How long can we keep going with this "lesser of two evils" philosophy?

[white_wolf]

People say we should vote for the lesser of two evils and to that I have one question. Why? If the candidate is still an evil, what benefit is there in supporting him or her? If the candidates we vote for will just cave on important issues than does it matter if we have every house in Congress with super majorities and the WH? No, it does not. We need a strong left presence in Washington, not these conservative-lites who are only lite, because the more right wing group have became neo-fascists. The only way to save this country is by a radical turn to the Left.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Let me see if I follow....

You are on the one hand equating Dems to Republicons....

But on the other hand, somehow, Dems had a SUPER MAJORITY?

So which is it? Did we really have a SUPER MAJORITY....?
or is that how we want to look at it now as a reason to
throw rocks at the only folks standing between Our asses,
and the Republicon/Corporation's giant torch ready to light
Our asses on fire.

[bowens43]

6. you think there are Dems standing between

our asses and the Republicon/Corporation's giant torch ready to light
Our asses on fire?

Have you been living in a cave the last few years?

[white_wolf]

8. The Democrats had a super majority and that is my point

there was a democratic super majority for a time and they failed to create any meaningful change. They caved on single-payer for one thing, and gave us a Republican plan.

[leftstreet]

9. But they didn't have a Super Duper Majority

They needed 155%

:o

[defendandprotect]

45. Really ... and how is it the Repugs are running the country now ... do they have Super Majority?

[dionysus]

10. they never had a "super majority". they had 60, including lieberman and 6 or so blue dogs.

lieberman and 6 and most of the blue dogs were ready to join the repukes in a fillibuster for just a public option.

"They caved on single-payer" no... according to bernie sanders, there were 5 or so votes for single payer in the senate. there was never enough support for single payer. not enough to get it out of committee (sp)

you might have confused single payer with a public option.

now you can skip over congress and blame the president for republican fillibusters and blue dog posturing, but it doesn't change the facts at all.

[MannyGoldstein]

16. The Republicans never had a super majority

But they got anything they wanted, because the Dems were keeping their powder dry or whatever was the wretched excuse at that time.

[eomer]

52. They could have done a lot more with the budget reconciliation process.

They needed only 50 votes plus the Vice President in the Senate when they used the budget reconciliation process. That is ultimately how the health insurance reform bill got passed.

They could have done a public option that way.

They could have increased taxes on the wealthy that way.

Etc.

[Horse with no Name]

70. You know why we never had a super-majority??

Because we keep electing the worse of two evils instead of INSISTING on an actual Democrat.

[bowens43]

2. I was a vote for the 'lesser of two evils' person..

but no more, Obama has been the biggest political disappointment I have had in the 34 years I have been voting.
I'm not going to do it anymore. If he doesn't do a major turn around, he will not get my vote in 2012. He's already lost support.

[emilyg]

41. You speak for me.

[Raine]

46. Me too

I done with that. I'll sit it out, my vote has to be earned.

[joentokyo]

92. Don't sit it out; write it in. Write in a real candidate.

[Frances]

3. You know I heard that same argument when

Ronald Reagan ran for governor of California. I met some young people who refused to vote for Reagan because they didn't think Pat Brown was pure enough.

The rest is history.

[Le Taz Hot]

88. Ahem.

Ronald Reagan won in 1966 the exact same way that Ahnie won in 2004 -- he was a movie star and people wanted a movie star in the governor chair. If you met "some young people" who thought Brown was not "pure enough" it's because he was a good little party boy who continued to support the Viet Nam war (the official position of the Democratic Party). After all, it wasn't HIS kid that was going to do any time in 'Nam. THAT is the real history.

[Bluenorthwest]

91. They were right to refuse to vote for Reagan....

Are you saying they should have voted for him? He was a vicious Republican, you know. So those young people who refused to vote for Reagan were right to refuse that vote.

[dionysus]

4. the campaign against the democrats slogs on...

[Exilednight]

89. I think you mean the campaign FOR the Democrats. We're campaigning against DINOs. But now that

that I think about it, Dino was a good little dinosaur who did what he was told by his dumb master.

[Zen Democrat]

5. We're in a post-lesser of two evils world now. We know who the evil is.

[LynneSin]

7. So you assume that's how all us democrats vote

Please don't speak for all of us. I appreciate that's how you feel and I suspect many others feel too. But not all of us feel like that, hell I don't know any democrats who aren't DUers who feel that way.

[Skittles]

19. alas LynneSin, I know plenty

[LynneSin]

50. But isn't that the beauty of this party

I want people to have opinions. What I don't want is some blanket statement that 'we believe this' or 'we believe that'.

Perhaps why most democrats I know support Obama/Biden is the fact I'm in a state with a different attitude about politics. Delaware has been a blue haven and it seems in 2010 we've even gotten more progressive. In general the democrats have alot to be happy about here. But I know that isn't the way it is everywhere, we have alot of battles to fight. And I respect the various opinions and attitudes, thing is I don't want someone making a blanket statement about me but that's what I see alot of here at DU.

[Skittles]

62. it's not good when hard-core Dems like me are completely disillusioned

not good at ALL

[white_wolf]

63. The Democratic party needs to take a sharp left turn to save it.

[Skittles]

109. fuck at this point I'd take ANY kind of left turn

:(

[Exilednight]

90. No. Opinions are one thing, and everyone is entitled to them, but when you

go against the will of those that voted you into office based on a platform, then you took a wrong turn and it leads down a road of non-action.

[LynneSin]

101. See, that's where you are wrong

I was never stupid enough to elect someone that was going to fulfill every wish me and my friends wanted. We were electing a president not a fairy godmother. And despite what Bush did for 8 years, I still truly believe that the president is suppose to represent the entire country, not just one party or one group of people.

The second thing is this, I was never stupid enough to elect someone that was going to solve everything in the first 4 years of his term. Hell Clinton never really got his grove going until around 96 or 97. Fixing this country is like losing weight - we didn't get there overnight and it's not going to be solved overnight.

One thing I learned about DU and online political reality is this - reality sometimes appears larger in mirror. I was foolish enough to believe that Howard Dean was going to be the next president of the United States. Why? Simple because he had become this internet sensation and every online poll I read, every forum I went to made me think this guy was it. Reality dawned on me that we're just a very small segment of the overall population of this world - not everyone is addicted to online politics.

I still enjoy posting here online but I keep my feet firmly planted in reality by working with local groups here in my state. The people I work with are a bit like me - We've seen the many successes that Obama has had but kinda wish he would follow thru on a few more. But to think to throw our support for another candidate so quickly after the first term thinking another candidate might do it better seems a bit foolish. There's alot of political bullshit that goes with the office of Presidency and it's easy for us to all play armchair QB with the office but it's not reality.

I think Obama has a good start with the Healthcare overall but even I believe that's just phase 1. Although I was annoyed how he went about DADT I respected the fact that he wanted to sign the bill, not let it be a judicial matter, but then he made it up to us by going against DOMA and said they would no longer fight for it. The Wars, they're just a damn mess and although he's winding down Iraq, I just wish he'd speed them up a bit further. It's easy for us to say "just pull the troops out" but the last thing we want is the same tyrants taking over the country again especially in Afghanistan.

I respect the fact that some folks will support another candidate for the primaries but I do hope that whomever wins that primary all of us, that includes me, will support the ultimate democratic candidate. That's why I've been at DU as long as I have been because I know this is a place that supports the candidates

[Exilednight]

102. See, that's where you're wrong.

No one was expecting Obama to fulfill every wish, but we expected him to push for the big reforms that he campaigned on. He doesn't have to win every fight, but he has to at least put up a fight.

Saying that he has to represent everyone in the country is fine, but it's a cop-out when it's used as an excuse as to why he hasn't been able to push reforms that he campaigned on. He was elected on a platform. Take HCR as an example. If he had pushed for a single payer system, then I wouldn't be so upset if he failed because it is something he did not campaign on. But when he failed to push forward with the PO, then he better expect to take a lot of heat, and worst off, he didn't even put up a fight for it.

I find the HCR that has been passed is a setback to the liberal/progressive cause. Part of what has been done now has to be undone in order to push for a single payer system. Case in point, drug companies received great protections in order to sign on to the HCR bill. Those protections need to be undone in order to move ahead with importing cheaper drugs from countries like Canada. If history has taught us anything about drug companies, it's that they will dump hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns against giving up those protections.

[drm604]

11. In the real world nearly every vote you'll ever make will be for the lesser of two evils.

In fact, I would venture to say that the majority of choices in life are between imperfect things. Sorry, but that's reality.

If you insist on purity in political candidates you will never be satisfied.

If thoughtful people withhold their vote because they refuse to vote for "the lesser of two evils" then we'll end up living under a government chosen by the thoughtless.

[white_wolf]

12. I understand that, but it just seems to me that the differences between the two

parties are fading. I don't think anyone can deny that the Democrats have taken a sharp right turn since the 80s.

[drm604]

31. Oh, I understand that but refusing to vote only makes it worse.

What we have to do is take over the party. And that has to start at the local level. It takes years but it has to be done.

[white_wolf]

35. You do make a good point.

The T-baggers didn't start with Congress, they started at the local level and eventually drove the Eisenhower style Republican out and forced them to take refuge in the democratic party. A brilliant strategy I must say, they took both parties to the Right.

[HughBeaumont]

77. Except the TeaBaggers didn't so much do that; it was the corporations and their money.

Your voting choices are now "Republican with a slightly less Puritanical social agenda", "Old Testament Rubber Room Corporate-endorsed shitbag" and "Wasted Vote" thanks to this slow-but-effective purchase of both party's economic interests. The menu in America hasn't been worth eating since the 80s.

Teabaggers are a fringe gas-passing of bastard useful idiots that will fade into disgrace with each stupid action one of their ilk performs. The Kochs and their agenda are the ones bringing out the worst element into our governor's offices and we're all paying the price for voter stupidity.

[Le Taz Hot]

93. Thank you!

The Tea Party is NOT a grass-roots movement and never was. One must ask oneself why are they getting so much publicity? The MSM has spent SO much time on them -- GREATLY exaggerating their influence while virtually ignoring the REAL grassroots movement that has begun with Wisconsin and the unions. Why is that? Could it possibly be that the same corporate interests that started the Tea Party movement are the same ones who own the media?

And I could never understand that "wasted vote" thing. It's absurd. My vote is my vote. If I cast it for the candidate who most closely shares my concerns, how is my vote wasted? Now, if I vote for a candidate because they have the correct letter next to their name, even if that candidate shares maybe only 10% of my views, ignoring the candidate that shares my 90% of my views, THAT is a wasted vote.

[Exilednight]

94. Their's a fallacy in believing that it has to start at the local level. No one pays attention

to local politics. In my office, we have just under 30 employees, less than 5 could tell me who our Congressman is, no one could tell me who our mayor is, and about 8 people could tell me who one of our two Senators are (only our CFO knew who both were). More people could tell me that Karl Rove was Bush's political adviser compared to Joe Biden being Obama's Vice President.

People care what goes on around them, but they don't care about the faces or party affiliation at the local level.

The problem of starting with the bottom up theory, is that when people come together they end up with conflicting agendas. That isn't to say that they don't support each others agendas, but they have agree on prioritization and no one wants to be felt like they are taking a back seat.

The other problem is that we already have plenty of grassroots organizations, but what they lack is a cohesive strategy. DailyKos, MoveOn, DemocracyNow, TPM, FDL, and slews of other grassroots organizations and groups, but no one has bothered to harness their collective power.

[muriel_volestrangler]

81. The Democratic Party doesn't look to have been very left wing in the 1970s

After the 1976 elections, the Democrats held the presidency, the House (292 v. 143 seats) and the Senate (61 v. 38, with 1 independent who seems to have been a conservative Democrat). So they could have passed what they wanted. Did they get any form of national health service, single payer, or public option through? No. In what way was the 1976 Democratic Party so much more left wing that the 2008 one?

[Telly Savalas]

83. Then identify specific individuals who represent a material improvment

and get them elected.

We're coming up on 435 Congressional races and 33 Senate races, yet there's virtual silence at DU regarding the names of people worth backing in these.

[defendandprotect]

47. This isn't any "real" world -- it's the creation of the right wing -- assassinations --

stolen elections -- lies --

A Hollywood soudstage of fake scenery -- from Christian Coalition to T-Baggers!!

All bought with rw $$ --



Including the Democratic Party -- !!

The Rightwing Koch Bros. Funded the DLC --

http://www.democrats.com/node/7789

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x498414

If you knew this, why didn't you tell us?

If you didn't know -- pass it along!!

:)

[Duppers]

49. My thoughts exactly,

some of which I expressed in a recent email.

[MannyGoldstein]

13. But it's worked so well for 18 years - why rock the boat now?

We are at peace.
Our economy is thriving.
Our middle class is vibrant.

[Motown_Johnny]

14. because consistently choosing the lesser evil is the path to good

and why isn't that painfully obvious?

[white_wolf]

17. It clearly isn't obvious or else we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

15. If Obama is still evil, what benefit is there in supporting him?

Paraphrase.

"The only way to save this country is by a radical turn to the Left. "

The only way to save this country is to stop promoting false equivalences: Gore = Bush (still bullshit more than a decade later).

[white_wolf]

18. "The only way to save this country is by a radical turn to the Left. "

Do you disagree with that statement?

[ProSense]

21. It depends

What do you mean by "radical"?

"Radical" as in Internet fantasy (believing that the next Congress is going to be all progressive) or "radical" as in (fill in your proposal)?

[MannyGoldstein]

28. Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles are the only two people who can save this country

Which is why Obama appointed them to get the national debt under control - which we now know is the single most important thing America must do.

So, Prosense, I expect that you agree that the plan their commission approved should be implemented forthwith, yes?

[ProSense]

32. No,

only in make believe.

[MannyGoldstein]

34. So... you're thinking that they weren't the two best people to save America?

Or that the commission's recommended plan is not the way to go?

Or is there something else I'm not grasping?

[MannyGoldstein]

20. "The only way to save this country is to stop promoting false equivalences"

Huh? That makes no sense.

[ProSense]

23. "That makes no sense."

So Gore = Bush?

[MannyGoldstein]

26. That reading of my response makes no sense, either.

I know that you know better than that.

[ProSense]

27. It makes perfect sense

primarily because your response made no damn sense.

[MannyGoldstein]

30. I hope that you've been drinking

Because then you have a shot at critical thinking by tomorrow AM.

[ProSense]

33. Funny,

that was the impression left here. "Drinking?

[rhett o rick]

38. It's time for you to choose sides. Seems you choose the side of the oligarchs.

Too bad.

[rhett o rick]

37. Of course not. What a stupid question. The point is that your "lesser of two evils" is what got us

where we are today, in the shits. YOUR lesser of evils is a race to the bottom. You compromise with the devil and people literally die. How long can this go on? Apparently you arent affected. I am assuming you are in the upper class not to be affected. I see families living in tents in friends back yards and you want us to compromise with the terrorist Republicans. You want us to be happy with the little tid bits the oligarchs leave us. No thanks, it is time to stand up for what is right and fight back.

[mmonk]

22. It's kind of a self defense mechanism

It has brought us into a system with no more pendulum swings. I agree we need a vibrant left. It's up to us somehow.

[Cascadian]

24. "You're either with us or for with the Republicans"

This is another mantra we can all look forward to come 2012. "Vote third party and you waste your vote." That's another you all will hear. What ever happened to voting for principles and what you believe in?




John

(The Cascadian is back!)

[Hugabear]

25. I'm sorry, but this is bullshit

Can you honestly look at the rethugs and tell me there's no difference between the Democratic party and them? Look at the likes of Scott Walker, Rick Scott, Jan Brewer, Glenn Beck, Dick Cheney, etc and tell me there's no difference. Look at how the rethugs are trying to break the unions and privatize Medicare and Social Security. Look at the recent fight over health care reform. Tell me there's no difference between the two parties.

Yes, there are a number of "moderate" Democrats, very corporate-friendly, and prone to working with rethugs. Just like there are a number or "moderate" rethugs. You don't think there are teabagger types out there who feel the same way about their own party? The teabaggers don't represent the "extreme" element of the GOP, they represent the core platform 'values' of the GOP - they're just more open about it than many rethugs are.

[Cascadian]

29. We the people, need to purge these people out of the Democratic Party

Get's get rid of these corporate lackeys! Why do we have to keep holding on them? We don't need it!




John

(The Cascadian is back!)

[Hugabear]

36. I can't really argue with you about that

However, I have to disagree with the meme that there isn't any real difference between the two parties.

Consider how much damage the repugs could do if someone like Bachmann, Palin, or Trump became president, and if they ever got a super-majority in Congress.

I know it's not always a pleasant thing to vote based on fear of "what if", but we're talking about very real consequences that could last for years.

[TheKentuckian]

40. The issue is the difference is also unacceptable. The ability to discern shit from shit still leaves

you with shit all over you.

The race to the bottom factor is huge and pretending it isn't there isn't going to make it go away.

At some point, it is time to stomp on the brakes. The deeper we go the longer the climb out.

[muriel_volestrangler]

82. Maybe 'we' and 'the people' aren't the same group

'The people' have a pretty easy mechanism to get their preferred candidates for a party in the USA - the primary system. There's probably no country in the world in which the general populace has such control over the candidates that the major parties put forward. And yet the typical Democratic candidate is not to your taste. Perhaps this shows that your politics and that of 'the people' don't actually coincide.

[quinnox]

39. As Krugman said, the main problem is the Dems, led by President Obama take the

GOP narrative and run with it.

By doing so, they have already lost the debate. GOP says "We have to cut these social programs" Obama/Dems say "Agreed, but lets not cut too deeply" instead of "No, we have to increase funding for social programs and cut back on defense and tax cuts for the rich"

[AmericaIsGreat]

42. Well, in this case

The lesser of two evils has passed healthcare reform, financial reform, stimulus/jobs bills. And it's really not evil. Just a little spineless and too friendly.

Anyway, compare what legislation would have been passed and where we'd be with McCain/Palin. Seriously. Especially in this case, the lesser of two evils is an OBVIOUS choice.

[alp227]

43. NO president can be perfect. Just look at history.

Examples: Franklin Roosevelt sent Japanese-American citizens to internment camps but helped recover the economy from the depression via the New Deal and established the safety net programs like Social Security today.

John F. Kennedy as a senator helped Martin Luther King Jr. get out of jail after leading a civil rights rally. Yet as president Kennedy was passive about civil rights to avoid losing white votes until the University of Mississippi riot of 1962 when he signed Executive Order 11063 that banned public housing discrimination.

Ronald Reagan ran on a small-government platform, yet under his watch, government employment actually increased (even the libertarian Mises Institute acknowledges that), and the Department of Education never got cut even though that was one of his campaign promises.

Bill Clinton put the budget on surplus for the first time in nearly 30 years but signed NAFTA and today the consequences of NAFTA include the offshoring of jobs to foreign countries. And of course Clinton had to put up with a Republican Congress after his first 2 years; that's why he signed welfare reform that he otherwise wouldn't have seen at his desk had the Democrats still controlled either or both bodies of Congress.

Does the president deserve criticism? Yes. Are sitting out of elections and having a perfectionist attitude constructive? No, because they'll result in a Republican advantage in 2012 and then 4-8 more years of frustration. And the president picks judges and Supreme Court Justices, and a loss in 2012 could have a startling impact on the Supreme Court and other political institutions later on. Right now with the Republicans controlling the body of Congress that appropriates money, what else can Obama do to have a constructive presidency? If you want change, learn how the branches of government cooperate and realize that Congress controls what will go to the president's desk. So start there before whining about the president.

[Arkana]

73. FDR also attempted a blatant partisan SCOTUS-packing scheme

that killed any political goodwill he had and made his second term a nightmare of legislative gridlock.

Everyone around him tried desperately to stop him but he just didn't see it.

All of our greatest leaders have their lumps. Teddy Roosevelt overhauled public safety and broke up corporate monopolies to help average Americans cope with rising costs, but he was also an inveterate racist who hated Native Americans.

They all deserve criticism for one reason or another. Greatness resides in the full body of the work, not in the individual days and weeks of their reign.

[Kablooie]

44. I think it's about time we try the greater of two evils.

Wait a minute ... we tried that recently didn't we?

Never mind.

[cali]

48. How often are you going to write this op? that's what I want to know

[slay]

51. As long as it takes for it to sink in

which for some looks to be a very, very long time. I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils too white_wolf - in fact, i'm done with it.

[BzaDem]

67. Yeah. For you, the greater of two evils is much better. n/t

[slay]

79. Better than a false choice. N/T

n/t n/t n/t

[Telly Savalas]

84. The false choice here is provided by those decrying the current choices we have

without providing a viable positive alternative.

[JoePhilly]

58. If the screamers spent half as much time creating these uber liberal candidates

that they want.

We'd have lots and lots of them.

[me b zola]

53. Until we are all either dead or literally enslaved

I say literally because we already are in many ways enslaved, just not wearing the physical shackles yet(or at least not most of us).

[ipaint]

54. Until the lesser evil is consumed by the greater evil. We are well on the way. nt

[DCBob]

55. In American politics its always a choice between the "lesser of two evils"..

No one will ever be completely pleased with all positions of any one candidate or party. I choose to be a Democrat because they are our best shot at saving this country from takeover by the real evil empire.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. As long as people are apathetic enough to accept that it's their only choice.

[johnaries]

59. Breaking news: nothing is black and white.

All actions in life have both positive and negative consequences. Therefore, if you want to be a "glass half empty" person and use the expression "lesser of 2 evils", then every choice you make in life will be choosing the lesser of 2 evils.

The expression itself is quite naive and tends to demonstrate a lack of understanding of life.

[ReggieVeggie]

60. Do you want Palin to win?

Huh? Really? Huh? Huh?

[Exilednight]

95. Ewww, a scare tactic. No wonder people get upset with the centrists of the party.

[BzaDem]

107. What's wrong with "scare tactics?" I thought pointing out the truth is a good thing. n/t

[Exilednight]

111. A scare tactic is not the truth. Well that's not true, in Rove's world it is. n/t

[johnaries]

61. Breaking news: nothing is black and white.

All actions in life have both positive and negative consequences. Therefore, if you want to be a "glass half empty" person and use the expression "lesser of 2 evils", then every choice you make in life will be choosing the lesser of 2 evils.

The expression itself is quite naive and tends to demonstrate a lack of understanding of life.

[RegieRocker]

64. It's hard to get past two dimensional thinking.

I'll say it again. France has many parties. Each party represents the percentage of people voted for them. A much fairer way to have representation.

[BillyJack]

65. Too late to rec, but will K & R

[BzaDem]

66. It's much better than the greater of two evils strategy, which you are proposing we take. n/t

[white_wolf]

68. No. I'm proposing the Democratic party nomiante

real progressives. Men like Weiner,Grayson,Kucinich,Sanders, and others. I don't agree with the "big tent" viewpoint.

[BzaDem]

76. The only way to get there is to convince the people to vote to nominate such candidates.

The truth is, the Democratic party itself has a huge moderate component (unlike the Republican party, which is much more conservative than the Democratic party is liberal).

It's not just an ideological difference (and in many cases moderates and liberals agree on policy). Many people simply don't follow politics, and will pick the nominee that seems temperamentally moderate. Poll after poll shows that a huge percentage of Democrats support compromise for its own sake -- the opposite of such polls for the Republican party (which oppose compromise on principle). That's what happens when the number of people who self-identify as conservative is double the number that self-identify as liberal. That is the core statistic that needs to change if we are to move the country in a more progressive direction.

[Telly Savalas]

85. Grayson lost his last race.

Kucinich has troubles mustering more than 5% of the vote nationwide within his own party.

With the so-called "big tent" Democrats still struggle to win. Kick a large segment out of the party, and you'll never win.

What you're proposing is an obvious recipe for automatic defeat, which makes your motives suspect.

[Cameron27]

97. But Obama won his race

and he did it because he was packaged as the complete antithesis of Bush & the GOP. People didn't vote for him because they wanted incremental change, or they wanted a big-tent, or they thought he was the lesser of two evils; people voted for him because they actually were ready to kick large segments of both parties out of office. They took a chance on Obama because they were ready to start from scratch.

So I don't see how what the OP's proposing is a recipe for automatic disaster, or why you think the motives are suspect.

[Norrin Radd]

69. At the very least, we can help push in their Repubs in their lemming leap

off the cliff so there is room for the Democratic Party to become the new right that it is hell bent on leaning toward. Then we can discuss a truer left party.

[Norrin Radd]

80. Yikes! Typos. Typing blind on my old phone.

meant to type.

[Arkana]

71. Because not voting screws you even more than voting for that "lesser evil".

Reward liberalism instead of withdrawing your support because it's not enough liberalism.

[white_wolf]

72. I will gladly donate money to progessive canidates

such as Weiner,Sanders,Kucinich, and others, but I won't support New Democrats, DLCers,or Blue Dogs.

[Arkana]

74. Then primary them!

Don't like your Congressman or Senator because you think he's Republican-lite? Then find a primary opponent for him. Challenge him. Show him the direction you want your Democratic representative to go. If you beat him, wonderful--you've got an acceptably liberal nominee. If you lose, well, then you've made your voice heard and you've taught your Congressman a lesson about where his constituents' preferences lie.

You go to the polls and you vote for your Congressman because even if his ideology is not where you want it, it is still most likely better than his teabagging opponent. Watch him closely to see how he does the next two years. If his voting record improves, then you know you've made your point. If it doesn't, hit him again next election cycle.

Don't act like it's not possible. If every American got as involved in the political process as we or the teabaggers do, politicians would start listening a lot more closely to us and less to their big-business contributors.

[white_wolf]

75. No, I hate my congressmen because they ARE Republicans.

Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker, are my senators and John Duncan is my Congressman. I wish a real democrat would run here, to get rid of them.

[Tarheel_Dem]

78. You're in Tennessee? Then all this "lesser of two evils" is just a whole bunch

of b.s. Seeing how your state continues to send rightwing teabaggin' nutjobs to Washington, you can't really complain about what Democrats do nationwide. This o.p. might be better suited to the TN state forum, as it sounds like that huge constituency of "Tennessee Progressives" have a good deal of grassroots organizing to do. I mean, I thought you lived in some "progressive" mecca where you could actually effect the national outcome.

Vote. Don't Vote. It's fucking Tennessee, it's gonna be a Republican no matter what you do. Do you think Kucinich could carry Tennessee?
:rofl:

How many more o.p.'s should we look forward to, from the great solidly BLUE state of Tennessee? :rofl:

[white_wolf]

104. So because of where i"m from I shouldn't have a say?

Screw you! Perhaps if the democrats here ran real progressive candidates they would win, but when given the choice between Republicans and Republican-lite, people will always pick the real thing. I'm likely far more to the Left than you.

[Tarheel_Dem]

115. Don't care how "far left" you are, you're still in Tennessee. And you can

delude yourself into thinking you can elect some utopian super liberal in TN if you like, but I live in the real world. Oh, and screw you too. :hi:

[white_wolf]

118. Whatever. Your DLC philosophy had destroyed the democratic

party, but keep living in the "real world."

[Tarheel_Dem]

121. And your delusion has pretty much destroyed any chance of a "progressive"

winning nationwide. You, like Ralph Nader, seem to think folks like you should go after the top prize every four years, but spend little to no time at all doing the hard work of actually changing school boards, and local councils, state houses, etc.

You think you have ownership of the Democratic Party? Sorry, but we're an awfully big tent, and when the tent gets too small for you, perhaps you should leave. It's that simple. The one thing that isn't going to happen is a bunch of Greens, Libertarians, Socialists and assorted others taking over the infrastructure built by the Democratic Party. Never going to happen. Bank on it. Now, if you guys want to scurry off, and do your own thing as in 2000.....Go for it! You won't win, but you may prevent the actual Democrats from winning, which clearly seems to be your intent. :hi:

[Exilednight]

96. Good, then let's primary Obama. Oh wait, every time that comes up on this board people get

upset that we would actually primary someone already holding office.

[Arkana]

100. There's a reason I said only Senators and Congressmen.

A more liberal Congress would push Obama in the direction you want him to go. Sitting on your thumbs and bitching is going to push Congress further right, which will push Obama in the OPPOSITE direction.

[Exilednight]

103. I think Obama is big enough to pick his own direction. I just wish he was adult enough to

hold that position.

[Arkana]

117. Every President since Washington has been influenced by Congressional makeup.

A more liberal Congress would go so much further toward helping things than trying to kick out the Democratic President. If Clinton had had a liberal-dominated Democratic-controlled Congress for eight years, there is no telling how much good he could have done.

[Exilednight]

120. Bush had a Democratic Congress and shoved legislation down our throat. There's plenty

of presidents who went against Congressional makeup and achieved their agendas.

[Le Taz Hot]

98. Oh, good grief!

Could we stop with this old canard -- "just primary them!" Bullshit. If there is an incumbent in place and The Party wants to make sure he/she STAYS in place, it's an easy thing to do to quash any kind of challenger by:

Step #1: Starving challenger of all support.

Step #2: Engage in whatever tactics are needed to cripple or destroy said challenger. If you have any questions at all, see what they did to Dean in 2004.

THAT is the problem with the major political parties -- the game is rigged and We The People don't actually get a choice. It's all a huge dog-and-pony show to ensure the masses continue to believe the process is democratic when nothing could be further from the truth.

[Arkana]

99. Congratulations on being part of the problem.

The only way to make your elected representatives listen is to run people against them who listen. Throwing up your hands and giving up is exactly what the powers that be want you to do. Well done.

"The game's rigged, man! We're fucked! Game over, man! Game over!"

[Le Taz Hot]

105. I noticed

you countered none of my points. Instead, you made up an imaginary conversation in your head and then chose to post it. M'kay. :shrug:

[Telly Savalas]

87. What others?

We have 468 seats on Capitol Hill being contested. That's a lot of bodies needed. Yet in bullshit threads like this, folks here can only name a handful of iconic individuals as being worthy of filling these seats. So if I'm not supposed to vote for the current slew of "lesser of the two evils" Democrats, and you can't name the alternatives, I'm left to believe you want the Republicans to win.

[Le Taz Hot]

86. I stopped participating in that game

in 2004 after I saw, from the inside, how the Democrats handled the "Dean problem." I vote only for those candidates who share my belief system. Sometimes that a Democrat, it's never a Republican, and sometimes I have to go to other choices because I refuse to compromise anymore.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

[BzaDem]

106. Enabling the greater of two evils is still allowing the election of evil. n/t

[MedleyMisty]

108. So don't enable either side

Which is what most people do. Thus the low voter turnout. It's not apathy. It's not stupidity. It's knowing that no matter what they do, they still get screwed and nobody gives a shit about them. So why even play the game?

If a candidate reached out to all the people who feel so disenfranchised that they don't vote and gave them something to believe in, and IF we had legitimate elections, that candidate would win by a landslide.

[BzaDem]

116. Not possible in a zero-sum election. n/t

[killbotfactory]

110. Until we have alternative voting methods

Like instant run-off voting.

In the meantime, except for rare localized races, it's either dems or republicans, because it's winner take all in our elections. This means the party that appeals to the most voters wins, and appealing to most voters means having to vote for people you may not agree with on wide variety of issues.

[Liberal_in_LA]

112. forever... Other candidates can't win.

[Liberal_in_LA]

113. ...also, usually the two evils aren't equal. One is much more evil

[Silent3]

114. For quite some time

While there may be a lot of popular discontent with the status quo, there's not a lot of left-flavored popular discontent with the status quo, and there's more teabagger popular discontent at present. Simply voting for further-left third parties, or more progressive Democrats who don't win primaries, doesn't automatically have any partial or cumulative effect that makes current politics more progressive or future voting more progressive.

Big shifts happen in waves. It's sad that it often takes a lot of pain and going way too far in the wrong direction for one of those waves to build up, but that's the way things seem to work. Until there's a wave to catch, most "voting your conscience" is either at best pissing in the wind, or worse, it gives the advantage to the worse of two evils.

[uppityperson]

119. I am sorry for those who engage in dichotomous thinking and is unable to see shades.