Reply #146: I continue to understand your essential premise, but I still see it as a *very* slippery slope

[Stinky The Clown]

Someone else in this subthread suggested that "progressive" or "liberal" (my own preference at self-description) are not sliding scale. While it is possible for a repubican or libertarian to be liberal, too, it isn't likely. At some point, a person is no longer liberal in any way, even comparatively.

I will grant that Crist's last few years in the governor's mansion have not been nearly as nutty as might have been expected going in, so in some ways he is not the model of a repubican. Neither is Meathead Arnie, for that matter. But what about Alaska? Right now, it appears the race is between Miller and Murkowski. (I am using this ONLY as an example) A recent poll showed Miller with 35%, Murkowski with 34%, and McAdams with 27%. The MoE is 3%. Assuming that's the number right now, a scant weekend before the election, what does one do? Consider Murkowski the more "liberal" and go for her tp stop the crazy person? Or do the right thing and vote for McAdams, even as I'd probably call him hopeless with a 3pt MoE and an 8pt deficit? Where do you suggest the line be drawn? A 10 pt deficit? A 4pt deficit?

The point I'm making is that we should be never be openly supporting any person beyond some certain point on the liberal <---> conservative spectrum. Hell, we have enough problems with conservadems. At what point do we just say fuck it and stop voting at all?

I also agree with your point that we need not worry about this at the presidential level. There will probably never be a viable third party, so talking about it is just masturbation. This is, however, a very real, and increasingly common, issue at the state and local levels.

Now, what about the upcoming primaries for 2012? What about advocating openly for a more liberal person than Obama? Not into the general, but in the lead up to his formal nomination? I know you qualified things with the word "viable." I agree with that, by the way. But *all* candidates are viable at some point early in the process, aren't they?