Out here in California, in my Congressional District...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

We have a blue dog Democrat, Jane Harmon. I voted for her opponent in the primary, Marcy Winograd. Marcy lost.

A couple of days ago, I got my sample ballot, and I was leafing through it. Jane's name showed up, and I kid you not, I shuddered.

I thought to myself, she's the Democrat. I plan to vote a straight Dem ticket, but I loathe her. I decided then and there that I would not cast a vote for her.

I'm going to leave it blank. I just can't do it.

She will win. She always does.

This time, she has to do it without me.


Oh, and BTW, I have never done this before. I think it's time.

[denbot]

1. I also voted for Winograd, but I don't know if I will leave it blank..

I won't consider leaving that particular space blank, that would really go against my instincts. I think I can and will write in a vote for Mrs. Winograd

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Leaving it blank would sure as hell feel strange...

Writing in Winograd would make a statement. But would anyone notice?

[renegade000]

5. It would be more definitive than a blank at least n/t

[Blue_In_AK]

47. Writing in is good.

It makes a statement.

[Divernan]

64. I'm writing in the name of the progressive primary opponent to my Blue Dog

As in your congressional district, I know the Blue Dog will be re-elected - local Republicans love the way he votes. He's sold his vote out to such an extent that he has a HUGE campaign warchest (he's building it up for when he runs for the Senate). And his GOP opponent is an impoverished, extreme wingnut/laughingstock.

I'm one of many, many lifelong Dems in my county who are politically active, and none of the many I've talked to are campaigning for this particular Blue Dog congressman. We're working for all the other Dems on the slate, but have recognized what a mistake it was to elect this DINO and are gearing up for defeating him in two years in the next primary. Politicians DO look at write-ins.

[BzaDem]

3. Just imagine a nice, solid oval on your ballot next to Republican Fein's name.

Because that's exactly what you are doing, regardless of whether you admit it/acknowledge it.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. As I said. If there were any chance the Republican would win.

I would be voting for Harman. There is no chance of that. I have lived here a long time, and I know what I'm talking about.

[BzaDem]

6. Then what are you trying to do? Lower the total number of votes for Democratic candidates, so the

media can spin a false narrative about a total rejection of liberalism/etc etc etc?

Voting is not for "sending a message," and the message that gets sent is usually the opposite that you intended. If Harmon has a smaller margin this time around, she is likely going to take that as a signal to go right (not left).

[CaliforniaPeggy]

9. I think you misunderstand me.

I'm going to vote. Just not for her. I am going to vote for all the other Democrats on the ballot.

You know, she does respond to pressure. The last time Winograd ran against her, Jane won, but she started to move left. She saw where the electorate was going, and she responded appropriately.

You say that she would be more likely to move right if she sees lower voter turnout numbers. Why do you say that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Actually you are wrong

from a Poli Sci perspective, not a partisan one, protest votes are very common in the US, and are the MEANS to show displeasure.

THEY ARE noticed, if not by partisans.

I really dislike blind partisanship, don't care who does it. Most blind partisans really do not understand the political process as well as they think they do either. And that goes for BOTH sides by the way.

[BzaDem]

17. Our electoral system is completely based on party. "Voting for specific candidates" is a ruse

that easily manipulated people fall into. They are manipulated into thinking that this candidate might be more independent from their party, etc etc etc. In reality, a vote not for a Democrat (or no vote) is aiding, abetting, and enabling Republican control of Congress (whether "protest voters" acknowledge it or not).

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. Go study some political science and political history

please.

None of the above is effective at changing rep behavior.

[Blue_In_AK]

51. Authoritarian much???

Good grief.

[TBF]

65. Right, the money party which owns both wings. nt

[Blue_In_AK]

50. Don't lecture Califorania Peggy

for having a conscience and being true to her principles. Who are you to tell her how to vote? Is this still a democracy?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

53. Thank you, my dear Blue...

I appreciate your support.

[Le Taz Hot]

69. OH, fer crissake!

It's HER vote, she can do with it what she will. I've no idea what the rest of your incoherent screed was about. You need to take it down a few notches there as you're NOT helping your party,

[BzaDem]

7. Besides, Harman specifically broke from the blue dogs to support a public option

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-jane-harman/why-were-breaking-with-th_b_318743.html

"Far from being an option of last resort or a government-funded takeover of the country's health care system, we see the public option as a critical market mechanism that will drive down costs, foster competition and expand Americans' insurance choices.

This is not just smart health care policy, it is smart economic policy.

A Gallup-Healthways survey has identified more than 290,000 uninsured people in our congressional districts alone. This is astonishing, and, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, their medical care cost local hospitals and other health care providers $65 million last year.

How can providers stay afloat in the face of such expenditures? By charging people who have insurance more. A recent study by the Center for American Progress found that more than 10 percent of the average Californian's premiums, approximately $500 each year, goes to covering the cost of caring for the uninsured.

Expanding coverage will greatly reduce the costs of uncompensated care and alleviate a major drag on the state and national economies. A public option is necessary to reach that goal."

[CaliforniaPeggy]

10. OK, there's one good thing she did.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

8. Good for you for not punishing the other down ticket candidates.

That's what many of us have literally been begging people to do. The folks on the down ticket need our votes even when we cannot support what's at the time. That's where the real change comes from. I hope others follow suit,,,

[CaliforniaPeggy]

12. And I would NEVER do that.

That would be completely unreasonable.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

23. Sorry. I meant to type "even when we cannot support those at the TOP"!!

[proud patriot]

13. likely a very safe seat

I don't begrudge you that .

[CaliforniaPeggy]

15. Absolutely it is.

And I thank you!

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. As a student of political science I can assure you

if enough people in your district do this... it will reach your rep, even if she wins.

Being a closer race than it should be... usually is a signal that they understand.

Of course blind partisans do not understand that.

Thankfully my rep is actually pretty liberal.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

16. I have no idea if anyone else is doing this.

The thought just came to me a couple of days ago...

I know if I were running, I would be paying attention to the margin, whichever way it went.

You're lucky with your pretty liberal rep.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. And they do, all and every one of them

the problem is, if they understand what it means. But every member of congress running, and candidate for it... at the end of the day... looks at those margins. They also look at the number of Mickey Mouse, Daffy Duck, primary candidate cast and empty ballot Yes, they are counted, not by name or what have you, They mean, none of the above. And they do send a signal to all involved.

Partisans do not get it. But truly this is why Partisans try to encourage people NOT to cast essentially a none of the above vote. It might change how they do their work when they go back, and that scares partisans (on both sides)

[Le Taz Hot]

71. I do it all the time.

Actually, I write in instead of leaving it blank as I feel it's important that my vote go somewhere. I had to do it with Feinstein last time but, as you know, she was safe. Living in the Central Valley I also have to go the other way -- hold my nose and vote for the (wink, wink) "Democrat."

[KeepItReal]

44. Which is a better move? Write-in a better Democrat or skip that particular race?

I'm interested in what sends a more effective message.

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. It is a margin game

and both are seen as none of the above, as well as mickey mouse, and daffy duck...

It tells the winner, whoever it is, especially if the margin is much lower than expected, that the district is not happy.

They rarely ask for the actual number of votes for daffy ducks, et al. I wish they kept count.

[KeepItReal]

52. I think I will write-in Marcy Winograd. "None of the above" may infer indifference.

I do want to send a pointed message that there is a better Democrat for the seat - Winograd just didn't win the primary vs. Harman.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. Sadly it falls into the category of none of the above

with Daffy Duck.

The votes are counted as OTHER...

But a message it still sends.

If they have to look at the ballots one by one... then somebody might notice though.

[Vickers]

20. "She will win. She always does."

Lordy, lordy, I hope you're right.

I remember CLEARLY my liberal friends here in Florida saying they were going to vote for Nader back in 2000 to "send a message" or something like that...

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. And your friends included the Secretary of State

and five members of the USSC? Just saying...

I get so tired of that revisionist "history."

IT WAS A COUP.

[Vickers]

25. My apologies. I'm not revising anything.

I'm just giving a first-hand account of what actually happened, *before* the USSC bullshit, but hey, if it makes you feel better to denigrate a fellow DUer's version of things as they saw it, have at it!!!

:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

(Oh, and fuck any Naderites who happen to read this...maybe you should go to naderunderground.com or sumpin, eh? )

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. Yes, and the SOS that disqualified far more

people who'd vote while democrat and black. FAR MORE than the FEW naderites that were in the state who's votes were not Gore's to begin with.

Just scratching the surface...

And if you don't like getting challenged on this common view with actual history, I am sorry. But I've had it. Blame people for like actually voting, while ignoring the tens of thousands REMOVED from the rolls who COULD NOT vote, for crimes that were to be committed in 2013. The ones who stole the election thank you for your service in ignoring the every so popular voter suppression. I mean LET'S IGNORE THE REAL CRIME, shall we?

[Vickers]

33. I'm sorry if you interpreted my post as the sole reason for Gore's Florida loss.

I mentioned only one dynamic, but it will be one that will inevitably play out in several elections in a few weeks.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. I am betting the other much larger dynamic

is gonna be ignored as usual.

We live in a caste society, not obvious, but we do.

[Vickers]

38. You should start a thread on those concerns if they are that important to you. n/t

[Lucian]

27. I agree.

People who blame Nader never look at the bigger picture on how the Supreme Court and Katherine Harris allowed Bush to win. THAT part they ignore.

[Vickers]

31. I concede that Harris and the USSC and JEB! and the media etc. are complicit

but to deny the contribution of misguided votes for Nader is short-sighted at best.

[Lucian]

40. Blame any of the third-party candidates in Florida in 2000.

How come nobody blames Workers World Party candidate Monica Moorehead, who received 1,500 votes in Florida? If people didn't vote for her and voted for Gore instead, Gore would've won.

[nadinbrzezinski]

42. Don't forget the pretty largish Jews for Buchanan demographic

:-)

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Diggin' into voter suppression really takes

a lot of work. Not easy to find, and it goes into the caste system of the US. So a lot of people rather mostly blame white voters who were not in the bandwagon... and it is not even conscious.

[Vickers]

37. That is not my only concern with the 2000 election, but I was trying to confine my

remarks in this thread to the issues originally posed in the OP.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

24. I'm sure she will.

I'm not casting a vote for someone else.

This district has more Republicans than Democrats (if my memory serves), but the Republicans are moderates, and not Tea Party types at all.

They tend to be well educated and upper middle class sorts. The Democrats are the same.

I would never vote for someone else in the general election. That would just be wrong.

[Vickers]

28. "I'm not casting a vote for someone else."

Fair enough, my old friend.

I think that the Crist-Nader dynamic here in Florida has coloured my thoughts about voting outside of an absolute preference, so I offer my apologies.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

30. Ah, no worries!

No need to apologize...

:hug:

[Vickers]

39. Eh, I'm getting used to apologizing on DU.

:loveya:

[Lucian]

22. I'm tired of all the blind partisanship.

I think it's about time we step up to the plate and send a message to the blue dogs. Sure, people say "well it's better than a republican." While true, but many blue dogs are republican enablers anyways, so what difference does it make?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

26. Thank you. I feel the same.

[pinboy3niner]

49. I have the opposite problem--or , at least, a different one

My solid red district in the Antelope Valley, the 25th, is represented by Republican Buck McKeon, and our party doesn't even try to make a strong challenge to him. It seems like the dems here will nominate and field just about any yahoo who puts his or her name forward.

This year, once again, my vote for another weak dem candidate won't actually be FOR "my" candidate--it will be a vote AGAINST McKeon. (Googling this race will quickly lead to "my" candidate's two facebook pages, which probably constitute 90 percent or more of her "campaign.")

That's what I'm voting for, just to vote against MeKeon. If my very weak, not highly-qualified candidate were to win, even that would be an improvement...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

55. You do what you can, with what you have to work with.

I have voted against a candidate too, and I suspect most of us have as well...

[pinboy3niner]

56. But on the positive side, we have Boxer and Brown

I'll be out canvassing or phone-banking for Boxer this week, and will be doing the same for Brown.

We do have some great candidates about whom we can be very enthusiastic. It's not all DebbyDownerLand in CA--not by any means. :)

[aquart]

62. COMMITTEE CHAIRMANSHIPS!

Jesus H. Christ. The difference is committee control. You think the bills we have now are bad?

[Divernan]

66. Some will respond re majority of a chamber and committee chairmanships

i.e., would a GOP be speaker of the house, etc. But at this point I am so disgusted with the DINO Blue Dogs and Obama's demonstrated acceptance/encouragement of the Blue Dogs, that I agree with one poster in another thread who pointed out that Obama has the veto power, and he can use that liberally for the next two years if he truly disagrees with the GOP/Blue Dogs.

Obama should force votes on controversial issues, even if he knows he can't win. MAKE the GOP/Blue Dogs deliver on their threats to filibuster. That puts the GOP/Blue Dogs on the record. THEN Obama can compromise/triangulate/give away the store to special interests to his heart's content.

As an example of giving in to Big Health Insurance, I read on CBS News.com blog of Oct. 7, 2010:
"The federal government has granted 30 companies and organizations, including CIGNA (265,000 enrollees) and Aetna (209,423 enrollees) one-year waivers to exempt them from one of the newly-implemented health care reforms.. . . Exemptions to date apply to insurance plans for nearly a million people. . . . The waivers were granted after insurers threatened to raise premiums dramatically or drop the limited-benefit plans all together rather than pay for the additional coverage."

[KeepItReal]

35. I'm with you, CaliforniaPeggy.

The thought of having to vote for Jane Harman (only because she is a D) at the same time as I vote for Barbara Boxer and Jerry Brown makes me wanna throw up.

I do like the idea of a write-in vote for Marcy Winograd. Gonna give that some thought.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

43. It is a good thought...

And one I think highly appropriate.

[ThomCat]

36. Good for you.

She may win, but she doesn't need your seal of approval. Let her know that she doesn't have a mandate.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

41. My dear ThomCat!

Thanks for checking in!

Whaddya know......I can be political!

And your sentiments are spot on.

:hug:

[Blue_In_AK]

46. It's a good step, California Peggy.

There have been times when I've withheld my votes from Dems, as well. Not often, but I do occasionally write someone in, as I did in 2008 when my preferred progressive candidate lost in the primary. When I was younger I used to "settle," but these days I'm listening to my conscience and only voting for candidates I believe in, especially on the local level.

People here in Alaska are trying to convince Democrats and left-leaning independents to write in Lisa Murkowski for Senate because they think she has a better chance of defeating Teabagger Joe ... notwithstanding the fact that even some of Alaska's most popular and iconic politicians were unable to mount successful write-in campaigns. It's true that she had a 70% approval rating before the primary, but she lost, whether she likes it or not.

Keep your fingers crossed for us. Can you imagine Alaska with two Democratic senators?

[CaliforniaPeggy]

48. Two Democratic Senators in Alaska?

Wow, that would be a miracle!

I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Withholding a vote is completely new for me. I wonder how it'll feel once I'm in the voting booth...

[Blue_In_AK]

54. Liberating.

[jotsy]

57. I rec'd this thread.

:hi:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

58. Thank you, my dear Jotsy!

:hi:

[NBachers]

59. I donated to Marcy; I'm in the Bay Area but not Harmon's district. I'd vote for her

and then run her ragged with pressure and oversight for the duration of her term.

And, from what I've seen of you, California Peggy, you're just the person for the job.

But, yes, in the past, I've made symbolic vote gestures when my principles demanded. Now it seems like we're in the middle of a huge high-stakes crisis here, and symbolic gestures are dilution we don't need. But when aren't we in the middle of a huge high-stakes crisis?

On very very rare occasions, Harmon makes me say, "Wow- Jane Harmon actually did something I really agree with."

Not telling you how to vote- I'm just giving you the feedback you asked for.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

60. And I thank you for that feedback.

[blondeatlast]

61. I truly believe that those of you in sure-thing areas SHOULD do this

as long as you can be absolutely certain the R can't win.

We've got to become a party again. I've had to hold my nose so many times. Kudos for bravery, CP. I honestly don't know what I would have done, I don't have the luxury of sure D wins.

[Divernan]

67. The Blue Dogs aim to completely take over the Dem. party - we have to stop them

or we end up with TWO parties controlled by the same corporate money.

[unhappycamper]

63. Every time Steve Lynch comes up for re-election unopposed,

I write in 'Attila The Hun'. I really detest this warmonger.

[hayu_lol]

68. You really have three choices...

1. Write in Winograd.

2. Leave the slot blank.

3. Vote for the dipshit Repugnant...

and then barrage the Repug with demands to do this and that including organized visits to the local office. Hold the Repugs feet to the fire.

When we get the Blue Dogs out, then we can start to rebuild the party.

[mdmc]

70. 1

r

[lunatica]

72. You're doing what you know is the right thing

The reason so many people don't do the right thing is because it's so damn hard to do. It takes bravery to do what you're doing. Jane Harmon is not good for California, or for the country. Your non vote counts as all votes, against, for or abstained are equally valid.

[WhiteTara]

73. my ballot has Blanche Lincoln's name on it

this will be a nose holding ordeal for me, but vote for the woman, I will.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

74. At some point --

you just have to stop enabling bad candidates. I voted for DiFi her first go around -- she hasn't gotten my vote since and (for better or worse) she has managed to win just fine without my vote. Fear is keeping far too many bad politicians in office. Maybe it's time for us all to stop being afraid.

The older I get and the further I move away from Party politics the happier I am. :shrug:

On edit: I woudl write in Marcy. That way you are voting for your real choice and sending a message to Jane needs to hear.

[Johonny]

76. All she did was save the Aerospace industry in her district!

without her help her district would have lost thousands of jobs other the last 10 years. She both sucks and doesn't suck. I'm sorry a more progressive didn't win the primary. But she does help the southbay economy and I will vote for her.