Josh Marshall on people threatening to vote for McCain or sit out

[Thickasabrick]

the election. This is awesome!!! Background is he posted two emails with people threatening to vote for McCain if Clinton didn't win the nom.

Goodbye, Cruel Ballot Box

To follow up on the emails I posted last night, it's worth saying that over the last couple months, during each campaign's moments of extremity, we've had supporters of each candidate (probably in roughly equal quantity) writing in and saying they wouldn't be able to vote for the opponent in the general election. In general I just think that people are deeply invested in the campaign (which is a good thing), and in moments of disappointment and frustration need some outlet, even if only expressed within themselves, to put some contemplated action to their angst. Threatening to upset the applecart in November is the most emotionally satisfying way to do that. Certainly too, when a campaign gets this intense and hard fought, there's just too much cognitive dissonance for people to be on the one hand seething at the other candidate and then also contemplating working for and voting for the same person.

So I see most of these promises as the emotional equivalent of things friends or lovers can say in the midst of heated fights -- the vast number of which they recant later and wish they'd never said.

Clearly though there are some people who really do mean it. A very small fraction I think, but there nonetheless. And there's really no better example of emotional infantilism that some people bring to the political process . One can see it in a case like 1968 perhaps or other years where real and important differences separated the candidates -- or in cases where the differences between the parties on key issues were not so great. But that simply is not the case this year. As much as the two campaign have sought to highlight the differences, the two candidates' positions on almost every issue is extremely close. And the differences that do exist pale into insignificance when compared to Sen. McCain's.

That's not to say that these small differences are reasons to choose one of the candidates over the other. But to threaten either to sit the election or vote for McCain or vote for Nader if your candidate doesn't win the nomination shows as clearly as anything that one's ego-investment in one's candidate far outstrips one's interest in public policy and governance. If this really is one's position after calm second-thought, I see no other way to describe it.

--Josh Marshall

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/184936.php

[Tatiana]

1. It's an outstanding commentary. He is right.

I will vote for the Democratic nominee.

[SeattleGirl]

2. No way in hell will I sit out, or worse, vote for McCain if my

candidate of choice doesn't get the nomination.

I hope that the majority of people who feel the way Josh Marshall talks about WILL vote for the Democratic nominee come November. Putting McCain in the White House would be the absolute worst possible outcome for us.

[roseBudd]

3. First of all POTUS is a 1 of 3 coequal branches so some nit picky post that so & so supports A & I

unequivocally believe that A would be an unmitigated disaster, so therefore I cannot in good faith perpetuate the danger that is so & so becoming POTUS.

Point 2.

SCOTUS

'nuff said

[HCE SuiGeneris]

4. It is suicidal, or at best, sadistic, to withhold your vote of a Democratic nominee...

provided of course, one is a Democrat.

[BobRossi]

5. Sorry, I can't vote for an enabler.

Hillarious has enabled the chimp with each vote for funding the blood-shed in Iraq, she voted to give him the permission to attack in the first place. If she get's the nod I stay home in November.

[baldguy]

8. Then McCain wins.

[BobRossi]

10. Clue.

He already has.

[Thickasabrick]

14. Dude - Hillary is more of an enabler than McCain?? Think - 100

year war - is that what you want??

[gateley]

22. Maybe thanks to you and others who hold the same attitude?

On behalf of America, thanks for trying,

[buff2]

12. McCain will win anyway

if NObama is the nominee. Sad,but true.

[baldguy]

17. And Clinton can't win the nomination.

All the more reason for her to quit & support Obama.

[depakid]

26. Obama can't win the nomnation without superdelegates, either

So, that tired old talking point should be retired.

[Riktor]

20. Bullshit

Historically, an incumbent party never takes the White House during periods of recession. McCain doesn't stand a chance, no matter who the other guy is.

[roguevalley]

36. for godsake, all you people. McCain has as much chance of

winning the white house as I do. What he has in his closet is so massive, so stupid, so ignorant I could beat him. All you have to do is loop a commercial of his 'million year war' and 'bomb Iran' with a person reading the draft statutes and he's yesterday's news. People will vote for Satan before they vote for him. Get over the fighting and vote. But vote for the person who won't get your damned kids killed and the hope for any way to beat global warming and global civil unrest 86'd. Think ahead and let your petty shit go. This is about LIFE AND DEATH now.

God, I am soososososososososo glad I am not young. This shit is life and death now and people are fighting over who is a bigger idiot, their candidate or the other guy's.

[buff2]

9. I can't vote for a racist either

If NObama gets the nod I'M staying home.

[PM7nj]

19. Then don't complain when the SCOTUS is packed with neocons

and suddenly we are living under a police state.

(this applies to the Obama supporters who won't vote for Clinton as well)

[Thickasabrick]

25. Future dead soldiers and Iraqis will have you to thank too.

[chascarrillo]

39. You go ahead and stay home. I'll pay for the babysitter.

[Two Americas]

48. "reverse racism"

There is no such thing as "reverse racism." It is an invention of the extreme right wing propaganda mills, created for the purpose of promoting racism by confusing people about the issue.

Democrats should not give the concept credence or disseminate it.

Criticize Obama, but calling him a "racist" is inaccurate and very destructive. It promotes a racist right wing idea.

[jkshaw]

21. What an earlier poster said --

Think SCOTUS.

Withholding a vote for Hillary equates to a vote for a Republican who has the SCOTUS in his power. It's right wing enough already.

[PetraPooh]

27. And she has disgraced herself and women in general. I wouldn't have

voted for Hillary since the beginning, but back then I actually had respect for her; now I will stand by my decision to not vote for any ticket that Hillary is on. Period. If that ends up being the outcome of these primaries and the convention, then the Democratic Party will have proven to me that they are no better than the Republican Party. So I'll vote for neither, and hope like heck that the Unity 08 Party comes up with a suitable ticket.

[Bake]

31. Sorry, I can't vote for Obama.

And I won't. Nor will my wife, who says she'll actually vote for McCain.

I can't go tht far, but I can just vote on the down-ballot races.

Bake

[madfloridian]

6. Cartoon

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?id=1733

[Dr.Phool]

16. Oh! A new comedy club!

[BearSquirrel2]

7. If Hillary wins the nomination ...

If Hillary wins the nomination, I will bite down hard and vote for her. Though, I won't send her single a dime.

[Pachamama]

11. If Obama isn't the nominee, I'm not voting McCain or sitting it out - I'm writing in Obama on the

ballot as a Write-in. I'm tired of voting for whom I "have too". If it sadly means that McCain ends up winning, so be it, because I will have had it with a Democratic Party that could be so stupid to have overlooked Obama and have Superdelegates vote to put in Hillary. If they do it, then I'm done, and they , the DNC and higher ups in the Democratic Party will have to look towards themselves for explanation as to how only they could divide a party and lose an election after 8 years of Bush.

[Speck Tater]

28. "so be it"

Sounds just like Cheney saying "So?". That shows a complete disregard for the good of the country. Will it really make you "feel good" to sell your country down the river?

[Pachamama]

46. Its called Fate....The fate of this country lies not in my hands, but rather in the people that seem

to think that they know whats best for the country.

Thanks for the comparison to Cheney and calling me un-american and selling my country down the river.

Eff you too.... :hi:

[Dr.Phool]

13. If we don't draft Dennis Kucinich, I'm gonna vote for Bob Barr.

Or that other guy I read about a lot on DU. Not McSame, the other one.

In case it's needed :sarcasm:

[hfojvt]

15. ego investment my aunt fannie

Take President Clinton (please). When he was elected in 1992, he basically ran as a Republican on economic issues. He criticized George H.W. Bush for raising taxes, even though such a tax increase had been mostly forced on Bush by a DEMOCRATIC Congress. He promised a middle class tax cut, completely promoting the Republican talking points of "taxes = bad" and "tax cuts = good".

Then, under his "leadership" control of Congress flipped. The House of Representatives which had been controlled by the Democratic Party for over forty years, suddenly was majority Republican. THAT was a bigger blow to the Democratic Party than loss of the Presidency would have been in 1992.

Then consider the public policy impacts. Would Bush-41 have been able to push NAFTA through a Democratic Congress? Would Bush-41 have been able to push welfare-reform and balance-budget restrictions (leading to cuts in housing and all other social services) through a Democratic Congress?

In my view of history, we liberals would probably have been better off to lose in 1992, maintain control of Congress and then elect a more Progressive Democrat, such as Al Gore to the Presidency in 1996. In the big picture, the DLC suzerainity represented by the Clinton Presidency was a disaster for our party, and a second Clinton administration may very well be the same thing - a disaster for our party.

[Thickasabrick]

23. You make excellent points. I feel the same way you do about

what happened to the party after those years. But then I think about our young men and women over there who will be praying every night for their nightmare to end and will be counting on me to help them. If McCain wins, we will be in an eternal war and the misery that we've wrought upon the poor Iraqis will continue probably through our lifetimes.

Personally, I would love to see Obama get the nomination but if he doesn't, I'm going to focus on our young men and women and the Iraqis and at least vote for the person who has a better chance of ending this.

Thank you for your comments and I hope you will keep the dialog open until then.

[PylesMalfunction]

40. Word!

Any Obama supporter or Clinton supporter who refuses to vote for the Democratic candidate no matter whom HE or SHE is, IMHO has the blood of all the men and women who will continue to die in Iraq on their hands. Suck it up, put on your big girl panties and vote for the candidate who get us the fuck out of there. Every other aspect of our life depends on that!!! If you don't vote Democrat in the next election, enjoy your war with Iran!!!! :mad:

I personally can't stand Hillary. But I will vote for her if she gets the nomination.

[InsultComicDog]

18. I will vote for the Democrat either way

but let's face it, Hillary isn't going to win...

[earthlover]

24. The pic has a stunning resemblance to McCain....

[NashVegas]

29. Josh Is A Party Hack Who Is Partly Responsible For This Situation

As an Obama supporter - whether he's said so or not - he and TPM have bought into and regurgitated every Hillary smear going. Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler, and others, have called him out on it.

In the internet age, the party can't have it both ways: you can't go out of your way to involve the masses, who are rather naive in the ways of campaigns, and then take them to task when they see how the party approves of the most underhanded bullshit coming from one candidate, while goes into a tizzy when others do the same thing.

For all of our sakes, they should take the process of getting a candidate into the back rooms, rather than go through the theatre of pretending party leaders are unbiased observers following the peoples' will. I'll buy the fucking cigars.

[Thickasabrick]

34. Josh is not a party hack. Many of his posters support Obama - whup

We all owe him a huge debt of gratitude for his role in uncovering the attorney scandal. Pray tell, what exactly has the Daily Howler done for democracy lately?? Josh Marshall is a hero.

[NashVegas]

37. Sorry, But It's True

Josh does great first-hand reporting and is top notch at getting "diggers" to help out when there's Repuke muck to be raked. I would never diminish that.

In party matters, however, he will tow the insiders' line, everytime. Every damn time. He did it with the Iraq invasion, he did it to help Kerry in the primaries in 2004, and he's done it now, with Obama.

Josh was completely housebroken over 5 years ago.

[Thickasabrick]

41. Thanks for replying - stupid question for you - who exactly are the

insiders? Was he for the invasion of Iraq? I just started keeping up with stuff the day we invaded Baghdad. I never believed we would do anything like that - that's when I found out about "alternate" sources of news.

[NashVegas]

43. re: Iraq

Josh beat the war drum all the way up to the invasion when he suddenly realized Bush had no real strategy and had an "oh shit," moment.

The insiders I speak of are those mainly in Washington, the corporate interests they serve, and the press that shields them.

There's very little difference between the candidates; both are going to sell us down the river - they'll just be nicer about it than the Republicans will, IMO. It just happens that the press corps hates the Clintons, and they're doing to Hillary what they did to Al Gore in 2000.

[Thickasabrick]

50. I totally didn't know that - wow - my hero just got a little "ding" in

his armor. I didn't start regularly visiting TPM until after the invasion. He seems to attempt neutrality - but yea, you can tell he's leaning towards Obama - not that that's a bad thing...:) I would be more sensitive to it if I was a big Hillary supporter.

Thanks for your response!! Happy Easter!!

[Two Americas]

30. strongly disagree

I strongly disagree with Marshall on this.

I don't know what others do, but I make a commitment to myself every election cycle to be personally responsible for influencing 100 other voters, one on one, and I am strict as to what I credit myself for as a win. I rarely miss my target. Who cares about my one vote. I am certainly not going to get into endless arguments about that.

This obsession with each of our personal choices, how we will cast our one solitary vote, is what seems self-centered and infantile to me. My vote still counts as one, and democracy is not about personal choices - save that for shopping. Nor is it about being a loyal true believer - save that for religion and spiritual self-actualization or whatever.

And beating people up over how they say they are going to vote - is there any bigger waste of time? 99% of the people who are targeted for these loyalty tests are just as likely to vote Democratic if we DON’T harass them, - probably more likely. This is all a distraction from the real work. For every “OMG a Nader voter!!!” or disgruntled Democrat there are hundreds and hundreds of non-voters and unhappy Republicans we can be talking to. That will win far more votes with far less effort and angst and uproar. This is a perfect example of prizing being right—which requires and justifies arguing about this with a very limited circle of people—above results and success. The Republicans don’t make this tactical error, yet we do every cycle.

Never mind your own one personal vote, never mind how Marshall and his insider friends are voting or whatever their melodrama about it is, go get the non-voters, go get the unhappy Republicans—there are millions and millions of those up for grabs.

Who gives a shit how the self-absorbed pundits are voting and whatever drama is happening in their little world? Get out into the poor neighborhoods, the minority neighborhoods, the blue collar neighborhoods, and talk to the people. Do you think anything Marshall is saying here makes a bit of difference to the average person? We could lose the vote of every activist and pundit in the country, and pick up a thousand blue collar votes for each one of them if we would get out of the little insulated circle and out of our own little "personal choice" fantasy worlds.

This essay by Marshall is a great illustration of everything that is wrong about the way people are approaching politics today. I think it is very negative and counter-productive. There is a very, very limited circle of people for whom this entire debate, let alone the outcome of it, has any meaning whatsoever.

There is some cognitive dissonance going on all right, and some infantile thinking - by Marshall. He is projecting that onto others.

Do we want results, or will we once again settle for the consolation prize in politics - getting to be right on each and every little nit-picking thing?

[Thickasabrick]

35. You make really good points but I disagree that Josh is just another

talking head pundit.

[Two Americas]

47. I know

I like Josh. I disagree with him on this.

[GeorgeGist]

32. better candidates might make ...

voters smarter.

[ecdab]

33. damn skippy!

But to threaten either to sit the election or vote for McCain or vote for Nader if your candidate doesn't win the nomination shows as clearly as anything that one's ego-investment in one's candidate far outstrips one's interest in public policy and governance. If this really is one's position after calm second-thought, I see no other way to describe it.

That really nails it. Folks that talk about sitting it out or voting McCain DO NOT CARE about Democratic Policy issues AT ALL!

[TwilightGardener]

38. If she's the nominee, I become an Independent and sit it out.

[Thickasabrick]

42. As horrible as that thought is (Hillary getting the nom), you do

know she would appoint someone (probably a woman) to the supreme court? She'd probably end the war (sooner than McCain). Just some thoughts - even independents should vote for somebody.

[TwilightGardener]

44. I won't reward a campaign that consistently appeals to the lowest

common denominator, a campaign that insults me as an Obama voter, a campaign that refuses to be open and transparent and honest, a campaign that intends to divide and conquer, a campaign that elevates our GOP enemy above our frontrunning candidate, a campaign that fights dirty against its own, a campaign that has proven a management and fiscal disaster, a campaign devoid of an uplifting vision for the country, a campaign that tries to sneak a 2-term President back into office as a 3-term "Co-President", a campaign that surrounds itself with the same miscreants and cronies that brought the Democratic party to its knees until 2006...I could go on, but won't.

[Umbram]

45. "emotional infantilism" - there is NO better description.

These people are malfunctioning robots. Nothing more.

[OneBlueSky]

49. having swallowed more than my share of "lesser of two evils" . . .

since first voting in 1964, I will do so again this year and vote for Obama in the general election . . . if Clinton somehow manages to steal the nomination, though, I reserve my right to stay home . . .

whatever the scenario, and whoever the nominee, the fact remains that our votes will likely count for anything in the grand scheme of things . . . the voting machines are STILL controlled by Republican corporations, and the votes are STILL tabulated by same . . . after stealing the presidency in 2000 and 2004, why would anyone think that they aren't planning to do the same in 2008? . . .

they have the means, the have the motive, and they have the opportunity . . . with a close election (which this one will be), all it will take to swing it one way or the other is manipulating the vote totals in selected areas of selected states . . . the fix, I suspect, is already in . . .

"It's not who votes that counts; it's who counts the votes! . . .