If we have no one else to vote for, what are we going to do?

[babsbunny]

I do not want Obama, and I don't want any Republican candidate. I am an old school Democrat. I thought if there was anyone in this world I could support it would be Mr. Obama. I can't anymore. So, now what?

[shraby]

1. At Obama's absolute worst, he is head and shoulders above

any other person who will run. Remember this..there is a lot of false information being fed to the voters about Obama. The lies are floated and by the time they are found to be untrue, the lie tends to stick..especially with low information voters.

[LooseWilly]

34. So you're implying that anyone who isn't comfortable supporting Obama is a low information voter?

Just to show us how high your information is... would you care to name some "false information being fed to the voters", and then demonstrate said information to be false?

[PBass]

37. Example: "Obama is the same as Bush"

for "false information being fed to the voters". Obama is better than any Republican alternative, by a country mile.

[JFN1]

78. No, he is not.

He is carrying out the same policies Bush did - rendition, torture, tax breaks for the wealthy, Patriot Act renewal, and more.

He throws a few watered down bones and spends the rest of the time on his knees before Republicans and calls it "bi-partisanship."

He is a connsumate liar, a tool of the corporate establishment, and the worst kind of shill.

He is in no meaningful and measureable way any better than any Republican operating today.

I know you really want him to be different, but he is not.

For every "Democratic values" act he has performed, I can list 10 you would expect from a Republican.

The OP asks a valid question - if we cannot trust and therefore support Obama, WFT do we do?

Because I need a MUCH better reason to vote a person into the fucking Presidency than, "At least he's better than a Republican" - especially when he demonstrably NOT.

[Vinee]

96. don't forget the Bush doctrine of preemptive military strikes.

It's gonna be shit sandwich versus giant douchebag again in 2012. hooray.

[LooseWilly]

83. *Fail*... You failed to follow the instructions and therefore your response gets a failing grade...

Did you not read the whole sentence? "... would you care to name some "false information being fed to the voters", and then demonstrate said information to be false?"

I don't see any demonstration of said information being false. I see prisoners still being held in Guantanamo, I see troops still in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see taxes still cut for the rich, I still see DADT and DOMA enforced, I still see Wall St. being bailed out/subsidized... —Pray tell, would you kindly effect the demonstration of "said information to be false"?

[JFN1]

90. Can't do it..

My mistake - you're righteous - apologies.

[LooseWilly]

92. Aye... assertions are easy... but the list of Obama achievements grows stale...

Because they're mostly bureaucratic... and despite the message I read in the tea leaves of the 2010 election results... DLC-esque advisors seem to have convinced the big O that even those half measures were somehow "too much"... leaving many poor apologists nothing to work with, apparently... else there'd be a real answer by now, no?

[LWolf]

53. That's beside the point.

The standard party-line campaign propaganda is tired, and ineffective in some quarters.

High information voters knew Obama was a neo-liberal, and therefore not a good candidate, long before his nomination in '08. Filter out the eloquent but vague, "inspiring" speeches, and what he presented was exactly what he is; a neo-liberal.

To call his words, actions, and policies as president "false information" is delusional.

[akbacchus_BC]

88. Give it a rest, Obama fooled the world and what did he accomplish?

[lib2DaBone]

2. Alan Grayson.. Bernie Sanders... Dennis Kucinich.....

[shraby]

5. None are really viable candidates even though their

rhetoric is on the right side of the equation.

[Codeine]

31. Loser, not a Dem, and a whackadoodle joke.

Not stellar line-up there, and none of them even remotely capable of winning a Presidential election.

[apocalypsehow]

51. Spot-on post. +1. n/t.

[emilyg]

36. +100

[Mira]

72. all those and more. n/t

[msongs]

3. shows how far right the so-called democratic party has gone nt

[ewagner]

4. Didn't FDR tell

the rank and file to "MAKE ME DO IT!"???

In other words, put the pressure on the congressional dems (not to mention making them the MAJORITY) to force the "New Deal".

Maybe we need to MAKE OBAMA DO IT!

(sort of like the sound of that...)

[elocs]

14. I don't buy that. I don't care if FDR said it, he's not a god.

Leaders LEAD! They don't require those who elected them to make them do it. What a lot of bullshit that is.

FDR was a politician and would certainly not blindly quote him like he is some kind of Biblical prophet. After all, he is the president who had Japanese Americans put into concentration camps.

[markpkessinger]

54. Well said! +1000

FDR was a great President who accomplished some wonderful things at a critical time in our history. But you are right -- he is not a god. He was also a flawed human being who made his own mistakes. In any case, he's been dead for 60 years, and the current president is no FDR!

[Poll_Blind]

21. For a while I actually believed this might be the case. It's not. It's bullshit.

I can't slight you for being at that point, though. It's midway on the path of believing the Lie and coming to the exceedingly grim realization that when it comes to Obama, "This is it."

PB

[LooseWilly]

39. You know how one *makes Obama do it*?

By making Obama believe that if he doesn't do it he won't get our votes.

You know how Obama can be made to believe that he won't get our votes?... when he and everyone else can tell that we're really not gonna give a vote unless he does it (whatever the hell "it" is).

I'm thinking of Weiner or Grayson... though a sizeable vote for Cthulu, for instance, would be really really really hard for the pundits to argue away as votes that Obama could've won by chasing even further after conservative "independents".

Can't "make 'em do it" overnight... and can't do it at all if you cave every time and vote for the watered-down-repub-lite Democrats that the party so often funds (and which Obama seems to be striving to be like, despite potentially not having needed the apparatus of the party for funding in the last cycle).

How many have the stones to face down the rightward lean of the D party even if it might mean a President Palin? In the mean time, quoting FDR is just a waste of breath that could've been better utilized snarling Fuck You Too at the world in general. :)

[Donnachaidh]

67. and didn't Obama's people start namecalling and telling us to STFU

When we TRIED to make him *do it* -- regarding singlepayer, and financial reform, and closing Guantanamo, etc., etc., ad nauseum?

Remember *f*cking retards* and *professional leftists*?

He is NO FDR. Even if there was a spine implant at some time in the future. :sarcasm:

[LooseWilly]

85. Didn't they indeed?

Maybe FDR would have us beat the snot out of all those who would defend Obama policies no matter how contrary they be to his campaign rhetoric?... and maybe Obama would have us do as FDR would've had us do?

Maybe Obama doesn't support his own supporters and loyalists. And maybe the toothfairy is a libertarian who has a thriving market for human teeth in never-never-land... and is making a killing buying the teeth for pennies and dimes and then selling them for a never-never-fortune.

Or... maybe Obama has no intention of being "made to do it"...

[aquart]

6. How do you feel about his Supreme Court appoinments?

Because that is what will make the most difference in our lives. WELL?

[Tesha]

49. His Supreme Court nominations are "OK". Not "*GREAT!*", just "OK".

They are probably to the right of the folks
they replaced (certainly Kagan is).

Tesha

[lib2DaBone]

7. Marcie Kaptor.. Pete Difazio.....there are plenty of good DEMS...

Say no to Blue Dogs...

[Poll_Blind]

17. DeFazio is da man!

PB

[Rex]

8. Pretty sad, ain't it?

Vote for someone you don't like or vote for someone you consider an imbecile (any GOPuker would work in this situation).

For me, I just cannot in good conscience vote for an imbecile.

And I cannot, not vote...so

Yep, the Dems always get my vote.

Funny now that I think about it.

Vote for a corporate suit or vote for a social/economic nightmare.

[Ozymanithrax]

9. Simple, we will look at the candidates and decide to vote for the best one.

I can't imagine the Republicans fielding a candidate who even comes close to Obama, even with all his bad points.

People either vote for whichiver candidate is marginally better, or they vote with their ass for the worst possible candidate by not voting.

[cali]

10. whatever. if you can't vote for Obama, don't

no need for melodrama.

[Wilms]

12. Melodrama?

"whatever."

[JoePhilly]

44. Definitiely melodrama.

Every few days (or less), its the same ... "I can't vote for Obama" OP, including some version of "I'm going off to the fainting couch".

That's Melodrama.

[Donnachaidh]

68. I knew I'd find a pot and a kettle somewhere on this thread.

:eyes:

[blogslut]

11. If you're waiting for the perfect candidate

...you're going to be waiting a long time.

[adigal]

13. I don't want him, either, but I need a sane Supreme Court

We all do...so I will vote for him this time and work like hell to get someone in better next time. I am getting too old to still have such crappy government. I am amazed it is getting worse and worse.

[xchrom]

15. It's an interesting question: neo-liberals and progressives

Cannot continue to co-exist for ever.

Their goals - policy wise - are not the same.

Nor should they be - something has to give.

[L0oniX]

16. The best liar with the most money will win. What's the point of voting anymore?

[elocs]

18. What are you going to do? Wow! How about vote?

Oh, I get it now. Your dilemma is that you have nobody for whom to vote who has a chance to win the election. Well that person will be either the Republican candidate or the Democratic candidate, who will likely be Obama. Such is life, but you can always vote by writing in a name.

[frazzled]

19. Go count the hairs on your head

That is what my mother used to tell me to do when I complained I was bored.

[Raine]

20. Voting

isn't manditory.

[Shagbark Hickory]

22. Unless you're in one of the swing states your vote is pointless anyhow.

IMHO.

[Tx4obama]

23. Obama 2012 all the way!

Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 Obama 2012 :) :) :)

[Scuba]

24. Dennis Kucinich... watch him here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFabLp-Jcbg

[JoePhilly]

46. Dennis thinks that UFOs will land any second, and even he in not crazy

enough to run against Obama.

[apocalypsehow]

52. "a connection to your heart...heard instructions in your mind"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSRWRbuMqyc

[BzaDem]

25. Ultimately, Nader-voters and stay-at-home voters in 2000 said the same thing. Most regretted it

later. It's one thing to say there's little or no difference between Gore and Bush -- it's another thing to actually see Bush in action and try to say that with a straight face.

[LooseWilly]

93. Well, Gods forbid we should get someone who'll extend Gitmo and start more wars...

better we should... ohh, wait.

Maybe there's no reason to feel bad in the slightest for having voted for Nader in '00...

[femmocrat]

26. I am just going to hold my nose and vote for democrats like I always do.

Look what happened in 2010 when democrats stayed home in droves.

[Pholus]

27. I probably will, but I will not guarantee it.

Sorry, I would like to see some efforts to earn my vote. I would have said what you do prior to several posters arrogantly telling me "you'll just come crawling back in 2012 so shut up." Got me thinking that I have no pull if I give away my vote so cheaply.

So, my choices are: accept being a marginal member of my party and accepting whatever scraps get tossed my way or let the greater evil show it's true colors for a while. Which one might do more good for the country in the long term?

I used to think I knew the answer but honestly I'm no longer completely sure.

[femmocrat]

30. There is a third alternative....

You could find a candidate you can support and work for that candidate.

Unfortunately, the "greater evil" has pretty much prevailed since reagan in 1980. I wish I knew how they continue to hold on to power when they are so detrimental for voters and the country. Too many "ignoramuses" also have the right to vote, I guess!

[BzaDem]

42. The greater of two evils will always win when the lesser of two evils is defeated. n/t

[markpkessinger]

58. Probably true, but....

...if we never risk bucking a system wherein we are constantly put in a position of voting for a "lesser of two evils," then there will never be any possibility of a third party gaining enough viability to mount a challenge to the status quo. I think it's worth throwing an election if it wakes up the Democrats and/or results in a viable third party alternative further down the line.

[BzaDem]

64. There won't be a possibility of a third party in the first place. No one could care less about

whether you vote. The only way to change the system is to change the Constitution.

[Pholus]

60. True. But I'm wondering if we NEED to let this infection run its course to truly heal.

This is a reply to the folks stating that no matter how unhappy I am about the way things have been going that I'm going to have to crawl back in 2012 and vote Dem because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate. As a "15%'er" I have been told alternately that my vote is not that important because "most Democrats highly approve of what's happening" while the losses in 2010 are my fault because while I voted but didn't have good feelings about doing so.

I want to thank you guys because you challenged me to really start thinking this through -- is it a good idea TO vote for the lesser of two evils right now? Perhaps the only sane thing to do is to not vote or to vote for the craziest teabaggers I can find. Switch my registration to GOP, do their primaries, and vote up every one of their crazies.

You're probably thinking this is counterintuitive but hear me out because it's your fault I even started thinking this through.

First off, it gives me NO pleasure to advance this idea. I've never been a fan of destroying the village to save it. But don't make a mistake about this: the right WANTS the village of status quo destroyed and replaced with a system whose rules they wrote. That's what "taking their country back" really seems to mean. Now we all are on this website because we believe that the Democrats have the plans that will actually move the country forward. But I am reaching the conclusion that we are NOT generally succeeding with the "incremental change" approach and I no longer believe that the "lesser evil" is necessarily the tack to make. Every compromised decision seems to move the goalposts right. "America is a center-right country" I'm told. Well they may think so and have been told so repeatedly, but they aren't. And even if they are, perhaps they deserve to discover exactly what that means. In any case, any progress we've been making is usually healthily cancelled by a even bigger regressive shifts.

And this is happening despite 8 years of Bush disasters, despite the economy inherited by the President that he turned around despite savage opposition, despite every fight and every compromise and every bitter last stand we've taken, win or lose. The average American still isn't getting what's wrong and things are simply getting worse.

"Pres Obama's a Mooslim, our policies are Socialist, regulation is bad, taxes are bad, unions are bad." It's endless and uncorrectable and demoralizing.

You know why? Because every policy, every compromise, everything we do in a bipartisan manner is run through a big money media operation that gives the righties the credit for what works and the lefties the blame for what doesn't. And we can't sort it out to anyone's satisfaction, because we're forced into hairsplitting debates about details. It's simply too easy to muddy the waters and point fingers.

The policies of the right will ruin us. It's obvious to me but it isn't to many of my friends and neighbors. But until the GOP successfully be forced to take ownership of them, warts and all, we are going to continue to lose and continue to slide.

I've usually been a strong advocate of our leaders making the arguments and calling bullshit on the national stage, but it isn't working and frankly for one reason or another they seem to be not that interested in doing it anyway. Perhaps they are too aware the media game is rigged against them, and their best personal strategy is to avoid sticking their necks out too far. But while that might keep them in office, it doesn't fix the problem or the country in the long term.

Wisconsin started me thinking that it took a naked GOP power grab for people to wake up and realize that what goes on a capitol can hit them really hard where they live and work. Now I wanted the President to get out in front on this issue and wear those shoes like he said he would and take worker's rights to the national stage, but it didn't happen. Lots of folks here made apologies for that by saying that he shouldn't get involved, that it would just complicate the issue and make it "about him." I disagreed but realize that perhaps I was wrong.

I observed something interesting happen: Wisconsin was the first issue in 20 years that actually made a large inroads in changing opinions among conservative people I personally know. Not a lot, but any change in attitudes these days is dramatic. And once the implications about the legislation and the legislators were made public, a lot of people suddenly didn't like what they were seeing.

So, my question is this: Many posters here have told me that I'll come crawling back in 2012 because the alternative is worse. But is it? Sure it would suck for a few years, but if the righties are forced to come right out and try to get their agendas out there, with the teabaggers loudly yelling at their backs to "jump" perhaps that would be the shock required to get people to wake up and reject the whole package.

[BzaDem]

65. The problem is that you THINK making things worse will change the system, but in reality it won't.

This is pure cognitive dissonance. You are confusing hope with actual reality. This is approximately your logic:

1. By golly, there must be SOME way to achieve what I want.
2. I don't know how -- I've ruled out every possibility by voting in the more progressive direction.
3. So let's try going in the opposite direction. By 1, this must work, since all other options have been ruled out.

But your problem is that assumption 1 is actually false. Just because you want something does not mean it is ever going to happen, or that there is actually any way of getting it. In reality, when things get worse, the public will eventually switch back to a moderate Democrat (as you would define the term), and the cycle will continue. They aren't going to switch a candidate you approve of. That simply isn't going to happen, for the remainder of your life.

So the actual choice is the lesser or the greater of (what you would consider) two evils. There is no third choice, and therefore, there is no method of getting a third choice. Anything you do other than helping the lesser will enable the greater, in the short and long term. There's nothing else to it.

[Pholus]

66. Wow, you nailed it! But not the way you thought you did. Thank you!

I was all like "how does cognitive dissonance have anything to do with this," but you actually are more right than you seemed.

See, the cognitive dissonance is that I expected the national level of politicians to support the ideals they advertised during the campaign season. So the version of cognitive dissonance I seem to have is BUYER'S REMORSE. Unlike the end of the world cultists studied by Festinger, when I see evidence running counter to what my idealization of the situation I am not doubling down by buying even more strongly into the my own hype. So I think you'll have to psychoanalyse me a bit more thoroughly here.

Now I'm pretty pro-labor. It's the way I was raised. And remember that I talked about Wisconsin. What REALLY REALLY disappointed me is that President specifically STAYED AWAY from that issue, despite lots of encouraging promises back in 2007. I voted for the guy who said he'd stand up with labor, yet when it came time for the rubber to meet the road he was absent without leave. The most we got from him was that it "seemed like" an assault on labor. Really? Dissolution of collective bargaining "seemed like" an assault? I guess that's kind of like saying that a knife through the chest SEEMS like something might be trying to convey an unfriendly message. But I've already tried to think through his reasons, and I come up with that it was a fight he didn't think would get him reelected or that would lose influence with the people truly in charge through money and influence. It's also possible that he's just slammed with other problems. I'm not harshing on him and those are probably valid reasons when you're privy to all the details of the high-powered world of the villagers, but pardon my disappointment and general lack of enthusiasm as a result. Some rhetorical bones tossed my way would have done wonders here.

So everything that happened in Wisconsin happened without help from the national party. The other side, however, managed to get out their support. I saw Gov. Walker on nearly every Sunday talk show every week. Few high profile Dems contradicted him. So please explain exactly what would the greater of two evils have looked like there? Really, I'm asking you to please share with me. What I saw is that without a check on them, the right's power overreaching turned off a lot of GOP supporters. Perhaps that would work on larger scales. So I disagree with your logic trap from it's first premise. What I *am* saying is that I have reason to not let you trap me with the lesser of two evils argument because there is some evidence that letting the greater of two evils play for a while snaps people out of their "boiling frog phenomenon" They don't write off small losses incrementally because something radical happens and they are forced out of their malaise.

Now the version of cognitive dissonance YOU seem to be displaying is rationalization. Many replies to my prior posts are starting to make sense. This started back with TSA and airline screening. Something I didn't think had boo to do with the president had MANY MANY posters here trying to anxiously trying to squash my opinion because they felt it might reflect poorly on the president. I didn't like the nude-o-scopes and I was a GOP stooge, a mole a plant. It seemed strange since I thought the president and the TSA were not directly dependent and that we were looking at a continuation of Bush policies that was easily changed from the top. But it makes perfect sense if these posters actually believed very very strongly that they had voted for the right person and were anxiously trying to squash any hints that they were seeing a bit of conflict between actions and ideals.

Thank you! I think this line of reasoning was illuminating. :)


Edit: By way of furthering this. McCarthy was not stopped by his colleagues on either side of the aisle. He was stopped when he looked to have a blank check and he started being more honest about what he really wanted. At that point people had to face directly what they were standing for if they stood behind him. And an endemic, toxic situation changed overnight.

[BzaDem]

75. You are kind of missing the point.

Of course a radical shift in one direction will wake people up. Duh. The question is, what is the result of that?

I would say that the result would be a shift leftward, from Walker. (Or Bush, etc). But that does NOT imply a shift leftward from a candidate like Obama. THAT is the bogus assumption that people are making. If Palin was elected, the following President would be to the left of Pain. But the idea that they would be to the left of Obama is ridiculous.

And on top of that, replacing Walker in a recall won't even repeal the union bill. Doing that would require reducing the 22 vote margin in the assembly to -1. That likely won't happen until 2014 at earliest.

So your "waking up" process had resulted in worse law for years, and the benefit was nothing that wouldn't have been achieved by electing a Democrat in the first place.

Now at the federal level, the stakes are much higher. How long do you think it would take to reverse another Republican to the Supreme Court? Hmmm?

[Pholus]

76. I am very familiar with your arguments. I have made your arguments in the past. However,

my point is that my vote will NOT necessarily be freely given this time. I can only assume that the Babington's article on the AP about "firing up the base" comes from a careful study of internal polling showing that all the bipartisanship is not bringing independent voters in sufficient numbers to make the extremely liberal base truly irrelevant in 2012.

In fact, here is the money quote from the article that underscores why my vote CANNOT be a given:

"One answer, the president said, is to persuade hardcore liberals to swallow their anger over political compromises the administration reached with Republicans, even when Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress."

The "lesser of two evils" argument is likewise unapologetic. But the problem is that I see myself as a supporter of Democrat ideals first and a supporter of President Obama second. My second answer for him might be that he try to uphold some core Democratic ideals in the near future. Then no swallowing would be needed.

Finally, unlike the last election, I am well aware from recent experience that come Nov 5, should the President win re-election, our concerns will once again become irrelevant. So it seems like we'd better drive a deal while we can.

Good night! :)

[BzaDem]

77. Just keep in mind that this type of hostage taking tends to rebound much more on the hostage takers

than it does on people like Obama, or the national Democrats.

You're basically saying, "do it my way, or the country gets it." (Even though the best definition of "your way" is what isn't actually possible.) You say this unapologetically -- you are fully aware that your method could in theory change the Supreme Court (and by extension the laws that future progressive majorities are even allowed to pass) for 25 years or longer.

But rather than backing off, you attempt to use this to your advantage. (Even though nothing Obama could accomplish would please you, since anything Obama does like DADT or Medicaid expansion or the biggest reregulation of Wall Street since FDR, is BY DEFINITION inadequate, since it is something that Obama did.)

But such a no-holds-barred, consequences-for-generations-be-damned attitude only has a prayer of working if the other side actually cares about your threats. But they don't. If you succeed in making our country more conservative for the next generation (until a Roberts retires under a Democratic President), that really doesn't affect politicians very much. They'll just get a private sector job that pays orders of magnitude more than they ever got paid working for the government. If in the end, you told them you "punished them" by knocking them out of office, they would just laugh in your face.

So in reality, the ones who are affected by this hostage taking are the hostage takers. Not those who they are trying to change. Perhaps the end of Roe v Wade wouldn't be enough to make this clear -- perhaps it will take something that would more unambiguously wake you up (such as wiping out most help to the poor, instituting a flat tax, a Supreme Court decision foreclosing most progressive economic policy, etc). But eventually, the wake-up moment for you will come.

As I mentioned above, even after your wake-up moment, the country won't be any better off than we would have been without the Republican president in the first place (just as Wisconsin won't be better off than they would have been if Walker was never elected). In fact, it (and you) will be much worse off, since changing the Supreme Court would require decades. The only question is how much damage you inflict on yourself and your own values prior to the wake-up moment. As I said, there is very little (if any) damage inflicted upon those you are trying to punish, since they are sufficiently wealthy that they would be mosty insulated from much more conservative policies that your strategy would result in.

[Pholus]

94. I need to finish this thread up.

It has occurred to me that my feelings for the President far less negative than my feelings towards those who demand 100% fealty to all he does and says. We talk about this schism on DU but honestly a lot of it in my personal experience comes from noticing that things aren't perfect and then having a handful of fanatical boosters flood some comments about how "you hard lefties are irrelevant" and "the alternative is worse" and "if we lose it will be your fault." People who *presume* that I have no choice but to enjoy getting slammed rhetorically by my candidate even as he kisses corporate and GOP butt to score some cheap points for "bipartisanship" which seems like a string of losses and moves rightward to me.

I think this thread has been where I have decided that I do have a choice. I'm still a Democrat, but that's for the ideals, not the person. Let's hope that "firing up the base" means that they realize that a little red meat has to come our way.

To me, the president is probably an 85% guy. He's done a *lot* of good things and played a very difficult hand. On the other hand he's missed major opportunities to stay true to Democratic ideals as *I* see them. Left alone, I'd probably say that while I'm hardly enthused I'd vote for him again. But when I run into the "you'll come crawling back because there is no alternative" crowd, it does really get me thinking that my support *has* been taken for granted.

So I guess that my conclusion is that there is no merit in arguing why I *have no choice* but to support the President in 2012. That's my decision. On the other hand, it's his supporters' jobs to figure out what will make me break the right way:

big hints:

1) It isn't hard to do.
2) scolding, cajoling and badgering won't work but will instead do the opposite.

Thank you for this exchange, it was very useful to me and I enjoyed it.

[Raine]

38. I feel the same way

I'm sick of my vote going so cheap, if the Democrats want it they are going to have to earn it. If I bought an advertised product that promised certain things and then didn't perform ... I would never buy that product again!

[hobbit709]

28. I may need to bring a barf bag.

[WillyT]

33. Me Too... Probably...

If I can find enough clothes pins...

[polichick]

29. As long as he's the lesser of all evils, I'll vote for him...

But imo this is the perfect moment for a populist candidate to step forward.

[proud2BlibKansan]

32. I live in a red state that has voted for the repuke every election since 1968

So my vote doesn't count anyway.

[oldlib]

35. Obama will win easily

because at this time the GOOP doesn't have anyone who can beat him. The way the GOOP could win is if they ran a reasonable black candidate, such as the former RNC chairman.

[jtuck004]

40. You are going to hang out in the wilderness with other like-minded individuals

until you folks join up and make it possible for a suitable candidate to run. The wilderness referred to here...

These candidates work for you, and if you are of the opinion that they are not answering your demands or that they are all rotten,
then what choice do you have?

Tune in, turn on, drop out.

[NorthCarolina]

41. I feel the same way you do. I would say maybe we can start a write-in campaign

but I'm not sure that all States have the capability for write-in votes on the EVM's they use. Elections in America are little more than show anyway. You can only vote for candidates that have been "approved" by TPTB, and the media successfully deals with any legitimate candidates that might try to run a campaign. Basically, we're all fucked.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[MineralMan]

45. Then don't vote for President. Vote for your state representatives,

your congress member, and your senator, if there's an election for that. Just make sure to go to the polls.

[anarch]

47. vote for Obama, probably

[hulka38]

48. Keep it simple.

Just vote for people who you feel have earned your vote. For the new candidates, vote for the ones who sound genuine and hope their actions in office match their campaign rhetoric. I wouldn't worry about Obama. His well earned corporate sponsored war chest will more than make up for your heart felt, principled decision.

[MoonRiver]

50. Rumor has it that the Rethugs will take over the Senate in 2012.

They will probably maintain control of the House. Do you want them to have total control over this country by allowing their presidential candidate to win? I don't like a lot what Obama is doing, and wasn't for him in the primary, but we have to look at the big picture. Social Security and Medicare are on the line big time. I don't really know if Obama will stand up for these programs but I definitely know that an all Pug federal government won't.

[hulka38]

56. We may be better off defending SS from a

massive, outraged grass-roots level than following a non-leader and telling ourselves we're being represented. The GOP will be more transparent about undermining SS.

[paulk]

55. you vote for the Democrat

because of the appointments, like supreme Court, heads of other agencies, etc.

There's bound to be some wheat with the chaff...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone,

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

"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.

[leeroysphitz]

59. now you vote your real conscience.

[AndyTiedye]

61. Please Reconsider

If we can't give Obama another landslide then Huckabee will be President!
We can't afford to lose. We can't afford for it to be close (because then they will steal it again, and we lose).

[Synicus Maximus]

62. we are going to vote for Obama

[UrbScotty]

63. Someone WILL BE ELECTED to EVERY office on the ballot. If a race is contested, VOTE.

Someone WILL be President from 2013 to 2017. If it's not Obama, then who will it be? Bachmann? Pawlenty? Newt?

Down the ballot, if you get to choose a great candidate (or from among a number of great candidates), great!

But if you have to choose between the lesser of two evils, so be it. Choose the lesser.

Because one of them is getting into office.

[Godhumor]

69. Why "we"? Can't you just say "I"? I mean, I, for one, will gladly vote for Obama, as I think he's

been very good at the job.

[livetohike]

70. "Old school democrat" ?? Really. Admitting you aren't going

to vote for the current Democratic President who will be the 2012 Democratic nominee. Hardly "old school". "Old school" Democrats vote Democratic.

[NYC Liberal]

71. Who is "we"? Many of us here (including "old school Democrats") want Obama reelected

and will gladly vote for him.

[Iggo]

73. In the General Election, vote for the Democrat, not the Republican.

Then get to work on 2016.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

74. Until the Democrats as a party are forced to face --

the consequences of being DLC/GOP lite, they will continue to move further from modern Democratic values and continue to give us corporate candidates like O who do nothing but continue/expand bad policies.

At some point, we must face the fact that the lesser of two evils is still evil.

I've faced it and will fund/vote accordingly in 2012.

[grahamhgreen]

79. Doesn't matter, the power brokers he thinks are his freinds will not allow him a 2nd term.

[Ramulux]

80. Vote 3rd party

Its the only way the democrats will learn.

[krawhitham]

81. An old school Democrat would vote for the Democrat

period

[FrenchieCat]

82. Now, put your head between your legs, and kiss your ass goodbye.....

and the rest of ours too, as you will be part of the problem,
without anything close to a solution.

Sorry it ain't all perfect the way you wished it.
If only we could all snap our fingers,
and just make it be so, wouldn't that be lovely?

Till then.

[Hawkowl]

84. We will get President Walker

Or someone just like him. Then and only then will people wake the fuck up. So it is going to get worse before it gets better. I will not vote for Obama again. I despise him more than I despised Bush because Bush made no bones about being my enemy. Obama takes perverse pleasure in repeatedly stabbing the left in the back while kow towing to the right.

[akbacchus_BC]

86. Vote for Hillary, she would have done much better! Assuming she is running!

She should though! She is light years ahead of Obama! What a disappointment!

[opihimoimoi]

87. Never Vote RED...see what happened to Ohio, Wisconsin, Minn, Maine, Texas etc

The GOPers want to Dominate but fail the Leadership Test...their trend is to enrich their already rich friends off our backs...

[akbacchus_BC]

89. Did Obama do any better? Spare the rich and tax the poor! Wake up!

[opihimoimoi]

91. Of course he did better....

[eridani]

95. How about doing what people on the left should have been doing since the 70s?

Namely, putting progressive candidates into the pipeline by supporting their runs for local offices.