which group is more unreliable

[corporatewhore]

and therefore should not dictate policy or be considered or courted

[QC]

1. How about "both"?

Not all questions have either/or answers.

What makes for unreliable voters is purism--the notion that any candidate whose feet have ever touched the soil is not worthy of one's vote. Purism is found on both the right and the left.

[Cuban_Liberal]

2. You hit that nail squarely on the head.

When discussing 'wingnuts', we need to bear in mind that not all wingnuts are right wingnuts.

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. After what they did

to Wes Clark here on DU, I had to choose anti-war activists. Their visceral hatred of him just because he was a military man was RABID.

[TahitiNut]

4. "not ... be considered"??

Since when are the perspectives of any person not worthy of consideration by someone who calls themselves a (small "d") democrat? No matter how profoundly I might disagree with another, I would certainly never promulgate their disenfranchisement or excommunication. I'm also disturbed by the increasing propensity toward demonization (wallowing in ad hominems) rather than a diligent focus upon the issues and general political education. While I'm just as expediently inclined, for the purposes of an occasional rant, to label those mindlessly allied with the Busholini (see? there's a label) regime as reichbots, I think it's perhaps ill-advised (at best) to participate in the fragmentation and division of the remainder of the electorate across the political spectrum.

[mobuto]

5. Uh neither.

I may agree with the self proclaimed "left-wing" fringe (a great many of whom aren't really left at all) more than I agree with the right-wing fringe, but neither group is reliable. Neither is intellectually honest or consistent, and both seem to limit their activities to whining that the Democratic Party doesn't do what they want it to do. Somehow they never seem willing to go that extra step beyond whining - you know, actually doing something.

[THUNDER HANDS]

6. you should court both of them

We'll never get a majority in congress if we alienate either group.

7. Your poll may be unintentionally misleading

I voted that anti-war are more unreliable.
Because the Zell Miller democrats are completely reliable. You know they are in lockstep and a threat.

The anti-war folk are definitely more unreliable because they think for themselves and are much more independent.

So it's good to be unreliable!
That's what I mean by saying your poll might be a little misleading.

[RichM]

8. The Democratic Party can NEVER represent antiwar lefties. It's sheer

fantasy to imagine that it could. The party is a bourgeois capitalist tendency that fundamentally supports US interventionism, is addicted to military spending, and is intrinsically hostile towards leftist thought in general. They would be the first to call out the police to club antiwar demonstrators. The party is the ENEMY of antiwar lefties, despite the presence of a few anomalies like DK (whom - quite significantly - they rudely mistreat).

The concept of the Dems "courting" antiwar lefties is romantically appealing, but it cannot happen. This must be understood. The Democratic Party stands together with Republicans as the enemy of everything antiwar lefties hold dear.

The idea that "the enemy of the enemy is my friend" (ie, that there is some real place for antiwar lefties inside the Dem party just because they're not Republicans) holds no water.

[corporatewhore]

10. you are totally correct sometimes i am like duh a corporate party wouldnt

try to appease us

[revcarol]

9. I would have put the swing voters as a category.

The ones who depend on whatever soundbite and meme is out in the media just before the election and never do any research or reading before they cast their votes.

The anti-war lefties are more reliable because they are usually many issue, more complicated and thoughtful people. You can count on them for the LONG HAUL.