Would you vote for Bloomberg/Paul/McKinney/Nader over Clinton if you knew it would elect Huckabee?

[Rowdyboy]

How about Romney? McCain? Guiliani? Thompson?

I assume from the beginning that no third party candidate will win in America. I'm not interested in that speculation. The best they've ever done is throw the election.

How does your desire for a return to democracy conflict with your feelings toward Senator Clinton?

In my case there is no problem. She's my 6th choice, behind Edwards, Obama. Biden, Dodd, and Richardson. I'd MUCH prefer another nominee. However, I thought Carter was too conservative in 1976, wanted Gary Hart instead of Mondale in 1984 and REALLY wanted Gore instead of Dukakis in 1988. Life is often a bitch. I would never consider voting for any independent if I was seriously concerned that it would result in the election of another Republican president especially considering Justice Stevens and Ginsberg are elderly and in poor health.

Is distaste for an individual candidate justification for potentially losing the next presidential election? How do you balance your need for personal integrity with your desire for a different America with different priorities? Is there any particular Republican nominee that you would be willing to see win?

Basically, what I'm asking is, if your vote in your state could potentially make the difference in a very tight election (like Gore/Bush Florida in 2000) would you vote 3rd party knowing you would likely elect one of the Republican candidates?

[ColbertWatcher]

1. Blech

False choice.

The way republicans work means that no matter who gets elected (if a republican gets elected) they will all get a piece of it.

No more republicans Ever!

[Frances]

2. I will vote for the Dem candidate whoever it is

[Joe the Revelator]

3. I'd vote for Bloomberg pretty quickly.

The rest, not so much.

[Rowdyboy]

6. But the question is would you vote for Bloomberg if you were reasonably sure

that your vote in your state could throw the election to a particular Republican? I wasn't clear. Sorry.

[Joe the Revelator]

13. Ah, I see, it would depend on how close it was.

[Rowdyboy]

19. To me, absolutely, that would be a huge factor.....I understand how one can differ

but for me the answer is clear.

[terrya]

22. I will vote for the Democrat. Period.

I don't know why that is so hard for some people around here to understand.

[Joe the Revelator]

51. Nobody's faulting you for that....

But I'm not voting for Hillary if there is a better liberal also running.

[tired_old_fireman]

4. I don't think Bloomberg would run if he didn't see an opportunity to win.

Who is to say that Bloomberg wouldn't be a safer vote against Huckabee than Clinton? If you live in a state where she doesn't have a chance, Bloomberg might have a better chance.

I just hope it doesn't come to that.

[cali]

31. Which state does a Jewish New York billionaire stand a better chance

in than Clinton? I'm all ears.

[dugggy]

52. Bloomberg could become a catholic? Heck if they can

vote for a half muslim, a jew is no worse.

[TwilightGardener]

5. Strategic voting, in which you cast a vote not as support but to keep

someone else out of office, is stupid. If I wanted to vote for Nader, say--if that's where my heart was, then I do a disservice to the country by voting against my better judgment for a candidate that I don't support but might be more electable. If everyone voted for exactly whom they support, rather than who is more likely to win, then we'd get honest election results, and the country would be better off. I hate being told I'm "throwing my vote away" or empowering the opposing party--votes of true support are never thrown away. Dishonest votes are.

[Occam Bandage]

7. No, we wouldn't get "honest election results."

Let's pretend we had an America that was 60% liberal and 40% conservative. Let's also pretend that of the liberals, half are moderate and half are extreme. Now, we have an election. The final total:

Conservative candidate: 40% of the vote.
Moderate liberal candidate: 30% of the vote.
Extreme liberal candidate: 30% of the vote.
Final result: Conservatives win the White House.

While most people are liberal, the conservative candidate wins, because liberals are stupid and do not vote in a bloc. But I'm sure that as they endure four to eight years of a conservative, they're very happy that their "vote of true support" was not "thrown away."

[TwilightGardener]

Vote for the person you want in office. If your candidate loses because

there's not enough people who also support that candidate, then I would consider it an honest election result. What if everyone really loves Dennis Kucinich, but fears that he couldn't win and thus they all vote for one of the front-runners instead--is that an honest result? We can't get together with the rest of liberal/moderate America and decide how to vote as a strategic bloc--everyone must therefore vote his or her conscience, and hope everyone else is doing the same.

[Occam Bandage]

17. So you consider

my little thought experiment to be an "honest" election result? That's nice. It's also an unrepresentative election result, which I consider slightly more important than the degree to which people get warm fuzzies from their balloting.

[Rowdyboy]

12. No vote you cast for anyone is ever "thrown away"....its only when you decline

to vote that you throw it away. I may not agree with your vote, and I may argue your rationale, but I don't discredit your right to a different decision.



Living in Mississippi you do a LOT of strategic voting. If we didn't this state would be MUCH worse. Trust me.

[LoZoccolo]

18. Really but I say

FUCK NADER!

[Jai4WKC08]

48. You may hate it, but it's true.

It may be true that "If everyone voted for exactly whom they support, rather than who is more likely to win, then we'd get honest election results..." as you say. I'm not sure it is true -- it's at least as likely that most of those who voted for Gore in 2000, or who are voting for Clinton now, are doing so precisely because that's who they want in office.

But let's assume for a minute that most people really want someone like Nader or Kucinich. The FACT is a majority is not going to vote for them, even if they want to. THAT is reality, whether you like it or not. Wishing that "everyone voted for exactly whom they support" does not make it so and never will.

[onehandle]

8. No Republicans. No third party. nt

[Occam Bandage]

9. I would vote for the Democrat, because I am not stupid, and recognize

that the fate of the nation is slightly more important than whether I can "feel good about my vote." I'm not one for electoral masturbation.

[mth44sc]

10. a house divided

the signs in my front yard. Its not a fight to the death for us. Its not a house that will not stand. Its a matter of the choice we have each made for the reasons we choose. And as always - if it doesn't work out for either of us (or maybe both of us) - there is always plan B.

[Rowdyboy]

14. My friend, you just made my day.....Thats very cool.....

You guys are a lot like my partner and me...there's always plan B

[balantz]

20. That's really great!

And I'm glad to see that one of you is voting for the best candidate!

:hi:

[ronnykmarshall]

40. That's our house

But my SO hasn't got an Edwards sign.

[DesertFlower]

11. i will vote for the democratic nominee. nt

[Historic NY]

15. I will vote for the Democrat, because we can't take another 8 yrs

of GOP rule and 3rd parties are useless at this time.

[CitizenLeft]

16. always the Dem.

Always. Taking no chances.

[LWolf]

21. Voting for any 3rd party candidate doesn't elect Huckabee.

Voting for Huckabee elects Huckabee.

If Democrats think that their republican opponent will get more support than the nominee, perhaps Democrats ought to consider nominating someone who can EARN the votes of those who would otherwise vote for a 3rd party candidate.


I would like to point out that every accusation leveled against those who don't shut up and drink the D kool aid in the general election further alienates those votes that COULD make the difference, if the Democratic Party truly wanted to earn them. Threats of a republican administration don't scare people into compliance. The dishonest propaganda pisses them off and pushes them further away.

Relying on the blame game to cover up the party's refusal to nominate a candidate that will bring in those votes is pathetic.

Earn the votes. Or don't. The voters who nominate the candidate that loses independent and 3rd party votes are accountable for those losses.

The independent and 3rd party voters are exercising their rights as citizens to vote. They are not to blame for a bad nominee or a bad campaign.

But please...spend some more time alienating more voters. Pat yourself on the back for spinning the blame on those who see through that bullshit. Get yourself all ready to be the victim, or the martyr, if the Dem loses, instead being accountable for your own poor political choices.

[sniffa]

23. bravo

this could make a good OP.

:thumbsup:

[dbackjon]

24. Then why the fuck on you on this board?

The point of the this board is to ELECT DEMOCRATS. If that is not your aim, then you need to find a new home, seriously.

[LWolf]

30. Well, let's see, dbackjon who has been here since June of '04:

First of all, I'll have to clarify your question. "Why the fuck on you" is nonsensical. I'll assume that you were reacting in such a frenzy that you didn't check for typos, and that you meant to ask "Why the fuck are you on this board?"

My five year anniversary as a registered member of this board is coming up on January 1st. My 17,000 + posts have well established why I'm here. Feel free to browse through my journal page to educate yourself further.

I'll pull from the "Who We Are" page to explain what I'm doing on this board, since you asked. I've bolded the pertinent parts:

<snip>

About Democratic Underground, LLC

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

We welcome Democrats of all stripes, along with other progressives who will work with us to achieve our shared goals. While the vast majority of our visitors are Democrats, this web site is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, nor do we claim to speak for the party as a whole.

If you go to the homepage to pull this up, you will see that, nowhere in this statement, does it mention that the point of DU is to elect Democrats. The point is to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. That exchange is admittedly sparse anytime there is an election going on, of course.

Then there is this, from the rules page:

<snip>

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

I would suggest to you that all Democrats are not supportive of progressive ideals. I am a progressive first, and a Democrat second. That isn't going to change, and that's ok. I fit the criteria for the board in two categories.

I would also suggest to you that there is no rule against warning people, during a primary election, that some candidates, and some campaign tactics, could lose votes for the Democrat in the general election. That is a valid part of the effort to "support Democratic candidates." You will not find, anywhere in my 17,000+ posts, a suggestion from me that someone NOT vote for a Democrat. I can recognize, acknowledge, and point out how Democratic votes may be lost, or gained, within the bounds of these rules.

I can also certainly point out when particular Democratic candidates do not uphold progressive ideals, regardless of the propaganda asserting that they do. I support a Democratic candidate in the current election, and the general election doesn't begin until after the convention. I don't have to support ANYBODY for an election season that has not yet begun.

Finally, if you have any other questions about my presence on the board, I would encourage you to review the pages mentioned above and take your questions to a moderator.

[dbackjon]

41. Wow - you have been on here 2 years longer

I guess that makes you special....NOT.

The bottom line is that any Democrat in the White House is 1,000,000 times better than any Republican, and that if you haven't recognized that by now, you never will. Whining/taking your ball home, etc, because the majority of the Democratic Party does not agree with YOUR choice is childish, and counter-productive to the ideals that you claim to believe in.

You can argue/fight, etc for the candidate you support, or against candidates that you do not like now, but I have no use for anyone that will not proclaim 100% that they will vote for the candidate that the PEOPLE of the Democratic Party have selected.

Posts like yours serve no viable purpose, and only contribute to the Rethug destruction of our great country.

[LWolf]

42. I can find one thing in that diatribe that you are correct about:

I am no more "special" than any other Democrat, or any other voter.

Of course, my extra time and posts do not indicate anything except the fact that, if I didn't somehow "belong" on DU, site owners and mods have had abundant opportunity to discover that, and act upon it, before you decided to set them straight. I assume that you DID take your complaint to them? A more credible move than trying to argue the point with me, imo.

I don't believe that my post pointing out that 3rd party voters don't elect republicans can be categorized as "whining," and I don't believe I ever suggested that anyone "take their ball home." Of course, I've read those same words ad nauseum at DU; it's the standard whiny bully response from those who can't accept accountability for the Democratic Party's errors.

I am happy to argue for the candidate I do support at this time, and do so here at DU on a daily basis. I also step in, a few times a week, to argue against candidates that I don't like.

It's just too damned bad that the world doesn't revolve around "who you have a use for," now, isn't it? I don't think I've ever offered myself up to be used by you, or by anyone else for that matter. You are simply providing a graphically clear example of my original point. You don't have a "use" for people whose votes you haven't earned. You will blame them for your losses, rather than do the work to earn their votes. You'd rather take the easy out and blame others than take on the challenge of actually earning those votes. You don't have a "use" for the votes, either, apparently.

Posts like mine serve purposes that are just as viable and legitimate as any other post at DU, and more than many. If Democrats REALLY wanted to ensure a Democratic victory next November, they would be working to draw those voters to them, rather than to purge them from a message board and from the coming general election. Pointing out that certain campaign tactics and propaganda are counter-productive in that they LOSE votes for the nominee is certainly more responsible and productive than actively working to lose those votes.

[Tarc]

25. "There's no difference between a Gore or Bush administration"

Biggest line of horseshit ever spun in the history of politics. 3rd party president candidates have no validity or legitimacy; they are throwaway, look-at-me protest votes by people too bitter and too ignorant to even comprehend how to make compromises for the greater good. The greater good being keeping yet another destructive, far-right fundamentalist out of the White House.

[LoZoccolo]

28. It's been referred to as the Big Green Lie. n/t

[LWolf]

32. Of course, I have never spoken nor typed that line. n/t

[Tarc]

36. We can read between the lines

"Voting for any 3rd party candidate doesn't elect Huckabee" (Actually, it will)


"Voting for any 3rd party candidate didn't elect Bush" (Actually, it did)

[LWolf]

39. Then I would suggest that your reading skills are poor.

You don't get to decide what I mean by what I say. I get to be the authority on that one. :D

Any thinking person knows that there would be a difference between a Gore and a Bush administration. Incidentally, there would be a difference between a Clinton administration and any other Democrat in the race, as well as any other Republican.

Obviously, the 2 parties, like any 2 people, have similarities and differences.

NONE of that has anything to do with the fact that a vote for a 3rd party candidate is a vote FOR a 3rd party candidate, not for some other candidate that didn't get the vote. Suggesting otherwise is a campaign tactic sourced in unethical bullying and fear-mongering.

Since you seem to need this pointed out, Bush was not elected. He was selected. That had to do with the number of votes that he got legitimately, plus election fraud.

He was re-elected with a combination of legitimate votes and election fraud.

Since election fraud has not been adequately addressed YET, after 2000 and 2004, Democrats are at least partly responsible if it occurs again. They've had a majority for 2 years before the general election to address that point.

Third party voters are exercising a legitimate right, and casting legitimate votes. I'd hope that Democrats would like to earn many of those votes by fielding a candidate, and running a campaign, that would draw them. That's the responsibility of the Democratic Party, and if they fail to do so, it's not the 3rd party voters' fault. If you want a unified front against the republican running, you build that coalition. You don't burn bridges behind you with the blame game.

If a republican wins in '08, Democrats have no one but themselves to blame. Not that I expect that truth, or any sense of accountability or integrity, to stop them from pointing fingers elsewhere.

[Tarc]

49. Stop the whining and novel-writing

If you aren't going to support the Democratic nominee , then you are as much a part of the problem as the Republicans are. Period.

[LWolf]

63. If you really can't get by without attacking,

don't you have anything of substance to attack with? I have yet to "whine," and I haven't written any novels. I don't believe I've discussed, in this thread, whether or not I plan to vote for the Democratic nominee. Tossing falsehoods at me is about as effective as tossing marshmallows.

People who make thoughtful, principled choices are not "part of the problem."

People who willingly participate in the destruction of their own party's value for the sake of "winning" at the ballot box and LOSING the issues that affect the health of the nation ARE the problem.

If you're only concern is to make sure a "D" wins the general, and you think many people may not vote for that "D," your current spewing IS the problem. You are driving votes away rather than working to attract them. THAT, MY FRIEND, IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM FACING THE PARTY TODAY.

[Tarc]

67. If you think that casting a 3rd-party protest vote

is either thoughtful or principled, then you are too far gone to bother with.

[LWolf]

69. I think that any vote cast thoughtfully, with principles,

is worth honoring whether you agree with it or not. It's the foundation of democratic principles, and of the democratic process. I honor that process whether or not I personally win or lose.

Please find someplace that I said that casting a 3rd party vote was a "protest" vote, or said that a vote had to be for a 3rd party to be principled or thoughtful.

..............crickets...........crickets...........crickets...........crickets.........

You can't find that, because I've never said it. You are either deliberately avoiding my point, or you are too limited to see and understand it. Please, if you don't have the intellect to grapple with something more complex than "Democrat good, the rest bad," or the integrity to engage in thoughtful, respectful discussion, "don't bother with me." You don't have anything to offer that could possibly have an affect on my point of view one way or the other.

Which all leads to this question: If you think I am "too far gone to bother with," why do you keep bothering? :freak:

[MH1]

26. Not voting for the Democratic nominee = helping elect the Republican nominee.

Whether you vote third party or stay home.

Voting for the third party candidate has the additional effect of indicating support for that party's or candidate's positions, but we still end up with a Republican president making policy.

[LWolf]

29. That's unadulterated bullshit.

You can spew it, but don't expect it to stick.

I'm not trying to fight with anyone here, although I could easily have predicted that my post would attract frenzied attacks like moths to a flame.

The line of propaganda you are following does more harm than good. First of all, it's not the truth, which diminishes your credibility. Secondly, it assumes that people can be scared into voting against their own interests. It doesn't factor those that don't cave to scare tactics into the formula. This line of propaganda angers and alienates more voters than it scares into compliance. If you really wanted to earn those votes for the party, you wouldn't take this tack.

[LSK]

45. it was PROVEN in 2000 in New Hampshire

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html

Maybe if 10,000 there voted for Gore, we wouldn't have this mess.

[LWolf]

46. That's not proof of 3rd party votes going to Bush.

That's proof of the Gore campaign not earning votes from enough 3rd party or independent voters in New Hampshire.

Which, as I'm sure you are well aware, is a secondary outcome. If election fraud had not played a part, Gore would have won in 2000 with the votes he DID earn.

[MH1]

55. No, what you are saying is incorrect.

The popular vote counts in perception as well as in the case of a contested election.

You can rail against reality but it doesn't change what it is.

I am not telling anyone not to vote third party, they just have to be willing to make that statement that they think we may as well have a Republican president as whatever Democrat is running.

[LWolf]

64. I don't find anything in what I'm saying

that refers to the popular vote, perception, or contested elections.

I think your understanding of my points is incomplete, and what is therefore incorrect.

I am not telling anyone TO vote 3rd party. I'm just not willing to see 3rd party voters blamed for Democratic Party error or dysfunction. I'm not afraid to be accountable for my own choices, to take the blame when things don't go the way I hoped. I lose respect for fellow Democrats and the Democratic party when they don't have the courage to do the same.

[LoZoccolo]

27. Yes it does. n/t

[LWolf]

33. No, it doesn't. n/t

[ulysses]

54. wonder how many conservative Dems would vote for Huckabee.

Wonder through what gyrations you'd put yourself to justify their votes.

[Vinca]

34. I will vote for whichever Democrat is the nominee of the party.

If it's Hillary, I'll be holding my nose, but any of the Republican candidates winning would send me packing to Canada to live. Huckabee, especially. The man's a loon. I cannot live in this country through another Republican administration.

[quiethm75]

35. I'll vote for the Democrat

no matter what. Just like I always have.

[crawfish]

37. If Clinton cannot acquire the votes herself,

Then she doesn't deserve to win. I'm voting my conscience.

[elana i am]

38. i'd vote my conscience, period.

my conscience says no hillary. and i'd write in kucinich, because i vote democrat.

[LSK]

43. no way in hell

[onenote]

44. what if the Democratic nominee was someone other than HRC - same question

The question asks whether DUers would vote for a third party candidate over the Democratic party nominee if that nominee was Clinton and voting for the third party candidate would elect Huckabee (or some other repub candidate).

The same question can and should be asked substituting the other possible Democratic nominees for HRC. And for those that would vote for a third party candidate (or write in another Democrat) even if it meant Huckabee (or some other repub canddidate) would win, or who claim that voting third party doesn't "elect" the repub, would they be as supportive of the Democrats who choose to go third party rather than vote for one of the other Democrats. For example, and I recognize that this is merely fantasy -- imagine that Kucinich got the nomination. I have no doubt that there are many Democrats who would go for Bloomberg over Kucinich. If doing so doesn't "elect" the repub (although the repub does get elected) are those voters open to any more criticism than the voters that say that they'd go third party rather than vote for HRC even if the repub ends up getting elected?

[MaineDem]

47. Hell no

I can't imagine ever voting for a third party candidate. And why would I want Huckabee elected anyhow?

I miss the point of this discussion I guess. But I will be voting for the next President and that will be our Democratic nominee.

[democrat2thecore]

50. If Bloomberg runs - he runs to win. Could the DEMOCRAT be the spoiler?

He is a liberal and would run as such. Is liberalism divorced from fiscal conservatism? Absolutely not - it's what you spend the money on and what you don't spend money on. The "Bloomberg as a Republican" Mayoral run was only of convenience with ballot issues.
So, yeah, it's a problem. Many of us would have to decide which candidate would play spoiler - it could be the Democratic nominee - if he pours the incredible amount of money in the race that is rumored. This could be a year unlike any other.

[varelse]

53. Hell no

there's not a single one of the republican presidential primary candidates that I would not vote against in a tight race. California, however, will probably go overwhelmingly to a relatively conservative democratic candidate like Hillary as opposed to anyone in the unimpressive lineup on the right. If that is in fact how the presidential race plays out here, I'd feel free to cast a write-in vote for Kucinich or a Green vote for McKinney. I wouldn't vote for Nader or Bloomberg or Paul in any case.

If it looks like it will be a close race here, I will vote for the dem no matter who it is.

[sniffa]

56. if i had a crystal ball

i'd play the lottery.

[Sparkly]

57. Motto: "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

If people vote for other than a Democrat, they are not helping to defeat the Republican. Not helping to defeat the Republican is, IN EFFECT, a help to the Republican.

I want Republicans OUT of office more than ANYTHING!!

So people can slam me for "drinking Kool-Aid" or "taking loyalty oaths," but I think that's less about what they think of Democrats and more about what they think of Republicans.

[ulysses]

58. see, to me, the problem isn't Republicans per se.

The problem is conservativism. It's through that lens that I first view voting choices.

[Sparkly]

59. To me it's Republicans.

They are, without a doubt, FAR more "conservative" (an inaccurate word anyway) than Democrats.

What they've done to our courts, our economy, our public discourse on the Constitution and privacy is outrageous. ANY Democratic candidate is better by far -- no contest -- than any Republican one.

Women's rights, civil rights, education, the environment, tax policy, job training, veterans' rights, healthcare, foreign policy, on and on... It matters. A lot.

[ulysses]

60. no doubt that they are more so, surely.

That's why I'm a Democrat and always have been.

Still, there is a faction in our party that would have us keep tacking further to the right, and that is not what is needed after years of conservative Republican stupidity.

[Sparkly]

61. That's about the primaries.

But if the OP is about the general election, it's a no-brainer.

[ulysses]

62. perhaps.

That was my point of view through the 1992 election, when I didn't support Clinton in the primary but was elated that we got a Dem in the White House. The results of the following eight years weren't so inspiring. Lesson learned.

Would HRC be better than any of the Repukes running? Sure. Then, pneumonia is better than lung cancer. I don't imagine that I'll vote third party next year if she wins the nomination (although, never say never), but neither do I see giving her the benefit of a lot of doubt.

[BadgerLaw2010]

65. Bloomberg is very distinct from that trio of vanity crackpots. He would be out to win.

He's said many times that he won't run unless he thinks he can get to 270, and someone with a couple billion dollars to spend is not a joke or a spoiler.

[Rowdyboy]

66. Mitt Romney has spent 17 million for second place in Iowa....Bloombergs' billions

won't buy him the white house. Democrats are hungry this year and Republicans are terrified. A core Democratic base of 35% in minimum IMHO as is a core Republican base of 35%. That leaves any 3rd party candidate with a maximum potential of 30%. No 3rd party in American history has ever come close to that number and thus far I know of no reason to expect Bloomberg to do any better. Yes, hes richer than God but so was Ross Perot.

I'm sure he thinks he can get to 270. And in their dreams so do Paul and McKinney and Nader. But there is no historical precedent for it happening in America.

[IndianaGreen]

68. Would you vote for someone that supports torture, rendition, Guantanamo, wars in Iraq and Iran...

and the police state apparatus established since 9-11?

[trashcanistanista]

70. I'm taking your question as an analogy

of the Kerry/Nader issue. If it became necessary for a strategy to split the rethug votes to knock out two challenging rethugs so that a Dem would win in the general, and, if that were the only way to get a dem win, I would do it. I would re-register at the last minute to vote rethug and attempt to split the votes. I don't know if there is any way to guarantee a Dem win in a three-way, but if it were ensured, and that would be what it would take, I would do it. If it backfired on me I would regret it for the rest of my life! I will do whatever it takes to get a dem prez. Sometimes you have to play dirty and if that's what it takes, I would do it.

[Didereaux]

71. Under NO circumstances will I vote for the republican nominee! PERIOD!

and I am a TRUE independant.