote against your best interests.

[Yael]

28. Wonderful rant! This deserves a thread of its own...

[CT_Progressive]

29. Your rant, while passionate, makes no sense.

You claim that not voting for Hillary will "institute change".

Prove it.

How will electing the Republican (which is what happens when you don't vote for Hillary) "institute change" in the Democratic Party?

I'm all ears (well, eyes).

[HughBeaumont]

30. I didn't claim any such thing.

My last line meant I'm sick of Americans who are willing to be led around by the nose-ring by whatever the media TELLS them is good rather than examining positions and statements themselves. They go off of name recognition and force-feeding while there are far better candidates like Kucinich or Obama . . . just like they did for the Failure Fuhrer in 2000. He had the shittiest governing record of any candidate running, Texas constantly ranked at the bottom of nearly every human condition category measured, he failed at just about anything he did in life, but two things happened:

1. Bewsh was forced down the throats of America by a complicit and newly-purchased-by-wealthy-Reagan-sympathizers media. All of a sudden, they completely forgot about his past. He was packaged as "a return to morals", "honest" (even though he was anything BUT), "a name you can trust" (there's that word again: NAME) and packaged as a moderate (a WHOPPER of a lie, again). America, much as they don't want to admit it, LOVE the familiar. They LOVE brands. They DON'T like or WANT change. Bewsh was a brand the wealthy and their stations could easily sell to the rubes: an heir to the Reagan mantle sold to a public that hadn't yet been nudged out of their sleep as to what a fucking rotten bastard Reagan and his administration really were.

2. Rather than work off of the positives of the Clinton Administration, Gore tried to distance himself from it (on the advice of Bob Shrum), made the unbelievably STUPID move of selecting Joementum as his VP and alienated left-leaning Dems in the process, driving many to a third party vote or no vote at all. The media paint Gore as a bore and long winded didn't help matters much either.

Both of these factors and many others made the theft of 2000 possible - that election should have never been close enough to steal in the first place . . . EITHER time. But never underestimate America's love of the familiar.

The corporations know that they win with Hillary. Businesses love her. Their owned-media is pushing her, even the fascist Fox network can't stop talking about her. She's going to be a corporate bridge builder rather than call them on their environment-destroying, middle-class-killing, predatory, illegal and unethical means of conducting business. She isn't going to stand up to unbridled corporatism that thrived in the Bewsh era. She isn't going to stop the gravy train. She'll also do nothing to stop their wars.

Look at her health plan and her "workers need to prove they have health insurance before getting a job" meme.

Also, they know that while the Repukes agree with most of their positions, let's face it: this is the WEAKEST GOP field since 1996, and the likelihood of ANY of these schmucks winning office is slim to none. The margin simply isn't going to be that slim again, thanks to Bewsh and his bullshit.

So why not have the NEXT best thing: Rather than get a candidate who addresses job offshoring, the war and health care and the need to improve America's one-sided positions on all three, push a candidate who is going to be business as usual; war-continuing, corporate-line-towing and job-offshoring . . . on the OTHER side. And if she fails at cleaning up the Bewsh mess, which she most likely will because things are beyond repair at this point, it's a WIN-WIN. She leaves, another annointed Puke is selected (most likely Jeb), and the profits continue while the middle class, poor and soldiers get lead-piped.

I think myself, OhioChick and others have proven countless times about her stance on free trade, her position on outsourcing, her buddy/buddyness with Tata Consulting, her speeches to Indian nationals (who favor her immensely thanks to her positions on corporate offshoring) in 2005 and her desire to INCREASE H1-b and L1 Visas to foreign nationals. We have enough underemployed degreed professionals already HERE that can use the work. There are several on this board, and several on this board that are married to people in this unfortunate situation. If one doesn't think the needs and welfare of the middle class is important, I have no hope for them.

Don't tell me you haven't seen or heard her speeches and votes regarding the Middle East. There isn't any diplomacy on the table, obviously. Don't tell me you haven't seen the friendship with Rupert Murdoch, one of the most loathsome Reaganites going today.

So maybe when a voter has no choice but to go with "who sucks LESS", is it really the VOTER'S fault that the candidate didn't convince enough people that he/she would represent a CHANGE from "business as usual", or is it the politicians themselves?

Also: (which is what happens when you don't vote for Hillary)

It bears repeating over . . . and over . . . and over . . . and over . . . and over . . . and over . . . and over . . . and over . . . and over . . . again.

HAS SHE WON THE NOMINATION YET???

DAMN.

[ima_sinnic]

33. what you said ...

I too am sick of the shills telling me I "better vote D or else"

I don't see supporters of Kucinich, Obama, Edwards or others saying that. There is ONLY ONE candidate's supporters who say that. They seem to have a lot of interest in maintaining the status quo, but they are very dishonest about that. It must be benefiting them personally not to have any change in this country--the rest of us be damned!

[HughBeaumont]

37. That ALSO needs to be addressed.

Somehow, if Lieberman were leading, like he was bandied about in 2003 at this point, it'd be the same damned people.

I'd be MORE than happy to vote for any one of those three you mentioned, especially Kucinich. I even think Obama or Edwards would work more toward the working people's needs and work better with Congress.

Hillary's one of these "America needs to compete and retrain" people, but "retraining" doesn't really work when you don't know what you're retraining FOR and your cheaper competition can do the same thing. We're dealing with a COST disadvantage, not a KNOWLEDGE disadvantage.

[Beerboy]

32. Nonplussing title; no one is going to end the war.

I'm sorry, all I read was the title, and immediately smelled bull-shit.

[Richard Steele]

35. Claiming DUers will vote Republican? Yeah, this isn't a steaming pile of flamebait or anything.

Pfft.

[Robbien]

36. Just another DLC/BlueDog/NewDem flamebait thread to bully Progressives

into supporting the robber baron ways of the GOP and DLC/NewDems/BlueDogs.

Go jump into a lake.

Just found a new candidate to go on my ignore list.

[HughBeaumont]

38. New Dems = SS/DP.

And as it was pointed out above . . . I cannot recall ONE time an Edwards, Obama or Kucinich supporter writing the ever-popular "loyalty oath" posts. It's only the Hillary-favoring posters that pull this crap.

[undeterred]

39. Voting Republican = 4 more wars

[Orsino]

40. False dichotomy.

A vote is more than a choice between supporting one candidate or another. For some, American politics is so thoroughly corrupt that choosing not to participate is the only tolerable decision.

I heartily sympathize, though I am still of the opinion that the Democratic Party is significantly less corrupt than its counterpart, and that any vote for the GOP (or failure to vote Dem) is disastrous.