What 'could' happen if you vote 3rd party...

[Endangered Specie]

I hope the people contemplating not voting for the Dem nominee read this:

We all know that in this country, presidental elections are 2 man races. Time and time again, we've seen that a third party that draws votes from one side, helps the other, and can (as in 1992, 2000) cause a victory where there would have otherwise been defeat.

So, with that in mind, if you vote third party, that is pretty much a vote for Bush, since it isnt a vote for the Dem...

Now, I know many of you will probably hold in disguist the dem nominee for various reasons, but I hope you do consider the only alternative and that is GWB.

One of the worst presidents in modern times no doubt. Imagine what he could if he wins in 2004, then he wouldnt have to worry about getting elected again, he could do even MORE damage than hes done now. If he gets another 4, hell probably get a supreme court judge, just imagine what can happen then, do you want to live ina country where abortion is outlawed, and anti sodomy laws are restored?


So, trying to stay within the lines of non-inflamitory speech, ill stop there and ask you just to think about it some. If you think W is bad now, imagine if he doesnt have to worry about elections next time.

If you think this is wrong, then please speak...

[HFishbine]

1. If you feel that is a legitimate concern

Then you have as much an obligation to compromise as those of whom you are asking the same. If you worry that progressives will "support Bush" should they not vote for the dem nominee, then you have a responsibility to make sure the dem party nominates a candidate who can be supported by progressives.

[Endangered Specie]

5. well, I cant do much, NC primaries are pretty late.

A highly progressive candidate will probably not win the election. In order for a democrat to win, he needs the progressive, and a good majority of moderate voters.

I just cant fathom why a progressive would vote third party, knowing full well that by doing so, it could undermine the democrat, even if hes not progressive, is surely better than Bush.

[arwalden]

17. I Wonder How The Math Will Work Out On That

Just spitballing and theorizing here... I've got no links.

Based on the way things are currently developing, it appears that the candidate that attracts more centrist votes is not the candidate that attracts the most progressive votes.

From a practical standpoint, I think I'd rather have the candidate who could get 10 centrist votes (that would have otherwise gone to Bush) instead of the candidate who would LOSE those 10 centrist votes and only gain 4 or 5 additional progressives who would have stayed home anyway. (Or who vote third party as a protest vote to send-a-message to the "establishment".)

Elections are won from the center. To pretend that anything else is true is being idealist and naive.

Even if you're not REALLY in the center, you must pretend to be. The Bush* that's in office is not the Bush we were led to believe he was when he was a candidate. He campaigned from the center and pulled over those centrist votes who probably voted for Clinton in previous years.

-- Allen

[Virginian]

23. Just remember that Perot in 92 helped us and Nader in 00 hurt us.

The old saying that "Half a Loaf is better than None," is in full effect here. If the candidate is not as progressive as you would like, don't "cut off your nose to spite your face."

If you don't think the democratic candidate is as much to your liking as the third party candidate, just take your ballot, mark it for the third party candidate and throw it into the trash can, because that is how much your vote will count in the end. Instead of getting your preference, you will get just the opposite. How many Perot voters really wanted Clinton instead of Bush, Sr? How many Nader voters really preferred Bush over Gore?

I would love to see three major parties instead of only two. I think it would be better for our nation, but face it. There are only two and this is not the year to "make a statement."

[arwalden]

2. Excellent Post... But Many Folks Are Too Selfish Or Just Politically Naive

when it comes to being "principled". It's certainly not a very effective strategy, yet they continue to encourage others to do the same.

-- Allen

[Endangered Specie]

11. Thank you...

I intend to do posts like this all the way to the election.


Just trying to do my part to get rid of W.

[Atlant]

3. What part of this did the Democratic Party not understand...

What part of this did the Democratic Party not understand when THEY
decided that my views didn't matter?

Atlant

[arwalden]

39. "Impractical" is not the same thing as "Irrelevant"

Many back burner issues that aren't receiving as much attention as progressives would like them to receive interpret that as being personally "snubbed" by the party.

Even though I feel betrayed by Log Cabin Republicans... I do admire them in their efforts to work for change within their party. They are disciplined enough to continue to work within their party despite their repeated failures and constant snubbing (outright snubbing, not imagined). Lessons can be learned here.

Those who stomp away from the Democratic party in a sanctimonious tirade accomplish nothing aside from making "enemies" and causing resentment. Their voices become muted and their opinions become fringe issues when the allow their anger and frustration to control their agenda.

-- Allen

[democratreformed]

40. This is my view also. THEY are the ones gambling with our future.

THEY wanted the race to be over early. Is that a good plan? The fervor will die down and the Democratic race will become non-news instead of keeping our candidates constantly in front of voters. I sure hope their gamble pays off.

[bowens43]

4. Only a vote for Bush is a Vote for Bush.

I have though about it. Compromise is how we got where we are today. Each of us should vote our conscience, Nothing else. If you believe that the Dem nominee , whoever he may be , will do less damage then Bush, then vote for him. I will NOT vote for someone just because he is listed as Democrat on the ballot.

[Atlant]

18. It's the *LONG RUN* that worries me.

> Each of us should vote our conscience, Nothing else. If you believe
> that the Dem nominee , whoever he may be , will do less damage then
> Bush, then vote for him.

It's the *LONG RUN* that worries me. While electing a Democrat as
President in 2004 might help in the short run, it's clear that the
Democratic Party is in a period of long-term decline that started
when they supported civil rights in '64 and then failed to react
to Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" in '68. This decline
accelerated when the DLC took over the Party to elect Bill
Clinton (and then lose essentially every other contested election
since then).

I'd rather see the Democrats lose in 2004 and fundamentally transform
the party than see them win just the Presidency in 2004 but continue
on their path towards becoming indistinguishable from the Rebublicans
(only nicer).

Atlant

[Ripley]

6. Maybe the Democratic party should have gotten a clue in 2000.

Instead, they keep handing us the worst candidates out of DC they could imagine. I used to think anyone could beat Smirk. Now I turn on the TV and as I nod off listening to Kerry say something so contrived and dispassionate, sounding like your accountant explaining the terms of a refinance, I'm not so sure.

If Kerry is the nominee I bet we will have a record low Dem turnout to vote.

Sorry.

[Endangered Specie]

9. Seeing as to how so far records numbers have turned out to vote Kerry

I would humbly say that that is unlikely.
Most democrats are so tired of Bush, theyll take anyone else.

[Atlant]

20. "...gotten a clue in 2000" Indeed! (NT)

[lovedems]

22. Well, that would be all fine and dandy if what you say is true

but I think the democratic voters have handed us our candidate, not the democratic party. There is still time left for things for change, we will just have to wait and see.

For clarification, Kerry is not my first choice but I am not willing to disregard the record turnout in the primary races so far. There is obviously something about Kerry that the voters like.

[Ripley]

26. That is just sad.

Just because people are so pissed off at Smirk they are flocking to the one candidate the entire media/talkingheads/Dem establishment directs them to...that is a good sign?

What is wrong with expecting a DAMN GOOD candidate? Not just someone who has the honorary title of being "better than Bush." That is really disgraceful that America will now just accept their green baby food when they would rather have the orange baby food because the "adults in charge" tell us to.

You are missing the biggest point of all. So what if there are record turn-outs at the primaries? Good, yes, but do you realize how many people do NOT vote in GE? Millions don't. And in order for enough of them to get out there and vote to balance the huge mobilization you will see with Repuke money driving nursing home patients to the polls...we need a candidate that lights a fire under people's butt. Someone who doesn't sound like everyone else in Washington. 99% of people who are going to vote against Bush don't know or care about BCII. Got it?

[lovedems]

37. First of all, I am inclined to think that if people voted in the primary

they will vote in the GE, especially if the intent is to get the chimp out. Second, I don't necessarily agree that the people are being driven to the candidate the media/talkingheads/Dem establishment directs them to. Why can't you give dem voters the benefit of the doubt? It seems to me that you are angry because they didn't chose your candidate and therfore are accusing them of the inability to think for themselves.

I do wish that we could have a candidate that lights the fire under the people's butt, but I also agree that, that is a matter of opinion. There are obviously millions of Americans who think Kerry is a damn good candidate, otherwise they wouldn't have voted for him. I don't necessarily understand the vote behind Kerry but I am not going to accuse the voters of being blinded by the media. Dems are a diverse group of people and think differently, unlike the repugs who all think alike. That is what I consider a plus in the democratic party, unfortunatley some don't seem to like people who are more or less progressive or who don't follow their particular candidate. That is the essence of being a dem!

[Ripley]

46. It is not sour grapes.

I just personally don't like Kerry.

Have you read this? http://makethemaccountable.com/podvin/media/040201_TheScream.htm

I think it explains it pretty clearly. I don't know why people think the media is innocent in this. :shrug: I used to be one of those (as recent as 6 months ago) who said "the media is not monolithic" and is "not that powerful." I changed my tune when I saw the obvious destruction of Dean. If you choose to ignore it...fine. But when any candidate is labeled "bizarre" and "insane" and "raging" and "emotionally unstable" based on one speech, in such a lockstep fashion...well the truth hurts sometimes.

[molly]

7. I loved Ross Perot !

[reprehensor]

8. 3rd Party vote=Republican vote. Don't do it. (n/t)

[Atlant]

10. Nope. 3rd party vote = 1/2 Repub vote, 1/2 Dem vote.

No. Mathematically speaking, if the eventual winner of the
election is sure to come from one of the two "major" parties,
then a third party vote is the mathematial equivalent of
giving 1/2 a vote to the Republicans and 1/2 a vote to the
Democrats.

Atlant

[IrateCitizen]

16. 0+0=1

I guess that "fuzzy math" is not the sole domain of the Republicans, after all. :eyes:

[IrateCitizen]

12. Motivation by fear should be the domain of the Republicans

It always angers and saddens me when I see it being used by "Democrats".

I'm not planning to vote for third party, but let me ask you a question. If a Democrat is elected but still continues to enable the Republicans -- either through the Clintonian strategy of "triangulation" or the more general trend of continuing to support American militarism, mass-consumerism and rapacious greed -- then what is actually gained in the end? What is gained if the "center" continues to drift to the right, if only at a slightly slower pace than it would under consolidated Republican rule?

Is that a compromise worth making -- one that still ends up a net loss in the end?

[Endangered Specie]

21. I cant fathom any of the 6 left being as bad a Bush

Yes, motivation by fear is not 'high', but this is a real fear.

Is the Democrat party is in need of repair? Yes, but that is, I think, not as important now as is getting rid of Bush, the real enemy.

[IrateCitizen]

25. Since you didn't answer the question, I'll ask again.

The question never was whether or not any of the 6 remaining candidates are as bad as Bush? (They're not.) Nor was it whether or not the Democratic Party is in need of repair. (It is.) The question was as follows:

If a Democrat is elected but still continues to enable the Republicans -- either through the Clintonian strategy of "triangulation" or the more general trend of continuing to support American militarism, mass-consumerism and rapacious greed -- then what is actually gained in the end? What is gained if the "center" continues to drift to the right, if only at a slightly slower pace than it would under consolidated Republican rule?

Is that a compromise worth making -- one that still ends up a net loss in the end?

I would appreciate an answer, since I answered your question.

Furthermore, you said, "... but that is, I think, not as important now as is getting rid of Bush, the real enemy."

I would vigorously disagree with this statement. The real enemy is not Bush. The real enemy is the triumvirate of militarism, mass-consumerism and rapacious greed that has infected our national conscience. Your "externalization" of the enemy in the person of Bush is a gross miscalculation, and treats the mere symptom as the disease itself -- ignoring the real idsorder in the process.

The enemy is not outside of us -- it is within us. Like Gandhi once said, "The true battle between good and evil takes place in men's hearts. That is where all future wars should be fought."

[Endangered Specie]

31. Well, Ill try and answer your question then...

I dont forsee the democratic nominee of the 6 'enabling' the republicans.

Assuming the democrat DOES do as you say, support militarism, greed and consumerism, yes that would suck, but there are other things to consider, like civil rights and liberties, social issues, of which, if any other thing, seperate Dem's from Rep's.


In the end, the democrat may not be much better than W, but surely not worse.

And you will not make the party better by not voting for them and thinking that if they'll lose, they'll change their ways.

[IrateCitizen]

34. Sorry, but I don't find your answer satisfactory

You say nothing to dispel my belief that, if a Democrat is elected who fails to take on the national disorder of militarism, mass-consumerism and rapacious greed, the "center" will continue to move to the right.

Assuming the democrat DOES do as you say, support militarism, greed and consumerism, yes that would suck, but there are other things to consider, like civil rights and liberties, social issues, of which, if any other thing, seperate Dem's from Rep's.

You apparently do not realize that these things are incompatible. Your argument is similar to those who endorse imperialism as a means to further "democracy" -- without realizing that empire and democracy are innately incompatible.

And you will not make the party better by not voting for them and thinking that if they'll lose, they'll change their ways.

I clearly said above that I was not voting for a third-party candidate. But you are the one who, in another thread, was saying that we should compromise in the primaries and support the person who "is most likely to beat Bush." I'll flip your assertion around on you. If you do not support the most progressive candidate during the primaries to ensure that their voice is heard loud and clear, what on earth makes you think that the party will embrace progressive issues?

[Endangered Specie]

41. Well, I guess its just one of those 'agree to disagree' type of things

"You say nothing to dispel my belief that, if a Democrat is elected who fails to take on the national disorder of militarism, mass-consumerism and rapacious greed, the "center" will continue to move to the right."

This would be easier if we knew who the nominee was. Assuming it is Kerry, I dont forsee him becoming a pro-militaristic, and for unabashed capatilism and greed. And, as much as I dont care for capitalism, consumerism, and greed, those are more or less America's fundamental roots, and to a degree they do work, albiet not always fair.

"If you do not support the most progressive candidate during the primaries to ensure that their voice is heard loud and clear, what on earth makes you think that the party will embrace progressive issues?"
Well, for one thing I supported Dean, and I will admit that the Democratic party does not embrace all ideals that are progressive that I would like to see. The Democrats are far from perfect.

I just think that this is not the best time to be fighting amongst ourselves. Changing a political party is almost impossible.

[IrateCitizen]

48. Since when is internal debate "fighting amongst ourselves"?

Changing a political party is almost impossible.

Sorry, but "impossible" is a word that I try not to consider in such matters. It limits your capacity for imagination and action right off the bat, and is a self-defeating concept.

[lcordero]

13. This is all about me first

Neither the projected nominee or the incumbent are in any way reassuring about MY survival or well-being. Neither has done anything to warrant me getting off my butt and walking over to the polls for them and for them I won't.

on edit: ones a bigot and the other is a coward.

[Endangered Specie]

24. They may not do anything to help you, but at least they wont hurt you...

Like W has, and even worse, what W will in 2004-2008 if he wins.

[lcordero]

28. Nope

I'm not accepting that.
No speedy exit strategy = no vote

[Endangered Specie]

33. If you dont accept it fine, but that is the way it is...

World isnt such a great place.

I hope you dont vote on 1 issue alone.

[lcordero]

35. that one issue alone covers every other issue

corruption
cronyism
corporatism
racism
lying
stealing
ethnic cleansing

my view is that a yes to war is a yes to the above.

on edit: I'm going to add crime and poverty as two more issues

on edit again: I'll add injustice as an issue too.

[NWHarkness]

14. The redistricting factor

The stated reason the GOP used to redistrict Texas and eliminate six Democratic seats fro the House of Representatives was that the margin of Bush's victory in the state in the 2000 presidential election reflected the true political orientation of the state.

Voting for a third party presidential candidate in Republican leaning states only serves to help the GOP increase it's dominace.

[corporatewhore]

42. that is not a reason to not vote third party

that was a bullshit arguement tom delay used they would of used another one and everybody down here in Texas knows it !!!

[NWHarkness]

43. And it worked, didn't it?

.

[corporatewhore]

45. if they couldnt have used that one they would replace it with another bs

argument

[felonious thunk]

15. There will never be a perfect Democratic candidate

Never. It cannot happen, because our party is too varied and inclusive (both are good things, in my opinion) to have one clear voice. We have progressives, moderates, and everything in between. We will never nominate someone who embodies everything that everyone in the party wants, because it is impossible.

So we face this every election. Do we split our voting block up into the separate factions of our party, or do we rally around someone who best represents most of us?

Compromise is sometimes necessary in our system. Like it or not, it was set up as a two party system, and as such, compromise is necessary. In my view, it is also desirable. Compromise is not a bad thing, and it can actually bring varied people together.

I think it is important that we on the left stick together. We will never agree on the perfect nominee, we just have to find a person we think will do the right thing, and at times make all of us pleased. A presidential candidate cannot be all things to all people.

[IndianaGreen]

19. Nothing if you live in Indiana!

We elected a Democratic Governor by half a million votes in 2000, yet Gore lost the state by almost as many votes.

What does that tell you?

[sallyseven]

27. Says a lot. Gore failed to capitalize

on Clinton's success. he got pissy about the blow job. Doesn't anyone think that maybe Dean turned off some people and his supporters gave concern to many people? Some things that were said about other candidates were abominable

[IndianaGreen]

30. To be fair to Gore, Indiana always goes Republican

The only exception was in 1964.

Must be something in the water!

[Ripley]

32. Dean said abominable things?

Really? Did he run an ad with Gephardt's face next to Bin Ladens with his voice approving that ad? Did he lie and say Lieberman wanted to dismantle Medicare?

My how one forgives all the beltway hacks for their political vollying, but when it is aimed at them from an outsider, suddenly the rules change.

[MadHound]

29. And what part of two party/same corporate master do you not understand?

Sorry, but that is the truth of the matter. With both parties being corrupted by corporate cash on an ongoing and record setting matter, it is obvious that neither party represents the PEOPLE. Rather they do the bidding of their cororate masters, the difference being that the Dems try to sugar coat the pill before shoving it down our collective throats.

Sorry, but I want a real change. Dennis Kucinich could have provided it from within the Democratic Party, but his stances on CFR among other things have frightened the corporate masters, hence a man who resembles FDR in many ways is getting the cold shoulder from the Demcratic Party machinery, who has instead backed a "safe" candidate, a thoroughly sold out corporate whore by the name of Kerry.

Well then, being a political activist, and wishing to vote for real change in this country, I will be voting third party(Green) this election. Having gone down the road of voting for the lesser of two evils for over twenty years now, all I've seen that proposition get us is the confirmation of the two party/one corporate master model as our de facto system of government. I want real change in this country, not just faux change.

And while your boogeyman of choice this time(Bushco) may frighten others, it holds no fear for myself and an increasing number of like minded people. When you continue to pull this stunt of ABB and fearmongering, it gets old and your cries of "WOLF" start to fall on deaf ears.

So rant and rave and call me names all you want. But remember, the numbers are growing in our favor, and as more and more people wake up, eventually the Democratic Party will go the way of the Whigs.

[justinpower]

36. Well Said MadHound n/t

[democratreformed]

38. These are unusual times and even more unusual things could happen

It might be the year that a third party could become viable. I'm not saying it will or that I would go that direction, but I could see where these unusual times could show some surprises.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

44. I'm throwing my hands up on this one

If people vote third party and the election is close, we will all simply live with the consequences. People are free to vote for whom they wish.

If supporters of Howard Dean are so concerned that the Democratic party with its VAST array of interests from unions to women's issues to environmental issues no longer represent them then so be it.

If the election is NOT close and sentiment against Bush holds it won't matter.

Either way...this is no longer a conversation worth having. Hitler could have never came to power without the complicity of the divided left but don't try telling anyone on this board that that matters. They have principles.

What I see insofar as history is concerned is that Howard Dean's name will end up in the history books following Ralph Nader's. He won't even get frontrunner status in history as he didn't invent the distinctions "SPOILER."


See you all in the history books.

[arwalden]

47. Out-fucking-standing!

(Can I Say Fucking?)

I'm pretty much ready to write-off the sanctimonious crap that others dish out as well. Whether they truly believe it, or if it's just a juvenile attempt at trying to make a point and to get some attention and sympathy---I don't know.

They already know how the numbers work. They've already seen that it benefits the antithesis of everything they hold dear. They've already seen that it makes very little REAL difference within the party itself. Rather than participating, they are footnoting themselves and isolating themselves. Pretty ineffectual way to accomplish anything important. Being perceived as being a spoiled outsider on the fringe does not do much to advance their goals.

It's pretty a pretty selfish attitude one takes when they get more glee out of being "right" and having "principles" when they are ultimately impotent to do anything meaningful in the political arena.

-- Allen

[corporatewhore]

49. well a neoliberal imperalist might win against a neoliberal imperialist

[Endangered Specie]

50. kick