General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhen will you stop voting for the lesser of two evils? (Poll)
What is your breaking point? If the Democrats stray further and further right, when will you break from the party? Will you always support Democrats?
These are all serious questions we need to begin asking ourselves. There's a lot of discussion right now about a Clinton run, and I've heard from many people who have hit their limit. They cannot in good conscience vote for her. I don't know what my point will be; probably not this election, as it's the first I can vote in, and I am very reluctant to give up one of the few remaining bits of power I have. But I will hate every moment of the voting process if there is no candidate that actually represents me. My limit is quickly approaching, and eventually I will not be able to support the system at all. How about you?
| 25 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| I've hit my limit this year--I will not be voting for someone who doesn't (at least mostly) represent me. | |
11 (44%) |
|
| I'm not sure yet, but if it's not this election, it will probably be next. | |
1 (4%) |
|
| I don't know when my candidates will get that bad, but if they do, I will not vote for them. | |
2 (8%) |
|
| I will vote for the lesser of two evils; if one is worse, that's reason enough. | |
1 (4%) |
|
| My vote will always go to the Democratic nominee. | |
8 (32%) |
|
| Other (please explain) | |
2 (8%) |
|
| 0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
merrily
(45,251 posts)
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)Though I certainly could see how it could be interpreted as such, and my phrasing is often not the best.
The question I'm really trying to ask is, "At what point will the system so reflect ideas and beliefs that oppose your core values that you will no longer support the Democratic party, or, alternatively, our current system entirely?".
And that's the best I can do on phrasing for now, feel free to help me re-word it.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)and the repukes are banned as a hate group. 
At that point, I would become a middle-of-the-road swing voter.
Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)War and Wall Street is what I oppose, not support, and I shan't be contradicting myself at the voting booth.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)hectoring posters who criticize Hillary to say whether or not they will vote for her if she is the nominee. I had that happen to me a few months back. I don't advise anyone to shoot himself or herself in the foot that way, especially as we get into the primary. And right now, there is less than zero reason to do so. Hillary has not even announced, let alone become the nominee.
BTW, I think msongs was only taking a shot at Obama, not creating an alert trap, but I could be wrong. As I said, I don't claim insight into msongs. Doesn't seem Third way to me, though.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Whether it is THE truth, time will tell. But, at least is their own truth.
I, for one, used to hold back a hell of a lot more, but I won't now.
msongs
(70,202 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Fool me once shame on you...
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 17, 2015, 05:02 PM - Edit history (1)
So I have never in my life supported the lesser of two evils.
I always vote for the best of the available candidates.
There are no ideal candidates.
The way I see it, the argument that people vote for the lesser of two evils, or hold their nose and vote, is essentially a whisper campaign to get people not to vote. It is an insidious form of voter suppression.
When I can afford to go out to dinner, I don't complain that because I did not go to a gourmet restaurant and eat $400.00 meal that I went to the lesser of two evils. I made the best choice from what I could afford.
When I buy a car, I don't complain that I bought the lesser of two evils because I could not buy a Maserati. I got the best deal on the car I could afford.
Political candidates are the same way. I measure the available candidates against what I want from my government. The one that comes closest, the best candidate, gets my vote.
I refuse to continue a whisper campaign that discourages people from voting.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)But what happens when the one that is closest holds ideas that are mostly (if not entirely) in opposition to yours? Do you continue voting, showing support for something you disagree with? How do you reconcile that?
When I buy a car, I don't complain that I bought the lesser of two evils because I could not buy a Maserati. I got the best deal on the car I could afford.
Problem is, it's getting to the point where that cheaper, non-gourmet meal doesn't exist. It's the choice between some rotted meat you pulled out of a dumpster or a poisoned burger from McDonalds. One will keep you alive for a bit longer, but it's going to catch up to you eventually; the other will kill pretty quickly and unpleasantly.
Or your other example: our choice is not between a Maserati and a cheaper economy car. It's a choice between a car that has broken down in the past, is unreliable, is leaking oil and fluids, and will probably blow up a few years down the road, and a car with no brakes, no seatbelts, no airbags, and a suicidal chauffeur.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)One candidate is always slightly better than the other because no two people are every exactly alike. That candidate, if elected and given the chance, will legislate a slightly better program and better laws than the other.
That is the candidate that is best applicant for the job, not the lesser of two evils.
The argument of a lesser of two evils is voter suppression. Those who make it are saying, if you can't get exactly the candidate you want don't vote. If we lived in a country where elections that fail to meet say 80% of voter turnout are nullified that might be a good strategy for voters. We don't.
A majority of those who vote elect the government. So if only one voter out of 300 million shows up, that voter is the majority that elected the government he or she wanted. The rest of us get diddly-squat.
We are going to elect a government that consists of those who choose to run. We either stand up and make the difficult choice of choosing the best of the available candidates, or we let Republicans do that job.
The lesser of two evils is voter suppression. It creates hopelessness in those who don't have a lot of time, are financially stressed, or are uneducated concerning the way our system works by telling them their vote is pointless. It suppresses those people that most need a government that works for them.
Voter suppression disgusts me, whether it is done by removing voting machines, insisting on identification, or calling for people not to vote because they should not vote for the lesser of two evils.
We need to help people make good choices, not tell them it doesn't fucking matter.
Yes, we should have standards against which we measure our candidates. We should understand that our standard is not a candidate and be able to choose the candidates that come closest rather than tell people to not to vote.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)That is the candidate that is best applicant for the job, not the lesser of two evils.
Best applicant for the job doesn't mean either is any good at it. (Good for the people, of course--I'll bet Romney would have been a great president if you asked the rich.)
Totally false strawman argument. No one is saying, "If you can't get exactly the candidate you want". We're saying, "If the candidate is antithetical to most of what you believe in". Even then, many are not advocating against voting--they're simply saying that they've hit a point where they can no longer support a system that is actively working against them.
What you and many others don't seem to consider is that for many people, they are already hopeless. They are already financially stressed, homeless, or worse. They are well-educated, and they are tired. They don't need to be told their vote is pointless--they know it is. There have been a number of studies that directly show that we live in an oligarchy, not a democracy. When the vast majority of people support something and politicians won't, then that is what tells people their vote is pointless. Not those of us who happen to notice deciding to say something about it.
Also, here's the other thing: many people can't afford to have someone who doesn't do the right thing any longer. I see a ton of people here saying that they can't afford to lose more benefits, more food security, their house, etc., and while I entirely sympathize with them, we can't forget that there are huge numbers of people who have already lost it all. They can't afford 4-8 more years of a slow corporate death; if they don't get help now, they're toast. These are a big chunk of the people who won't vote for a candidate who only kind of supports them. When we elect someone to slow the losses, we're still losing ground, no?
Again, no one is saying that. We are saying that it matters so fucking much that we can't afford to compromise with insanity anymore. We need representation, we need help, we need to fight and we need someone to fight for, and we need all this NOW. Not later.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)will vote more often in ways that I think are better. A lot of people here think Bill Clinton was not the best person who could have run in 1992. He nominated Ginsburg and Breyer. A lot of people are disappointed in Obama. He nominated Sotomayor and Kagen. They are the left wing of the court. We could have refused to elect the lesser of two evils and sat those elections out. Who would George Bush Sr, Bob Dole, and John McCain have nominated?
Clinton and Obama in those nominations proved why they were not the lesser of two evils. Of those who ran, they were the best applicant for the job. Did they do everything right. No! But what they did right benefits all Americans far more than what they did wrong.
To say "lesser of two evils" is stating that both sides are evil and unworthy and, therefore, we should not vote for them. Lesser of two evils is a straw man argument that works to suppress voters who otherwise will go to the voting booth and make difficult choices.
People are hopeless partly because they are bombarded with the false argument that both sides are evil and their vote doesn't count. We have low voter turnout and telling people they are voting for evil discourages them from voting. People are hopeless because in our divided government nothing really gets done for the people. With more pragmatism and will to make difficult choices we might have a Congress that worked for the people.
The whole thread asks who is still voting for the lesser of two evils. Some of these people state they will not. These people are not asked to look at the candidates, their policies, their history and vote the one that comes closest to their principals, the best of he candidates. They are being asked why the fuck would they vote for evil.
Our system requires compromise. We are never going to get the perfect candidate running for the job. Some candidates have, indeed, been very good. Many have not. That is why we must compromise and choose the one that is the best fit. Compromise is required in Congress to pass a bill, not just between Republican's and Democrats, but between Democrats with slightly different political ideologies and histories. The idea that we cannot compromise is another fallacy. Compromise is absolutely necessary. If we refuse to compromise, we allow the other side to decide what the government does.
If you really think it matters "so fucking much" then you don't start out by saying both sides are evil so it doesn't matter.
It matters, because any Democrat running at this point in history is going to be at least little better than the Republican.
It matters because if we have enough Democrats, then Democrats get to set the agenda. The majority party in the House sets the agenda. You can have an agenda to repeal the ACA 55 times, or you can have an agenda that modifies the bill to make it better. You can not have both. You can have an agenda that seeks to rebuild our failing infrastructure, or you can have an agenda that seeks to defund homeland security because the President uses an executive order to get people treated a little more fairly. You can't have both. You can have an agenda to repeal or even make unconstitutional marriage equality, or an agenda that provides equal rights to all married people. You can have an agenda to radically change social Security and Medicare or an agenda that seeks protect them and make them stronger.
If you don't make careful reasoned choices when you vote, if you throw up your hands and say, "EVIL!" you don't even get a say in it. People who don't vote allow others to vote for them. Encouraging them not to vote by saying, they are all evil, is just wrong.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
Egnever
(21,506 posts)As was the one you started with.
Outstanding!
great white snark
(2,646 posts)Kudos Agnosticsherbet.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)Very well said.
people need to take a good hard look at congress (the one p[ast , and this one) and ask themselves two questions ;
1. if they would be just fine with everything Boehner and Co have tried to repeal or enact ( ACA , Consumer Protection , Immigration Reform, Bush Tax Cuts etc , etc)
2. how would they feel about a Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Paul Clement (for example)
...Oh , and "writing in another Democrat"...Pffft Nader-level assholishness
Cheers
DemocratSinceBirth
(100,324 posts)Chronic kidney disease and blindness are two of the nasty side effects of uncontrolled hypertension. One time my blood pressure was tested at 224/140. Try to wrap your mind around that. Oh, did I tell you I couldn't afford health insurance. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act California expanded its Medi Cal program to insure indigent adults. My dad died of a heart attack at the ripe old age of 58. He hadn't seen a doctor in twenty years. Because Barack Obama and not John McCain occupied the Oval Office I will hopefully avoid his fate.
Politics matter and so does the person that occupies the Oval Office,
So while some dream of a socialist revolution that will never happen I will worry about Juan in East L A who needs a kidney transplant, Jammal in New York who needs to get his teeth fixed, and Billy Jo in Birmingham who needs a hysterectomy.
guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)excellent summary of the why of INFORMED voting. I also have never voted for a perfect candidate. No such animal. I vote for the candidate I believe will best represent my ideas.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The idea that only centrist right Dems get that is amusing.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)I don't want mushrooms at McDonald's or at Vincenzo's.
Why the fuck am I going to a restaurant of any quality to get something I don't want at all?
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)...voting for someone who can't is a waste of a vote. Likewise, so is not voting for anyone.
alc
(1,151 posts)When everyone (most people) votes for someone who can win, the winner doesn't know what policies really matter to us. If 10% of us want green but 9.5% vote for a D they don't like since green can't win, then the winner can rationalize that only 0.5% want green policy. If all 10% of us voted green then the winner (D or R) will pay attention because that 10% can turn things around next election.
That's why primaries are so important and where it's especially useful to vote for someone who can't win. There's a huge difference between Hilary running away with the primaries and Hilary seeing that one part of the country prefers (i.e. beat her) the environmental candidate and another part prefers the union candidate and another prefers the anti-wall-street candidate ... And people in those parts of the country need to vote for the person they prefer even if that person no chance of beating the R.
General elections are more complicated but it is important for the winners to know what policies the people want, not just the party people voted for. And when everyone votes for one of two candidates the winner will ignore exit polls and just say "I won so people want whatever I want". I wouldn't expect anyone at DU to vote against the D in the general. But if you can't convince friends/family to vote D it's a good idea to argue for a left/progressive 3rd party rather than tell them to stick with a winner.
This in particular. Add in the fact that huge numbers already don't vote, and what does that tell you?
People have given up hope that they will be represented. They are the ones that we should be trying to reach. If we run a progressive candidate, we can mobilize huge numbers of people.
DemocratSinceBirth
(100,324 posts)Presidents matter.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)They have no representation, so they refuse to participate. They won't support something they don't believe in. I'm not sure yet if I agree with their decision, but I certainly don't blame them, and I have a lot of respect for their honesty.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)
TBF
(34,415 posts)but what if we could get an independent candidate who could pull center and enough other disenchanted voters. It could happen.
DemocratSinceBirth
(100,324 posts)If a popular former president couldn't win as a third part candidate what makes you think any candidate can?
In fact the two strongest third party candidate in the post war era were a right of center candidate (Perot) and a far right of center candidate (George Wallace).
TBF
(34,415 posts)People are hurting economically. Conditions dictate how people will act and with the economy worsening their behavior could change.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)If they are the candidates I will not have to vote for the lesser of two evils. There is one whose ideology I don't agree with. One I agree with most of. I will vote for Hillary with tears of joy in my eyes if she is the nominee.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Do you think anyone qualifies? Just read about what he did to Michael Schiavo and you might change your mind. And that's not even including anything his family has done.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)No, I don't think Jeb is evil.
Terra Alta
(5,158 posts)Whether it's Hillary, Bernie, Warren, or someone else. Any of them are better than the Repuke alternative.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)
pa28
(6,145 posts)Positioning your party just to the left of Republicans seemed like a great idea at the time. A great idea until it hauled the intellectual center of the Democratic party to the right of 1980's Republican moderates.
Soon you must start asking yourself if the logical conclusion of the "lesser of two evils" game is actually worse than Republicans winning. At some point they win even when they lose and that point may have arrived.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)Yup, and we're showing no sign of reversing the trend.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I don't think Obama is evil.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)But he is a 1980s Republican, further left on some issues, and further right on others. I am fully opposed to many of the ideas he proposes; if I were to have voted for him (I couldn't, I was under 18) it would not have been for his policies, but for protection from the insanity that would have been a McCain or Romney presidency. Would you say the same? Or not?
I used "lesser of two evils" for lack of better phrasing, and I probably could have said it better.
merrily
(45,251 posts)understand that it means having to vote for one of two candidates, neither of whom appeals to you.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)election to some rightwing nut
ileus
(15,396 posts)in every general election...
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)The lesser of two evils is still evil.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)When is that evil too great for you to stand?
Doesn't need to have an answer, just something to think about as the Democratic party continues shifting right.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)That's when I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils because they're still both evil, imo.
I don't think the lesser of two evils applies to every race. There's certainly been a lot of races where I actually wanted to vote for a candidate. But when I feel both candidates are "evil' that's when I refuse to vote for the lesser of the two. I will just vote for someone else.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)My vote will always go to the Democratic nominee ... with the understanding that the republican will (almost) always be the worst choice.
And this position is informed by 35+ years of having voted for the lesser of two evils, as no politician completely represents my interests or my priority preferences.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)generally you vote for who is placed in the ballot.
Perhaps rather than not voting, ensuring your favorite pony is on the ballot would be more constructive.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The primary has not begun yet. This is the one time in the cycle when DUers are fully free to voice their opinions about the candidates.
ensuring your favorite pony is on the ballot would be more constructive.
Of course. And, if I had a a donor list, and/or a few million bucks and no day job, I might have been doing that. Seems a little late to start from 0 at this point, though.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)and I personally thought my placement of the word "pony" was quite creative.
No need to present the martyr "They're trying the silence my voice" mantra. All I'm stating if you don't have a horse in the race, put yourself to work to get one in there.
Starry Messenger
(32,375 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 17, 2015, 09:49 PM - Edit history (1)
Instead, elections should be viewed as a tool in the box of other tools to further an agenda. If my only choices are a mallet or a rock for a politician, even though I'd prefer a hammer, I'm voting for the mallet. If I waited for someone to come along who shared my views, I'd never get to vote.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)nt
A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)But sometimes when you really need that hammer, your only choice is between a hack saw and a toilet plunger. One may be more useful in some ways but neither one is going to get the job done.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Why would more evil be better than a little?
I'm not that pessimistic though. I don't want to go through life so dissatisfied with the entire world. I can't change the entire world.
pampango
(24,692 posts)but the choice will always be an imperfect one.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Here's an idea ... want to vote for a more progressive candidate ... GO MAKE ONE!
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... has been achieved by the DLC/Third Way. Instead of energizing the Democratic base, they've demoralized it. Instead of motivating that half of the electorate who typically don't bother to vote, they've further disenfranchised them by failing to offer any policies that appeal to them, instead pandering to the mythical "Reagan Democrat/Moderate Republican."
Those of us who argue for more progressive candidates aren't depressing Democratic turnout, we're working to stimulate it.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)That's how it works.
You say "Those of us who argue for more progressive candidates aren't depressing Democratic turnout, we're working to stimulate it."
Argue for more progressive candidates ... that's awesome ... but whining about how mean DLC/Third Way is, and how much you hate Hillary ... well, THAT is not arguing for a more progressive candidate, its just whining.
Back when parts of Du were screaming that they wanted a primary against Obama in 2012, I suggested their time would be better spent DEVELOPING candidates that would be more progressive than Hillary. And I said that if they didn't, they'd end up complaining endlessly about candidate Hillary Clinton, and probably President Hillary Clinton.
So where are we? Right where I expected we'd be. The perpetually disgruntled are disgruntled.
And were Warren to become President, they'd turn on her by the end of her first summer.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)But boy do I love the way you refer to the legitimate policy concerns of the poor and disenfranchised as "perpetual disgruntlement".
I'm going to be "perpetually disgruntled" until shit actually changes for people, thank you very much.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 17, 2015, 08:22 PM - Edit history (2)
The suffering is abstract to them, and those who attempt to point it out are "hair on fire" or "disgruntled" or whining for their ponies, not human beings facing the desperation that corporate policies cause.
Human beings are just entries in a profit ledger to corporatists. That is why corporate government is indefensible.
I'm going to be "perpetually disgruntled" until shit actually changes for people, thank you very much.Thank you. We desperately need voices of humanity to counter the constant drumbeat of corporate propaganda normalizing contempt for the poor.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)That'll work.
joshcryer
(62,493 posts)The denial is astounding.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)and destroy America once and for all? should be the title of this poll.
Never would be my answer and that's why I'll be voting for the democratic candidate for president whoever he or she may be.
Staying at home smug in your self righteousness or throwing away your vote on an obscure party or candidate will get you a right wing nightmare like this country has never seen before.
I do not want to be a surf on the koch bros and walton heirs USA plantation.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)in some cases hosting large evangelical meetings with anti gay preachers and such. So all of these folks who speak claim they have now, at this point, seen some red line they can't cross strike me as privileged people with very high expectations of personal favor in a massively collective decision.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)But if a candidate said that, then I wouldn't vote for them. I haven't had much of a chance to not vote for anyone yet since I've never had the chance to vote. I think a fair number of "youth" voters out there haven't voted because of that kind of crap too.
Also, who are you to decide what line someone can or can't cross? You may be right that there are those who are privileged, but at the same time, everyone has their own limits and gets to decide what those limits are.
I agree that those limits can be rather arbitrarily drawn, though, and I would guess most of those lines are drawn close to what matters to them--hence we have people whose main issue is economics instead of racism and the prison industry, corporate power and spying instead of the mass subjugation women, etc. I think we're hitting a point where (middle-class white) people are finally starting to have themselves impacted, where they can't ignore all the other issues anymore. They then focus on the issues that are affecting them, instead of looking at how all of these issues relate to one another and are all critical in their own sense. This leads to people who are very concerned about the economic issues and willing to draw their lines there, when things like LGBT rights, racism, sexism, etc., have been around for years. This isn't to say it's wrong to be very focused on economic issues, but we do have to be careful not to place them above social rights--they are entirely interwoven and we need progress in both areas to have a shot at fixing either.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)Yes, yes, this DIVIDES the democratic vote. It does. But it wouldn't if the democrats ran an alternative that wasn't evil.
As David Thoreau said, as individuals we cannot solve all the ills of the world, BUT each of us can work to not CONTRIBUTE to them.
11 Bravo
(24,075 posts)the possibility of another Antonin Fucking Scalia to somehow wind up on the court without absolutely decimating, women's, civil, consumer, and any other right one can imagine. YMMV
Ykcutnek
(1,305 posts)Super Tuesday Democrats gotta give me something to work with if they want me to vote for purity.
liberalmuse
(18,876 posts)Every day, each of us is having to choose between the lesser of two evils when it comes right down to it. Welcome to the human experience. Of course we have the option to do nothing, and we already know (but choose to conveniently forget) that this is the 3rd and worst evil of all.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Nothing good comes from these sorts of posts.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Just sayin
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)In 20 years, when we've shifted right over the past 5 elections, when will you decide enough is enough? 30 years after Reagan, we have Democrats far to his right. 30 years from now, we may have Democrats to the right of today's Republicans, and I sure as hell wouldn't be able to support that. When is the point you won't shift right any more? (Not a direct question, just something to think about)
(That, and I'm really a socialist who thinks the whole system is going to have to come down before anything is going to be fixed. I won't advocate that here, because that's probably against the TOS, but... If we look at the history of the Democratic party over the last 50-70 years, it's pretty disappointing (a massive understatement, really). There are entrenched powers that can't be removed through voting for the lesser of two evils, or really through voting at all anymore.
I expect that there will come a day when we are so thoroughly screwed that people will abandon the system entirely. We're already seeing capitalism tear at the edges, and the people who have been paying attention have seen through the veil long ago. So my point in introducing this question to this group here is to get people thinking about when that day will come for them. It doesn't mean I'm advocating not voting at the current moment, though that may be my personal decision.)
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The Democrat is always the best candidate.
So piffle to the hyperbolic garbage about "lesser of two evils" and other complete bullshit.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)primary isn't likely to win the general (though it happens; look at Lieberman).
Anyway, it really depends on the election for me. If there's a tight race in my jurisdiction between a centrist and a right-winger I'm going to vote for the centrist. That's not always the case, though. Recently there was an election where the top two candidates would both get the position. I ended up voting against the Democratic (who I knew was going to win) and for a good progressive independent (though in actuality a Democrat, but they became an independent because of the nature of the election) and the Green Party candidate I knew wouldn't win (in part because he was trying to run a strong campaign, and I hoped he'd stay involved in politics). The Democratic front-runner was in no danger of losing, and if they lost they wouldn't lose to anyone further to the right (the next several candidates were all at least as liberal, probably more so).
For the presidency - the electoral votes here will always go to Democrats, so I have the option of voting for a third party candidate if I like. But who would I vote for? The Greens have done such a poor job that a candidate is more likely to win if they run as an independent than as a Green. I often vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is, but it's also someone I usually voted against in the primary. I hope that centrists would support progressives who win in the primary as well. The primary is actually a pretty good system, and it'd be a shame to throw it away just because we weren't able to get the votes at the moment for some of the elections.
DemocratSinceBirth
(100,324 posts)You have your whole life ahead of you and seem to be interested in politics.Since you are so disenamored with the Democratic party you can start a party of your own.
I am afraid you will find it much more challenging than complaining on an anonymous bulletin board.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... away from the corporatists who have seized it and help in that cause?
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)We care far more than anyone here wants to think (goddess, just look at some of the anti-youth sentiment here; it's pretty disgusting). We could shift elections--hell, we did in 2008--but it doesn't seem to matter. Instead we get crap from people like you telling us to go somewhere else. And believe me, we would if we could. But it's pretty hard when everyone in power has been systematically destroying every chance we might have had to do that for the last 50 odd years.
I am afraid you will find it much more challenging than complaining on an anonymous bulletin board.
You know, I'm part of a group of socialists that is doing exactly that: working in our local communities, generating awareness, running/supporting people like Kshama Sawant, etc. It's tough, but we're getting positive results.
So thanks for your dismissive and superior attitude: I'm sure telling people to shut up and get their own party has worked reaaaally well the last few elections. Good luck
Rex
(65,616 posts)And OF COURSE they will never see any fault in their own actions. They are our parties own worst enemies and I don't see it getting any better as less and less of them use critical thinking skills.
I am afraid we are all on track for a Idiocracy nation and some in our own party cannot wait to help out! 
DemocratSinceBirth
(100,324 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)I am afraid you will always be left scratching your head as to why nobody is around to play catch with on the playground. Sad, but predictable.
olddots
(10,237 posts)But I will really be pissed if Hillary is our candidate as will others here while others will be thrilled.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)with conserva-dems, DINOs, "Democrats" who support Repuke trampling of the poor, working and middle classes, warmongering, spying and corporatism and all the rest of it.
Rex
(65,616 posts)THAT is what scares me the most, they want us all to live some strange neoliberal fantasy.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)then kick their feet and do other temper tantrum shit.
ret5hd
(21,320 posts)IF:
candidate A says: Kill all dogs
and
candidate B says: Kill all dogs and cats
most DUers would say: "YAY CANDIDATE A!"
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)ret5hd
(21,320 posts)Candidate A: Kill all poor people!
Candidate B: Kill all poor people more slowly!
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Blue_Tires
(56,005 posts)Third-party voting, or abstaining from voting??
My fundamental issue is I've seen too often what happens when the "worse" evil gets into office....
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)And I think anyone with a good understanding of history would get that. But there's a point when bad is bad, and relative degrees don't really matter much anymore.
great white snark
(2,646 posts)If your conscious betrays you that much find another party.
Exhibit A
(318 posts)Exhibit A
(318 posts)I'll stop voting for the lesser of two evils when a VIABLE candidate offers me more than that.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
hunter
(38,971 posts)Most of the people I have to vote for don't stink too bad, and some are excellent.
I've NEVER EVER voted for a Republican, even when I've lived out of state and all the choices really did stink.
The first Presidential candidate I campaigned and voted for was Jimmy Carter. A good man I have some disagreements with, but worthy of my support.
I voted for Obama too. Whatever complaints I have, Obama is a competent President of these United States, such as they are.
But honestly speaking, like so many of us, I was born here in the U.S.A. by accident. If I'd had the opportunity to pick and choose as an unborn soul, I might have been born in a true first world nation or as native human in a remote wilderness where none of this political stuff matters.
My utopia is an organic garden and I sleep in a garden shed. Every good thing beyond that is simply wonderful, and nothing at all is worth the rotten stuff.
H2O Man
(75,575 posts)Whenever someone good runs, I vote for them. But, too often, it is indeed the lesser of two evils.
F4lconF16
(3,747 posts)Because I think that would be all of our first choices.
H2O Man
(75,575 posts)survey/OP. Thanks for posting it.
There are some interesting responses, too. Well done!
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)If we nominate a right-wing Democrat, I'll be disappointed, but there's nothing to be gained by stomping off in disgust. If the votes are there to elect a good candidate in November, then the same votes can get that candidate the nomination. On the other hand, if someone like Hillary wins the nomination, it means that we haven't yet reached enough people with the arguments for a more progressive candidate that have been made cogently in several threads on DU. That's where we have to work, not on voting for a no-hoper.
This reasoning depends on the openness of the contest, though. If potential progressive candidates and/or voters have been unfairly excluded from the Democratic Party process, then I'll consider not voting for the party nominee.