Disappointed with Obama? Do NOT vote Green!

[johan helge]

It seems like many disappointed Obama voters are thinking about voting Green or not voting the next time.

Liberals voting Green has the same effect as blacks not voting, etc.:

* More Republican victories

* Both the Dems and the Repubs move RIGHTwards. Why? Suppose all liberals and blacks etc. started to vote Democratic. Then the Repubs had to move leftwards to win. And the Dems would move leftwards because they could do so without losing (the same way the most liberal Democratic politicians usually come from Democratic strongholds).


I don't mind people voting for someone else than Obama in the primaries. But in the general election, anti-Republicans should stick together - or make the Repubs smile.

[Motown_Johnny]

1. That is how we got Da Shrub, to many people voting for Nader to make a statement,

and what a statement it made.

[CrossChris]

3. Or you could say we got W b/c Dems didn't contrast w/ him at all, and they're doing it again.

Three words: Vice President Lieberman.

[TheWraith]

5. So you think there was no difference between Al Gore and George Bush? Seriously?

The lengths of reality-altering some people here will go to in order to bash Democrats is amazing.

[CrossChris]

26. Not enough, not during the campaign. Now AFTER the campaign, Gore went left

But again--VP Lieberman. No, in most of the debates, Gore agreed with Bush on the principles. There were even montage clips of Gore saying, "well, I agree with Governor Bush" over and over again.

[TheWraith]

29. I hated Lieberman YEARS before it became popular, but that is still bullshit.

The differences between Gore and Bush, for anyone who looked at policy, were about ten thousand miles wide.

[johan helge]

44. It doesn't matter

what mistakes Gore made, everyone should have voted for him anyway. The question is not what Gore should have done (I think he was great, but that's another question), but what the voters should have done.

[FailureToCommunicate]

48. Before Lieberman was picked, it looked like AL was considering Tom Harkin...

I got to meet them and that was the buzz in the hall at the conference.
In a few days we were stunned: Gore (or whomever) had chosen Lieberman.

Ugh. Sure we voted for Gore, but lots didn't...
And the rest is history.

[Taverner]

101. LIEberman is a traitor to his country, and ultimately to us Jews

Want to know why there will never be Peace in Israel/Palestine?

Look no further than LIEberman and AIPAC

[Motown_Johnny]

77. No, Bush hit the talking points on "Lock box for social security surplus"

and people like you believed him


If you didn't see the difference between Bush and Gore during the campaign they I have no respect for your opinion.

[bluestate10]

104. Nader adherents have found it easiest to close their eyes and ears after their

2000 fuck-up. They proved a principle alright, that principle being a small number of clueless voters can come close to destroying the most powerful nation on earth. A clueless group in the cumulative, I have no use for them.

[pnwmom]

7. Two words: Al Gore. He is no George Bush.

[Motown_Johnny]

76. compared to Cheney.... no contrast there???

honestly?

[TheWraith]

4. Bingo. A case where voting Green literally helped cause hundreds of thousands of deaths...

...And trillions of dollars lost. No Nader means no Bush administration, probably no 9/11, definitely no Iraq War.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[TheWraith]

19. A laundry list of conflicting rationalizations to excuse Nader getting Bush elected.

The fact of the matter remains: without Nader, there would have been no recount, no court cases, and Al Gore would have been the 43rd President of the United States.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. If Al wanted those votes, why didn't he go after them?

Speaking of reality, a politician has to appeal to the voters to get their votes. Al didn't.

[TheWraith]

36. Rationality is the basis of political discussion.

If you're willing to accept a totally irrational premise, like that there's no difference between Bush and Gore, you can't rationally be argued out of it. Nader spend his entire campaign lying his ass off in order to sell an irrational premise, when if he'd been honest he would have said "Yeah, Bush is crazy, vote Gore."

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. So, again, why didn't Gore appeal to the Green voters if he wanted their votes.

Why would Nader want to help his opponent?

Using your premise, why didn't Gore say, "Yeah, Bush is crazy, vote Nader."?

Obviously, his appeal to the Republicans and Democrats failed. Why not try the Greens?

[Luminous Animal]

300,000 registered Dems voted for Bush in Florida. Why no castigation of your own party members.

Why no navel gazing as to why registered Democrats would defect to the Republican party?

[TheWraith]

33. How about how many Republicans voted Democrat?

Or would that require actual knowledge of election statistics, instead of a one-liner to attempt to get Nader off the hook?

[Luminous Animal]

35. How is that relevent? If the Dem Party can't convince their own members to vote

for their own candidate, how can they expect people who belong to an entirely different party with their own platform to abandon their own candidate?

[TheWraith]

39. Those voters didn't belong to an entirely different party.

And you're attempting to change the subject to avoid the fact that votes Nader siphoned off directly led to the election of Bush. You can try to talk election statistics, because there will ALWAYS be members of one party voting for the other. But the Nader campaign got Bush elected by pulling away people who otherwise would have voted Gore.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. So, Gore was out campaigned by Nader?

If that's the case whose fault is it? Nader was running for president he campaigned to win votes. Gore was running for president he campaigned to win votes. By your estimation Nader won the campaign for votes.

If the Democrats who voted for Nader weren't satisfied with Gore's appeals whose fault is that?

[TheWraith]

70. If people buy Florida swamp land from a scam artist do you then blame the honest investment advisor?

For not advising them better or harder? Or do you blame the fact that gullible people bought bullshit, or do you blame the scam artist for lying his ass off?

[Luminous Animal]

50. It is mere speculation that a majority of Nader voters would have voted for Gore in Florida.

[TheWraith]

69. No, it's intellectual honesty.

Unless you're suggesting that Bush was the preferred alternative of Nader voters.

[xphile]

83. No it's an assumption on your part. Just because someone voted Nader doesn't follow that they

would have voted for Gore if Nader didn't run. They may have voted for the socialist party or some other party or not at all. You don't get to assume that Nader votes would have gone to Gore.

[bluestate10]

106. Those that would not vote for Gore should have sat their asses at home. Those that

would have voted for Gore could have prevented two wars, nearly 7,000 american soldiers dead, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead, trillions of dollars flushed down a toilet. But they chose not to make a difference, as far as this poster is concerned, the hope is that on their death beds the horror of their fuck-up hit them.

[xphile]

109. Those who would not vote for Gore had EVERY right to show up and vote their

conscience. And you have no right to tell them that they don't have to right to vote if they don't vote your way.

Nice to see you show your true colors though.

[BzaDem]

114. Sure. They had every right to enable Bush's victory and the policy that came with it.

No one is asserting otherwise. It is not a crime to enable Republicans. It's just kind of a dumb thing to do, as 90% of Nader's voters realized in 2004. Reality smacking one in the face tends to do that.

[xphile]

116. Did you not read what I responded to? It's pretty clear when someone ways

"Those that would not vote for Gore should have sat their asses at home."

If that does not say vote for my party or stay the hell at home I daresay I have no idea what you think would get that point across.

Nader haters don't like the democratic process if someone dares disagree with their opinion about who should represent the country. Your rationalizations and assigning blame doesn't change that one whit. Your argument has been shown for the intellectually bankrupt argument that it is by someone who is on your side in the matter.

[newspeak]

92. BS, there were independents and repugs

who also voted for Nader. And in our state, there actually was a green party and on our registration you could designate "green party." Of course, it was Utah, so you know how the voting went there.

How about Buchanan and other third party candidates? Why aren't you railing at them? Let's face it, the media spouted the meme 24/7 to make some viewers forget that some supremes had a conflict of interest (family members on * campaign) and intimidating voters while purging legal voters from voting. It is better to have a scapegoat-it's one of those nasty third parties that takes away from the two party good cop bad cop meme. So, why aren't democrats railing about actual democrats voting for Little Boots?

[johan helge]

49. Well, I haven't seen anyone

on DU ponder whether they should vote Republican the next time.

[johan helge]

47. Exactly (nt)

[Webster Green]

25. Bullshit.

That is totally false. Gore won the state of Florida. Almost everybody knows that by now.

[bluestate10]

105. EXACTLY!!! nt

[JackRiddler]

9. False. Gore won the 2000 election, including Florida. This was overturned by Bush fraud and...

an unconstitutional Supreme Court decision to stop the required Florida recount. The corporate media abetted the crime by suppressing news of the fraud. Gore capitulated like a patsy (although compared to Kerry he looked like a real hellion).

Nader had nothing to do with any of this.

This was election fraud and a judicial coup d'etat.

When people blame Nader, they do a great disservice to history and their country. They suppress knowledge of the coup d'etat (and its horrific consequences). They forego fighting the true evil -- a very powerful bully -- and instead pick on a target of convenience, a weak target. Everyone can feel good scapegoating Nader, although he had nothing, nothing to do with the criminal fraud that was perpetrated on the nation and the world.

[PufPuf23]

67. Thank you for posting the truth that Gore did win the election

and what occurred was election fraud and a failure of the USSC.

To blame Nader or anything else, is a disservice to history and reality.

The Democrats that voted Bush in Florida and other swing states and having Lieberman as VP had far more to do with the lost 2000 election than Nader.

I will never understand how Kerry campaigned and then did not play out Ohio in 2004 either.

The Ministry of Propoganda -oops M$M- favored the GOP then and now.

[TheWraith]

68. The biggest fraud is excusing Nader--THAT is what supports the GOP.

The persistent myth that voting third party isn't the same as voting Republican. It is. Without Nader, there would have been no Bush administration. Period. Trying to obfuscate that and blame the Democrats or others is simply a smokescreen that allows more third-party nonsense, and thus more Republicans elected.

[Webster Green]

79. Nader doesn't need an excuse. He did nothing wrong.

He met all the qualifications to run for the office. He chose to run. It's hard to argue with his criticisms of the dems and pukes. Sure, they aren't exactly the same, but they're real fucking close.

"Third-party nonsense". :rofl:

The fascists have you right where they need you. :thumbsup:

[bluestate10]

108. The Nader rationalists keep sticking their heads between their legs,

acting like the election was stolen. I despised the result in 2000, but the election was NOT stolen, Bush won Florida by 1,000 votes. Study after study has shown that Bush won Florida. There were thousands of idiots that voted for Nader that could have changed the result, they chose insanity over common sense.

[Webster Green]

20. No. The US Supreme W. Court stopped the vote counting.

Then they appointed the chimp.

Nader had every right to run. He got votes and made it closer, but don't blame Ralph for our corrupt supremes.

Gore won Florida. Fascists prevented him from taking the office of the presidency.

I hate revisionist history!

[City Lights]

22. Wrong!

"Da Shrub" was foisted upon us courtesy of the United States "Supreme" Court.

You really should get your facts straight before blaming Nader voters.

[TheWraith]

31. Except that you're the one who's wrong. Nader voters gave Bush the election.

No Nader, no recount, no court cases, no Bush administration.

[Webster Green]

40. That's absurd.

Jebbie and Cruella had it rigged up quite nicely. There was no way Gore would be allowed to be president.

[TheWraith]

71. By that logic, there's no purpose having any elections ever, and we should just give up.

By your own logic, they had it "rigged," and still only came out a few hundred votes ahead. Do you really think a thumb on the scales outweighs tens of thousands more Gore ballots?

[Webster Green]

75. Gore won.

Nader lost. Bush lost.

It's that simple.

Rove, Jeb, and that fucking bitch would have done whatever it took to assure the desired outcome. The system is rigged. I still vote, but you're right, it's probably pointless.

[Luminous Animal]

41. 100,000 Floridians voted for Nader. 300,000 Floridian Democrats voted for Bush.

No Democratic Floridian defectors, no recount, no court cases, no Bush admin.

[City Lights]

53. FL in 2000 was FUBAR from top to bottom. nt

[bluestate10]

111. Exactly. And study after study have shown that even with a recount, Bush

would have won Florida. Nader lovers can't duck out, they are singularly responsible for nearly 7,000 dead american soldiers, hundreds of thousands of dead innocents, trillions of dollars wasted from the national treasury. There is no way that I will not remind them of that at every opportunity. They love to view themselves as civilized above all others, but they are not nothing more than the lowest of the common.

[Luminous Animal]

24. 300,000 Democrats voted for Bush in Florida. 10-11 million nationwide. That is how the Democratic

Party voted the Shrub into office.

[TheWraith]

32. Yeah... that's laughably ludicrous.

And it demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of election statistics.

[Luminous Animal]

34. So you complain about people who don't even belong to the Democratic Party but

give your own party members a pass?

[johan helge]

52. Everyone that did not vote Gore in 2000

have responsibility for what happened - Dems voting Bush, liberals voting Nader, blacks not voting, etc.

[xphile]

84. Excuse you?

Big list of people you want to blame but I see you give yet another pass to the blatant voter suppression that was going on aimed at BLACK PEOPLE.

You've got a fucking nerve and then you want to tell people how to vote on top of it?

[newspeak]

93. yeah, nothing like using intimidation against the

minorities in Florida. I guess some of you forgot of the police intimidation of blacks going to the polls. And, don't forget the purge roll, that they didn't bother to check-disallowing legal voters from voting, including one who worked at the registrars office.

[xphile]

94. Good point. A lot of that went on too. But the blame Nader voter

people never remember that either.

[johan helge]

95. On the list, I mentioned

groups that probably would have voted Gore, had they not done, what they did. But I added "etc." at the end of the list, for Republican voters, Republicans suppressing black votes, etc.

I can understand that you react to the fact that I mentioned blacks not voting, but not suppression of black votes. There were two reasons for this - the one I've mentioned, and this one: In the OP, I had said that liberals voting Green has the same effect as blacks not voting. Everyone agrees that a low turnout among blacks is good for the Repubs, bad for the Dems and the progressive cause. That's why the Repubs suppress black votes. So if liberals voting Green has the same effect as blacks not voting, then everyone "should" agree that liberals voting Green is a bad thing, too!

[xphile]

102. No not at all. Republicans stopping people from voting is an infringement of the rights of those

whose vote is being suppressed. It's clearly wrong. As for liberals voting Green they were acting lawfully and within their right. It is not the equivalent to criminal behavior.

Additionally, anyone who didn't vote because they didn't want to made a choice. Clearly the field was unappealing to them. That means that the candidates didn't do enough to sway them to vote.

At any rate liberals voting Green is not the same as black people being kept from voting when they wanted to. Nor is it the same as people choosing not to vote because they don't like the candidates. If you don't give anyone a reason to go out and vote they will not and if that happens it is the fault of the candidate and the party not the voter.

Either way your OP trying to tell people how they must vote is not appreciated. Nor is your revisionist history and inability to understand that people have the right to vote how they choose because the party is not entitled to anyone's vote. The votes must be earned.

[Dappleganger]

28. LOL, no.

Old, tired argument FAIL.

[RaleighNCDUer]

42. And if Gore had campaigned like a Democrat instead of like a

Repub lite, most those Green votes would have voted Democratic.

He ran away from Clinton, but not away from the DLC and its disastrous policies - that's why people did not vote Democratic. Had he embraced Clinton and rejected NAFTA, Nader would never have been a factor (which in truth, he was not, but I'll accept the false premise for the argument).

[Webster Green]

46. Yep.

May as well blame the Clenis. It actually makes more sense than blaming Nader.

Our system sucks. Two parties, one slightly better than the other, are the only choices we are allowed. Imagine if we had proportional representation or instant run-off.

[defendandprotect]

61. Koch DLC -- which Gore helped co-found -- told Gore to STOP populist campaign ...

after the election, Gore realized that had cost him a great deal of votes --

and he resigned from the DLC --

but thanks Gore for giving it to us in the first place!!

[piratefish08]

85. nope. we got him because of a corrupt SC and the Dems unwillingness to fight.

a theme that continues to this day and is strengthened by the admins faith that we will all vote anti-Repub NOT pro-Dem.


my vote in 2012 will still have to be earned.

[UrbScotty]

2. Exactly. Either Obama will be re-elected - or a Bachmann-type figure will win instead.

There is more chance of me losing 100 pounds in the next week than there is of anyone being elected President who is not a Democrat or a Republican.

[SidDithers]

6. The Greens picked Cynthia McKinney as their candidate...

'nuff said. :rofl:

Sid

[gratuitous]

8. Yes, vote only for the lesser of two evils

It's still evil, but it's lesser. See? It'll be all right. A kinder, gentler fascism is what we need. Sure, we could run a more progressive candidate, but what would be the point? The Republicans would just oppose whoever it was. Far better to take whatever we get and not expect too much. If anything better could have possibly been accomplished or achieved, it surely would have been accomplished or achieved. The simple fact that it didn't happen any better is all the proof required that we got the best possible outcome. For, just as a man's lower parts are particularly fitted to wearing pants, we obviously wear pants. The logic is inescapable.

And, by asking for more or better, you make the baby Jesus cry. So knock it the hell off.

[johan helge]

30. Seems like you want to vote Green

So the Dem party is not the party of our dreams. Of course they are not, the US is a very dysfunctional democracy. But the alternative is very much the party of our nightmares.

Elections are like life in general - you can't get a paradise, so you choose the best you can get.

[gratuitous]

51. Geez, you can't even agree with people anymore

Holding people accountable for their campaign promises is just sooooo counterproductive, I get it. And it's the best we can get, or even hope for. Asking for more or better is simply out of the question, because that's pie-in-the-skyism, it is. So, more troops everywhere, more money spent on killing people all over the planet in the holy name of national security, and if our own people starve, well, the alternative would be a nightmare.

[johan helge]

54. Are you aware that Gore was against the Iraq war? (nt)

[sad sally]

107. No room in America - land of the free, home of the brave, yada, yada - for more than two parties.

And once one of them wins the WH, the policies are only slightly different. Campaign promises? Nothing to see here folks, move along...

[sendero]

113. + 1000

If this is as good as Democrats can do, then I don't care if we go ahead and let Republcans finish fucking the country.

Because as it is, the Dems, even with the Presidency, the Senate and the House, were merely a tiny speed bump to the Reps.

At this point, I would have rather have had McCain/Palin. All Obama has done is shifted the blame for the miserable economy from the Republicans to the Democrats.

[RKP5637]

10. Makes sense to me, voting for another party is like pissing your

pants. You'll feel warm and cozy a few minutes, none will notice your warmth, and then you'll have a real mess and no warmth.

[CakeGrrl]

11. Simple vote arithmetic.

After the smoke from all the primary speculation clears, it's a safe money bet that either President Obama or his Republican challenger will occupy the White House.

Is it realistically possible that a 3rd-party challenger will emerge at this stage with the votes to TAKE a national election? I say no.

So it comes down to: Who you want in the WH, appointing Supreme Court justices for life and having the final sign-off on whatever comes from Congress?

[Tesha]

80. You realize that in many states, it doesn't matter who we vote for, right?

The overall popular vote doesn't matter one jot in this
country; the President is elected by more than fifty
individual state elections, and in many states, it is
*NEVER* a close race.

Here in my own state of New Hampshire, it's hardly
ever close. And unless something radical happens, it's
not going to be close in 2012 either; Obama is going to
get his ass kicked from here to Concord; there are far
more anti-Obama bumper stickers on cars than there
were ever pro-Bush stickers.

And if that continues to hold true, what difference will
my vote make? I could vote for the barely-a-Democrat or
I could vote for somebody who won't win but at least
stands for things I believe in. And neither choice on
my part will affect the outcome of the election at all,
though a strong showing for a genuine left candidate
*JUST MIGHT* cause the Democratic Party, my party, to
notice that many former Democratic voters aren't happy
with the course our Party has taken.

Tesha

[whatchamacallit]

13. I'll do what I want. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. I have the arcane notion that my vote belongs to me. Not to any party or politician.

If the Democrats want my vote, it's available, if they can convince me to vote for them. Same goes for the Greens. The Republicans can forget about it.

[philly_bob]

63. My feelings exactly, Tierra. (nt)

[Zoeisright]

15. You're right.

Unfortunately, many people can't see past their own smug self-righteousness to figure out the consequences of their actions.

I'll give repukes one thing - they know how to stick together.

[ChromeFoundry]

60. Um...

Lemmings know how to stick together too...

People need to dictate where the party should go and the party will follow the people... NOT the other way around.

[gkhouston]

16. One. n/t

[MadHound]

17. Yet your premise is disproved by actual events.

The election of '08, the one Obama won, saw a huge turnout of liberals, blacks, youth, etc. etc. In numbers we hadn't seen in decades.

And yet after the election the party, and the president, moved to the right.

Reality.

[johan helge]

55. What I wrote, was a general rule,

there are of course exceptions. And the general rule is: The parties must win the median voter on a left-right scale to win an election. And if all liberals, blacks etc. start voting, this median voter and the parties will move leftwards.

It seems like Obama thought he had to move right to win the next time. If he thought all liberals, blacks etc. would vote for him the next time, he probably would have chosen a less conservative course.

[MadHound]

56. Yet your premise is disproved by actual events, redux

Back in the middle of FDR's first term, he was staring down a serious threat from the third largest political party of the time, the Socialists. The Socialists couldn't win, but a third party challenge from them could draw off enough voters for FDR to lose.

Recognizing this danger from the left, FDR moved to the left himself, nicked a couple of planks of the Socialist platform, and made them his own. Good thing too, otherwise we wouldn't have gotten Unemployment Insurance or Social Security, two iconic Democratic programs that actually started life as Socialist programs.

[johan helge]

89. Good point, there are exceptions. But

for Roosevelt to win by going to the left, going to the left had to

A give Roosevelt these "Socialist votes", and
B not cost him too many votes lost to the Repub.

For the Dem to go left, he needs to win two A-votes for every B-vote he loses to the Repub (because one lost to the Repub is also one vote won for the Repub). But usually, I think the number of A-votes won by going to the left are lower than the number of B-votes lost:

- There are much more voters in the centre than on the left of the Dem party.
- The voters in the centre probably tend to be much more mobile between parties than the Green/Socialist voters on the left.

This, I suppose, is how the Dem politicians look at it. But I think they are wrong about one thing: My guess is that a "leftist" programme (e.g. Medicare for all) would be much more popular among the voters than they think (and that may be one of the reasons Roosevelt got away with his move to the left). But the more voters that vote Green instead of Democratic, the less the Dem can go towards the left, without losing the election.

[xphile]

18. People are entitled to vote any way they damn well please. If the Democrats want

to keep people from voting Green I would suggest they start doing something to earn those votes.

Otherwise you have no right to tell people how they must vote. And it's oh so magnanimous of you to say you don't mind people voting for someone other than Obama in the primaries when you know damn well there isn't going to be any.

Are you not paying attention? Don't you get it? The Democratic party is moving ever rightward because they think that they will get the votes NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO. They think they are entitled to your vote no matter what. And you're playing into this meme.

What was the point of this anyway? To get an early start on the Fuck the Greens threads?

[ChromeFoundry]

62. Exactly...

The Democrats have to stop abandoning the people that put them in office in the first place.

[Critters2]

110. +1

I'll vote for a progressive, whether the Dems run one or not.

[GeorgeGist]

23. Fear, Fear, Fear ...

that's all you got?

[Lil Missy]

27. No Democrat is going to challenge Obama. It is utterly naive to think otherwise.

[Lucky 13]

37. Call me crazy, but I like my Democrats to act like members of the Democratic party.

There are a set of Democratic Principles that I believe are of vital importance... to our party and to the success of our country. I vote on those principles, regardless of the letter behind the name... the letter means exactly nothing anymore. Whichever candidate comes closest to my CORE DEMOCRATIC VALUES gets my vote.

[bigwillq]

38. Don't tell me how to vote.

And I won't tell you how to. :)


*disclaimer* This does not mean I am voting Green.

[ChromeFoundry]

57. After 8-years of *...

...shouldn't he be doing more for the people rather than the corporations? I'm not even going to start talking about all his campaign promises that took a dirt nap long ago. "Disappointed" is an understatement.

I'll vote for whomever will represent me and my values over the banks and pharmaceuticals interests. He got my vote the first time, but he has a lot of work to do in order to earn a second term. The Democratic party didn't have to move to the "right", they made that choice after the election. They won the election because people had "HOPE" in "CHANGE", remember?

If the Dems choose "more-of-the-same", then maybe the Green party or some other party will be the new progressive party.

Just sayin'

[defendandprotect]

58. Liberals are a HUGE voting bloc and should come together to decide on a course of action...

I'd recommend draftng Sen. Bernie Sanders to run on the Dem ticket --

Tom Hayden as VP would give us two strong anti-war candidates --

[SidDithers]

73. LOL. You post the best stuff...nt

Sid

[white_wolf]

59. Don't worry I won't vote Green, I may vote socialist though.

[Critters2]

112. +1 nt

[mmonk]

64. You've got the cart before the horse.

[Edweird]

65. In the very recent past we had large majorities in both houses AND the white house.

Did that effect a leftward shift? No. The 'Dems' are now to the right of Reagan. Your post is invalid.

[hay rick]

66. I vote blue, not green.

Maybe I'll vote for Anthony Weiner. He's unemployed too...

[some guy]

72. ha ha ha

2008 the Democrats won control of both house of Congress, and the White house. By your reasoning, Republicans should have started moving left.

In fact, both parties continued to drift right. It's why we got health insurance reform instead of single payer health care. etc. etc. etc.

[defendandprotect]

74. We need to separate the Dem Party from the Koch/DLC and move it to the left ...

Speak to how we are going to do that --

after 20 years of the Koch Bros/DLC having been harbored in the Democratic Party?

What we need is that SEPARATION and liberal candidates -- two strong anti-war candidates --

and I'd suggest Sen. Bernie Sanders and maybe Tom Hayden as the VP --

Biden has for a year now been suggesting that Israel should attack Iran!!

Biden says that "Israel would be justified in attacking Iran" -- !!



The Koch Bros infiltrated the Dem Party, influencing ALL of its candidates and obviously

those who reached the presidency -- like Clinton and Obama -- and we have a Koch Bros/DLC

cancer which has eroded the party from within -- whether there is anything left of the

party that we can save, we will have to find out.



:nuke:

[creon]

78. No intention

I have no intention of voting Green. We do not have proportional representation in the USA.

I am not disappointed in Obama. He is one of the very few politicians in Washington with any sense.

We do not have a working majority in the USA. 45% of those who vote - vote GOP.

45% of those who vote - vote Democrat.

That means elections are won by the 10% who can vote for one or the other.


And, only half the population actually votes.

[demwing]

81. You know, that explains why the Republicans lurched to the left after The massive Dem sweep in 2008

Of course they didn't.

The flaw in this thinking is that the old "Right vs Left" game has been called on account of rain. The new game is "Haves vs Have Nots," which is really a pretty old game, when you stop to think about it.

Keep playing the "Right vs Left" shell game, and we're sunk. You'll never find the shell with the right candidate, because the games is rigged. It's the old Two Party Monte. Where's the Lib? here? There? NO...it's gone...

There's a new order, a new filter through which you must view the world. Dont watch the candidates, watch the hands that control the game.

[LadyHawkAZ]

82. Why am I being told how to vote?

It's June 2011. Anyone wanting my vote still has over a year to actually do some work and earn it.

"anti-Republicans should stick together"- yeah, that's worked so well lately... The enemy of my enemy, or at any rate the person who claims they are the enemy of my enemy, is not necessarily my friend, and actions really do speak louder than words. Any politician gets my vote when they earn it, not before.

[TBF]

86. By someone in Norway no less ... nt

[BlueIris]

87. For various reasons, I remain a Democrat. But even if I were going to jump ship, Green

is almost the last party I'd join (after the GOP.) And yes, it is primarily about the Nader nonsense in 2000.

[krabigirl]

88. Meh. Vote how you want. If the Dems lose, it is their fault. Sorry.

[Hawkowl]

91. +1000 .nt

[johan helge]

119. Everyone has a responsibility

for what they do, also the voters.

It's amazing how much bad arguments come from Naderites. You have to explain the most obvious things

- that everyone has a responsibility for what they do,
- that of course there are many reasons Gore lost (not only Nader), but this does not mean that Nader was not a cause,
- etc.

And, of course, they never take responsibility for their actions, e.g. by saying that "I'm sorry I voted Nader, if we had voted Gore, many people now dead would have been alive today". But that's the truth, like it or not.

[Taverner]

90. When it all comes down to it I doubt anyone will vote Green in 2012

But that doesn't make us any less disappointed

[readmoreoften]

97. Let's add to that that there is no big Green Bogeyman campaign.

[Taverner]

99. I think a Nader vote is even more unlikely now than it was in 04

IN 2004, I was a hell of a lot more disappointed in the crop of candidates than in '12

They were all rah-rah war, "kill them evildoers" and it was only Clark and Dean who were against the Iraq War. The fact that Dean did so well in the primaries was a message (lost on the candidates, unfortunately) saying the USA is sick of war.

We keep sending them that message over and over, but it does no good :(

[readmoreoften]

96. I really don't give a shit what you "mind" or "want."

If the Democratic Party wants my vote it can stop throwing its weight in with Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Lockheed Martin, and the Religious Right.

[johan helge]

117. Deleted (error) (nt)

[johan helge]

118. I did use the word "mind", but not the word "want".

Sorry the "mind" didn't please you, it was most unconsciously done!

The Dem party is not the party of (y)our dreams. Of course it's not, the US is a very dysfunctional democracy. But the alternative is very much the party of (y)our nightmares.

And that's the choice we have. Elections are like life in general - we choose the best we can get, not the perfect solution, because we can't get that.

[MadMaddie]

98. Seriously? Is it that Americans as a whole are incapable of

learning any life lessons.

NOVEMBER 2010...what else is there to say? 7 insane Repug candidates....what else is there to say?

Vote in your local elections for Progressive Dems, push them into the Congress seats that we can. Defeat Repugs where we can, get Democratic majorities that can't be screwed with.

Democratic Voters cannot afford to play these games.....if there is a desire to have more Republican Governers and Congress people then go for it......History will look back at us just as they look back on other societies who were at a fork in the road and chose to ignore the facts in front of them.

[Taverner]

100. Wrong place - delete

[Taverner]

103. Believe me, it hadn't crossed my mind

Things always could get worse

[Rex]

115. Vote always goes to a Dem.

Wouldn't want to waste my vote.