The Democrat Thread

[StrangeSox]

I will. Feel great when a bunch of old people die because your candidate wasn't perfect.

 

Hey, too bad the Democrats never had giant majorities in the Senate and House and controlled the Presidency, then they could have passed UHC! Real environmental regulation! Real financial regulation! Reduced DoD funding! Stopped doing terrible s*** at Gitmo! etc. etc.

 

Feel great when this country continues to see-saw between 100% terrible and 90% terrible because you keep supporting really, really bad candidates who are marginally better than Republicans at best.

[Soxbadger]

They are trying to win, and most political theory would suggest that you pander to the middle. Some would actually argue that our entire system was built on the fringe being marginalized by the majority.

 

The only way the Democrats are going to get more progressive, is by winning more.

 

If they lose votes, they dont think "We arent progressive enough" they think "We were too progressive."

 

In my opinion, not voting for Demcorats will drive them even further from the "progressive" agenda, but its your vote.

[BigSqwert]

The only way the Democrats are going to get more progressive, is by winning more.

They controlled everything from 2008 to 2010 and were complete failures.

[Soxbadger]

They tried to pass health care during that time period, or no?

[StrangeSox]

They are trying to win, and most political theory would suggest that you pander to the middle. Some would actually argue that our entire system was built on the fringe being marginalized by the majority.

 

The only way the Democrats are going to get more progressive, is by winning more.

 

If they lose votes, they dont think "We arent progressive enough" they think "We were too progressive."

 

In my opinion, not voting for Demcorats will drive them even further from the "progressive" agenda, but its your vote.

 

Either by choice or by incompetence, they allow the Republicans to define what the middle is on every single issue. Obama and the rest of the Democrats have routinely come to the table with a highly compromised position and negotiated from there.

 

The whole last two years with the Republicans and the Tea Party contradicts your idea here. I don't think you'd argue that the Republicans have gone even harder to the right, and they did it after getting their asses handed to them in 2008.

 

Why would the Democrats suddenly get more progressive if they keep winning elections while doing absolutely nothing to support progressive policies? Why wouldn't they see liberal 3rd party candidates leeching a lot of their votes and think "oh s***, maybe we should stop taking them for granted?" If they know that they're getting the liberal vote no matter what, they've no need to enact any liberal policies and will just make hand-wringing excuses *Dixiecrats!* *Blue Dogs!* for their failure.

[StrangeSox]

They tried to pass health care during that time period, or no?

 

Yeah, and they started by taking any form of UHC completely off the table. They started at what should have been a worst-case compromise position with a very weak minority party.

[NorthSideSox72]

not compromising your beliefs does not mean you cut off your nose to spite your face. You can either be productive, or a petulant child. But when president Palin rolls into office and starts passing archaic s***, defunds health care and education, and anything remotely progressive just because it's progressive, I don't want to see you complain one f***ing time. Because you put her there.

I tend to agree with this. If a 3rd party candidate shows they have any real shot, I would certainly consider it. But if they can't get even the hint of a groundswell of support, something beyond a 3% type level, then I won't waste my vote that way.

 

Sqwert, I would LOVE it if the two-party system slowly falls apart in favor of 4 or 5 parties... but in the current environment, that's is highly unlikely to occur.

 

One thing I will disagree with you on though, bmags, is the idea that it only works in that direction. I think in the case of THIS election cycle, its a 3rd party CONSERVATIVE that is far more likely to throw things off than a liberal candidate. The GOP candidate who wins nomination, if they are very far right, has basically zero chance to win in the general - which means an Obama re-election. The GOP's only hope is to nominate a non-crazy-right candidate, and hope that no significant right wing independent runs. If the GOP nominee doesn't satisfy the Tea Partiers, and they field a candidate who can garner even 5%, then again, Obama wins. I just don't see a far left candidate gaining significant support, barring some super star and super-funded personality we just aren't even aware of yet.

 

[StrangeSox]

I tend to agree with this. If a 3rd party candidate shows they have any real shot, I would certainly consider it. But if they can't get even the hint of a groundswell of support, something beyond a 3% type level, then I won't waste my vote that way.

 

The DNC and RNC thank you for buying into this idea which perpetuates the two-party system.

[Soxbadger]

The whole last two years with the Republicans and the Tea Party contradicts your idea here. I don't think you'd argue that the Republicans have gone even harder to the right, and they did it after getting their asses handed to them in 2008.

 

Not really, its more the impact of the TEA party. The TEA party forces Republican candidates to the middle between TEA party and regular Republican, which is farther conservative than where Republican's really want to be on the national stage.

 

This could result in what NSS said, the TEA party candidate costing the Republican.

 

But then again, Im not going to convince TEA party candidates to wise up and play the game.

 

Its not buying into the RNC or DNC, its just accepting the facts and trying to work within the system we have.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

My point is that the system we have (Dem or Rep) is terrible and that I feel no desire or need to work within that system. Continuing to vote for bad Democrat candidates only ensures that, in the future, I'll have to keep voting for bad Democrat candidates.

[Soxbadger]

Thats fine, but its the equivalent of sitting on the sidelines while the game is being played, hoping that by yelling enough youll change the game, instead of suiting up and actually having an impact.

 

The only way the system is going to change is by some one in the system. The US model was not created with the idea that there must be 2 parties, it just happens that there are only 2 parties. Why it went this way, who knows, but it has.

 

And Im not even sure that I like other systems more, Im not necessarily fond of lots of small parties that the bigger party sells out to, to get the few necessary seats it needs for a majority.

[BigSqwert]

Thats fine, but its the equivalent of sitting on the sidelines while the game is being played, hoping that by yelling enough youll change the game, instead of suiting up and actually having an impact.

 

The only way the system is going to change is by some one in the system. The US model was not created with the idea that there must be 2 parties, it just happens that there are only 2 parties. Why it went this way, who knows, but it has.

 

And Im not even sure that I like other systems more, Im not necessarily fond of lots of small parties that the bigger party sells out to, to get the few necessary seats it needs for a majority.

 

How is voting for a 3rd party candidate considered sitting on the sidelines?

[StrangeSox]

Voting for 3rd party candidates and convincing people to stop voting for terrible candidates/parties just because they're Not Republicans isn't sitting on the sidelines.

 

Voting for mainstream Dem politicians who will not enact any progressive policies is not going to change the system, and it isn't going to push the party to the left, either.

[StrangeSox]

How is voting for a 3rd party candidate considered sitting on the sidelines?

 

Just keep voting (D), one day they're bound to actually do something worthy of the label "liberal"!

[BigSqwert]

I look forward to all the DNC calls asking for money in 2012. I can't wait to laugh at them over the phone.

[Soxbadger]

I never said voting for a 3rd party is sitting on the sidelines, people were saying they wouldnt vote at all.

 

And not voting at all is sitting on the sidelines.

 

Not sure how that comment could be read any other way.

 

(Edit)

 

Voting is working in the system, so if you are voting you are by definition trying to work within the system.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

I never said voting for a 3rd party is sitting on the sidelines, people were saying they wouldnt vote at all.

 

And not voting at all is sitting on the sidelines.

 

Not sure how that comment could be read any other way.

 

(Edit)

 

Voting is working in the system, so if you are voting you are by definition trying to work within the system.

 

Because some people were trying to frame it in the "you have to pick either a dem or a rep or it doesn't count" bulls***.

[Soxbadger]

Well as a practical matter, that is the truth. If you vote for a 3rd party the most likely out come is that your second choice loses.

 

Its some what a prisoners dilemma.

Edited April 25, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

In a 3 way race between Obama, Trump, and your ideal candidate, where your ideal candidate was likely to split the vote with Obama, would you be content with Donald Trump as your President for 4 years?

[BigSqwert]

In a 3 way race between Obama, Trump, and your ideal candidate, where your ideal candidate was likely to split the vote with Obama, would you be content with Donald Trump as your President for 4 years?

It'd be pretty sad if Obama couldn't secure enough votes on his own to beat out a birther.

[Balta1701]

It'd be pretty sad if Obama couldn't secure enough votes on his own to beat out a birther.

You didn't answer the question. If Trump has an "R" after his name, he's almost guaranteed 40% in a general presidential election as long as he doesn't murder someone. That's how the system works.

 

I'm testing how stringent you are on your principle here. I want to know if you folks's desire for a protest vote is so strong that you'd prefer Donald Trump in the White House rather than voting for Obama over your ideal candidate.

[BigSqwert]

You didn't answer the question. If Trump has an "R" after his name, he's almost guaranteed 40% in a general presidential election as long as he doesn't murder someone. That's how the system works.

 

I'm testing how stringent you are on your principle here. I want to know if you folks's desire for a protest vote is so strong that you'd prefer Donald Trump in the White House rather than voting for Obama over your ideal candidate.

I'd vote for a 3rd party candidate if they were proposing progressive change.

[StrangeSox]

You didn't answer the question. If Trump has an "R" after his name, he's almost guaranteed 40% in a general presidential election as long as he doesn't murder someone. That's how the system works.

 

I'm testing how stringent you are on your principle here. I want to know if you folks's desire for a protest vote is so strong that you'd prefer Donald Trump in the White House rather than voting for Obama over your ideal candidate.

 

Keep framing the debate that way.

 

It's not a "protest vote" to vote for someone who more closely aligns with your ideology instead of voting for someone who barely aligns with your ideology. It's democracy, and the continuation of a system where we have to vote for one of two terrible choices completely beholden to corporate interests is anti-democratic.

 

How loose are you on your principles? How many more times do you think you need to vote Democrat before they bother to do anything about climate change?

[Balta1701]

It's not a "protest vote" to vote for someone who more closely aligns with your ideology instead of voting for someone who barely aligns with your ideology. It's democracy, and the continuation of a system where we have to vote for one of two terrible choices completely beholden to corporate interests is anti-democratic.

Actually, that's the definition of a protest vote.

A protest vote (also known as blank vote or white vote) is a vote cast in an election to demonstrate the caster's unhappiness with the choice of candidates or refusal of the current political system. It can thus be said "conjectural", as the voter would accept other candidates in the same system, or "structural", if the voter is opposed to the whole system — usually representative democracy, but it may also signify opposition to a two-party system where "third options" are always rejected. In this latter case, protest vote may take the form of a valid vote, but instead of voting for the mainstream candidates, it is a vote in favor of a minority or fringe candidate, either from the far-left, far-right or self-presenting as a candidate foreign to the political system.

The fact that you don't like the term doesn't change what it is.

[BigSqwert]

Actually, that's the definition of a protest vote.

 

The fact that you don't like the term doesn't change what it is.

And apparently you are in fact, loose on your principles as you continue to vote for people who do little to nothing to address issues you've been advocating on this site for years.