HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Here's why advocating thi...

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:50 AM

Here's why advocating third party votes for president annoys me.

No substantial progress ever came from the leaders. None of it. They always have to be dragged by the will of the people.

Real change is every day. It's issues. It's local and it's about bills and contacting legislators and spreading the word about those bills and issues. It's most definitely not about helping to elect a president who will make the job of bringing about significant change even HARDER.

Furthermore, you don't start building at the top, you lay the foundation first. The right didn't get where they are in 8 years, it took decades. Electing someone like Kucinich would be awesome, but they'd still have to work with congress to get anything done, and we see how much luck Kucinich has had on that front already.

The fact that candidates who we agree with have zero luck getting elected says to me that we have a whole hell of a lot of groundwork to do before we can expect to have an administration that is to any measurable degree left of center. Until we change the minds of the people casting the votes, we can rail forever against whatever candidates let us down, but it wont' change a thing. To bring about change we should be railing against counterproductive and harmful ideas, and advocating ones that help.

They have more money, but we have more people. It would be helpful IMO (and also less divisive) if we could stop focusing on candidates, and start engaging in the hard work the right wing engaged in for decades (and is still busy engaging in) in order to push their agenda forward. (This of course is not the case in primary elections, during which focusing on a candidate is of course the only reasonable course of action.)

91 replies, 5923 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 91 replies Author Time Post
Reply Here's why advocating third party votes for president annoys me. (Original post)
redqueen Jan 2012 OP
FSogol Jan 2012 #1
katsy Jan 2012 #2
MineralMan Jan 2012 #3
Jackpine Radical Jan 2012 #4
redqueen Jan 2012 #6
Jackpine Radical Jan 2012 #8
FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #5
BlueCaliDem Jan 2012 #17
former9thward Jan 2012 #50
BlueCaliDem Jan 2012 #63
tallahasseedem Jan 2012 #7
AtomicKitten Jan 2012 #30
BlueCaliDem Jan 2012 #64
Scurrilous Jan 2012 #9
patrice Jan 2012 #10
Zorra Jan 2012 #11
Romulox Jan 2012 #12
redqueen Jan 2012 #15
Romulox Jan 2012 #18
redqueen Jan 2012 #20
Romulox Jan 2012 #21
redqueen Jan 2012 #24
Romulox Jan 2012 #31
redqueen Jan 2012 #34
Romulox Jan 2012 #35
redqueen Jan 2012 #36
patrice Jan 2012 #40
frylock Jan 2012 #42
redqueen Jan 2012 #43
patrice Jan 2012 #46
frylock Jan 2012 #69
Romulox Jan 2012 #47
patrice Jan 2012 #49
Romulox Jan 2012 #51
patrice Jan 2012 #53
patrice Jan 2012 #55
dionysus Jan 2012 #71
treestar Jan 2012 #75
_ed_ Jan 2012 #79
redqueen Jan 2012 #80
patrice Jan 2012 #23
Romulox Jan 2012 #29
patrice Jan 2012 #32
Romulox Jan 2012 #33
patrice Jan 2012 #37
Romulox Jan 2012 #45
patrice Jan 2012 #52
treestar Jan 2012 #73
Sarah Ibarruri Jan 2012 #13
frylock Jan 2012 #44
Sarah Ibarruri Jan 2012 #62
frylock Jan 2012 #68
Sarah Ibarruri Jan 2012 #77
progressoid Jan 2012 #59
Sarah Ibarruri Jan 2012 #61
progressoid Jan 2012 #65
Sarah Ibarruri Jan 2012 #66
progressoid Jan 2012 #67
Sarah Ibarruri Jan 2012 #76
progressoid Jan 2012 #78
Sarah Ibarruri Jan 2012 #83
A Simple Game Jan 2012 #81
Sarah Ibarruri Jan 2012 #84
Spazito Jan 2012 #14
GeorgeGist Jan 2012 #16
BlueCaliDem Jan 2012 #19
redqueen Jan 2012 #22
BlueCaliDem Jan 2012 #57
redqueen Jan 2012 #60
TreasonousBastard Jan 2012 #25
redqueen Jan 2012 #27
A Simple Game Jan 2012 #85
BlueCaliDem Jan 2012 #58
msongs Jan 2012 #26
redqueen Jan 2012 #28
Yavin4 Jan 2012 #38
TBF Jan 2012 #39
patrice Jan 2012 #41
messiah Jan 2012 #48
patrice Jan 2012 #54
whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #56
redqueen Jan 2012 #70
SidDithers Jan 2012 #82
whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #86
SidDithers Jan 2012 #89
Kaleko Jan 2012 #88
SidDithers Jan 2012 #90
whatchamacallit Jan 2012 #91
deacon Jan 2012 #72
redqueen Jan 2012 #74
Jim Lane Jan 2012 #87

Response to redqueen (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:52 AM

1. K & R. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:53 AM

2. Very well said.

It takes hard work at the local level. It will not be easy or quick. But it will be imperative to get working in our own neighborhoods/towns/cities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:55 AM

3. Nicely stated.

The work begins now. It's so easy to get involved with Democratic politics at the local level. Doing so gives you a voice that can't be overestimated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 11:59 AM

4. You're absolutely right.

And maybe that's where all political systems, nominally Marxist or nominally capitalist, rapidly drift into authoritarianism of one variety or another.

The politicians are supposed to be expressions of the will of the people, truly "public servants," but they always seem to end up consolidating power, and the care & feeding of their power becomes their primary objective. They automatically serve the interests of those who can best support them, and that support is always measured in the currency of the realm, la Citizens United.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:03 PM

6. Until society changes significantly,

I think that will always be a problem.

Here's why I think that will remain to be the case, even if we take money out of the equation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:14 PM

8. No particular dispute there.

And I appended a comment to that other thread you linked to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:01 PM

5. There will be no 3rd party in America for many reasons but the simplest one is because

the American people will not stand to be represented by a President that doesn't get the majority vote. No one will be happy with a President who is elected to represent ALL of the American people yet won his/her election garnering only 37% of the popular vote. A Nation divided in half is already un-unifying, a Nation divided in 1/3s and we may as well just become separate countries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:40 PM

17. I totally agree.

Look how the GOP and corporate America were able to paint President Clinton because he didn't get the majority vote when it was split three ways. He was considered illegitimate until he won his second term handily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #17)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:17 PM

50. Actually he did not get 50% in the second term.

He got 49% so that is not exactly winning handily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #50)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:33 PM

63. Compared to Dole's 41%, Clinton's 49%

to become the first Democrat since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win reelection is pretty handily to me.

Clinton carried thirty one states and the District of Columbia for 379 electoral votes, while Dole won 19 states and 159 electoral votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:05 PM

7. K&R

Keeping the Senate and taking back the House is crucial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tallahasseedem (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:12 PM

30. Yes indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tallahasseedem (Reply #7)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:34 PM

64. All important

if we want to speed up getting more policies into law without being shot down consistently.

The WH is important, too, since we're hearing that maybe 3 justices are planning to retire in the coming four years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:16 PM

9. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:21 PM

10. Beginning in all ways with one's self, then, gives one the right, & options, to BRING! IT! to

*A*N*Y*O*N*E else, which is significant power in and of itself, but also Xs n then becomes = power Xs n.

IMHO, this is the functional principle of all free women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:23 PM

11. occupy nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:24 PM

12. Why don't the "centrists" have to kiss anyone's ass or "be patient" to see their agenda implemented?

Corporatists aren't being told to be patient...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:26 PM

15. Because they have powerful interests on their side.

It's a lot easier to get stuff done when all the powerful people are providing a gale force wind at the backs of everyone in the halls of power.

And even with that, they took decades to get this far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:45 PM

18. and it is imperative that I align myself behind those powerful interests...why?

"And even with that, they took decades to get this far"

I don't think centrists understand--it's not the pace of the journey that we are unhappy about--it's the DESTINATION we have a problem with!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #18)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:47 PM

20. This is about votes for the president.

If you don't align with the Dem candidate, you get a rightwing extremist.

Do you think that helps make things easier? That it is somehow a good thing?

Some people think so, and if you do then fine, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:51 PM

21. Sounds like extortion. My question is why the so-called "centrists" are never called upon to

sacrifice for the sake of keeping the "extremists" out of power?

Your first answer was the honest one; your second makes little sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #21)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:53 PM

24. It's just reality.

What on earth do you think the "centrists" should sacrifice for the sake of keeping the GOP out of the White House?

Remember, we're talking about the presidency here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:22 PM

31. LOL. And 2010, was also "reality". Keep on demanding people sacrifice for you, though. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #31)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:36 PM

34. Where did I demand ANYTHING?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #34)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:39 PM

35. You're asking us to align behind a "centrist" agenda, which means SACRIFICE for regular

people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #35)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:40 PM

36. Um, no. I gave my opinion.

I didn't ask anyone for anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #35)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:56 PM

40. Your assumptions are YOUR limitations, not others'. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #40)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:07 PM

42. this whole thread is just a kinder, gentler, more verbose version of STFU and vote..

for obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #42)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:09 PM

43. Completely untrue.

1. I didn't say anyone should shut up. I simply explained why that kind of advocacy annoys me, personally.

2. The word "verbose" implies I used more words than were necessary, and I did not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #42)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:12 PM

46. Promoting awareness =/= STFU. Your characterisation suggests bias. Have you heard of OWS?

The Occupy movement is about community awareness and respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #46)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 04:05 PM

69. and a lot of people here wish OWS would just go away..

they're afraid that OWS helps make the dems look bad, when everyone knows it's the dems that make dems look bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #40)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:12 PM

47. And your incoherence? Is it an asset? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #47)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:16 PM

49. How very vertical of you! Please consider, "IMO" or provide specific definition related to specific

instances of "incoherence" and "asset", so that others can decide for themselves about OP, since, after all, just saying something doesn't make it true.

But then, perhaps, I should not expect that from anyone who advocates against empiricism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #49)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:18 PM

51. More gibberish. What a bizarre attempt at persuasive argument. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #51)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:33 PM

53. More disrespect = more proof of limitation. And . . .

Isn't arguing against empiricism just a little bizarre?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #51)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:53 PM

55. Make that, please tell us why/HOW mutually assured political destruction is good for people &

, while you're at it, how that makes you different from Tea-thugs and Reich-wing Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #51)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 05:51 PM

71. someones upset their fringe candidates get laughed at... lash out if it makes you feel better...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #21)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 06:09 PM

75. The centrists are in the center

The majority will coalesce around the center. The center is where most people are, or are closer to. In politics, a majority has to be created.

The center is the center because is stands for something most people are comfortable with. In a democracy there is no reason for either extreme to get their way, and it's up to them to move the center towards their side.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #20)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 06:55 PM

79. I have a serious question for you

Given your premise: that if you don't vote for a Democrat, you get a right wing extremist. Do you think that if you were a Democratic leader, that you could not exploit this sort of "political hostage taking" to the extent that you could really do whatever you wanted as long as you were not as nuts as the Republicans?

Do you think our politics has swung wildly to the right since about 1980 or so? Given your above premise, that Republicans are always completely unacceptable, couldn't Democrats then kowtow to corporate money as much as they wanted? Move as far right as they wanted, as long as they weren't "fucking crazy" like Newt or Mitt?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to _ed_ (Reply #79)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 07:09 PM

80. Yes of course,

and I'm sure that's exactly why we've moved this far to the right.

There's an old saying... 'whatever the traffic will bear'... and apparently USian voters will bear a whole hell of a lot, especially if you can convince them that serving the 1% is somehow a good thing. It's been working very, very well for a very, very long time. As long as it stays so effective, there's no way we'll be able to make any significant change. That's why IMO we need to focus our efforts on groundwork. Convincing friends and neighbors that our agenda is the best one, and leveraging that voter support to elect more progressive Democrats or a third party if that's your bag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:53 PM

23. Authentic centrism would BALANCE forces, not destroy. The questions are about HOW to do that

in a way that actually survives and IS sustainable, i.e. ongoing, into the future, a living balance.

We can't pretend that corporatists are NOT there. And we are not going to do to them what some of them would do to us, a.k.a. "The Final Solution", either physically or psychologically.

We should NOT pretend that they will somehow cease to have any effect on everything; we should not pretend that they will just stop taking down what we build up. We need to SEE how they do that and respond effectively and appropriately.

Corporatists are a fact; the questions are about in WHAT form/function relative to the Whole. IMO, that's what authentic centrism tries to discover in the relationships between all factors and, being authentic, where it finds imbalances in power, as in our status quo, it acts to appropriately strengthen the disadvantaged factors for the purpose of establishing relationships that, in and of themselves, mitigate imbalances, without losing functionally valued qualities in ANY of the elements, left or right and everything betwixt.

Real centrism is much harder than being more exclusive/simplified/authoritarian/vertical, but it has the advantage of the necessity of always being grounded in the most fundamental experiences of ALL of the actual people, not just media horseshit constructs, or just quantitative polling, or religious abstractions, or money, or any of the bullshit that substitutes for living facts these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #23)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:10 PM

29. A "REAL Centrist" sounds similar to a "TRUE Scotsman", then; actual "centrism" is

simply another term for corporate rule.

" authentic centrism tries to discover in the relationships between all factors and, being authentic, where it finds imbalances in power, as in our status quo, it acts to appropriately strengthen the disadvantaged factors for the purpose of establishing relationships that, in and of themselves, mitigate imbalances, without losing functionally valued qualities in ANY of the elements, left or right and everything betwixt. "

The problem with this is it is a Utopian philosophy, without any actual supporting evidence in the system under which we live.

"Real centrism is much harder than being more exclusive/simplified/authoritarian/vertical, but it has the advantage of the necessity of always being grounded in the most fundamental experiences of ALL of the actual people, not just media horseshit constructs, or just quantitative polling, or religious abstractions, or money, or any of the bullshit that substitutes for living facts these days."

Similar to REAL Communism, in that respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #29)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:29 PM

32. No evidence? These are the sorts of things that families, and women in particular, have done

for millenia.

The mental programming that manifests as false dichotomies is breaking, not that there are no dichotomies, just that people are going to remember that IF there are those elements can be identified amongst themselves on a case by base basis.

People dealing with their own actual lives rather than with what they are TOLD are their lives = Communism?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #32)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:34 PM

33. We're talking about the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, at this time. Your asides are odd,

to say the least.

"People dealing with their own actual lives rather than with what they are TOLD are their lives = Communism?"

You latched on to the wrong word--it's the UTOPIANISM of your position am I comparing to theoretical Communism, not your political philosophy. I was simultaneously making reference to the frequent claim that "REAL communism not being tried yet."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #33)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:47 PM

37. Federal, or otherwise, government "... of, by, and for the people" is utopian = DYSTOPIAN = you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patrice (Reply #37)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:11 PM

45. Gibberish. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #45)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:29 PM

52. Name calling is so mature and useful. If I used a name for you that suggests you are possibly one

who assumes power for power's sake alone, and seeks any ends-justifies-the-means of acquiring that power, including disrespect for the understandings and experiences of those with whom you disagree, just like certain figures in world history, some of whom are referred to as "divine right" monarchs and if, based upon #45, I called you a name for such that begins with f, my post would likely be hidden.

And, yet, your inability to understand and, hence, your inclination to abuse will be allowed to stand as something worthy. Please tell us some more about why mutually assured political destruction is good for the people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Romulox (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 06:07 PM

73. The issue is starting at the top

Why don't the whoevers you are advocating for start at the bottom like everyone else has to?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:25 PM

13. I agree with you completely on that!! It's a waste to vote for people who have no chance. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:09 PM

44. so winning is the be all end all?

the dems platform sounds more and more like the underpants gnomes:

1. win election
2. ?????
3. PROFIT!

see, a wasted vote to me is voting for a guy that is essentially doing the same thing as the previous guy that you most certainly did not support.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #44)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:17 PM

62. Isn't it? Or have you forgotten our 8 years of Bush and all the other GOP shit in office? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #62)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 04:02 PM

68. i remember those eight years vividly..

that's why i'm against a lot of the things that are to be accepted now that a dem is in charge; indefinite detention, targeted assassinations, doubling down on the war on drugs, crackdowns on whistle blowers, etc.

just curious, what is it that was won?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #68)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 06:14 PM

77. Take it from me, someone who wasn't born here: as long as to run in the U.S. takes mega-million$$$$

This system will be beholden to the 1%ers.

However, Dems and Repukes are not twins, and anyone who says they're the same is truly f****d up. All you have to do is vividly remember the 8 years of Bush and the results we are living now because of that pig.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:06 PM

59. In the past three elections I have voted for Democrats that I knew were going to lose.

I guess I should have just stayed home then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #59)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:16 PM

61. No, we need to vote regardless. However, knowing how our system works, and knowing that someone

has almost no chance because he doesn't belong to the 2 main parties, it's a handing over of the vote to the other side.

We are working with a 2-party system. That's what we have, and that's all we have. IF we are going to change that, it has to come from (as Red Queen said) the bottom, the people. It has to be changed at the foundation. The laws have to be changed.

Until then, we have only a 2-party system functioning. This is highly unfortunate, but until we change that by changing the minds of the people at the bottom (the 99%), that's the way it's going to work. We saw what happened with Nader. The result of voting for Nader, was 8 years of Bushit.

That's why OWS is so important.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #61)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:36 PM

65. HUH??????

Until then, we have only a 2-party system functioning. This is highly unfortunate, but until we change that by changing the minds of the people at the bottom (the 99%), that's the way it's going to work.

First of all we have a DISfunctioning 2 party system.

You say it's highly unfortunate that we have a two party system and then discourage any attempt to remedy that in the ballot box. Apparently your solution to the highly unfortunate system is to continue to support the highly unfortunate system?

If I lived in Vermont, I'd be voting independent (Sanders). Would that be a wasted vote?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #65)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:49 PM

66. No, if you'll re-read what I said, it was that we have to change it from the bottom up

Until then, no one outside of the 2 parties will be elected, electable, OR ever have a chance, so we'll be wasting our votes, like we did on Nader. A vote for Nader was a vote for BUSH, for 8 years, no less.

I will NEVER go that route.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #66)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 04:00 PM

67. OK

So if you lived in Vermont you'd vote for which of these two parties?

Len Britton (R)
Tom Salmon Jr. (R)
Bernie Sanders (Independent)
Cris Ericson (US Marijuana)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #67)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 06:12 PM

76. That's odd. No Democrat, huh? Why's that? Where have all the D's gone in Vt?

And if there were a Democrat? Whom would you vote for?

Hell, the U.S. Marijuana sounds good.

That will never happen in a presidential election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #76)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 06:44 PM

78. I dunno but

You can't vote for US Marijuana - that is "a waste to vote for people who have no chance".
Or for Bernie Sanders - he's not part of the two party system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #78)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:20 PM

83. Well, you have enlightened me to an exception, since generally there are D's running

In fact, I have never encountered a situation in which a D wasn't running.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sarah Ibarruri (Reply #76)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:14 PM

81. That's odd. Try this one.

I haven't voted for a Republican in probably 20 years, this is in New York State where some Republicans are still sane, at least on the local level. The party as a whole does not deserve my support.

I also haven't voted for a Democrat in the last 8 years or so, I have reached the point where I don't believe they deserve my support either.

In 2008 I did not vote for any Democrats, but I voted for candidate Obama. I will not vote for any Republicans or Democrats this year either, but will reluctantly probably vote for President Obama again. Just think what would happen if a now President Obama got more votes on the Liberal party or Working Family party line than he got on the Democratic party line. How about your Senator and your Representative? Seriously, what do you think would be going through their heads? Stick with the 1% or start supporting the 99%.

We only have a two party system because you think we only have a two party system. It's not true, never has been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #81)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:21 PM

84. We have a 2-party system because the way to run for office is to beg

corporations for mega-millions.

If that were not the case, there wouldn't be only a 2-party system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:26 PM

14. Well said!



Recommended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:39 PM

16. There's something to be enjoyed ...

watching their agenda fall on it's face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:45 PM

19. K&R. It's time we face the truth

and understand, just like corporate America lobbies our civil servants in the U.S. government, so also must we do the same. Writing, e-mailing, calling, joining forces with progressive groups that are really interested in getting things done, is crucial to push this country forward and away from fascism.

Although corporate America have more money than the unwashed masses, we have the MASSES to make our voices heard because in the end, we are still the ones who cast votes - something corporations can't. And although they can make some of the votes disappear, when we come out en masse, there's no stealing the election done. How do I know this? Well, Barack Hussein Obama is president today. That's how.

Thank you for this enlightening piece, redqueen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #19)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:52 PM

22. Thank *you*!



I was just getting super tired of all the cheering for third party voters, cause like I said, IMO that just makes the job of pushing our agenda forward that much harder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #22)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:59 PM

57. It's my opinion, too

and I'm pretty sure the majority's opinion as well even if they're loathed to admit it.

Oh, and redqueen? YOU ROCK!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueCaliDem (Reply #57)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:08 PM

60. Ha... aw.



Back atcha.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:54 PM

25. The right wing started years ago infiltrating school boards...

town councils and other low level elected offices to build a base and get experienced candidates. There was a lot of talk about it a while ago, but all that seems to have stopped when we started focusing on the White House and Senate.

A REALLY long time ago Robert LaFollette and Teddy Roosevelt got the Progressive Party going, and with hundreds of politicians, including a lot of gubernatorial candidates, running as Progressives, one would have thought they would have had a shot. No good, though. Even TR couldn't pull it off-- the two main parties were too organized and where is the Progressive Party now?

Our local Democratic Party has been trying to revitalize itself, but we just got our asses seriously kicked in the last election. Out of 19 elected positions townwide, we have one Democrat in office. One overwhelming problem we have is that things are working reasonably well, so why change? Very few are willing to throw away the decent stuff we have for promises of a somewhat better, if ill-defined, future.

Things are so one-sided here that we actually had to advertise for candidates. We did some really good ones, but two of the best were Republicans who ran on our line! Still lost, though.

So, we've got some work to do. We've got a good Democratic Congressman and two Senators. The County has a Democratic executive now, and he's doing a great job so far. We just have to get back to our roots and rebuild things from the ground up.

I'm ranting on... I'll stop now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:59 PM

27. Ha no, I like your rant. :) Also, thanks for mentioning the Progressive Party!

THIS is what actual third-party advocates should be doing, the same as Fightin' Bob and TR... they may not have unseated either of the two current main parties, but they changed one of them significantly.

Just mouthing off about voting third party every four years is nonsense. Real advocates for serious change who are willing to do the heavy lifting, we absolutely need.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #27)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:32 PM

85. Maybe New York is unique.

In New York there are multiple third parties on the ballot every year.

So what third party advocates should be doing is voting third party.

In 2008 I voted for a third party candidate for President, guess what? He won! He's now our President. I did the same thing with my Senator and Representative. They won.

Do you think they would lean a little more to the 99% if most of their votes came from the Liberal or Working Family party rather than the Democratic party?

Please start thinking outside the box. Shake them up, you can vote for your precious (D), just don't do it on the Democratic line.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #25)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 03:01 PM

58. You are NOT "ranting"

You're speaking truth to power! Keep on keeping on because believe it or not, more, here, want to hear/read/see your powerful reasoning than you might know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 12:58 PM

26. OP is arguing against your own stated viewpoint - claims thrid party types are annoying and then

claims the best way to change things is not build at the top but "...lay the foundation first." A third party candidate IS laying a foundation versus going along with the existing structure (the top)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #26)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:03 PM

28. The way I see it,

if a third party isn't established at the lower levels, electing one to work with congress is futile.

Unless, of course, that third party is aligned with the interests of powerful people. Those types will always find it very easy to work with congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:50 PM

38. I Prefer the Wisconsin and Ohio Models

Get the people organized around specific issues and make change directly without the need for politicians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 01:55 PM

39. Given the economic system and 2-party set up

we're kind of screwed in terms of voting from my perspective. We do the best we can (which has to start earlier and locally), and focus on education, awareness, and occupation. Until labor rebuilds itself we really don't have much to bargain with against the owners so I'm hoping that is where some of us put our focus: rebuilding the unions.

Expecting third parties to be effective given this situation is a mistake.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #39)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:06 PM

41. I think doing as you describe & striving for campaign finance & voting reform COULD enable

the development of other political parties.

That MUST begin with stepping over some externally imposed boundaries, though, to get finance & voting reform, which is why we see such strong persistent action against becoming aware of the divisions and, thus, taking them under our own control/purposes, rather than allowing others to use them on us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:15 PM

48. blah blah blah

Centrist movements won't go anywhere .
The rightward movement of the right-wing was natural. A centrist movement that moves to the left is unnatural because the left in the United States doesn't exist.
You're advocating going in circle back to where you're right now (Howard Dean fans) it makes no sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to messiah (Reply #48)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:37 PM

54. Your absolutist screen-name is appropriate for your absolutist ability to predict what will come of

millions of different people doing different things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 02:54 PM

56. The material and power to enact change is worthless absent the will

Long shot third party progress or guaranteed status quo? You choose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #56)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 05:48 PM

70. 0% chance doesn't = a long shot in my book.

To me, that's just a waste of time and a splintering of the left (which is really nothing new, sadly).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #56)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 10:19 PM

82. Sounds like you're saying progress will only come...

by voting for a third party.

Is that what you're saying?

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #82)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 12:41 AM

86. Keep trying


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #86)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 08:25 AM

89. You can count on it...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #82)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 03:58 AM

88. Sounds like you're baiting an opponent...

by tricking them to make an admission that will get themselves banned.

Is that what you are doing?

Sid?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleko (Reply #88)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 08:37 AM

90. The poster presented a pretty clear either/or situation...


Long shot third party progress or guaranteed status quo? You choose.


How do you interpret that statement?

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #90)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 12:21 PM

91. It's called

an observation. I am curious if this little entrapment game is just silly Sid fun, or if you actually presume to accomplish something with it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 06:00 PM

72. For now it looks like 3rd party candidates to an enormous hit with Citizens United. Nothing changes

until that is reveresed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deacon (Reply #72)

Tue Jan 24, 2012, 06:07 PM

74. You do know that the GOP has donated to Green Party candidates, right?

So... I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Original post)

Wed Jan 25, 2012, 02:38 AM

87. You left out the best argument against third parties

The best argument is: primaries.

If you have the votes to elect someone on the Green Party line or the Justice Party line or whatever, then you have the votes to enter and win the Democratic primary and then win the general election as a Democrat -- even if a lot of the established Democratic officeholders dislike you and try to stop you.

It doesn't work the other way, though. There are millions of voters who have long-established loyalty to the Democratic Party and who will generally vote Democratic unless they see a good reason not to. Therefore, there are many elections where a progressive would win as a Democrat but would lose as a third-party candidate.

The Progressive Party didn't have the luxury of working through primaries. In 1912, Roosevelt couldn't win the Republican nomination because the convention was under the control of the party establishment, which favored Taft. Today, the Democratic Party establishment has no such stranglehold on the process. About 80% of the convention delegates are chosen in primaries or caucuses, and even the superdelegates can be challenged in primaries, albeit in earlier years. Democratic Party candidates for other offices are also chosen by the voters, not the hierarchs.

The third-party route provides the ego satisfaction of being a candidate in the general election without having to do all that hard work of persuading large numbers of people to vote for you. There's no long-term success in it, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread