If you think there's no difference between the nominated Democrat and Republican...

[CT_Progressive]

... and you really believe that is true, then why not vote for the Democrat?

I'd like to hear the logic behind such a decision, because I can't think of any valid logic that would lead me to vote for the Republican (i.e. not vote, vote for a 3rd party, etc. which are all mathematically equivalent to voting for the Republican).

In other words, tell me how you personally will benefit by the election of a Republican President for 4-8 years.

I'm all ears. (well, eyes).

[bryant69]

1. That's not generally the contrast

Rather the contrast is between a Republican, a Democrat, and a Rabbi - I mean Third party Candidate.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[CT_Progressive]

2. Voting 3rd party is mathematically equivalent to voting for the Republican.

Proof:

Voting (D):

Vote Total before you vote:
(D): 99,999
(R): 100,000

Vote Total after you vote:
(D): 100,000
(R): 100,000

Result: You made a 1 vote difference in favor of (D)
====================================================
Voting (3rd Party):

Vote Total before you vote:
(D): 99,999
(R): 100,000

Vote Total after you vote:
(D): 99,999
(R): 100,000
(3): 1

Result: You made a 1 vote difference in favor of (R)

[bryant69]

3. Yeah but isn't that the point?

Voting against the Republican and the Democrat in favor of someone you actually like?

Bryant

[CT_Progressive]

6. No, that's not the point of an election.

Its to vote in your own best interests.

Voting 3rd party is voting AGAINST your best interests.

[bryant69]

9. You know I'm not a fan of Nderites, but come on

They think they are voting for a third party guy who better represents their interests. Voting for a watered down candidate like, say, Clinton, is voting against their interests.

Bryant

[CT_Progressive]

11. No, they are not voting in their best interests if they waste their vote.

Think of this analogy:

You are gambling.
The wager is... everything you own.
There are 3 candidates, the (R), the (D) and the (I).
The odds are %99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999 that either the (R) or (D) will win.
The odds are %0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 that the (I) will win.

Would you risk it all on the (I)?

Answer: No, unless your terminally stupid or absolutely horrible at math.

Yet, people are willing to make that bet when the only thing "on the line" is the leader of our country, and their principles get butt-hurt.

[bryant69]

15. What are the odds we are going to get watered down pansy candidates

if there is no punishment for the party putting up a watered down pansy candidate?

Bryant

[CT_Progressive]

16. Your statement is very flawed, and I want to point it out to everyone.

"the party putting up a watered down pansy candidate".

What?

The "party" doesn't put up ANY candidates. The candidates decide to run on their own. We then vote for them in the Primary.

The one that wins, is the one our party wanted the most. That's called Democracy.

Its not like the National Democratic Party has 100 Dennis Kucinich's in the back room, under lock and key, preventing them from running for President!

If you want better candidates in the Primary, ELECT BETTER CANDIDATES.

Your statement makes it seem like we're "stuck" with centrist, conservative or corpowhore candidates by fiat of Howard Dean. Its not true. Its because WE ELECTED them to office. Its because they get the votes to win elections. If Hillary wins the Primary, it will be because she got more DEM votes than the rest.

I'm so goddamn sick and tired of people bitching about Dems that WE elected to represent us.

[yardwork]

28. The term "pansy" is a slur against gay people and therefore offensive.

Slipping a little, aren't you? You usually do a better job trying to fit in.

[yardwork]

27. Interesting. Our resident moderate conservative thinks Clinton is "watered down."

That's perplexing. Just saying.

[bryant69]

60. I'm a moderate liberal, not a moderate conservative

And I make an effort to understand other people's points of view. And I'm not a Clinton supporter; I favor Edwards.

Bryant

[yardwork]

61. Then please make an effort to understand that the term "pansy" is offensive

when used in a derogatory way.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

48. No, that's simply wrong. It's exactly half as bad.

There are five cases to consider before you vote:

D<R-1: D => loss, (3) => loss, R => loss
D=R-1: D => draw, (3) => loss, R => loss
D=R: D => win, (3) => draw, R => loss
D=R+1: D => win, (3) => win, R => draw
D>R+1 D => win, (3) => win, R => draw

The middle three cases are equally likely; in one of them (3) is equivalent to D, in one to R, and in one it's half and half.

So it's exactly half way between D and R - or, in other words, exactly half as bad as voting Republican.

[magellan]

4. It's like asking the difference between a wolf

...and a wolf in sheep's clothing. One's initially less scary than the other, but either way, you're dinner.

[CT_Progressive]

5. Again, try reading what I wrote. If you believe they are the same,

why NOT vote for the (D)?

You don't have a good reason, do you?

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Because it would slow me down in my rush for the border. nt

[magellan]

8. I read what you wrote

And I gave you my answer. But okay, I'll elaborate. I've played the "vote for the lesser of two evils/hold your nose and vote Dem" game long enough and to great disappointment, thank you. This time I'll vote for the candidate who represents ME, and that's Kucinich. That's my responsibility as a voter, I can't control what others do, and I won't fall for the bullying tactics anymore.

[CT_Progressive]

10. I was referring to the general election, not the primary.

If kucinich loses the primary, will you vote(D) or will you vote (R) or will you vote (R) (by wasting your vote on a kucinich write-in)?

If you will vote (R), why?

[magellan]

13. I know what you were referring to

And your suggestion that I would be "wasting my vote" on a Kucinich write-in is your opinion, and incorrect. No one who does their homework before deciding who to vote for "wastes their vote", regardless of who they give that vote to; they engage in democracy. Too bad more don't try it instead of using manipulative innuendo and fear-mongering to herd votes for unworthy candidates.

Maybe when things get bad enough, Americans will wake up and demand something other than the status quo and finally fix this scam we call our election process. Until then, if the Dems want my vote, they can put forward a viable nominee who isn't neck-deep in the crapper of our government.

[CT_Progressive]

14. Yeah, there is a word for people like that: Naive.

If you vote 3rd party, you are wasting your vote.
This is a fact, not opinion, and there are 275 years of hard data to back it up.

While I applaud you on your principles, you need to take a trip to a little place I like to call "the real world" and own up to the fact that in order to protect yourself, your family, and your friends, you need to make sure the (R) does not get elected, and the only way to do that in 2008 will be to vote for the official (D). You need to own up to the fact that voting for the (I) is voting for the (R), admit it, accept it, grit your teeth, and then do what's right for yourself and the country, rather than whats theoretically principled.

It really pisses me off when people let their emotions totally overrule their logic.

You have 3 choices in 2008: (D), (R) or (R)(by 3rd party wasted vote). Get that through your head.

[magellan]

17. Get this through YOUR head

I'm not going to vote the way YOU want me to at YOUR say so, no matter how rude and insulting you are with your assumptions and little "educational" rants. So take your establishment Dems and shove them.

[CT_Progressive]

18. Then you're voting for the (R).

I'm not ordering you to vote for the (D) that wins the primary.

I'm simply TELLING YOU that if you don't, you are voting (R), which is against your own interests.
And that makes you stupid.

If you can't admit that to yourself, then you have a problem.

[magellan]

19. You know, every time I see someone asking a question like yours

...I hope against hope that they're truly interested in hearing the answer, and not just trying to lure others in so they can beat them over the head with how "stupid" they are. Because listening to why people choose to vote 3rd party, or not at all, is something the Dems could learn and benefit from. But it looks like this is just another flamebait thread. How very sad for you.

[CT_Progressive]

21. Its not a flamebait thread.

We're trying to let you know the difference between:

"The way things should be in a perfect world"

and

"Reality"



If you want an (R) elected in 2008, vote (R) or vote (I).
If you want a (D) elected in 2008, vote (D).

I wish the world were such, in 2008, that you could vote your principles and have it be meaningful.
But its not.

We can change the future only by changing who are our Dem candidates in the Primary.
We CANNOT change the future by casting a useless, wasted vote for an (I) in the General.

This is FACT, and if you do not listen to us, you are making a mistake, and jeapordizing OUR future by YOUR stupidity.

I am not trying to flame you - I dont even KNOW YOU. I am TRYING to educate you, because that is in MY OWN best interest.

[magellan]

23. Oh let's be honest, CT_Progressive

No answer other than a virtual bowing and scraping to your greater knowledge and a "Hallelujah, I've seen the light!" will do for you. You believe in democracy the way too many in America do these days: as long as it means everyone agrees with you.

And how modest of you to presume I and others need educating! For YOUR OWN best interest, no less! lol

Sorry, I've been through this too many times with others here and in person over the last 4 years. I did as was "recommended" and voted for the Dem candidates even when I didn't like them for being too corporatist and/or centrist. Not surprisingly, the result has been No Change. Now I'll do it MY way...if you don't mind too terribly much. Never again will I regret my votes.

[CT_Progressive]

24. Ahh, so its all about you.

You really don't care about other people, all you care about is yourself.

"Never again will I regret my votes."

Basically, you're saying, "I've given up the fight, let the (R) get into office, who cares, at least I can rub it in people's faces that I voted for Mr. 0% Chance."

YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOUR POSITION.

You've avoided even the attempt to defend your position. And that is because I proved, mathematically, that I am right. Voting 3rd party is the same as voting (R). And you've admitted that you don't care.

What else is left at this point? Nothing. You will vote (R) in 2008.

Do us all a favor.

Resign from DemocraticUnderground.com - you obviously don't belong here, and then change your party affiliation to Republican, since you will be voting that way.

[magellan]

26. You aren't persuasive

In fact I'm sitting here chuckling at how transparent you are. You can't take it that I won't agree with you so you go right back on the attack and say the most vicious things you can think of. Now you know ONE of the many reasons I'm fed up with the establishment Dems. Way to represent, I expected no less.

[stranger81]

54. if you really want people to vote your way,

then what the hell are you doing trying to alienate them?

Leaving aside the merits (and I'm one of the folks who wholly disagrees with you), surely there are more effective ways to accomplish your goal. Unless your ostensible goal is not your actual goal, in which case, well . . . . . perhaps you're the one that should "resign from DU."

Honestly, where are all these party brownshirts coming from?

[omega minimo]

57. you're setup is flawed so maybe drop the condescencion?

"there's no difference between the nominated Democrat and Republican..."


Does anyone actually say that? or is that a simplistic setup......

[CT_Progressive]

59. Finally someone got the entire point of this post.

[Old and In the Way]

12. I can understand the 2000 vote for Nader.

Some people like to be different and it's an easy way to say "hey, I'm different from the rest of the herd...I voted for ___________". Sure it was a wasted vote and sure it probably paved the way for this administration, but who had a crystal ball then to know how the next 8 years would really turn out?

But anyone who still wants to be different and vote for a Republican funded Nader is really saying, "I hate Democrats worse than Republicans." I obviously have no respect for a person who votes Republican today. But I have even less respect for any weasels that vote for Nader.

[mmonk]

20. The difference between someone who will burn the constitution

and one that will allow it to be burned is very little. I'm not playing that game anymore. The candidate has to stand correctly on the issues or hasn't earned my vote. I will do my part that a sufficiently decent person win but that is all I can do.

[CT_Progressive]

22. As long as you vote (D) in the general, thats fine.

[seemslikeadream]

29. I have never in 5 YEARS here EVER used the hide a thread and

have no one on ignore TILL NOW!

[ourbluenation]

25. SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS SCOTUS

SCOTUS
SCOTUS
SCOTUS
SCOTUS
SCOTUS

AND DID I MENTION

SCOTUS

:banghead:

[Milo_Bloom]

40. Souter, Souter, Souter, Souter, Souter

Did I mention, Souter?

As each of these candidates (except Kucinich) has PROVEN, they cannot be counted on to hold true to their principles.

What makes you think they won't offer a "Souter" comrpromise SC Nominee who winds up continuing to pull the court to the right?

[ourbluenation]

45. Huh? Souter was a Bush 1 appointee who has moved to the left.

rarely do leftie appointees move to the right if that's where you're going. of the 9 members all but 2 were repub appointments. the next 3 to likely go are liberals. if you think hillary or any dems will appoint someone who will move to the right your just nuts.

to me this is more important than any other issue...scotus appointments.

[Milo_Bloom]

46. I didn't think Hilary or the others would vote for WAR.

In fact, I would have called people nuts who suggested that John Kerry would have voted for the IWR and AGAINST the Levin Amendment.

Imaging my fucking surprise that day.


I don't trust Hilary with a supreme court nominee. I don't trust Edwards with a supreme court nominee. I don't trust Obama with a supreme court nominee. I don't trust ghouliani with a supreme court nominee. I don't trust Ron Paul with a supreme court nominee.

In short, the SC has become a complete non-factor in my voting decisions.

[ourbluenation]

49. I see - you don't trust any of them so your plan is to do what exactly?

__________________
fill in the blank

[Milo_Bloom]

50. Continue in the draft Gore movement...

and if he doesn't join, i am going to work towards getting a 3rd party on the ticket either via Unity 08 or other means and work towards that end.

[seemslikeadream]

30. BCCI

[seemslikeadream]

31. IRAN CONTRA

[seemslikeadream]

32. IRAQ WAR

[seemslikeadream]

33. IMPEACHMENT OFF THE TABLE

[seemslikeadream]

34. WAR WITH IRAN

[seemslikeadream]

35. What happens when unresolved scandals take a back seat to a domestic agenda?

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

My book, Secrecy & Privilege, opens with a scene in spring 1994 when a guest at a White House social event asks Bill Clinton why his administration didn’t pursue unresolved scandals from the Reagan-Bush era, such as the Iraqgate secret support for Saddam Hussein’s government and clandestine arms shipments to Iran.

Clinton responds to the questions from the guest, documentary filmmaker Stuart Sender, by saying, in effect, that those historical questions had to take a back seat to Clinton’s domestic agenda and his desire for greater bipartisanship with the Republicans.

Clinton “didn’t feel that it was a good idea to pursue these investigations because he was going to have to work with these people,” Sender told me in an interview. “He was going to try to work with these guys, compromise, build working relationships.”

Clinton’s relatively low regard for the value of truth and accountability is relevant again today because other centrist Democrats are urging their party to give George W. Bush’s administration a similar pass if the Democrats win one or both houses of Congress.

Reporting about a booklet issued by the Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Washington Post wrote, “these centrist Democrats … warned against calls to launch investigations into past administration decisions if Democrats gain control of the House or Senate in the November elections.”

[seemslikeadream]

36. Congressman Lee Hamilton, chairman of the House select committee investigating the Iran-contra affai

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/hamiltoniran-contra.htm

"......former Congressman Lee Hamilton, chairman of the House select committee investigating the Iran-contra affair, was shown ample evidence against Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, but he did not probe their wrongdoing. Why did Hamilton choose not to investigate? In a late 1980s interview aired on PBS 'Frontline,' Hamilton said that he did not think it would have been 'good for the country' to put the public through another impeachment trial. In Lee Hamilton's view, it was better to keep the public in the dark than to bring to light another Watergate, with all the implied ramifications. When Hamilton was chairman of the House committee investigating Iran-contra, he took the word of senior Reagan administration officials when they claimed Bush and Reagan were 'out of the loop.' Independent counsel Lawrence Walsh and White House records later proved that Reagan and Bush had been very much in the loop. If Hamilton had looked into the matter instead of accepting the Reagan administration's word, the congressional investigation would have shown the public the truth. Hamilton later said he should not have believed the Reagan officials. However, today, George W. Bush is considering appointing Hamilton UN ambassador."

[seemslikeadream]

37. As presidential candidates largely ignore the issue,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2177588

[Milo_Bloom]

38. Neither will effect me personally, HOWEVER...

In the long term, the country would benefit from a left leaning republican over a right leaning democratic candidate and even a right leaning republican over a right leaning democratic candidate.

The reality is that often times doing something half-assed is worse than not doing anything at all, because doing something half-assed has the illusion of solving a problem that hasn't been solved.

Lets look at the health care crisis as an example. Our currently health care system is horribly broken... not just because there are 41 million people unisured, because because even people WITH insurance have CRAPPY health care. With the exception of Kucinich ALL of the democratic plans completely fail to address the root of the problem (a money sucking middle man in the system) and instead feed the current problem to solve the "uninsured" problem.

So lets say we get a democratic president with a crappy health care plan, like Edwards, Clinton or Obama and they are able to get it passed b/c we have a democratic congress and Senate... Problem solved, right? Wait, it isn't... now we have 41 million more people in a crappy system, receiving sub-standard care and 2 possible results. #1) Perception is that the "problem" is solved, because "everyone is covered, so stop whining about it"... or #2) the GOP claims moral superiority in the issue claiming that the democrats BROKE the system by showcasing how many people are now receiving sub-standard care.

We can carry this forward on most of the issues for which the democrats are currently already offering comrpromises (War, Health Care, Environment, etc..)


Now, since heads are probably still exploding from my opening statement, here is the explanation.

This country has been in a long slow march to the right for about 30 years now. The democrats have continued to offer compromise candidates in an effort to appeal to the "right". This moves the virtual center further to the right and the "right" candidates move further to the right to adjust. What was once the actual left is now seen as the "fringe" left, when it is really where the left should be. Health Care as a right shouldn't be a "fringe" position, but that is what it has turned into in the democrats continual rush to appease.

Look at our recent history... Bush is an obvious follow through of Clinton and just took Clinton's policies to the natural republican end. Media consolodation, the current Iraq war, the corporatization of America... Many of these got their solid start in the Clinton administration, but it wasn't THAT FAR of a jump to the right for bush and is because Clinton started right of center.


Throwing up another compromise candidate like Edwards, Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Obama, who tries to appeal to the right by voting for their most outrageous legislation or appealing to their baser instincts(IWR, Bankrupcy, Kyl-Lieberman, Flag Burning, war funding, homophobia... and no, not all of these people voted for or participated in all of these, you can play mix and match if you wish) ultimately forces the right FURTHER to the right and in 2012, they will come back with Bush III (probably Jeb) and decimate the democratic candidate who has already compromised away their principles.


So the question becomes do want to keep shifting the country to the right or shift back? Shifting back requires 1 of 3 things to happen.

#1) A progressive democratic candidate gets elected.

#2) An independent candidate gets elected (Michael Bloomberg type who is a social liberal and fiscal conservative)

#3) A republican LEFT of bush in some fashion gets elected.

[LWolf]

39. That's bullshit.

"mathematically equivalent." :eyes:

It's a candidate's job to earn votes. The candidate that earns the most votes in a state wins the electoral votes.

Votes that are not cast for the nominated big 2 are not earned by either, and are not counted for either.

Nobody "owes" a vote to either the dem or the repub. A citizen's responsibility is to make an informed, reasoned, well-considered choice. Whether that vote should go to a particular party is opinion, not math. The only way to assume "mathematical equivalence" is to assume that the vote "belongs" to one, and then "take it away" when the vote is not forthcoming.



That's assumption. That's not mathematical equivalency. That's the political blame game:

"It's your fault I lost because you didn't do what I told you to." Or, to put it in party context,

"It's their fault we lost, because they didn't agree with us."

[CT_Progressive]

41. Yet, you didn't answer the original question.

If in your mind, the (D) and (R) are equally bad, state a clear, concise, valid reason NOT to vote for the (D).

Can you (or anyone) even do this?

[LWolf]

42. Sure.

Because, in the case you state, voting for the (D) or the (R) doesn't move the country forward. It's a wasted vote.

[CT_Progressive]

43. That still doesn't answer the question.

If they are identical, then why not vote for the (D)?

[LWolf]

44. Yes it does. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY EFFECT.

If you cannot comprehend that there is no point to choosing out of 2 equally bad choices, try this one on:

I choose not to be complicit in the bad results that occur when the bad choice wins.

[CT_Progressive]

51. My premise was that there is no difference, and your reponse is "there is no difference"

That doesn't answer the question.

Why not vote for the(D) ?

You have not provided an answer to this question. All you've done is repeat the premise.

[LWolf]

58. Words that come to mind: obtuse, narrow, ignorant, blind,

and all deliberately. I'm either talking to a 5 year old or an adult who has no desire to hear, or understand, the answers to his/her rhetorical question.

"No difference" in bad candidates means "no difference" in their work, and their effect on the nation.

If a voter wants change, then the voter will vote for difference. Not "no difference."

[Milo_Bloom]

47. I did... see above. (nt)

[CT_Progressive]

52. You did not make any statement indicating why to not vote for the (D)

All you did was complain about them all being bad.

That was the premise I started the OP with.

The answer to my question isn't the premise of the question. That's a cop out.

Face it - you can't actually answer the question: If they are the same, why NOT vote (D) ?

[CTyankee]

62. If it is any consolation to you, I once voted (I) and regretted it ever since.

It wouldn't have mattered anyway, Reagan won by a large margin. But my vote for John Anderson (I was disappointed in Carter) was one of the stupidest things I ever did, in my own opinion. I am sorry I didn't vote Democratic because I felt I wasted my vote on a guy who came in late to the campaign and didn't do the heavy lifting required to run the race.

I feel bad to this day for doing that. And I am an actively political Dem. I get involved, I argue in support for my candidate, I donate. I just can't see myself turning on my party.

If others don't like the system we have for nominating candidates, they should work for changes in that system. Starting at the grass roots. And knowing it will be long term.

It's interesting that both of us worked for Lamont and both of us feel this way. We were for changing the system and worked to change it. I wonder if some folks who were opposing you on this thread understood that you were coming from a position that valued the long haul. I wonder how many of them did the same thing...

[HooptieWagon]

53. Because not voting D pisses you off

and that amuses us. Now go ask your mommy for your binky and a tuck in.

[U4ikLefty]

56. Great answer!!! n/t

[omega minimo]

55. and there you have the logic of Dem leaders blowing off voters they think are trapped

:thumbsdown:

which will continue to cause more people to not vote at all.