Reply #59: You are missing the point

[quaker bill]

For me, the "better than Bush*" line comes into play after the nomination process. Until then I will support the democratic candidate I most prefer.

You do have a point in that you have to dig pretty deep to find someone that would be worse than Bush*. So this test alone is not much of a hurdle to cross.

That being aside, voting for a third party candidate is the quickest way to assure that no part of your political agenda ever becomes policy.

I know of no way that any of the Green Party's 10 key values were advanced by the votes cast for Mr. Nader in 2000. Nor were any of Ross Perot's policy agendas furthered by the votes for him in 1992. Niether were John Anderson's nor George Wallace's, nor Pat Buchanan's agendas furthered by their respective campaigns (and on and on...).