You know, it's not rocket science

[scheming daemons]

Each general election has only 2 or 3 viable candidates, at most.

"Viable" being defined as having a reasonable chance of winning the election.

Examine the slate of candidates in an election that are viable, and vote for the one farthest to the left.


In 2000, only Gore and Bush were viable. So among the viable candidates, Gore was the logical vote for a Democrat. Ralph Nader was always going to be nothing but a wasted vote for someone on the left.



This year... in WV... there are only 2 viable candidates for Senator. Raese and Manchin. Among those, Manchin is farthest to the left, even though he is less than desirable overall.

This year... in RI... there are 3 viable candidates for Senatore. Chafee, Caprio, and Robitaille. Among those, Chafee is farthest to the left, and is therefore the best vote for a person on the left.


In Connecticut in 2006, Lamont and Lieberman were the only two viable candidates. So Lamont was the proper vote for people on the left. It's a shame Lieberman won... but he only won because REPUBLICANS in Connecticut realized that the (R) candidate was not viable. They voted for the right-most *viable* candidate.



This year in Florida, there was never a time when Kendrick Meek was a viable general election candidate. But actually, the same is now true for Crist as well. Neither one of them, as long as the other is on the ballot, can defeat Rubio.

So in that case, Meek is proper vote for Democrats now. For a time, it looked like Crist was viable, but that time has passed. The race is a lost cause, sadly, because the anti-Rubio vote - which is made up of Democrats and Independents - is hopelessly split. If one of Meek or Crist would've dropped out, then Rubio could've been stopped. Since neither did, the cause is lost. (In this case, the "cause" is defeating Rubio).


Simple rules that I live by:

1. Never vote for a candidate with an (R) next to their name.
2. Among the candidates with something other than an (R) next to their name, vote for the left-most one that has a chance to win.
3. If there are no candidates without an (R) that have a chance to win, then vote for the (D).

These rules allow for me to vote for someone like Bernie Sanders against a Democrat. They allow for a vote for Chafee. They do not allow for a vote for Nader. They allow for a vote for someone like Ben Nelson, but only against a Republican, not against a viable Independent.

The point is to put in office the left-most leaning candidate that one can reasonably hope to get in. That leaves out a Nader, but leaves in a Sanders.

[TexasProgresive]

1. K&R

Thanks for you pragmatic wisdom.

[RC]

2. It would help a lot if "viable" were tied to

competent. But it is not.

[Toots]

3. Who determines who is viable, Remember "Dewey Wins"

There have been more than one huge upsets in our elections.. People actually won that were given zero chance to win.. I say vote your conscience, if that means Nader then so be it..

[Stinky The Clown]

4. Its not rocket science. Lieberman won because the DEMOCRATIC ESTABLISHMENT ignored Lamont

DEMOCRATS contributed significantly to Joe's viability. Lots of guilty parties there. Of course, then their fair haired boy, Holy Joe, turns around and supports the FUCKING REPUBICANS in the presidential race.

I know ..... do as I say, not as I do.