Why Do Some Think There Are Half-Way Choices?

[gulliver]

It always mystifies me, and maybe someone could explain it. Where are people getting the idea that there are legitimate half-way choices to be made in elections? Meaning, why do some people think it is reasonable to say they will vote for X, but not contribute or volunteer? That's like saying, "I prefer to win but am willing to lose."

It's not like voters have a line-item veto. They always have a candidate or an initiative to vote on. They get to select the check box, darken the square, punch a hole, or not vote. There's no place to enter "I support Smith, but oppose his/her position on off-track betting on greyhound races." There is only voting for Smith, voting for Smith's opponent, or not voting.

The time for half-way measures and supporting candidates "to a degree" is before the slate is set for the election. Once that's done, the decision is all about cause. If you are for the cause, you choose the candidates most in line with it and support them all out—whatever all out is for you. Once the slate is set and the team is fielded for the cause, the mission is to sell and win.

There's nothing to be gained by holding back on the throttle and jumping the motorcycle half-way over the gorge.

[saras]

1. People have limited money and energy

There are more candidates and issues to support than pretty much anyone has the resources for, so they have to decide where to put their limited energy.

[gulliver]

3. Right, and I can understand that.

I consider myself a Progressive Dem. In primaries, if I am especially enthusiastic about someone, I will support them financially and by volunteering. Once the election year arrives, I support the cause. I donate about the same amount every time and allocate it where I think it will do the most good for the cause. I don't go by how much I like particular candidates as much as whether the donation can be effective in helping the cause overall.

I think that winning reinforces the cause. Progressive ideas are already the right ideas, so I am not looking for changing, shuffling, or re-prioritizing the ideas. I am looking for empowering them all by winning.

[treestar]

8. This could be directed to those who claimed to have

volunteered and contributed before, but claim they won't do so this time. Lord knows we see that over and over here.

[Bluenorthwest]

2. I think people just drive the motorcycle to a location more

suited to their principles and priorities.

[gulliver]

4. That's fine if that choice is legitimately available.

Otherwise they are just driving the motorcycle into the gorge and telling themselves they are driving it to a more suitable location. And in that case, maybe the bottom of the gorge really does suit them. A lot of them end up there. Notice my avatar is Darwin.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Well then, you should be aware that not only in election time

but all the time, there are many issues and candidates a person could be working for with each spare moment of dime. It is not a binary choice, your gorge or death. In 08, Obama had my area locked, so I spent my time helping to elect Jeff Merkley to the Senate, a race that would up being close. Many people I know in CA express regret that they did not spend more energy fighting Prop 8 instead of lining up behind all the others to leap that Presidential gorge. I wish that they had too.
Every ballot has many Democrats on it. The Top of the Bill always gets the most attention. And you do have to consider that when a candidate has a policy that says 'you and your family are not equal to mine in the eyes of God' that their office might not feel suitable to that family. Tell people they are not 'sanctified' like you and your family are, and guess what? They might not feel all welcome in your home or office. They might just take their energies elsewhere. I can vote against the GOP nominee in 10 seconds. I do not have to give our money to people who oppose our equal rights.
In fact, political time given is also time not given to other causes that more directly serve people, so when an actual person is asking for actual time and money, they are saying in effect 'don't give that to the hungry, give it to me'. "Don't got to visit the elderly, come work for ME". They ask the moon and the stars, and they ask it for themselves. So. I have yet to see a community so well cared for that one could say there is only one legitimate use of ones energies available. 'Don't give to the food bank, give to me, the millionaire'- that is what they are really asking. That is the real choice being made.

[tblue]

5. So volunteer and donate or else don't even vote?

That's what it sounds like. I wouldn't advise spreading that bit of advice. You might just get what you want.

Not trying to bash your post! Just suggesting a little caution.

[gulliver]

10. That's a good point.

I hope people don't take it that way!

[Recovered Repug]

7. I have a question about 2 of your statements.

Meaning, why do some people think it is reasonable to say they will vote for X, but not contribute or volunteer?
If you are for the cause, you choose the candidates most in line with it and support them all out—whatever all out is for you.

If "support them all out" is subjective, isn't vote but not contribute/volunteer a legitimate position?

[gulliver]

9. Yes, that's what I am saying.

"Support them all out" is subjective and voting but not contributing/volunteering is legitimate, in my opinion. I think legitimacy depends on the degree of sacrifice you are willing to make based on your situation and on your degree of commitment to the overall cause. If you can't comfortably afford to contribute time or effort to candidates or issues most in line with your cause, I'm certainly not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that in election times, if you say you are committed to a cause, you should honor the commitment as best you can, not hold back based on the slate of candidates or issues. Once the election is on, it is time to do what you can.

But it's not legitimate to say, for example, "I voted, but was too unenthusiastic to contribute time/money this year, because I am unhappy with progress." That's like saying, "I didn't win as many 5K's last year as I wanted to so I'm not training as much this year. I'll train more once I start winning."

[TheKentuckian]

11. Because when neither represents the cause you devote resources and energy

where the cause can actually make a measurable difference.

Sometimes "more in line" is a pushed into distinction without a difference territory.

No one is going to give time and money to something they are opposed to but arguably less opposed to than the next option. They will swallow the lesser of evils but not struggle for it because to do so is still to willfully advance evil.

People will fight for the desirable even if they have to accept the tolerable in the end. They will never put forth the same effort for the assumably preferable opposed end. That is human nature. One can prefer one type of terminal cancer to another but no one is going to devote energy into seeking the choice "more in line" with their preference.

Lesser evilisim runs out of gas about time the better choice becomes intolerable. Shades of gray can be fought for, shades of black are all purely theoretical.

[ZombieHorde]

12. Many people vote against parties, rather than for a party. Voting against a party

doesn't usually come with the same enthusiasm as voting for a party.

[LWolf]

13. Our votes our ours to use as we freely choose.

Our votes ARE our political voice. We can write, march, campaign...but when it comes to telling tptb where we stand, our vote is the bottom line. Many voters feel bullied into loyalty oaths. Many are discouraged, to say the least, by the brow-beating mantra that the world is black and white, that there are always two polarities, and that we have jump into one to deny the other.

That is simply not true. The world is not black and white. There are always other choices. Most of those "lesser evil" voters are voting, not FOR something, but against it. They are voting out of fear. There is no hope in such a choice. It leads to resentment and bitterness, and it leads to people who feel that they MUST vote for the lesser evil expressing themselves in the only ways left. They don't donate, they don't campaign, they don't get involved. Why should they? It's not like they'd be campaigning FOR something.

I don't think there is anything to be gained by "lesser evil" votes, myself. "Lesser" is still evil. If more voters of any political denomination would simply refuse to hold their nose out of fear of the propagandized boogie man or woman, perhaps politicians would have to clean up their shit, at least a little.

[DirkGently]

14. Why do some people create endless fallacies trying to rationalize silencing criticism?

[Creideiki]

15. Obama doesn't have a magic wand. In fact, according to the cognoscenti here

he's downright impotent (not in the sexual context--I don't think of him as a sex object like some apparently do).

So, according to the cognoscenti, we need to fix Congress and whoever is the President will have no power except to sign every bit of trash that passes his desk.

It's probably a good thing that Michele is advocating for nutrition. Otherwise, there'd probably be a landfill full of Obama-autographed hamburger wrappers somewhere.

[Chan790]

16. I don't think there are.

But that's obvious to anybody who reads my sig line. I'm fully-out for 2012 unless Obama LBJs. I'm all-in on any primary challenger, no matter how non-viable that primary challenge seems to be ultimately.

I won't vote for Obama, I won't donate to him, I won't put up a yard sign, I won't volunteer. I will work against him in so far as I will work for the election of anti-compromise liberals in lower offices in order to thwart and mock his tendency for moderation and desire to compromise or to make the GOP President's life miserable. I'm no traditional lefty but I'll get lefties elected to murder the viability of moderation and compromise. I'm for driving the moderates out of the tent and into the sea.

I see a factional split coming in the Democratic Party and I'm on the anti-Obama and anti-moderate left...and proud of it. I'm skeptical of a "coming-together" for the General Election...I think the factional warfare time has come in the Democratic Party. I think 2012 is going to be a scorched-Earth reckoning for the future. I have no intentions to losing to collaborationists or cowards; quislings all.