I've always considered myself a pragmatist

[socialist_n_TN]

politically. I'll vote for the more left candidate even if s/he was only MARGINALLY left of the opponent. But the AR primary has me rethinking my "pragmatism".

I've always thought you move the party incrementally to the left during the primaries. But now even THAT doesn't even look possible. Think about it. Lincoln was the "DLC" type candidate. She got a primary challenge from her left (yes I know Halter was only marginally left. Still...). The last poll I saw previous to the election had Halter ahead 49%-45%. Lincoln won 52%-48%. That means that not only did Lincoln win ALL of the undecided in one day approximately, BUT SHE ALSO CHANGED 1% OF HALTER SUPPORTERS. Also in one day. Now, yes I know all about margin of error in polling. I could even accept a late charge by Lincoln, but this deal with the closing of 98% of the polling places in Halter's strongest area, stinks to high Heaven. THAT'S reeks of manipulation of the vote BY DEMOCRATS. Add to this my distrust of voting machines and I have been having a crisis of my "pragmatic" faith. If the Dems won't even allow me the CHANCE to move the Party closer to what I believe, why should I vote for them? There's no longer enough of a difference between the parties to even pick a "lesser of two evils".

Luckily I don't live in AR. If I did I would probably be voting third party this year, at least in the Senate race. If the Republicans take back power and live up to their nuttiest positions, well maybe that will lead to a real progressive resurgence in the Democratic Party or a left wing third party that I CAN support. If the Republicans AND Democrats BOTH take us to corporate facism, why do I care which party gets us there faster?

This is from a "yellow dog" Democrat BTW.

[Hydra]

1. You thought your vote mattered?

I'm sorry- PTB approved candidates only.

After all, Gore, Dean and Kerry certainly couldn't have won, right?

[Oregone]

2. The system is rigged

Break it and start a new one, give up, or leave. Working within it will either break you or make you part of the machine.

Yeah...if only primaries worked to move the party left. Hm.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. “Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. I have taken that John Quncy Adams quote to heart

and have learned over time the bitter truth of it.

I vow in the second half of my life to live it and not care about what the "pragmatists" tell me to do with my vote.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

4. I always consider myself a pramatist too...

That's why I go out and bust my ass for candidates I know are too left to have a chance of winning where I live - after they've won the primary.

Too bad the reverse isn't true. The last time the left got in a little snit about our candidate, they got George Bush elected President. Apparently Al Gore wasn't liberal enough. The second to the last time, they got Reagan elected.

Tweedledee and tweedledum my ass.

Suck it up, people. You lost a contested primary. But for better or worse, the Democratic voters in AR made their choice. Try for once to respect the will of the voters.

Like Democrats do.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[socialist_n_TN]

6. There doesn't seem to me tonight to be

that much of a difference between Democrats and Republicans, at least in some areas. If I were in those areas I would have a REAL problem voting for the lesser of two evils when there doesn't seem to BE such an animal. And for 40+ years IN THE SOUTH, I've ALWAYS been forced to vote for the "lesser of two evils". And this is the FIRST time I've felt like this. If my views are going to be marginalized, then why not vote for the Socialist or the Green Party candidate? After all, they're closer to my ideology than almost any Dem is.

You can get snarky all you want about it, but I've ALWAYS been the pragmatic one in politics. I argued with my brother for Kerry in '04 when, as my bro pointed out, Dean's positions were WAY closer to mine (and his) than Kerry's were. I was pragmatic and thought that Kerry would be more "electable".

Lincoln is going to lose that election anyway. That seat is gone. Halter had a better chance and he lost. If he'd lost and there had been no irregularities, I wouldn't have made this post at all. IOW, it wasn't that Lincoln won, it was the WAY she won. Those irregularities with the polling places in Halter's stronghold REALLY bothered me. It made me SERIOUSLY consider that there isn't that much difference between the two major parties, at least in Arkansas.

And in '12 if I don't think that there's enough difference between a Republican or a Republican Lite, I just might vote for the Socialist or Green. Even if it means the Republican wins.

[branders seine]

5. this is a travesty.

it's wrong when rapublicans do it, and its wrong when 'democrats' do it.