Skip to main content

I am resigned to voting for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election and, given the alternative, happy to do so.  I do not want anyone to think for one second that I would vote for the Republican, throw my vote away on a third party (as long as we inexplicably cling to our 19th century constitution and it's winner takes all mandate, a third party vote is thrown away or helps conservatives win) not vote.  That said, why?  
In 2012 the Republican Party ran a plethora of serious, by Republican standards, extremely conservative candidates.  In the end, the moderate (again by Republican standards) won.  In 2008, identical.  So why do ultra-conservatives run so many radicals and end up nominating (by their standards) the moderate?  Palin, Santorum, Paul, Cain, Perry and they end up with McCain and then Romney.  
The Democrats have progressives, and dare I say socialists, who run. The difference is that they are marginalized, by the Democrats and the base.  The Republican base will  fight for, raise money for and, at least early on, fight for the far right.  
The result is, moderate Republicans move slightly right and win, Democrats move slightly right (for general election purposes) and win.  In the end, we get a general election between a center-right Dem and a far-right  Republican.
Until we get a liberal version of the TeaParty, I am resigned to defeat and our nation and planet are fucked.

Tags

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

  •  The solution (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Technomancer, Gooserock

    Only vote for people you believe will represent your interests.

    May you always find water and shade.

    by Whimsical Rapscallion on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 11:02:43 PM PDT

    •  Or the interest of the people as a whole... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Whimsical Rapscallion, skohayes

      ...when one's fortunate enough to have the means to get to think about stuff like that.

      Beyond that, full agreement.

      Everyday Magic
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
      -- Clarke's Third Law

      by The Technomancer on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 11:40:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Too Passive, You Have to Wait for the Party (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jan4insight

      to cough up the random progressive.

      We need to begin creating better candidates. That's what the rightwing did.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sat Jul 19, 2014 at 04:50:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Voting Your Conscience Is Not The Answer (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Whimsical Rapscallion, Superpole

        The problem is the system - the way the system works, a lot of good people on the left, who have great ideas and who would make great candidates, and be even better office holders, won't subject themselves to participate in a system that is viscous, mean spirited, and driven by the almighty dollar.

        Spending time away from family, careers, friends, etc., to spend all your time raising money, getting nothing done in terms of legislation and having to deal with the likes of Ted Cruz and Louie Gohmert and a host of other wackos on the local, state and national level simply sounds like a road trip to hell and getting stuck there.

        When we vote, we are picking from a pool of people who decided to enter the system - so you really aren't picking from the best candidates, your just picking from those who entered the race.

        Yes, the fish is rotting from the head down.

        "The quote on the Statue of Liberty doesn't say 'give me your english-speaking only, Christian-believing, heterosexual masses'

        by unapologeticliberal777 on Sat Jul 19, 2014 at 06:27:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I have a friend who votes his conscience. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Whimsical Rapscallion, Greyhound

    He tells me I'm wasting my vote.  In his mind, as long as we keep voting for the person who will win, rather than the person we want, we keep getting the same results.

    I often feel as you do - I want my vote to matter in terms of who sits in that office in this election, not in a few elections to come.  Or many elections to come.

    But, sometimes I wonder if I really voted my heart, and we ALL did, that those who won would be so far right, that we'd eventually have the uprising we need.  When we have Obamas and Clintons, we think it's not that bad.  And, it's not in a way.  But, we can't get the change we really want this way, and may never.

    Is a true revolution - people being so angry and upset that they are willing to truly fight for a better outcome - the only way we'll move from this system to one that isn't so polarized and that people can feel represented by?

    •  A revolution's not needed... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bobtmn

      ...so much as some PAC (Mayday, maybe?) running ads in favor of instant runoff voting, and working in states to try to get some to implement it.

      Strategic voting's only necessary when you don't need a majority to win.  Instant runoff voting lets you vote your heart first and your hold-the-nose pick second. so to speak.

      Everyday Magic
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
      -- Clarke's Third Law

      by The Technomancer on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 11:44:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If we ALL (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Greyhound

      voted our conscience, our collective conscience would win.  

      That doesn't happen because when you talk about voting your conscience you get shouted at and called names, because at least the Shit Sandwich isn't a Shit Sandwich on moldy Rye bread and what do you like so much about moldy rye bread anyway?

      And no matter how many times you're like "I don't want a Shit Sandwich"  They're still giving you shit like you're the one that made their bread moldy.

      Imperfect analogy, I know, but my original point is that a third party candidate would win if everyone who was sick of the two party system were to vote for her.

      But pragmatism, electability, blah blah blah cause we can't risk moldy bread on our Shit Sandwich and round and round it goes.

      May you always find water and shade.

      by Whimsical Rapscallion on Sat Jul 19, 2014 at 12:00:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Same in the UK with Labour and Conservative (4+ / 0-)

        Labour has now become Conservative-lite leaving nothing whatsoever for anyone of a vaguely leftist persuasion to vote for. Someone who positioned themselves there has a massive neglected voting block who would vote for them in a heartbeat.

        It's an unfortunate (for democracy) consequence of the ridiculous first past the post system.

        “It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

        "You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

        "No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

        "Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

        "I did," said Ford. "It is."

        "So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"

        "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

        "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

        "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."

        "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"

        "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"

        The late, great Douglas Adams
      •  It's happened before. (0+ / 0-)

        We're getting pretty close to maybe...

        But who?

        "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

        by Greyhound on Sat Jul 19, 2014 at 05:40:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm confused. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, Remediator, Superpole

    You're saying the Repubs are nominating their moderate candidates, then you say their general election candidates are far right?

  •  So do it how the TeaParty did? (5+ / 0-)
    Until we get a liberal version of the TeaParty, I am resigned to defeat and our nation and planet are fucked.
    Fight like hell in the primaries, show you're not afraid to toss out long-time incumbents if they don't wise up. Though I will say we have to try to be less cancerous to our party than Tea Partiers are to theirs. Liberal/Progressive in the primary, Democrat in the general.
    •  We already have the apparatus, it's just not used (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eyo, jbsoul

      The Progressive Caucus is the largest Congressional Caucus and yet it has literally no power because it basically rolls however leadership tells it to roll out of loyalty.

      So it is a caucus and Progressive both in name only for the most part. It probably helps them in fundraising in their blue districts to help foster the pretense that they care about progressive issues and stances.They did appear to go to the barricades over chained CPI, which was a welcome surprise. I think some Dems sense that Social Security cuts is the final straw that would cause the fed-ups to finally defect and sit out and possibly join third parties in disgust.

      “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

      by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Sat Jul 19, 2014 at 05:42:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You could always try this: (8+ / 0-)

    Quit worrying about 2016 and work like hell for the 2014 elections.

    Vote 2014 Remove GOP/TP

    My crafts are 100% Hobby-Lobby Free! Visit my Handmade Gallery on Zibbet

    by jan4insight on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 11:33:26 PM PDT

  •  Behind enemy lines? We elect Democrats here. (4+ / 0-)

    'Nuff said?

  •  The Baggers do have several options, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Technomancer, blueoasis

    and all of them are abominable excuses for public servants.  

    And too many of them want to be president.  

    When it comes to appointments -- Cabinet, SCOTUS, etc. -- I really don't see much difference between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.  Anybody they'd want on the Supreme Court is going to skew way, way far Right, and it doesn't matter which Republican put them there in the first place.  

    A "moderate" New England Senator like Olympia Snowe still voted overwhelming with her party to resist meaningful reform on nearly every piece of legislation that came down the pike.  Not seeing how her vote is significantly different from John Cornyn's or Pat Toomey's.  

    In terms of outcomes, I'm just not seeing any distinction between the so-called moderate Republicans and the Bagger nuts.  

    "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

    by Remediator on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 11:35:27 PM PDT

    •  I see a difference, but only on SCOTUS. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Remediator, skohayes, matador

      Romney would nominate someone who made putting business first a priority, with any other rightward movement just a bonus.  Conservative, but Kennedy conservative, not Scalito conservative.

      Santorum would nominate someone who made putting social and religious conservatism first another priority, and if it helped business too, well, that's a bonus.

      Neither of those are good for the country, and it's a matter of opinion which one is scarier, I think.

      Beyond that, you're making the argument I've been making to my "I vote person, not party" and conservative-but-sane friends lately as to why even though they're not voting for the Tea Party assholes, as far as the Congress is concerned, they might as well be.

      It actually seems to be working pretty well with the "person not party" friends, too.  More of us might want to use it.

      Everyday Magic
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
      -- Clarke's Third Law

      by The Technomancer on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 11:53:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I see the distinction you draw (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The Technomancer

        between potential Romney and Santorum nominees to SCOTUS, and agree.  

        That is a fair caption to write under those two GOP contenders for high office.  

        Agree even more on "...it's a matter of opinion which one is scarier" between the business-over-people versus the Bible-over-individuality nominees.  

        Either option makes me want to hide under my desk.  

        "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

        by Remediator on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 11:57:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Amazing (8+ / 0-)

    So you're suggesting we do to the Democrats what the Tea Party did to the Republicans - cost them at least five Senate seats to date, force presidential elections to be essentially unwinnable, alienate entire swaths of people who do not share all of your views - all to satisfy your ideological id and your inability to grasp that incremental change is always preferable to rapid change.

    There's a reason the Democrats are poised to become the nation's party a la the New Deal coalition, and it's precisely by not listening to people like you.

    •  Could you expand on that? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis
      New Deal coalition
      Are they actually doing a "new deal" type initiative?  I haven't heard about this and I want to hear (read: read) more.

      May you always find water and shade.

      by Whimsical Rapscallion on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 11:52:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't agree that the Democrats... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Whimsical Rapscallion, bunsk, jbsoul

      ...becoming the nation's party is a good thing for them (and us) at all.  You can see the rightward shift the party has taken since we started absorbing what used to be termed "liberal Republicans".

      I think President Obama's done a damn fine job given the shit show he's had to deal with in his years in office, but he's not a champion of liberalism.

      I want the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to be the kingmakers here, not Blue Dogs and Third Way.  Beyond that, the party will end up splitting if they go from a party to the party, or we'll suffer for it -- history doesn't show single party nation-states faring so well.

      Everyday Magic
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
      -- Clarke's Third Law

      by The Technomancer on Sat Jul 19, 2014 at 12:07:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That sounds like an interesting way of saying (0+ / 0-)

      Shut your mouth, get in line, and do what the corporatists tell you.  Thanks, but no thanks.

      "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

      by blackhand on Sat Jul 19, 2014 at 02:16:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Let's not emulate the Baggers' (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mike Kahlow, jan4insight, skohayes

    political model.  

    It comes with some sordid baggage.  

    They're troglodytes, for one thing.  And that's a pretty big thing.  

    Some states support more liberal Democrats and some don't.  I'll take an entire Senate of Barbara Boxers and Sherrod Browns but I don't think South Carolina and Wyoming are on board with my plan.  

    By the time of any general election, primaries have usually been held.  The option to run in those primaries is open to anybody who wants to run, has the money and organization, and, presumably, some measure of support.  Sometimes, in some states, progressives thrive in this system.  At other times, in other states, they don't.  

    Of note, in the recent two presidential elections, progressive voters had very liberal options on (most of) their states' ballots.  Overwhelmingly, those voters voted for the Democratic ticket.  

    "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" (Yeats)

    by Remediator on Fri Jul 18, 2014 at 11:48:14 PM PDT

    •  OF NOTE... (0+ / 0-)
      Of note, in the recent two presidential elections, progressive voters had very liberal options on (most of) their states' ballots.  Overwhelmingly, those voters voted for the Democratic ticket.  
      Obviously this doesn't apply to the numerous red/purple states electing teabagger congresspeople and governors -- and that's one big reason congress can't get anything of a progressive nature, or even fundamental to running the government legislation like funding the Highway Trust Fund.

      Weak, very weak.

      "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

      by Superpole on Sat Jul 19, 2014 at 09:58:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've said this before. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gooserock, jbsoul

    In 2004 an (uncontrolled) poll was done, where respondents were given a list of 30 questions, and their responses were matched to the candidate who most matched their beliefs, There were 14 candidates at the time, Democratic and Republican. The winner, with over 50% of the "vote"? Dennis Kucinich.
    In 1994 (when Newt Gingrich took over the House) a poll was taken of those who did not vote. For as long as that poll had been taken, the non voters would have voted approximately as the voters had, but not that year. That year non voters would have voted for a Democrat 70 - 30.
    I suggest that barring sabotage by the media and/or the DNC (which I admit is a certainty, so it is an opinion with more than too many caveats) that with a well run campaign and a high enough turnout, a progressive/populist candidate would not only win the Democratic primary, (as Obama did) would not only win the general (as the Democrat has in every election since 1992) he would actually win the Republican primary.

    •  You are correct (0+ / 0-)

      But as long as the football teams are all controlled by the NFL.

      And no, I am not really talking about football.

      "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

      by blackhand on Sat Jul 19, 2014 at 02:21:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And Dennis Kucinich was recognized as the danger (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      GreenPA

      he was and promptly marginalized by the media. One of the most disgusting  exhibits in the 2008 Presidential primaries was when Tim Russert used some of the precious few moments allotted to Kucinich in the first place to ask him whether he had seen a UFO 25 years before as noted by Shirley MacLaine in her book in order to marginalize him as a kook.

      I recognized the Kucinich consistently represented most of my views when taking those blind candidate affinity tests and I resolved to vote for him in the primary. Unfortunately, he had dropped out by that time, having been successfully purged by the media elites. I often wish I had written in his name. As I recall, I voted for Obama over Clinton because that was my only choice at the time even though after Kucinich I went to Edwards as my second choice.

      “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

      by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Sat Jul 19, 2014 at 05:56:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yeah, but, ya know ... he has big ears. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Phoebe Loosinhouse, jbsoul

        the purity-slingers and their obnoxious pony slander refuse to come to terms with the magnitude of the gulf between progressive values and typical dem candidates/policies. "everything" i want? i don't usually get anything i want. but hey, wanting anything is wanting unicorns and rainbows.

        i don't remember a 30-item survey, but i seem to remember a list of maybe 20 kucinich stances, of which i agreed with something like 17.

        To put the torture behind us is, inevitably, to put it in front of us.

        by UntimelyRippd on Sat Jul 19, 2014 at 08:13:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I remember some survey which placed you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jbsoul

          and the candidates around a left/right axis.

          I thought my responses were unremarkable mainstream Democrat and I found myself way off to the left with Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel.

          That's the exact moment when I realized the gigantic rightward shift of the Democratic Party which had somehow eluded me before.

          “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

          by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Sat Jul 19, 2014 at 08:24:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  You're More Historicly Right Than Some May Realize (0+ / 0-)
    Until we get a liberal version of the TeaParty, I am resigned to defeat and our nation and planet are fucked.
    Not so much the Tea Party of today, because the country was pretty much the same as now before they took office.

    But the rightwing generally, they realized 50 years ago that their Republican party was never going to give them the kind of candidates they wanted to elect.

    So they started organizing, independently, setting up message channels, mobilizing conservative religion to be populist voters and GOTV activists, and recruiting their people to become candidates.

    They ran for office within the Republican Party so that they'd not leave the conservatives divided and open to Democratic Party wins while they the rightwing were growing. But they were taking the Republicans over from the inside.

    We're where the rightwing was at in the 1960's, surrounded by opposition outside and inside the party, and with no voice in the mainstream media. Either we roll over and die, or we have to stop passively waiting for good candidates to come along, and knit together our progressive issue- and demographic-based movements into an overarching progressive movement that will create local and regional candidates the many potential Democratic nonvoters would choose. We have to focus locally because that's where it's affordable and the turnout differences are small enough, that we can get candidates elected and able to deliver on their promises.

    There's almost nothing we can do about the Presidency for a long time to come, but we can at least keep it out of the hands of the most sociopathic wingers, while we figure out how to put together a winning populist movement to work through the Democratic Party.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Jul 19, 2014 at 05:02:20 AM PDT

  •  Hey, aren't you jumping the gun? A smidgen? nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight

    Supple and turbulent, a ring of men/ Shall chant in orgy on a summer morn...

    by karmsy on Sat Jul 19, 2014 at 08:41:36 AM PDT

  •  HERE WE GO AGAIN.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Edward Song

    First off: HRC is not the democratic candidate for POTUS for 2016; nobody is.

    Thus, it's wayyyy presumptuous to be stating at this point you are voting for her.

    Second: focusing on the POTUS election only is getting us nowhere. after Obama's second term ends, that's eight years of a democratic president where barely any legislation regarding major progressive issues got passed-- because the buffoons running congress are so utterly F***ed up.

    Having FDR or LBJ come back from the grave and try to get anything done like the Civil Rights Act now? with this congress?

    HAH HAH HHAH HAHHH AHHHHH HAHH!!

    "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

    by Superpole on Sat Jul 19, 2014 at 10:07:10 AM PDT

  •  Median Voter Theorem vs The Overton Window (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geenius at Wrok

    Republicans and Democrats have two different views on how to win elections. Democrats believe in the Median Voter Theorem. The Median Voter Theorem is a spacial argument where in an election with two major candidates, the candidate whose views come closest to the median voter's views, maximize his or her vote count. This is the theory that is taught in political science courses, and thus, the view the Democrats take.

    When it comes to political strategy, Republicans are more foward looking. They believe in what is called the "Overton Window." The Overton Window is an imaginary a set of potential policies that the public feels are possible. Part of Republican strategy is to shift the Overton Window to the right. Under this strategy, it is important to give the most extreme right wing people a stong voice because voters won't think their views are possible until they actually hear those extreme right wing views voiced.

    Personally, I think the Republican strategy, in the long run, is a superior strategy to the Democratic strategy. If you also believe this, then you should be willing to voice your true opinions and get involved in politics.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site