Here we go again...My Take on GREENS running in the General Election

For those of you still hung up on how progressive the Democratic party really is or whether Democrats are more left leaning today then they were way back when...FORGET DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS..hell FORGET VOTING...think Balloons and read my TRANSLATION at the bottom of the original post :)

My take is very simple:

97% (or so) of the likely voters in this country (USA) are either

a) Democrats
b) Republicans


this is a fact (with a certain negligeable percentage of error of course) not an opinion

With this FACT in hand we can then postulate the following:



A vote for BUSH is a vote for a Conservative REPUBLICAN administration

A vote for the Democratic Nominee is a vote for a Progressive DEMOCRATIC administration

A vote for Nader (or the Green nominee) is a vote for the GREEN party candidate

I trust noone is lost thus far....well now here's where you have to think a little bit instead of relying on the ol' ideology to bring you home:


The DEMOCRATS and the GREENS have many common goals and opinions; therefore if ALLLLL the votes for the Democrats are added to ALLLL the votes for the GREENS and they total MORE than ALLLLL the votes for BUSH then shouldn't the "progressive party" win the election?

Makes sense huh? well as we all...err...I mean MOST of us know....THE PRECEEDING STATEMENT IS FALSE!!!

VOTES for candidates CANNOT BE COMBINED...therefore if BUSH gets 50 votes and the DEMOCRAT gets 40 votes and the GREEN gets 30 votes then (stay with me here)...BUSH WINS!!!


Conclusion:

By voting for BUSH, you help the Republicans.

By voting for the Democratic Nominee you help (that's right) the DEMOCRATS (good..you're getting this).

By voting for the Green Candidate you help.........the REPUBLICANS!!



Is there ANYONE that can dispute those FACTS?!? ANYONE???

And I don't mean with the same tired argument of "we're voting to make sure the party gets noticed"....because that still will not dispute the fact that what helps your party gets noticed...HELPS THE REPUBLICANS.....and if that's actually your goal...then by all means do it....just as long as you know what you're REALLY doing...

By the way here is the article I'm talking about with this post:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2003/11/07/greens/index.html



TRANSLATION
If you have a RED balloon, a BLUE balloon and a GREEN balloon and a tank of AIR that contains 100 cubic feet of air and someone tells you:

Fill each of these balloons with air until there is no more air


If you fill the RED balloon with 40 cubic feet of air, the BLUE balloon with 35 cubic feet of air and the GREEN balloon with 25 cubic feet...WHICH BALLOON WINS??

I thought about defining what the colors mean but if I have to do that for you then it should be impossible to know what all these squiggles on the screen mean so it would be pointless to explain anyway.

"A vote for the Democratic Nominee is a vote for a Progressive DEMOCRATIC administration"

This only works if they nominate a progressive.


TWL

that is all

I am thinking in relative terms..COMPARED TO BUSH

Compared to Bush most of the candidates are a heck of alot closer to Bush than to progressives. CORPORATE dems are nothing but "Shiny-Happy" on the outside as we slowly rot on the inside.

TWL

Or do you mean to say that we must pick among the least progressive compared to Bush?

Why would anyone who wants to help repigs win vote Green rather than simply voting for a repig? I'm sorry, but when logic becomes too convoluted, it's likely propping up a straw man of major proportions. Otherwise known as spin.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...not evil? Thanks for the advice, but I vote for candidates, not parties, and especially not parties that don't represent my hopes for America-- uh oh, here we go: "if you hope for progressive politicians, you're helping the repigs...."

If you vote for the lesser of two evils you still get EVIL.

Might make some people understand why Nader brought in so many disaffected dems and PEOPLE WHO DO NOT USUALLY VOTE. There was actually a choice that was NOT an evil, even a lesser one.


TWL

It's a chimera, a hallucination. It's the same thing as staying home and not voting at all. I guess it might make you feel "pure," but it doesn't do a damn thing to help the country.

It may not be a choice for who wins the president in that particular election, but it is definitely a choice... and it may be a strategic choice based on a desire to change the system.

We don't just declare victory for all eternity and relax into fuzzy contenment for the rest of our lives if a Democrat wins in 2004. Some of us are trying to change more than just the D or R that appears behind the president's name.

Promising your vote to the Democrats regardless of who the candidate is or what they stand for -- that's what does nothing to help the country. If anything, it encourages candidates like Lieberman who have nothing to offer but good funding and a D behind their names.

This is the same old silliness that says that there was no significant difference between Clinton and Bush the Junior. I can see non-Texans making that mistake in 2000, but surely the scales have fallen from your eyes by now. Would Gore have invaded Iraq? Would Gore have cut taxes on the rich the way Bush did? Would Gore be pushing to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge?

If you honestly believe that there is no important difference between Bush Jr. and Clinton or Gore or this year's Democratic candidates - if you are really that far out on the political limb - then you have made yourself irrelevant to real American politics, and nothing you do is going to influence anybody but the less-than-1% who already agree with you.

You just keep mouthing the same anti-Green points without regard to what you're replying to.

At no point did I say that Clinton, Gore, or any of this year's batch of Democratic candidates was indistinguishable from Bush. If anyone, you're the one pushing that point, since you insist than any vote except for the Democrat most likely to win is equivalent to a vote for Bush.

What I did say was that there are reasons to vote besides because you want to win an election. My intent to vote for Dean this year, for example, is based as much on the grassroots movement that supports him as it is on the man himself. That movement has the potential to change the way politics work for the better, and I support it for that reason. If Lieberman were the candidate, I would have no reason to expect that any change in the status quo would come about and I would not vote for him. I certainly would not vote for Bush, but I wouldn't feel that I "owed" my vote to Lieberman because he was better than Bush.

You seem the ideal partisan candidate: you don't care about issues as long as your party wins. Just be careful, because that's how the moderate Republicans got stuck with Bush.

Okay. I don't "insist that any vote except for the Democrat most likely to win is equivalent to a vote for Bush." I do insist that a vote for any splinter party candidate in the general election is equivalent to no vote at all, and when progressives do that in large numbers it obviously helps Bush. This is self-evident.

You say "there are reasont to vote besides because you want to win an election." I submit that that is self-delusion. You talk about "changing the system," but you can't change anything at all unless you can get your candidates into office. The kinds of things you want to change are changed by elected officials.

Or perhaps it's the Democratic Party you want to change. If so, the answer would be to get active in the party itself. But you can't expect the party to welcome your involvement if you mostly want the party to fail in favor of the Greens. Also, you have to understand that if the party moves too far left, farther than the electorate will follow, it will become as irrelevant as the Green Party itself.

You say you don't feel your vote is "owed" to the eventual nominee (who won't be Lieberman) just because he would be better than Bush. Of course you don't owe any candidate your vote. You vote for the sake of the country, not the candidate. If the country would be better off under Clark or Dean or Kerry or whoever, what justification can you give for withholding the one thing you can do to stop it from being four more years of Bush?

And yes, actually, I am quite active in the party itself. Most of the people I work with don't seem to mind that I voted for Nader in 2000, just as I would be happy to see the 20% of Democratic voters who voted for Bush in 2000 return to the fold. But despite the time I put into campaigns, I know that the only real way to make change is to support it with votes and money, and the only real way to express displeasure is to withhold those votes and money. People like you who don't give a shit what a candidate says as long as he's a Democrat make my job that much harder.

Perhaps we do vote for the good of our country, but you have convinced yourself that the Democratic party is what is right for the country, no matter what it stands for. It used to stand for civil rights, labor reform, and a progressive social agenda. As long as the candidates fielded by the Democratic party stand for those issues, I will continue to support it. But whenever Democrats tacitly approve of gerrymandering because it preserves a few Democratic seats, or whenever they allow $87 billion dollars to go to Bush on a voice vote so they don't have to be held accountable for voting against it, it turns me further from the party. Don't close your eyes and give me any bullshit about this being the best we can do.

Some of us are working for change. You don't have to help, but stop being an impediment.

You want to indulge in a fantasy about the country flying off to the left, in some never-never land where money and politics have nothing to do with each other. Fine. Be irrelevant if you like. But you're doing what you can to take other Democrats and progressives with you, and that's not fine.

Practical politics is the only kind of politics there is. The choices offered by the main parties are the only choices there are. Progressive change takes time. We did well in the sixties and seventies and got a lot done in a short period. Unfortunately, we hit the nation's gag reflex, which is partly why there has been so much regression.

But the other reason there has been so much regression is that the left won't grasp practical politics. Do you think right-wingers loved Bush the elder, or Dole, or even Bush Jr. when he was talking about "compassionate conservatism"? No, but they knew which side of the bread their butter was on and they voted Republican. Now things are moving their way. Notice the order of events. They voted for their side first and then things started to go their way.

Why can't the left be as sensible? Why do you have to be the impediment?

One is going to win. The other is going to lose. Your vote may help decide which is which. Whatever difference there is between them politically, that's as much difference as you can get. That's all that's on the menu. Anything else is just wishful thinking and self-delusion.

As I said to another poster on this thread, if the important thing is to vote for a candidate who represents your beliefs, why not just write in your own name? That way you have 100% agreement with your candidate, you don't have to compromise your principles at all, and your candidate will still have the same chance of being President as Nader or Camejo.

In 2000 they were Bush and Nader.

you could have fooled me with that one.
Generally a vote for a the Democratic Nominee is a vote for a corporate whore, but good try.

we're unmarginalizing

Now, if you can stop bitching about our few and insignificant vote totals long enough, maybe you could concentrate on the real problems facing the Democratic party

Clinton and the DLC lurched the party rightward. Your typical Democrat nowadays would have been considered a "Rockefeller Republican" 25 years ago. The only progressives to be found are in the Progressive Caucus.

This point goes to crux of the Green third party argument. The two party system is designed for stability at the expense of representation. That goes for both the right and the left.

Pardon the arrogance, but I think I've discovered the final answer to the endless Gore versus Nader debate.

First, let me say that I voted for Nader in 2000, and I make no apologies - even though I think Nader is corrupt. Confused?

I knew Bush was (and is) an abomination, and I was disgusted with Al Gore, too - largely because of some incredible links between Gore and the "Seattle Mafia." Not to mention the fact that the Bush-Gore debates were probably the most humiliating spectacle in American history.

So I voted for Nader, thinking that Gore could still easily beat a moron like Bush. And my voted wasn't just based on principle - I really wanted to do my part to help build a third party.

The only thing that bothered me was Nader's education statement - it sounded like a carbon copy of the standard Democratic boilerplate: Give public schools more money without accountability (not one word about corrupt school officials and teachers unions, corporate takeovers, etc.)

Actually, I was also a bit miffed by my discovery that the Green Party of Seattle is corrupt. Was Nader unaware of this, or was he simply unwilling to risk spoiling his election by fingering his own party?

At any rate, I voted for Nader and continued to defend him against Democrats' stupid attacks. (Like, who CARES if Nader lives in a nice house?) But I kept an open mind, and I finally discovered the evidence that convinced me Nader is indeed working for the other side. I the meantime, the Green Party of Seattle has leaped into the spotlight as the Republicans' third wheel. So I won't be voting for Nader again.

But Democrats are going to have to come up with something better than dismissing Nader as a spoiler. They need to give us a SUPERIOR CANDIDATE. Seriously, I suspect the number of people who vote for Greens in 2004 will be dwarfed by those who vote for Repugs or don't vote at all, simply out of spite - or out of the feeling that it's all hopeless.

So what's the ultimate answer I alluded to? LOCAL POLITICS. The presidential election is only part of a much bigger puzzle, and that puzzle can be most easily solved by reforming local school boards and city councils. Yet people aren't even attempting that here in liberal Seattle.

Thus, we've now put all our eggs in one basket - Campaign 2004. Of course, there will also be local offices up for grabs, and I certainly hope there are some spirited candidats running for them. George Bush Inc. should be an issue on EVERY candidate's plate.

- You wouldn't happen to have any proof of these 'links' would you? You should be careful making such claims without proof...or it sounds like you're just trying to smear someone's character.

a most disturbing fact is that more than 75% of democratic Senators voted to give bush his $87 billion to continue his death-a-day (or more) madness in Iraq ... abd there is no hope of success there ...

I actually believe that sometime before the election next year, bush plans to withdraw from Iraq to "pull the rug out" from under the opposition ... he'll declare victory, turn things over to the U.N., and argue that his policy was right all along ...

if you're familiar with the Green's position on the war, the party has been steadfastly opposed to it from day one ... no money, no troops, no nothing ...

so we have a situation where the democrats, i'm pained to say, have had at best a mixed position on the war and its aftermath ... and the Green's have been totally opposed to the war right from the start ...

you offer logic as to why Green's should support democrats ... it's nice logic ... but it's totally ineffective ... if you want to attract Green's to the democratic party, you do it with better policies ... not with logic ...

i'm giving some serious thought to joining the Green party ... if I do, it would largely be because of the democrats pitiful showing on the war issue ... but fear not, I'll be voting for the democrat next november ... that is the logical thing to do, isn't it?

progressives that can bring out that latent mass of votes.

I suspect that demonstrating frustration with "business as usual" was an important part of voting for both Jesse the Body and the Terminator.

This is the old "everybody who doesn't speak up must agree with me" fallacy, most famously used by Nixon in the "Silent Majority" speech.

but what the hell

flame fests are such fun

bye

I do however see a lot of :

"Democrats are this and Democrats are that"... and... "I voted because I want to help create a third party"...

leave IDIOLOGY at the door and come in with a CALCULATOR...I re-affirm...GREEN VOTES HELP REPUBLICANS...

prove me wrong...because I am as much an idealist as many GREENS but I am a realist when it comes to numbers...

,which you don't seem to want to respond to, is, so what?

my point is that your logic doesn't matter ... my point is that democrats need all the votes they can get and you don't win votes by peddling mathematical concepts ... you win votes by providing the best policies and the best candidates ...

your argument just doesn't matter ... you may be a realist when it comes to numbers ... i'm not sure you're a realist when it comes to winning votes ...

Go left? That trick never works. And it has been tried - by Stevenson, McGovern, and Mondale, to name three.

Why do you assume that moving the party and the candidates toward your personal point of view would be a big vote-getter? Do you have any facts to back that up?

Every time these guys go off into their argument that they are entitled to my vote, I get more and more ashamed to identify with the Dems.

Then why give a damn about the insignificant voe that went to the Greens? Why is is so important that you work on a segment of Democrats that many on this website claim pale in comparison to the numbers of more "moderate" middle-class, center votes.

If that's the case, why worry about the insignificant votes?

obviously it hurts democrats in the short term, whether or not its a good thing is the real question. By the same logic voting democratic hurts the green party. If you see nothing good coming from the democratic candidate winning, why vote for him/her.

Believe me, I know how old it gets voting for uninspiring Democrats, but ending up a Republican who is trying to repeal the 20th century is worse.

Politics is a zero sum game! I apologize for the sarcasm. Of course you're right.

I don't really think anyone voting Green doesn't know their vote will help the GOP. They are voting based on their personal convictions instead of political calculus (naive idealists!) Or they're just trying to send a message.

Because our two party sytem is based on the electoral college and lacks instant run-off, third parties will never win here.

This time around I think most Greens understand what is at stake and vote accordingly. Even most true-blue Dems are basing their preference on the horse-race factor as opposed to which candidate's most closely reflect their beliefs. Look for a resurgence of yellow dog Democrats in the upcoming general election.

So let me try it again.

Your numbers game is reflexive. One could just as easily say that the Dems can accomplish the goal of dumping Bush by joining the Greens. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Why don't you do what Dean is attempting - try to find ways to reach out to potential allies and get them on your side rather than villify them? The old adage about attracting more bees with honey than vinegar applies here. You're not likely to get very far with this political intimidation nonsense.


Are you "realist" enough to grasp this concept?

But there are some people who would let their house burn to the ground because they weren't happy with the color of the hose being used to save it.

that some people don't like, my good friend jiacinto, is that more than 75% of democratic senators voted to continue funding bush's madness in Iraq ...

whether you agree or disagree with them, i'm sure you would agree that the importance of an issue like that rises a wee bit higher than merely the color of hoses ...

Would you have them savaged as being unpatriotic and for "not supporting the troops?" The money was going to the troops too. And since they are there I am glad that they are getting supplies.

What they should have done was divide the bill in two.

...party, rather than a "grab your ankles and smile for dubya" party.

we are not arguing here, although I'd be glad to, whether there would be political fallout from voting against the $87 billion or whether witholding funds would hurt the troops ...

i was trying to highlight what i perceive as your lack of respect for the fact that many cannot stomach the hawkish positions taken by many democrats ... i believe you suggested that the reasons provided by Greens for voting as they do rose to the level of selecting a hose color ...

my point is that the disrepect you've shown for those who don't agree with you is not likely to catch many flies ... and that is how elections are won ... is it not ??

I think is more like it.

Let me join you.
There are some people who uncritically accept the premise that the house should burn down, and the only question is how fast.

there are some who keep lighting the damned house on fire ...

these posts that do nothing to "bring Greens back home" to the democratic party are totally pointless ...

they are nothing more than Nero fiddling while Rome burns ...

the process seems so simple ... i'm amazed that so many DU'ers just don't get it ...

Here's the logic flow:
1. some people don't vote the way you want them to
2. you want them to vote the way you do
3. you learn about why they vote as they do
4. you discuss the issues and try to reach some common ground
5. you convey respect for their positions but try to convince them that your way is a better way to achieve your common goals
6. if you fail, you keep trying
7. if people know you don't respect their views, YOU CAN NEVER CONVINCE THEM TO CHANGE TO YOUR VIEWS. disrespect does nothing but breed disrespect in return ... and that causes you to fail in your mission which should always be to gain more support for your candidates ...

who are completely unaware that their house is already burning...so which is worse? I doubt that your continual apology for a democratic party without a spine or a coherent message matches up at all with those who choose to join a party (Green) that espouses precisely what attracted them to the democrats in the first place, but ,sadly, is no longer found there.

When the democratic party drove me out I made a commitement to vote for the candidate that best represented my own wishes for my nation, something like what was originally intended for ones vote.All the silly talk about voting for Nader was voting for Bush is just so much tripe from those who seek to defend a traitorous and ineffective Democratic Party. They voted for war, they voted for the Patriot Act, they sold out and they do not deserve my vote at this time.

His goals are to further his ego and heighten the contradictions. And--must have been by accident--he has made himself fabulously rich in the process. He is demonstrably a hypocrite, given his stock holdings and treatment of his own workers. More importantly, he has had little impact on the political scene for any number of years, good or bad.

If he's the best hero for idealistic, liberal youth in this country, we are in a sorry state indeed. Talks the talk, but hasn't walked anywhere for anything since I've been born, at least.

If the Democratic Party elects a Conservative Dem- they have no moral right to count on anything but Conservative votes.

If the Democratic Party elects a Centrist Dem- they have no moral right to to count on anything but Centrist votes.

If the Democratic Party elects a Progressive Dem- they have no moral right to count on anything but Progressive votes.

All the rest is hysterical brow-beating and... hot air.

All of them are opportunists, egoists, and hypocrites who tailor their rhetoric to snare idealistic people who actually hold the beliefs they spew about. And yes, Nader is included in that. All I care about is the one who has the best chance to win and will do the least damage and maybe even fix a few things.

why is it unacceptable to you that people other than "those who have a chance of winning" have values that are similar to your own?

If I voted my values I'd have to bump off all the candidates until only Kucinich remained, and then I'd have to sit him down and talk to him long and hard about the US flag amendment.

If I understand your politics Ter, you and I want the same thing--I just don't believe voting for Nader will help me to get it, even though he talks the talk. I think a building Green party could eventually be a good thing, but they are doing a piss-poor job of building their party, and they are always blaming someone other than themselves. If there were an influx of votes from the Democrats to the Greens, I fear that once all three branches were Republican-dominated, they would stay that way through fair means or foul for the foreseeable future. Until some disaster happened anyway. I don't want to vote for an eventual disaster, I want to vote for some kind of maintenance and hope something better comes along.

I could be wrong.

I guess I'm just ahead of you on this one because I see the machinery as way past the maintenance point. I'm so sick... so tired of this black hole we've pushed ourselves down into (because contrary to popular opinion/rhetoric, Bush didn't get us into this hole... he simply administered the jolting coup-de-grace) that I can't even look at the maintenance phase anymore.

I've decided to vote only my values this time.

I find it really humourous that the Democratic Party has decided (in interest of corporations) that we have to have a Centrist Democrat (something already way right of center) in order to appeal to the judgement of a bunch of people who were mis-guided enough to vote for Reagan and Bush. Since their wonderful judgement of the last 20 years pushed us into this mess, why on earth would we trust/cater to their judgement now?

This machinery is pathetically broken and every time we vote less than our values, it breaks a little more.

I wish you well- you're definitely one of the few thinking ones left these days.

But vote your values at least in the Primaries. That's what they're for.

Peace to you

I really hope I'm wrong. A strong part of me wants to see Kucinich in the ring with Bush, because that is one candidate I think could really make a difference when in office. The media would treat him so harshly that it would be a near impossibility. When a candidate plans to gut GE's contracts, Brokaw and Russert won't be sanguine about his chances on the air.

An airtight formula for the permanent Republican domination of American politics. Congratulations.

Except, of course, that some people are realists and vote for whichever of the real candidates (the ones that might win) comes closer to their views, even if it isn't very close. The winner-take-all system of American politics necessitates a two-party system. That in turn necessitates a lot of compromise voting. Right-wingers have figured this out - they vote Republican, not for some right-wing splinter party. When the left catches up with the right in smarts, we may actually be able to halt and reverse the trend to the right in this country.

But that would involve compromise, which isn't consistent with truth and justice and purity. Oh well, it was a nice democracy while it lasted.

like Lieberman.

If you want the Greens to vote for Democrats, then put up a candidate they can support.

They know that their numbers aren't big enough to take the White House, but they ARE big enough to steer the Democratic Party leftwards to earn their votes. I think many Greens look at this issue with a long term perspective. They'll let the Democratic Party lose and lose as long as it chooses to ignore them.

They want to steer the boat a bit to the left, that's all. Almost any of the current candidates could grab the Green's votes, I'd say. But they have to earn them.

the only way to steer the boat left is to be in it rowing.

If you'll vote for any fool with a "D" next to his name, you're going to get screwed. Why should they listen to you? They've got your vote locked up- you're loyal.

Ah, but the Democratic Party can't produce results, os it blames the Greens!

(THIS ARGUMENT WILL SOONER OR LATER MAKE EVERYONE INSANE!)

Let me submit that it is each party's own responisibility to look after itself. If some outside entity is leeching "your" voters, well, you have to ask yourself why that is happening and attempt to put a stop to it. The Green party has no right to complain about being shut out because it is shutting itself out. The Democratic Party equally has no right to blame the Greens for lost elections. Each party is responsible for its own failures.

The Greens party can't produce results, so it blames the Democrats?

The fact that all the candidates don't look like Lieberman, as Cat Atomic pointed out, is one of the results the Greens produced.

Recall, please, that Mr. Gore and Mr. Lieberman were running together in 2000 and didn't get enough votes for a decisive, uncontestable victory.

Democrats are learning... but they are bitching and screaming every step of the way.

BTW, the candidate debates, with one candidate going after the other, are a turn-off. Dennis and Carol are wise to keep quiet most times. Think maybe the Greens will pick them up?

Each party is responsible for its own successes and failures. If you are trying to say Wellstone and Kucinich would not have existed/been elected without the Greens, you are just as misguided as those who say the Greens cost us the 2000 election. The Greens don't have enough impact to get a progressive representative elected to the national stage, and they certainly don't have the impact to skew the Democratic Party left. Even if that were their stated goal--which it isn't--they are failing miserably because the Dems on a whole are shifting right. Wellstone and Kucinich made their own way, and they made themselves Democrats. Democrats voted for them on their own merits, not under some influence from another party.

edit: and I am responsible for my own spelling errors. :P

as a focal point for disaffected progressives who refuse the fatalism of JPGray.While slowly (ever so )building a base they are keeping alive the messages that the democrats are too cowardly to mention.

The rather ancient saw, if you are not part of the solution then you are a part of the problem, works for me when considering whether to vote for vichy democrats or someone who speaks to my vision for America.Voting for the phonies, war mongers, those who sit silently while the Bush regime abrogates our rights and destabilises the world leads to no solution at all, in fact it furthers and contributes to the mess we are in.

Truman said the buck stops here, well my vote goes with my conscience .....

I am a Kucinich supporter. I despise the DLC. I am always halfway thinking about joining the Green party because the Dem Party has become corpo-rotten.

But this time, I'm pushing all the D's in the voting booth. Not out of party loyalty. The neocons have to be stopped, or America will become a totalitarian fascist state. This is beyond question. There will be no democratic options if that should occur. Opposition and resistance will be impossible at that point.

We are in a somewhat comparable situation to Germany in the 1930's. The various parties in Germany failed to unite in opposition to Hitler. You know what happened there. It will happen here if we don't get rid of Bush and the neocons. We can work to get rid of the DLC or join the Greens after Bush is gone.

We have to unite after the primary or we will be forced to submit to fascist dictatorship. Bottom f*cking line.

And no threshold like the Federal Republic. The failure to stop Hitler wasn't limited to Parliament: the whole society failed to stop Hitler. And conservatives even rolled out the red carpet.

In any case: it was a young democracy not supported by a majority. Even some in the moderate left wanted something like in the UK: Parliament AND Kaiser. The people whose duty it was to uphold the state failed: they saw an opportunity to drown the unloved constitution and decided to go for it.

is that picking up votes on the left costs us votes in the middle, votes likely to go to Bush.

this whole "bi-partisanship" hooey that was spewed between 1996 and 2000 has diluted our politicians collective minds and have alienated our far-left base.

why should the greens vote for someone that doesn't represent their ideals?

and futhermore, why would a moderate republican vote for a pseudo-republican when they can vote for the real deal?

Bush is not a legitimate president. While it's true, doesn't that just piss you off just a little bit?

First of all, your premise needs tweaking. The reason is that you do not get to decide for everyone else what is politically relevant and what is not. That is the dream of the neocons, and it is a shame to see it replicated here on DU.

Secondly, the act of voting is, presumably, participation in representative democracy. Therefore, in order for it not to be a charade, the polity must have representative choices. Voting for the candidate less hostile to one's interests is a sham.

Third, you have failed to take into account the electoral college, since it is clearly presidential politics to which you refer. Thus, votes in different states carry a different weight and meaning, depending upon the likely outcome.

If you reduce the allowable examination to a narrow, technical exercise, then of course the outcome that you suggest will be the result. However, your "no ideology" admonition is less an analytical tool and more a revealing microcosm of the problems faced by the Democratic party, the actual winners of the last presidential election.
Your approach "...HELPS THE REPUBLICANS.....and if that's actually your goal...then by all means do it....just as long as you know what you're REALLY doing..."

After giving us the study-at-home master's thesis version of vote your conscience, Ivy gets around to political reality:

"Third, you have failed to take into account the electoral college, since it is clearly presidential politics to which you refer. Thus, votes in different states carry a different weight and meaning, depending upon the likely outcome."

Which is exactly why the OP and everyone else should crack a Blatz, sit back, and watch the GP go down the long slide if MF (mutual fund) Ralph is their horse.

How many votes will Nader cost the dems? 2.7 percent minus the number of greens in states dems will win handily minus the number of greens who live in states we'll lose anyway minus the former greens who have come home minus the greens who will never vote dem.

A thousand vote difference in a big state we absolutely need to win? That's ralph's wet dream and the only way he could ever be a factor in anything bigger than a county supervisor's race.

n/t

... but I also know that the Greens have ten key values and a very comprehensive party platform that they put out in 2000.

I think the Democrats would benefit from including some of the Green Party platform in the Democratic Party platform, put some real focus on those goals... and stick with it!

You say:
The DEMOCRATS and the GREENS have many common goals and opinions; therefore if ALLLLL the votes for the Democrats are added to ALLLL the votes for the GREENS and they total MORE than ALLLLL the votes for BUSH then shouldn't the "progressive party" win the election?

OK, then please incorporate the Green goals into the Democratic Party if these are common goals. That would help.

I do think that Greens "get it" that Bush has to be defeated. I also think that Greens "get it" that Clinton turned out to be somewhat of a disappointment, and I'm most definitely not talking about his sex life!

Personally, I want to see more than two major parties in this country within my lifetime. Three, four, five... we need that, IMO. This is probably not the time to worry about that because we are in a crisis right now, but then again... if everything is going along reasonably well, who is going to pay attention to a third party?

If Democrats want Green votes, how about a coalition here? Democrats are attacking the Greens as divisive, yet you claim we have common goals. What's with that attack stuff then? You want Greens to compromise, but you don't want to compromise anything?

If Green votes are important to Democrats, then Democrats are going to have to reach out and touch someone Green or deal with four more years. Ball's in the Democratic court on this one.

My take is very simple:

97% (or so) of the likely voters in this country (USA) are either

a) Democrats
b) Republicans

this is a fact (with a certain negligeable percentage of error of course) not an opinion

then I need a friggin link.

I hate Nader because he's a fraud, not because he's a Green. The Greens are a good party and a good force in American politics. If they run an honest candidate this time-- one who supports their issues instead of simply attacking the candidate they can get the most votes from, then it will only hurt Bush and help the Dems.

Imagine two candidates opposing Bush, and arguing with each other who is most liberal, and which brand of liberalism is best for America. Imagine Bush being left on the outside of debates, trying to argue his counterpoint to two candidates who assume he's an idiot. Imagine watching that for months. Bush could be the third candidate out. That would warm my conkles, if conkles are what I think they are.

What I'd like to see is the Greens mount an honest, strong candidate, run a good campaign where they attack the candidate farthest from them instead of closest to them, and if it looks like in the end they will cost the election for the ideology closest theirs, throw their support (after brokering the appropriate deal) behind the candidate closest to their ideology. That would create a de facto three party system, would destroy Bush, and would launch the Greens as a power in America. And who knows, if both Democrats and Greens oppose Bush instead of each other, it might even mean the Greens would come out on top, and the Democratic candidate would be the one to throw his support behind the Greens.

But it won't happen unless BOTH parties remember our true enemy, and so far NEITHER party is always perfect there.

except that it is "cockles" and not "conkles" but I trivialise.......

Perhaps you have neglected to note that Nader, during the '00 campaign, gave far more attention to the defects of George W. and the Republican Party than he did Gore or the Democrats. Only after noting the lack of passion, the lack of courage and the lack of honesty in the campaign of Al Gore did he assault the startegy and the leadership of the democrats, who he considered to be selling out. I agreed with him then and I believe it to be more true today than three years ago!

Born-a-democrat is right about the Greens hurting the Dems in a national election. Let's face reality, if Nader wasn't on the ballot in Florida, we all know who'd be in the Whitehouse now. You can't argue against that. Nader's votes would have gone to Gore. Gore would have pulled Florida despite the best efforts of Brother Jeb and Katherine Harris.

It's the same as Perot running in 92 and 96. If Perot hadn't have run, Clinton wouldn't have got the Whitehouse. This was a lesson that the Reps learned the hard way. Don't tell me for one minute that Bush Inc. didn't do a happy dance when Nader announced. They knew it would siphon votes away from Gore, and more than likely (my opinion here) was the deciding factor in them making sure that Florida would go to Bush by making sure that Dem voters were locked out through the felon-can't-vote program, which hit the black community, which votes overwehelmingly democratic, hard.

So what it boils down to... If the Greens want a serious candidate, they need to start building their party form the local and state levels first. Once the Greens get reputation for being a seriuos party with serious candidates that can be a force to be reckoned with, then they can run a national election candidate for Prez. Until then, every vote for a Green candidate will guarantee a Republican President and the direction of legislation that the Republicans want.

The last election boiled down to who sucked less... but lets face facts here for a minute... If Gore was in office, would we be where we are today? Would the Patriot Act be in place? Would the latest assault on reproductive rights been passed? etc. etc. etc. NO...

And yes, Nader had everything to do with where we are today. So thank you Ralph!

Let's face reality, if Nader wasn't on the ballot in Florida, we all know who'd be in the Whitehouse now.

What about all those elderly Jewish people who "voted" for Buchanan?

There were so many problems in the Florida voting, from blockades set up in certain communities to military ballots coming in late or incomplete that I really think it's not entirely fair to dump on the Greens.

Two things happened: most people had no idea how candidate Shrub would turn out and candidate Gore didn't light a spark under anyone.

Then there was all the felony going on in Florida, but the nation was split nearly 50/50 and that should never have happened!

It does look as if candidate Gore has learned his lesson of late though.

Even with the butterfly ballot problem in Palm Beach County, the votes that Nader garnered would have put Gore over the top enough to quash Bush...even with Bush's shennanigans...

In the rush to assign blame to Greens, you have neglected to take into account that Gore actually won. What does that say to you about your premise that somehow, magically, electoral fraud wouldn't have been an issue otherwise?

It tells me that you are willing to excuse constitutional crimes of the right while decrying candidacies on the left. However, experience has shown us that no amount of rolling over by Democrats and lefties stops the ruthless right from their assaults upon basic liberty.

According to "the powers that be" Bush "won" by about 500 votes even though you, I and everyone else who is a clear minded thinker knows better. If Gore had picked up 6 or 7 thousand votes, that 500 vote lead wouldn't have been able to withstand the light of day, scrutiny of the media, or even Katherine Harris...

In other words Gore would have had to overkill in florida to get what was rightfully his, and could have done so had the votes not been siphoned off.

election any more than you can reconstruct a football game. The election began a year or more before the votes were cast, and all players put together a strategy that took into account ALL factors, including Nader. Without Nader, Gore would have run a different campaign, and there's no way of knowing which way he would have come out. Maybe he would have been more moderate, and those Green voters would have stayed at home (as the polls showed many would). Maybe he would have run more liberal to gain those voters and lost some in the middle. Maybe all the voters the Greens registered would have not voted at all, driving everybody's total down. Nader may have even helped the Democrats by angering enough of them to get out and vote when otherwise they may have been lacadaisical about voting.

You can't know.

As for Perot putting Clinton in office, that's an old Republican claim that's been thoroughly disproven. Exit polls showed Perot supporters dividing equally between Bush and Clinton. Clinton was leading before Perot jumped back in the race. Analyses since then have broken down the numbers by regions and by every other division imaginable, and they all (all that I've seen) conclude that Clinton would have won without Perot running, and some conclude he may have won more strongly.

And one final point-- recursive formula analysis of the Florida 2000 "election" show that one factor determined how likely your vote was to not count. Not income, not education, not age, not voting experience, not even party. Race. Black voters lost their votes no matter what education or experience they had. It's almost like someone just went in and tampered with ballots in heavily black districts after the election-- especially since the regions that were pulled off the election boards right after Gore was declared the winner were heavily black, and turned out to be the regions with the most overvotes. You remember overvotes-- where a voter chose one candidate and then somehow another hole appeared on their ballot? I suspect that if Nader was not in the race, and Gore had picked up more votes (not a given), somehow just enough of those votes would have been "overvoted" to almost give Bush the election, too. But that's just my suspicion. One more point: although there was a 633% increase in Palm Beach county in the number of overvotes for president, there was no increase in the number of overvotes in any other category on the same ballot. People couldn't figure out how to vote for president, but they had no trouble for any other office.

http://www.bobharris.com/kucinichdean.html

http://soli.inav.net/~njohnson/kucinich/dkorhd.html

Both candidates here have vastly different goals and opinions... you know who I prefer, though on two issues I agree with the other...

Like Wellstone, I'd call Kucinich an 'honorary Green' as well. It's great that some are brave enough to be truly left wing AND Democrats too. That's where we all need to be at. (If the repukes did engineer Wellstone's death :tinfoilhat:, bet your sweet bippy that they'll exterminate Kucinich as well, should he become visible or popular.)

I also think the Democratic party needs to be as left now as it was in 1970. Anything else is catering to the republicans and corporate america, and that is BAD. Period.

No need to spell out the obvious. What is it you really want to do? Ban the choice of a party that take votes from another?

"They'll let the Democratic Party lose and lose as long as it chooses to ignore them."

-- ABSOLUTELY CORRECT....

And while they might consider this a strategy it is an incredible shitty one at that....why? Because after voting "their conscience" and electing a Bushie they go out and bitch and moan and complain about how Bush's bulldozers are running over endangered striped tail alaskan caribou or whatever the fuck while looking for oil...

Don't throw the stone then complain of flying glass...own up to your choices AT LEAST...


Thanks kyrasdad for the props...

At least I can say that my vote helps FIGHT BUSH and his cronies....can GREENS say the same? I DIDN'T THINK SO

What value do you perceive in playing your numbers game? Do you think somehow it helps democrats? Do you think somehow there's some benefit in proving your mathematical argument? Please explain ...

All I can take from your posts is your anger at the Greens ... I see nothing constructive in that ... you want to be angry ... fine ... go for it ...

you stated that your vote helps "FIGHT BUSH" .. can Greens say the same? but you completely failed to respond to my post earlier in this thread ... if "FIGHTING BUSH" is to be recognized as a positive thing to do, surely you must see that many loyal democrats were horrified to see that so many democrats in Congress voted for the IWR ... your last post showed real disdain for the Greens' concern over environmental issues (i.e. "endangered striped tail alaskan caribou or whatever the fuck") ... and you conveniently dismiss as "voting their conscience" and as "ideology" the objections of many democrats and Greens to the votes by more than 75% of democratic Senators for bush's $87 billion to continue the madness in Iraq ...

Guess what? Many of us don't think that qualifies as "FIGHTING BUSH" ... and many think that if democrats think our votes are automatic, they may be less responsive when we criticize them for such fucking bad votes ... so please don't dismiss the devastation this war has done to the U.S. including its people, its troops and its economy ... and please don't dismiss the deep and lasting damage this war has done to U.S. prestige among the community of nations ... and please don't fail to understand that it is we, the loyal opposition, the ones who really do want to fight bush, who abhored the votes of far too many democrats who supported him ...

i find your entire premise hostile and unproductive ... you want to elect democrats? well so do I ... and you don't accomplish that by driving a wedge between democrats and any other constituency whether you agree with them or not ...

First off, every post by anyone that voted for Nader or was glad Nader was in the race had nothing but bullshit excuses about how "I voted for Nader because Democracy is representative" or "I won't vote for Democrats that lean further right than me" and frankly shit like that is not worth answering because people like that do not understand the larger picture.

My mother an I disagreed on the war so sharply that it brought me to tell her that she was responsible for all the deaths that would occur...I abhor this war and this presidency and ESPECIALLY the fact that drilling in the arctic is still very possible, BUT, I voted against it...you and all your Nader buddies made it possible...and no amount of whining about how "Democrats voted for the war" will change that..because if you had voted for the only party that could win who was closer to your beliefs WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS WAR OR THIS FUCKING CONVERSATION...so don't try to talk down to me about how bad this war is


I like the quote by this guy FDRocks:
Democracy is harsh, ain't it.


It sure is...and this is why, although I am opposed to EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN THING that Bush does, Deep down inside I am glad he is doing it. Because sometimes PEOPLE NEED TO BE BASHED IN THE HEAD WITH A FUCKING MALLET (figuratively of course, no physical threat implied) before they learn...the more forests he cuts down, the more money he gives to the rich, the more social programs he slashes, the more public schools he closes down, the more you and your friends will see the fruits of your votes....and THAT is the way your turn people..not with Democratic "Bring in the Greens" rallies, but with HARD, CRUEL, COLD facts about what the administration you helped elect does

Want to tell me it doesn't work that way? Well then read the article on my original post...HEADLINE...GREENS REGRETTING NADER'S 2000 RUN...

And you might also want to tune in to the AP newswire about the latest poll: INDEPENDENTS DON'T WANT BUSH RE-ELECTED....

See...it takes constant BASHING on the head for some people to learn, and most people that won't see facts DO learn this way...but some few never do...which comes back to your original statement...that's why I don't answer dribble when I confront you with facts....

You acuse Democrats of siding with Republicans in office, at least we don't help put them there.

"Because sometimes PEOPLE NEED TO BE BASHED IN THE HEAD WITH A FUCKING MALLET before they learn...and THAT is the way your turn people"

Enjoying the heightened contradictions, are we? You some kind of Naderite?

This is gotta be the most irony-rich post of the month.

Should've known. Keep tossing the canned insults, you'll lob one that makes sense someday.

BTW, I've never voted Green in my life.

you wrote: BUT, I voted against it...you and all your Nader buddies made it possible...and no amount of whining about how "Democrats voted for the war" will change that..because if you had voted for the only party that could win who was closer to your beliefs WE WOULDN'T BE HAVING THIS WAR OR THIS FUCKING CONVERSATION...so don't try to talk down to me about how bad this war is


the problem with your post is that you did not pay much attention to mine ... you stated that I didn't vote for Gore in 2000? and you determined that by ???? by what ??? i'm a democrat dude ... a very angry democrat watching my party sell many of my values down the river ... they went along with bush on the IWR .. .they went along with bush on the Patriot Act ... they went along with bush (more than 75% of democratic senators) on the $87 billion ...

i stated very clearly in my post you want to elect democrats? well so do I ... and you don't accomplish that by driving a wedge between democrats and any other constituency whether you agree with them or not ...
...

here are a few more gems from your post:

the more you and your friends will see the fruits of your votes ... i voted for Gore ... your point?

and THAT is the way your turn people..not with Democratic "Bring in the Greens" rallies, but with HARD, CRUEL, COLD facts about what the administration you helped elect does ... i voted for Gore ... your point?

i hear your passion for the arguments you're making ... and, though I know you won't believe me, I think your arguments, if held and acted on by the democratic leadership, would be very destructive to the party ... i'm not lobbying for "bring in the greens rallies" ... this is not an exercise in cheerleading ... i'm talking about building an inclusive party platform that doesn't alienate large sections of activists and the voting public ...

democrats have been losing ground with people on the left ... it's what prompted Dean to co-opt Wellstone's line about being from the "democratic wing of the democratic party" ... the party has strayed a long way from where many of its supporters would like to see it ... my argument is not, and has never been one, in support of those who voted for Nader ... you're arguing against a point we both agree on ...

where I disagree is with your approach to getting bush out of office ... I think most Greens will "come home" to the democratic party in the next election ... anyone of clear conscience cannot allow bush to continue this madness ... but it takes more than one election or one evil bush to rebuild the democratic party ... and there's more to 2004 than just the presidential election ... you only seem to want to talk about Nader and the Greens who enabled bush to be in power ... but the democrats have to be held responsible also ... voting for the war, voting for the Patriot Act, standing "shoulder to shoulder" with bush in the rose garden are all things that hurt the democratic party ... putting all the blame on those who left without looking at the contribution democrats made to having these people leave the party is self-defeating ...

your anger at those who voted Green in the last election is understandable ... but your refusal to understand that democrats have aliented some of their constituents is not ... the big tent is torn ... we can sit around blaming those who walked out through the holes or we can get about the business of bringing them home and patching up the holes ... and bringing them home has to start with open communication, not with finger-pointing ...

The surest way to get someone to stop arguing with me when I see the opportunity is to answer their statement "You MUST be a Democrat"...and I say "No, I'm a registered Republican"...which stops them cold in their tracks because in their party, marching in lockstep is a religion...


I invented the strategy so I'm immune.

i'm not sure i understand the point of your last reply ...

are you suggesting i'm just saying i'm a democrat but i'm really not ???

if so, what would have been the point i made in an earlier post in this thread stating that i'm considering joining the Green party?

sorry if i'm just not understanding the point of your last reply ... if you want me to understand you, please spell it out for me ...

by the way, you still have not responded to my continuing theme that some democrats, at least those who appear not to be from the democratic wing of the democratic party, have contributed to the loss of voters to either 3rd parties or to that very large block of voters who don't vote at all ... perhaps you're immune to responding to other people's ideas ... that's probably a good way to have a discussion with people in a general discussion forum ...

"You accuse Democrats of siding with Republicans in office, at least we don't help put them there. :yourock:

It sure is...and this is why, although I am opposed to EVERY SINGLE GODDAMN THING that Bush does, Deep down inside I am glad he is doing it. Because sometimes PEOPLE NEED TO BE BASHED IN THE HEAD WITH A FUCKING MALLET (figuratively of course, no physical threat implied) before they learn...the more forests he cuts down, the more money he gives to the rich, the more social programs he slashes, the more public schools he closes down, the more you and your friends will see the fruits of your votes....and THAT is the way your turn people..


... back when Reagan was running. But it seems that people LIKE to be bashed in the head with that mallet because they elected him twice and his veep after him. Now we have 43. So, YOU tell ME why people are so fond of all that bashing? Is it what "the people" really want?

Please don't say that the people are stupid. Some aren't the brightest bulbs in the box, but it's a waste of time to moan over the stupidity of the American people... and it ticks a lot of them off.

I think a lot of Reagan's popularity was because, as I heard recently, he made the American people feel proud of being Americans once again. Ephemeral, for sure, but what exactly is that "feeling" all about?

I believe that you are allowing your anger to obscure your powers of reason.You far too easily dismiss the arguments of those who do not follow your own reasoning, and quite inaccurately represent those arguments as well.

Get this straight,I will vote for whom I damn well please, I will not support the lesser of two evils because you scream and villify me.I will not encourage the defection of the democratic party in hot pursuit of corporate favor by granting them my vote.

Your statement that you dont put republicans in office falls rather flat considering the results of the mid term elections when the evident lack of message of the democratic party did indeed put republicans in office!

You want my vote, then damn well earn my vote.Unless and until you do I will vote for the candidate of MY choice not of YOURS.

What good does it do? If 2004 was just going to be a Heckle vs. Jeckle election, fine, make a gesture instead of voting for a candidate.

And I don't blame the Green too much for thinking that 2000 was Heckle vs. Jeckle, but they were wrong about that and it's time to admit the mistake. George W. Bush is destroying this country, and the hilarious thing about that is that we're likely to take the world down the drain with us. Clinton may not have been everything you wanted, but don't kid yourself that he wasn't a 1000% improvement on Bush Jr. The same is true of any of the current Democratic candidates.

but you havent a clue, apparently , as to the intent of green voters.I might ask you what is the point of voting for a candidate who will not bring us out of the morass of corporate control of our government. The point of voting is not to win but to express your agreement with the stance of the candidate and the platform of the party. I prefer to vote for that candidate who best expresses my vision for america and if that candidate is green ,yellow, red ,purple or blue that is who I will cast my ballot for in the end.

If the democratic party cannot field a candidate who fits my bill of particulars then he can go peddle rocks, if the party is to firmly intent upon corporate funding to construct a platform that will benefit this nation then they can kiss my derriere.This is precisely what happened in the mid term elections, the dems took their base for granted and got their butts kicked. Unless Bush self destructs in the coming months that is apparently what is going to happen again.

Okay, I would have thought this was obvious, but back to basics.

This country is a representative democracy. The way democracy works here is not by direct citizen involvement but by the election of representatives, to the legislative and executive branches and in some states the judicial branch also. This means that candidates run for election, citizens vote on them, and that's how citizens get their say in the way government is run.

The reason we have elections is to decide who will represent the people in the various government offices. People vote, the votes get counted, the winner takes office (with a notable exception in 2000, but oh well). Once the votes are counted and the victor determined, the votes do not mean diddley squat. They have no other purpose whatsoever.

Now, the funny thing is, it is utterly ridiculous to expect a complete and perfect ideological match between any given voter and any given candidate for national office. Tens of millions of people will cast a vote for President, for example - it is futile to expect any of them to totally agree with the candidate of their choice. Therefore, the question becomes, which candidate best represents my views.

Except that the ability to win has to factor in, because the only way votes matter is in determining the winner. There is no prize for second place, no honorable mention, not in U.S. politics. This is why we have political parties. Coalitions of people who agree or somewhat nearly agree on certain key issues and respectfully disagree on others organize to get candidates more-or-less acceptable to their views elected. Now this more-or-less thing is crucial, because as noted before, nobody can reasonably expect complete agreement with the chosen candidate. Also, the farther you are out to the left or right of the political spectrum, the less agreement you are likely to find.

The temptation then becomes to form splinter factions. This is useless because they don't get their candidates into office. Since the point of politics is to determine who runs the government and makes the decisions, voting for a candidate who can't win is pointless. One may talk about "change" or "making a difference," but you can't change a thing or make a difference of any kind unless you can get your candidates into office.

So whatever intent you have in voting for a splinter candidate, it's a futile intent. You might as well write in your own name, or stay home, for all the difference it makes.

Unless you want to be thought of as having a monumental ego you should separate fact from opinion more clearly in your posts.

I know how the system works, or more factually how the system isnt working. The democratic party used to be one of disparate opinions all existing within its framework, right up to the time the Froms, McAuliffes and Clinton decided to exclude the liberal base from any participatory involvment in decisions.So that liberal base, or at least an ever growing segment thereof said thanks but no thanks.

I happen to believe that there exists no candidate within the democratic party, other than Kucinich or Sharpton (sorry Maha)who is dedicated to making the changes I feel necesary to the continuing survival of, or more accurately the resuscitation of my democratic nation. Therefore I will not vote for a fraud or a sham just to show loyalty to a party that is decidedly disloyal to those ideals.

I tend to take the long view here as I see the corruption of a damn fine system and realise that it will probably take more time than Ive got left on this planet to fix it.I support the growth of third party politics, not because, as some would have it, I am a left wing purist or I cannot compromise but because we no longer have a damn two party system!

Third party politics are a snare and a delusion. A third party candidate has never come close to winning the presidency. A tremendously popular former president (T. Roosevelt) tried it and came in third, and he did the best that anyone has ever done.

You can't fix the system if your candidates aren't in office. That's not an opinion, that's a fact.

As for your personal comments about me, I couldn't begin to give a damn.

hi library_max ...

i'd appreciate it if you would address the points I raised in my reply entitled "Two Points" which is just below this one in the thread index ...

they represent what I believe is an essential difference in the way you're perceiving third parties and the way I perceive them ...

thanks ...

The purpose of a third party is NOT to expect to win office but to keep an agenda before the voters. With the abrogation of significant and important causes by the democratic party it becomes the function of the Green Party to continue to espouse the liberal causes abandoned by the democrats who now suck at the corporate teat instead of watching out for our interests.

My suggestion ,by the way, was not meant to insult but to edify. But I am familiar with your track record..........

i would like to make 2 points regarding the discussion you're currently involved in ...

first, many who criticize Greens use the following phrase just as you did "it is utterly ridiculous to expect a complete and perfect ideological match between any given voter and any given candidate"

this statement is absolutely true !! but it is also an invalid argument against those who voted Green or voted for any other 3rd party (i voted for Gore, btw) ... there is no evidence that Greens require "ideological purity" ... they, like you, are choosing the candidate who best represents their views and best achieves their political objectives ... to ascribe to them the "purity" argument is specious ...

second, i would like to address the "what's the point in voting for a candidate who can't win" argument ... btw, although I'm giving some serious consideration to "going Green", there's no way in hell i'm not voting for the democratic nominee in 2004 ... bush has got to go ... but, here's the point i think you're failing to understand ... third parties can carry tremendous power as minority parties when they become the "swing" votes ... whether Greens or any other 3rd party is large enough yet to carry any influence with the two controlling parties remains to be seen ... but let's say that the Greens eventually grow to where they control 5% or even 10% of the vote ... that's more than enough to make a real difference in an election ... and it makes the issues of concern to Greens more relevant to democrats ... at 5% to 10 % of people who vote, democrats would ignore Green issues at their own peril ...

if you're trying to build a voice for your political views, you have to start somewhere ... and many Greens started right at home in the democratic party ... they obviously did not find that to be a good vehicle to have their voices heard ...

as a far left democrat, I abhore the hostility some on DU have shown the Greens ... i hate to be stuck in a party that had more than 75% of its senators hand bush a check for $87 billion to continue his madness in Iraq after so much about the fraud he perpetrated became known ... and my congressman and one senator (marty meehan and john kerry) turned their backs on me when i urged them not to go along with bush on IWR ... i was elated to see that Kerry finally took the heroic action of voting against the $87 billion ...

anyway, it's not all about coming in first ... or even coming in first or second ... it's about having a say ... it's about having enough clout that those in power will give you a good listen ... and some have concluded that democrats have stopped listening to them ... i hope that changes ... but chastising the Greens for the decision they've made to leave the party won't bring them home ... that can only be achieved when their views are listened to and compromises are reached ... any other path is just noise ...

Just as the breed whose name you borrow represents intelligence your post nails the argument very nicely. I have voted, in the past for two Green candidates, ironically both times for Peter Camejo for Governor of California. I intend to give the coming election campaign a long and hard look and expect that I will be disappointed in the democratic choice and his/her platform. Should that be the case I will definately vote Green, preferring to help build a more representative party than to continue to be sold out by my former party........

is as a spoiler. They can never help a progressive candidate get elected. They can only prevent progressive candidates (or the more progressive of the two options) from getting elected, by splitting the progressive vote. This means that the better the Greens do and the more powerful they become, the more elections get thrown to the Republicans. Does this at least begin to explain "the hostility some on DU have shown the Greens"?

You seem to assume that the Democrats can do whatever they like in picking their issues and platforms and candidates. But the sad fact is that the need to appeal to middle voters (swing voters) is the driving concern. History makes it very plain that when we pull left, we lose. Therefore, it is not an option to pull left just to satisfy the Greens. Every Green vote we gain costs us two center votes.

Right-wingers have figured out that voting Republican gets them more of what they want in the long run than voting Libertarian or some other RW splinter party. Why can't left-wingers figure this out? Elections aren't about "being heard," they're about governance and policy, and to influence those you have to win.

When one proceeds from the conclusion one wishes to reach, then - voila! - one reaches that conclusion! Gee, what an amazing discovery.

When the argument is "The only difference Green voters can ever make...," then it defines the one and only difference that the arguer wishes to see. This is bad science. Would you like cancer research to be conducted this way?

It is also a reply, technically, but no answer to the point about putting an agenda before the public.

"Right-wingers have figured out that voting Republican gets them more of what they want in the long run than voting Libertarian or some other RW splinter party. Why can't left-wingers figure this out?"

Framing issues in terms of intelligence (e.g.- what people can and cannot figure out) is merely a mirror of smug, self-assured circular conclusions that flow from identical premises. It is no more warranted than this: Left-wingers have figured out that voting for a drift toward conservatism results in more of a drift toward conservatism. Why can't centrists figure this out?

My real question is why won't centrists figure this out, not why "can't" they.

I am glad the Greens will run a candidate. At least people will have.... a good selection. Democracy is harsh, ain't it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I could turn your "facts" around and say that you could kick Bush out by all the Democrats voting for the GREEN candidate, too.

HINT: Why don't you get over the 2000 sour grape crap, and work on bolstering the move to get Bush out? Dredging up the Bush/Gore misery is going to get you nowhere. Continuing to alienate the Greens instead of trying to get them with us will help Bush. Political bullying and insults that attempt to force the Greens to vote with the Dems will HELP BUSH.

Do YOU get it?

But with an argument like "If all the Democrats had voted for Nader we Bush wouldn't be in office", you will get laughed off whatever platform you stand on when you say it....


Once again my point is proven correct "Some people just WON'T learn"...

fact: GREEN PARTY CANDIDATES will NEVER be voted into the White House because you represent too few people so your argument is spectacularly wrong...but you already knew that...and yet you defend it....which brings me back once again:

"Some people just WON'T learn"

you have demonstrated this point very effectively ...

But with an argument like "If all the Democrats had voted for Nader we Bush wouldn't be in office", you will get laughed off whatever platform you stand on when you say it....

Why? Are you proposing that a combined Green/Dem vote in 2000 would NOT have kept Bush from the White House? Please explain that fuzzy math.

Once again my point is proven correct "Some people just WON'T learn"...

It sounds like you're more interested in being "correct" than getting Bush out of office. I know alot of Freepers with that argumentative construct.

fact: GREEN PARTY CANDIDATES will NEVER be voted into the White House because you represent too few people so your argument is spectacularly wrong...but you already knew that...and yet you defend it....which brings me back once again:

Here are some other facts.

Are you aware that many libertarians voted for Bush?

Is the Libertarian Party as large and powerful as the Republicans or Democrats? (hint: It's not)

Can you not see then, that being a fringe party but voting for a major party's candidate that wins office, you in essence get "into" the White House as well?

"Some people just WON'T learn"

True...as that look into a mirror will reveal.

well...you finally did it...I am Robert Novak in disguise and am here to Destroy the Democratic party...you really found me out...oh and if anyone wants to know who leaked the name of Valerie Plame please let me know...I'll give you the whole story...



ok...first, put down the crack pipe, then remove Green head from Brown Ass....


still no way to dispute facts huh?...well just call me Tucker...

Besides those that do not support your thesis in the slightest way?

See if you can answer that without taking your football and going home.

Most of the electorate will not support the Green agenda. You're forgetting the great mass of middle voters, neither committed Republicans or Democrats, who actually decide most elections.

While, we're beating up greens, lets also scream at the hundreds of thousands of registered Democrats that voted for George Bush. Then maybey to split things up more we could scream at all Democrats except those who are going to vote for your candidate in the primary. Best to insult everyone who disagrees with you in any way.

When are you going to get it. The way to get people on board is not to scare them, not to be-little them, but to engage them... Perhaps even inspire them.

"My party or the highway".

This proves my long held contention that many conservatives are in fact holed up in the Democratic Party.

I believe voting for any democratic nominee is the right thing to do this year. That is because personally I believe that the Bush adminstration is so bad that any step in the other direction, even a very small step, is still an extremely good thing.

When you vote for the third party you have to accept that your vote is about the future - its not going to be about that specific election. It's about gaining momentum towards a real progressive revolution and towards a future where a progressive third party would really be a viable party.

Because of this I believe there are times when it is necessary to make a more practical vote. When your house is on fire, you don't argue over which hose is best, and given the choice between driving 50 miles into down to buy a hose that is ten times better vs. using your neighbors not-as-good hose right away, you use the hose that you can get your hands on right away. If you tried to go 50 miles into town to get the better hose, your house would be burned to the ground by the time you got back. That said, when your house is not in the process of burning down around you, you might decide to make the trip into town for the better hose so that you can take steps towards being better prepared in the future. You might also do things like make the house more fire-proof and all kinds of other great thigns that you can't/don't do when your house is on fire.

In my personal opinion, our house is on fire. And I don't have the time right now to vote on nothing but principle. Voting green this election is like going 50 miles into town to buy a hose that admittedly is better, but won't stop your house from buring down while your off getting it. Voting green instead of democrat does take away form the chance of voting Bush out of office this year. That's a fact. But, the reason to vote green even if it helps your opponent in the short term is because it is a vote for a furture - gathering a little more support bit by bit every time, working towards a day when a Green can/will be elected. And that's a very fair reason to vote green.... but this year our house is on fire. It's buring down around us, and in my opinion there will not be anything left if Bush is allowed another four more years.

That's why this year I will absolutely and without question by voting for whover the democratic nominee is, period. I consider this election year an "emergency" and NOT business as usual. I do believe that true progressivism is the key to a restored healthy society. But if we don't do everything in our power to united and throw Bush out of the white house, I'm not sure there will even be a republic left to try to move in a more progressive direction. So this year, I'm voting for whoever I think has the best chance of beating bush.

Sel

that voting for any democratic candidate might be more analogous to pouring gasoline on that fire.......your whole argument hinges upon the assumption that voting for a vichy democrat would miraculously make our problems disappear.

I believe that ,with Bush in office, we see an awakening of political dissent after so many years of political slumber by the voter.I believe that electing a democrat in name only will have the effect of reassuring the public that it is Ok to go back to sleep, when, in fact, the same corruption and rot will continue.

This is what you just posted:

"I believe that ,with Bush in office, we see an awakening of political dissent after so many years of political slumber by the voter.I believe that electing a democrat in name only will have the effect of reassuring the public that it is Ok to go back to sleep, when, in fact, the same corruption and rot will continue."

This is what I posted way near the top of this thread:

"Compared to Bush most of the candidates are a heck of alot closer to Bush than to progressives. CORPORATE dems are nothing but "Shiny-Happy" on the outside as we slowly rot on the inside."


This is a major point. What do we really change by electing any old corporatist with a 'D' next to their name? What do we 'turnaround' if this person is to the right of center. If this person is beholden to corporate interests. All we really achieve is just what we stated above. The APPEARANCE of things being better as they only get worse. So what if it is a bit slower than when Dubya is in office. It is still a move deeper into this blackness. How deep can we get before there is no chance to return this country to the people.

I feel this coming election is a key turning point. Because we are ripe for change. This administration is so bad that even common people can see it. We have an opportunity. If we bury this opportunity with a glossy facade this will appease the people. They will forget their anger and distrust. We should not throw away this momentum or we will end up starting over again from an even deeper hole, possibly even an unrecoverable one.

TWL

and do not presume to know the wishes of my fellow progressives and leftists. I do see, however, and am encouraged by seeing, a commitment to upset the status quo, to refuse to accept the opinion of the neoconservative democrats, those who I characterize as vichy democrats for their ,perhaps unwitting, collusion with the Bush administration.

I firmly believe that the statements, ad nauseum, that we cannot campaign on this or we cannot take a stand on that gives neither credit to the electorate nor the repute of courage to the democrats.Further ,by remaining silent on, or worse, voting for the various wishes of the Bush administration the democrats give the illusion of uniformity of believe of the two parties ( perhaps it is not so illusionary).

I also believe, contrary to that which these vichy neocons want you to believe, that my fellow americans are basically honest, tolerant and compassionate and, if given a damn choice, if given the facts, will make the correct decisions. The current leadership of the Democratic Party refuses to give the electorate the same benefit of doubt that I do, refuses to give them a choice and then wonders at the votes against them. It is, in my confuddled opinion, sheer lunacy if not something far worse.

I have been pushed, by these very democrats, into the waiting arms of the Green Party, though I am still a registered Independent, after almost 40 years in the (old) Democratic Party! It is no longer enough for me to vote for some centrist clown without the courage to even name himself correctly ( mantle of Paul Wellstone my fat ass!)......It is no longer good enough for me, fair enough to the world, honest or fair to the legacy I will leave my grandkids to vote for someone who will perpetuate a rotten system. I prefer to assist the growth of a third party that will, one day, help leverage a progressive agenda. It is the only course open to me.

Once "the people" have heard my arguments, they will reject George Bush (who still has about a 50% approval rating) and elect the leftiest candidate they can find. Programs and agendas that have been rejected for decades as too liberal are suddenly going to be embraced by the rightward-moving, still-paranoid-from-9/11 electorate. Professionals who understand politics say I'm wrong, but what do they know? I will keep crusading and eventually the politics of doing-what-never-works-politically will prevail.

:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

Gee, I wish I lived in the world you two live in. Unfortunately, I live in 21st Century America, where we are going to have scramble for every vote we can get to boot George Bush out of office before he turns the country completely fascist.

to stifle your ideals ,to refuse to speak out for what you know is right to refuse to support the disenfranchised, the powerless, to allow the murders of tens of thousands of Iraqis because, after all, it might be interpreted badly by people who wont like you any more.

I for one refuse to live in your world any longer, and apparently neither does the electorate who summarily threw some likeable democrats out of the senate , politicians who, like you, were afraid or unprincipled enough, or lacked the courage or conviction to speak out for truth, for justice, for peace and for equality.

I will damn well vote for the brave over the cowardly ,every damn time.I will patiently await the inevitable growth of third party politics, secure in the knowledge that cowards never prosper and truth will ,eventually, out.

Enough of this “a vote for X is a vote for Y”.

that Green voters will always vote Democratic. You assume there are only 3 parties out there. If there were not a Green, you can bet that many of those who voted Green in 2000 may have voted Socialist, or Natural Law, or some other marginal party.

I am a Democrat and vote that way, but I get more than irritated when Democrats just assume that they really should get all the votes from the left. Don't expect them, EARN THEM! And if you can't expect results like 2000.

The arrogance of this party just kills me sometimes.

"I'd rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don't want and get it." - Eugene Debs

:dem: :dem:

The reality is that the Democratic party now has two swing groups to contend with; one in the center and one on the left. If a national candidate cannot espouse a populist message that appeals to both, he or she will lose. There is no lock on the left the way there is on the right. That has changed only within the lifetime of most of the people here. It makes many uncomfortable and many angry, but it is a fact.

For myself, the war is the overriding issue in this election. I hold everyone who voted for the IWR equally as responsible for the situation in Iraq as president Bush. As it stands, neither of the apparent Democratic frontrunners have that blood on the their hands. I believe that there are enough people around this country angry about this war that nominating anyone who was a cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq will result in a loss of a critical portion of the swing votes on the left.

I protested in the streets. If necessary, I will protest at the ballot box.

.

more than 3% of the electorate is registered independent or third party.

and it goes downhill from there.

you know, you might be right. god knows your attempt to make your case is a disaster ("clearly it's an argument, it's got a lot of capital letters in it!") but you *could* be.

if you are, though, it obviously isn't for well considered reasons.

Where was this progressive unity in the last election?

That would cure our Green/Dem problems. We would just vote for whomever we chose, and in the Parliament, the Greens and Dems could ally themselves and form a majority government. It's our system that is the problem.

Would Greens have a chance to sway the party platform? Democrats have also been going to the right and issues such as alternative power, national health insurance, and progressive taxes would get swept to the side if not for the Greeens.

We should have a multi-party democracy if at all possible. Just having Dems and Repubs is really a political monopoly and third parties can bring issues to light that would otherwise not be out there. Remember Perot and the deficit as one example.

For many of us, that is a far greater threat than having a Republican in the White House... yes, even Bush.

The perception of polarization of the two parties has created a Bizarro world in which the only issues anybody cares about are gay marriage and abortion. The idea that these are the only two viable parties allows extremists like those in the Bush administration to push their agenda while the Republicans who disagree with them are afraid to do anything but toe the party line. Meanwhile, we're adopting their tactics and insisting that everyone swear loyalty to the Democratic party.

Here's what this two party system has gained us:

Collusion between the parties to take control of the presidential debates away from the non-partisan League of Women Voters and keep any third party from participating

Acceptance of gerrymandering in order to retain power, allowing the kind of Republican redistricting that is going on right now

Nobody in Congress with the guts to demand a quorum call and insist on accountability on the vote to authorize Bush's $87 billion dollar "discretionary funds"

Influence over both parties by the same multinational corporations that write checks to candidates on both sides (oh, they write more to the Republicans... I guess that makes it all better)


You can keep playing your little power games to see whether red or blue comes out on top, and you can keep pretending that every American falls neatly into one of those two categories (someone who wants socialized medicine but is opposed to gun control and is conflicted on abortion?... they just don't exist). Or you can admit that the two party system is broken and you don't fix it by guaranteeing your vote to either party, regardless of their actions.

Voting Democratic every time is quick and easy to remember... and requires no more thought than voting Republican every time.

... then a third-party would make sense; as it is, it's a strict 50% +1, and thrid parties in now way contribute anything to the system except the role of 'spoiler', on a Presidential level.

Tough, but the way it is.

And that's the way it always will be unless we work to change it. I believe it is more important to change the system than it is to achieve temporary victory. And since the only power I have is tied to my vote, I have to use that vote in the way I believe it will best serve my goal of changing the system.

In 2000, that meant voting for Nader. In 2004, I think that means supporting Dean, since his grassroots support is a genuine threat to business as usual in the Democratic Party.

But don't tell me I owe my vote to any candidate simply because he's a Democrat and electable. I refuse to accept that what we've got is the best we can ever have.

without electing people who agree with you, or who are at least sympathetic to your point of view, to office?

The Constitution can be changed only by the federal government, with the consent of the state governments. If you don't get candidates elected to office, you're just spinning your wheels.

After all, he was served well by it. It allowed him to get elected. And why should he imagine that you want the system to change? After all, you gave him your vote without question, and you will continue to do so as long as he keeps calling himself a Democrat?

So in another twenty years, we'll have that much more corporate control over elections and policy, and you can congratulate yourself that you backed a winner.

So, in your view of things, the Democratic front-runners are likely to support "that much more corporate control over elections and policy." That's not what they say, but apparently they're all liars. They are like Bush only more so.

Even you can't possibly believe that. Obviously, there is a difference between the candidates, and it's a difference worth supporting. We can't move in a progressive direction unless and until Democrats control the federal government. Look at 20th Century history to see examples of what I'm talking about.

The problem is, it'll be small steps, starting with just a slow halt to the wild rightward swing of the Bush years. But twenty baby steps in the right direction are better than one giant step in the wrong direction. And if enough progressives vote Green, a giant step in the wrong direction (Bush) is exactly what we'll get.

a great platform.

But the neocon threat to our nation, our democracy, and the world has become too great to dismiss. Democratic Party candidates have the only realistic possibility of defeating Bush and the rest of the neocons in the House and Senate in 2004. Anyone considering voting for any third party candidate in the 2004 elections better take a good hard look at the permanent consequences of four more years of Bush-neocon rule, and the subsequent un-opposable totalitarian system that will inevitably result. The third parties must unite with the Democrats to defeat Bush. If the neocons are not defeated, there will be no more third parties, or even a second party. The only party will be the fascist option. And that is not an option.

Liberals must support a moderate Democrat if s/he is nominated. Moderates must support a liberal Democrat if s/he is nominated. All bets are off. If we don't win in 2004, we lose forever.

If Bush and the neocons are not defeated, the US will unquestionably become a fascist dictatorship.

Any third party folks reading this, I'm literally begging you to join us in defeating the neocon threat.

Lots of actions have reactions...causes and effects...you happen to fixate on one of those, but it isn't the whole story.

Like you said, a vote for the Greens is a vote for the Greens. If it weren't for the Greens, that vote may not have happened at all. You don't know.