Will you vote for ANY Democrat running against Bush?

[Midwest_Doc]

A YES vote means that you will vote for the Democratic candidate, even if a third party choice more closely reflects your views - for example, Ralph Nader.

[mouse7]

1. Except Lieberman, Breaux or Zell Miller. n/t

[IconoclastIlene]

10. At this point...

At this point, but not to beat a dead horse, I would vote for Vlad the Impaler, Attila the Hun and/or Ted Nugent.

I have been upset about this group of pols since the day the Supreme Court picked our President for us.

Thank you.
MB

[HuskerDem]

14. Even Lieberman and Zell would be less dangerous than bush

so I would still take them over bush.

[WilliamPitt]

45. Good thing none of the three are running

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Yes

Even though I fear the Democratic Party is just the lesser of two evils because it is still beholden to corporations instead of the people, I'll vote Democrat in November. But after that, I'm working for building a party that remembers that the people are sovereign in this nation. Know a lot of folks (both Dems and Reps) that are doing the same thing and feeling the same way.

[MichaelHarris]

3. vote

I would vote for Ed, the talking horse over chim chim.

[Racenut20]

4. I would vote for Rasputin, though it would be a difficult choice between

he and Zell Miller.

[Cuban_Liberal]

5. Yes, except for LaRouche.

I would vote for any of the 10 candidates who started out as candidates, and I would also support anyone the convention might draft, if it ever came to that (Gore, e.g.). I will not support a third-party candidate.

[LWolf]

6. other.

Who knows. I don't have to make this decision until next November. I've got current votes to ponder.

[11 Bravo]

7. Yes, up to and including Charley Manson.

n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

8. Yes, the two viable ones we have left

are reasonably palatable to me. I wouldn't have been able to say yes while Lieberman was still in, but I can say it now.

[diamondsoul]

9. They're ALL viable. n/t

[Stuckinthebush]

15. No they're not

DK has around 2 delegates and is polling in the single digits in the upcoming races. The media has abandoned him and without the coverage, he can't get the momentum. He has little cash to saturate the airwaves so he can't get out his message that way. Barring a miracle, DK is finished.

Sharpton has around 16 delegates and is not polling well in the upcoming states. He has the same problem as DK with the media and money. Barring a miracle, Sharpton is finished.

John Edwards is only viable because he has one state win and a close call in Wisconsin. He has the media following him and he still has a pretty good campaign chest to run adds in selected areas. His viability is tenuous at best, but he can still be considered as a viable candidate.

As much as it hurts to say, there are two candidates left that have any shot at the Democratic nomination - Kerry and Edwards.

[Mairead]

31. The media hasn't "abandoned" DK - that implies they once covered him!

Right from the start they have relentlessly avoided covering him at anything more than the token level. This is a guy with a better elective record than Clark, Dean, Edwards, or Kerry, and the only one to hold an elected chief-exec position apart from Dean. That's not an accident.

[Stuckinthebush]

41. OK

Nevertheless, DK can not win the nomination or the presidency. He is not viable at this time nor will he be in this election cycle.

[Mairead]

52. In your opinion. Only in your opinion.

In reality, any number of events could put him right out in front.

[arwalden]

20. A Legitimate Candidate Is Not Necessarily A Likely One

Most reasonable people can see where this is headed and our nominee is going to be either Kerry (likely) or Edwards (possible).

Although Kucinich and Sharpton are certainly legitimate, and although they deserve to be included and to have their voices heard, they have long ceased being "viable".

-- Allen

[Crunchy Frog]

28. I didn't mean to belittle Kucinich

I have a tremendous amount of respect for him, and I would happily vote for him if he were the nominee.

I just don't think it is realistic at this point to think he has a real shot at the nomination.

I'm really glad that he chose to run, and that he was able to bring things into the discussion that otherwise would have been ignored. I wish we were the kind of country where he could be a viable candidate, I just don't see it happening.

I'm genuinely sorry if I offended you.:-(

[BL_Zebub]

11. I will not vote for anyone who represents the PNAC'ers.

What party they claim to be is irrelevant if they support this treasonous agenda. There is no difference between two PNAC candidates.

[arwalden]

19. Doo-Dah, Doo-Dah!

"There's no difference between them all... Oh doo-dah day!" :hi:

-- Allen

[oasis]

26. Only Bush has adopted the PNAC agenda. No Democrat has, or will.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

12. 'unnamed Dem' too hard to hate. eom

[HuskerDem]

13. Hell YES! A democratic ham sandwich gets my vote first.

My cat just left something in the litterbox I would vote for first on a ticket against bush.

[Endangered Specie]

16. One quarter no? Sigh, some people dont learn

You dont split your vote, or else youll get something worse.

[West Coast Democrat]

21. We've got a bunch of lurking freeper types around here

Because no real DUer would not support the Democratic nominee.

[MadHound]

35. Stellar arguement, a real persuasive note you have there

Truly designed to win friends and influence enemies I see. NOT!!

Look kiddo, I'll put my Democratic credentials up against yours any day of the week, dollar for dollar donated, minuted for minute spent. And somehow I seriously doubt that you will come out on top.

Just because you and the rest of the ABBers around here are foolish enough to vote for any old corporate whore the Dems put up doesn't mean we all have to follow you folks off the cliff like a bunch of damn lemmings. Some of us have more important things to do, like working for a real change, not the faux kind of change the corporte Dems aspire to.

Don't you get it yet? Are you that blind that you don't see that we are now living under the two party, same corporate master system of government? What, the corporate cronyism that Clinton displayed wasn't enough for you? You like having well paying jobs sucked out of this country via "free trade"? Sheesh!

Now if you truly want to further enable the corporate corruption of our government, fine, vote for either of the corporate candidates. But don't disparage those of us who are working for a real change in this country. After all, it will be your butt too that we're saving.

[West Coast Democrat]

36. I don't care to make friends with Bush-enablers

Voting for Ralph Nader, or some other minor party candidate, in no way helps progressive politics to move forward. End of story.

A major third party would have just as many whiners and just as much infighting as the other two. I can tell just by looking at the foolish posts around here. So I hope you don't expect some other party to solve all the country's problems.

I'm proud to be a Democrat! And those like me will be saving us from 4 more years of the Bush Regime. You won't be saving my butt any time soon, buddy!

[MadHound]

40. Gee, and with your foolish, blind pride, look at what you are enabling.

NAFTA, GATT, WTO, the '96 Telecom Act, free speech zones, pollution "credits", welfare "reform", expanded use of H-1b visas, all this and more from the Clinton years. And looking at the "stellar" Dem records in the past three years provides an even bleaker scene; IWR, the Patriot Act, NCLB. Can you say no spine? Can you say listening to their corporate masters' voice?

The one thing a major third party like the Greens can do is to take the corporate cash corruption OUT of our government. Since they take no corporate cash donations, the only people the Greens are beholden to are the voters, you and me, the ones who put them there. And by this single act alone a world of difference would be made.

One of the purposes of our government is to protect the people of this country from the excesses of corporate malfeance. How can this purpose be fulfilled when the players of both parties are bought and paid for corporate whores? Can you answer that one? I'd really like to know.

But hey, if you wish to keep your blinders on and be a proud Democrat, fine by me. Just don't come whining back here when those self same Dems sell your happy ass down the river for thirty pieces of corporate silver.

[West Coast Democrat]

42. Umm.....I discovered the Ignore button today

YAY!!

[MadHound]

43. Good, we mustn't wake up those who are sleeping

God knows, they might come to their senses and hold the corporate whores on both sides of the aisle responsible for their actions:eyes:

[Mairead]

33. The ones who "don't learn" are the ones who persist in doing the same

thing--voting for poor candidates--while expecting different results--that other people will fall into line.

[West Coast Democrat]

38. I have to live in the real world

I'm not wealthy, nor am I a celebrity. It matters to me whether or not Bush* stays in office.

[sleipnir]

17. I won't vote for LaRouche!! I just wouldn't vote if it came down to that!

Sorry, but I couldn't vote for LaRouche to replace *. Too frickin' weird and frightening. If that ever happened, I just pack my bags and move to Fiji.

[West Coast Democrat]

37. LaRouche is NOT a Democrat

And I wish people would stop being so ridiculous about this question, as if Bush would suddenly switch parties and run as a Democrat, and what would you do then? Give me a frickin' break. It's a simple question.

[sleipnir]

39. Hate to break the bad news to you, but LaRouche IS a Dem.

He's a registered Democrat and has been for many years. It's not pretty, but it's true, and the question asked in the Poll would thus have to include him.

There are always candidates and people on the fringe, but they still associate with the Dem party. I mean, Zell Miller is still listed as a Dem. He's as much of a Dem as LaRouche is, they're both out on the edge.

LaRouche does espose many Democrat principles and ideals, but he does have some border-line racist, ugly aspects to his campaign and views. Though, to his minimal credit, he has reformed himself and his policies over the last 8 years or so. Now, he's not so extreme and "racist."

[youngred]

48. He's a DINO

but he reflects on the Democrats ideals and principles about as well as he does Republican ideals and principles (such as they are).

The only person Lyndon LaRouche represents is himself

[West Coast Democrat]

18. Yes, and I will vote with much pride and enthusiasm

none of this whiny, "lesser of two evils" garbage!

[vet_against_Bush]

22. Of course I will

and all those voting "no" will be faced with that decision and just might change their mind. W, must go.

[denverbill]

23. That's pathetic. 71% vote yes?

Lyndon LaRouche? George Wallace? Hell, you folks are saying if GWB changed parties and became a registered Democrat that's all it takes in your mind to vote for him.

Sorry, but it takes more than a D after a name for me.

[pezcore64]

25. lol

Didnt you get the memo?!?
its not about ideas, policites, or any issues...its about winning!
submit!
vote for the status quo!


This is what happened before the last election, disinfranciasing the progressives of the party.
I think nader is right, neither party should control this government. they are the same at the core, but with differnt costumes.

[denverbill]

30. Nader didn't start it.

Ross Perot got nearly 20% of the vote in 1992, and might well have won the thing if he hadn't weirded out and backed out of the race, then jumped back in.

Unfortunately, it damned near takes a billionaire to create a third party nowadays.

[mvd]

24. Definitely

If people could live in the U.S. with Bush being in power for 4 more years, more power to them - they are steadfast in their principles and aren't bad Democrats or liberals. But I probably couldn't, even as a Kucinich supporter. There are times where I don't mind retreating and fighting another day. I don't like Nader anyway even though I have Green leanings, so I wouldn't vote for him.

[mmonk]

27. yes, if for no other reason

judicial nominees. A recent supreme court ruling has erased 14th ammendment protections for some disabled persons.

[CalebHayes]

29. Yes, sir!

[Slice]

32. No

I would vote for any of the Democrats except Al Sharpton.

I would happily vote for Edwards, Kerry, or Kucinich.

But not Al Sharpton. He is a terrible person.

[jonnyblitz]

34. this time around yes. ANY DEM even the most right wing

homophobic asshole they could dredge up if I had to.... just this year though.

[curlyred]

44. Vote? probably. Support? doubtful.

It's a rock and a hard place situation for me. I may have to hold my nose and vote for Kerry, but I won't enjoy it, I won't work for him, and I certainly won't be giving him any money.

[littlejoe]

46. Not just yes, but hell yes!

I would vote for Charles Manson if he was our nominee. And I would hope that, even if some of you have to hold your nose, will vote for Kerry. He will need every one of your votes.

[The Magistrate]

47. Absolutely, Doctor

Any who would not deserves the infamy that will surely attach to them, as open tools of reaction.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[absyntheNsugar]

49. Even Zell Miller is better than Bush

He's Right Wing, thats for sure, but even still he's more Bush 41 than Bush 43

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

50. I will vote for the Dem candidate because I am a Democrat

I am a Democrat because I believe in creating a better life for all people, even where it may conflict with my narrow self-interest.

I will vote for the Democratic candidate because compromise is not a dirty word but the way things get done. And I am not ashamed to be a team player, cries of sheeple to the contrary.

No matter who becomes the Democratic nominee, I will cast my vote for him because my doing otherwise would be a crime against the people and the country I profess to love.

[elperromagico]

51. If Nader demonstrates that he can get 50% of the vote, I'll vote for him.

Until that time, I am a dedicated pragmatist.