I am a loyal Democrat, and will support my party's nominee in 2004.

[Padraig18]

Simple question.

[JohnKleeb]

1. Viva la liberation

Yes
:toast: to victory and to the future and the world

[jonnyblitz]

2. I am not a Democrat and will support your party's nominee.

:)

[Padraig18]

3. Thank you!

:hi::toast:

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Ditto

:)

[JohnKleeb]

5. I am not a member of any party with my age

I will likely register democrat once I turn 18 though because hell I can't just abandon the party of my ancestors :D, none the less :) viva la liberation, and gasp you should be supporting Nader you awful Green ;) J/K, me and you share candiates if I recall.

[Q3JR4]

6. Kick

:kick:

[Padraig18]

7. Thanks for the kick.

:hi:

[IronLionZion]

57. I'm an Independent and I will support the Dem nominee

[dusty64]

78. Me too, but

21% defection from a Democratic site is NOT very encouraging. Yes, I will support the nominee. Of course, who it is will determine my degree of enthusiasm. It could go from active support to holding my nose and voting, we'll wait and see. I just hope whomever it is gets everyone to unite around them.

[Name removed]

118. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

137. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BurtWorm]

117. All right, jonnyblitz!

:toast:

[Capn Sunshine]

8. THIS IS TOO IMPORTANT

Whoever the nominee is, I work for them and I vote for them.Period.

[Padraig18]

9. So will I.

I will max out contributions, canvass, phone, etc., until my fingers are bloody. Whoever we nominate will be a ten thousand-fold improvement over *--- even JL. :)

[lyonn]

10. Really! Anybody but Bush

Since I registered to vote (a million years ago) I have voted for Kennedy, Goldwater, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, so I have not been a party animal, but was registered Republican. Was basically against wars and believed business was what made and kept this country strong. I have been mistaken many times in my voting career, But, this time I have no doubt what NEEDS to happen. We need a Democrat, any one of them will be fine, preferably Dean but they all would be an improvement in the areas of the Courts (our rights) economics, corporations running our govt., the environment, womens rights, etc. Let's not get to angry with one another and screw things up.

[MaineDem]

15. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Padraig18]

16. Please forgive my oversight, lyonn!

Welcome to DU! :hi::toast:

[blondeatlast]

69. The Courts are an important, but easily overlooked, issue.

Thanks!

[Padraig18]

11. Loyalty kick

:dem:

[Monte Carlo]

12. I intend to see Bush gone in 2004...

... and the best way to do that will be with the Democratic nominee. I may have some big reservations now about certain candidates, but I have a much, MUCH bigger reservation about another Bush term.

Just vote 'D'.

[Padraig18]

13. The question I ask the Doubting Thomases...

... who aren't completely happy with Candidate X or candidate Y is this: "Who is more likely to move the country in the direction you want to see it go--- the Democratic Party's nominee, or *?"

You can almost see the light go on, I swear. :)

[Monte Carlo]

80. I used to be like that...

... back in the old days... 3 years ago. I then realized that it's a formula for loss after loss after loss. Purity is not achieved through politics.

[MaineDem]

14. Absolutely!

Not only will I support him (sorry, Carol) but I will campaign for him.

This is the most important election I have ever experienced!

[TXDemGal]

17. Will support whoever the Dem is

even if it's a yellow dog.

Anybody But Bush in '04!!! :dem:

[Padraig18]

18. Yessssssssss!

:hug::thumbsup:

From the court house to the state house to the White House---vote "D" in '04!

[3rdParty]

29. Not a sheep.

I don't vote for a person just because my parents or friends vote that way, I don't vote (for or against) based on a -D or a -R next to their name. I vote for the person "I" believe will help and turn this country back to the correct direction for everyone. If this means voting for a 3rd party candidate, then so be it.

[library_max]

47. Question.

How can someone who has literally no chance of winning (any 3rd party candidate you might care to name) "the person believe will help and turn this country back to the correct direction for everyone"? How is someone who isn't going get elected to office supposed to turn the country in any direction at all?

[3rdParty]

108. no chance of winning?

What does "no chance of winning" mean? That is what we are told of Dean.

Simply, I can only support a person whom I believe in. That they mean what they say, and are true to their word, and will not have special interests dictate their position. And if more people voted for the 'best' candidate instead of the best one they think could win.....

Back a few decades ago I held my nose in the booth and voted for the candidate I believed had the best shot to kick the prez out. It didn't happen and I felt I wasted my vote and regretted it to this day. That was the last time I ever voted for someone I was not proud of, truely believe in, and could defend.

[library_max]

114. A 3rd party candidate has never won.

A third party candidate has never done better than third place. Except for Teddy Roosevelt, an extremely popular former president, no third party candidate has ever won more than one or two states.

If you really have to vote for the candidate who most perfectly represents your own views on the issues, why go halfway? Just write your own name in on the ballot under "President." That way, you will have the comfort of supporting a candidate who agrees with you 100% on every issue, and who has just as much chance of winning as Nader or any other 3rd party candidate.

[3rdParty]

120. 1860 - Lincoln

Like most people, there is a very select number of views I MUST agree with a given candidate, some that I would PREFER they believe in but could look past, some I am open to and can be convinced of, and others that just don't matter. If the dem candidate does not meet a bare minimum then I will look elsewhere. I don't base which baseball team I route for based on their chances to beat the Yankees. The same with my base/core political and social viewpoints.

Are there 1 or 2 possible dem candidates that I could not vote for? Maybe. Still learning about them.

BTW - Yes, rarely 3rd party candidates win but here are some notables :

1992 Independent - 20 million votes out of 100 million
1968 American Independent - 10 million votes out of 75mil (46 electorial)
1948 State's Rights party - 39 electorial votes
1924 Progressive party - 4 million votes (13 electorial)
1912 Progressive party - 2nd place 4 million votes (88 electorial)
and of course
1860 Lincoln - Republican party (a 3rd party then) WON

Why can't we start a Progressive Party??? Will this be overnight? No. But after this election, if we get destroyed, will we look back and wonder if we should have run a candidate on our Progressive principles and build a party we can be proud of in 2008? Is the democratic party really as good as it gets? Is this the best year to start NOT a 3rd party - but a real 2nd party?!?!?! Time will tell......

[library_max]

123. If Lincoln was 3rd party, what party was the 2nd party?

D'oh! There were only two parties, although several candidates were running simultaneously in one of them. The Whig Party was already dead and gone and did not run a presidential candidate.

And the baseball analogy is ridiculous. It doesn't matter who wins in baseball. It kind of does matter who wins the presidency.

Your "notables" are all notable for the fact that they didn't come close to winning, and that's in over 200 years of U.S. electoral history. When are you going to face the fact that the U.S. has a two-party system? All a third party on the left can do is hurt the left, just like a third party on the right hurts the right. If you really want to help progressive causes, go start an American Nazi party and get Republicans to defect to it.

[3rdParty]

130. A real Progressive party

It doesn't matter who wins in baseball???????? What planet are you from? hahaha

It sounds like what you are saying the only way to help progressive causes is to vote whomever is selected not matter who it is. I remember that clinton signed into law 7 of the 10 items of gingrich's contract with america. He also 'fixed' welfare. He was in favor of NAFTA & GATT. Bye Bye millions of manufacturing jobs. Is this the sort of progressive ideas you are talking about? And he lost congress.

I suppose my main point is that the dems & reps have more in common today than most people believe. So, I am looking for a REAL 2nd party and not a fake one that should really be called 'republican-lite'.

[library_max]

131. It's like an eye test.

Look at the Clinton administration and the Clinton years. Okay, now look at the Bush administration and the Bush years. See the difference? No? You need political glasses.

True progressives have always been frustrated by the slow pace of progress and by the power money wields. But if you'll look at U.S. history you'll see that progress was made nevertheless. And it was made by ordinary politicians who were not seen as raging progressives in their times.

Support whoever you want in the primaries. If the country is really ready to make a lurch to the left, the leftest candidate should have no trouble winning the Democratic primaries. If not, then the Democratic nominee is going to end up being the best deal we can get. In U.S. politics, you have to pick from the menu. Otherwise, you might as well write your own name in, for all the difference it's going to make. Why vote at all if you're not trying to make a difference?

[3rdParty]

136. 100 million 'political glasses' please...

I like your analogy regarding a menu. But I live in NJ. So like you mentioned - my vote doesn't matter. My state will pick the dem. If its anywhere close, that means the reps will win the prez since if the dem can't win here.......

A cold fact is that IF and I repeat IF the economy continues to grow at this pace, it will not matter who runs vs. the rep. People vote with their pocketbooks. So voting for the dem will be as irrelavent as voting for yourself. (that is, IF things (economy) continue to get better). So IF I do not agree with the nominee enough, I see no difference voting for someone I can be proud of.

I think I, (as well as the 100 million people in this country that choose not to vote) need those political glasses you talked about. Since all these people really don't see a substantial difference between the parties.

[ACK]

19. The time to fight is now

We stand on the edge of the one-party state. It is the time to turn the energy of the Deanies and the loyalty of Clark fans back onto the party loyalists in the Kerry camp and come together.

We have to concentrate on this campaign while quietly planning for the big push. It is the congress at stake that will one day be the final prize. We must use this election for the presidency as the proving ground that the party of FDR is not the party of the pink tutu pansycrats.

We have to take the anger and turn it to energy and action. This is the battlecry I take to my streets and into the movement that has to come.

We have the blueprint in the campaigns of the past if we are only brave enough to see. If we can only open our eyes, there is hope in a nation divided and screaming for leadership and not just the hallow cronyism of the radical Republicans.

Dean show us how to use the new media no matter who the candidate is.

Wellstone showed us how to organize for the grassroots uprising at the ballot box.

Clinton showed us how to paint the Republicans for the radical right-wing fundie enabling scum they are.

Mike Warner showed us how to tailor the message to the electorate.

Take these lessons forward and out.

We can take back the country.

[Padraig18]

21. As Granny D so wisely reminds us:

"We have a duty to look after each other. If we lose control of our government, then we lose our ability to dispense justice and human kindness. Our first priority today, then, is to defeat utterly those forces of greed and corruption that have come between us and our self-governance."

ABB in '04!

:dem:

[redqueen]

32. She's very wise - glad she endorses Denny K!

:D

[Padraig18]

33. Indeed she does endorse DK.

But she is emphatically ABB, too. :)

[redqueen]

36. Hehe... not to be rude...

but DUH! ;)

I just think she gives such great perspective on the reason to vote for the Kooch:

"I am proud to endorse Dennis Kucinich for President.

When I walked 3,200 miles across the United States for campaign reform and inquired of people why they were not voting, they said: 'Find us someone who understands us, who cares about us.' I'm talking about people living in trailers, people living in small towns with boarded-up windows on Main Street, with drugstores, grocery stores, hardware stores all eaten up by Wal-Mart, Costco, CVS Drugs, Home Depot, and other monsters several miles beyond the town. People coming out of farmhouses in Iowa, squeezed out of their livelihood by stinking agri-hog farms, people coming out of tobacco fields, cotton fields, wheat fields, people living in cities who have been out of work for over a year, people whose well-paid jobs have been shipped overseas, people desperate for relief from the oppressions of our corporatized and disempowered lives.

I promised to look for someone who would understand them, that had a vision of the future for them, that believed in Peace, Love, Justice. Well, here he is: Dennis Kucinich.

I believe he is the candidate who can bring new voters and disgruntled voters into the political process.

To those people I met on my walk across America: 'Now keep your promise to me and come out and vote for him! Hugs.'"

For information purposes only:
Granny D (Doris Haddock) is the unstoppable social change activist, now in her 90s, from the first primary state of New Hampshire. At age 89, she wore out four sets of shoes and was hospitalized in Arizona for dehydration and pneumonia, but she would not be deterred as she marched for campaign reform from California to her triumphant arrival in Washington D.C. 14 months later. Now, she is on the march for Dennis.

[Padraig18]

37. Uh huh!

I wish a few here at DU would 'get it' as clearly as she does, and as clearly as MOST of the rest us do, too. :)

[demnan]

20. Count me in.

[Padraig18]

22. EX-cellent!

I am always gratified to see proof of how many good, loyal Dems there really are here at DU!

:hug::hi:

[arwalden]

23. Who Is Voting "No"?? And Why Are They Voting "No"?

Just asking.
-- Allen

[Padraig18]

25. You're not the only one wondering, Allen...

I wonder what part of the word 'loyal' they don't get? :shrug:

[Snow]

26. I just voted no - I am not a loyal democrat although I will most

emphatically vote for the democrat candidate for president next november - However, I'm a green and proud of it. SO maybe the poll needs another line....

[Padraig18]

28. *smack*

Skewing my poll results, are you? (j/k) :P :hug:

[Snow]

31. blblblblblblbl! *shaking head from smack*

sure, that's what polls are for. Anyway, if you decided ahead of time what the results are, why run the poll? Research is an adventure, my boy (or girl, or old man, or whatever).

[Padraig18]

34. LOL!

's OK, really; I didn't mind. :hug:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

24. I will vote ABB-Anybody But Bush

if someone runs a houseplant against him I'll vote for it.

[JNelson6563]

27. I'm a "yes"

Team Bush must go.

[economic justice]

30. YES! 100%

No question that I will support the nominee. It was said above, this election is simply TOO IMPORTANT. Bush has GOT to go.

[jpgpenn]

35. Not if its Dean

[durutti]

39. Why not?

I don't think Dean can win, but why wouldn't you vote for him anyway?

[Padraig18]

41. Yeah, why not?

:shrug:

[Bertha Venation]

45. Yeah, why not? I hope you'll answer.

Thanks.

[jpgpenn]

106. For these reasons

The Major Media along with the GOp have done everything they could to pump Dean up, while at the same time black-balled all the other candidates, some more then others, Clark, Gephardt , Kerry.

I really really have a bad time excepting how Dean got out of Vietnam and then went skiing afterwards. As per the debate hosted by Tom Brockaw, it just wasn't skiing but mogul skiing, big difference. Takes alot of back strain to attempt. On top of this he commented to Tweety that he never once thought about those that went in his place. Even Tweety said he often thought about that.

With that endorsement by Gore , they were trying to get across, that everyone should now just support Dean and forget about the other candidates. Many Dean supporters here were popping off at the mouth that the race is now over etc. I could name names but I wont. This took alot of nerve. There are far far more combined supporters of other candidates then Dean supporters.To infer that this race is now over not only stinks to high hell but it goes against everything this country was built on. There hasn't been 1 vote cast for any candidate.

Dean is far under qualified to lead our country during current times and condition. Dean is strictly over pumped by media, many American jus fall inline with what is repeated over and over on the news.

I wont fall into that voting trap of voting for the lesser of the 2 evils, Dean or Bush. I wont be able to live with myself knowing I voted for a guy that the media forced upon the public and i sure wont vote for Bush.

I say to those supporting this guy. He will not win against Bush. So if you support him, you can also live with the fact that you let Bush in office 4 more years.

[batesboys]

112. Me, too n/t

[jonnyblitz]

129. the major media and GOP along with all DEMS who hate him

have done nothing but TRASH Dean! :shrug:

[ulysses]

38. sorry - no simple answer

I'm a liberal first and a Democrat second, and will vote for my party's candidate if that candidate represents to me at least some kind of progress.

[Padraig18]

40. Ulysses, please read thread #13.

It's really the distilled essence of things, isn't it? The seminal question of '04, etc. :hi: :hug:

PS-- How have you been? Haven't seen you around much recently.

[ulysses]

43. the choice,

were I to be faced with a Dem nominee for whom I couldn't vote (which is unlikely given the lowered expectations of this election, but not flat impossible), wouldn't be between the nominee and Bush but between a Democratic party that wants nothing from me and offers nothing in return and the support of a new progressive electoral home.

I've been fine, just busy with pre-Christmas school stuff. You?

[Padraig18]

44. OK.

I can respect that reason.

I've been good, thanks, just VERY busy with the shop and school. :)

[library_max]

50. See Padraig, the theory is

that politics is about more than just winning elections.

I guess I find it easier to respect that point of view than to understand it. Maybe I'm just myopic, but I can't think of anything that politics can decide except elections.

[ulysses]

52. it's really not all that difficult.

I'm not a Democrat because I think the name is sexy, or because I like hanging out with the cool kids, or because I'm that way genetically. I'm a Democrat because I'm a liberal.

Politics is about ideas, about policy, about what you want your country to be. It's also about compromise, of course, but that'll only get you so far when you see more and more of what *you* want given away for less and less of what *they* want. Anyone who isn't a Democrat solely for the "cool factor" has a breaking point on the issues.

[library_max]

53. Too difficult for me, I guess.

I keep coming back to that connection between politics and elections. I keep not understanding how politics is going to promote your ideas, influence policy, and make your country what you want it to be without winning elections and getting your candidates into office.

For me, it's like the "underpants gnomes" from the South Park episode. Their business plan was, step 1, steal underpants, step 2, ?????, step 3, profit. Step two is conspicuously missing, and it's hard to imagine what it could possibly be.

Now for me, if step one is politics and step three is ideas and policy and vision for the country, then step two has to be winning elections. If we divorce politics from winning elections, we're back to the underpants gnomes.

[ulysses]

66. the step you're missing

is where we actually fight for what we believe, instead of basing every move on the latest poll and focus group. The Republicans have done this for decades.

See? Not so hard.

[library_max]

79. "Fight for what we believe"

Meaning what? Shadow-boxing? Armed rebellion? What? Who are you fighting and how are you fighting them?

Because as far as I can see, you're mainly talking about fighting and defeating your friends and allies, and leaving your worst enemies in complete command of the situation.

Look, I'm glad that you're planning to support Dean. It looks likely (not certain) that he'll be the nominee. But your rhetoric is the kind that leads the politically innocent down a pied piper's path to nowhere.

[ulysses]

99. don't play dumb.

I mean standing up and working to convince Americans that what they've been told about liberals and liberalism for decades is wrong. Dem centrists tend to look at the rightward trend of the US as the result of some irresistable natural force, and that's just not the case, unless you view people like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove as irresistable natural forces.

Because as far as I can see, you're mainly talking about fighting and defeating your friends and allies, and leaving your worst enemies in complete command of the situation.

Friends and allies - centrists? I may not want to tell the center to screw off, but neither do I want them running the damned show. I'll take my allies where I can find them, but some days I see very little worth joining up with in the center, and *if* the alliance is based on me supporting unalloyed centrist goals with little or no consideration in return, then no thanks..

But your rhetoric is the kind that leads the politically innocent down a pied piper's path to nowhere.

If one believes that liberalism is "a pied piper's path to nowhere", I suppose one could come to that conclusion. Personally, I'm content to give the politically innocent whatever piece of my "rhetoric" they come across and then let them come to their own conclusions.

[library_max]

115. Well, that's just great.

But I can't help noticing how far we've come from talking about the practical matter of winning elections. If you don't win elections, politically, you're just talking to yourself.

[ulysses]

121. not far at all, truthfully.

Fighting to change the minds of the American people, and to win elections by doing so, at least has the signal advantage of being something we haven't tried recently. The DLC "go along to get along" approach hasn't exactly worked wonders for us in the last couple of elections and, imho, would have *no* major victories under its belt without the surpassing political abilities of Bill Clinton.

The GOP is winning now because it's been working at changing hearts and minds to conservatism for decades, but any suggestion that we mount our own long-term campaign in favor of liberal goals (thus making liberalism more electable) is automatically dismissed as pie-in-the-sky idealism. I guess I don't get why that is unless some folks just really don't like the left (their "allies", right?) at all, which is something I've suggested more than once.

[library_max]

124. "I guess I don't get why that is . . ."

We won the last three presidential elections by courting the middle. Every time the Democrats have run left in a presidential election they have lost, usually by a landslide. The GOP is winning now because they stick together. The right recognizes that the GOP is the side its bread is buttered on, and none but the farthest lunatic fringe votes Libertarian, States' Rights, etc.

In other words, pragmatism works. Unity works. Courting the middle works. Their opposites never work. And splinter parties, as a simple matter of math, can't do anything except hurt their own causes. So if you're wondering why people oppose these idealistic flights of political fancy, that's why. Not because we really don't like the left (hell, many of us are the left!) but because practical politics is the only kind worth practicing.

If you want to sell liberalism to the masses, you're in the wrong forum. The masses aren't here. You're only preaching to the choir. The more voices we have out there educating the public, telling them why the country is going in the wrong direction, the better. The more voices we have in here telling us that real Democrats should vote against the Democratic Party unless the nominee is so-and-so, the worse.

[ulysses]

125. I won't bother getting into

why the comparison between states' rights nutjobs on the right and liberals on the left is dumb yet again. Believe as you will, and by all means, keep believing it when they tell you that liberalism is dead. You can go ahead and have the last word here. This is very well-worn ground and I'm bored with it.

[library_max]

126. Too bored to actually read my post, apparently. (nt)

[never cry wolf]

42. Of course!!

If the party challenging the repukes were the "Fucking Idiot Party", they'd have my vote cuz at least they're not the mean, greedy fucking idiots in office.

[mlawson]

46. Of course of course of course....

Either GWB or one of the Dem candidates will be elected (hopefully not selected) next November. That is IT!

[evil_orange_cat]

48. I won't vote for Lieberman...

what is the point? he is Bush-lite... I'll vote Green if Lieberman is the nominee.

[Padraig18]

54. If you do that...

you'll get 4 more years of *, most likely. JL isn't 'Bush-lite'; he's a hawk, but he has a solid progressive record in LOTS of areas, like civil right and the environment... :hi:

[evil_orange_cat]

58. well if 4 more years of Bush gets me a REAL progressive...

then I can stand it... I won't compromise...

[Padraig18]

59. Umm...

Has it crossed you mind that this could conceivably be the LAST presidential election we ever have, if * and his evil minions win in '04?

think about it. :scared:

[thebigidea]

67. and in what possible alternate universe does HOLY JOE save us from it?

[Padraig18]

77. Aside from being a hawk, ...

... Joe Lieberman is a solid progressive. Look at his record on civil right, the environment, etc. . This silly 'Liberman = Bush-lite' crap has GOT TO stop! :wtf:

[evil_orange_cat]

97. nah... the sky isn't falling...

;) yes 4 more years of Bush would be bad... but we won't turn into teh Soviet Union... not even conservatives would allow that.

[blondeatlast]

71. Interesting view. Will you even be ABLE to vote for anyone

besides Bushit if the BFEE gets four more years?

Think about this:

This election, in the end, will be about the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

Lieberman is still pretty progressive on civil rights, despite his many, many weaknesses. He and Dean are the very last on my list, but I'll bite the bullett if I must.

Now, more than ever, it's about the Constitution; it really is.

[Padraig18]

83. Exactly!

This is as 'black and white' an election as this nation has seen since 1860; at stake is our sovereign right to be a self-governing nation. The sole question is "Which party's nominee is going to make that happen--- the Republican's, or the Democrat's?'.

[CBHagman]

49. Even if I have to crawl on my hands and knees.

Even if the candidate isn't my first or even fifth choice, I'm going to be there on polling day, unless I'm dead or in a coma.

[Padraig18]

63. WONDERFUL!

:thumbsup:

[Granite]

51. Solidly, unwaveringly Democrat

and ABB baby! Of course this isn't a shock - I've always voted "D" - Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton, and Gore. Looks like I'm batting .500 (actually .750!). Here's to another straight ticket in '04!

[Piperay]

55. I will vote for

ANY Democrat who gets the nomination BUT I am not giving money unless I feel they have a chance at winning. Some of them do not have a chance in hell against chimp and I am not throwing hard earned money down a "gopherhole". :argh:

[Liberal_Andy]

56. I WILL vote for the Dem nominee.

Zell Don't count as a dem. Wouldn't vote for him, wouldn't be prudent, at this juncture.

[AWB777]

60. I will vote democrat this election

nuff said

[ComerPerro]

61. I am a tool of the Democratic party

And I am not afraid to admidt it. I will vote Dem even if its Lieberman, because I want Bush out that badly.

[VOX]

62. Yes. On 11/02/04, I will wait for the poll doors to open to vote Democrat

and only Democrat. I've been a loyal, voting Democrat ever since I was old enough to vote.

There is far too much at stake to withold a vote, or to cast a vote for a "vanity" candidate just because the Democratic nominee doesn't fit my personal needs like a glove.

I'll wholeheartedly support any Democrat who makes it onto the ticket.

On edit: Must add -- *Anyone* but *!!!

[MoonRiver]

64. That question is a no brainer!

OF COURSE I'LL VOTE DEM! What has happened that would change my opinion?
:wtf: :kick:

[mitchum]

65. Yes Yes Yes

[cirej2000]

68. Not only support...I'll make sure to vote!

I don't care if it's Lie-berman!

I'll vote to keep * out of office!!! Please folks...we aren't going to settle for another stolen election either!!! Stick behind our candidate! No Green Party votes this time around, thank you!

[0007]

70. No matter who, I'll work my tail off to get the person elected.

I trust that it will be Dean.

[littlejoe]

72. Didn't loyalty oaths go the way of the McCarthy hearings?

[number6]

73. I am not a Democrat and will also support your party's nominee.

Bu$h is just Awful !!!
I'm more like a Democratic Party sympathizer.

[ochazuke]

74. Gotta vote strategically

We have a two-party system in the USA, in case you didn't know. In other countries, a vote for a small party is OK because they get proportional representation in parliament and then a coalition is formed in parliament.

We don't have that luxury. Voting for anyone other than a Dem or Rep is basically tantamount to voting for the guy who you hate most.

On the other hand, there are those perverse voters like the nuns my old high school teacher told me about: they voted for Wallace in '68 hoping he would win and bring about some kind of armageddon that would purge the evil racist war mongers from the American politcal landscape.

[dembabe]

75. I'll forever vote Democrat --no matter what.

STRAIGHT TICKET ALWAYS.

DEAN 2004 (Gore's pick is good enough for me, but I wish Gore was running!).

[Kool Kitty]

76. Yes, without question.

No matter who, no matter how.

[ellie]

81. I have always been a loyal Democrat

and will always be a loyal Democrat, and I vote strict party lines. ALWAYS. There is no compromise with me.

[jobycom]

82. I am a loyal world citizen, and will vote for the Democrat in 2004.

I hate labels, but my beliefs line up a lot more with the Democrats than the Republicans, so I ally most often with the Democrats. Further, the Republicans currently in control are so far in violation of all priciples and beliefs I hold dear and believe to be true, that for me to vote for anyone other than the person with the best chance to defeat Bush would be the same as selling my soul. I won't do that, no matter what disagreements-- petty or egregious-- I might have with that person.

[ACK]

84. 20% says no ... replay of 2000 election coming?

We can win this thing. However, it will be very close.

Don't worry I am not about to start doing the pansycrat whine fest.

I will say that we need to be loud and vocal and fight for the votes to put Bush out of office.

It is beyond me that 20% of the people here would simply choose to let the shrub go another four years. Another four years despite what some say will not bring someone more progressive. If anything it will strenghthen the stranglehold and one party nature of American politics.

I am stunned and saddened and pissed. :wtf:

[Padraig18]

86. I'm more optimistic, frankly, and here's why:

We're in the heat of a life-or-death battle for the nomination, and nerves are frayed and tempers are flaring. After our nominee becomes clear (probably by mid-March), people will begin to divest themselves of their 'personal investment' in candidate X, and rally around the nominee.

I predict that come November, 3/4 of the current 'no' votes will be "D". :)

[brainshrub]

85. As long as his name isn't Leiberman...yes.

[Padraig18]

88. Despite his hawkishness, Joe is very progressive in many areas:

Civil rights, the environment, etc.; even JL is a MASSIVE improvement over */Asscraft!

[Selwynn]

87. I am not loyal to any "party" - I am loyal to people who are right,

speak the truth, stand for progressive liberal ideals and are men and woman of honesty, fairness and integrity.

If the Democratic party nominates someone who is none of those thigns, then my next question is: while that is disappointing, how does that nominee stack up to the other guy: better or worse? If better, I'll vote for him. If worse, I won't.

In this election year, virtually any of the democratic nominees would have my vote over George Bush and his administration. But, there are some Democratic candidates who I will be dissapointed to support, because I don't believe they are the things I described above.

I don't believe in some kind of blindly dogmatic loyalty oath to a party. I believe in certain ideals - and I support people when they support those ideals, and I don't support them when they don't. I'm a democrat right now for the sole reason that it is a better alternative to the Republican party of the two parties with power to do anything. It's not that I think the party is so perfect and wonderful - it isn't. It's simply all there is for any practical idealist like myself.

[RandomUser]

100. Me, too

I'm a registered Democrat, and have been since I was old enough to registered to vote, not a "loyal" Democrat.

I like your reasoning Selwynn. That's how I feel. Right now, there's a good chance (95%) the Dem Nom will get my vote. But I can see circumstances where I may vote for the third party nominee, or even vote Bush (if he catches Bin Laden, I'm voting Bush).

[LeahMira]

89. Surprising...

... that 21% (at the moment) said no.

It seems as if about twice a day someone starts a "loyalty" sort of thread like this, maybe just to make sure we haven't lost anyone?

I wonder what are the thoughts of the folks who voted no. Will you write in someone? Will you vote Green or Reform or Libertarian or whatever? Will you just stay home on election day? Leave the space by "President" blank but vote for Congressional candidates? I can't imagine that anyone would vote for Bush, so if you said no, do you have a plan?

[reachout]

90. Okay

I'll put myself up for vilification.

I consider myself an independent person. I most frequently work with the Green Party and have run as a Green myself. I have also worked for and donated to Democrats who I believed in. No party and no individual owns my loyalty.

I am concerned about a great deal more than the outcome of one election. I do a lot of work on things like electoral reform that I know probably won't become a reality today or tomorrow, but I am trying to build a more democratic system of governance for the future.

With that in mind, I will vote strategically when I feel it is appropriate. I am currently adopting a wait-and-see attitude concerning the 2004 presidential election. One of my primary considerations is the viability of the Democratic candidate nationally and within my state. If the nominee is not realistically competitive nationally, or within my state, I will vote Green as an exercise in party building (that is assuming a Green candidate is running). I pay close attention to the electoral map and to trends within Missouri. If the election were held tomorrow, Bush has such a solid electoral lead that I see no real chance for a Democratic opponent to defeat him. By my calculation, voting Democrat in such a circumstance would be "throwing my vote away" when I could be utilizing it elsewhere. By the same token, regardless of the national outcome, Missouri is shaping up to be another Republican landslide in 2004 (as it was in 2002). We have an unpopular Democratic Governor, who is even being challenged within his own party, and who is very far down in the polls right now. If a wave of people come to the polls to oust him, I believe it will place this state more firmly in the Republican column for the national elections than it was in 2000. Remember, Missouri lost its only Democratic Senator last year and Democrats lost their majority in the state legislature for the first time in decades. The Yellow Dogs are dying off and being replaced with Republican suburbanites. This has strongly reinforced the rural Republican vote.

So, I guess you could call me a Green pragmatist. There are people around here who make compelling arguments for not voting Green under certain circumstances (although these arguments are sometimes overshadowed by hyperbolic rhetoric). I will consider all potential outcomes when casting my vote, and do what I consider most useful toward reaching both my short- and long-term goals.

[library_max]

93. I'm curious.

You talk about strategic and long-term goals. What do you see as the eventual role of the Green Party, when you've got it "built" the way you want it? Because we don't have proportional representation in this country - it's winner-take-all. That means if there are two significant progressive parties and one significant conservative party, guess which party wins every single election? I'll give you a hint - it has something to do with math.

[reachout]

95. response

Exactly, we have an electoral system that is inherently unrepresentative. The short- to mid-term goal is to push for IRV through as many avenues as possible. The fact that it is even now being discussed by national nominees and appearing as a state ballot issue in a number of states is a step in the right direction. I think IRV is a reform that can be achieved in my lifetime. However, I see it as more of a temporary patch than an actual solution to the problem.

The root obstacle to real constiuent representation is the single-delegate winner-take-all district. Every district is composed of many different and often contradictory interests. A single representative cannot represent all of these interests. Indeed, a representative cannot represent any of them without arousing anxiety and controversy in others, and dissension in the district. The representative survives by separating herself from the district, adopting legislative projects that are fairly neutral with respect to the political needs of constituent groups or classes, and adopting strategies for re-election which depend on non-dissension in the
district. These projects and strategies invert the structure of
representation; they represent the representative's relation to the
district, rather than represent the district itself.

As a result, legislatures have developed a culture of horse-trading support and influence on projects, rather than one of dealing with issues that constituencies need to have addressed. This culture of horse-trading reinforces the separation between the representatives as a group and the districts that elected them. This holds true for all state and federal legislatures. It is not an anomaly; it is the structural result of the single-delegate district system.

What representatives do offer is an ear to major constituents, and thus a conduit into certain governmental workings. This is the reason unions, for instance, will support a major party candidate even though she has an anti-labor record. The unions are not looking for representation of their interests, but an ear in government or party circles in case they need special favors.

So, my long-term goal is a system of proportional representation. I see this not as something achievable in my lifetime, but rather a generational struggle akin to the abolition of slavery of the women's sufferage movement.

Under proportional representation issues and representation would become meaningful at the state and federal levels. This would mean
establishing multi-delegate districts, so that conflicting class, cultural, identity, ethnic, and ideological differences could appear, contest, and resolve their issues in the halls of government itself. Government could then function democratically, because it would become the place where issues got discussed and resolved. At present, the discussion of real issues is exiled from the halls of government to the realm of popular movements and street-level discussion by
the single-delegate system.

I recognize the sort of changes necessary to achieve proportional representation and the fact that neither major party would support such a move because it would threaten their bipolar monopoly over the governance. So, the idea of proportional representation, and the structural transformations necessary to facilitate it, must emerge
from a third party effort.

Now, short-term the wisest course is to run in city and county elections, not only to contest local political machines, or to take advantage of at-large positions to build a city or county-wide organization. The presence of Greens or other alternative thinkers or radicals on city councils is becoming more and more important. This appears to be the only level at which foreign policy and federal
domestic policy issues can be contested politically. Since real issues play little role at the state or federal level, city and county councils become primary arenas for addressing them. Recent experience has shown that city and county councils are willing to do this (resistance to the Patriot Act, resolutions opposing the war, resistance to the INS through sanctuary movements, etc.). Non-cooperation with the federal government needs to be spread politically, since expression of such sentiment is effectively barred at the federal level.

At this time, I think the best reason to run a Green candidate nationally is to attempt to enter the presidential debates, and when barred get arrested for trying to enter them. I am a strong believer in the power of civil disobedience, and I feel that Ralph Nader failed on this point in 2000.

It is unfortuate that I live at a point in history with no real progressive alternative. My long-term goal is to create a world in which my great-grandchildren do.

[library_max]

98. So your goal is to completely reconfigure the American political system.

This would be a far more profound and improbable change than either the abolition of slavery or the extension of the franchise to women. Gee, good luck with that.

Meanwhile, does it mean nothing to you that Bush and his cronies are destroying the country? No, come to think of it, I guess it wouldn't. If FDR, JFK, and LBJ (all products of winner-take-all politics, all horse-traders and the rest) weren't progressive enough for you, then you must be one of those "Clinton, Bush, what's the difference?" people.

Do you honestly believe that you're going to change anything, ever, from so far out there on the leftward fringe? You do understand, don't you, that changes in the Constitution must begin in Congress and be ratified by the state legislatures - in a word, they must be approved by the overwhelming majority of politicians? Do you think they agree with you? Do you think they are ever going to agree with you?

All the progress that has ever been made in this country has come through the two-party system. Don't you think it would be more productive to use the tool that has always worked rather than try to invent a new tool that has never worked before?

[davidinalameda]

91. I don't know now

it really depends--if they get some neo-con to run as VP like Sam Nunn, I will really have to think about it

[election_2004]

92. You have to look more closely at the "no" votes...

Just because a DUer votes "No" (the way I just did), doesn't mean that we are *unlikely* to vote Democratic in 2004.

For me, it just means I will not give a rubber-stamp to any Democratic nominee.

I will enthusiastically support and actively campaign for Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, Edwards, Kucinich, or Clark. I will even vote for Sharpton or Moseley-Braun if it comes to that, although I can't picture either of them defeating Bush.

I will not vote for Lieberman under any circumstances. Those are my conditions as an Independent voter. But for the most part, I'm comfortable and very pleased with a majority of the Democratic presidential field.

[Forkboy]

94. Do I get a nice pat on the head if I vote YES?

[jhmay]

96. Yes

Even Lieberman.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

101. Another Loyalty Oath?

My vote is too valuable to give it anyone with a (D) after their name.

As far as this election goes, I will vote for any of the following Democrats who win the nomination:

Dean
Clark
Kucinich
Sharpton
Mosely-Braun

Otherwise, I'll be voting Green.

Loyalty Oaths are best left to the fascists and their republican cronies.

[Stuckinthebush]

105. No, a pragmatic oath

Sometimes it makes sense to be pragmatic.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

111. "Pragmatic". That's what Kerry, Lieberman, Gep and Edwards

told themselves when they voted to kill Iraqis. They were convinced that they were being "realistic", "pragmatic", "politically expedient" and all the other metaphors to cover their cowardly votes.

Somewhat like, "We had to burn the village to save it."

No thanks.

[Stuckinthebush]

119. Pragmatic

"I vote for the eventual Dem nominee to ensure Bush doesn't continue to destroy all that progressives hold dear and have fought for the past 50 years. While I understand that the eventual nominee may not pass my philosophical purity test, I also undestand that any other vote will ensure a Bush victory which is thousands of times more harmful than the Dem."

That is pragmatic. I can't think of a valid reason to do otherwise.

[PATRICK]

102. Democrats will end one party rule

In whatever sense you mean it. Whether theirs or the GOP or the combo deluxe of corporate smarm. Their visctory, whether they support it or intend it will open the way fro more honest participation in change, diversity of opinion and perhaps new parties to make up for any continued failures on their part.

There are no other contenders, not even coalitions. You might hate this "main event" as promoted by the status quo, but the winner promises a sea change in what we have had for decades. Democracy or fascism(GOP)- whether either party intends it or not the crisis is set as much from the insufficiencies of the two parties as evil intent.

We are blessed still with candidates who exemplify the best ideals and potential. There own affiliation with various "bad" points of the Party pales in comparison. THe real reform will come from the people- eventually- if given a fair chance. Only the Democrats offer a fair chance, and the the truth is far beyond this minimalist "hold your nose" attitude. Victory will enable progressivism, popiulism, freedom, democracy, with a solid dose of competent principled leadership. It offers hope, not despairing defiance.

As Democrats our support is always conditional. Those Party ideals have to stand for something real or the citizens will move on to where they can be found.

[info being]

103. I am a free-thinker and will vote how I decide to on election day

[Stuckinthebush]

104. How about that

22% of DUers are part of the problem, not the solution.

Go figure.

[Sir_Shrek]

107. No

No party claims my allegiance, and I do not treat elections so lightly that I'll just vote for anyone to get the other guy out.

[Q]

109. A loyalty oath?

- Hmmm. Where have I seen this before?

[bowens43]

110. It's not a yes or no question nor is it a simple question.

Sometimes being a loyal Democrat means NOT supporting the party's nominee. If you believe that that nominee doesn't represent the values of the party then to support him/her is to be disloyal. If the party nominated Jeb Bush , would you be a 'loyal Democrat' and support him?
There is a difference between being loyal and unquestioningly following the 'leadership'.

[GobGoober]

113. Nope, I'm an independent, not a Democrat

and I won't vote for Gephardt, Lieberman, or Kerry if they are nominated. Since they figure Bush made this country safer, I may as well vote for Bush if any of them are nominated.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

116. i am a third generation Democrat (big D) but will not vote for Lieberman

i will stay home if Joe gets the nod

[RPG-7]

122. don't be an idiot

You only have political power if you have a breaking point.

Interesting organization out there to vote in blocs and keep politicians accountable.

http://www.indyvoter.org/

Put on your imagination glasses, folks. No one has even tried this before and if we pull it off in time, it could catalyze the most potent new political force in 2004 -in the vein of Moveon.org and Meetup.com.

Introducing… The League of Independent Voters (“Indyvoter.org”), a new national 501(c)4 membership organization (project of Tides Tsunami Fund) formed to build a massive long-term national progressive constituency. Indyvoter will be the first web portal to facilitate the creation of local online/offline progressive voter guides all over the country, and to create a national network of locally-driven, multi-issue, multi-constituency Progressive Voting Blocs. These will educate, inspire and mobilize millions of new voters to vote, organize, and fight for candidates and policies consistent with core progressive values: peace, freedom, equality, good jobs, and sustainable development.

Indyvoter’s Killer App (techie term for a highly effective new application of a technology) is to use a never-before-tried online/offline strategy to create community leverage around the act of voting so that we don’t feel like we’re voting as atomized individuals (“giving away our votes” to politicians with little mechanisms for accountability). IndyVoter.org will empower voters to swing local, state and national elections starting in November 2004. It will build a base for local progressive candidates to run and win. It will allow regular people to hold their local politicians accountable –similar to a union or a single-issue voting bloc such as the League of Conservation Voters. And most importantly, it will give regular people power, hope, and a shared community to win elections and advance a broad progressive agenda. Already, this new strategy has demonstrated enormous appeal and is motivating a generation of young voters and non-voters alike to adopt a new identity: “Voter Organizer” –the marriage between voting and grassroots organizing.

Indyvoter occupies a magnetic new political space in communities, cultural networks, and college campuses: Young adults who are pissed off at the system yet practical about fighting it, who aren’t happy about any of the candidates or political parties, but want to build power for electoral change.

Indyvoter is currently in the start-up phase with a highly committed volunteer board and small seed funding. Our political strategy team is mapping key swing opportunities down to ballot measures at the municipal level. Our online team is interviewing top on-line advocacy firms. Our brunch organizing team is developing a network (22 so far) and a local affiliation process. Our arts and media team is making connections with touring artists and high-profile individuals. Our steering committee is developing an OD and hiring process. The level of interest generated is overwhelming our current volunteer coordination capacity!

[mvd]

127. Yes, and I'll be working for our nominee

We are in a position where we must save our country. There haven't been many moments like this (the Civil War, World War II, and the Great Depression being some.)

[LynneSin]

128. ABB all the way

But I vote ABB with a good consciencous because I am working hard to help get Howard Dean as the nominee. But even if Howard Dean is NOT the nominee, I know there are many great folks here at DU working hard to ensure that it's one of the many other great candidates available. So if Lieberman gets the nomination then I know he was meant to be the choice and he's our best choice (but I have a feeling he isn't going to make it)

[Ardee]

132. Others speak more eloquently than I :

"The reasonable man adapts to his surroundings, the unreasonable man attempts to change his surroundings to suit himself; and all progress depends upon the unreasonable man." GBShaw

"There comes a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you cant take part, you cant even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies on the gears, and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus. And you've got to make it stop." Mario Savio

"I wish I could love my country and justice too." Albert Camus

I believe that our system of governance has become corrupted by special interests (read money), I further believe that to vote for someone who I believe in my heart represents the same status quo is futility and worse, it furthers the continuance of the corrupt system.
To attempt to elect someone who will , by his own words, effect no important changes in this system is the same as voting for Bush in my mind.

It is only when enough people are sick unto death of the exclusionary way in which our nation governs, when enough of us are tired of the corruption, graft and greed that seems part and parcel of political life, it is only then that change can be made. I do not think that my vote for someone who speaks to me is a wasted vote, I do ,however , believe that a vote for someone who will not alter the bloated military budget, who will not fight to end the corporate stranglehold on our nation, who will not work to bring about a national healthcare policy.

Time and again I see some folks say that they love Kucinich policies and speeches but think him unelectable. I think that ,unless one votes for the candidate who best represents you, you give a false message to the one who doesnt represent you best but gets your vote anyway.You encourage your political party to continue to expect your vote despite its many egregious decisions.

It is long past time that folks take a long hard look at the political system here and decide if they agree with the votes by democrats on Bush policies and agendas.If you do agree then ,by all means, continue to supportand vote for them. I ,for one, disagree, despise them for those votes and the inherent cowardice they display and will vote for that person who speaks to my vision for america.It is the only way to avoid cheapening your vote, it is the only way for a message to be sent to the entrenched powers.

[library_max]

135. You are pursuing a chimera here.

You want to vote for what's not on the ballot. You want a choice that isn't there for you. This is the lot of those on the far reaches of the political bell curve, left and right. You know you're right (and I probably agree with you 90% or more) and that ends your thinking process.

Progress isn't made by snapping our fingers, it isn't made by wishful thinking, and it isn't made by "sending a message," especially when that message is for our closest allies in power to drop dead. Progress gets made a little at a time, by perfectly ordinary centrist politicians who no doubt exasperated the firebrands of their eras. Was it Garrison who freed the slaves, or Lincoln? Was it Debs who engineered the New Deal, or Roosevelt? It doesn't help that Debs and Garrison were right - they weren't in power.

Politics is the art of the possible. When a party is in power, like the Republicans are now, they can afford to give limited lip service to their extreme and maybe toss the occasional bone. If you think the right wing is getting everything it wants these days, you don't know the right wing. But when a party is out of power, it has to suck it up and get behind candidates and issues and platforms that can win, first and foremost. Democrats out of power can't do a damned thing for the left.

So where does it get you to demand that the party toe your ideological line? If (the overwhelming probability) it ignores you, what are you going to do? Turn blue? Vote Green? Where does it get you? - either no result at all or four more years of Bush. And if the party should throw electability to the winds and do things your way, we again get four more years of Bush, this time with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

[Ardee]

133. Others speak more eloquently than I :

Double double toil and trouble......

[Blade]

134. Yes!

Simple answer.

[JohnLocke]

138. Yes (kick)

:kick: :kick: