can you please explain yourselves?

[harmonicon]

If I told you I was head-over-heals about a politician who had voted for the patriot act, started an illegal war of aggression with Iraq which has caused the lives of thousands of Americans and 1 million Iraqis, and was hawkish on Iran, would you pat me on the back?

These are things that we complain about - get furious over - in regards to the Republicans. These are things that make us say "oh my god, where is our party?!" every time Pelosi and the rest of the leadership cave to Republicans (who are now in the minority!).

Do you think Bush and Cheney should be impeached?

Why, oh why, if you're against the patriot act, the war, and for impeachment could you ever support Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards or Obama? These people are your enemy (oh, ok, not if you don't mind a little killing in our name and are a multi-millionaire). To say they're "electable" is laughable. Guess what, Kerry/Edwards was a complete failure (yeah, the election may have been stolen, but that doesn't change the fact that they were/are big-business anti-working class candidates who didn't drum up the support someone without a foot in their mouth and a stiff wrist could have). These people have sold you out as senators, and they'll sell you out as president.

The main argument for supporting these folks against the republicans seems to be that bigots/racists/republicans/morons won't vote for a solid leftist, so we should run a centrist. When the center is between a centrist party (Democratis) and bat-shit-crazy right, this means we run a wacko and/or criminal. No one has good things to say about these people (how could they?) apart from that they think they'll beat the republican. When your talking point is "my guy's not as big of a crook!" you're backing the wrong guy (or gal).

Now, can someone please explain to me (and I'll recap) how you can be enthusiastic about a patriot-act-approving, pro-war, anti-impeachment, anti-universal healthcare candidate for president? If so, what on earth is it that you care about more than these things?

[Blue_In_AK]

1. I must disagree with you on Kerry/Edwards

but carry on.

[harmonicon]

5. why do you disagree?

I think the fix was in on that by the media/republicans and people were afraid enough to believe them. They said they wanted to run against Dean... BS. Did you watch the convention on TV? Dean was the star, and it's his 50-state strategy that has played a big part putting Democrats in the majority (not that it's mattered too much). Sure, I voted for them knowing it was the most important voted I'd thus far had in my life, but I wasn't excited, and I didn't know anyone who was excited about them. Edwards seemed to be on the ticket because he was a southerner and because he had a good showing from the Iowa horse-trading show (his deal with Kucinich was crucial in that.... seems to be ignored these days). Did you really think they would have had much to run on if they'd not been up against Bush? Those Kerry/Edwards voters were really not-Bush/not-Cheney voters as far as I could tell, and that's partly why they didn't win in a friggin' landslide.

[Blue_In_AK]

16. If you aren't familiar with Kerry's record

over the past 40 years, then I'm not even going to go there. Educate yourself.

[harmonicon]

20. No, I am. I know some people did like him because of that, esp. regarding labor

But it seemed to me that not only was he not the strongest candidate platform-wise (my opinion!), since he'd been part of the government that had caused the problems he was campaigning against, he was doomed.

[Blue_In_AK]

26. Kerry fought very hard against "the government that had caused

the problems" all through the '80s and '90s -- Iran-Contra, BCCI, etc. He hasn't gotten a whole lot of support from other Democrats in that regard. He can't be blamed for the fact that other legislators/presidents haven't had his principles and courage. Bill Clinton would have done well to follow through with some of Kerry's investigations and then maybe we wouldn't be in some of the messes we're in now, IMO.

[harmonicon]

31. Bill Clinton would have done well to follow through with some of Kerry's investigations

I couldn't agree more. He's done a lot of good, but there wasn't much point in him trying to argue against a war and laws that he had helped put into place. These last seven years have stained many people in government..... If he had run on his achievements, I think it would have been a landslide, but he ran as being not-Bush and was constantly chasing his own tail in regards to the war. People want to vote for positives.

[blm]

36. Baloney - he WON all his matchups - the DNC let the RNC steal that election

and they let them do it in the four years before election day.

Did the left media dominate the RW message machine?

Did the DNC dominate the RNC?

Did Kerry dominate his debates with Bush?

Only Kerry won his matchups - even with most of the party powerstructure quietly supporting Bush.

[harmonicon]

39. can't argue with that

[blm]

30. The man was an advocate for public financing of campaigns to get corpmoney OUT of

campaigns since 1985 and submitted the FIRST public financing bill to the senate in 1997 that he wrote and Wellstone signed onto called Clean Money, Clean Elections.

The man uncovered and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history. Maybe you heard of BCCI? CIA Drugrunning?
IranContra?

http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

The man had the best environmental record in the senate and even Gore acknowledged his leadership on that issue in his convention speech.

The man was the ENEMY of every GOP president since Nixon. And likely an enemy to Clinton, too, by 2001.

WHY? Because he's an anti-corruption, open government Democrat who would have opened the books on the last 40 years.

THIS is how Kerry was treated by establishment Dems:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

THIS is Clinton actively defending Bush in summer/2004:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

THIS is the Carvilles on election night:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


THIS is Hillary siding with Bush against Kerry in 2006:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg


You don't even GET that the media distorted what YOU thought about Kerry.

Why? Because he planned to reverse the FCC rulings that allowed their expansion. They knew that. They didn't let you learn much about him, and that worked for those who DID NOT PAY ATTENTION to our nation's actual governance the last 3 decades.

[blm]

33. Dean and ANY nominee would have been STUCK with the same Dem party infrastructure

that was collapsed in too many states the exact same way Kerry was stuck with it.

The nominee has to tap into the party infrastructure that EXISTS in each state, and that takes YEARS to strengthen, especially when they are in collapse as many were since 1997 - especially crucial states like Florida and Ohio.

Dean is STILL working to strengthen party infrastructure in those states - and THAT is what the 50 state strategy is about - a long term strategy that he is still in the process of working towards to better secure 2008 for Dems.

[harmonicon]

38. thank god he is

Having him as the head of the party makes me not ashamed to call myself a Democrat. Kerry had a lot going against him that he had no control over, that's for sure, but if he is such a hot pick why aren't there people clammering for him to run like they are for Gore?

[blm]

50. Inconvenient Truth.

And most don't pay attention to the real work being done in DC. Kerry called for Downing Street Memos to be investigated. Kerry led Alito filibuster. Kerry crafted Iraq withdrawal bill. He's the one taking the constant hits. He didn't take a break and come back with a significant movie like Gore did and which became a pivotal moment for the environmental issue. But someone has to do the every day dirty work and heavy lifting in DC and that is the stuff that rarely gets noted or appreciated.

I will clamor for Kerry from here to eternity - but how many people are like me and have followed the corruption of our government and the rise of global terrorism since the 80s? How many read the National Security Archives instead of Page Six?

How many, even here at DU, are anticorruption, open government Democrats for real? Unfortunately, fewer than there should be after 7years of Bush2.

[harmonicon]

53. *sigh* I'm afraid you might be right

Still, I can't accept Kerry, because he was for an illegal, unjust and immoral war.

We're fucked, aren't we?

[blm]

61. No he wasn't. That was distorted, too. He voted FOR the IWR. He spoke AGAINST use of force

when the weapon inspections were proving that force was not necessary and he STAYED on that position before, during and after Bush invaded.

The corpmedia was letting Bush off the hook for violating the IWR when he made his 'determination' that war was unavoidable by sticking to the mantra that IWR was vote FOR war. IWR would have prevented war if administered honestly, but that;s not what the media intended, is it?

Bush would have made that exact same determination to invade if Biden-Lugar version of IWR passed, too, and that would not have made Dean suddenly prowar just because he supported that version, now would it? But that's what the media would claim about that IWR, too. The storyline had been set.

[harmonicon]

66. well, Dean wasn't in the senate, so that's a moot point

but I don't think these senators were so naive - yeah, Bush would have invaded anyway, but they were making a political calculation that the invasion would be supported by the public and wanted to get on board. I knew that, do you think they didn't?

[blm]

71. Not the point. Those who voted FOR it for weapon inspections were OBLIGED to speak against

use of force when the weapon inspections started reporting back and were PROVING force was not needed. Those senators who did NOT stand up at that point were doing so out of calculation - those senators who spoke against invasion BECAUSE of the weapon inspections' findings were deliberately drowned out by the over-riding storyline. I am not one to give in to preferred storylines of the establishment powerstructure and the powerful elite.

They didn't buy control of most broadcast newsmedia in the 80s and 90s so the public could hear the truth.

[harmonicon]

75. "They didn't buy control of most broadcast newsmedia in the 80s and 90s so....

the public could hear the truth." - good point. I don't really want to argue this any further, because we have no disagreements about what happened, and history is history. We're each going to have our own opinions about how that history changed politician X or Y in our eyes, and that's ok. Shit, it mad people *like* Bush, because he was Mr. Tough Guy PenisGun.

[blm]

77. No problem here - I enjoyed the exchange.

I understand completely how the newsmedia has effected this nation, so I expect the best of our leaders to be distorted on a regular basis while the filthy fascists and their protectors always seem to get soft landings.

[harmonicon]

80. thank you

You disagreed with me and explained your position very well, where-as some people here have only resorted to name calling or throwing up red herrings. I think this is the kind of discussion we really need to be having in the party instead of "who's electable" or "what was so-and-so's latest gaffe or witty exchange".

[blm]

85. If that happened, more Dems would KNOW their nominees a lot better, but that's not

what the establishment figures want. They would replace GOP and Democratic parties with shared rule families Bush and Clinton.

[babylonsister]

2. Give me a name of an alternative that might win an election against

a rethug. You play with the cards you're dealt.

[harmonicon]

6. ANYONE, especially someone who isn't republican lite

but that doesn't matter. Democracy doesn't mean shit if we aren't voting for people who would represent us (even if we don't win) so we can vote for people that won't harm us as much as someone else would.

[wyldwolf]

14. Like who?

Democracy doesn't mean shit if we aren't voting for people who would represent us

Who is "us?"

[harmonicon]

23. "us" is you and I

We should each just vote for the person we feel comfortable with, regardless of what the media tells us. Go ahead and vote for whoever that is, but for a lot of people, it's not these senators. If you really feel like they represent you, I'd like to hear why. I really would, because I just don't get it. People are swayed with fairy tale stories of "electability" and "experience" that have little to do with what someone's platform is and what they'd actually do in office. Those are the things I care about. We've got to take our blinders off to get people we're happy with - choosing A, B, or C shouldn't be enough to qualify as a democracy. If that may mean more in fighting, I don't care, because I think we'll have better candidates for it. These past 7 years have shown me that business-as-usual when it comes to democracy in this country is not doing any good (unless you're filthy rich, which I'm not).

[wyldwolf]

65. I don't share your "republican lite" sentiments so don't include me.

[harmonicon]

68. what is your position then?

You may not share my "republican lite" sentiments, so what is it that you do like about these people? If you're pro Clinton, what is it about her platform that makes her a better person for you to have in government than someone else?

[Occam Bandage]

22. Kucinich is the only candidate in either party

who has a net favorability rating below -20%, and who has more than five times the number of people who say they would "certainly vote against" him than would "certainly vote for him."

So let's exclude him, because he's as popular as herpes. So who's your guy who can win?

[harmonicon]

24. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

Please!!! Can we give this shit up?! Is it completely impossible to have a discussion about policy?! "electability" and polls are red herrings invented by the corporate media so they can have politics-stars and outcasts and twist the vote around (and the media is very pro-republican, if you hadn't noticed). Give it up!

Can we please just give democracy a chance?

"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos" should not be an argument in a forum for political discussion!

[Occam Bandage]

27. Okay, so back to the original question. Who do you think can win?

Or do you believe that it isn't that important to have a Democrat instead of a Republican in the Oval Office come January '09?

I'd rather win with a 90%-good Democrat than lose with a 96%-good Democrat (and let a 99%-bad Republican take control).

[harmonicon]

32. I don't care who can win

Voting for someone just because they can win I see as being a defeat for democracy. I'd rather have a backbone to use to stand up against a bad government than have no backbone to stand up to a sort of shitty government that just could maybe be worse.

[Occam Bandage]

34. "I'd rather have a bad government and protest it,

then have a good but imperfect government."

And y'all wonder why people don't take you seriously.

[harmonicon]

42. no way, that's not what I said

I'd rather have the possibility of a government that I could be proud of than live in a country where there is no chance of having such a government - is that more clear? I'll take the sort of shitty government over the god-awful one, but I sure as hell won't campaign for either. How could I? And I don't wonder why people don't take me seriously. I've never expected them to. I do wonder why they don't take their role as citizens seriously though.

[Occam Bandage]

48. That's no better.

"I'd rather go with the miniscule chance of having a government that is 99% in my favor balanced against the overwhelming odds of an absolutely atrocious government, then I would with a good chance of having a government that is 95% in my favor balanced against fair odds of an absolutely atrocious government."

Still just as juvenile. People generally tend to drop their ideological purity tests once they realize that their responsibility is to flesh-and-blood people, not to words and concepts. Votes have consequences far, far more important than something as transient and selfish as your sense of pride.

[harmonicon]

52. I know they do

What do you think about the flesh and blood of the one million Iraqis that have been killed in this illegal war that these senators either voted for or voted to fund? This was is an illegal war of agression - against international law. Do laws mean nothing to you? Are we now going to be a country governed not by laws, but by men? That seems to be your argument. This is no ideological test. This is real world life and death, do you get that? Can you answer any of my original questions?

[Occam Bandage]

54. And tell me, then. How many of them will you bring to life

by running a hopeless opposition campaign? How many wars will you stop by losing next November? How many laws will you save by watching a Republican inauguration?

"Real world life and death?" If you understood that, you'd understand the importance of compromising an inch to win a mile. You wouldn't be talking about how you'd rather watch the Republicans win if it meant you had a slim chance of having a government you could be proud of.

Someday you'll realize politics is more than just words.

[harmonicon]

64. I don't think we have to compromise

If everyone was honestly willing to get behind whoever the nominee is, they'd win, no matter what. I really do think that anyone of these people would win against any one of the republicans. Any compromise should come from voting - you get a party candidate that you may not have voted for, but you live with it, and that's a compromise.

Do you think republicans waste their time worrying about winning over democratic voters? The "swing voter" thing is just as much a myth as is "electability". We'd do much better to have a strong party than the party of compromise. It's like we're making a deal with republicans if we compromise, but they aren't even part of the deal, so we lose on both fronts.

[Occam Bandage]

70. "Everyone?" Who is everyone?

Well, yeah, if everyone in America (including the Congress and the Supreme Court) got behind a dog, the dog would win. And yes, Republicans worry a great deal about swing voters. Not in the same way, though.

You see, the Republican self-identified "base" outnumbers the Democratic self-identified "base" by several million. There are more registered Ds than Rs, but OTOH there are twice as many self=identified "conservatives" as self-identified "liberals." Even in our party the conservatives outnumber the liberals. However, independents and centrists tend to favor the Democratic party, for obvious reasons. Therefore, the strategy of Karl Rove was to keep indies from voting on the merits. He accomplished that by running enormously negative campaigns, which fired up both bases, and either turned the center off in disgust, or confused them to the point where they were voting randomly, unsure of who to trust. He was therefore able to run competitive races with a vastly inferior candidate. In that regard he was "worried" about the centrists.

Now, Republicans do make a great number of compromises to please the center as well. How many talk about privatization of Social Security any more? How much support is there for actually getting a Roe-v-Wade ban passed? How many are actually willing to walk the walk on cutting spending? How many are willing to actually say "Throw all the illegals out?" Go read FR; they hate their candidates for selling out just as much as we do ours. Of course, we still see their guys as the conservatives they actually are, and they see our guys as the liberals we actually are.

[harmonicon]

78. by "everyone" I mean all Democrats and Democratic primary voters

I think it doesn't matter who the candidate is if we're running someone that people are behind for strong principled reasons, not as a compromise. Hard to get fired up about a compromise, but I think a lot easier to get fired about about a candidate that was chosen through healthy debate and a strong participatory democratic process.

I'm afraid you're wrong about he Republicans though. I really think they would do their best to overturn Roe v. Wade. Cutting spending? Shit, as far as I'm concerned that should be one of the Democratic party's strongest campaign issues. There Republicans are now unquestionable the party of big, wasteful government, and thought ought to be hammered home. None of them have ever actually wanted to "throw all the illegals out" - they need them to make their chicken nuggets and do their lawn work. that's just a racist and xenophobic attack against all hispanics in this country used to fire up their xenophobe base, while they send their real jobs off to India and China under the cover of night.

[Occam Bandage]

82. Well, the numbers disagree with you there.

Democrats are nice, but alone we're not enough to win an election. The Republican base outnumbers the Democratic base. A hyperpolarized election, in which both parties just play to their base, is a Republican landslide with low turnout.

Republicans are not going to overturn Roe v. Wade, despite their talk about it. That's the gift that keeps on giving; the instant they outlaw abortion in a given state is the instant that half the religious movement (which hates Republican support of the Death Penalty and lack of support for social justice, foreign aid, and social spending) defects to the Democrats, relegating the Republicans to permanent minority status. They won't do it. They aren't going to cut spending, despite their talk about it. Their refusal to embrace xenophobia is indeed intelligent, and is a major break from their base, which is what I was referring to.

[harmonicon]

86. I think you might be wrong

The Democrats have been so unfocused lately that I don't know how much of a base there is..... I think the number of potential voters who care about things like cutting spending, raising the minimum wage, providing healthcare and education to as many people as possible, etc. is very high. These people just don't turn out at all, because the two parties argue about things most people don't care about, so they see no point in voting (I now have a much clearer idea about why so many people I know who are decades older than me don't vote at all - I'm getting there). I think it's worth running a strong leftist Democrat to unite the party and firm up the base. We won't know unless we try. If we don't try, you're right - the numbers are, and will remain, against us.

[Occam Bandage]

89. I do agree that a strong leftist would probably unite the base.

I suspect that it won't be enough, but as you say, neither of us knows for certain. I think we can both agree that stronger leadership from Congress on the issues would unite the base and attract independents.

[harmonicon]

91. yep

I know some people say not having a compromise candidate is too much of a risk, but I'm pretty sure that most of us feel as you and I do about the base. I feel that compromise is itself too much of a risk for the same reasons - it would weaken the base and disillusion independents.

[ZombieHorde]

92. Subject line

If we don't try, you're right - the numbers are, and will remain, against us.

I remember a different story in 2006.

[Occam Bandage]

94. Most of our gains there came from conservative districts, in which we ran conservative Democrats.

For what it's worth.

[harmonicon]

96. I think it's more complicated than that

What were once conservative/republican strong points now belong to democrats, especially regarding finance. In many respects the Democratic party is now both the liberal and conservative parties, while the republicans are the wing-nut, racist, jesus-rode-a-dinosaur, war is peace party. Democrats are going to keep winning elections, I hope.

[ZombieHorde]

98. I would take most conservative Democrats

over any conservative Republican. 2006 was a protest where it counted, even if it only counted a little bit.

[LostinVA]

3. I've earned ny liberal cred on here

I'm a card-carrying member of the DSA. People on here know my views and positions, even if they don't like me or them. You joined seven days ago... who teh hell are you to come on here and lecture me.

I support HRC, btw.

[harmonicon]

7. hahaha

Who the hell am I? I'll fucking tell you who I am. I AM A CITIZEN AND A VOTER. Oh, also, if you've been around so long, you'd know the fucking rules to not attack someone else because of how long they've been around. We're all equals here, or are you more equal than me? Can't give reasons for your support like I asked though, can you? I want a discussion, and you want to call people names. If that's your attitude, I don't know what hope there is for this country. Go ahead and vote to slit your own throat, but don't come crying to the likes of me because you're bleeding afterwards.

[babylonsister]

10. So who will you vote for that has a snowball's chance in hell of being

elected? I'm not about to throw a vote away so a rethug can snake in there. I'm aware no candidate is perfect, but they're a helluva lot better than a rethug.

[harmonicon]

13. this was my point.....

is that really your only reason to support someone? That's fucking scary. What use is Democracy if your choices are Evil and not-as-evil? And you're doing it to yourself!! There are primaries, where you can choose whoever you want!! What are your prinicipals? What do you want out of this world? Could someone's platform really be "I'm not a republican" for you to vote for them?

[babylonsister]

18. I live in TX; my vote will count for nothing, but I will vote in the primaries

anyway. And don't lecture or question my principles please. Your idealism is nice, but hang around for awhile and figure out just what we're up against. And you still didn't answer my question; who will you vote for that could win?

[harmonicon]

25. Michigan - my vote doesn't mean shit

And I don't think it's idealism..... having ideas that eventually capitalism will crumble underneath a situationist revolution of love and pleasure for all is idealism. Wanting an honest democratic process, at least in the primaries, is just clutching at straws for a free country that may already be lost.

[babylonsister]

29. By voting for someone who might actually win, I'm trying to help

save my country, whether that's apparent to you or not.

[harmonicon]

35. ANY person could win!

What is it you're saving your country from if you vote for one of these people? Did something happen that I'm not aware of that's a bigger problem than the patriot act, and illegal wars going on? You're just giving your OK to those things if you vote for one of these people. If you don't think a real leftist could beat one of these not-job republicans, why not?

[babylonsister]

37. Bullshit. You need money, a campaign, etc. You are idealist, not realistic.

Bye now.

[harmonicon]

44. if "realistic" means pro-war and anti-labor, we need "realistic" like a hole in the head

[Occam Bandage]

59. If to you "95% good" means "100% bad," we need your perspective like a hole in the head.

[harmonicon]

69. you're the one making up percentages

I think that's just silly. I think our government is broken and needs to be fixed, but it won't be if we keep voting for the same people for the same non-reasons. I agree with you that a mostly-shitty broken government is better than a completely-shitty broken government, but I think a functioning government would be best of all, and we'd do better to focus our energy on making that happen over making the mostly-shitty broken government happen.

[Occam Bandage]

72. I don't think any of our candidates is mostly shitty. Name the one you do, and I'll

provide a list of interest groups who disagree with you, as well as their ratings of that candidate.

[Occam Bandage]

51. "Did something happen that I'm not aware of?"

Yes. The Patriot Act is one of the absolute least important issues in America today. A family forced into bankruptcy and facing the prospect of losing their house, unable to meet both their mortgage payment and their medical bills after their father lost his job after having a heart attack?

I don't think they really give a fuck about whether the government is overstepping its legal authority in their surveillance of South American drug rings.

Don't get me wrong, the Patriot Act is bad and should be repealed. But it is hardly an important issue.

[harmonicon]

60. ok, now we're getting somewhere

This is the kind of debate I'd actually like to have. I agree with you to some extent, but I honestly question whether a politician who would vote to launch an unjust war actually has the same concerns as you, or are just pretending to to get votes.

There are many real-life struggles that are very important. Shit, the minimum wage needs to be increased like all get out (and believe me, I was happy when I read that some of our candidates are all for a dramatic increase). I know, because I was working for it last year, and with no benefits, because I was "part-time", despite working many 40 and some 50-60 hour weeks.

However, I think we should demand better choices than we now have. I don't know how we can inspire the best people to take part in government if all we demonstrate is that corrupt and steady wins every time. I don't think I'm asking for a lot. Hell, I don't even really care if politicians are in line with my views (I'd like them to be), so long as they're honest about their own and campaign on them instead of talking about shit like electability and experience. I also think we as voters shouldn't stand for this crap, but instead we encourage it..... ugh... it honestly makes me want to give up, and I think it's why so many people have. Maybe if we had a real fire-brand populist people would come out of the shadows and vote for them, and maybe they wouldn't, but I think it's at least worth a try.

[Occam Bandage]

67. That politician is pretending to get votes.

It is likely that the politician you agree with most, whoever it is, is pretending to get votes. It doesn't matter. That's what a democracy is. The best volunteer for charities; power attracts the soulless. Each of us rewards them for doing the right thing by voting for them; we punish them by voting against them. As such, each candidate has it in their selfish interest to do what their constituency thinks is the right thing. To assist us in grading a candidate's actions, we require an independent, competitive media, and full transparency in government...but I digress.

As my most frequent debate partner in undergrad used to like to say, a democracy is functioning as intended when everyone is doing all the right things for all the wrong reasons. I don't care if my candidate doesn't believe a word coming out of his or her mouth. I care what bills are going to be signed into law over the next four years, and that's it. We can't increase the minimum wage from the minority; we can't promote universal healthcare from the Official Democratic Response to the State of the Union Address.

Politicians talk about electability because, well, nobody wants to vote for a guy who is going to lose in the General. However, electability is only a secondary issue; they also have to convince the public that they are at least worth electing. Hillary's recent downfall wasn't because some people decided she wasn't electable, but rather because they decided that, electable or not, she wasn't worth electing.

[harmonicon]

73. I agree

that that's how things ought to run. But why all this talk about "electability" (not that you're defending that)? Just in this thread people have said they're going to vote for someone who'd win the the General election. I think any Democrat would win the general election, so what's the problem? When people are even voting against the politician who will pass the bills they want (which you do if you're for the 'electable' person over the person who would pass the bills you like) is beyond me. And, I'll repeat it again, if all of us got behind whoever the Democratic nominee was (just chosen because people voted for whoever had the platform they agreed with) they would win - no question in my mind.

[Occam Bandage]

76. The problem is most likely that the people you are referring to

do not believe that any Democrat would win the general election--or, at any rate, that at least some candidates possess a non-zero chance of losing, and that they would prefer the candidate with the highest chance of winning.

The way I see electability? It's a candidate who has a 70% shot of winning (and who would pass 90% of what you want) vs. a candidate who has a 5% shot of winning (but who would pass 99% of what you want). Obviously I just made those numbers up; the numbers you make up will determine what you believe a smart voting strategy would be.

[harmonicon]

83. I only have one voting strategy - vote for the best candidate

but I think you're right. If people don't think the Democrat would win, I'm worried about the cohesiveness of this party, and that's the very reason why I think we should have this type of discussion. Twice now we've ran candidates that most thought had a non-zero chance of losing, and look where we are now. I think the time for compromise is over, because it's gotten us nowhere, not because I'm a radical idealist.

[Occam Bandage]

87. I don't think anybody thought that

Gore or Kerry had non-zero chance of losing. Rather, they thought that Gore and Kerry were the best candidates (and in Kerry's case, that he was most electable.) Gore won. Kerry had the background, but ran a mediocre campaign and lost. I highly doubt that Howard Dean, say, would have done better. DK would have been creamed.

"The time for compromise is over," you say. That was the theory of a few famous political strategists of the past decade: Karl Rove and Tom DeLay. Although they got a dumbfuck elected (by exploiting a particular numerical advantage we do not possess) and got a lot rammed through Congress, they doomed their party to the minority. Every year they were in office with that strategy, despite their successes, Republican approval ratings dropped and self-ID'd Republicans reregistered independent, as self-ID'd independents reregistered Democrats.

"No compromise" is simply the first step in a campaign of "no relevance."

[harmonicon]

90. If he doomed his party to the minority, what are we afraid of?

His criminal tactics were wrong, but I think we'd do well to follow such an uncompromising approach.

Gore did win, but he ran a piss poor campaign, not trumpeting his own qualities enough. I think Kerry was a compromise (whether or not he lost is debatable) and a mistake, in my opinion.

[Occam Bandage]

93. The Presidential race. Nobody thinks we'll lose either house of Congress;

the Republicans fucked that one up at least until 2010, hopefully longer.

And all of the Presidential candidates are trying to present themselves as a break from the Bush era. You may have noticed that Mr. Bush's name was scarcely if ever mentioned in their debates, and the same goes for their ads. The current President is in large part unpopular because of his belligerent my-way-or-the-highway style. You'll note that none of the Republican frontrunners at the moment use such rhetoric. No matter how well you'd think we'd do to embrace their tactics, I maintain we'd be wise not to put up a DeLay and Bush of our own.

[harmonicon]

97. I'm not saying we should use their tactics

but I think we should be steadfast and unified on certain key issues. The Republicans can run as fast and far as they want from Bush, but when the general election comes around, there won't be anywhere for them to go the way we'll lay the party connection on them, along with hypocritical closeted gays, johns, etc. I think the last think we should do is run someone who's had any part in passing laws that are associated with Bush - that will only muddy the waters. And I'm against those people, but.... uh... take no heed of that?

[LostinVA]

107. I don't have time to list my reasons for you

If you want to know, then do a search of my posts.

I'd vote for ANY Dem, even if I loathed them.

Who would YOU vote for? You haven't answered that. As for the DU rules, I know them quite well. One of the rules is not to actively campaign against Dem candidates.

And to quote Babylonsister (who definitely doesn't support the same candidate as me, but will do the right thing and vote for ANY Dem in the end, as will I) "bye now."

"Four legs good. Two legs better."

[harmonicon]

108. well, d'uh!

Of course I like all of the Dems better than the republicans, and will vote for the Dem in the general (it doesn't mean I'll love that candidate). It would be impossible to not campaign against them in a Democratic primary - why do you think I'm posting in a forum for Democrats? I would really like to have you list your reasons here. You have time to be mean, but you don't have the time to explain yourself, which is all I'm asking for. What the hell is wrong here if we can't discuss these things?

[LostinVA]

110. You can't even take the time to tell me who you support

[harmonicon]

112. Does it matter?

I don't have any money to give to campaigns, and I'm registered to vote in Michigan, so my primary vote doesn't count. My point is that there's a lot of hypocrisy around here and among Democrats in general between what we condemn Republicans and senators and representatives from our own party for doing in the legislature, then supporting some of those same people as presidential candidates. I think the candidates we have on offer now are on a whole really awful. I especially dislike the senators, because they've voted for so much shit that I absolutely hate. Same goes for my own senators (though they've got me by the balls, and they know it - I'm not voting them out in favor of a republican). I would just like to have a discussion about what seems to be a schizophrenic split when discussing leftist politics and politicians.

If you must know, of the current crop, the one I would most like to see as the nominee is Kucinich. He's been against the war from the start, is for impeachment, and (most importantly to me) is for single-payer universal healthcare. I think this is a winning platform. If you don't, I'd like to know what it is in your candidate's platform that is better (what is it about someone's position and record that makes you think they'd do the best job representing you? That's all I ask), because blabbering about "electability" gets us nowhere. I could also vote for Richardson and Gravel in good faith. The others I could only vote for in an incredibly embittered state, but I'm afraid that might happen.

[wyldwolf]

4. uh oh! The "Progressive"* police done found us!

[harmonicon]

8. Did I use the word "progressive"?

Are you willing to have a real discussion, or do you have single-word avatars do all of your talking for you because that's how deep your thought process goes?

[wyldwolf]

9. did I say you did?

:shrug:

[harmonicon]

11. No, you just made some out of hand useless comment instead of defending your position...

.... that useless comment included the word "progressive" in the same demeaning fashion as the rest of what you had to say.

[wyldwolf]

12. I've defended my position for years on DU, so I'll give it to you in a nutshell

I don't need an idealistic "progressive"* to lecture me on who and why I should support someone nor to tell me that anyone I do is somehow not pure enough.

Got it?

[harmonicon]

17. I didn't tell you who to support and I didn't say anything about "purity".

Can you answer my questions? Do you like the war? Do you like the patriot act? Are you against universal healthcare? If you say "yes", like you seem to be implying, can you tell me why? We can disagree, but I'd rather have a discussion about it. I'm sorry I don't have a time machine and I'm not a mind-reader so I can't know your thoughts about these things from the past - ok?

[redqueen]

15. Don't ask me. I'm voting for Kucinich. (nt)

[More Than A Feeling]

19. Prisoner's dilemma.

It raises the specter of splitting the party, and tries to hold our consciences hostage, by pre-emptively shifting the blame to liberals if they hold out for a better deal.

If you have suggestions on how to overcome that kind of psychological coercion, please share them with as many as possible.

[harmonicon]

28. I have one suggestion

If you have a Democratic congressman, especially if you have a liberal one, bother them about bringing back the fairness doctrine!! That would do a hell of a lot more for crushing the right-wing stranglehold on the media than having the Keith Olberman comedy/tragedy (you decide) hour does. Man, I love TV, but it's even rotting the brains of supposed leftists and liberals.

[More Than A Feeling]

41. But that's congress. What does that have to do with this presidential campaign

which is what I understood your OP to be about.

[harmonicon]

45. That would change how presidential campaigns are covered

I just think people should be debating who has the best platform, which I see almost none of on here, let alone on TV or in radio. Talking about things like "electability" and polls is futile. We do still have some power as citizens, you know? They haven't taken it all away, but we throw it away if and when we vote for the fariy tale "electable" candidate in primaries instead of the person who we think best represents us. Then we no longer have a representative democracy, but some god-awful postmodern TeeVeeDemocracee or something.

[More Than A Feeling]

57. Of course our democracy a long way from fully representative,

and it will take a long time to win it back. For me, John Edwards is a start, because he understands that democracy needs winning back, from the corporate power currently holding it prisoner. What's more, he's seriously trying to change it, given the system that exists today.

We have about as little power as you can have and stillt try to claim the name of "citizen." That can change, but it won't be quick, and it won't be painless.

[harmonicon]

88. well, I disagree

If you really like Edwards, that's great. I can't stomach the guy (though I'd vote for him or a sea monster, bigfoot, devil, etc. over a republican) partly because I see him as being part of the establishment that is unwilling to change.

[Catchawave]

21. My candidate is HOT

on the issues important to me.

[harmonicon]

46. GOOD - YAY!!!

Now, please (you don't have to do it here) talk about those things when their name comes up, instead of polls and electability. Please?

[Catchawave]

79. Check my journal , it's HOT too :)

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Catchawave

[harmonicon]

95. oh, you have a good sense of humour, don't you? :)

Unfortunately, as has been pointed out here before, I'm a complete idiot and don't know how to read. I can only understand pictures and crude pictograms. I use a voice-recognition program to type, but unfortunately it gets muddled up from my constant FOX news watching and listening to Shirley MacLean crystal-power tapes.

Honestly though, I am not out to smear these people. I just want to have a discussion about it. When people refuse to do that in favour of talking about polls or whatever, I hit back even harder.

[cali]

40. rigid simplicity doesn't have a place in politics.

sorry. Why not take up needlepoint or fly fishing?

[harmonicon]

47. Want to show me taht "rigid simplicity"

since you refuse to answer any of the questions in my post, so I can understand this brilliant statement?

[cali]

84. sure. There are no "pure" canidates in this race.

And that's true in general. We have a field of candidates to choose from, and they are ALL, without exception, leagues better than their repuke counterparts. They all have deficits, and 4 of them made a grievous, big time mistake in voting for the war. But that doesn't entirely define them to most people.

[harmonicon]

99. they are ALL, without exception, leagues better than their repuke counterparts

I couldn't agree more! That's what I'm trying to figure out.... why are people talking about compromise and "electability"? Every one of these people would do better than a Republican. We don't need to compromise, and we definitely don't need to argue about "electability". We should argue about why we support the platform of whatever candidate we like the best, so as to have knowledge of our eventual nominee and some sort of consensus as to what is most important to all Democratic voters.

I personally have great objections to the people I named for the reasons I gave. I know that some people do really think they are the best candidates, and I want to know why, because one of them may be, and we'd do a lot better if people like me weren't just hopping mad if/when one of them wins the nomination, because we'd understand where their support comes from and why, so as to be better equipped to take part in the process.

[BootinUp]

43. I could explain, but its probably over your head. nt

[harmonicon]

49. yeah, I'm just a big ol' idiot.

Please, explain. I know I'm stupid stupid stupid, but I'll try to defend my positions. Some how I've managed to get multiple degrees and travel around the world with this low low IQ, but I'll do my best. Will you do the same? What the FUCK is wrong here? Shit, I thought at least someone would have a reasoned, if not intelligent or agreeable answer for me. God, I'm starting to think that things are even worse than I thought.

[Occam Bandage]

56. You're getting reasoned responses. Apparently what you actually meant to say there was,

"Shit, I thought at least someone would agree with me and tell me how smart I was to have the political acuity of a sloganeering seventh-grader."

Have heart, there are many equally narcissistic voters here. They'll be around.

[harmonicon]

100. don't you join in too!!!

I know I'm getting reasoned responses, and I like that! Someone telling me something would be over my head is just silly. If you want me to be a 7th grader about it, I'll say that someone telling me something is over my head is silly, because I'm probably a hell of a lot more educated and well-read and just plain smarter than they are, but I wouldn't say something mean like that.

[BootinUp]

63. Maybe you are one of those book smart folks, lol.

[harmonicon]

101. no, I don't know how to read - I learn everything from metaphysical crystal-love cassettes

[jhrobbins]

55. I'm voting for Edwards because he is cute.

;-)

[Blue_In_AK]

62. Best response yet.

:rofl:

[harmonicon]

102. agreed

Especially if he wears a crotch-less superman outfit to the inauguration. That'll make everyone happy. Now, lets go make it happen!

[jhrobbins]

104. That reminds me that I saw/have a picture of a young east coast

mayor that wore a superman costume for some event. Needless to say, someone should have told him about spandex. I would post it, but it may be too racy for DU, although it was all over the net for a time.

[Desertrose]

58. Seems like a fair question to me.....

:)


Seems like there are not a lot of real answers here however....


just sayin....

[ZombieHorde]

74. Hello harmonicon!

If I told you I was head-over-heals about a politician who had voted for the patriot act, started an illegal war of aggression with Iraq which has caused the lives of thousands of Americans and 1 million Iraqis, and was hawkish on Iran, would you pat me on the back?

No, I would not.

These are things that we complain about - get furious over - in regards to the Republicans. These are things that make us say "oh my god, where is our party?!" every time Pelosi and the rest of the leadership cave to Republicans (who are now in the minority!).

I see your point.

Do you think Bush and Cheney should be impeached?

That would be nice.

Why, oh why, if you're against the patriot act, the war, and for impeachment could you ever support Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards or Obama? These people are your enemy (oh, ok, not if you don't mind a little killing in our name and are a multi-millionaire). To say they're "electable" is laughable. Guess what, Kerry/Edwards was a complete failure (yeah, the election may have been stolen, but that doesn't change the fact that they were/are big-business anti-working class candidates who didn't drum up the support someone without a foot in their mouth and a stiff wrist could have). These people have sold you out as senators, and they'll sell you out as president.

Because a lot of us have kids. Kids get sick, kids get broken. The Republican candidates believe that our poor, sick, broken kids should be left to die, they say this with pride. The Democratic candidates have a different position, they believe that our kids should be healed, they say this with pride.

A lot of DUers hold education in high regards. Republicans hate education for the poor. They see a personal advantage to living in an uneducated world. This is a wee bit scary for many of us.

A lot of DUers care deeply about social programs such a WIC, Social Security, Medi-cade/care, etc.

The main argument for supporting these folks against the republicans seems to be that bigots/racists/republicans/morons won't vote for a solid leftist, so we should run a centrist. When the center is between a centrist party (Democratis) and bat-shit-crazy right, this means we run a wacko and/or criminal. No one has good things to say about these people (how could they?) apart from that they think they'll beat the republican. When your talking point is "my guy's not as big of a crook!" you're backing the wrong guy (or gal).

In a perfect world you are correct. Kucinich is my favorite, I support him in the primary. He will not win. I will be left with three real choices; Democrat, Republican, Other. Choose your poison (if that is how you feel), and choose wisely.

Now, can someone please explain to me (and I'll recap) how you can be enthusiastic about a patriot-act-approving, pro-war, anti-impeachment, anti-universal healthcare candidate for president? If so, what on earth is it that you care about more than these things?

I am not always proficient at explaining my ideas, but I hope that this has helped.

[harmonicon]

103. sweet lord Jesus, thank you! A real response!

I agree with you completely. I'm not going to vote "other" (well, probably not.... never have before). But what do you think we have to do to move the discussion about the other candidates towards their platforms on things like healthcare and education that we care so much about, and away from celebrities, "electability", haircuts, cocaine, etc.?

btw, I friggin' love zombies.. I'm a zombie movie fiend. Don't know if you do, or if it's just a clever name....

[ZombieHorde]

105. Hello again harmonicom...

I agree with you completely. I'm not going to vote "other" (well, probably not.... never have before). But what do you think we have to do to move the discussion about the other candidates towards their platforms on things like healthcare and education that we care so much about, and away from celebrities, "electability", haircuts, cocaine, etc.?

Wow, It sucks when someone posts something with a point and so many people go into character assassination mode. I guess that we all have our grumpy moments.

btw, I friggin' love zombies.. I'm a zombie movie fiend. Don't know if you do, or if it's just a clever name....

It is not just a clever name, I am a zombie movie freak. If a zombie movie comes out in the theaters and I miss it, I feel like I have committed a shameful sin.

[harmonicon]

106. "I guess that we all have our grumpy moments."

Yeah, they make up a good percentage of my moments. I'll write a lot of bad shit using a lot of bad language about politicians on here, which may be considered character assassination, but I don't think I've ever called anyone (politician or poster) stupid or purposely cruel, or anything like that...... oh well, it's just "teh internets" after all.

[LWolf]

81. I'm certainly not going to dispute your points.

I happen to agree with them.

Calling Democrats on hypocrisy is not popular, so keep your flame suit on.

:popcorn:

[SunDrop23]

109. Disagree with your "complete failure" label of K-E, but to each his or her own...(nt)

[harmonicon]

113. have you been enjoying their administration?

Ok, complete failure was too strong a description, but I think a lot of what's being bandied about re: "electability" right now is an echo of last time. Unfortunately, last time we had better candidates than we do now..... I liked Dean an awful lot - still do. I just think K/E was the "electable"/compromise-candidate ticket and wasn't that strong, partly for that reason - hard for Democrats to be inspired by them (it was for my friends and family who are life-long dems or pinko commies).

[Catherine Vincent]

111. We can't explain it.

Unfortunately, my beloved Patrick Fitzgerald is for the Patriot Act. Big time.