Bush at 31% , If the dems blow this should we start talking third party

[niceypoo]

The midterms have basically fallen into the democratic party's lap. As November draws closer and closer, Bush and the GOP get less and less popular with the electorate. GOP Cheating and election fraud will be massive and widespread. The democrats, as usual, are asleep at the wheel in this respect. What if the dems blow it, again? What if, down 15%-20% across the board, the GOP win through fraud and disenfranchisement because the dems sat on their hands and played nice and did nothing again?

If this happens I will have lost all faith in the democratic party. They will have proven themselves to be a lost cause. It will then be time to seriously begin thinking of forming a third party that is willing to fight for getting back the heart and soul of this country. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me a third time .......ASTALAVISTA BABY!

[BobRossi]

1. Yes.

The Dems will never be handed a gift like this again. Rather than all dancing around the camp fire they better start gathering food for the winter.

[GymGeekAus]

49. Perhaps you should try being Democrats...

instead of going on endlessly about political strategy in which you have practically zero input.

There's a reason Dean is working on this grassroots angle, people. It's because we're the check and balance that has been missing from government.

"If the Democrats blow this" SHOULD HAVE BEEN "IF WE BLOW THIS." A party is not a person. A person is not the party. And I'm certainly not going to take political advice from anonymous webposters who can't take even the slightest bit of responsibility onto their own shoulders for the state of this Union. Running off to a third party because you are a failure with your own, before you establish an Electoral College change that makes that option viable, while we're dealing with a potentially insane and certainly out of control Chief Executive, is nothing short of the reaction of an insane person who wants to fail.

My Lord. Is this the intellectual acumen with which I have chosen to associate?

You want to do something real? Fight to bring those third party advocates back to the Democratic party, and let the primary system work the way it should. Stop splintering the left (and yes, we are all leftists). All it does is dillute our collective power.

My Lord. I hope this is all just hyperbole brought on by stress.

[niceypoo]

55. "If the democratic leadership blows this"

is more fitting. They are the ones who lie down and take it up the ass from the GOP.

[GymGeekAus]

58. Who leads a populist party?

You got it. Whomever the party installs. In our system, it all rolls downhill.

Sigh. Gimme a break.

If it really mattered to you, you'd be involved in the primary process right now.

[Notoverit]

2. Diebold, meet niceypoo, niceypoo meet Diebold

Earth to niceypoo: Dems didn't blow any election sunce 2000 - they were just...miscounted.

[Champion Jack]

3. except for, it never should have been that close

[Catchawave]

7. Exactly, 75 million people did not vote

Third world countries have larger turnouts and some even risk their lives to vote. As Jon Stewart once observed "Americans won't vote if it's cloudy".

[Notoverit]

10. The # of voters increased every election. So did the # of uncounted votes

These numbers are spurious - how many of them are over 18? Citizens?
It's like the #s GOPers pull from their asses to disparage public education.
More people should vote, sure. But elections should be real too.

[Catchawave]

43. Internationally ?

Didn't headlines scream "How could 59% of American Voters Be So Stupid"....was 59% of less than half of our country's registered voters a good thing?

Otherwise, I agree with you, both parties pull numbers out of their butts. Afterall, we libs went into the voting booth Nov '04 thinking our team was ahead in the polls :shrug:

[Notoverit]

9. How do you know how close it was? Did you count the ACTUAL VOTES?

"Except she should have never worn that short skirt"
When are you people going to stop blaming the victim? Dayum! How dumb is this?

[Radio_Guy]

13. How do you know they were that close?

If Democrats actually won by a 2 to 1 margin, but Diebold miscounted, how would we know? How do you know it was actually that close? I think if Democrats don't win the majority in both houses of Congress, that is proof of election fixing and we should take to the streets in protest.

[The Magistrate]

16. As A Practical Matter, Sir

Loss by the side one favors is not proof of fraud in an election; all but a very small proportion of the people would be moved to laughter, rather than agreement, by such a claim.

[Radio_Guy]

19. The repugs numbers are near 30%, sir

Unless Democrats do something really stupid, sir, a landslide for us is assured, sir. So, sir, while a loss would not be proof of a fraud, sir, it would be cause for honest investigations, sir, which undoubtedly would uncover a fraud, sir.

[The Magistrate]

22. It Is Not That Simple, Sir

These elections will take place in specific districts and particular states.

Congressional districts are gerrymandered to an extraordinary degree that confers a great advantage in party registration on one side or the other. Therefore the results in them do not always mirror an apparent national trend.

There can be similar effects in state-wide elections for Senator.

A further complication is that general attitudes to the present occupant of the Oval Office, and towards the parties in general, do not always effect the fortunes of individuals. It remains the case that most people who say they detest the Republican Congress also say they like their district's Representative, even if he or she is a Republican. Senatorial candidates generally have reputations in their own right in their states, that can be quite different from the general sentiments of party identity and outrage against incumbency.

It does seem to me quite possible that the general trends may overcome these factors to a degree sufficient for a Democratic success in gaining a majority in one or both chambers of the Congress. A number of Republicans may well just sit on their hands in the lopsided districts, and Democrats and others who despise the Republicans will certainly be out in force. There are a number of apparent similarities between the conditions of the present year and those of '94, the year of the Republican's sweep. But this is neither a certainty nor a done deal.

[BigYawn]

45. You got that right Sir! Basically agrees with Newweek story

in May 15, 2006 issue.

[CTLawGuy]

51. I wouldn't be surprised if some people think the 1984

presidential election was stolen.

Me, I'd focus on creating a vast network of low-dollar contributors and local volunteers. Turnout is key.

[Clark2008]

14. I think that's included in "blowing it."

Not fixing the voting machine problems would constitute the Dems "blowing it" as much as putting up, say, Hillary or some other equally nationally unelectable somebody, for 2008.

[mtnsnake]

20. Enough of the Diebold excuse. It's lame to put all the blame on that

especially when both sides are claiming voter fraud equally.

Fighting voter fraud is vitally important, yes, but using it as the blanket excuse for why we lost is counterproductive to say the least.

The Supreme Court screwed us in 2000, and a pathetic 2004 campaign is the main reason we're not in the White House today. Diebold might have had something to do with it, but to insist that we lost because of Diebold and Diebold only is the same as having your head buried in the sand during that entire dreadful look-the-other-way campaign. Considering Bush was already the worst president ever, we should've been so far ahead that Diebold couldn't have even been a possible factor.

[Radical Activist]

33. Thank you. This is so tiring.

Can we have one fucking thread on DU without someone bringing up the voting machine cop-out? Even if the voting machines are perfect there are still other things to talk about.

[niceypoo]

34. On the contrary

The dems did nothing to prevent it in 04 and they are doing nothing now to stop it in 06. If they blow it in 06 they will blow it in 08. The present course we are on is leading to permenant fascism. You may be willing to put up with the democrats being permanent whipping boys but I am not.

[bowens43]

4. By third party you actually mean

hand another election to the republicans like the Greens did in 2000................

[mainegreen]

31. Oh baloney!

I thought we were done with that here.

[niceypoo]

35. The democrats are handing them elections

through their inaction and letting the GOP crap on them

[skipos]

5. 2006 is a bunch of individual, local and statewide races.

Just because 60% think Bush stinks, it doesn't mean everyone is going to go out and vote for dems across the board. 1st of all, some of those 60% are republicans who think Bush isn't as conservative as they want. 2nd of all, midterm election turnout is aways lower than presidential elections, so turnout is going to make a huge difference. 3rd, there are TONS of people who vote one way in presidential elections and another way for local and statewide elections. Hence a democratic governor in WY, a republican governor of MA, etc.

And as for your third party idea, no thanks. I don't give up that easily.

[Stinky The Clown]

6. This will, no doubt, be debated endlessly

A third party just ain't gunna cut it. Not now, Not 10 years from now.

I understand your sentiments. I don't much disagree with your underlying concerns.

Would it not be better to repair the party we have rather than build a new one from scratch? We're far from perfect, but we're also far closer to being the party you want - right now- than any effort to form a new one or expand on one of the countless nobeody-ever-heard-of-them third parties?

To say nothing of the fact that this thread fails to meet DU's rules.

Our job, right now is to kick our leadership square and hard right in the ass and MAKE them see that election cheating is a BIG BIG BIG deal.

[zeemike]

8. Are they really asleep at the wheel?

Or are they just playing a good cop bad cop game with us?
If they are I will predict that the house will gain some democratic seats but not enough to change the leadership. But this will be sold to us as a great democratic victory by the media and the party and we will be told that if we just support the party a little more we will finally win in 08.
And indeed we just may win the white house but it will be a democratic candidate that has moved to the right not a progressive that we want.
We have to consider whether we are being played like a fish on a hook. And such would be the case if 70% of the people in the country disagree with the way the country is heading and the same people wind up still in power.
The solution as far as I can see can only be a general strike where millions march on Washington and demand election reform that permits third party's and gives them a chance to run. Beyond that I don't see anything changing as long as the oligarchy that runs things are aloud to continue calling the shots.

[Greyhound]

29. Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. Congratulations to zeemike.

Democrats and re:puke: are just convenient labels used to obscure the real power in amerika. This is all about distracting the sheep from the real enemy because they are terrified we will wake up and make them pay. For myself, I don't think they have too much to worry about.

Here's the closest thing to a cigar I could find :smoke:

[zeemike]

30. Thanks I love a good cigar

And a Cuban one too.

[niceypoo]

36. I will believe it when I see it

Judging by their actions up to this point I would not place $$ on it.

[zeemike]

11. BTW I kicked and recommended this because It is important

That we discuss this even though I know it drives some of us nuts when we talk about a third party.
But it is not a third party that is a threat to democracy but the election system that punishes US for voting for it.
A simple change in the elections laws to say that no one can be elected with less than 50% of the votes would solve any problems we have with third party's.

[chaumont58]

12. Just curios, why do you capitalize GOP but not Democrats?

Good luck with Ross, or Nader, or whom ever.

[truth2power]

15. Many people have been talking third party for a long time...

but it'll never happen until we have instant runoff elections.

Our electoral system is structured to deprive thrid parties of any chance to win.

[zeemike]

32. That is exactly what I am talking about

Instant runoff and the requirement of a 50% requirement for election. That is what democracy is the rule by the MAJORITY

[truth2power]

40. Yes. IMO our focus should be on 3 things...

1. Getting the money out of the system, i.e. publicly-funded elections.
2. Some sort of instant runoff, to give thrid parties a chance.
3. Deprive corporations of their personhood.

As I understand it, the decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad was never meant to confer personhood on corporations, anyway. Something about a clerk's notes in the margin or something, IIRC.

All of these things MUST be done before we can take our country back from the military-industrial-CORPORATE complex. Unfortunately, there are many (including some Dems and all of the corporate elite) who would rather see us continue to waste our time nibbling away at the problem without ever cutting it off at the roots.

[zeemike]

41. I agree with all of that...100%

But for the sake of clarity and to keep things focused any general strike must have a simple demand, one that is easy to fill. And that is why having elections as the point or objective would then allow the other things you and I want to come about natural. A third party candidate could run on a platform of free advertisement from the media for federal office or a constitutional amendment clarifying person hood and win.

[lwcon]

17. It's hard out here for a Democrat

Yes, I'm disappointed that more of our party leaders don't have the gumption of a Russ Feingold, and I feel no loyalty to a DINO like Joe Lieberman.

And like most everyone here, I obsess about the loss of the last two Presidential elections, both the horrible "governance" it's led to, and the frightening implications: that any American is stupid enough to vote for Bush, and that voting fraud does the rest.

But we cannot let our party become the splintering "People's Front of Judea" and "Judean People's Front" from Monty Python's "Life of Brian."

In some other world, third parties might be a swell idea, but they're a crappy way to stand up to a fascist regime that controls the entire government and the media. We need to concentrate our opposition to the evildoers, not break apart into a bunch of well-meaning factions.

Our lot will never be easy, because De Tocqueville was right: people prefer a simple lie to a complex truth. So, people who gleefully sell pernicious lies have a tremendous advantage over the wonky truthseeker, especially in our image-is-everything culture.

We have to do better. Nader 2000 is not better. That kind of vote might taste like a healthy glass of soy milk, but it's a big fucking mistake.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[KoKo]

23. Center for American Progress discussed David Sirota's New book

on C-Span last night and he's advocating a new POPULISM. He's a Democrat but feels the Party needs a Populist Wing. Since "Progressive" these days only seems to be a step left from DLC it would seem that might be a way to go...:shrug:

David Sirota is the co-chairperson of the Progressive Legislative Action Network (PLAN) and a Senior Editor at In These Times. He also writes for Working Assets, and is a twice-a-week guest on “The Al Franken Show.” His new book Hostile Takeover was published by Random House’s Crown Publishers.

[Recursion]

18. Crazy idea: strengthen the electoral college

All this talk, 2 and a half years in advance, about who we field for President in '08 has got me thinking.

Maybe the founders were right to distance the Presidency from a plebiscite. Growing up, learning about that, I always bought the line that it was because the founders didn't trust the "common folk". But maybe they were a bit smarter than that, and just didn't trust themselves or anyone else who has a good chance of being President.

What if the point of the people electing electors who then vote for President was to keep candidates from resorting to demagoguery and spending lots of money on advertisements and publicity (even in the days of newspapers and handbills, that cost money)? What if Presidential candidates didn't have to cowtow to corporate interests to get the money it takes to get on TV?

If you want to make 3rd parties possible (and if you remember Washington thought a 2-party system was a terrible danger to the Republic), then we'll have to take the election aparatus out of the parties' hands. One step towards doing that would be to have an electoral college that was more than a partisan rubber-stamp. I don't like the idea of 538 people (I think that's the count now) sitting in a proverbial smoke-filled room and selecting a President, but can it be that much worse than what's happened the last two times? Especially if we drop the flyover-country-favoring 2 electors per state, but that's a separate issue.

There's no Constitutional requirement that a state's electors vote the way the state's population voted. In fact there's no Constitutional requirement that people be able to vote for a President, just that the State legislatures must provide a mechanism for appointing electors. There's certainly no requirement that the party winning the state plebiscite be able to appoint all the state's electors.

Finally, I'd like to add that anti-democratic institutions like the EC and the Senate have been allowed to limp along precisely because we've given them the appearance of democracy. Why not go back to a state-legislature-appointed Senate? Why not have state legislatures appoint the EC? That might finally expose the central absurdity, that the opinion of someone in Montana is drastically more important to this country's government than the opinion of someone in California or New York. Or that Montana has two Senators, while a larger population living in our own capital city has 0.

[Kablooie]

21. If the Dems blow this we should join the Republicans.

[lwcon]

25. I doubt we'll have any choice...

... but I've never looked good in a brown shirt.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[zann725]

24. 31%? Reminds me of the ol' Limbo dance phrase..."How LOW can you go?"

Da, da, da-da-da-da-da...hm, hm, hm-hm-hm-hm-hm...

How LOW will they lower the bar? "30-below?" Karmically, I believe it's called poetic justice.

[lwcon]

26. Everything the Repubs do reminds me of that (n/t)

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[Catchawave]

27. My worse nightmare....

Dems take back the House and Senate, and the Repugs are able TO PROVE election fraud :silly:

[sonroadera]

28. No way.

[mike923]

37. Are we sure 31% ratings for Bush equal 69% democratic approval ratings?

I know of a number of republicans who are dissatisfied with Bush, but none have told me they are switching parties.

[niceypoo]

48. Every poll has Dems ahead by 10-20 percentage points

There are only 4 states that are still "Red". Wyoming, nebraska, utah and Montana. Check out the polls on congressional races:

http://www.pollingreport.com/2006a.htm

every poll says the same thing. Like I said, the midterms are the Democrats to lose. What is the Democratic party doing nationally about election fraud besides avoiding the subject?? There are a few individuals that are going after it but the party as a whole is, you guessed it, asleep at the wheel......again. I can't fathom getting kicked in the teeth too many more times without finally saying "Enough is enough".

[martymar64]

59. Slight Correction

You got one of the 4 red states wrong. Montana is not one anymore with a majority that approves of *. Idaho is the fourth red state (Koolaid is their official state drink).
An interesting note, in three of those states (ID, UT & WY) there are substantial populations of Mormons,if not downright majorities. Sorry if I've offended any progressive Mormons, but I call 'em like I see 'em.

BTW, GO HUSKIES!!! (UW Alumni - Class of 97)

[skeeters2525]

38. How Can I Say This Nicey

Dear Nicey.

How did that third party work out in 2000. It gave us eight years of Bush. Yes, I know Diebold, but they would have had to steal more votes without the Nader Morons.

So please, pretty please, with sugar on top. Shut up about a third party.

I don't believe there is a third party congressman. Maybe one independent.

So all you will get will be the one percent of dolts that will hoist another evil Republican on our ass.

Work to change the Dems. But please shut down your computer anytime you even think the word, third party.

[zeemike]

42. I know what you mean and share your concerns

But what if we work like hell to reform the Dem's and they move even further right what then?
Don't blame the victim for this the real problem is that someone can be elected with less than 50% of the votes and it is just as simple as that.

And welcome to DU

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Have the dems dleatt with the voting machines?

no

They are well on their way to ahem "blowing it."

[Public_Hazard]

44. If you've seen Life of Brian (Monty Python) then you'll know what I mean

As much as I love posting with all you wonderful folks, instead of just sitting around talking about how bad things are and what could be done, quit talking, get out, and do something. If every liberal, democrat, and left-winger who posts on this site went out and helped the dems, the 2008 election would be in the bag. To the colors, my lads, let's kick some neo-conservative ass!

Oh, and don't forget those mid-term elections. We gotta get the House back!

[LiberalFighter]

46. NO... best way is to take control of a major party in existence...

Starting a new party or involving oneself in a minor party puts too many hurdles in the way.

There are 50 states that have different requirements for a party to have their candidate on the ballot. It requires MONEY... LOTS of money and an well run organization in each state to get the signatures and know the requirements. A presidential candidate HAS to be on the ballot in ALL the states NOT just some of them.

[MrBenchley]

47. Why wait? Hit the bricks now

and we Democrats can go on working toward November without this dreary chorus of defeatism and silliness.

[LittleClarkie]

50. Why think about that now, though

Work for victory first, THEN worry about third party aspiration after November if all doesn't work out.

We are all a part of this. We will have failed too. I do not point at "Democrats" as if I'm not included in that group.

[VirginiaDem]

52. One upon a time, Democratic Underground

was for Democrats.

[niceypoo]

53. Once upon a time

the Democratic party was for democrats

[niceypoo]

54. I am not a part of the Democratic leadership

I am not included in that group. I am what's known as "rank and file".

[SaveElmer]

56. Ralph...Ralph....

Nader is that you?

[niceypoo]

57. Third party means NEW third party

You can write in for Nader, the other perpetual loser, if you are so inclined.

[CPMaz]

60. Better yet, a mandated third party -

Anybody officeholder who takes money from corps (campaign contribution, junket, etc.) automatically gets enrolled in The Corporate Party. Their party's symbol would be (of course :) ) a "$".

Call it the "Truth In Politics Initiative"...