General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsVoting third party is irredeemably hopeless.
At least for the foreseeable future. (Unless like me you live in Vermont where there actually is a viable 3rd party)
I understand the anger and frustration with the national party. That's where I'm at, but every time I hear the vote third party! stop supporting dems! rhetoric, I'm just puzzled as to how anyone can think that essentially throwing the towel in, is going to accomplish anything good. There just aren't NEARLY enough people who think that's an option to actually make democrats sit up and take notice and stop their bad fiscal centrist ways.
I will never concede on the facts and the facts are that republican fiscal policy is solely about cutting taxes and slashing the social safety net. The facts are that on social policy, the republicans want to end choice, to deny civil rights, to cut HUD and on and on. And a republican president would preside over that agenda. A republican president would name Supreme Court Justices.
No difference?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
theKed
(1,235 posts)that voting third party is a wasted vote, it will be. It's a self-defeating cycle.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)I will vote my conscience. I refuse to ever hold my nose in the voting booth again. You want my vote, you damn well had better earn it, I owe it to no one.
drm604
(16,230 posts)Whether we like it or not it is true.
There is an answer. Voting third party is not that answer. Under our current electoral system, it won't work. Mathematically it won't work because of the way the system is designed. I don't like it. You don't like it. Regardless, it's true.
The answer isn't to waste time and resources and votes on a non-viable party that will end up being a spoiler and throwing the election to the party that thinks the least like you.
The answer is take over one of the existing parties from the bottom up, ideally the one that is closest to your own beliefs. Run for election as a local Democratic Committee Person. Find people who think like you and have them do the same in other precincts in your state. Do this all over the country and eventually we will have change. It takes time and effort but has the virtue of being mathematically possible within the current system, whereas voting third party is almost always a losing proposition.
I will keep saying this regardless of how many people use phrases like "self-defeating" because it is not self-defeating. Beating your head against the wall of an electoral system that won't allow third parties is what's self-defeating. What's NOT self-defeating is working within the current system and taking over the existing framework and resources of an existing party.
Maybe one day we can gain enough power to change the system to a parliamentary system that is amenable to more than two parties. But the only peaceful way there is through the current system.
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)...rather than just select vanity candidates for President, there won't be a viable third party option.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)"So long as people repeat that voting third party is a wasted vote, it will be" does not imply that "If people stop repeating that voting third party is a wasted vote, it will cease to be".
It sounds like it does, but it doesn't.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)And everyone knows it's really SO much better to vote for a party that takes your support for granted because really you've got no where to go except a third party..
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)But the people I vote for are Democrats because they are always preferable to Republicans.
Always.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)they are better than War Criminals or Wall St. criminals. That's not much of a reason to vote for anyone.
I want a Second Party. You have to have a Second Party before you can have a Third Party.
I will be supporting anyone who looks like they are NOT a corporate candidate working for their donors. Iow, in every primary I will support progressives who oppose current corporate puppets, The goal from now on is to clean Congress out, regardless of the letter someone has behind their name, how they VOTE on issues like SS and War and Monsanto etc. will determine how hard we work to be rid of them.
The people have to take matters into their own hands. No more supporting DC insiders, Third Way (now there is a real Third Party which attached itself to the Democratic Party and turned it into another Corporate Part) chosen candidates.
The people must now choose the candidates so no more donations to the party, all donations go directly to candidates. The party doesn't need our donations, they don't US is what I am hearing, so we are on our own, we know the deal now, and in a way it is exciting. A whole new beginning, the end of a bad relationship, the beginning of a new Democratic Party built by the people once again.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)PDJane
(10,103 posts)Your politicians don't care what you think or how you vote; you will get reich wing policies whether you want to vote for them or not.
cali
(114,904 posts)the statehouse are pretty fucking decent. And as this is a small state where you can pick up your phone and reach any of your state reps or Senators, and where the average campaign cost is a few hundred dollars, yeah, they care what we think.
I know there is a SMALL minority of Canadians that consider insultiung Americans a sport, but until you get Stephen Harper out, you will be held to the same rules as you held us when Bush was in. By the way, go build your pipleline on your own land.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)It will pollute Lake Ontario. That means drinking water for New York, New Jersey, and all the small towns and cities there, too.
And yes, touche; we've lost our democracy through secrecy and neo-con policies too. Everything that happens there happens here, just a bit later. Hell, even the mounties have been shown to be authoritarian, misogynist, and bigoted. It is the inevitable result of allowing the oligarchy to rule.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)I just have some bitter memeories of the way some, note I said some, of your fellow citizens in the early 00's gloated at 9-11. I am genuinely sad to see Harper in power, especially as at one point I considered emigrating to Quebec. If even Canada gets caught in the quagmire, then we know that the situation is ugly, and just as many Canadians cheered us when we got the GOP out of power, I will gladly offer you the cyber equivalent of a champagne toast when you get rid of Harper.
PDJane
(10,103 posts)His team and his girlfriend were in the towers. In fact, however, he was in Toronto, because the towers computers had been shut down over the weekend, so he had come home without warning.
I do not, however, believe that the towers came down in the manner that was claimed. It doesn't strike me as plausible. That's not gloating, that's wonderment.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)in existence.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans are secretly encouraging or financing some of these efforts.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)That used to be verboten on DU, now it seems all the rage.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Some are even bold enough to ask...
"Let's make an honest assessment"
Translation....."of my tireless work in dividing Democrats and advocating for a useless third party vote."
It's repetitive, and beyond obvious. Yes it used to be verboten.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)This isn't about what is good for the party, this is about what is good for the people. The Democratic party used to care about what was good for the people, apparently that isn't true anymore.
cali
(114,904 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)I guess I'll just stop believing the evidence of my lying eyes
Response to MadHound (Reply #84)
Post removed
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)Firstly...to those who will "show" Obama or the Democrats by staying home...especially in purple areas, you're opening the doors for more teabaggers and wingnuts to slide through. They won't be staying home in 2014.
The President doesn't operate in a vacuum...he's trying to push through a budget that will actually pass...or at least get a vote. It's the House that does the real heavy lifting here. If there's enough Democrats who don't agree with cuts in CPI then it won't happen. Just like how the teabaggers have learched the rushpublican party off the political abyss on the right through their control of the House, this is where liberal/progressives need to focus. Instead of pouting and threatening a worthless third party, the effort should be made to recruit and support more liberal and progressive candidates in as many districts as possible. The more liberal/progressives who are elected, the louder their voice and agenda become and if the Democrats are able to win enough seats to take the House, they will control the agenda.
The best revenge is ending up stronger than you began...
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Re-asserting populist power. As a culture, we seem to be wallowing in the phony hep-cat worldliness that we are sophisticated because of our impotence and lack of naivete. Well, I don't buy that. Center on:
Economic issues
Re-asserting populist power
calimary
(81,238 posts)I'm all for their splintering off into a teabagger party and a bible-thumper party and a neo-klan party. That'll make it far more likely that we'll be keeping the White House for quite awhile!!! We need to. There's SO MUCH to be fixed. And a Supreme Court to secure.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)The most notable example was in the lead-up to McGovern's fiasco. The Party was changed quite a bit, but the focus was on McGovern instead of the policies and programs of the Democratic Party. The GOPers changed their party over a nearly 50 year period, and turned the corner with Reagan. Since then, it has become cold steel hard and ideologically-bound. I don't advocate that, and it is not necessary. But it took them 50 years. We don't have to take that long, but it requires a lot of grass-roots organizing in a new era where such notions are manifestly obsolete; if the "social media" and its inevitable successor develops a mass, community-oriented movement which can LEGITIMIZE a party platform which can be communicated, fine. I just don't know how it is done anymore.
One thing for sure: If Democrats continue to run from labels, the GOPers WILL label us nonetheless. If the Democratic Party continues to bare its throat to corporate interests, they will tear it out. There is no where to run from the GOP. So let your freak flag fly, and put them on the run!
redqueen
(115,103 posts)This.
A million billion times this.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)JVL was a true populist 100% of the time. He didn't dream, he did.
what happened to him after he left office is why no one can again be like him again and think they can win.
it is impossible once people sold him down the river
Same with James Florio and Jesse Jackson
if not for the racists within the democratic party, Jerry Brown/Jesse Jackson would have won in 1992.
then and now. Constants constantly stopped it.
Last successful populist befor the current president, to become President was LBJ
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)And in 1980 I was a delegate for Teddy in my State Convention.
As a result, my precinct captain refused to talk to me, because I was too radical. And this was in a liberal urban area.
My dad voted socialist for Norman Thomas in '32, and mellowed into a Kennedy Democrat in his old age.
His little brother stayed Socialist his whole life. Brother was an atheist socialist who was married to a Christian Science Practitioner/Republican for 62 years.
Wasn't a lot of fun hearing them argue. They both had volatile tempers but she was the only one that directed it at me. She's still alive and I don't speak to her anymore because of that hot one minute, cold the next temper of hers.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Ended up having two equal sides of two of the best liberal idealists for the times
And the two sides could not come together.
In a perfect world, Jimmy would have ditched Mondale and Teddy would have hopped aboard as VP (like LBJ did in 1960) and the two together would have mended their differences and won against Reagan.
Reagan was beatable. It was closer than it looked.
And I love Teddy.
If only Teddy remained vital and alive througouht the Obama presidency, he would have been able to ram more things through. We needed Kennedy off camera on the phone, in the backrooms pressing people.
Teddy was quite happy with the healthcare bill, because it was something.
It was not perfect, but it got the foot in the door which starts the long process toward perfect, whereas those that wanted it all get nothing time and again.
Teddy knew how to play the game, except in 1980 when it got too personal.
Just like in 1968.
Just like 2000.
Which is why none of those years should ever happen again.
I will stick with moving forward at any speed.
Because the other way cannnot ever be attained quick enough for the ones that want it all.
Jerry Brown and Ted Kennedy both did not have to be officeholders at all.
They could have both retired in their youth.
But both dedicated their entire life.
And Jerry got his redemption coming back.
I would have loved him as President in 1992.
His 1-800 campaign was the single closest to winning grassroots pre-computer age model.
But a smear (in liberal NYC) ended that dream.
And a racist smear at that.
But we still won in 1992 in the general.
The difference between the other fracture years and that one is, we still won.
And because Jerry and Jesse did NOT leave the arena railing against the Clintons.
They stayed and continued playing the game
Much like Hillary in 2008.
working with and for something, anything instead of the Nader-like cottage whine industry.
Summer of 1980, Paul Simon's "Late in the Evening" was the hit of the time.
I was about to get married.
Furnishing and painting my apartment in Brooklyn.
Watching the convention live time.
Loving Teddy. Loving Jimmy.
and wishing there could have been unity.
Seque to 2016 and I long ago put any past negative of Hillary to rest, and want no fracture, no major primary and the Five most popular democratic people
President Obama, Michelle Obama, President Bill and President to Be Hillary Clinton, and VP Joe Biden all together the entire next 4 years, and all the other good democratic people in the house and senate, and the governors, all on stage at the 2016 convention holding hands or all having their fists in the air victory style.
That is winning.(and as said, some of the names mentioned of other people, most of them will be on that same stage in unity. People should stop trying to divide Hillary Clinton and Sen. Warren. Both are on the same team at the end of the day.
And I want Sen. Warren to be the new Ted Kennedy as Senator. Not the one who wouldn't shake Jimmy Carter's hand at the convention in a momentary mistake in a long glorious career.
Because electing Ronald Reagan then was no option, and electing Jeb Bush in 2016 is NO option.
The others can stop ruining the party.
trof
(54,256 posts)They're all funded by the same entities, for the most part.
Corporations and 'special interest groups'.
But you already knew that.
Incumbency is a now a devout religion.
If you're in for more than a term or two, you're practically guaranteed to stay in office for a lifetime.
And likely you'll name (endorse) your successor.
You have built up a 'war chest' of campaign funds.
Your opponent (if you even have one) is starting from scratch.
And begging funds from the same folks who are backing you.
Print and broadcast media LOVE your ads.
So much so that they even charge a 'special political rate'.
Much higher than for the local Walmart or Starbucks.
Check it out.
I'd love to see a parliamentary form of government here where various factions have even some small hope of representation.
Never happen.
The Two Party System Rules.
Just sign me:
Cynical Old Bastard
P.S. I vote for the dems as the lesser of two evils.
Usually.
It's almost a Hobson's Choice.
It's a charade.
Just theater for the masses. I wonder what this social experiment is looking like to the guys pulling the puppet strings. Probably the same thing I'm thinking,... Fascinating, Disgusting.
I'm past the whole 2 party system, it's all the same and all points in the same direction, what they want.
Livin' la Vida Loca!
-p
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Just imagine the teabaggers and the mainstream Republicans forming long-lasting coalitions, similar to the way that the right-wing Komeito has formed a perpetual coalition with the conservative Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) in Japan, which has allowed the latter to govern Japan for all but about 5 or 6 years since 1955. Also, it is typical for a Japanese prime minister to have an approval rating of less than 30% once the very short-lived honeymoon wears off, and there have been 50 Japanese prime ministers just since the present constitution was adopted in 1947. Italy as well has had dozens of prime ministers in the post-war era.
At the same time, the Iron Lady held the reigns of power for 11 years in the UK, with disastrous results. And in many parliamentary systems, elections can be held at the whim of the ruling party, that is, when it thinks it has sufficient support to remain in power.
I can just see an American parliamentary system where the teabaggers branch off to form a separate party but align themselves closely with the Republicans. At the same time, the Republicans might gain more support from the left side of their spectrum because the teabaggers would technically be a separate party.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)After all, Harper in Canada got in with less than 40 percent of people wanting him, but the left got divided, sound familar?
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)and he had to ask the queen for permission to pack the Senate with 20 new permanent senators just so he could pass his unpopular goods and services tax.
Wonderful system.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)See how that works, certain Reaganites have needs and desires that aren't plausible from the TeaPubliKlans so eventually they will have to decide to support economic justice or lose everything.
No loafs, partial or otherwise.
How about them apples? To have the power to destroy a thing is to absolute control over it, time to reassert control of this party.
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)A progressive or liberal or even a moderate in the true meaning of the term either votes for the socially liberal but "moderately reactionary" on economic and foreign policy issues party - OR They aide and abet the empowerment of a completely crazy and dangerously irresponsible extremist reactionary party that is utterly retrograde in its outlook on virally all social, economic and foreign policy issues.
That is the choice. Those are the alternatives.
ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)Third party is nowheresville.
dflprincess
(28,075 posts)It was the "sensible" ones that didn't want Ashley Judd to run in Kentucky.
Even in caucus states like Minnesota it's going to be very hard to ever get another candidate like Wellstone through the nominaton process with the party machinery and money aligned against us. I saw this in 2006 when Klobuchar ran for the first time. There was a wonderful progressive candidate running for party endorsement against her and, in complete violation of party rules, the party hierarchy shut him out long before the state convention (per the DFL rules, the party is not supposed to help one candidate more than another until there has been an endorsing candidate and one person has been declared the official candidate).
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)Remember all the complaining when I suggested that financially supporting an admirable Democrat running against John Boehner, because it wasn't a district a progressive would be successful in? Remember what happened?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)There are people who vote based on personal conviction regardless of the odds, and I tend to admire and trust them much more than those who do not. I see a rather dramatic difference. 
My vote for Obama was for all intents and purposes, hopeless-- worse still, it was useless, as I live in Texas. It made absolutely no objective difference to the outcome one way or the other. Yet I voted, vote, and will vote based on my convictions rather than predicated my vote on mathematics.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... and do what the Tea Party did to the Republican Party?
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)
Trailrider1951
(3,414 posts)Nothing to see here, folks. Just move along...........
mike_c
(36,281 posts)...when their party doesn't represent them. You know who has the most to gain from that meme? The status quo. No thank you.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)We have a mainstream media openly telling the public that there is no choice but to cut Social Security and Medicare and other programs that benefit ordinary working people and the poor. I watched a couple weeks back David Brooks and Mark Shields sit around and agree together that this fight between "the far left" and the far right has to stop. That both sides need to come to their senses and make real significant cuts in "entitlements" and then find some modest ways to increase revenues. The mainstream media is telling people that the only ones who oppose cutting Social Security and Medicare are "the far left." Then we have the likes of Fox News telling people the third way Dem's are a bunch of closet socialist, Marxist and radicals.
For every American who thinks Obama and the Democratic leadership are triangulating third way Dem's who are selling out - I guarantee you there are at least three Americans that think Obama and the Democratic leadership are the most wild eyed leftist radicals in American history. Why wouldn't they think that when the range of media discussion ranges between those who think only extreme leftist don't want to cut programs and "enact entitlement reform" and the Fox News version that claims that even those who do want to cut programs and "enact entitlement reforms" are a bunch of wild eyed socialist?
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)In my opinion they both use social / wedge issues to distract their bases from their real objective: picking everyone's pocket on behalf of the Money People.
That said, voting third party is hopeless. All we can do is go after "our" President and try to take leadership of our party away from him and his fellow travelers.
mmonk
(52,589 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)just keep doing what you're doing, people. eventually the democrats will come around to acting like, you know, democrats again.
LeftInTX
(25,300 posts)has a chance, then it is worth it. They will more than likely caucus with the Dems anyway.
However to get a third party up and running like it did with Lincoln and be successful, is a total wild dream. We've got Bernie Sanders who is third party. Is there anyone else in congress right now who is third party?
Where would the money come to support a successful party?
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)We'll get a viable new party.
Like the Republicans back in 1861, when they were the good guys.
cali
(114,904 posts)is hardly fertile ground for a third party. you can imagine all the lovely things you wish, but that won't make it a reality and it sure as shit ain't gonna happen over the next couple of years.
the only way to start a third party that I can see is to build it from the local level up.
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)And I'm not sure it would work, at least now.
But arguments against it usually run along the lines of "If you vote third party the Democrats will lose votes." I almost feel like people making this point want to say "What would happen if everyone voted third party?" But they don't say that, because it doesn't lead to logic that supports their point.
The worse the two parties get, the more people will be willing to vote third party. There may come a time when a third party is the only hope. If that happens, I hope the logic that a third party can't win won't stand in the way.
I was just trying to explore the logic.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)to have the necessary public will to create a lasting national political party that could actually contend for power. Since then there have been several brief moments when major events were only able to create short term major third party efforts - none of which were able to even come in second place and none of which where able to have a significant impact beyond one or in some cases a few elections cycles. AS wrong headed as in is - as incorrect as it is - as patently ignorant as it is - for every American who thinks the Democratic Party has moved too much to the right - there are at least four Americans who think the Democratic Party has moved way too much to the Left. That of course is ludicrous - but it is the reality of the current political consciousness of today's American public.
freedom fighter jh
(1,782 posts)But the very idea is often dismissed out of hand. I think it can work under the right circumstances, and it's something to keep in mind if it ever becomes totally clear that neither existing party represents the interests of most Americans.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)at some point in the future to establish a Party of the people, by the people and for the people - I would of course commit my heart and mind and soul to such an effort.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)Basically, the Whigs just morphed into the Republican Party and never had a presidential candidate running against a Republican. Some Whigs joined the American Party, or "Know-Nothings", and that was the de facto 3rd party of the first presidential election that the Republicans participated in (1856). The last presidential election with a Whig candidate was in 1852.
donnasgirl
(656 posts)Tell that to the people who belong to AARP, and the unions, and to anybody who has a heart beat.( It is not as far off as you think) People who work for a living are tired of getting screwed.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)We must pledge to unseat ANY Democrat who is not clearly an FDR Democrat. Which means we'll primary most of them.
Brutally, savagely primary them. Primary them with the same gusto that they have when handing your stuff to the 1%.
on point
(2,506 posts)drm604
(16,230 posts)Become a local Democratic Committee Person. Find others to do the same throughout your state and throughout the country. Take over the party from the ground up and eventually make it into what you want it to be.
Yes it takes time and effort. So does getting anywhere with a third party. But taking over an existing party has the virtue of not creating spoilers. It has the virtue of taking over an existing framework and existing resources. It has the virtue of actually being possible.
The current electoral system makes it extremely unlikely for a third party to succeed. Banging your head against that system is a waste of time and effort. Work smart by working within the system.
donnasgirl
(656 posts)a third party it is called the independents (Bernie Sanders) is a prime example of what this country needs, Elizabeth Warren is a wonderful individual who wants to help the working people of this country, Mr Grayson, and there are many others to get the ball rolling.
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)There are INDEPENDENTS, who by their very nature are not affiliated; remember that Joe Lieberman was also an Independent.
cali
(114,904 posts)In Vermont, there is the Vermont Progressive Party which was formed as a platform for Bernie. There are several PP members in the VT legislature. Bernie chose not to run as Progressive Party member.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)They ended up in some cases getting arrested, detained, etc until the various state conventions were concluded. And they watched as votes were switched around.
The leaders of the Two Big Parties don't play fair.
So changing the Democratic Party from within is not any different than trying to get a third party to be successful. A whole lot of effort needs to occur, from many people working many hours, and no predictable chance of success.
drm604
(16,230 posts)You're describing something completely different from what I'm talking about.
And you're ignoring the spoiler problem.
They are not the same thing.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Enough info to tell me what to know about discussing anything with you.
drm604
(16,230 posts)Were you saying that people who ran for their local party committees were arrested and detained simply for attempting to get on the ballot, or was there more to it than that? Did they do everything legally? Do you have a cite for what you're saying?
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Start winning some school boards, city council seats, county commissioners, state represenatives. Do that in a large number of states. Think about competing for national office a few years down the road.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)If one of the parties lost enough of their supporters due, they would be pressured to re-think their positions.
Conversely, voting for one side DESPITE the fact that they break promises, etc. guarantees further continuance of their tendency to blithely ignore the wishes of their base.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Obama is as fed up with the 2 party system as any of us are.
And he uses his massive AFO to form a third party and support that candidate?
That's the only way I can see for a 3rd to get any kind of toe hold.
Yah, yah, dream on.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)As it stands right now, there are only 2 viable parties.
In other words, if you feel the Democratic is not "Liberal" enough you can vote for a more Liberal party, but you reduce the chances of a Liberal candidate being elected. By extension, although you are voting for a "more Liberal" candidate your vote doesn't really matter. This is what we ran into in the 2000 "Selection". I don't care about "butterfly" ballots or "dimpled chads" - if there had been a run-off between the 2, Gore would have won.
9/11 would never have happened. The CIA would have stopped it quietly, and some people would be complaining about how the CIA over-stepped it's bounds - but it would never have happened. We would not have had the Afghanistan War. We would not have had the Iraq War. Things wouldn't be "perfect" by any means, but we would be complaining about much more trivial things other than War.
I am not against 3rd Party candidates. I am against the way that our current system supports Mainstream Candidates against the will of the people.
Polls may show that people may be more "Liberal". But, the difference is when we vote. If 30% vote for a Liberal candidate, and another 30% vote for a different Liberal candidate, but 40% vote for a single Conservative Candidate - guess who's going to win?
That is reality. I don't like it, but that is what we have to work with.
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)There is no such thing as a liberal free trader.
There is no such thing as a liberal friend of vulture capitalists and multi-national banks.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)They only run corporatists now. That's the dirty truth here. They haven't run a real liberal, or, really, even a real *conservative,* in decades.
We are *all* disenfranchised by the corporate purchase of our elections.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Loudly
(2,436 posts)The Republican Party just doesn't represent them!
Rex
(65,616 posts)I will try and talk them into voting democratic ticket. Sadly, some of my closest relative are addicted to Foxnews and I have to detox them (periodically) with the truth and reality. Again, sadly it doesn't seem to stick.
Rex = 0
Megalomonstermediaconglomeranters = 1
Some of them are so angry that they have no idea WHY when you ask them. Kinda scary really.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)But as a practical matter, dilute their vote as easily and completely as possible.
By driving them into the powerless alcoves of ideological purity.
Rex
(65,616 posts)the two major parties a run for their money. Let us hope it does not end up being Pepsi or Nestle.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)cbrer
(1,831 posts)It's the only bloodless method for bringing about the kind of change we hoped Obama was talking about.
The current beltway mob doesn't give 2 shits about us, except in terms of whatever value we might have as consumers.
Even plying us with bullshit during campaigns is more for show than go.
The foreseeable future is the future of every American. We need to fucking change THIS!
NuttyFluffers
(6,811 posts)
cali
(114,904 posts)Not. Maybe all you folks need to work to make your state more like Vermont.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)That's the dilemma.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)yes, it sends a message that third party voters are clueless and hurt their own cause as we saw in 2000 with the Nader voters.
eridani
(51,907 posts)I'd really like to see this option be made universally legal. I was impressed (looking for cosponsors of state bank legislation) to come across one Vermont legislator who was elected as a Green, a Progressive and a Democrat.
eridani
(51,907 posts)To elect more and BETTER Democrats, work at the "better" in primary elections and the "more" in general elections.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)either come to the state or make a video to campaign for the "lesser" Democrat
http://www.salon.com/2010/06/10/lincoln_6/
Autumn
(45,066 posts)A republican president would name Supreme Court Justices. And a Democratic President would cut SS. So what do you do? Both of those are unacceptable.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)for the true conservatives to vote for.
