Can someone help me with the green vs. independent vote meme?

[mrgorth]

I read somewhere on this board once that if more left leaning dems (ie. us) use protest votes like writing in candidates names, voting Green or for Nader this year or any, that rather than moving to the left to regain these votes the democratic part will only move more to the right to get independent voters, thus, moving both parties further and further to the right. This makes no sense to me. On one hand you have a group of committed individuals who are already likely voters. It's also a good bet that these are frustrated dems. Clearly, this group also has similar ideals to your (DNC) organization. Why oh why would you not try to woo these people back and instead go after people who may or may not vote at all and if they do it's a complete crapshoot as to where these votes will go. Is it because this lefty vote (imagine every single left leaner in the US voting dem) is so unbelievably small compared to the independent voters that we will always be insignificant? Is it because the corporatist wing does not want to go too far to the left that it impacts their power? I am struggling to understand this. Please.

[mrgorth]

1. Kick

hello?

[BruinAlum]

2. That's simple. It's because there are far more moderates and centrists

than there are far left leaning Dems. For every 1 vote lost on the far left there are perhaps 10 in the center. A shift to the left to pick up 1-2% that might vote Green/protest that would result in a loss of 10% of the centrist/moderate votes is simply not worthwhile mathmatically.

A better strategy would be to concentrate on get out the vote efforts than on trying to satisfy or convert protest voters and perhaps get 10 extra voters to vote Dem to the polls for every protest voter.

[mrgorth]

3. OK, thanks

Now, why do we think that is? To me, in 2004, I see the social wedge issues, and GOP brainwashing on taxes as hurting us. We seem to be stuck on the social issues because moving to the right loses our base and waters us down as a party. In other words, I think we can get people with a leftier, more populist message economically (esp. this year) but we lose people with abortion and gay rights that we can't really move on. Thoughts?

[BruinAlum]

4. We have to get a foot in the door first, and change the national

conversation. Right now the Republicans are controlling everything, all 3 branches of government and the media. With the Presidency at least we'd have some control over the agenda.

A gradual move leftwards is what we need, over several years, and then we'd eventually pick up those on the far left we lost without losing those we gained in the center.

[mrgorth]

5. Thanks again, I appreciate the dialogue

Now, I want to know why that didn't get done in 8 years of one of the most popular presidencies ever. OK, the special interests killed health care. Couldn't something have been done. How about living wage? Child care esp. for the victims of welfare reform? Rebuilding the inner cities? Real mass transit? To me, if slick willy had done those things we'd have all 3 branches right now. To most people we just look like the blowjob party. Thanks again, I'm new to this.

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. Try reading Michael Moore's chapter on

Bill Clinton in "Stupid White Men" and you'll know more about why the left got very little accomplished with him in power.

[sangha]

7. I think you missed things during the Clinton years

How about living wage? Child care esp. for the victims of welfare reform? Rebuilding the inner cities? Real mass transit?

Three things

1) Wages did go up during the Clinton years and the poor benefitted from this more than the middle class.

2) More money has been going to child care since welfare reform.

3) Mass transit and urban housing are traditionally state and local issues. However, during the Clinton years, funding for these were increased, albeit slightly.

OK, the special interests killed health care. Couldn't something have been done.

Something was done - CHIPS

[mrgorth]

9. No I didn't

Three things

1) Wages did go up during the Clinton years and the poor benefitted from this more than the middle class.

You can't really believe this.

2) More money has been going to child care since welfare reform.

No. I mean if you tell people "we're not sending your welfare checks anymore you have to work a couple McJobs to get by" and then you don't give them something to do with their kids it doesn't work. Why do you think people go on welfare?

3) Mass transit and urban housing are traditionally state and local issues. However, during the Clinton years, funding for these were increased, albeit slightly.

Lame.

[BruinAlum]

8. Clinton was more conservative than I would have liked, and it also

probably had something to do with the Gingrich Revolution, Republican gridlock, and 8 years and 80Mil of investigating Whitewater and Clinton's penis that more didn't get accomplished.