Does ABB really work in this scenario?

[GreenArrow]

latest Bluegrass poll finds:

"President Bush would easily defeat any of the major Democratic presidential candidates in Kentucky if the November election were held today, according to The Courier-Journal's latest Bluegrass Poll.

Bush is showing strength in the state at a time when more Kentuckians than ever appear to be thinking of themselves as Republicans. The poll found that the GOP may have an advantage in party identification among voters for the first time, although the parties are close."

http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2004/02/08ky/wir-4-president0208-6284.html

If the race tightens up, I'll be inclined to vote ABB (since my candidate Kucinich is not going to be the nominee,) but if Bush continues to hold a big lead, (and he won this state big last time too,) then what's the point of voting for the Dem nominee when they aren't going to win any electoral votes and when a third party candidate offers both better representation of me and a better plan for the country?

[plurality]

1. Shhhh, it's doesn't matter, you're only allowed to say...

"No D bad, One D good" (To the tune of four feet bad two feet good)

[vi5]

2. With all due respect, what good is 3rd party representation...

If they don't actually stand any chance of winning, so that they can actually represent you? How exactly would that third party candidate "represent" you?

I just don't get the "I will settle for nothing less than 100% of what I want". I'm not saying I particularly love any of the candidates. But the fact is that none of them are against a woman's right to choose, none of them would nominate a Pickering, none of them would have Ashcroft as their attorny general, none of them would have Thompson as their sec of H & HS, and none of them would have Gale Norton in charge of the environment.

So I'm sorry, but even though I could argue things that I don't like about any of the potential nominees, if they are all willing to guarantee the things I said above then they are going to be a better representation of me and my vote than any third party could provide.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

7. how is it different if the Dem doesn't have a chance of winning?

Seems either way it's a symbolic/protest vote, doesn't it?

[GreenArrow]

10. well, you have to start somewhere

I didn't really say that I'd settle for nothing less than 100 percent of what I want. As a voter and a citizen, I have no other choice than to settle for less. I did say I'd be willing to vote ABB if the race here becomes close.

If it isn't close, then why should I vote for someone who is A) not going to win and B) is taking stands on the issues that I find repellent, wrong, stupid, dishonest, venal or outmoded. Why should I vote for a candidate that supported IWR, or the Patriot Act, is in favor of the death penalty, is in favor of continuing the drug war, is in favor of continuing to waste money in imperialistic and adventures overseas while our education system, economy, health-care system, environment and infrastructure whither away? If I want all that, I can vote Republican.

I want Bush out and held accountable, like everyone else, but if the major opposition party candidate is going to lose in my state, why shouldn't I vote for the candidate whose views and vison are more in line with my own? For others in a similar situation, maybe the mainstream candidate offers more of what you want. I tend to believe though, that most people don't pay a whole lot of attention to third party candidates, and don't really know what they offer.

[corporatewhore]

3. I dont see how anybody but bush could win here in texas

[pocoloco]

4. Well it's your choice alone, it's one of those

"to thine own self be true" thingies.

[corporatewhore]

11. I love your graphic!!!

[pocoloco]

16. It's from

http://www.gagarama.de/bush-links.htm

but I just had to light the fuse!

[NWHarkness]

5. House Redistricting

When the Republicans have pushed their redistricting plans in Texas, Colorado, and elsewhere, they have used the percentage of votes for the two major parties as evidence in their favor. They claim that increasing GOP districts is fair because it more equitably reflects the voting preferences of the state.

Given that, a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for increased GOP control of the House.

[RichM]

6. There is no point at all to it. In that situation, you are free to vote

your heart & conscience.

The situation is similar to 2000 with Nader. Nader was by far the best candidate, told the most truth, & was the least "bought and paid for." But voting for him in Florida was dangerous, while voting for him in California was "a free vote."

You will have a free vote, since the outcome is already clear in your state.

[theorist]

9. Absolutely correct!

I voted in South Carolina during the 2000 GE, where Bush's support was very heavy. (He didn't even campaign there after the SC primary, by the way.) I voted for Nader, because I really wanted to see the Greens get their 5% of the popular vote. Alas, it didn't happen, but I'm proud knowing I voted my conscience then.

Now I am in Indiana. The DNC has declared this a swing state. I fear for the future of this country. The only reasonable solution is to get rid of BushCo ASAP, even if that means putting in a set of pseudorepublicans. It may not be what I want, but then again, it has been a long time since we have had a candidate who can be everything to all people (e.g. the man quoted in my sig line).

We need to shake up the system!

Addition on edit: Kucinich has the capacity to be a candidate for all people (self described conservatives as well as conservatives). Unfortunately, he is being utterly ignored by the American press. If you don't believe this, take a look at any wrap-up of the recent primaries. They hardly ever show a picture, quote, or single mention of his name. For shame!

[politick]

13. I voted for Nader in NH

where it was VERY risky. I think the Gore + Nader votes beat Bush by 3 or 4K, and if Gore had taken NH, he would be President right now, w/ or w/o Florida

But I stand by it. Not only because he was my only choice in good conscience, but b/c a larger chunk of the country now sees what happens in 3 short years when you become complacent. and had Gore won, we would not be having the exciting changes in the Dem party that are now taking place. Gore would have had no opposition for reelection, and we would have gone further to the middle, and would have to dig wourselves from further out if a Republican did ever win. We now see the Repub's true colors, and can take more heed from Nader's message. (And look who's emerging as the (D) frontrunner: an Establishment man, who, though he does vote liberally (when he shows up for votes at all :) ) seems to lack the backbone and candor that it will take to REALLY excite the party and make changes.

And maybe Nader wasn't wrong after all. We're so focused on getting Bush out that we tend to obfuscate the bigger pictuer, the role of the American Empire, peak oil, geopolitics. These are things that neither of the two main parties' Big wigs are likely to reform anytime soon...

[NoPasaran]

8. I live and vote in Texas

And while I accept that it's unlikely that Busholini will lose the state I am going to make him fight for it dammit! And the only vote that will be an unequivocal thumbs down on the junta and its crimes is a vote for the Democratic nominee.

In addition, if there is some third party out there that better reflects my beliefs it has so far escaped my attention.

[genius]

12. I'm not from Kentucy. Nationally Kerry or Edwards would beat Bush

That's what I care about. Dennis would beat him if he got the nomination.

[Lady President]

14. Couple reasons to stay ABB

Polls are not always accurate.
I'm an Ohioan and still can't believe that Gore pulled out of Ohio early because the polls said he didn't have a chance. The polls this primary season have been horrible at determining the percentages each candidate received. There is no way to know for certain the outcome until the votes are cast. (Even then, who knows how they'll be counted, but that's for another thread....)

Stronger showing may effect 2008 / 2012
Even if your state loses, you want the vote to be as close as possible to garner attention the next election cycle. No one wants their state to be completely written off as unwinnable in the future. By voting 3rd Party, you make the Dems. look weaker which will increase the bandwagon effect for the Republicans and increase the illusion that they represent the mainstream.

In any case, I think you have the right idea by voting for your favorite this Spring and waiting to make the ABB decision until closer to Nov.

[Crunchy Frog]

15. I voted for Nader in 2000

My state went overwhelmingly for Bush, and I wanted to make a statement to the Democratic party. This time I will vote for the Dem, whoever it is. I don't care if my state goes overwhelmingly for Bush again, I think this year we all have to make a unified statement about Bush by voting for the Dem.

That's just my opinion.