2006: Will you vote for any Democrat in order to gain control of Congress?

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

Poll question: 2006: Will you vote for any Democrat in order to gain control of Congress?

And why? What is your reasoning?

Assume the situation is:

The balance of power in the Senate and House of Representatives is up for grabs, could go either Democratic or Republican.

You are voting in a close race.

You have to choose between someone who you consider a DINO or worse, Democrat in Name Only, and a moderate or liberal Republican.

If the Democrat wins, that one Democratic Senator or Congressman could give the Democrats the majority.

What does it mean to have the majority in Congress?

Which party controls which legislation comes to the floor and when?

Which party can flagrantly disregard normal procedures?

In my opinion, having that majority at this time in history means everything.

[cry baby]

1. We must gain control so we can chair committees,

and there are so many other things a majority can do. We must have it!

[AntiCoup2K4]

6. And when the new committee chairs are the ones who have been screwing us..

...all along (the usual DLC suspects), how exactly will things change with "Democrats" who won't vote as Democrats in charge?

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

10. Presumably Harry Reid would become

majority leader in the Senate.

He's a good guy, IMO.

[Imagevision]

34. you really believe your votes are going to count - that's cute...!

[MisterLiberal]

46. Not in the primary they won't

Let's see how long it will take for someone to tell the base of the party to compromise...all in the name of "electability".

Of course, the centrists can NEVER be asked to compromise.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

50. Not so cute

I don't believe it, but I chose to keep the 2 issues separate. I have hope, but not confidence at this point.

See #35 below.

[cry baby]

14. If dems are in power, I can only hope that they would feel empowered

to do the right things. Now, with repukes in charge, they are going along to get along. Believe me when I say...I don't have complete faith that Biden et al will do the right things for this country, but I KNOW the repukes haven't and they will not ever be good for this country.

[AntiCoup2K4]

30. They didn't do so well when Daschle was majority leader

Otherwise there would have been no Iraq War Resolution. You can't assume that a Democratic majority means a true Democratic agenda with these corporatist clowns.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

32. Remember how Daschle was among the first targets of

post 911 Repugs?

And how even his office somehow got anthrax?

The difference now hopefully is that we're on to their M.O. and have some strategies in place.

[cry baby]

39. I don't assume...I hope.

[IndianaGreen]

2. Would you vote for a Lieberman or a Biden?

The reason we are in this mess is because we kept rewarding people that voted against OUR interests.

Let's work on electoral reform, and let's challenge in the primaries pukes like Feinstein and others that enabled the Bush wars.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

4. Like Howard Dean said in a debate with Ralph Nader,

when your house is on fire, you don't try to straighten out the bedroom closet.

And Bush brought us the war, and would have found a way to do so no matter what, IMO.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

17. I'm surprised the house hasn't burned down after 25 years.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

31. 25 years?

Fortunately Congress, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court haven't been dominated by the Neocons for all those years.

Personally I never felt the kind of urgency I'm now feeling until around the time of the Iraq war.

I was angered by the 2000 election, but had no clue how bad this administration would become.

[shimmergal]

47. Agree with you totally.

Bush and his minions (or is that Cheney and his minions?) were hell-bent to fight a war in Iraq no matter what. If they couldn't get the IWR through--no matter, they'd have found a way to do it anyhow.

I don't believe either Lieberman or Dashle would have gone into Iraq that way. Nor any remotely likely Democratic president.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

51. I agree

W misused the IWR. A vote for it wasn't meant to allow him to lie and take us to war.

Which he woulda done no matter what.

It never mattered what access the UN Inspectors were given. W's rhetoric was just a repeat over and over that Saddam wasn't doing enough.

That was one of the clues, if we needed one, that W was bound and determined to take us to Iraq.

:puke:

[Jack Rabbit]

9. Most of those you named have safe seats

That includes Feinstein in my state. A primary challenge against her would be easily rebuffed, although it might be worth the effort if the sacrificial lamb were to turn the primary campaign into a needed discussion of the issues.

Feinstein will win the general election with about 65% of the votes. If anybody wants to vote Green (probably Medea Benjamin or Peter Camejo) in protest, go ahead. It probably won't matter.

[jenmito]

25. I think there's a big difference...

between Lieberman and Biden. No to Lieberman and yes to Biden for me. Lieberman is the Dem. that I always see Repubs. say they could vote for.

[iwantmycountryback]

28. If I had to, and they are better than Republicans

They're not the greatest, but it could be worse. I would certainly support trying to beat them in primaries, but that's unlikely.

[Jack Rabbit]

3. Yes, although . . .

. . . I am very, very angry at those who continue to remain silent on the folly in Iraq and fail to oppose it.

While my Congressman has been a war critic, my Senator running for re-election next year is Dianne Feinstein. She will be a hard pill to swallow.

[closeupready]

5. No, I won't - I cross bridges as I come to them

and I will vote for the person who I feel is best able to move the country forward.

[Leeny]

24. Gee whiz

Oh barf. If the Republicans keep control of Congress after the next election we're really screwed.

Grow up.

[bowens43]

54. Yeah right.

Either you have no understanding of how government works or you are quite happy with things as they are.

I'm betting it's the latter.

[jackster]

7. at this point in time

we must elect the opposition in order to oust those in power

we can deal with the dem corporate-whores later

[Independent_Liberal]

8. I'll vote for any Democrat...

We must retake Congress.

[Totally Committed]

11. Look at all the Democratic Congressional Reps that voted for CAFTA...

Makes me wonder what's the diff.

TC

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

12. Wes Clark would be among the first to support

Democrats.

Over CAFTA you don't care who controls Congress?

[Totally Committed]

15. I agree, Wes would be the forst to advocate for Democrats.

And, goodness knows, I support Wes all the way. But, I am an adult with feelings and reasons of my own, and I would tell Wes if he were here with me now, that the Democrats who vote with Republicans, and vote like Republicans, are nothing more than aiders and abettors to the Republican Party. They are a large part of the WHY the Republicans have been as successful in the complete take-over of our country. No thanks. Never again.

After the last election, I vowed never to vote for "the lesser of two evils". If I am still around in 2006, and I'm presented with two candidates, neither of whom I can wholeheartedly support over the other, I will respectfully refuse to participate. Same goes for 2008. When I say "Never again.", I mean NEVER again. It's the only way, I fell, the Democratic Party will ever hear me. Up to now, nothing else has worked.

TC

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

16. I understand what you are saying

I don't agree with some of it.

Like how the Republicans were able to take over. And what the solution is.

But I have to respect your opinion and your right to vote as you see fit.

[safi0]

13. As far as the

Senate goes, I think the only state were there could actually be a choice beteen a DINO and a moderate is Connecticut and Lieberman. Di Fi will only face a sacrifical lamb opposition, and the person running against Ben Nelson is likely to be quite conservative.

[Lindacooks]

18. YES. It's that important. We NEED TO REGAIN CONGRESS.

[LWolf]

19. Undecided.

There are way too many factors to consider, from my POV, to make a declaration like that a year ahead of time.

[bowens43]

55. What factors? Be specific.

[LWolf]

59. ok

The mood of the country

The words, votes, and other actions of those candidates during the last 5 years, and between now and then

Whether or not the Democratic Party continues to move away from me in their rush to the so-called center, or whether they rally around some of their members who have vigorously opposed that move, and opposed the actions of the Bush administration with their votes as well as their words.

[geckosfeet]

20. That should be RINO vs. DINO. And its very hypothetical. But

getting a majority is important.

[Crunchy Frog]

21. Yes.

My answer on this one is different than my answer on the presidential one. I'm not saying that there aren't Dems that I wouldn't have to bit my tongue to vote for. There are, and I have bitten my tongue on some of my votes. If it were someone like Lieberman or Harold Ford Jr., I might end up with a hole right through my tongue. However, as far as the Congress goes, it is important to have Dems there, even if they are nothing more than warm bodies with D's after their names. Numbers are the most important thing in Congress. If we have the numbers, ie, a majority, then, even if some of them are way too conservative, it still empowers the more progressive members.

In the primaries however, I will support the person who best represents my values.

The presidency is different. If you elect a Republican with a D after his name, that's what you get.

[kevsand]

22. I agree about primaries.

I know that a lot of people (especially in my neck of the woods) shy away from them, and think that primary fights hurt the party. I've always thought that vigorous primaries were a sign of a dynamic, healthy party, and I embrace them wholeheartedly. It's our only real chance to influence who the final candidates are, and to avoid the "lesser of two evils" that TC was talking about.

After the primary, though, I have to give my vote to control of the legislature, regardless of the standard bearer. That is, of course, totally different from executive races, where historically I have sometimes strayed from the fold (but only rarely, and only in extreme cases).

[Crunchy Frog]

23. In the Colorado Senate primaries

there was a candidate who I passionately supported, even though the status quo pretty much dissmissed him. I didn't at all care for his opponent, but I got behind him after the primary for the good of the party and because of the importance of every single Senate seat.

He's been a mixed bag, but still preferable to the alternative.

[kevsand]

26. I've had that happen more times than I like to think about

in our state leg races. So far, I'm still able to live with myself.

On the other hand, we once had a governor's race where the repub was actually more progressive than the dem on a number of issues. I'm taking the fifth on that one...

[Crunchy Frog]

38. Well, in our last governers race

I voted for the Green party candidate. The Democrat was never going to win anyway and I was feeling really pissed with the party. Figured I'd use it as an opportunity to make a statement.

It's not so bad to vote for a Republican for governor if he's more progressive than the Democrat. A governor doesn't have any real impact on national policy. In that case it really is okay to vote for the person rather than the party.

The Republicans in my state are pretty much all fascists.

[jillan]

27. It is very important that we regain control of Congress!

It doesn't matter if the dems are with the DLC or not.

We need to take control of our country one step at a time.
First we get the dems in there, and then we let them know what we want.

[KingFlorez]

29. Yes, I'll vote for any Democrat

Because if we win John Conyers will chair the Judiciary committee and we could get action on the DSM.

[TriMetFan]

37. Amen to that.

[Imagevision]

33. Won't make any difference - they'll simply Diebold us again.

and don't play the irate thing when it happens! 2006 is crucial for Diebold receiptless machines to shine baby!

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

35. A whole nother issue

And a really serious one.

Many people are working on it at many levels, see the Election forums.

Will we ultimately triumph?

We can hope.

[IndianaGreen]

36. Beware of questions having "always," "any", "all," etc., as part of the

question. This is why when one says "all Palestinians are terrorists" you will find yourself in hot water with the DU mods. Say "all Democrats are corrupt" and you not only will be in hot water with the DU mods, but you will also be factually wrong!

That's the problem with the wording of this poll, it says "any Democrat." Well, "any" Democrat covers a large territory, from those that want to restore the Republic and sanity to the White House, to those that oppose abortion and gay rights.

I will never vote for a candidate that opposes abortion rights. I will never vote for a candidate that opposes gay rights. I will never support a candidate that will not end the war in Iraq. Those are my core values, and I will not go against them. Period!

[FreedomAngel82]

40. It really depends

In the primaries I'm going to probably vote for Harold Ford. Simply because he is for investigating the DSM and his challenger said it would be a waste of time. Doesn't fly with me. 2006 is our last chance to get justice for Bush. But whoever does win the primaries I will vote for them. Right now on the democratic side here in my state there are only two running for the Senate seat (Bill Frist's) and I have done my research on them pretty well. Whomever wins though I'll be happy with because I agree with both of them on everything. Just one of them isn't for the DSM and has yet addressed it while Harold Ford did sign the John Conyers letter in the very beginning. While I'm not a huge Ford fan I'm willing to give him a chance.

[nickshepDEM]

41. Of course. We are in no position to be picky

[TankLV]

42. Not sure.

Still undecided.

[flaminbats]

43. Democrats rarely run for Congress in my district!

considering that anyone would be better than my Congressrat, I feel that is the least of our worries..:eyes:

[bemildred]

44. No, I will vote for an intelligent and honest candidate of either party

ahead of a party hack of either party.

[bowens43]

57. I guess you don't understand how congress works

or you're quite happy with the status quo.

[bemildred]

64. Tsk, rather egocentric of you think it is I that does not understand. nt

[Time for change]

45. I voted yes, but with some qualms

Think back to 2000, and suppose someone like Jim Jeffords was running against Zell Miller. Voting for the better person can sometimes result in a pleasant surprise.

[MODemocrat]

48. It would certainly beat voting for a republican

To put it bluntly, I wouldn't vote for one of my own Sons if he were to run on the republican ticket. No siree, not even for dogcatcher.
:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[BlueIris]

49. Yep. n/t

[MadeinOhio]

52. None of the above for me....

Restore the voting system, then put true candidates into office.

[bowens43]

56. So you're not goiing to vote at all?

[MadeinOhio]

60. Not until the right to vote is restored.

Our community has made a pact to restore the Ohio vote system from the bottom up and completely, totaltarily secure the process.

Never again will a disaster be allowed. IMO, if every candidate was like Paul Hackett, there would be reason to vote every race.

[bowens43]

53. Yes, absolutely.

There is NOTHING more important right now then gaining control of one house of congress. Nothing.

[mhr]

58. Will Not Vote For Pro War Democrats

eom

[enough already]

61. Agreed

I prefer my Republicans to be Republicans, not Democrats wearing a disguise.

[Q]

62. The problem with your theory...

...is that if enough "GOP-Lite" Dems are voted into office...this only gives the Republican party more of an advantage when it comes to finding Democrats to vote for THEIR agenda.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

65. First hopefully there won't be a lot more

DINO's elected.

Second how is having more Republicans and having them keep the majority, therefore the leadership, in Congress a better situation?

[MadHound]

63. No, sorry, I can't bring myself to vote for just anybody with a D

Behind their name. I'm looking for real change in this country, not more of the same ol' same ol', two party/same corporate master system of government.

If the Democratic candidate takes corporate money, I will vote for the Green. If there is no Green candidate running, and the Dem candidate takes corporate money, while the Republican doesn't, I would seriously think consider voting for the Republican candidate. If neither one of those scenarios is viable, then I will either find a third party candidate without corporate ties, or I will not vote in that particular race.

No more corporate candidates for me. I'm looking for real change in this country, and more of the same ol' same ol' just won't cut it anymore.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

66. I'm just not sure how that real change is going

to be actualized.

It seems a lot like a vote for Nader in 2000, which was for some a statement regarding their feelings about the political system.

I do believe there is a place and usefulness to votes as statements.

I'm just not so sure this is the best time to sacrifice a vote, that could help us get a majority, for a protest vote.

[MadHound]

69. Sorry friend, but a majority of Dems at this point is almost as bad

As a majority of Republicans. Let's look at what the Dems have given us the past few years.

Welfare "reform" NAFTA, CAFTA, IWR, the Patriot Act, '96 Telecom Act, the Bankruptcy Bill, Ashcroft, probably Roberts(since they are already saying they're not going to put up much of a fight), on and on ad nauseum.

And the more this happens, the more former Dems like myself are going to be going Green. And the more that go Green, the more the Democratic Party fades away. There is the real change I'm talking about, a liberal party whose very rules state that any Green candidate cannot take any corporate money. Elimate corporate money in elections, and we the people get our country back from the corporate greed heads.

Further enabling of corporate control of this country is no longer acceptable, and if a political candidate takes corporate cash, then he/she is a defacto corporate whore, and is putting greed before duty. The Dems have been doing this for over thirty years now, and all it has done is allowed corporate control of government, and moving the Dem party ever rightwards. It is time to kick corporations out of government, and the only way to do that is to eliminate corporate cash from the election process.

[eridani]

89. Why is CAFTA on your list?

95% of Dems voted against, and 95% of Repubs voted for. There was a big change from the NAFTA vote because activists lobbied the hell out of all Dems and some Repubs. DINOs can often be pushed into doing it our way with this tactic.

[KingFlorez]

68. A vote for a Republican

Is a vote for Delay and a Rubberstamp for Bush. That's not going to help the situation any.

[MadHound]

70. Well, judging by her record, a vote for Hillary leads to the same result

But somehow she is supposed to be better than a Republican? Give me a break:eyes:

I'll take a Republican who has not taken any corporate cash any day over a corporate controlled Dem. At least the only group that the 'Pug is answerable to will be his voting constituents, the way government in this country was originally intended. A corporate controlled Dem will put the interests of his/her corporate masters ahead of those of his constituent every single time.

[KingFlorez]

74. It won't matter

Tom Delay will be making all the decisions in the House regardless. If you vote for a Republican, they will support Tom Delay. So you would be helping the Republicans keep their majority in the House if you vote Republican.

[MadHound]

75. And if I vote for a corporate controlled Dem

DeLay won't have to worry about a majority, the corporate whore Dems will simply vote for the interests of their corporate masters, the same corporate masters that the Republicans answer to.

Don't you get it, D and R don't matter anymore, it is all in who pays your for your election campaign.

[mmonk]

67. No

Not if they vote republican in Congress. The fact they may be a Democrat would be erased by their voting pattern.

[m_welby]

71. this is not a hypothetical to me.

I live in RI and Linc Chafee is my senator. It is very difficult for me to vote against him. He is a good man who voted against the IWR (thats more than many leading dems did. RI traditionally splits the senate seats (1 repub, 1 dem) and I have always had great respect for our sneators.

However, We need control of the senate and unless the dem running against chafee is a whacko, and neither dem candidates are as far as I know. I will probably vote for the Dem. Although, I also don't really think either are a better choice or would make a better senator Lincoln has.

Of course, almost certainly there is an right wing whacko going to challenge Chafee in the primary, and I may just have to vote in the republican primary just to destroy him.

[MadeinOhio]

72. We should all do this.

Hit them in their pocket books, and the fanatics of the right wing where it hurts most.

Sure it may seem silly, but registering as republican and voting against them in the primaries may put these folks out of business. Then go back to vote for democrat, and so on. Its heavily based on the electronic voting which is proven insecure, so we need to really mobilize to out-maneuver it.

[In Truth We Trust]

73. pragmatic vs principled thinking has fucked us all along. I vote NO

[Douglas Carpenter]

76. blocking the extreme right wing from the worst aspects of its agenda

is just too important. A Democratic majority in one or both houses could literally save millions of lives and unimaginable amounts of human suffering. Even if we might not make as much progress as we would like, we can at least minimize the damage.
I have never hesitated to lambaste the DLC-types. And I do believe that we must all push to make the Democratic Party a genuine progressive party -- but our ability to investigate anything and block the most dreadful aspects of Republican policy cannot be done without gaining at least one and preferably both houses of Congress. The real human cost of continued Republican domination of Congress is just too costly.
As the right wing gradually gained control of the Republican Party -- starting in the aftermath of Barry Goldwater's landslide defeat in 1964 -- they still worked diligently to elect as many Republicans as possible -- even if it meant electing liberal or moderate Republicans.

Like everything in life, we have to work with what the current realities are -- while working for our long term goals.

[Douglas Carpenter]

77. In the primaries -- from now on I will ONLY vote my conscience

Since we don't have a parliamentary system with proportional representation -- that is the one chance to really let ones convictions speak.

In the last Presidential race I was torn between Dean and Clark and finally settled on Kerry -- I regret that I didn't back Kucinich.

In next years Senate race in PA, I will certainly support Casey if he wins the Primary -- but I already sent a donation to Chuck Pennacchio.

[Q]

79. So then...we're to believe...

...that if we vote for the same politicians that are right now doing nothing to at least expose the corruption and criminality of the Bush administration...that they'll magically do their jobs after re-election?

I'm more inclined to believe that they'll do nothing...even if they hold a majority again.

[Douglas Carpenter]

80. The change in committee chairs and the investigative abilities will

certainly help --

I STRONGLY opposed President Clinton's "welfare reform" -- but in comparison to the Newt Gingrich plan, it was a far, far lesser evil that saved countless lives -- for me that is worth it.

Let's build a progressive majority and let's speak loudly in the primaries for genuine change.

I guess this statement below sums up my genuine attitude--It may sound cynical -- I think its genuinely realistic:

[Nikki Stone 1]

78. If a banana slug (D) runs against any Repug in CA, I will vote the slug

:)

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

81. Banana slug

:rofl:

[UrbScotty]

82. Yes. A DINO is still a Democrat.

That said, I'd still work my behind off to make sure someone more progressive gets the nomination.

[sueh]

83. Yes, I would.

We HAVE to take Congress back- we must.

[LeftyElvis]

84. Absolutely

any means necessary; but when they do regain control and their aren't any impeachment proceedings and investigations, I will be pissed off.

[NinetySix]

85. If Strom Thurmond came back from the dead and ran as a Democrat

I would pull that fucking lever. Not because becoming a Democrat (again) would make him the ideal candidate, but because in lieu of a genuinely qualified candidate, I will still vote for anyone whom I think can beat the Republican incumbent (or challenger).

On many occasions I have voted Green, Libertarian, even Natural Law (Doug Henning! Yogic Flying! Thenk yewwww!) when there was no Democrat on the ballot. I'm not picky; I'll vote for anyone with the greatest likelihood of defeating a Republican, even if there's little or no likelihood at all. It's because I'm opposed to the GOP platform of "Death to America" by a Thousand Cuts" platform.

If you want me to vote for a real candidate (e.g., non-DLC), then get in there and pick me one. I'll always choose the lesser of two evils in a pinch. I'm not proud.

[Mark E. Smith]

86. Of course!

Republicans support George W. Bush and therefore cannot be trusted.

[Vinca]

87. Why is this even a question?

Without control of Congress, we're dog poo. If Charlie Manson runs as a Democrat I'll vote for him.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

88. He can't vote though, on

accounta he's a felon.

Not even one of Katherine Harris's "future felons" of Florida whose crimes were to be committed at a future date specified in the purge documents.

;)

[Vinca]

90. It was an exaggeration, I know Charlie can't vote.

But, now that I think about it, can felons run for office? (And no, I'm not suggesting a Charlie draft.)

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

91. I knew it was an exaggeration, just had to take a poke

K. Harris's future felons plan.

The Repubs changed the rules so that an indicted person could still serve in the Cong. leadership. They passed that expeditiously, without delay but with DeLay.

Give them time, they'll change all the rules so they can all govern from prison.

;)