Skip to main content

Hey, I getcha.  I volunteered & voted for Nader in '00.  I saw a real opportunity to get the Green Party matching federal election funds by attaining 5% of the national vote.   I didn't buy Nader's line about Gore & Bush being Tweedle Dee & Tweedle Dum, but could see how someone could.  First & foremost, I wasn't paying enough attention to understand that Gore didn't have the election in the bag even if he didn't lose 5% to Nader.  

On Election Night, watching returns coming in, I realized I--we, all Nader supporters--had made a mistake.  Gore lost TN, something I didn't think would happen.  Shit.  Then more bad news, culminating with goddamn FOX News & Florida.

Nader isn't solely to blame--everyone who's eligible to run for president should be able to do so if they choose; you can't blame someone for doing so, & Buchannan, FOX, the SCOTUS, Katherine Harris, & Tom DeLay's brownshirt brigade played every bit as significant a role--but in the bigger picture, it was an error to support him with votes.  

Everyone should get this after such a powerful lesson.  The lesson is that our system punishes us for voting 3rd party except in totally safe political environments.  There is no such thing as a vote of conscience alone, because every vote is always more than an expression of conscience: it is an action that chooses one of two sets of somewhat predictable consequences (most predictable for President, perhaps less predictable for some local representatives).  We must acknowledge the reality of the voting system we have.

(There is one exception re: 3rd parties; they can do well if led by a Big Name.  Here in CO, former Republican hero & current asshole Tom Tancredo ran for governor on the Constitution Party ticket, & finished with 37%, well ahead of no-name GOP candidate Dan Maes, who managed 10%.  If Tom Hanks or Oprah decides to run for President, the calculation changes, but there's little point in discussing something so unlikely.)

Here's a great video explaining the problem:

And here's the solution:

I'm a partisan Democrat, because it is useful to be so.  I don't believe necessarily in being proud to be a Democrat anymore than I feel particularly proud to be an American; I don't really see a choice.  Flawed as they may be--increasingly so, in the 90s & even into today, in many areas--they are one of two choices our system has evolved for us.  In an increasingly polarized environment, strategic voting becomes more, not less, entrenched.  I would love to change this; I would love to be able to vote for Dr. Stein & the morally superior Green Party platform.  I'd love to see the influence of the Big Two busted, & the ability for every race to have room for One More, meaning there can always be at least one anti-corruption candidate who makes plain that s/he is running against Wall Street, against dominionism, against our ecocidal economic theories, regardless of what party that person belongs to.  

A day may come when we have a multiple choice ballot, giving We The Voters more power rather than less.  But it is not THIS day!  This day, & every day until then, every good & sane person has a moral responsibility to vote straight-ticket Democratic.  In order to get closer to the better world we conceive in our moral centers, we must first disempower the party that institutionalized modern corruption in D.C. & infected the Democratic Party in the process.  There is no movement Out There by voting for someone who will have no influence Out There.  That's what matters.

Every day, we get to activate on behalf of that better world.  Every day is another chance to motivate, persuade, convince, make skeptical, make curious, generate questions, demonstrate care & love, educate, instigate, Occupy, all of it.  But when it comes to voting, all that stuff hits the Pause button.  The elections determine what kind of job we've done up to that point, serving as a test to see what will be the laws of the land going forward.  It's a form of evolution.  Why act in a way that doesn't help solidify what precious gains we have made?  

There's no reason to except to feel better about yourself; to say you voted on principle.  But that just denies the very real consequences when the GOP wins an election.  Work for Ranked Choice voting, please, but always, always vote for the best Democrat until our other choices evolve from phantom to firm.

Put this in front of the people who need to see it.

Originally posted to I'm Pro-Future And I Vote. on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 08:13 AM PDT.

Also republished by The Federation and Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Problem is that the "f*ck*ing r*t*rd" (to borrow (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FutureNow

      Rahm's endearing description of) progressives don't get to "join" in the contemporary Democratic Party. They are essentially and frequently told to "die." And only after being blamed for "centrist" failures and inadequacies they had neither control nor influence over.

      Nader didn't lose Tennessee for Gore in 2000 either; Dubya won with a majority there. To be fair, things have only gotten worse there.

      Life is the ultimate economic bubble; we leave this life with all the capital we initially invested: none.

      by Superskepticalman on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 04:17:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Safe" election=local board... (7+ / 0-)

    ...namely the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. Three board members, teo Democrat, and one Green. The rest of the ticket: Democratic. Voted early this past Monday.

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 08:25:13 AM PDT

    •  And this is the real answer for third parties. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Donna in Rome

      Run for local and state offices like you actually want to build up a party organization and candidate bench. How on Earth anyone expects an unknown doctor from New England who's only ever held an elected position on her municipal council to win the presidency is beyond me. If Dr. Stein spent more time on running for state or even lesser national office there might be viability to her candidacy; as it is, she's just on a quixotic quest to nowhere that benefits neither her nor the Green Party.

      What the Greens really need to do is put their efforts into those local and state races. Capture local governments and chunks of state legislatures, move on to Congressional seats, then shoot for the presidency when you have the organization and party structure to be a serious contender. That's how every successful new party has done it throughout our history; by starting local (as third party) and building from there. The perfect example of this is the People's (Populist) Party, that started with the merger of two regional parties and went on to capture one entire state government (North Carolina) and large chunks of several others (especially in the upper Mid-west.) They were so successful in a policy/platform sense that they finally were undone by their own success; their issues and positions were absorbed by the main parties and helped to fuel the Progressive movement. They were so well placed in 1896 that the Democrats nominated their candidate (none other than William Jennings Bryan, whom the Democrats keep nominating thereafter for two more runs) for president.

      The People's Party's strength was local and state organization. While in the end they did not stick around as a party, they did change the entire political debate and were the first to champion reforms that became hallmarks of the Progressive movement, like the direct election of Senators and a progressive income tax. That's the very essence of a party's ideological success, when your ideas come to be the popular and successful reforms that the other parties are forced to go along with.

      Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. Sun Tzu The Art of War

      by Stwriley on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 07:53:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A pair of Green (or other 3rd party) (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Stwriley

        candidates for President and VP is not going to get anywhere, even if they should miraculously win an election. How are they going to govern, with a Congress consisting basically of two OTHER parties and with no representatives of their own?

        A would-be alternative 3rd (or 4th, 5th, 6th, etc.) party needs to build up a whole apparatus, with candidates at all levels, and with a possibility to send elected representatives to Congress (just a couple of "Independents" aren't sufficient and may not even be allies). This sort of thing is most possible in a representational parliamentary type system of government, where anyone who gets enough votes earns a seat to represent their constituency. It also makes it necessary to form coalitions of (at least relatively) like-minded parties in order to guarantee a relative majority. But in the U.S. how would this be possible? If a 3rd party President doesn't have a certain number of party representatives in Congress, he or she will be a lame duck president from the very start, having to deal with a Congress made up of two parties which would be lukewarm (best hypothesis) to outright hostile to him or her.

        "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell

        by Donna in Rome on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:06:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  There are always going to be (12+ / 0-)

    some kooky lefties who vote for the fringe candidates. The more you try to convince them that they are wasting their votes the more they dig in. Anybody who would vote for the Green Party of Cynthia McKinney is just not serious about moving America forward in a positive way.

    •  "kookie leftists" - yeah, fucking-a-right (25+ / 0-)

      those kooks who don't think the president should assassinate american citizens without due process or pursue war in Iraq, Afghanistan and (next up) Iran - those wackos who think the Attorney General should prosecute torturers or get fired.

      I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

      by bobdevo on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 02:20:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good example, Iraq. (10+ / 0-)

        If some holier-than-thou lefty kooks had voted for Al Gore instead of that idiot Nader, the thousands that died in Iraq would not have. But I know that logic is not the key to change your mind, so I won't provide any more.

        •  The meme is untrue, but that's okay (7+ / 0-)

          keep flogging it.  The real reason Gore lost is because Bill Clinton couldn't keep his fucking dick in his pants . . . and Al Gore picked the wrong basis for his challenge of the vote in Florida.  Had he demanded all votes be recounted, Scalia couldn't have opined Bush v Gore the way he did.l

          I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by bobdevo on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 04:15:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not really (5+ / 0-)

            The notion that "[t]he real reason Gore lost is because Bill Clinton couldn't keep his fucking dick in his pants" would be tidy if it were true, but it's not. Clinton's second-term Gallup approval average was 61%. It was Gore's incomprehensible squeamishness about using Clinton as an asset, because of the dick-in-the-pants thing but in spite of the fact that no potential Gore voters outside of DC gave a shit about where Bill Clinton kept his dick, that helped to do him in (among other factors).

          •  Gore and the Senate (8+ / 0-)

            also refused to sign the Congressional Black Caucus petition that questioned the validity of  Florida's electoral votes due to the disenfranchisement of  tens of thousands of votes and voters mostly minorities  Michael Moore opens Fahrenheit 9/11 with this.  Not one Senator even the Democrat's would stand with the Black Caucus.

            On January 6, 2001, a joint session of Congress met to certify the electoral vote. Twenty members of the House of Representatives, most of them Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus, rose one-by-one to file objections to the electoral votes of Florida. However, according to an 1877 law, any such objection had to be sponsored by both a representative and a senator. No senator would co-sponsor these objections, deferring to the Supreme Court's ruling. Therefore, Gore, who presided in his capacity as President of the Senate, ruled each of these objections out of order.
            Out of order, my ass.

             

      •  So go ahead and help Rmoney get elected (6+ / 0-)

        See if he'll stop using the drone program that BushCheney built.
        Because it doesn't matter how hard you stamp your foot and whinny, there are TWO viable candidates, the race is TIGHT (at least that's what it looks like) and voting Green or Rocky or whatever is worse than pointless.
        Do you show up to play basketball in hockey pads and skates? At a football stadium?
        And BTW, if you are referring to NDAA in your little screed here, then you need to read up on how that went down.
        The detention clause that has the (pseudo)Progressives so atwitter was attached to a MASSIVE spending bill that took two years to hash out. It was inserted at the last minute and NOT by the Administration.
        Because vetoing the entire bill would have been a political and legislative nightmare (and probably over ridden) and since he doesn't have Line-Item Veto,  Obama did the next best thing, that is, he put a signing statement on the bill that 1) said that his administration would not implement this clause because 2) it was unConstitutional.
        Chris Hedges and a group of other anti-Obama Journalists filed suit against Obama over this clause and that suit has been heard, by a judge that Obama appointed, who ruled, first a temporary and now a permanent injunction against the clause, BECAUSE IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, just like Obama said.
        So to recap, this illegal clause was forced into a must-pass bill, Obama linked a poison pill to it. It was challenged in court and ruled out, in accordance with Obama's statement. It will never be implemented. If it is appealed it will be so that it can be removed from the lawbooks.
        And still we hear this same canard, over and over from the "Pure Left" whenever anyone says anything positive about the man within the hearing of a "Progressive".
        Or a wRongPaulie.
        Or a thinly disguised Republican shill.

        •  what a threat! (7+ / 0-)

          as if Obama is going to stop using drones? Please.

          What kind of unicorn rainbow universe are you in?  You can blame third parties if it makes you feel better, but when Obama's chosen strategy is "who else you gonna vote for" he shouldn't be fucking surprised when people pick neither of you two fucks at the top of the ballot.

          NOW SHOWING
          Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
          Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

          by The Dead Man on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 04:14:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  REALLY?!? (0+ / 0-)

            We're nearly a week out from an election, and you people are pulling shit like this?

            Its going to rain donuts if ya'll don't calm down until next Wednesday. We have an election to win! You're not happy now? You're really going to hate life then if you throw your votes away and let Romney take this election...

        •  Bull-fucking-shit. (7+ / 0-)

          And WTF does NDAA have to do with predator drone assassination of US citizens??  It's got NADA to do with it.  NOt to mention the fact that the continuing use of drones against civilian populations creates new enemies AND arguably is a war crime.

          La-la-la-la-la nothing to see here . . . move along

          I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

          by bobdevo on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 04:18:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  The Obama adminstration (4+ / 0-)

          is appealing judge Forrest's ruling and has blocked the temporary injunction. You seem to have this backwards right from the start.

          Hedges vs Obama
          http://en.wikipedia.org/...

          In May 2012, a federal court in New York issued a preliminary injunction which temporarily blocked the indefinite detention powers of the NDAA (section 1021) on the grounds of unconstitutionality. On August 6, 2012 federal prosecutors representing President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta filed a notice of appeal with the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals hoping to eliminate the ban.] The following day arguments from both sides were heard by U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest during a hearing to determine whether to make her preliminary injunction permanent or not.

          On September 12, 2012, Judge Forrest issued a permanent injunction, but this was appealed by the Obama Administration on September 13, 2012. A federal appeals court grd a U.S. Justice Department’s request for an interim stay of the permanent injunction, pending the Second Circuit’s consideration of the government’s motion to stay the injunction throughout its appeal. The court also said that a Second Circuit motions panel will take up the government’s motion for stay pending appeal on September 28, 2012. On October 2nd, 2012, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ban on indefinite detention will not go into effect until a decision on the Obama Administration's appeal is rendered.

          I also think that your version of how this odious bill was passed is upside down. Rewriting recent and current  history seems a bit much when defending what this administrations has done to the our civil rights. Where's my habeas corpus? or where's posse comitatus for that matter.  

             

          •  " Where's my habeas corpus? or where's posse (0+ / 0-)

            comitatus for that matter."
            You might want to ask the GOP about that since it was their guys that shredded these two concepts.
            And maybe you haven't noticed that Rmoney is collecting up a bunch of W's retreads as his foreign policy crew? Bolton, Senor, Abbrams? That's who you should be asking.
            BTW, Have you actually seen US Army combat troops deployed on American streets? Anyone "Extraordinarily Rendered" since Obama took office? Anyone other than the GITMO detainees that has been held without due process?
            Did you not follow Obama's attempts to close GITMO, thwarted at every turn by the GOP?
            These are the same torqued talkingpoints that the Oh-So-Pure trolls have been spewing for years now, completely ignoring how we got to this place.
            Whatev'. Just keep campaigning for Rmoney, maybe he'll pay you off when it's over.  

            •  I do not want Romney (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AreDeutz, slatsg

              to win he's another Bush actually worse. That does not mean that I have to support something like NDAA or  this administrations policies and agenda. I am not a oh so pure troll. I am a Democrat and I belong to my county party. Fear of the right does not make the loss of civil and human rights okay.

              I'm a Democrat from the democratic end of the party. I intend to work hard to get better Dems elected but for me blue dogs and DINOS are not the way forward. A political party is a means to an end the end being representation and upholding the law. If you think that's a purist Your wrong. If a political party stops fighting for the people who elect them they will eventually lose and die off.  Meanwhile telling people that up is down or black is white does not help the Democrat's win.  

              'I'm taking back my country and the vehicle I'm using is the Democratic Party'  Howard Dean.

            •  When you lose the argument, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shaharazade, caul

              go for the cheap shot. Yeah, Romney is going to pay us off.

              We should ignore the continued erosion of Constitutional liberties because the Republicans are more responsible for our present state of affairs? Or as an educator I should just shut up about Race to the Top because Romney's educational policy would be worse. Just because you have such low expectations doesn't mean we all should.

              Nonetheless I won't label you a troll despite the fact that your sanctimonious, holier-than-thou attitude will alienate more voters than the "pure left" ever will.

              A proud member of the Professional Left since 1967.

              by slatsg on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 08:53:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not a great GOTV (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Anna M, slatsg, Superskepticalman, caul

                strategy. I live next to a high school social studies teacher who is a young old school FDR Democrat.  He is pissed off with the Dems and Obama. He's says 'what choice do we have'. If anyone talked to him like this he would be a non voter or go green. Most liberals and Democrat's don't take well to being yelled at and berated by zealots who see their concerns as torqued talking points of oh so pure purists.  Not one Obama yard sign on my liberal Democratic block this time around. There are lot's of teachers, firemen nurses small business people and even a couple of environmental biologists. It's insult to injury and certainly won't motivate them to vote.    

            •  Anyone "Extraordinarily Rendered" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              shaharazade

              since Obama took office? Anyone other than the GITMO detainees that has been held without due process?

              How would you know?  You think they're gonna tell us?  You think we still don't have black sites operating around the globe?

              Hey, I got this bridge for sale in Brooklyn . . .

              I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

              by bobdevo on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 04:10:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Tinfoil hats ftw. nt (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Unit Zero

                vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

                by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 05:37:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  And yet GASP!- in August of 2011 - THe Nation (0+ / 0-)

                  reports:
                  The CIA's Secret Sites in Somalia

                  Secret prisons - renditioned prisoners - here's another:

                  Under executive orders issued by Obama just two days into his tenure, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States, the Los Angeles Times reports.

                  “The Obama administration appears to have determined that the rendition program was one component of the Bush administration’s war on terrorism that it could not afford to discard.” writes Greg Miller.

                  A minor provision within one executive order states that instructions to close the CIA’s secret prisons “do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis”, meaning that some so called “black sites” can remain open.

                  So I suggest you shove your tinfoil hat right up yer ass while you keep drinkin' that dee-licous Kool-Aid.

                  I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

                  by bobdevo on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 01:54:27 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Cue Twilight Zone theme (0+ / 0-)

                Photobucket

                If you play Microsoft CD's backwards, you hear satanic things, but that's nothing, because if you play them forwards, they install Windows.

                by Unit Zero on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 07:31:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly (4+ / 0-)

      I have tried to tell people that when you break away and found your own party, you are communicating the message that you see other liberal-but-not-as-much-as-me voters not as a potential help to your cause, but as an obstacle to overcome.  In effect, you tell the Democrats that they are just as bad as the Republicans, and as a partisan Democrat, I can tell you right now that them's fightin' words.  

      I do not think I am in agreement with Republicans on nearly anything, and I think most Democrats feel the same way.  When fringe parties say the two parties are too similar, I always wonder: just how different would they have to be to satisfy these people?

      And when it comes right down to it, I don't think of the Democrats as a "lesser evil."  Mostly because it implies they're evil, which I don't believe.

      All your vote are belong to us.

      by Harkov311 on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 02:40:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's the core similarities that are bothersome: (6+ / 0-)

        the erosion of civil liberties (domestic spying, etc), neoliberal economic policies, obesiance to wall street.

        NOW SHOWING
        Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
        Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

        by The Dead Man on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 04:17:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I see (2+ / 0-)

          The fringe as being outside of the constituion and not responsive to the electorate.  I guess that makes me fringe around here.  Remember when this site was all about crashing the gate?

          ‎"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." --Frederick Douglass

          by Nada Lemming on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 05:02:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'd like some details, I guess (0+ / 0-)

          Do you believe your civil liberties are more eroded now than they were at some point in the past?  When did this erosion begin?  Was there a point at which there was an acceptable amount of deference to civil liberties, and if so, when was that time?

          And as for "obesiance to Wall St," well just what would have to be done, or passed, to be considered the end of this obesiance?  Was there a point in the past when this obesiance was not present, and if so, when was that?

          I don't mean to sound too confrontational, but really, I'd like to know just what exactly would have to be done.  It's true that big business has too much influence, and it's true that civil liberties have sometimes been violated unjustly, but neither of those facts changes my opinion that the Democrats are the better option.

          All your vote are belong to us.

          by Harkov311 on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 06:57:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Presidential Kill List, Indefinite Detention (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            caul, FutureNow

            those are pretty new innovations that codify the incarceration and killing of American citizens by secret list -- the kind of thing that mere decades ago we used to define the Soviets as evil.

            NOW SHOWING
            Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
            Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

            by The Dead Man on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 04:18:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Eh, never mind (0+ / 0-)

              If you're not even going to answer any of the questions I asked, then there's no point in going on any more.

              All your vote are belong to us.

              by Harkov311 on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:13:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I thought you were being dense on purpose (0+ / 0-)

                Well I already answered one: the incarceration and assassination of American citizens is a Bush/Obama project.  

                I guess you could call the the beating and "non-lethal" violence against OWS protestors an improvement from Kent. But there is no excuse for peaceful protestors of any stripe in the US to be treated as enemies of the state -- especially by Democratic Party mayors.  It's a level of widespread third world thuggery and militarization that should be quite concerning which had the approval of the Obama administration.

                Wall Street?  Letting the banks fail, breaking them up, prosecuting the laws on the books, have regulators that aren't part of the game, increase regulation, legislation to get corporate money out of politics.   There were many remedies offered from the left.  Obama ignored them.  But perhaps most of all, don't put damn Goldman Sachs fools in your top administrative posts.

                NOW SHOWING
                Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
                Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

                by The Dead Man on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 09:16:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  I'm one (7+ / 0-)

      Forty years ago in 1972 I worked for and voted for Dr. Benjamin Spock. Let's see. He was for universal health care, ending the war. pro abortion, equal rights for LBGT people, a maximum and minimum wage scale, and legalizing weed. Yep. Those were some real kooky ideas. Sure glad none of them ever happened. Can you imagine what kind of country we would have?

      •  I'm sure it would be hell on earth. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Colorado is the Shiznit

        NOW SHOWING
        Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
        Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

        by The Dead Man on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 04:17:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Just to make things clear. (0+ / 0-)

        While I'm not advocating voting 3rd party, if you look at those 3rd party positions from the early seventies, you will see how they have, for the most part, become mainstream Democratic positions today. Sometimes you need a 3rd voice to prod the major parties to move in a more progressive direction. 40 years on most of those things are still a far off dream. Doesn't mean we should stop trying.

        •  Exactly. Opposition can lead to inclusion, to co- (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jakedog42

          opt the opposition. That's how the Wahhabi's operated in Saudi Arabia (I'm sure there are American examples, but I'm blanking). To avoid fights with the ultra-right, the Saud family just incorporated Wahhabi rules.

          Actually, that kind of sounds like Israel's positon toward extreme right religion also.

          "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

          by glorificus on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 06:49:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Isn't it a little early to play "Blame the Left" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FutureNow

      this election cycle?

      Life is the ultimate economic bubble; we leave this life with all the capital we initially invested: none.

      by Superskepticalman on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 04:20:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am aware that it could cause (7+ / 0-)

    Barack to lose, but frankly don't care all that much.   The conservatives become powerful by letting their centrist lose.  Unfortunately they don't represent many people so it will destroy the republicans.  Progressives on the other had are much more mainstream if you look at non-elite opinion.  I voted for Gore, but know that he comes from the pro-iraq war wing of the dems makes me skeptical that he would have resisted the the temptation to go into Iraq if he still had power.   So I don't think Nader did any harm by making him lose.   I think he was fair weather pro-peace like most mainstream dems were.  He was not actually in favor of doing anything about global warming till he got out of power either.  He along with other dlcers blocked the ratification of Kyoto.

  •  I don't begrudge 3rd party voting (11+ / 0-)

    I don't advocate for it and I don't tolerate it being advocated on this site, but I don't begrudge it at all.

    I think that it's important that people vote for the person that they feel best represents them. Whether I agree or disagree with their choice doesn't matter.

    Also, I think we would be much better off with more than two choices, and we'll never get that because we always tell people that this election is too important to waste a vote on a nobody.

    I appreciate your sentiment and I agree with you about making progress, but I encourage everyone to vote for the candidate that best represents them.

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 08:30:44 AM PDT

  •  I voted for Gore in 2000. I voted Green on (12+ / 0-)

    National level this year.   Why?   Because the Democratic Party has moved right and ignores environmental and social justice issues which are paramount to me.    Doesn't mean I'm not still supporting progressive Dems.  Contributed to  Warren and Baldwin . . . But not Obama this time.

    I voted democratic in every election since 1972.  This was the first time I really didn't feel confidence in the top of the ticket.   I'm sorry....I know I will take heat as a leftist loon...but the party disappointed once too often these last few years.

    I can’t decide who’s cuter – the dead guy with the arrows in his chest, or the guy in the ditch with the seeping wound. -- Game of Thrones (Heard on Set)

    by prodigal on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 08:37:56 AM PDT

    •  prodigal, what state do you live in? (10+ / 0-)

      If you are in a state like MA, NY, or CA that will vote for Obama, or in a state like TX, LA, or AL that will vote for R-Money, a Green vote will hardly make a difference, and you can feel good that you "stood up to the man."

      In a swing state, it could lead to disaster.

      Remember Florida in 2000, when 90,000 people voted for Nader, and Bush won by 537 votes.

      "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry November 6, 2012 MA-4 I am voting for my friends Barry, Liz and Joe (Obama, Warren and Kennedy)

      by BornDuringWWII on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 09:03:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I did too (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        prodigal, TimmyB, pvmuse, HighSticking

        Voted green - my first time as well. But to your point, this is WA - so I figured nothing would get upset by it.

        Either you're wit' us or a Guinness -- Brilliant!

        by Unforgiven on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 09:58:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Swing states are *exactly where to do it* (7+ / 1-)

        I'm not advocating for this, but if you want to really twist a (figurative) knife, vote third party in a heavily contested state.

        No major party candidate will listen to you unless you actually make it painful to them not to do so.

        The Democratic leadership isn't going to be quaking in their boots over a cadre of green or libertarian voters in Rhode Island.

        But if you tell them you're willing to throw Ohio unless these people listen to your concerns, they'll take it a lot more seriously. Not advocating this, but if you want to be bare knuckles, that's the play (assuming you can live with Romney if it comes to it).

        (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
        Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

        by Sparhawk on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 10:26:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not willing to endure Bush III to send the (12+ / 0-)

          Dems a message.  Obama has been pretty silent abt climate change, but he's done a lot of positive things for renewables.  Romney, on the other hand, is a fossil-fuel barbarian.  There are already too many of those inside the gates; the last we need is one of them in charge.  It is, after all, an issue that involves a very real risk of the death of civilization or even the extinction of the human race or all of life that we're aware of.  Remember those LBJ ads abt the danger of putting Goldwater in charges of the nuclear arsenal?  Seems to me an analogous risk would be involved in having Romney in charge of American energy policy.

          P.S. The only Dem presidential candidates I ever voted for while living in a "sure" red or "sure" blue state were George McGovern & Obama.  Won't make that mistake again.  

        •  Sorry, but I really disagree here... (8+ / 0-)

          Where's your evidence that an approach like this would be beneficial to the left? I've heard this thinking a lot: Let's not vote or Let's vote for Nader/McKinney/Stein so the Dem establishment starts paying attention to progressive concerns. It seems like the only data point we have is 2000 (sorry to keep coming back to it but it's the precedent), which ended up similar to what you're describing: Nader took away enough votes in Florida, New Hampshire, and New Mexico that Gore lost. What ended up happening is six years of a Republican congress and eight years of Bush. Maybe you think it drove the Democrats to become more receptive to progressives in the process, but I don't quite buy that...
          I just think voting in the US does not work like that. Progressive change does not happen in the way you're saying it does (withholding votes in a Presidential election); we know that from 2000.

          From Erik Loomis:

          1. Vanity presidential campaigns are completely worthless without a commitment to building long-term party structures that have the explicit goal of transforming our politics at the local, state, and national level–and probably in that order.

          2. Real change comes from below, not above. In other words, real change comes from local organizing and local elections, not running someone for president every four years.

          3. Progressives can move the nation to the left. But not by “making a point” in their presidential vote during the general election. They can do it by taking over the local and state party machinery. Or they can do it by committing themselves and their neighbors to a third party (which I don’t think is realistic today but that’s for another post). But voting for a Ralph Nader or whatever prominent savior comes next to shame the mainstream Democratic Party has very little value.

          •  Exactly right. (9+ / 0-)

            The "Lesson" of 2010 gave us the worst Congress in History, stopped the Obama/Pelosi Progressive agenda cold and brought the TeaBaggers to national power.
            The "lesson" learned by the Democrats was that the Left is unreliable, can't be trusted because they are so fu(king clueless they pull this kind of crap and lose elections.
            If you want to move this country to the Left (and I believe most of us do), infiltrate and colonize the Democratic Party.
            Do what the Libertarians did to the Republicans. Take it over and work it from the inside.

            •  right on (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dutch Doctor

              I've always myself this question: WTF happened that year? That midterm was perhaps the most destructive election to the left since 1980. The Tea Party got control of a ton of governorships, state legislatures, congressional/Senate seats, the levers to redistricting for 10 years. And we know what happens next: debt ceiling idiocy, Jim Crow lite laws, continuing annihilation of the rights of union workers, etc.

              The left didn't do a good enough job defending Obama then, and it still hasn't. The counterargument is also true (that Obama has been not a consistent defender of progressive ideals), but it's a two-way street.

              Michael Kazin:

              But, unlike in the 1930s and 1960s, this progressive president could not rely on surging liberal movements to help him advance his key legislative goals and to counter the powerful, and predictable, opposition of conservatives. Labor unions were struggling to stop decades of declining numbers and political clout, and advocates of universal health insurance had never been able to reach much beyond a passionate but small cohort of policy wonks. Obama certainly should have made a better case for his health care bill and for his American Jobs Act. But his task was a lot harder in the absence of vigorous pressure from a growing left.

              Most conservatives, to their credit, have never shared the illusion that, without a president of their own, there is nothing much they can accomplish. In the 15 years after Barry Goldwater suffered one of the worst electoral drubbings in American history, right-wing activists slowly and methodically captured control of state parties outside the Northeast. At the same time, they launched new think-tanks, feisty publications, talk-shows, and direct mail firms, and forged an alliance between anti-union businesses, anti-tax crusaders, and anti-abortion churches. As president, Ronald Reagan could not enact all of their agenda. But what he did achieve was due, in large part, to the diligent preparatory work of his fellow “movement conservatives.”

              Of course, a Romney victory will be depressing as hell. Every physically able liberal, every Democrat should be making phone calls and/or knocking on doors in a swing state between now and when the last polls close on November 6. But if Obama does end up losing, it will be as much due to the weakness of liberal movements as to any flaws in his message, style, or policies. The time to generate popular momentum behind the changes you desire is before the quadrennial circus dominates the media and your mind.

              •  I'll tell you exactly what happened (0+ / 0-)

                A whole bunch of white voters all over this country voted with their race. Why exactly do they hate Obama so gosh-darned much? Think about it for about a minute or two...

                A solar spill is just called a nice day

                by furpletron on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 04:47:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  wrong, it was a lack of a progressive agenda (9+ / 0-)

              that didn't move the voters.

              Where were the prosecutions of Bush/Cheney.. Wall St... CIA torturers?  Single payer tabled outright because the corporations didn't want it... endless pursuit of 'bipartisanship.'

              What motivation did progressives have to vote for more of that bullshit?

              NOW SHOWING
              Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
              Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

              by The Dead Man on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 04:25:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, it was the lack of vision. Defining Obamacare (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                blueyedace2, sebastianguy99

                was completely left to the Republicans who chanted death panels over and over. Trials of Bush/Cheney would have gone nofuckingwhere.

                The White House did not communicate worth shit, and whoever dropped that ball screwed the pooch and the rest of us.

                "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

                by glorificus on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 07:00:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  How about Lily Ledbetter (5+ / 0-)

                on his first day in office, just before he signed the executive order banning torture? Miss that?
                And what evidence is there that "Single payer (was) tabled outright"? There was a h3ll of a fight over it behind closed doors, but you didn't notice, right?
                And when it became obvious that SP wasn't going to happen, what happened with Public Option? Do you remember? If not, let me refresh your memory: The Purist Left, with Jane Hamsher in the lead, TEAMED UP WITH GROVER NORQUIST TO KILL IT!
                I'm sure you missed that part, too.
                That lack of a progressive agenda that you cite is a complete bullsh!t talkingpoint. Obama and Pelosi got more Progressive legislation passed in two years than the previous two Democrats and ALL of the GOP since Nixon.
                But the propaganda machine on the Left, the "Pure Progressives" p!ssed and moaned about every dammed thing, found a worm in every apple even if they had to invent one and made a point of running down every accomplishment that Obama and Pelosi achieved. That was swallowed whole by the less-tuned-in Lefties who parroted the same lame Nadir quote about two sides of the same coin (never knowing that they were actually quoting George Wallace!) as a mantra that paid off gloriously for the Far Right in 2010 when Progressive voters sat out the election and swept Boner into the Speaker's chair.
                The Left has a lot to be proud of as a result: The TeaParty, the Debt Ceiling/Credit Rating downgrade, the weakening of the ACA, the weakening of Elizabeth Warren's Consumer Finance watchdog, and countless other lost opportunities, including dragging out the economic recovery and making it impossible to pass a second Stimulus or even a fragment of it in the form of Jobs bills.
                Yes, I'd have liked to see Bush and Cheney prosecuted. It was not likely to happen and it didn't.
                Most of what Wall Street did to US was LEGAL and what they did that was illegal is being investigated and prosecuted currently, BoA just got hit with a $Billion in fines over their mortgage fraud.
                I know, you wanted to see the CEOs lynched in Times Square on National Tv, sorry, that's not how justice works.
                And as for Bi-partisanship, you probably don't remember that there was a huge media uproar of people calling for Washington DC to "work together" to get things done. That means, to work across the aisle, with the opposition, particularly when they are able to filibuster and obstruct at will. Obama tried to fulfill that demand And it was a demand from the Left as well as from the Right. So now you bash him for doing what he was being told by most of his constituents to do.
                As you can probably tell, I have become thoroughly disgusted by the Professional Left and their hangers on. They act just as blindered and just as simpleminded as the TeaBaggers.
                Ideology, of any form, is a disaster when put into practice. The world is not black & white, it's not even shades of gray, it's at least 4294967296 colors.
                And ideologues on both ends of the spectrum have proven themselves colorblind in the worst sense of the word.

                •  I swear to Hera the next time someone brings up (3+ / 0-)

                  Lilly Ledbetter as the signature achievement I'm going to slap a fish.  It ain't the Equal Rights Amendment.

                  The new act states that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new paycheck affected by that discriminatory action.
                  Don't get me wrong, it's a good law, but it's always being talked up like some awesome miracle legislation.  And that's just damn stupid.

                  NOW SHOWING
                  Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
                  Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

                  by The Dead Man on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 08:17:18 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  In California and voting Green, I wouldn't if I (8+ / 0-)

        were in a swing state, and actually this is what Noam Chomsky recommended last week on Democracy Now.

        I worked tirelessly to get Obama elected last time, but there are too many issues that have frankly sickened me with this administration.

        Do I understand how important the Supreme Court and women's right's would be impacted if Romney got in?

        Yes, and as I said, if I were in even a close toss-up state, I would hold my nose and vote the pure Dem. ticket.

        But I also think it is important to try to support, in what ever small way possible, the party which best represents the issues I hold as paramount.

        I think the next election cycle may have many more people looking at 3rd parties, and they need to be supported now, the Green party needs to know they are not irrelevant.

        My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me. Benjamin Disraeli

        by pvmuse on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 01:23:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wouldn't it be awful if Romney won CA? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dutch Doctor, janmtairy

          I know it sounds unrealistic, but what if enough CA democrats decided to protest vote that Romney won CA?

          With the Koch brothers and other right wing ideologues spending money to influence every CA election, I worry for the future of our state

          •  Funny you should say that, because while (4+ / 0-)

            canvassing in NH yesterday, someone said that their kid (in Massachusetts) was going to vote Green, since Obama would win Massachusetts anyway. You know, just to make a point. A woman rightly spoke up and said that this election was too important to screw around that way.  A third man, who was there to support the president started thinking out loud about, well, since Obama had Mass "in the bag" wouldn't it be clever to vote for the Green party... Whenever Dems get clever, I get concerned. Instead of focusing on the (yes, historic) task at hand which is re-electing PBO, they're off on a tangent. They overlook the Kochs, Sheldon Adelson, & other millionaires, & the governors and Repub Sec. of States who are willing and able to discard registrations & votes, or not count them; mostly, they forget that Rmoney has already won Mass once before in 2004 and that he won handily during the recent primaries. Ah, Democrats. Just 3 wks ago the president was leading Rmoney by approx. 6-9 points. After 1 evening full of lies w/ no pushback from the media, Obama was again in the fight of his life. After clawing back to maybe a "close race" Dems now want to screw around some more. Unbelievable. If people are that stupid, maybe elections should be decided by corporate interests.  Anyway, I'm off to remember how chastened Bush&Cheney were by those Nader protest votes.

            •  While it's a safe bet Romney won't win Mass (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              barkworsethanbite, Floja Roja

              if only because people remember his years as governor and the debt he left behind, people in Blue states should vote for Obama if for no other reason but to prevent a national popular vote victory for Romney. Sure, it doesn't decide the election, but would look really bad if Obama were to win the electoral college without the popular vote.

              "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

              by Alice in Florida on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 10:13:57 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Yes. And thank you for canvassing in NH yesterday (0+ / 0-)

              I am sure that is the tip of the iceberg.

        •  More important in CA (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dutch Doctor, glorificus

          whatever your Top Ticket vote, it's the congressional races out there. Dump Daryl Issa. You don't say what district you are in but check out those races, it's critically important and if CA's Greens are in as much disarray as they are in the rest of the country, they don't have a single viable candidate running for any of those seats.

      •  But Bush didn't win (4+ / 0-)

        Gore won all four versions of the media recounts.

        Gore has also stated publicly that Nader didn't cost him the election.

        "It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills. They are technologically very advanced." 4-2-10 Obama's George Bush moment

        by neaguy on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 03:24:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  not a leftist loon (14+ / 0-)

      I respect your choice and agree to a point. I disagree that Obama has been especially poor in terms of his environmental record, though. This is from Mike Grunwald:

      But while it’s absolutely fair to complain that Obama doesn’t talk about climate change anymore, except at rallies when he’s firing up his liberal base, it’s also worth noting that he’s probably done more to prevent climate change than anyone else on the planet. His stringent new fuel efficiency rules for cars and light trucks are expected to reduce emissions by 6 billion metric tons by 2025, the equivalent of wiping out an entire year of emissions. As I’ve written here, , and in The New New Deal, Obama’s stimulus bill also launched a quiet clean-energy revolution, with unprecedented investments in wind, solar, geothermal and other renewables; energy efficiency in every possible form; blue-sky research into low-carbon technologies; the smart grid; electric vehicles; advanced biofuels; and the factories to build all that green stuff in the U.S. It almost goes without saying that Republicans opposed all of these shifts towards a greener economy, as well as a cap-and-trade plan that had been part of McCain’s agenda. They’ve blocked Obama’s efforts to kill tax loopholes that benefit the oil industry, and extend tax credits that benefit the wind industry. But U.S. emissions are still falling even though the economy is growing.
      I'm surprised you voted for Clinton, who was as much as a centrist as Obama is said to be...
      So, with respect, I disagree here. I would urge progressives to vote for Obama. I think an Obama loss would discredit liberalism in the short (perhaps medium) term. Romney would be given a booming economy which he can claim is the result of his own "small government" policies which we would contrast with the "failed, big government" (and largely fictive) approach of Obama. We'll probably have a GOP POTUS for 8 to 12 years. Thankfully, demographics are on our side, but I really don't know whether it's worth a lot of poor folks losing health care, two wingers on the Supreme Court for a generation, repeal of Wall Street reform, etc.
      The calculus is different in swing states, vs. non-swing states, so there's that too...
      •  No, let them talk about the pony they didn't get, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        glorificus, Miss Blue

        Meanwhile, let's all ignore the fact that the media is no longer talking about preserving Roe v. Wade, or a woman's right to choose. Now, the conversation has moved to "What about in cases of rape or incest, Senator?" Let's all bash the Dems we have office right now while Republicans have moved the whole country to the right. I'm sure the way to cure that is to let Republicans win some more.  I don't know if anyone has noticed but think about the Repub candidates we had this year, & think about Rmoney's calibler as a candidate. Even w/ everything he's fumbled, he's whiskers away from a win. And that's alright with a large number of people.

      •  I wouldn't worry about Romney (0+ / 0-)

        getting a "booming economy"....this is not a normal recession, forecasts are that job growth is expected to stay low for years to come (the Fed has essentially announced that it is keeping interest rates near zero through 2014). What with the Eurozone crisis and all, I can easily see Republican policies putting us back in recession...we could call it the Romney-Ryan-recession....but I'd rather re-elect Obama.

        "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

        by Alice in Florida on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 10:22:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  you're right, I overstated it... (0+ / 0-)

          "Booming" is not the right word. "Improving steadily" is perhaps better. David Leonhardt had a good column about "credit" going to whomever wins the election.

          I was just thinking of the 1980 comparisons that conservatives often make along with their revisionist narrative: failed left-wing, big-government policies of Carter (Obama), which resulted in economic collapse, are bravely reversed by Reagan (Romney) who reinstitutes faith in free markets and small businesses... and the economy recovers swiftly. Michael Barone, the godfather of conservative Washington punditry, has this practically tattooed on his chest. Yeah, I'm not so eager to have either Reagan 2.0 or Bush 2.0 (especially not with this Pre-Enlightenment Congress).

    •  Openly advocating voting Green or Third Party (20+ / 0-)

      is completely against site rules and can result in being banned here. Just last night, two users were banned for this kind of open advocacy. Also, I believe those who uprated those types of comments were warned.

      I see a number of posters who are now engaging in this in this thread and just wanted to let you know that this is not the purpose of this site, which, in a close Democratic election, is for electing Democrats.

      You can talk about Third Party principles and values, the benefits of a Third Party, and that sort of thing. But you can't say "I'm voting against the Democratic Presidential contender."

      That's a long-standing site rule.

      Just letting you all know! :)

      •  Did not realize this. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        divineorder

        Good to know.

        •  I think it's only fair to tell people, honestly (0+ / 0-)

          Some people think "Progressive blog" and don't realize that it's partisan Progressive except if we really are talking about Crashing the Gates and strategic moves to push for a more Leftward Democratic Party (wouldn't I love that myself and do what I can to work toward those ends when I can and where it won't hurt practical measures to bulwark against the GOP).

          I consider myself a pragmatic radical. I definitely want a pony. But I definitely want to be sure I don't shoot myself in the foot trying to get the pony. If that makes sense. Goal: pony. If I can't have a pony, then I still won't shoot myself in the foot about it, and will settle for the furthest thing from a tiger as possible. My dreams are big. Bigger than what reality can usually bear. The most radical of us have the highest burden of behaving the most responsibly and strategically, I feel.

  •  Wrong side of the Wall? (5+ / 0-)

    "It's Not This Day!"

    Vote POTUS and Dems down ballot!

    "When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains, And the women come out to cut up what remains, Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains An' go to your Gawd like a soldier." Rudyard Kipling

    by EdMass on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 08:46:32 AM PDT

  •  Vote for OBAMA - here is why. (13+ / 0-)

    There are only two candidates who have a chance of receiving enough votes to get a 270 (or more) electoral vote majority.

    They are President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

    If for only ONE reason, I suggest that a vote for anyone other than Barack Obama is THROWING AWAY YOUR VOTE IN THE MOST DANGEROUS WAY POSSIBLE.

    That one reason is the fact that the President of the United States gets to nominate people for the position of Supreme Court Justice.

    Barack Obama has shown he can and will nominate people of high intelligence and of high ethical standards.

    Mitt Romney has stated that he thinks the proper sort of nominee is in the mold of John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

    Supreme Court Justices typically serve for decades.

    Voting for anyone other than Obama would make the election of Romney more likely, with the possibility that several upcoming nominations would be made by Romney, and that they would be very conservative people who would have to pass a Romney "litmus test" as true conservatives.

    Do you REALLY want to take that chance?  And have it affect the laws of this country for DECADES??

    No President is perfect.  In politics, you sometimes have to go for what is POSSIBLE, instead of what would be PERFECT.  We get there a step at a time.

    As "wonderful" as it might be to elect a Jill Stein, IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN IN  2012.  

    But if you vote the wrong way, Mitt Romney might happen, just like George W. Bush happened when 90,000 Floridians voted for an egotist named Ralph Nader.  

    You want that?  Then think about voting for Jill Stein.

    Obama/Biden 2012.

    "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry November 6, 2012 MA-4 I am voting for my friends Barry, Liz and Joe (Obama, Warren and Kennedy)

    by BornDuringWWII on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 08:55:50 AM PDT

  •  Why do we keep touting IRV? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eaglekid85va, Egalitare

    Instant Runoff (here renamed Alternate Vote) is terrible. Absolutely awful. Ridiculously awful.

    It doesn't solve the problem of strategic voting. It demands it.

    It doesn't stop two-party dominance. It cements it.

    There certainly ARE alternative voting systems to First Past the Post that achieve the goals of allowing voters to usefully cast votes for candidates other than two-party choices.

    Approval, Condorcet, and Range Voting all do to some extent.

    In general elections, I think that Approval is far superior. It is very easy to understand and is transparent. Condorcet and Range are both more complicated. There are technical arguments in favor of either. I think that Range may win the day. http://rangevoting.org/...

    However, I still believe that neither Condorcet nor Range are electable. :)
    Thus I support Approval as a much better choice than either First Past the Post  or Instant Runoff, who are really just Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-DUM.
     

    The plural of anecdote is not data.

    by Skipbidder on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 09:13:31 AM PDT

    •  Nice to see someone else touting Approval Voting. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Egalitare

      When the subject of voting systems come up, I promote Approval Voting when I can.

      From electology.org/approval-voting

      What is Approval Voting?

      Approval Voting simply means that voters can vote for as many candidates as they choose... Approval Voting is more expressive than the typical way we vote — Plurality Voting. That's because Plurality Voting limits voter expression to only one candidate...

      How will Approval Voting affect spoiled ballots?

      Without a doubt, using Approval Voting will drastically decrease the number of spoiled ballots... If a voter approves anywhere between zero to all candidates (all combinations), then they've submitted a valid vote. To spoil an Approval ballot, a voter has to make the ballot unreadable — rather difficult. In fact, in the French and German studies referenced above, under 0.5% of voters managed to accomplish this folly (that's less than one in two hundred).

      Plurality Voting ballots are treated as spoiled whenever voters mark more than one candidate. The fact that voters do this tells us that they have more to say than Plurality Voting permits. Consequently, in the 2000 U.S. elections, nearly two million ballots were spoiled — almost 2%.

      Plurality Voting's spoilage rate of around one in fifty is almost four times more than Approval Voting. Had Approval Voting been used in 2000, not only would there have been no spoiler effect, but poll workers could have counted around one and a half million more voters' ballots.

      Does Approval Voting help major parties or minor parties?

      While this may sound impossible, we contend that Approval Voting is fairer to both major parties and minor parties. More importantly, Approval Voting is fairer to voters.

      Doesn't Approval Voting violate "one person one vote"?

      No. The term "one person one vote" refers to the weight of votes, not to how votes are expressed. And in Approval Voting, all ballots have the same weight.

      "Progress is possible. Don't give up on voting. Don't give up on advocacy. Don't give up on activism. There are too many needs to be met, too much work to be done." - Barack Obama

      by eaglekid85va on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 11:45:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  At present, "IRV" has better name recogition. (0+ / 0-)

        Thank you for educating us, but be careful not to alienate folks from the the general concept of multiple-choice voting as you do so.

        Have you noticed?
        Politicians who promise LESS government
        only deliver BAD government.

        by jjohnjj on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 02:05:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I like fusion ballots like they have in New York (4+ / 0-)

    -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)!

    by dopper0189 on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 09:41:37 AM PDT

  •  a small point (11+ / 0-)

    in this state the green party actually was overrun with tea party types and many of the candidates fielded were shills, so we had the green party having to  denounce 'fake' green party candidates in 2010. what a mess.

    I consider Barack Obama to be an exceptionally qualified, intelligent, capable, ethical, hard working president and candidate. He has earned my vote, absolutely.
    there is  no way i will toss my vote to someone else this election. I live in a red state that might be nudging slightly back to center, due to  a lot of hard, relentless  work.

    to say it is nudging left is still a dream..right now we are trying to just turn the decrepit GOP state ship around.

    REAL people will be hurt if Romney is elected. REAL rights will be lost. REAL people will lose the promise of healthcare, reproductive rights, etc.

    there is no way in hell i will use my vote in any other way than to reelect this president and in all cases on all levels, vote against the Republican agenda and for the best candidate. The Democrats have my vote this time around. If I don't vote blue, the red just gets more entrenched.

  •  It is always morally repugnant (6+ / 0-)

    To support evil, to support murder, theft and kidnapping.  The only moral choice is choosing disobedience, refusal of cooperation, persuading others to the same and building alternatives.

    Voting for lesser evil is surrendering to evil.

    •  So let me ask, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tytalus

      do you get all your electricity from non-grid sources? Walk/bike everywhere? Grow your own food? What about the infrastructure you're wired into to connect to this site? I guarantee it's no good from an environmental/moral standpoint.

      Because what you're advocating is an absurd level of voting purity that simply isn't found in any aspect of society.

      •  What are you talking about? (0+ / 0-)

        First off, I am not a green partisan.

        Secondly, I do not vote, the only thing that comes out of voting is supporting a criminal ruling class.

        Thirdly, I am not going to give up on the things needed to live with some level of comfort in this country for purity's sake.  I may think our road system would operate better and more ethically under a voluntary system but I am not going to walk everywhere.

        •  I'm talking about your statement that (4+ / 0-)

          voting for a lesser evil is surrendering to evil.  Apparently surrendering to evil in other aspects of life are ok, just not when voting.  

          The way I look at it, both candidates are going to murder civilians, one candidate is likely to do it on a grand scale in yet another country (Iran). One candidate is also going to more rapidly accelerate the disaster of global warming, exacerbate income inequality in this country, and condemn thousands to death-by-spreadsheet.

          I'll enthusiastically vote to eliminate some evils even if I can't eliminate all of them.  Unfortunately you can't vote for nobody to win. Not voting for one candidate is a vote for the other (unless you live in state rendered irrelevant by our messed-up electoral college system, which is a whole other problem :-P)

          •  As a pacifist, I concur (5+ / 0-)

            Unfortunately, we are asked to vote for a commander-in-chief to head the military. That's what this vote is, in no small part, for. Because of this, I am very attracted to voting, actually, for said position, since I can select the less hawkish and more diplomatic candidate with the hope that we can minimize the damages.

            Were it left up to me, I'd take away our military entirely.

            But that's not the vote I'm being given. And as you point out, someone's going to get the job!

            Obama has worked with strong diplomacy. Romney is a war-mongerer who can't wait to nuke Iran. No one else will win. So I voted for Obama! No-brainer.

            •  If you are voting (0+ / 0-)

              For murderers, you are supporting murder.

              That is actively working against your cause.

              Perhaps you should try convincing others the need to abolish war instead of giving legitimacy to bloodthirsty monsters.

              •  I have been an anti-war protester (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                tytalus

                for many, many years and am extremely outspoken about my views. You are talking about changing the system itself. That's fine and well. But I'm talking about minimizing damages within the system since that system isn't going anywhere anytime soon (in fact, most people throughout history have been pretty fond of military stuff, war, etc... but it's against my belief system).

        •  oh great - advocating for NOT VOTING (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CwV, glorificus

          fuck that

          and private roads?  oh - that's just a fucking GREAT idea

          what could possibly go wrong?

  •  the Democratic party is hardly monolithic (4+ / 0-)

    It is possible to elect  very left leaning Democrats in many districts ,in many states.
    i think there is huge room for growth, for new blood, for new candidates in the Democratic party. I think abandoning it at this point is a big mistake. changing it is more viable.
    The party needs great candidates with grassroots support.
    but then,  that would mean getting involved in local politics . Yet, if you believe as sincerely as you say, those who reject this ticket, then this is exactly what will benefit  your cause. get involved at the local level, district level, state level, national level.
    i reject the notion that voting for  Obama/ Biden is voting for a 'lesser evil' and that  the 'only moral  choice' is to not vote for that ticket.

  •  I voted for Anderson (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wasatch, mahakali overdrive

    in 1976. That was my very first presidential vote.

    However, what we have needed ever since we stopped it is to have simultaneous nominations. If the Democratic Party and the Green Party nominated Barack Obama, then I could vote for Obama as a Green. At the end of the election, he would get the same number of votes and electors (presumably...one would have to ensure so), but, when he came to office, he'd know that the "professional left" was not as small as to be ignored.

    Simultaneous nominations are the best route for independent parties to get a seat at the table.

    If money is the root of all evil, then what is Mitt Romney?

    by The Geogre on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 01:02:03 PM PDT

  •  Primaries (5+ / 0-)

    In many areas we NEED liberals voting in Democratic primaries. Often the candidates liberals want are weeded out in low turnout primaries. Money interests will always pull both parties to the right. So we need good voter turnout. And primaries are the main place where progressives and liberals are weeded out. Winning a Dem primary is FAR more doable than a third party winning a general.

    FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. I Had A Thought

    by mole333 on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 01:02:48 PM PDT

  •  In the 3 states that matter (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pvmuse, AmericanAnt, John Kelly

    This diary makes it seem like all of our votes count.  They don't.  I live in NY.  I didn't vote for the right wing dem Cuomo in the last election and I won't vote for Obama in this one.  My vote is meaningless if I vote for Obama because he will win NY regardless.  If I lived in Ohio I might think differently.  But if I turn up to vote and vote for Stein or someone other than one of the two parties, it might have some meaning.  Still very little, but better than voting for one of the two corporate candidates when the state results are not in question.

    "I'll hold my nose and vote but I won't hold my nose and canvass or call or donate." Some Dkos Comment

    by onemadson on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 01:16:30 PM PDT

  •  Agree/Dusagree (4+ / 0-)

    OK, so I get not voting for, say, Jill Stein, if you're in a swing state. I don't want Romney to win either.

    But to say it doesn't matter at all even in uncontested states is asinine. Comments here are essentially simultaneously telling me that my vote is of utmost importance, but also not important at all. Which one is it?

    If the Green Party, for example, gets 5% of the vote they will get 20,000,000 in federal funding for the next election. They'be barely managed to raise $2,000,000 last I checked. That's notable and, sorry, if I can help that happen without ruining Obama's chances in my already decided state? Then I'm going to do it.

    There is always going to be a "times like these!" excuse anyway. I get it -- but at what point do we decide that an additional party does matter? What's being argued is that this election is super important -- is there ever a Presidential election anyone here would say wasn't? Really?

    And frankly, I think calls by people writing on here saying go to another site are ridiculous -- I thought this was about "progressiveness", not strictly GOTV for Democrats. Maybe I don't get the site anymore.

  •  has the Green Party candidate (6+ / 0-)

    assassinated any american citizens and their children with drone-fired missiles in the past few years, I wonder? How many anti-torture whistle blowers, I wonder, has the Green Party candidate gone out of her way to push draconian prison sentences onto?

    You don't get to assassinate American citizens, expand secret wiretapping, and make it more difficult to blow the whistle on the torture of prisoners and get a free pass because your opponent happens to be a preternatural d-bag. I don't care what your other policies are -- across this line I will not pass.

    I'll be leaving my presidential ballot blank, though I might vote for Stein, too.

    •  Vote for Stein, she is great and you can't give (5+ / 3-)

      up on the whole process. If enough people support the Green's, perhaps the party will have a real chance in the future.

      I have struggled with exactly the issues you mentioned, I have finally decided I can't support in my own conscious the current administration's policies, just because they are the 'lessor of two evils'.

      My idea of an agreeable person is a person who agrees with me. Benjamin Disraeli

      by pvmuse on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 01:30:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is utterly wasteful (0+ / 0-)

        Of your time, energy and god forbid, your money.  There is not a snowball's chance in hell that the ruling class that has an absolute stranglehold on American democracy is going to allow any candidate that actually threatens their real interests to even come close to winning.

        You are trying to use the tools of evil to thwart evil.  It just isn't happening.

      •  HR'd for advocating voting Third Party (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lost and Found, Seattlite, kirbybruno

        during a Democratic election.

        That's a bannable offense on this site. This is a big internet; you are on a Partisan site. If you want to vote Green, all power to you, but take it somewhere else.

        As Kos said last night, "Shut the fuck up and go the fuck away" (to paraphrase) to another poster advocating for the same. Sorry for the coarse language; it's not mine.

        •  grow up (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          neaguy, John Kelly, FutureNow

          wait, so someone can make a diary specifically about NOT voting for a third party, but its a bannable offense to disagree and say so? whats the point of even having a discussion/comments section? i'll turn this around and say that if you only want one flavor of opinion, start your own website and write it all yourself.

          if and when dailykos is going to start banning people because they wont support a democrat who assassinates american citizens then its time for us to go somewhere else. i have the pleasure of being able to vote for mike capuano and elizabeth warren on the same ballot. at the same time, i worked for jill stein when she ran for governor (against mitt romney), and i would have no problem voting for her again, if not as a matter of conscience, then as a matter of making my voice heard clearly with respect to the fact that the democratic party now feels comfortable supporting torture, assassination, and the crushing of conscientious whistle blowers -- three things we were all marching in the street against when bush did them, but are now supporting to the point of threatening to ban people when when obama does the same.

          •  From Markos, just two minutes ago (4+ / 0-)

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            He banned everyone who advocated voting Third Party in this diary and everyone who uprated the comment as well. This is his website. You can start your own if you don't like the rules here, sincerely.

            These aren't my rules. They're Markos' rules!

            •  a sad commentary (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              neaguy, John Kelly, Abuhans

              that youre running around foaming at the mouth over this. ive been a member of this site for over six years (several longer than you have), and a faithful reader almost since its inception. if markos feels like banning me or anyone else for replying to a thread about a specific topic with a different viewpoint than the rest of the circular knee jerk, then i will gladly stop reading or using dailykos. i mean, itll be weird getting banned from essentially the most widely read progressive blog because i dont support torture and extra-judicial assassination, and think the best way dissuade the democratic party from supporting torture, murder, and spying on citizens might be to withhold the occasional vote, especially when i live in a guaranteed obama state. but thats up to markos and tightwads who running around HIDE RATING people who disagree with them in a comments section.

              i seem to recall a major tenet of of this site being that the democratic party can take votes for granted. and in this case, just because the president slow jams the news and is friends with jay-z doesnt man i will vote for him when he assassinates americans. leaving my ballot blank is how i choose to voice that disagreement, and the tool i choose to use to change the democratic party for the better. you feel like just going along with whatever is the best way. so we have a difference of opinion.

              so kos and others, please ban me for this if thats your prerogative.

      •  not lesser evils; he's the more (2+ / 3-)

        effective evil.

        "It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don't cause spills. They are technologically very advanced." 4-2-10 Obama's George Bush moment

        by neaguy on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 03:33:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  What's always lost here (9+ / 0-)

    Is that third party candidates start at the White House.  We've never had a green party Governor have we?  It's like third party advocates don't think their candidates shoykd bither with running for assembly ir state senate - nope, straight to WH.

    A lot of bucks go to hopeless third party prez races.  The focus should be on building a credible national party, not on capturing the 'prize'.  

    In the meantime, it serves no purpose to punish the rest of us by voting for someone who cannot win in a swing state, throwing an election to the gop.  The only thing that Nader votes did was push the dems to the right, not the left.

    Keep dems in office -good dems - and build your party from the ground up.

    Why is it that a 3% tax increase for the wealthy is considered "socialism" and an 8% wage cut for the middle class is "doing your part"? MartyM

    by delphine on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 01:24:00 PM PDT

  •  Why I'm voting for Obama in NC (0+ / 0-)

    One reason I'm NOT voting for Stein here is that our state has managed to pass a law that says you can only write in candidates who have gotten the prior approval of the election commission, and have done so by early August. While I don't know why the Greens didn't manage to clear the low hurdle, it hardly matters, since the whole point of having write-in candidates is to allow the voters to choose somebody who isn't pre-selected by The Powers That Be.

    So, everybody who lives in a Bright Red or Bright Blue state, feel free to vote as you like. The rest of us should be considering the actual result of the election when voting (and thus should presumably be voting for Obama), but giving the Greens a 5% vote nationally will make a difference for the next time around.

  •  I'm a liberal (3+ / 0-)

    As a matter of fact, an old school Democratic liberal.  And I'm voting Democratic come election day for one reason and one reason only:  Reproductive rights.  

    That's enough for me.  I have no problem with  people voting their conscience and 3rd party.  But most are voting in states where it doesn't make a difference.  I'm in Florida.  My vote matters and I'll be GD'd if I'm going to see woman's rights set back 50 years because I happen to disagree with Obama on many issues.  

    Yes, I'm one of those liberals who think Obama wasted a golden opportunity.  But I'm not going to let his bad judgement, in my opinion, result in the radical extremism of the Rape/Vaginal Probe/Fetus Personhood GOP control the agenda.  

    I'm not going to vote my conscience on the backs of countless women when it comes to their health, their financial security, and their sanity.  

    Plus Bella Abzug would haunt my dreams.  Yeah, I'm that kind of liberal.  

  •  I am a Socialist (6+ / 0-)

    I support Obama. I believe in being practical about how one builds realistic coalitions. I think Bernie Sanders has been a beacon in the dark about how we can do this within a preexisting infrastructure that is our two-party system. I also think Obama's been good as far as Presidents go, and that he's pleasantly less hawkish then any previous President in my lifetime. I also think he's been stronger on civil rights and social justice issues than any other President, ranging from advocating for LGBT folks to women to immigrants. I don't agree with his economic positions, nor would I expect to. He happily got my vote even from the "safe" state of California.

    Tipped & Rec'd for an important diary, although I would caution those rebutting themselves to refamiliarize themselves with this site's mission statement, which is to elect Democrats, and that if this is not something that they support, they do themselves and ourselves a favor and go elsewhere -- unless they really want to engage in sincere conversation about their ideals, values, and grassroots ideas for improvement rather than rote advocacy for a Third Party.

    •  Not to mention the issue of coattails (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CwV, middleagedhousewife

      That's one that is just too important to not attend to!

      I'm proud to live in a district which voted for Lynn Woolsey eight times ;)

      Now there are some beautiful coattails. I miss her voice a lot, but it's nice to have been represented by someone so truly decent (and accessible to voters in her district! Nice lady!)

    •  supporting bernie sanders? (0+ / 0-)

      the independent senator from vermont? whats next, hoping angus king wins in maine? you should be hide-rated, because what if someone sees this and it affects the way they think so that they believe something slightly different regarding the betterment democratic party?

      •  Do not be ridiculous (0+ / 0-)

        Sanders is highly revered on this site. You don't seem to understand the basic premise behind why Democrats are the candidates for support here: viability. In Sanders' case, he's been a viable and Progressive candidate. He works with the Democratic Party to better it and does so effectively with a good track record. It's fairly inarguable. This site's is a Progressive, Left-leaning site. We do support Sanders here. Sometimes, Markos also supports a more viable candidate on the Right IF the Left candidate is too week to garner enough support (as with the race with Meek in Florida); not sure I could follow suit there, but either way, this is not about who you vote for but rather what strategy you employ in thinking about effective voting for Progressives.

  •  Third Parties, Be Realistic (7+ / 0-)

    Most third parties in the US aren't really political parties at all.  They're little fringe groups, every now and then they get someone at the top who is charismatic enough to create a cult of personality bump. Otherwise they languish in obscurity.

    And its because people aren't committed to doing the very hard grassroots work that goes in to building an actual political party.  You don't start by running someone for President, because you're going to get zero electoral votes and won't be taken seriously.  Your brand - and yes, a political party's brand is crucial - is irreparably damaged.

    If you want to build a real political party, you start at the local level. Get people elected to boards of supervisors, city councils, the mayor's office. Then move up to state legislatures. Be a viable contender in dozens of races.

    Then you can try to elect a governor, and if that works, you can start thinking about a national campaign.

    But when you can't poll even 15% statewide, anywhere, no, you're not a political party. You're a book club without the books. Enjoy your little meetings and seeing your bff appear on a ballot.

    Just don't expect anyone else to take you seriously.

  •  In Australia we do indeed (0+ / 0-)

    have STV voting systems in the House of Representatives - and it's great. One minor difference from the second video is that you must number all of the boxes, or your vote's invalid. This is to prevent confusion over who won a majority of preferences.

  •  by your method, nothing changes (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    neaguy, John Kelly

    in fact, slavish devotion to party has allowed the Democrats to become the Republicans of yesteryear (and the Republicans to be ready for the asylum).

    Who wins in this scenario? Corporations.

    NOW SHOWING
    Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
    Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

    by The Dead Man on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 02:41:57 PM PDT

  •  The 09 Stimulus gave more funds to green energy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RennieMac

    than all the funding by Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton combined.

    The ARRA poured $90 billion into weatherization, solar, batteries, biofuels, and more... and leveraged another $100 billion in private funds into green sector.

    PBO is the greenest president we've seen in a generation, but as Michael Grunwald writes, the "New Deal" aspects of the ARRA were lost to the CorpMedia's fixation on the short-term actions like tax cuts, unemployment extensions and shovel-ready highway projects - and the subsequent furor over the ACA.

    I admire Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson for carrying the progressive torch on Peace, Justice and Wall Street issues, but I'd rather see them doing so as Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate, like Elizabeth Warren.

    Vote for them if you must, but be informed before you do.

    Have you noticed?
    Politicians who promise LESS government
    only deliver BAD government.

    by jjohnjj on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 02:43:00 PM PDT

  •  Blaming Nader? Might as well blame Clinton (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    neaguy, John Kelly, The Dead Man, PhilJD

    for not keeping his dick in his pants.

    The truth is the election was Gore's to lose, and he lost it to a trained monkey.  If you want to attract Stein voters, support positions attractive to Stein voters.  Browbeating isn't going to be super-effective.

    Economic Left/Right: -7.38
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
    Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

    by jvance on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 02:49:12 PM PDT

    •  stop it. gore didn't lose. scotus voted him in, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sun dog, neaguy

      not the electorate.

      3rd party advocacy is a bannable offense on this site & this diary has already experienced several members being bojo'd.

      •  So now this is freerepublic? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        neaguy, Abuhans, FutureNow

        Hey, I'm banned there too, so I might as well complete the collection.

        But go ahead and point out any advocacy in my comment.  Not that justification matters to authoritarians.

        Economic Left/Right: -7.38
        Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
        Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

        by jvance on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 03:01:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  my bad. i misread "if you want to attract stein (0+ / 0-)

          voters . . . " to say, "if stein wants to attract voters . . . "

          trolldar's on high alert lately.

        •  That's how bad it's gotten (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FutureNow

          It's really interesting to see how this site is transitioning into the very right-wing sites they've disparaged.

          NOW SHOWING
          Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
          Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

          by The Dead Man on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 04:31:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  excuse me, i know you were replying to jvance (2+ / 0-)

            but it seems you were either alluding to my accusation of 3rd party advocacy (which i admitted was an incorrect reading of the original comment) or you have an issue with kos' stated policy/remedy -- which is posted upthread.

            it's his site & no one is being forced to participate, so i don't understand why you would wish to be part of a site you disagree with.

            •  He prefers to do the weird martyr/progressiver (0+ / 0-)

              thanthou things, feigns frustration and disillusionment.......and then keeps coming back.

              vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

              by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 05:42:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  That's not winning, though (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jvance, bluezen

        Should Gore have become president in 2001? Almost certainly. Did the SCOTUS mismanage that decision (to be charitable)? Heck yes. But even if things had gone the other way, it was a close race. Considering Clinton's popularity and the state of the economy in 2000, it probably shouldn't have been. I like Al Gore, but his campaign was poorly run, and if it hadn't been, he wouldn't have given Bush a chance.

        Part of the reason was because Gore essentially wrote off the left wing. I was in college at the time, and not many people had anything nice to say about him. Part of this was basically beyond his control (Tipper's lobbying against the music industry, for instance), but a lot of it wasn't. One big problem was his choice of Joe Lieberman as a running mate: he may not have been as hated as he was post-2006, but he was recognized as a conservative voice, which hardly played well with a leftist college crowd.

        The weeks leading up to the election, where it became clear that Nader had the potential to impact the results, saw an increasing amount of "stupid lefties" talk. In the end, insulting the people you need to vote for you is not a winning strategy. All it does is suggest that you take them for granted. You don't feel that you need to address their concerns, but feel that they are obligated to give you their vote.

        The Democratic Party lost me after 2000. I changed my registration to Independent and almost swore off politics entirely. What brought me back was a very eloquent local Dem politician in 2002, who conceded that I was right, that the Democratic Party had gone astray. Rather than browbeat or attack me, though, he asked me, in all sincerity, to reconsider. Not because the Democrats were perfect, or even necessarily that good, but because they needed people like me. People who would drag the party, kicking and screaming, if necessary, away from the DLC-led, Diet Republican model they tried in 2000 and 2004. In short, it was the very sort of "better Democrats" logic that drew me to DKos a few years later, and the same logic that forced the Democrats to dump people like Lieberman, adopt an aggressive 50 state strategy, nominate and elect the nation's first African American president, and introduce real (if imperfect) health care reform.

        That, if I read his comment right, is what jvance is talking about. That's the winning strategy. If you want to win over Stein voters, appeal to them as you would any undecided voter. Convince them that you have something to offer them. Even if they don't necessarily back you 100%, they will hopefully understand that you're willing to listen to their concerns.

        Saying that isn't third party advocacy, IMO. I would never tell anyone they should vote against Barack Obama, and I certainly wouldn't do so on Kos's own site. It's simply a question of effective political strategy. Even if you do blame Nader for 2000, consider what message that sent to people who were sympathetic to his campaign that year. You don't win votes by telling people they're stupid.

        •  Also read "Puritans and Poltroons" (0+ / 0-)

          on the front page, which makes points complementary to your own.

          Economic Left/Right: -7.38
          Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
          Two steps to the right of Trotsky.

          by jvance on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 03:55:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  eloquent answer. i gave jvance a "my bad" & (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          seancdaug, jvance

          agree with both him & you that i was incorrect in that particular point of my comment.

          i also agree with your ending line.  when the rox/sux wars were going on here several months ago i was a sux but since this is kos' site (& i DEFINITELY don't want a lyin'asssackofshit like romney to win) i'm backing the big O, but i still tell the roxers they need to dial back the progressive bashing for the same reason you say: you don't win votes by trashing people.

      •  Look lets be clear (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alain2112, Notreadytobenice

        Gore lost.  You may not be happy about how it went down, but he still lost.  And a big part of why he lost is people voting 3rd party.  Had 10% of Nader voters in Florida voted for Gore, he would have won.  

        A desperate disease requires a dangerous remedy.

        by Guy Fawkes on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 03:58:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  well said, thxs. nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mahakali overdrive

    .....it's on the table, under the watermelon she demurred. Thanks, I was planning on shaving anyway he replied.

    by pdx kirk on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 05:23:30 PM PDT

  •  I thought seriously about voting for Stein (3+ / 0-)

    The Green presidential candidate Jill Stein is really very likable and has a lot of good ideas. They refuse any corporate money.  In general I am in sympathy with many of the progressive ideals of the Greens.   HOWEVER, I’ve decided to vote for Obama instead in the upcoming election. The main reasons:

    1.  Even if elected, the Green president could NEVER fulfill her stated goals.  On the other hand, if elected, Mitt Romney and his Republican cohorts CAN fulfill theirs.
    If by some bizarre miracle, the Green candidate (or Justice Party candidate for that matter) was elected president, she still has NO members in Congress.  How exactly would she get any legislation passed?  You can’t run a country by magical thinking.  Their proposed Green New Deal would require billions of dollars in legislative bills to be passed by both House and Senate.  Their 50% cuts in the military would lead to massive protests and never be allowed to pass in Congress.  There is a Progressive Caucus in Congress, but it’s still outnumbered by moderates and conservatives combined. So everything would be in total gridlock, and nothing would ever be accomplished.  

    2. The Green Party (or any other third party for that matter) doesn’t have a real structure to run the country.

    Right now all of the third parties are pure ideology without any real functional structure. They want the identity of a majority party without having the actual people it takes to be one. Running an enormous government like the US has is a very complicated matter.   If Jill Stein was to be elected President, how would her cabinet be set up?  Who would be her Secretary of State?  Economics advisers?  Attorney General?  Ambassador to China?  There are hundreds of political appointments that she would have to make, and with whom?  The Greens propose to cut the military by 50%; what exactly will they get rid of?   Where will all those unemployed ex-military and contractors go to get jobs?  What would they do in the case of a terrorist attack, or cyber attack, or a civil war by conservatives, who could not stand their ideals?

    3. The best way to make changes to things you don’t like, is from within.

    A perfect example of this is the Tea Party.  They could have started up their own independent party with independent reactionary-libertarian candidates that they like, but instead they chose to beat-up on the Republican Party.  They demanded it change - and it did.   If the Greens really want progressive change, they would become Green Dog Democrats. They would have rallies and protests and demand the Democrats make changes - to the progressive left.   By creating another party, the Greens have effectively  taken themselves totally out of the political process.  None of the candidates (nor the MSM) pay attention to them or their ideas. They're effectively howling into the wind.

  •  Gore lost TN AND AR (0+ / 0-)

    -- Bill Clinton's home state.

    When have the states of the sitting president and vice president gone to the opposing party?

    These states would have made the difference. And whatever one may make of Nader and his campaigns -- no one can blame Nader for those.

  •  I think where we can effectively do this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Anna M

    Is with the congress and in some places our senators. If we can elect a cadre of really progressive reps then we can start moving the party back in the right direction. Like the tea party did but with a saner more pragmatic approach.  

    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. ~JFK

    by TheUrbanRevolution on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 11:01:21 PM PDT

  •  Kodos and Kang explain it all. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Notreadytobenice


  •  Nader destroyed his legacy and... (0+ / 0-)

    jeopardized the future of our country. Set us back a generation. He admits it in so many words:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/...
    "... Nader, both in his book Crashing the Party and on his website, states: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."(which would net a 13%, 12,665 votes, advantage for Gore over Bush.)..."

  •  Let's wait till the Repub party dies (0+ / 0-)

    (Which it will very soon, with any luck.) Then we can start talking about other parties.

    16, Progressive, Indian-American, Phillies Phan. Obama/Om/Chase Utley

    by vidanto on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 06:53:09 AM PDT

  •  Good diary leftcandid (0+ / 0-)

    I don't have Norman Goldman's book about short term, medium term and long-term. Have you heard of it?

    liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject

    by RockyMtnLib on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 08:38:14 AM PDT

  •  I have no objection to a friend in GA voting (0+ / 0-)

    for Jill Stein, where Obama can't win the state anyway.

    If she lived in CA or NY, which Obama will probably carry anyway, I wouldn't mind either, but a vote for Ralph Nader in FL in 2000 did exacty what the OP said it did.

    There are nuances to minor party voting.

    "Mistress of the Topaz" is now available in paperback! Link here: http://www.double-dragon-ebooks.com/single.php?ISBN=1-55404-900-8

    by Kimball Cross on Fri Nov 02, 2012 at 04:38:26 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site