DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN in 2 0 0 8 ?

That's basically what you're asking here.

"...if a democrat in whom you did not vote for in the
primary election,..."

That doesn't necessarily indicate a dislike. It just means you liked another candidate better. That said, with Bush out of the picture, some of the people are not going to feel as...forced, shall we say...to vote for whoever the democratic party puts out there. Not that Kerry didn't have a lot of potential, but its really important to put out a really good candidate who can define and defend themselves and their positions clearly.

That said, I keep returning to the fact that we have to take back Congress first. Without taking back Congress, it doesn't matter how good our Presidential candidate is.

to why a person prefers one over the other.I may want them all, but I can only choose one.

a lot of divisiveness if not the loss of the 2000 election is the ever present possibility of another Green Party candidate taking votes away from the Dem candidate.

Didn't Ralph Nader speak at the rally last week?

But yes, I would vote for a Dem - assuming that they are not a mass murderer... :)

ideas and options, but I specifically wanted to know what type of choice would you make given just these two options.:patriot:

I would vote for who I thought was the best candidate, regardless of party affiliation. Now, the republican party has shown that no matter who runs as a republican, you can count that they will blindly support the fundamentalist, right-wing nut agenda at the expense of everything good this country has ever done. Therefor, I will not necessarily vote Democrat in every election, but I will never vote republican.

I will however vote strictly Democrat in the next two major elections because we need to get this country back now, and they are our only hope.

Is the correct answer. Well said, obreaslan.

Well said, indeed.

Have to base it on the actual candidates.

and which nominee is the lesser of two evils.

Hello? McFly?

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

Where is Diebold when you need 'em?

leftie. There would certainly be no reasonable choice than to back the Democratic Party candidate in the general election. The right-wing of the Republican Party is no joke -- They must be defeated -- no matter what it takes.

I often ask myself, "why did they hate Bill Clinton, so much -- after-all, he kept giving them half of what they wanted?"-

- but for these people half or 90% ain't good enough. They intend to gain and hold total power at any cost -- no matter how much it hurts the country. To them when they say "America". They mean the right-wing of the Republican Party. That's how they can genuinely believe that everyone from a conservative Democrat like Harry Reid to the likes of Noam Chomsky hates America. They simply do not distinguish from the right-wing of the Republican Party and America.

That's why they can burn and seethe with total hatred for even a very moderate Democrat like Bill Clinton.

Anyone who thwarts their path to power (even if they get their way half the time they still loose out half the time) represents an enemy of America to them. Since they define the right-wing of the Republican Party as America--in their twisted-confused and brainwashed world they are right.

My God what will happen if they control the future.

that includes all republicans and far too many Democrats ...

the poll question is so convoluted that it's essentially meaningless ... i might vote for a Democrat who wasn't my choice in the primaries IF that Democrat was NOT a war enabler ... and the race will NOT only be between a Democrat and a republican ... there will be third party candidates ...

I would not vote for anyone like Hillary, Richardson, Bayh, Warner or for that matter anyone who voted for Roberts.

Would never vote for a republican.

Would vote Nader or not vote.

Since Eisenhower left, they've been the party of the rich, warhawkish and religious wrong. Politically and fiscally unsympathetic to the plight of nearly everyone who doesn't make over $373,000/yr, this cancerous growth on America sets us back centuries with its puritan proselytizing, the favoring of religion over science and ultra-wealthy enabling. These aren't the views I subscribe to, nor is their retard vision right for a forward-moving and progressive America. Not to mention that their borrow-and-spend mentality is indebting our children's children.

And I've only done that once that I can remember.

Incidentally, what kind of arguments for voting Democratic is ABB??? I can think of a hundred reasons to vote FOR Kerry before I got to "he's not Bush" and I think more people in the middle of the spectrum could have been encouraged to vote for him if they heard some of those reasons before they heard the argument, "Well, he's not Bush."

ANY Democrat will be a better choice then ANY Republican.

If our party lost it's collective mind, and somehow nominated someone like Zell Miller, who represents the ideals of the enemy, I don't think that would be better than any Repugnican. In essence, all you would be getting is a Bushie with a "D" after his or her name.

We need a Howard Dean, who was doing great in polling, until the Press destroyed him by declaring him "unelectable" just before Iowa. We had a candidate who truly represented our ideals, our passions, and we tossed him aside, and allowed the Faux News and Rev. Moon's propaganda arm define who our candidate should be by what they feel "electable" is. We picked up the slogan "Any Body but Bush" and decided that Kerry was not such a bad guy, and could probably handle the job. The passion was gone though. The only thing that united us was the battle cry ABbB.

While that is fine for us, we forgot that the election is won and lost in many different states, and some of the voters who supported us in the '90's abandoned us. Why is the common question, and the answer is we abandoned our platform. We left the idealism that made the Clinton years the best in history. Unequaled growth, responsible and compassionate legislation. Devotion to ideals.

How many Americans fell for the Repugnic spin that the Government shut down was President Clinton's fault? The far right extremists who also claimed that Hillary murdered her friend Vince Foster are the only ones to believe that hype. A vast majority of Americans saw the Repugs as the reason the Government was shut down, and backed President Clinton's refusal to give up on his principals. We communicated then, we don't now.

We got the public behind the Brady Gun Law, by showing common sense gun regulations work. We saved how many thousands of lives by denying criminals guns, and demanding background checks. We got the public behind so many great ideals, and programs, and now we are reduced to "Any Body but Bush". Our ideals haven't changed, the principals that the Vast Majority believed in haven't changed, the only thing that has changed is how many of our elected leaders are pretending to be Repugnicks.

I know this is a little long, and am sorry. It's just frustrating at times to know that the huge mistake is moving right, and all the while watching more and more of our leaders walk off the cliff after a Repug says that if you do this, you can walk on the invisible bridge. We have lost so many great voices of our party to this "America is Conservative" lie. Tom Daschel was a great majority leader, fair and gentle at the same time. Destroyed by the Rove Spin Machine and slanderous advertising.

If our candidates are Dixie Crats like Miller, we will lose to what ever robot the Bush Cabal puts into office while prepping Jeb for the Bush Trifecta. Hey, they have stolen two elections, why not keep going now that the machinery is in place. If that happens, then in twenty years we will be stuck with the Bush Party Twins in the White House who will probably run on the Progressive Republican platform.

"Howard Dean, who was doing great in polling, until the Press destroyed him by declaring him "unelectable" just before Iowa"

Well, I was abroad at the time watching the BBC and even they were coming off with nonsense about Dean being "far left" and "unelectable". The sources they quoted were certain Washington D.C. Democratic Party operatives.

What positions did Dean hold that were by any wild stretch of the imagination "far left" or "out of the mainstream"? Nobody seems to know.

We do need to win in 2008. And I will fully support almost any Dem. But the corporate wing of the Party needs to shut up and stop smearing and lying about our Party.

The DLC were scared to death of Dean and his supporters then, and they still are. Because we recognize the fact that we do not need the DLC and their corporatist neocon appeasement to raise money, or win elections.

no matter what party they claim to be in.

Actually, I'm joking. It's kind of hard to recommend that.

And I do agree that some of the position statements put out by the DLC puts them way out of the mainstream --see link:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050727/the_democrats_2008_choice.php

But we must ask ourselves, "why does the right hate Bill Clinton so much? He gave them at least half of what they wanted." It was because the GOP right isn't happy to get only half of what they wanted. They want it all. To deny the right even 30% of their agenda is worth it to me. It could likely mean millions of lives.

Even the venerable Noam Chomsky admitted in that he would vote to reelect Bill Clinton over voting for Nader in 1996 and that he has given donations to Democrats that he didn't agree with on many issues.

We are in a two party system whether we like it or not. That simply is not going to change. To build a progressive majority, progressives need to work with what we have -- We are not going to get a parliamentary system with proportional representation. That will not happen. Working with the Democratic Party, advancing progressives within the Party and winning primaries for progressives is the only proportional representation system we have and almost certainly ever will have. A terrible choice. But, I see no alternative.