General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEvery UNCONDITIONAL supporter of the Democratic Party, step forward!
That's me!
Reminds me of the joke of the drill sergeant finding a unique way to break it to one of his recruits, who's name is Jenkins, that his father had died. Lines them all up and says "everybody with a father, take a step forward", then adds "not so fast Jenkins"
Yeah, that is me...
UNCONDITIONAL support, I mean to say that if there are two candidates running for a house seat in the D party and one of them is KNOWN to have a better shot at winning in November than the other but said candidate is anti choice, anti labor, anti environment, well guess what, because I understand MATH, I still vote for him.
He could be anti HUMAN RACE and I still vote for him, again, because of MATH.
Unconditional, that is me.
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, that is
Sure, when we have the LUXURY of criticism, then yes we can do whatever. You wont like my criticisms when that time comes, BTW, because I want to nationalize most stuff. Not most I guess but way more than anyone here does, or most here do.
hlthe2b
(102,357 posts)Nah, I'll save that for family, some friends and my precious pup.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)I dont have the luxury of questioning at the moment, my gay friends dont, my black friends dont, my women friends who need reproductive rights dont.
One person in our party has NO power, none, nada, NOTHING
But that ONE SEAT can be the difference between the PARTY having TOTAL Power vs NONE
Nah, not now, people will DIE if I insist my personal checklist be adhered to, by the way my personal checklist is more left than ANY progressive I have EVER met.
MATH
hlthe2b
(102,357 posts)How many times has someone claimed party affiliation and then do a 180 when they get into office?
I'm certainly not suggesting anything but a DEM vote in the general, but I think we do need to be cautious in the primary. Otherwise, why would Republicans not simply use our "unquestioning" blind allegiance to gain office as a "DEMOCRAT"?
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)hlthe2b
(102,357 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)is THAT what you are saying?
That happens how often? So the alternative is let the registered republican win?
THINK about this please
hlthe2b
(102,357 posts)occasion.
How foolish would you feel if a Republican strategy to run as Democrats was revealed in your region? Yet, you voted for them because in the primary they were deemed to have the best chance?
Very few things in life should be "unquestioned"
MFM008
(19,818 posts)And "establishment".
Got us to where we are today,
the most unethical corrupt
Horror show in American history.
It boils down to this.
Either vote democrat or enjoy the chaos
And fascism that maggot freely offers.
hlthe2b
(102,357 posts)if they are "rat-f...king" the primary
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)specifically in Texas not all that long ago. Rabid Tea Party type posed as a Dem and even created ads claiming to be a Democrat. I don't put it past them to do similar things elsewhere.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)mahina
(17,696 posts)And vote against the Democratic Party platform consistently.
Only very rarely can we throw them out of the party.
But I appreciate and respect where youre coming from.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)it's just not a problem with the Democratic Party these days.
Our party will not endorse a genuinely bad/crooked candidate, the kind we wouldn't personally. Amaf, the party's taken a lot of attacks when it has sought to cull candidates with ethical problems, possibly scandals, and/or legal problems by people who foolishly assume their morals must be far better than the party leadership's and don't bother to wonder what and why.
And any candidate the Democratic Party (us!) does endorse these days is far, far, far better than anyone who's hoping to join or stay part of the villainous Republican caucuses.
With the moral collapse of the GOP, WE are the defenders of our republic and the rights of the people. There are no others to turn to.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)hlthe2b
(102,357 posts)Wwcd
(6,288 posts)I screamed it for you.
Intentional Division is what allowed Trump to hand the keys to America to a fascist dictator.
Solidarity is the ONLY way to remove the RW from power in our gov't.
Study the history books.
SOLIDARITY is the only way fascism has ever been stopped.
Its pretty simple.
Old Vet
(2,001 posts)Count me in................
hlthe2b
(102,357 posts)rather than slam them into a wall.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)and said as much down thread. republicans cannot be trusted, not even to not be masquerading as democrats.
George II
(67,782 posts)....without us knowing anything about him/her or their positions on many of the issues.
Let's say there are two Democrats facing each other in a primary in a conservative district, one quasi-"conservative" (i.e., not "pure) and the other very liberal.
If we know the "quasi" candidate could win the seat and we know the liberal has zero chance of winning the seat, I want to see that guy that I agree with 50% in that seat than the guy that I agree with 95% of the time giving a concession speech on the night of the election.
brer cat
(24,605 posts)Well said, George.
XRubicon
(2,212 posts)Don't worry we won't tell.
hlthe2b
(102,357 posts)XRubicon
(2,212 posts)hlthe2b
(102,357 posts)and no, I will not thoughtlessly vote for the Dem who may have the better chance in the general IF they are not a REAL Democrat. So, THAT would be advocating voting for a REPUBLICAN. AND, TO DO SO THAT THOUGHTLESSLY AND WITHOUT REAL CONSIDERATION IS BEYOND FOOLISH.
XRubicon
(2,212 posts)First, why did you "step forward"? Clearly you don't support the party.
Second, name one "fake" democrat that is worse than any republican.
hlthe2b
(102,357 posts)YOU CLEARLY WANT TO DISRUPT. FORGET IT
SHAME ON YOU
XRubicon
(2,212 posts)No time for tepid support or hand holding the easily distracted.
hlthe2b
(102,357 posts)hmmm. One might wonder why you are opposed to THINKING, EVALUATING, and DISCRIMINATING between primary candidates.
If you are that incapable or unwilling to do so, then you COULD be readily fooled. You really ought to consider that, given how desperate Republicans are to keep their majority.
hueymahl
(2,510 posts)So I guess I'm a no.
If we were comfortably in control, I would feel more free to vote my conscious. In the desperate straits we are currently, I will vote for the Democratic candidate that I think will win.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)I didnt think I needed to add that, but I will
mcar
(42,372 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)There are simply no two ways about it.
I'll always support the DEMOCRAT.
I'll ONLY support the DEMOCRAT.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)Even if they call Jimi Hendrix "a guitar player" instead of "a player of guitar."
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)in France before he died so much so that he gained lots of weight, didnt look anything like himself and in fact died of that as well as drugs?
I didnt know that.
Jimi's death wasnt as simple as I was led to believe either.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,337 posts)Bucky
(54,065 posts)...even if you drifted off topic a little bit
BannonsLiver
(16,448 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)MFM008
(19,818 posts)....
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)melman
(7,681 posts)women's rights, the environment and labor issues are nitpicking now? Pretty sad.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)I said I'll vote for any Dem vs any Repuke or Ind.
George II
(67,782 posts)....than a conservative republican.
So let's say there are two Democrats facing each other in a primary in a conservative district, one moderate (i.e., not "pure) and the other very liberal.
If we know the moderate candidate could win the seat and we know the liberal has zero chance of winning the seat, I want to see the guy that I agree with 50% of the time in that election than the guy that I agree with 95% of the time giving a concession speech on the night of the election.
Which of those two Democrats would you prefer to be running in the General election?
Yes, if you feel that supporting a Democrat who agrees with half of what I'd like to see get elected than getting an office holder that agrees with none of what I'd like to see is "nitpicking", then I'll nitpick until I'm blue in the face.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)and labor issues?? This looks like yet another diversion into the Alternate Universe agenda where Democrats are accused of those lies. Who would do that??
melman
(7,681 posts)That might help.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)You should read the OP.
melman
(7,681 posts)From your posts it is quite evident that you did not.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)None of your observations fit. You are trying to make it about supposedly unfit Democrats purity standards.
the OP clearly states in plain English that if a 'candidate is anti choice, anti labor, anti environment' they will 'still vote for him'
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)and even praises Trump for appealing to anti-environment labor groups, as well as anti-choice candidates. This is common knowledge. The OP is saying vote for who can win in the region they come from. It is not saying that is part of the Democratic platform.
melman
(7,681 posts)I didn't fucking say it did.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)of the country isnt going to work. First things first. We need to face reality.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)This first, then work to make America what the repubs have constantly fought to keep from us.
There is nothing without removing the RW problem first.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)That I have a single person here NOT agreeing with me.
THAT should scare you to DEATH
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)I really wonder what are principles, exactly, when a semi load of shit is being dumped on our heads and we have a stark raving madman leading the country.
To the "vote my principles" types, how about helping us save the damned country? Once we are back on solid ground, we can have a serious and principled discussion about the best way forward.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)for Democrats.
sarisataka
(18,770 posts)But we did have some members of a group advocating "vote issue over party" on their pet issue in the 2016 GE. They promoted two republicans by name over their Democratic opponents. I don't recall the second, but I do remember that they supported Kirk over Sen. Tammy Duckworth.
Gothmog
(145,554 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)I support the democratic party.
fixed it for ya.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)barbtries
(28,811 posts)so i would have to say I am. having said that, i would definitely want to be well informed in races where there's a choice between 2 or more Democrats. I don't put ANYTHING past republicans including switching parties to maintain power.
i never vote for a republican, never. since gw it's so important to me not to vote for a republican that i will sit out non partisan races if i can't get a feel for the candidates' politics. i think that may be an extreme position but it reflects how much i fucking hate republicans and what they have done to this country and to the state (NC) in which i live.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)Have to take our chances, but since the house is on fire, actual fire, we do have to do what we do have to do.
melman
(7,681 posts)when you've already declared you'll vote for them not matter what. I mean when you've already decided women't rights, labor issues and the environment don't matter, when you've said there is literally no issue that would make you vote against a candidate that has a 'better chance'....then how much do they really have to hide? Where exactly does this trickiness come in?
Stallion
(6,476 posts)...and I've voted for a Republican in limited situations especially with regard to Judges since I'm a litigating attorney--but that's never been necessary at the Federal/State office level which is where the math equation really is important
Response to Stallion (Reply #25)
Eliot Rosewater This message was self-deleted by its author.
IluvPitties
(3,181 posts)Look at Trump voters. I will never be like them.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)and we don't.
IluvPitties
(3,181 posts)Total and unconditional support can enable tyranny.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)The Republicans are way more likely to impose tyranny than any Democrat. In fact look at the states they are in charge of...so vote Democratic as if your life and our democracy depends on it because it does.
murielm99
(30,761 posts)At this point in time, yes.
My only deviation, at this point in time, would be if the district is blue to the core, a guaranteed safe seat.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)" I will do it but I have to hold my nose"
well you see that DETERS people from voting...
So the safe bet is support.
murielm99
(30,761 posts)The only reason I qualified this at all was the Lipinski primary. I would have voted for his opponent in the primary had I lived there.
Lipinski is absolutely safe. He has an opponent this time, a genuine Nazi and holocaust denier.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)this couple who are not political, rarely vote.
The other couples are talking about how bad one candidate is but the other one isnt much better, they will probably vote but they will not only hold their nose but they go on and on about how bad this candidate is.
What do people think the RESULTS of that dinner is? Two NON votes.
Multiply that by 50 states and about 50,000 dinners or social events per state where this occurs. Dinners, gatherings, grocery store lines, etc.
mahatmakanejeeves
(57,600 posts)From three weeks ago:
Why does unconditional support of the D party bother some?
Number one, I do not recall putting you in charge of telling me what to think, and
Number two, the word you're looking for is not "math," it's "arithmetic."
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)is offensive to you.
revmclaren
(2,529 posts)only!
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)Democrats (the true base) will stop Republicans...I define 'true base' as those who can be counted on to vote Democratic in every election including midterms and who don't write about 'holding' their noses when voting on social media.
revmclaren
(2,529 posts)tonedevil
(3,022 posts)to the horse hockey we are being given here. I don't think Hectoring for Votes is a viable strategy.
RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)and I almost didn't bother clicking through to read your OP because of it.
The phrase "unconditional support" has a strong authoritarian flavor, and I'm allergic to authoritarian, esp. since I'm getting so damned much of it in my diet these days anyway.
But when I read your OP, you're not asking about unconditional SUPPORT, you're asking about unwavering unconditional VOTES. Big fucking difference.
Yes, I can't conceive of EVER voting for a Republican, nor really any Libertarian or Green. So yeah, any Dem is going to have my vote over anything else. That's without knowing a single thing about them.
But unconditional support -- as in no criticism, no pushback, no lobbying and even protest? OH HELL NO. Republicans are the ones who are hive mind people, not me.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)RandomAccess
(5,210 posts)since I'm not out in public criticizing Democrats or anyone else for that matter.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)They stated that if there is a choice between two democrats, and one is perceived to be more electable in the general election than the other, they will vote for the candidate that doesn't hold alot of democratic values instead of the one that does, IN THE PRIMARY.
Sorry, in the primary, I vote for the candidate that most reflects my positions.
It's never wrong to do the right thing.
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)Stop helping Republicans get elected.
It will take complete Solidarity to remove the RW fascist cancer in our govt & rapidly spreading across our country.
Solidarity is what has defeated & kept this demon in it's box throughout world history.
There's no other way to stop it today, either
Solidarity.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)jalan48
(13,883 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)spoilers...I vote for the party period. You need a majority to turn issues into legislation.
jalan48
(13,883 posts)Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)It is a waste of time and money...I make an exception for Lipinski.
jalan48
(13,883 posts)Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)XRubicon
(2,212 posts)jalan48
(13,883 posts)melman
(7,681 posts)Don't you think? I mean, if you are going to advocate voting for ant-choice candidates and all.
Demsrule86
(68,667 posts)was pro-life. He was my only choice so obviously I voted for Ryan and not a Republican because despite his personal views with Democrats in charge, there will be no attempt to take down planned parenthood or end a woman's right to choose but with the GOP in charge there would be. I voted for the party. Ryan has since changed his stance.
I had a life threatening miscarriage which rendered me infertile some years ago and almost killed me...my doctor was pro-life and was at fault so I feel strongly about choice. Electing Republicans endangers a woman's right to choose . We have several pro-life in the Democratic Party right now. I don't agree with them, but I would vote for them as I did for Tim Ryan. And I think you are being unfair to Elliot because one thing is for sure, if the GOP wins in 18 and 20...we lose planned parenthood and Roe V Wade as the courts shift right for a generation. Perhaps it is time we all think of the big picture while we still can.
melman
(7,681 posts)Read the OP.
theaocp
(4,244 posts)njhoneybadger
(3,910 posts)revmclaren
(2,529 posts)As do my family and friends. Anyone in my life who has said no or voted against democrats in 2016 are no longer in my life. Can't trust them, don't need them.
ONLY!
HopeAgain
(4,407 posts)is love my family. Sorry, I don't really go for patriotism either.
MFM008
(19,818 posts)My sisters boyfriend is a t-humper.
Hes out.
I dont even want a discussion about supporting this monster.
There is NO issue the gop is better than us on.
From day one of my life--
I grew up watching my dad leave the house
For 23 years wearing a USAF uniform (till 1973),
I believe in that kind of patriotism.
The saving America from republican
Fascist bullshit kind.
FM123
(10,054 posts)melman
(7,681 posts)Right. When we have the 'luxury of criticism'.
Because obviously when that happens we won't have people like the OP haranguing us about how voting for an anti-choice, anti-labor, anti-environment candidate was what it took to get that seat, and we can't afford to lose it so better to not rock the boat..etc etc etc.
ollie10
(2,091 posts)Solidarity Forever!
Wwcd
(6,288 posts)We can do it again.
sarisataka
(18,770 posts)Abortion?
Economy?
Environment?
Guns?
Labor?
Women's rights?
None at all, just need a (D)?
disillusioned73
(2,872 posts)Some might say, this is how we got here...
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,699 posts)Where I live in California, it's normally easy to figure out which candidates deserve my support.........and which ones don't.
John Fante
(3,479 posts)before this orange-colored plague entered our lives, but now if is unconditional, and will continue to be so until Trumpism is destroyed.
redstatebluegirl
(12,265 posts)Any Democrat is worth more thsn ANY Republicon.
bronxiteforever
(9,287 posts)My Country and all of its institutions. The other party is the Democratic Party. The chance to save the Country from evil rests only with the democratic party. I cant forsee any circumstances where I would support a repug over a Democratic candidate in the present or in the foreseeable future.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)bronxiteforever
(9,287 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)The democratic candidate is a far right blue dog, the GOP candidate is, well, GOP.
Who to vote for in this situation should not be complicated
(not telling you this, I am just on a roll)
bronxiteforever
(9,287 posts)tymorial
(3,433 posts)Trump called himself a Democrat once upon a time. Now I believe he was lying at the time and the gross majority of Democrats are nothing like him. In general I believe Democrats are "who they say they are." Perhaps I am just skeptical by nature but I attempt to find out who I am voting for. I always intend to vote right down the party line and with some exceptions, I have done just that... but still I tend to trust but verify,
doveryai; no proveryai
George II
(67,782 posts)that I would have preferred over a Democrat.
we can do it
(12,193 posts)kimbutgar
(21,188 posts)My husband and son feel the same way. 3 no votes for rethugs in our family.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)2016 showed us what "a competitive primary" delivers.
Stop telling us what is wrong with the Democrat!
Generic Brad
(14,275 posts)I will never be a Sarandon-ista.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,036 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)good for you
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,036 posts)I understand your point about a D vote is not an R vote, but if the candidate is all three antis, then they would probably vote with Trump and the Republicons and against impeachment.
And I think your drift is that voting against Trump and for impeachment is the key.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)is preferable to anyone else because?
If you know the answer to that then you understand my point.
I wonder if people realize the party with 218 decides everything about everything and the party with 217 decides nothing, ever, not once, never ever?
Ms. Toad
(34,087 posts)Your arithmetic isn't destiny. The party with 218 only controls everything IF all 218 vote together.
I will not vote for SATAN in the primary, even if SATAN has a better chance of winning the general election because, if elected, SATAN will not give us 218 votes. D or no D behind his name.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Absolutism denies rational thought; but there is small comfort in realizing not all irrational votes will be cast for the GOP.
"But we don't have the luxury of rational thought!!!!"
NCDawg
(45 posts)erinlough
(2,176 posts)And my commitment has become even stronger starting in the W administration.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)FromMissouri
(95 posts)IF there is an alternative, I am not going to vote for anti-environment anti-union, no matter the party. Really sorry, but I do not vote for Republicans who are running in Democratic races. I just don't. If we are to stand for anything, we must stand for something.
peggysue2
(10,839 posts)the primaries. For instance, the contest between Cordray or Kucinich. My money would be on Cordray if I were a Dem from Ohio. Cordray has a much better chance of taking the Governor's seat though he's been branded with the red hot ESTABLISHMENT signature. Consequently, he has the support and the funds from traditional Democrats.
Kucinich on the other hand--presumably a progressive firebrand--has positively gone off the rails, actually complimenting Trump on his ridiculous Inauguration speech and claiming the Trumpster is trying to unite the country. Say what????? Republicans can barely contain their enthusiasm for a Kucinich primary win.
This contest doesn't actually fit your scenario, Eliot. But I think it illustrates the choice mechanism--we choose the strongest candidate, the one more likely to win. However, even if the strongest candidate does not win the primary, we run with the person who bears a 'D' on their forehead.
Because Math, because the number of rear ends we seat is equivalent to the voice volume we shall have following the November elections.
At this moment in time, it truly is all about the numbers.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts), THE PARTYwith 217 decides NOTHING
yes, you are right
TommyCelt
(838 posts)Pretty much a "yellow dog" now.
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)this unequivocal declaration of Democratic Party loyalty is that this statement reflects dogma, NOT LOYALTY.
So long as it is "known" that milquetoast centrist have a better chance of winning (despite that dogma leading to our demise ever since it was introduced in 1992), all you are saying is "I will vote for even a anti-choice CENTRIST"
Loyalty to a failed political theory is destroying our party.
Remove the b.s. premise that elections are won in the middle and the fiercest leftist is NO DIFFERENT THAN the fiercest "Forward-ist."
None of us want Republicans to win and a lot of us are tired of the incessant accusations that some of us do.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Learn the difference between an imperfect friend and a mortal enemy.
treestar
(82,383 posts)and may as well hold off the criticism due to its discouragement value. We can do that later, after we have saved the country from the right.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)by people who are leaning toward not voting.
Would I be critical of the party in normal times?
Oh god, most people here would consider me a revolutionary Socialist.
treestar
(82,383 posts)there is no point in insisting on them when there are enough Republicans to win - we have to make common cause with somebody and if it is the "corporatist" Democrats, then fine. Someday there may be a chance for single payer, but for now, we obviously have to defend the ACA from repeal (even though it's a Heritage Foundation idea, yadda yadda). So holding out on Democrats for not being far left enough will only get undoing of what progress was made.
KPN
(15,650 posts)the power of criticism when heard by people who are leaning toward not voting.
You see it negatively (taking away votes), others see it positively (bringing in more votes).
Kurt V.
(5,624 posts)then i read the rest. I'm with you until this fire is out.
catbyte
(34,447 posts)since 1976. He was my Representative first in MI-5 and then in MI-3 after redistricting. Justin Amash is currently infesting that seat. His name was Paul B. Henry and he died of a malignant brain tumor in 1993. He was one of the last of the principled, Eisenhower Republicans, but it's how he personally responded to his constituents that made me vote for him. He was a very decent man.
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)West Virginia governor, a Democrat, to switch to Republican Justice told about 9,000 Trump supporters at a rally in Huntington that he will be changing his registration Friday.
I'm sure there are more, just the most recent....
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)Finding the one excuse that RARELY happens to not vote Dem should not be what I am seeing here...sigh
asiliveandbreathe
(8,203 posts)lurks in the minds of men (figuratively of course) - I am born and raised in Massachusetts..never had to think about politicians switching party after winning an election...Mass. 2nd most liberal state (commonwealth) behind Wash DC..
In todays environment, with the war on everyone, for every reason an evil man can think of, I understand, as most Dems do, that we CANNOT afford even one less vote...
Always vigilant -
denbot
(9,901 posts)Always the D.
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Look at what happened in the LAST emergency (Nov 2016), when some people diddled,whined, pouted, voted 3rd party, didn't vote at all, even voted for the devil, because the most qualified person to run for president wasn't pure enough for them. I still hold them in contempt and always will.
It doesn't HAVE to be that way this time. If even a small percentage of those people realize what they've done and vote for the DEMOCRAT, we'll win big. In addition, there must be some non-stupid Trump voters who are awakening from their stupor and realizing that they've been had. We need to convince them, too, to vote Democratic, for their own good.
Those of us who are DEMOCRATS need to put aside demands for perfection that never comes and always, ALWAYS, vote for the Democratic candidate. In primaries, vote for the candidate who can actually win, whether it's a left of center, progressive, or anything else along the liberal scale. Because your demands don't matter now. We have a country to save.
Oneironaut
(5,524 posts)If a Republican pledged to promote and continued to promote Liberal ideals and causes and a Democrat didnt, I would support the Republican.
I draw the line at being pro-Trump, anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, or misogynistic. Sorry, but I will never support anyone who is any of those things, regardless of their party affiliation. I think thats a pretty reasonable standard. If winning means welcoming arch-Conservatives into our party, then I dont want to win.
To me, you can call yourself a Democrat, but you need to act like one too!
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)sitting on the high horse of your principles while the GOP destroys the country.
Oneironaut
(5,524 posts)Do you really think it would better to elect a Governor who, for example, is against Roe vs. Wade? The people in that state still need to deal with them. If theyre going to vote with Republicans anyways, whats the point of voting for them?
Also, at a time where minority groups are constantly under attack, someone who wants bathroom bills, draconian ICE raids, or Muslim bans is not a Democrat. Id rather eat my vote than waste it on a fake Democrat who pledges to attack our partys principles.
Ill concede that Im willing to overlook a lot. However, some things are beyond what I would call acceptable. I wouldnt call Lieberman a real Democrat (when he was one), for example. Voting for someone like him is no different than voting for a Republican.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Voting for a Dem is helping the Dems control the agenda in Congress. That's a big difference. On the state and local level it is determining who will draw the district lines after the next census. There is a much bigger picture here than a bunch of ideological litmus tests. And to quote Bill Maher, "Learn the difference between an imperfect friend and a deadly enemy".
Doremus
(7,261 posts)independent thoughts and use common sense would reject unconditional loyalty requirements.
elocs
(22,600 posts)An imperfect Democrat is still better than any Republican and I've never bought the Big Lie that there is no difference between the 2 parties because for me there has ALWAYS been enough of a difference to support the Democrat. If I don't support the Democratic candidate then I am helping the Republican candidate because the winner in virtually every race is going to be one or the other. If more voters on the Left grasped this concept, Trump would never have been elected in the first place.
truthisfreedom
(23,154 posts)Fight fire with fire.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)they were a Dixiecrat or something similar. Doubt they'd make it through primary in that case.
melman
(7,681 posts)If that hypothetical Dixiecrat had a better chance of winning then you must vote for them in that primary.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Democrats name.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)it excuses the deliberate acts of certain groups who actively work against Democrats who aren't socialists. Socialism will be shunned in many parts of this country -- those are the facts. All or nothing usually means nothing -- basic concepts here.
Great OP!
I am not overthinking. I read it and responded to what it actually says.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)description.
It is saying that far-fetched idealism is no substitute for the actual process and system we have to work within. Reality. Many parts of the country are averse to socialism, and that is the reality of our system. Dont help Republicans.
I read it and understood what it actually says. This appears to be where we differ.
R B Garr
(16,975 posts)be upset about it. Purity standards are your concern, but the OP is talking about the reality of the process not idealism.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Settle down there McCarthy
VOX
(22,976 posts)Other than such a crazy exception, I vote the straight Democratic ticket every time.
tritsofme
(17,399 posts)While I certainly don't anticipate voting any other way, no man or party has my unconditional support.
gopiscrap
(23,765 posts)MoonRiver
(36,926 posts)appleannie1943
(1,303 posts)researching both, but that was ages ago. Now the only choice of hoping to have an honorable person holding an office is to vote straight Dem.
lark
(23,155 posts)Either way, if the D is in front of their name and they aren't Nazis pretending to be Democratic - as happened recently - I will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS vote for the D. I'm mid 60s and have voted in every election since I was eligible and have never knowingly voted for a repug. Judges make me nervous because you often don't know if they are rw'ers or not. Guess I will have to start researching them more thoroughly to ensure no trumper gets my vote.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)We can fight about our favorites beforehand but I close ranks at election time.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)I would love for the GOP to start producing decent politicians and people again, but for the foreseeable future I guess I'm unconditionally Dem.
But this is a terrible state of affairs. Any party able to say "where else you gonna go?" to voters is going to wind up treating the people with contempt. We can see it happening on our side, but so far I can still honestly pick any Democrat over anyone the GOP is going to run.
We need to build better Republicans, so our Democrats will have something better to have to be better than.
sammythecat
(3,568 posts)Unconditional love? Sure. Unconditional support, of course not! Never have and never will. It's just a stupid thought. It's been stupid and despicable since long, long before "My country, right or wrong".
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)That is the way of fascists and The Republican Party.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)you'd rather let the fascists and GOP keep winning elections and actually doing something to stop them.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)Only fascist, totalitarians, and the GOP demand or give such thoughtless obedience
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)"Learn the difference between an imperfect friend than a deadly enemy".
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)Only wannabe fascists and dictators like Trump do that.
As for your quote, This is NOT about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is about the dangers of BLIND LOYALTY!!!
What the OP is saying is the antithesis of all forms of liberalism. He is saying that if the DEMOCRATIC PARTY BECAME WORSE THAN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY (and history shows that the parties can and have changed sides) they would still support them.
That is what UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORTER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MEANS!
I will never do that. I will always stand with civil rights and social freedom. If the Dems became the party they were prior to the civil war again, I would fight them as a Whig.
I only give unconditional support to my ideals and have nothing but contempt for those who would throw away human rights for a political party, right or wrong!
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)on your high horse. The rest of us down in the real world with fight to make it a better place. Don't worry about us. You can stay up there and feel superior.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)Sending out your bat signal to let all the others know you will accept whatever they say Like a good little lemming
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Than self righteously sitting on the sidelines feeling superior.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)But keep on making bad assumptions based on ignorance and what you want to believe about what people think. Very Trump like!
So much easier than actually trying understand others and make informed opinions based on facts!
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)Assuming that the Democrats are the same as Trumps GOP and that we dont need to be unified to fight them. A bad assumption is that the same tried old litmus tests can be applied as the price of support to those fighting evil. That is true ignorance.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)You have to put words into my mouth I have not said because you CANNOT address my actual arguments. I never said that todays democrats are just as bad as the REPUBLICANS and that we dont need to unite to fight them. STRAW MAN! I said not a single word about litmus tests!
What I said, and stand behind, is that blind loyalty and unconditional support are wrong. That is a way to end up supporting someone who could easily turn the party into something worse than the GOP.
It has happened before.
While the Dems are definitely the better Party now, that is a change that is barely 60 years old.Democrats HAVE BEEN as bad as TRUMPs GOP in the past. Just look at the party prior to Wilson. They were worse than Trump! Slavery, Jim Crowe, Religious fundamentalism, etc. Conversely, the GOP used to be the party of Lincoln!
Then Wilson got elected, followed by Roosevelt and Kennedy. In less than 30 years later the parties had done a 180.
Asking for or giving unconditional support is pure fascism. The type of unthinking idiocy that Trump voters commit. It is saying that if it turned out that our candidate committed rape or something like that, that one would act like a Roy Moore/Trump voter and still vote the party line. That is what unconditional support means.
To rephrase what you told me just a few posts ago: Get off YOUR high horse! If you would quit acting like a demagogue and thought about what your arguing you would see how irrational it is.
But I suspect that you really dont care the implications of what you are arguing. You just want to prove to all your friends that you are on their side and will toe their ideological litmus test no matter how horrible what they are saying might be.
That is why you keep on accusing me of positions I never said.
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)I was making a statement and never made an accusation. I'm not the one making accusations here. As far as everything else, sounds like projection.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)you'd rather let the fascists and GOP keep winning elections and actually doing something to stop them.
Projection? You cant project a position you are against
Trumpocalypse
(6,143 posts)You accused me of making an accusation in this post: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10464638 Which I didnt. But nice try a deflection.
Now back to the main issue. There is only one political party that can effectively fight the evil of Trumps GOP, the Democratic Party. And as imperfect as Democrats can be at times, we either support their fight against evil or we dont. But if we decide to make the perfect the enemy of the good and do nothing, then we are in directly supporting the evil.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)on strategy.
The Democratic party draws strength from an alliance of diverse groups.
Just like I can support my family unconditionally while disagreeing with some things some members do.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)not as many lately , which is good.
I get a kick out of the ones who lecture me on why we need to criticize the party. I assume most lecturing me think they are very far to the left and that is why.
Oh god, if they only knew.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)from a manifesto get in the way of human interactions, upon which progress depends.
G_j
(40,370 posts)Keeping track? Combined with the arguably authoritarian tinge of the OP, that just sounds kind of creepy.
TeamPooka
(24,254 posts)like the GOP did in 2016 by nominating a candidate who stands against everything they thought they stood for?
I do.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)TheSmarterDog
(794 posts)McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)Bark.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)bluestarone
(17,030 posts)Democrat all the way FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Eliot Rosewater
(31,121 posts)BEFORE we leave the building and put out the fire, what color to paint the walls when we repaint.
lanlady
(7,135 posts)And always will.
Awsi Dooger
(14,565 posts)I painstakingly research the non-partisan races to make sure I don't do it accidentally. When it is two dueling Republicans I skip the race.
I have to say I don't know very much about Bernie Sanders due to the simple fact he is not a Democrat. I watched only small snippets of those primary debates for that reason. I was locked in on Hillary and will never regret it.
Bucky
(54,065 posts)I put my faith in people, not corporations, not money, not ideology. We're liberals because we want to do what works best for as many people as possible. That's not an ideology, that's a core belief
CatMor
(6,212 posts)I have never voted any other way but Democrat.
KPN
(15,650 posts)of voting/voters today. Many voters are looking for "authenticity", genuine people, straight-forward talk as opposed to just shared positions on issues these days. Seems to me that has to be factored into which candidate might stand the best chance as well (which seems to be the standard in your "unconditional" construct). My two cents anyway.
As for answering your question, it won't be an issue for me as there aren't any challengers to the two Democrats who will be on the federal ballot in my State/District in 2018.
But my answer otherwise would be more along the lines, I'm okay with incumbents being primaried. If I lived in a red State, which I don't, I'm sure electability would be a strong criteria for me, but I might also define "electability" a bit differently than you depending on circumstances (the voters) in that particular State/District.