Any Democratic candidate is better than any Republican candidate.

[Robb]

True? False?

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. Ah, the blue dog issue. you need a "true 95+% of the time" option!

[Robb]

2. Indeed. Although

....95% of the time should bring "false" as an answer. :shrug:

[JoePhilly]

17. I had a same thought ... some sort of weighting scale ...

[brooklynite]

72. or the Rod Blagojevich issue...or the Frank Rizzo issue...

Poll didn't limit discussion to Federal candidates

[Jack Rabbit]

3. Mostly true

There are too many shades of gray to simply reduce this to a true/false question.

I think I could vote for Abe Lincoln over Boss Tweed. I think I could vote for Barry Goldwater over Edwin Edwards, or Robert A. Taft over Huey Long.

[cstanleytech]

35. Now *this* ^^ is what is really "True".

There are some republicans I wouldnt mind voting for (fewer and fewer though every year since around 1992)and there are some Dems(or in Liebermans case former Dem) I probably wouldnt vote for.

[Mass]

4. Generally true.

Even the worse blue dog in the Senate and the House is better than any Republican.

It may come a time this will not be true, but not now.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

5. Let's see, Ben Nelson or --

Lincoln Chaffee (when he was still in office).

I know who I would have chosen in that election. A moderate GOPer vs. a conservative D is much better IMO.

[Mass]

8. I would have chosen Nelson, because Chafee would have voted for a Republican as majority leader.

Without a majority leader, you cant control the agenda.

And Chafee had as many votes I disagree with than Nelson. Just different ones.

[Jennicut]

11. The real issue though is that in Nebraska you can get a Ben Nelson for a Dem only, in RI you can get

a liberal Dem. The reality is what is palatable in certain areas of the country.

[Nancy Waterman]

27. Lincoln Chafee is no longer a Republican

He is now an independent. That kind of proves the point.

[GoCubsGo]

54. Exactly right.

Anyone with any sense of decency who was a republican at one time is no longer.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

67. See, I took the question to mean "current Republicans" and Chaffee left the Republican party.

[NJmaverick]

6. I am surprised at the number that answered "no"

it seems many have not been paying attention to what the GOP is doing and stands for.

[Mass]

7. The question is asked in order to provoke a high number of NOs

Can you imagine a case where you would vote for a GOP rather than a Dem. While it will not generally be the case (less than 1 per one thousand), there may be cases where I would (Democrat too corrupted, for example).

I decided to answer YES to the poll question because I dont like the premise of the question and that, in normal situations, there is no way I vote for a Republican, but the question is very biased (just as polls from the MSM).

[Cosmocat]

48. STUNNING ...

Just mindboggling ...

People have not been paying attention over the last 8 years ...

SERIOUSLY ...

[ColesCountyDem]

49. You are? Why?

I'm not-- it's the 'let the perfect be the enemy of good' segment here at DU.

[Sebastian Doyle]

57. And the reason that the GOP is able to do what they're doing

...is because there are enough FALSE "Democrats" in office to enable them.

Bitch McChinless and his 40 thieves in the Senate couldn't do jack shit without the help of Lieberdouche, the Nelson twins, Landrieu, Baucus, and the rest of the "wouldn't know a Democratic vote if it smacked them upside the head" crowd.

So while a "Democratic" candidate is rarely worse than a Repuke, that certainly does not make them better.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. I would take Abraham Lincoln over George Wallace

The poll might want to specify today, and running vs. each other in the same district.

Sticking with Lincolns, Lincoln Chaffe is better than Blanche Lincoln, but he's from Rhode Island and she's from Arkansas.

She is better than an Arkansas republican.

(I did not vote in the poll)

[SemiCharmedQuark]

68. Im guessing we're talking about the modern Republican Party which includes neither Lincoln

(Abraham or Chaffee)

[Autumn]

10. At one time I believed that was true,

but I don't anymore. A Democrat who votes with the Republican and values their ideas is absolutely no better than a Republican . I will never hold my nose to vote for a "Democrat" again.

[Ganja Ninja]

12. A Conservative's a Conservative as far as I'm concerned.

Any Democrat that goes around touting themselves as a fiscal conservative is not going to win points with me. The days of voting a straight Democratic ticket are over for me.

[jenmito]

16. Wow-so you really wouldn't care that McConnell and Boehner would be setting the agenda?

Because that's what would happen if enough Repubs. beat Conservadems. What's wrong with you? :banghead:

[Ganja Ninja]

47. I'm not voting for conservatives ever again.

As long as you keep voting for them the Democrats will keep running them. Do you like having only 2 choices, Conservative(R) & Conservative(D)? I've seen enough. As far as I'm concerned a Conservative Democrat is worse than a Conservative Republican. They blur the party lines. They water down the agenda. They get in the way of real liberals and I'm not convinced we need them. I think it's a myth that the Democratic party can't win without conservatives.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

51. You know what really gets in the way of the "real liberals"?

Not having any power. Which is exactly what happens when you allow Republicans anywhere to win.

[Ganja Ninja]

60. So your convinced that liberals will never ever win without conservatives and

I'm not. We're suppose to have power now and how has that worked out? Conservatives have been trying to brainwash people for years into believing we can't do it without them. As long as you keep believing that liberals will never be in power without conservatives then liberals will never really be in power.

And by the way, we're going to lose the next election because of the conservatives in the Democratic party. We're going to lose because people don't see us as viable alternative to the Republicans. They see us as more of the same. Now tell me again why we need conservatives in the Democratic party?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

65. Draw me a map for how we can win Senate seats in places like NE, IN, and LA with a "true liberal".

Either that, or show me how we reach a majority with only true liberals. By my count, we can only really rely on 18 states to send progressives, yielding 36 Senators. And by the way, 4 of those currently have a Republican or an Independent in those seats. Outside of that, we've got to somehow figure out how to make progressives more electable in at least 7 of these states where Obama took at least one EV in a wave election year: IN, NE, VA, NC, FL, OH, CO, NM, NV.

So, show me that road map. Until then, it's pretty self-evident why we need conservatives in the party. As for the "how has that worked out?" question, I'd toss it back to you and ask how 12 years of Republican rule worked out. Far and away worse than what we have now, without question. If you don't believe that, I'd really wonder why you're on DU.

[krawhitham]

13. 15 people should be fucking tombstoned

[jenmito]

14. 18 people now. Hey-they came right out and said it to me in the past. They'd

rather have a "pure liberal" minority that a "big-tent" majority.

[saracat]

26. The Big Tent is ridiculous if it allows us to have no principles.

If a Democratic Candidate can't support his or her party platform, they aren't democrats. if they can't support Civil Rights and Human Rights, even though they can get elected, and proceed to vote against those issues once elected, why do we either consider them Democrats, or think we have a genuine majority?

[jenmito]

30. No it's not. Being in the majority allows Dems. to set the agenda which would be

a heck of a lot different under Repubs. Even the worst Dem. has SOMETHING they can agree with the majority of Dems. on.

[saracat]

32. And even the best Dem usually has something they can agree with the GOP on.

Even if the agenda set is liberal and our majority won't support it, what have we accomplished? The something is better than nothing school of thought just hasn't been working. If we were an aggressive majority and accomplishing major goals, I would agree with you.But we aren't.

[jenmito]

34. You're not making sense. It makes a HUGE difference who gets to set the majority.

If you don't see that, I can't help you.

[saracat]

36. It doesn't if no one votes for it. Sheesh. I don't need any help thank you.

or if we set the agenda to please the opposition.

[jenmito]

44. Of course it does. Repubs. can bring up things for votes that the Dems. would never bring to

the floor and there may be just enough Conservadems to get a couple of those things through (the same Conservadems who'd vote for some DEM. bills. You DO need help since you think it doesn't matter.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. Are we tomb-stoning people for reading comprehension now?

The poll question is simultaneously absolute and vague so that there is no clear right answer.

Better how? (A better candidate? Brown was a better candidate than whats-her-name in Mass. Better morally? I'll take Lincoln over Wallace. etc.)

Any real candidate or any conceivable candidate?

Today or historically?

I didn't register a vote for that reason.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

52. It's pretty cut and dried.

You can play at making things far more complex than they actually are in a blatant effort to manipulate the ends to your liking, but really, at the end of the day, you're the only one buying it - I assure you that.

[MadBadger]

23. delete..wrong place

[IndianaGreen]

41. I am sure you learned that True and False questions having words such as 'all' or 'any'

or "always" are generally false statements.

[Ter]

56. Fail

I'm not voting for Zell Miller. He is actually so far to the right, most Republicans are to his left, including John McSame.

[freddie mertz]

59. I had to vote for Bill Weld against John Silber.

It happens, albeit very rarely.

You comment is idiotic.

[damntexdem]

15. False, some are just as bad.

And even if not, some are dangers in our midst, not enemies, like Rethugs, clearly seen as such by all.

[subterranean]

18. At the national level, yes.

However, I can envision situations at the local or state level where a Republican might be the better candidate. I think even those cases will become fewer as the Republicans move further to the extreme right and push moderates out of their party.

[saracat]

20. Do you think Ben Nelson is better than Susan Collins?At least Collins is pro choice. What redeeming

qualities does Nelson have? Other than helping up maitain a majority with which we don't do anything? I agree that with the majority we set the agenda and we can at least "hope" things would be better but with dems following a GOP like agenda and supporting them, is there a difference, except for a minor one? I didn't answer because I really am not sure.I know I will never vote for the GOP but I wonder if it is making a difference?

[KingFlorez]

21. Collins votes for anti-choice leaders

Nelson might not be pro-choice, but he votes for the Democratic leader. Harry Reid isn't pro-choice either, but he doesn't put anti-choice measures on the agenda. Collins is far less acceptable simply for that reason.

[saracat]

25. That is a good answer but how do we know who Collins votes for?

And does she have a choice if all of them are anti choice? We, OTOH, have a choice and nominate anti-choice leaders. i sdon't respect the Reid voters either, or Reid.So that might be a wash in a way.

[KingFlorez]

28. It's public knowledge who members support for majority leader

The Democratic leader doesn't put anti-choice legislation on the agenda, because most of the caucus wouldn't stand for it. A Republican as majority leader would place such items on the agenda. Seems to me if Collins was fully pro-choice, she would back the leader who wouldn't push anti-choice legislation.

[saracat]

33. But the point is, she doesn't have any GOP leaders who do.

Like many of our general voters, she is given the choice betten the lesser of two evils.

[KingFlorez]

22. In this age, that's true

The Republicans have become so radical, it's hard for any Democrat not to be a better choice.

[MadBadger]

24. Lincoln Chafee (when he was an R) vs Ben Nelson

[jenmito]

31. He wouldn't have kept Boehner and McConnell from setting the agenda. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

53. You get Chafee to win the Republican nomination in Nebraska first.

Then we can talk about that choice.

In the meantime, I'll take Nelson over the scum the Republicans actually nominate in that state, like Johanns, every day of the week.

[Nancy Waterman]

29. I would not have agreed years ago

In the days of Nelson Rockefeller, Mayor of NY John Lindsey, even Lincoln Chafee or Dwight Eisenhower. But today's Republican's are all shallow, narrow-minded ideologues with no sense of reality about how their policies affect the people. Any Democrat is better, even Ben Nelson.

[Fire1]

37. I don't know anymore. n/t

[Uzybone]

38. Wow. Is this still DU?

Freeped and Naderited to the core.

[DevonRex]

73. Absolutely true. nt

[Orsino]

39. Individually, some Dems might be worse than some Republicans...

...but no Dem can possibly be as bad as allowing the criminal Republican machine another seat.

[IndianaGreen]

40. False! Let's take the Indiana Senate race for example...

Thanks to Evan Bayh, who announced he was not running on the eve of the filing deadline for the May primary, it will be the party officials that will pick Bayh's successor rather than the Democratic primary voters. The odds-on favorite to get anointed by the party officials in Rep. Brad Ellsworth.

Rep. Ellsworth is a good fit for his Eight District. It is centered in Evansville, just across the Ohio River from rural Kentucky. A very conservative district. Like many people in his district, Ellsworth is opposed to abortion rights. Ellsworth supports repeal of Roe, and he voted for the Stupak Amendment. Ellsworth is also opposed to LGBT rights. Not only Ellsworth supports DOMA and DADT, but he also opposes marriage equality and extending employment protection to LGBTs. Ellsworth also opposes expanding hate crimes laws to protect LGBTs.

What happens when a conservative like Ellsworth runs for statewide office? He won't get any Republican votes. They will vote for their boy, whoever he turns out to be. He won't get the votes of pro-choice voters, and definitely not the votes of LGBTs.

The old mantra that "any Democratic candidate is better than any Republican candidate" was proven wrong during the last 13-months of appeasing Blue Dogs and conservadems to get HCR through Congress.

Politicians have to earn our votes, and they do that when they vote to defend our interests, not to carry water for corporations or for people against reproductive and LGBT rights.

On edit (because it is relevant to the point I am trying to make):

National Stonewall Democrats Petition to pick a pro-LGBT candidate to fill Evan Bayh's vacancy

From the National Stonewall Democrats website:

In the next few days, the central committee of the Indiana Democratic Party will select their nominee for United States Senate, filling the void left by retiring Senator Evan Bayh. ... The Indiana Democratic Party has the power to select a pro-equality nominee. And we have the power to convince them to do the right thing. Please sign the Stonewall Democrats petition to demand the central committee select a pro-equality nominee.

http://www.instonewalldems.org/2010/02/national-stonewall-democrats-petition-to-pick-a-pro-lgbt-candidate-to-fill-evan-bayhs-vacancy.html

Indiana Stonewall Democrats are currently seeking a meeting with Rep. Ellsworth to discuss LGBT community concerns about his views. So far, no luck!

[NorthCarolina]

42. Tough call. DLC New Dems and Blue Dogs

don't offer much discernible difference from Republicans, so I guess I would have to say False.

[hayu_lol]

43. Liberal Dems have been trying to weed out the Blue...

Dogs of the party for years now. Some further left fringe has repeatedly voted for the Blue Dogs. They have cheered about doing so.

Both Nelsons, Landrieu, Ford(TN-now running in NY)and the rest need to be permanently retired. Their records are abominable.

[warm regards]

45. False--for example: Specter vs. Snowe

[IndianaGreen]

46. Ed Brooke vs. Strom Thurmond

The OP presents us with an absolutist choice, which is clearly false by its very nature.

A few decades ago one would find this pairing: Massachusetts Republican Senator Ed Brooke versus South Carolina Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond. In the South, Democratic office holders were generally segregationists, while Republicans were not.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

70. Strom Thurmond is dead and before he died he became a Republican.

The OP is clearly talking about right now, not 10 years ago and certainly not 1948 when Thurmond left the Dems.

[IndianaGreen]

71. Thurmond did not leave the Dems in 1948

He ran on the Dixiecrat Party, but he remained a Democrat, and he enjoyed his cushy Senate chairmanship until Reagan came along and he decided to switch to GOP.

And I lived through Lester Maddox when he was governor in Georgia.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

75. He officially switched to Republican in 1964, 16 years before Reagan.

In 1948 he did split with the Dems to become the "State's Rights" Democratic nominee. But he officially didn't become a Republican until 1964

[chrisa]

50. I would vote for individual characteristics over party.

If a Republican were more Progressive and Liberal, and a Democrat was more like the Neo-Cons are today, I would vote for the Republican.

But that's almost never the case.

[Ter]

55. How about Zell Miller vs. Lincoln Chafee?

That'll make all of you vote false.

[freddie mertz]

58. Not always. Ever hear of the John Silber-Bill Weld race for Guv in Mass?

Silber was the Dem, a racist reactionary thug.

Had to vote for Weld to stop him.

[old mark]

61. Even a "bad Democrat" is better than any current republican. nt

[TexasObserver]

62. True

[Forkboy]

63. Hmmm....diarrhea or constipation......?

C'mon, Robb, this shit is silly. See Jack Rabbit's answer above.

[kjackson227]

64. I voted false because at least you know what you're gonna get from a Repugnant...

not sure with a Corporatist/Blue Dog Dem.

[Blue_In_AK]

66. There aren't too many honorable Republicans these days,

but I've known a few in the past. I'm thinking particularly of the late Jay Hammond, governor of Alaska from 1974 to 1982. I was more than happy to vote for him; he was a good man.

[4lbs]

69. The answer is TRUE, because even the Centrist/Blue-Dog Dems voted for the Stimulus Bill.

While nearly all the Republicans voted against it.

That's a prime example of why even a Centrist/Moderate/Blue-Dog Democrat is better than a Republican, in Congress.

Although the preference is to have a Progressive agenda as much as possible.

So, the preference should be:

1.) Progressive / Liberal Democrat

2.) Moderate / Centrist / Blue-Dog / DLC Democrat

3.) Independent

4.) Republican

[DevonRex]

74. Of course. But 67 members apparently think Republicans are great.

Nader must have 66 sock puppets I guess.