Any Dems or progressive independents who sit out this election

[highplainsdem]

or vote for a third-party candidate because their candidate isn't at the top of the ticket, or because a candidate they dislike is on the ticket as VP, are in effect helping McCain win.

I first saw this kind of political suicide by some Dems and progressive independents in 1968, when some Gene McCarthy supporters were too self-righteous to vote for Humphrey over Nixon. So we got Nixon.

We saw it again in 2000 and 2004. The purists would sit it out, or vote for someone with no chance at all of winning, all the while predicting that in another four years the situation would be so bad that candidates they felt were pure or principled enough would win in a landslide.

After all, the "I'll hold my breath (vote) if you don't give me exactly the candidate I want" strategy has worked so brilliantly in the past, right?

This is a more important election than any of the others. And a lot more is riding on this than your self-righteousness, or your taking offense at what you see as the other candidate's supporters' self-righteousness.

Take a look at the Environment forum, as well as this one, if you don't believe me.

We don't have 4 years, let alone 8 years, for Dems or progressive independents whose vote might deny McCain the election to go sulk in a corner if their candidate isn't at the top of the ticket or (silliest of all) if their favorite is at the top of the ticket but the other candidate is there as VP.

The country and the planet can't take another 4-8 years of handing the Republicans yet another victory.

And please don't tell me it'll be okay if you won't vote for the Democratic presidential nominee, if a candidate you don't like is the nominee, but you will support Congressional and state and local candidates.

If you really think that will help much, there are a few things you need to think about:

Signing statements.

Executive orders.

The Supreme Court.

And oh, yes, the great success the Dems in the current Congress have had in slowing Bush/Cheney down.

I don't care who your favorite Democratic candidate is. If you sit this election out and McCain wins, you will have helped elect him, and you will owe an apology to everyone hurt by McCain's election.

Which, with the typical GOP lack of concern for the planet, will be hundreds of millions of people.

[Amy6627]

1. Bravo!!! K&R n/t

[highplainsdem]

44. Thanks!

:)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. I voted against Nixon and Humpty in '68. I'd do it again.

I always find it amusing that people who demand party loyalty accuse others of being "purists".

[highplainsdem]

45. You voted against Humphrey. You helped elect Nixon.

And I'm not "demanding party loyalty." But when a party is choosing a nominee from liberal/progressive candidates who agree on almost all the issues, and some members say they can't vote for any nominee who's had any disagreement with their favorite (no matter how much they might agree on most issues) - and that self-righteous refusal allows someone in great disagreement with your favorite to get in - then yes, you are being a "purist," and you are working against your own interests.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

46. Bullshit.

The Democrats who engineered Humpty into the nomination, who voted for more war, who backed LBJ, elected Nixon.

What we have now, aren't 2 candidates from the liberal/progressive wing of the party, but two candidates from the moderate/conservative wing of the party.

Neither of whom have earned my vote. Which is their obligation.

[jonestonesusa]

69. As you consider how liberal or moderate Obama is

it is worth checking on voting records. I've been doing that a bit. On this site, you can find links to Obama's strong liberal rating not only by the suspect National Journal but also by the League of Conservation Voters, the Genocide Intervention Network, Planned Parenthood, and several labor groups. The sexy-sounding conclusion that he is a "moderate/conservative" may not be consistent with the voting records as assessed by several of these groups. I think it's reassuring to see his support for liberal and progressive values as the several groups observe.

Take a look and see what you think if you like - I'd be interested in how this information strikes you.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/barack-obama3.htm

[Exilednight]

59. Neither candidate is all that liberal, and only one is progressive. n/t

[drm604]

3. K&R

:applause:

[highplainsdem]

47. Thank you!

:)

[peacebird]

4. Will HRC reverse any of the power grabs of GWB? As far as I can tell she is a corporatist.

She leans to the right, McSame leans to the left. So - HRC vs McSame? Not a whole lot of difference - we're still screwed.

[AllentownJake]

5. Well

If Hillary excercises the so called Nuclear option and its allowed...I'm sorry you can personally blame me for every calamity in the world.

If she doesn't and the SD decide she's the nominee as per the agreed upon rules. You can count on me.

[elocs]

6. I hate to say this, but your post is hardly an original thought. I've read it many, many times.

It's true, but those who might sit out the election are not open to logic or persuasive arguments. They are more than willing to bit off their noses to spite their faces and teach the country, especially the Democratic Party, that their candidate should have been chosen.

[highplainsdem]

39. That's okay. It's still a good idea to point it out again

from time to time. :)

[Selatius]

7. Hate to burst your bubble but the Electoral College's nature isn't so simple.

If a person were living in a safe state, voting for a Democrat or a Republican would not affect the outcome in a winner-take-all format, especially in states like Mississippi. If electoral votes were allotted by proportion, then each vote would become much more important. If the Electoral College were abolished, then each and every vote becomes important, which is why I favor abolition of the Electoral College.

I'm disenfranchised anyway here in Mississippi given the winner-take-all format, so I can vote or not vote as I please.

[Goodnevil]

8. If it were any other election

I would disagree with you, but this one is a "better not lose" situation. People are going to have to vote solidly Dem in the congress and for Prez.

[Selatius]

9. When I invoke "Electoral College" I refer only to the Presidential Election.

Congressional and senatorial elections are a different story.

[still_one]

19. Most likely the Dems will win Congress & the presidency. We will know if nader was right

Will we still be in Iraq?
Will they fight for American jobs?
Will they reverse the IWR?
Will they fight for healthcare written by insurance companies?
Will they fight to bring back more banking oversight?
etc etc etc

We will know in the next four years if there is really any difference between the parties

The Democrats WILL win, but will they be different from the last eight years?

we will know soon enough

[leftynyc]

51. We already know Nader was not right

No democrat would have put Roberts or Alito on the court.

[still_one]

61. That was not the only issue, though they had no problem with schumer and company

confirming them, the enabling they did for this administration speaks volumes

You say we already know nader was wrong, and I was right with you in 2000 on that point. However, a lot of water has gone under the bridge. Will the Democrats reverse the IWR, or try to put more regulation and oversight into the banking industry, and put a stop to the huge corporate mergers, which not only have hurt competition, but the little guy

There are a lot of issues from healthcare, medicare, and social security, and there will be no doubt where the party really stands on these issues. Actions always speak louder than words, and they will not be able to use the excuse in 2008 that they do not have a firm majority

I am not particularly optimistic, but maybe I will be plesantly surprised

[leftynyc]

65. To me, the supreme court is the

most important issue. Just about any other thing can be undone. Obviously the IWR cannot be undone but there are such obvious differences between the position of Sen Obama and Sen mccain, that doesn't really apply. Nader has done some outstanding work as an consumer advocate but his running around in 2000 and saying there was no difference between the two parties was such an egregious lie that I can never forgive him for that.

[boppers]

10. If we get a democrat, we can vote for them.

If all we get is two republicans... :shrug:

[Amy6627]

20. I think that you are implying that

HRC is more of a republican than dem. I agree with that, but I do not think she is the same as voting for a repuke. We do not know what kind of a person she would send to the Supreme Court, but we DO KNOW what McSame would send. Another right wing nut. I think that HRC would send a moderate that was pro-choice, and for that reason only I will vote for her if she is the Dem's pick.

[boppers]

22. McSame said he was against overturning Roe v Wade...

:shrug:

They both seem to talk out of two sides of their mouth, depending on the audience and time.

[Amy6627]

27. I didn't hear that. But I got this from NARAL

https://secure2.convio.net/choice/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=457&autologin=true

If elected president, he has pledged to be the anti-choice movement's most faithful ally, carrying their water and enacting their dangerous agenda: "If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement."

His record:

* Voted anti-choice 125 out of 130 times in his congressional career.
* Consistently voted to restrict access to abortion care.
* Voted against measures to prevent unintended pregnancy.
* Voted for the global gag rule, which prohibits federally funded family-planning clinics from giving women full information about their reproductive-health options.
* Voted for and co-sponsored the Federal Abortion Ban.
* Voted in favor of anti-choice Supreme Court Justices like Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas and Chief Justices like John Roberts.

https://secure2.convio.net/choice/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=457&autologin=true

[boppers]

32. Oh, it's a messy record all right.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain_Abortion.htm

He's kind of on the fence, where, if he were philosopher king, abortions would be legal, but would only actually happen in rare cases.

Didja hear the right to lifers urged voting for clinton in the primaries?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5830082&mesg_id=5830082

[polmaven]

35. That may have been

one time, long before he was running for president and needing the fundy votes.

and, please....HRC and BO are so close on the issues you can barely tell them apart. There are not more than one or two issues about which they disagree in any substantial way. So please STOP already with the HRC is a Republican bull crap. Grow up!

[boppers]

37. A short list.

1. Lobbyists
2. Campaign tactics
3. Ethics
4. Cluster Bombs
5. Transparency of government
6. 50 states that matter
7. Bottom up, vs Top-down, government
...

HRC being anywhere close to him is a talking point to shield herself from people knowing the differences.

[polmaven]

38. Like I said...

Grow up.

[Amy6627]

48. I don't think HRC is a republican. She is a moderate. I voted for her

in the CA primary. And I WILL vote for her in the GE, just prefer Obama. I in no way she is the same as McCain. But I do not like her campaigning strategy or her advisers on such things as the war. HRC is better than any republican.

And I don't want to grow up and you can't make me! Nanna nanna nanna!

[polmaven]

49. Then you'll just have to

go to your room for a time out.....Or, maybe I'll go to my room.....Oh, never mind...You and I are evidently adult enough to disagree without being hateful toward one another, so lets to the barroom instead! :toast:

[Amy6627]

55. xxooxooox!

[highplainsdem]

63. Great idea!

:toast:

[leftynyc]

53. I agree with every word you said

Can't remember the last time I felt that way about a post on this board.

[Aloha Spirit]

11. Posting unity threads on a primary eve is like a marriage proposal during an argument, it's like

talking about peace in the middle east during a barfight, it's like hoping that all the horses can win the derby, it's like thinking toothpaste on an airplane is a terrorist threat.

It's like telling the guy you're about to fire that you really want him to come to the company picnic this summer.

[AllentownJake]

13. Best thing I read tonight!

[mckeown1128]

12. Nope... it depends on how the Democatic candidate gets the nom..

if Hillary steals the nom by changing the rules via FL and MI (creating non voter supported delegates) then I will not vote. I have principals and election fraud is where I draw the line. (if she steals the nom... I would sit out even if satan and the spirit of Hitler were running against her)

[Goodnevil]

17. That is unwise

and an attitude that will get us McCain. That would be bad. I respectfully disagree with that line of thinking.

Hillary can't break with her constituency or her party to such a degree as to mimic a Bush-McCain policy line. I voted Obama here in AR (not a popular thing to do by the way - still a lot of latent racism here), but if McCain wins I'm outta here.

As a point of fact, my family is pretty much planning a move to Canada soon no matter who wins but that's a different story. We're not terribly keen to find out how this whole story ends.

[still_one]

25. Actually we will have a 2/3 Democratic Congress. Will They reject judges who are Scalia like?

if they fight for us like they did the past eight years then we are doomed no matter who is president

[leftynyc]

54. A Democratic led Senate voted to confirm

Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Nuff said.

[still_one]

58. You are correct, and that is my unfortunate point /nt

[mckeown1128]

26. sorry but democracy is dependent on open and fair elections..

If Hillary becomes president by stealing the Democratic nomination (by misenfranchising MI and FL voters) then Democracy is worthless. I didn't like it when Bush stole the election and I wouldn't like if Hillary steals the election. I won't look the other way just because it is someone from my party trampling over democracy...

[depakid]

14. Depends on what state they live in

Frankly, I'd rather have people who're disgusted with both Dems turn out and vote for a third party AND for other Democratic candidates and progressive issues down ticket, than simply throw up their hands and stay home.

[TBF]

15. I will not apologize for refusing to vote for a republican running as a dem. I will vote for Nader

very happily. His views are closer to my own than either McCain or Clinton.

[aquarius dawning]

16. .

I'm not voting for Obama.

[Goodnevil]

18. Why?

I'm curious. I'm not harassing you in any way, I just like to hear people's opinions.

[moobu2]

21. I will never ever cast a vote for Borack............ EVER!!!

[Goodnevil]

24. True you will not be voting for Borack

because you cannot even spell his name. Although, it might be cooler if his name was Borack...more Klingon, really.

[stevietheman]

23. As long as the nominee has the most pledged delegates, I'm with you. n/t

n/t

[bowens43]

28. I will vote for the Dem nominee if they get the nomination legitimately.

[nebulovsky]

29. I would never vote for Nader

He pretends to be a progressive but is only out to ruining our chances.

[alcibiades_mystery]

30. Subversion of process is a deal breaker

I have no intention of sitting out the election "because (my) candidate isn't at the top of the ticket."

I will only sit out the election if the process is subverted by the eventual winner. I will happily and gladly support any candidate who wins within the rules of the process. If, however, a candidate changes rules midstream to win, then that's a deal brwaker for me. I cannot trust anyone in that position who will do that. End of story. You subvert one process, you have the potential to subvert any process, including constitutional processes. It goes to fundamental ethics and character.

I won't owe an apology to any damn body at all. The responsibility lies with the fanatics and fascists who will have subverted a clear democratic process in order to gain (a shot at power). You're blaming the victim(s), and it's despicable.

[JVS]

31. Don't blame liberals for 1968. It was conservative Democrats who made a new party and won several..

states.

[highplainsdem]

40. You mean the Wallace supporters who'd've backed Nixon otherwise?

You really think Wallace's pro-segregation voters would have voted for a liberal like Humphrey? The main champion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? One of the liberal champions of the civil rights plank at the 1948 convention that outraged some Southern Democrats so much they formed the Dixiecrat party and nominated Strom Thurmond?

Nixon would probably have won five more states without Wallace taking those rightwing votes away from him.

Humphrey lost by a narrow margin. And yes, I do hold the liberal/progressive Dems and independents who sat out that election, out of disappointment that their favorites weren't the nominees, at least partly responsible for Nixon's victory. I wouldn't expect racists to have the sense to vote for Humphrey. I expected liberals to have the sense to, when they knew Nixon would be the winner if Humphrey didn't win.

[JVS]

41. They had been democrats during FDR and JFK, they could have stayed for HHH.

It is fucked up to blame McCarthy supporters for a loss after mass defections by conservatives. Or is voting by your principles a privilege reserved for Southern racists?

[highplainsdem]

42. Racism isn't a "principle" - it's fear. It isn't rational choice.

And civil rights had become a basic enough issue, which had been pushed hard enough by Humphrey for 20 years before the 1968 election, that the segregationists weren't going to stay with the Democrats.

OTOH, if you're voting rationally, and the choice is between

1) sitting out an election or voting for a third-party candidate who can't win, and

2) voting for a candidate who's 90% in agreement with your favorite on the issues, so you can prevent the election of someone who disagrees with your favorite on almost all the issues

then it might be "principled" to refuse to vote for the person who's that close to your own views.

But it's also shooting yourself in the foot. Or, as someone else here said, cutting off your nose to spite your face.

And it's harmful to all the people who genuinely care about the issues on which those similar candidates are in agreement.

[olkaz]

33. If Hillary somehow finally destroys Obama permanently, I'll vote for her and leave the party.

Because any party that would reward this type of behavior has moved away from my values.

I'll be deciding whether I want to become a green or a left-libertarian.

[Robyn66]

34. Another point

if you sit out this election and McCain wins, in my opinion you will have to aknowledge that you are responsible for women losing the right to choose when the SCOTUS has a conservative majority, you have the blood of every American soldier and Iraqi civilian on your hands that dies or is maimed in this war without end. You will have sold your country out because you didn't get your way.

I am an Obama supporter but Hillary is still better than McCain.

[JustAnotherGen]

36. Look

I live in NJ. There is no way this state is going to vote Republican this November.

So if I write in: The Whiskey Man That Lives In My Tree . . . the Democrat is still going to get the NJ nod.

[Triana]

43. Hillary OR McCain WILL CONTINUE the power grabs of GWB - she has run her campaign that way..

...and I have NO REASON to believe she won't run the White House that way.

IF THIS WOMAN would tear this party apart and use NASTY, DIVISIVE, dirty, lowdown, race-baiting and smear tactics - REPUBLICAN tactics, the ENTIRE Rove playbook, and EVEN side with REPUBLICANS themselves (in bed with SCAIFE - using the RIGHTWING smear machine?) - even SURPASSING Republican nasty campaign tactics in some ways - to "win" against her Dem opponent - BECAUSE SHE APPARENTLY CANNOT WIN ON HER OWN MERITS - then she damn well WILL use:

Signing statements.

Executive orders.

The Supreme Court.

to CONTINUE to get her little way in the White House. It'll be just MORE of the 'beat-em-with-a-sledgehammer', knuckle-dragging, swaggering, chest-beating, 'my-way-or-the-highway' politics with Hillary. George W. bu$h has set precedent for this "style" of politics and ANY power-hungry narcissist like Hillary who follows him WILL USE THE SAME.

I have NO REASON - after the way that woman has run her campaign - to believe she WON'T.

McCain | Hillary - NO difference. And HILLARY is the one who has convinced me - without a doubt - that this will be the case.


NO THANKS.

[Khaotic]

50. If Hillary Goes Nuclear ...

and gets the nomination, then the Democratic Party isn't represented.

Checking her name is not voting for a Democrat.

If she gets it by going nuclear, I'm going green.

[BlooInBloo]

52. (shrug) What's the difference if Clinton obliterates 70 million or McCain does?

Because I don't have a good answer to that, I won't criticize any who refuses to vote for Clinton.


EDIT: Typo.

[Lyric]

56. I'm voting Dem because the country needs me to. At least this time.

But if it isn't either a Clinton/Obama ticket or an Obama/Clinton ticket, I'm gone come next election. I'm tired of this crap about half of the electorate being ignored by the "winning" half. I'll change my registration to Green for 2012. I'd rather vote for losers with integrity than losers without it.

[Nia Zuri]

57. Nope, if it's stolen, and handed to her, the Dems can kiss my

black a**. We cannot let them take our vote for granted. We must take a stand even if it's painful...we need to do this for our children and grandchildren.

[FlyingSquirrel]

60. I'll recommend, and although I'm 1000000% Obama

I've always stated that I'll vote for Hillary if necessary.

But it better not be necessary because she'll lose in spite of my vote.

[Seabiscuit]

62. Kick and Rec! nt

[highplainsdem]

64. Thanks!

:)

[DaDooRonRon]

66. So predictable

Preaching to the choir 101.

You won't mind if I don't take your advice now, will you?

Oh, and there is no such thing as a purist. There are folks who vote for the candidate who best represents their views, but I would call them informed voters.

On the other hand, there are those who vote for anything with a (D) or an (R) next to their names in the belief that it is very important that their side wins, and who will conveniently "overlook" positions that they would otherwise jump all over in a candidate not on their "team."

That would almost seem like lockstep voting, wouldn't it?

Kind of like what everyone says the "bad' guys do.

Interesting, isn't it?

P.S. "I don't care who your favorite Democratic candidate is. If you sit this election out and McCain wins, you will have helped elect him, and you will owe an apology to everyone hurt by McCain's election" is boilerplate mainstream bullshit. If ANYONE hurts the nation it is folks who vote not on principle, but on party.

[Seabiscuit]

67. As much as Obama's DU supporters nauseate me, I'll hold my nose and vote for him if

necessary to defeat McCainus.

[windbreeze]

68. I have to say this...

When you vote for the nominee...especially if it isn't your candidate of choice....remember...we have had a man in the WH for the last 8 years, who said it's my way or the highway, right from the get go...so now we have a candidate who refuses to give up, and is most likely going to take the selection for nominee right to the convention floor...her actions say, it's her way, or the highway...sound familiar?

I have been one of those that's said..I will vote for the Dem nominee, no matter who it is...but Hillary's actions may make me rethink that idea...

To all voters..let your personal integrity be your guide in Nov....wb