For those of you who are disenchanted with the democratic party..

[WCGreen]

I include myself as one, the solution is not to withhold a vote in the general election.

No the solution lies in working your ass off in the next round of primary elections.

Voting for a third party candidate in a system that grants all the rewards to the victor and not one iota of power to the vanquished is literally throwing your vote away to make a point.

But if you have the luxury to make points with your vote, be my guest, it is, at least for now, still a free country.

If you have the luxury to wait another two years or four or six to vote again, at least look at the damage that can be wrought by making a protest vote.

Guess what? The GOP wants you, no implores you, dares you to make a point with your most precious civic tool.

There is really has no place for a third party candidate

Bernie Sanders is the exception to the rule.

It makes no sense to vote against a misguided democrat in the general because that helps elect a candidate that is worse than worse. Especially in this crazy time.

Why do you think they call these "controversial" wedge issues wedge issues? They are used to drive individuals away from their party not to attract people to the party massaging the wedge.

Take abortion. How long have they been driving people away from the democratic party on that one issue and yet the GOP has done little more than tinker around the edges of the abortion issue. Sure they are doing damage to womens rights as I see them, but they are doing far more damage to the democratic party and therefor progressive governing by continuing to push an issue they know drives that wedge between voters and their natural party.

Fight in the primaries and then suck it up in the general.

If you want Wedge Issue to remain valid, keep casting your vote based on one issue.

Now, it's really getting late so Good night!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Good night!

Excellent points!

Recommended.

[meowomon]

2. VOTE! DAMMIT!

K&R

[Pab Sungenis]

3. This sort of mentality is the reason

our party has drifted ever rightward since 1988. Holding our nose is rewarding bad behavior by Democrats.

[BzaDem]

4. Why do you think voting against Democrats is punishing THEM, rather than yourself?

I mean, if you vote against them, they'll go to the private sector and make five times as much. If you told them "you should have gone more left, so I wouldn't have to punish you," they would probably laugh in your face. They don't have much to lose by Republican policies.

Only you do. In fact, the MORE you don't vote against Democrats, the MORE you will hurt yourself, until you just can't take it anymore (see Nader's voters completely abandoning him in 2004). But wouldn't it be better for you if you saw the light now, as opposed to after all that damage has been done -- none of it to Democratic politicians, but rather all of it to you?

[Pab Sungenis]

26. The MORE we vote WITH Democrats

the MORE we hurt ourselves. By constantly voting for Blue Dogs and Indigo Dogs and every other color of Dogs, we are keeping them firmly in office. We are validating their lurches rightward. And in turn the Republicans will react by moving even MORE to the right. So we hurt ourselves.

The time has come to start drawing the lines that we will not cross in voting for fake Democrats.

[Le Taz Hot]

5. "Shut up and vote."

Now there's a reason to go to the polls. :eyes: You guys are so predictable. And the shrill will be deafening by election day.

[BzaDem]

6. Wouldn't that be a good thing? Why should someone need convincing to vote? n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

8. They don't.

They have to be convinced to vote against their own interests.

[BzaDem]

12. But given that a vote against Democrats is a vote to enable Republicans,

wouldn't voting for Democrats be uniformly in their interest, without exception?

I mean, I suppose if the Republican were MORE progressive than the Democrat and promised to caucus with the Democrats, your "best interests" might be served by not voting for the Democrat, but assuming that doesn't happen, how could enabling Republicans EVER be in your best interests?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Bluenorthwest]

32. But are you not a supporter of 3d Party Charlie?

It is ironic, to say the least.

[reggie the dog]

17. they argue that we should vote democrat now

and then work to get liberals nominated in the primaries next time, at least they tell us a way to get more liberals in office, i dont want to reward centrists but indeed i will suffer more under neo cons than under centrists. i vote for small parties sometimes but this time around i dont want our democratic president to lose his majority in congress, i want to keep the majority and pull the dems left in the primaries

[Le Taz Hot]

19. This is the problem with that argument . . .

the Establishment Democrats tend to throw everything they have against the progressive candidates (what few of them there are), despite the fact that they're running in a Democratic primary, in favor of the more, shall we say, "pliable" candidate. What is supposed to happen is the party does not take sides until the primaries are over. You and I both know that is not what happens. The Party too often interferes with that process and that is exactly how we end up with the choice of voting for Corporate Whore A (D) and Corporate Whore B (R).

Having said that, if there is a close election I'll hold my nose and vote D; however if it's not, I choose to give my vote to whoever is closest to my ideology and these days, it's not the Democrats.

On edit: Clarifying a sentence.

[reggie the dog]

21. i think we have a similar strategy

"Having said that, if there is a close election I'll hold my nose and vote D; however if it's not, I choose to give my vote to whoever is closest to my ideology and these days, it's not the Democrats." i do exactly the same thing

[Pab Sungenis]

27. There are no centrists any more.

There are right wingers and ultra-right wingers. With very few exceptions (Sanders, Kucinich, maybe one or two others) every "liberal" politician in the Democratic caucus is more conservative than Richard Nixon was.

[KharmaTrain]

7. At This Point...

...if someone doesn't realize what's at stake at this election then they're not going to wake up. Not worth my time or effort...better spent making sure those who want to get to the polls get there. If someone things they're "punishing" the Democrats, so be it...knock yourself out. But don't expect much respect when the GOTB brings this country to a total standstill and then they start bitching again. If you think this administration is so awful that they don't deserve your vote...knock yourself out...you've just marginalized yourself from the future.

[Panaconda]

9. Methinks

a logician would have a field day with your premise.

[WCGreen]

20. Then have at it...

[hobbit709]

10. Bill Maher had it right.

The choice is between a disappointing friend and a mortal enemy.

[stillwaiting]

11. It's not the primaries where we will create change.

We are GROSSLY outweighed financially against status quo interests. There's no way we can financially compete with corporate interests nationally to elect individuals that will represent our interests and not theirs. I truly believe that strategy just can't work. Sure we can knock off a small number of known corporatists in any given round of elections. It's just not enough. Also, how often have we been disappointed in newly elected "better" Dems that seem to have a change of attitude (and voting) once elected? The system virtually guarantees "our" candidates become "theirs".

I hope more come to realize that the SYSTEM needs to change. We have to change the way business in Washington occurs. We CAN change the system. We would have to work with right wingers to make it so, and THAT is the threat to the lobbyists who run Washington. We would have to work with Tea Partiers. There ARE things we have in common with them regarding how the system works, and we have to focus on systemic change before we will have the chance of seeing things move back in our direction. Focus not on the issues with right wingers, but on the system. I have no doubt that if systemic changes were implemented that we would be a hell of a lot happier than the Tea Partiers with the direction things begin moving in this country.

[stillwaiting]

13. P.S. I'm not advocating staying home and not voting for Democrats this election

It's imperative we vote Democratic at this time in our nation's history.

We have to plan for the future and that requires changing the system (imo).

[BzaDem]

14. What makes you think the system can change?

People are accusing Democrats on not doing "basic things." So they think they can somehow do MUCH bigger things, like pass a constitutional amendment? Because that is the ONLY way any systemic change can ever happen. The winner take all system must be changed to proportional representation (with Presidential elections having something like instant runoff voting), and an amendment allowing significant campaign finance regulation must be passed.

Given that 3/4 of the states and 2/3 of the existing, status-quo-system Congress would have to approve any such amendment, do you REALLY think that would EVER happen? In the next 50 to 100 years? Under any scenario?

[stillwaiting]

18. I have to believe the system can change since I don't believe we can implement change otherwise.

It would require a MASSIVE (and sustained) movement that demands it and can't be ignored. I realize that would take time. Perhaps, a lot of time to build. Perhaps not.

I feel the stakes are too high to not do so.

And YES I DO believe it can happen. If we don't believe it can happen it never will.

And YES I DO realize you don't believe it can happen. I frequently see your posts on DU defending the status quo whereby you tell people constantly it's the best we can do.

This movement COULD be built in much less than 50 to 100 years. People throughout the political spectrum are well pissed off right about now. Of course, this is my opinion of what could happen. It under no circumstances implies that it will, but I have to remain hopeful. Even after the last few decades (and last two years in particular).

I've got to go to school and work so you may now have the last word...

[BzaDem]

22. "If we don't believe it can happen it never will."

But of course, that does not mean that if you DO believe it can happen then it actually might happen. They are logically two different statements that have nothing to do with each other.

"This movement COULD be built in much less than 50 to 100 years."

You are completely missing the point. If a movement necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment like this could be built in much less than 50 to 100 years, then that means you have the power to elect 67 Senators who support such an amendment.

But if you have the power to elect 67 Senators to support such an amendment, the amendment isn't really needed! You already won!

My point is that it is logically incoherent to say that because we can't do small things, we will someday be able to do big things. That doesn't make any sense. We might one day be able to do big things (constitutional-amendment scale), but if that day were to come, we wouldn't even NEED to do them, since having 67 Senators agree on anything big like that means there is basically a national consensus to enact the policy you want without the amendment.

[bvar22]

31. It is possible to challenge Corporate Interest in Primaries.

In Arkansas, we were beating the entrenched DINO Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln with a Pro-LABOR Democratic challenger....until the White House stepped in and propped up the Anti-LABOR DINO.

THAT was a kick in the stomach.
I never thought we would have to fight this White House for "Change".

[reggie the dog]

15. damn reality based pragmatism again

i guess i would rather bitch about a dem not being good enough than bitch about how utterly shitty a repub is

[MindPilot]

24. That's assuming one's vote actually means something

Just as we've been conditioned to believe that "driving is a privilege, not a right" or that "soldiers are fighting for our freedom" we live under the mantra that our vote somehow magically translates into a voice in government. I vote, but like saving water and recycling, I do it because it makes me feel good, not because i harbor any sort of illusion that it actually makes a difference.

[Recursion]

25. "Work your ass off in the primaries"

So that we'll nominate people who are too far to the left to win the district in the general?

The DLC likes centrists so much because they got tired of very progressive candidates losing in so many districts.

[Pab Sungenis]

28. And as a result we have Democrats

who vote more like Republicans on the big issues. So what was the point in voting for the DLC candidate in the first place, since we ended up with Republican policies anyhow?

[kctim]

29. Perhaps

an issue wouldn't be such a wedge within the party if those who feel "disenchanted" didn't view issues with such a 'my way is the ONLY way' finality?

[Pab Sungenis]

30. The problem, again, is that for 22 years now

it's always the LEFT that's done ALL of the compromising. If the right doesn't want to start giving in to us on a few things then maybe we need a little gridlock.

[WCGreen]

33. It's been thirty years, actually....

Ever since Carter was trounced by reagan