If splinterism did not work in 2000, why would it work in 2008?

People here and there, going out like little punks, are threatening to vote for a third party or write someone in during the general election of 2008.

My question is: why?

If you're back to threatening to vote third party in 2008, then obviously the splinterist strategy did not work in 2000. Why would it work now? And why do it if it is not going to work?

and the handwringers... and a tiny minority, I hope.
When push comes to shove I think most real Democrats will vote for the Democrat.
This time I believe we have enough strength to overcome their foolishness.

The DLC has given us NAFTA, 12 years of a Repuke congress, 1 year of a neutered Democratic congress, outsourcing, the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Speedy Gonzales, Mukrazy, global warming..... I could go on forever, but they are complicit in everything that has happened the last 7 years.

When do you draw the line?

Do "real" democrats support torture?

Do "real" democrats go along with the destruction of the Constitution because it is politically expedient?

Do "real" democrats put their faith in Aetna and CIGNA to handle our health care?

Your answer appears to be yes, since the only criteria seems to be pushing the "D" button on that rigged voting machine.

classic presumptive arguments that make any discussion about this serious issue a joke. Thanks. Vote independent, make us all suffer under another Republican psychopath. Thanks again.

:hi:

The only argument ever expressed by the "Must vote for the D" cult is that the pukes are worse.

You never address the fact that going along with the DLCers has resulted in the political "middle" being pushed so far to the right that Dwight Eisenhower would be considered too liberal for some so-called Democrats here.

Sorry, I hate to play this card, but you are shoveling shit against the tide IMO. Yes, the Republicans are the only other viable party in this country and they are MUCH worse.

So, give the fact that only a Democrat or Republican can win the election, which party would you prefer?

"Enough" or does that capital "D" absolve a politician of all sins?

That is the question. I am not going to answer moronic "absolutist" questions - they are for fools looking to be argumentative. But if it makes you feel any better, if Joe Lieberman were running and nominated, I'd vote for a a liberal "alternative".

don't let anyone make you defend piss poor Dems. :thumbsup:

...and you have become quite the "one-liner" over the years; I haven't been blown away by any Dem yet and will make up my mind at the last minute. So I am not in the mood to defend Dems at this time. No, really! :rofl:

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

I would prefer Kucinich or Edwards at minimum, but I will support Obama or Clinton if they are nominated. I prefer not to say this here, (as the trolls read this), but I convinced that the Democrats are feigning right in order to get back into the WH and establish larger majorities in the House and Senate. At that point, it will be much easier for us voters to start weeding out some of the marginal Democrats from Congress. I think it's a perfect ploy to have the "leftists" not happy during the election cycle - they are not fools. One step at a time - we'll get there eventually. Joe Lieberman is too a Demonrat! :rofl:

mkay

I have no problem with punks!

i loves me some punk. :bounce:

SCREAMING AT A WALL!!!!

:thumbsup:

2. It is not about strategy. It's about being able to look at your reflection in the morning. Being guided by principles rather than politics.

"What doth it profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his soul?"

Which would be the Republican corporatists and neocons of the DLC, and their attempts to drag this party to the hard right.

:crazy:

Straight talk isn't exactly their forté.

I'm actively soliciting an answer in this thread. Someone should tell me, because I don't know.

money.

Then again, "splinterism" is your own made-up word, so I'll bow to your discretion about its use and refer to the founding of the DLC as "schism".

It may have accomplished exactly what it was supposed to accomplish.

I just see people threatening it again, so I'm assuming those people don't think it worked.

you may now continue with your normal daily business.

without the "swing" votes on the left, then perhaps Democrats should be courting THOSE swing votes instead of the moderate and/or conservative swing votes.

Perhaps Democrats should consider nominating a candidate that will ATTRACT those voters, instead of driving them away.

If Democrats can't or won't do so, then complaints about lost votes have no legitimacy.

Either you value those votes, and want to work to earn them, or you don't, at which point complaints and finger-pointing are nothing more than hypocrisy.

I'm asking people what is going through their head when they vote for one of the splinter parties. I have no doubt that a certain group of people will pursue the splinterist strategy and vote for some third party. The question that I cannot get an answer to is "why", when the strategy failed before.

who aren't controlling the process, who have little power, than it is to the power holders.

If you want those "splinter" votes, it seems like it would be best to talk to Democrats about how to earn them. If Democrats don't want to earn them, then they can't really complain when they don't get them, can they?

While I have never yet voted for a 3rd party candidate for president, I understand the people who do. I talk to them regularly. Most of them began their career as voters with one of the major parties, and broke away when it became clear that the party would never represent them. If you want to earn a vote for the Democratic nominee from those people, you'll have to nominate someone who offers them something they can't refuse.

Not everything, but something.

If I were to choose one single issue to focus on, in an effort to bring those votes in, it would be privatization/corporatism. "Privatizing" generally means putting things under corporate or religious control, which is why I have it linked to corporatism.

Nominate a candidate who qualifies for, and takes, matching funds for his campaign. Whose platform is clearly pro-labor, anti-nafta/corporatism/privatization. A nominee who will take a clear, firm stance on those issues will bring in most of those you refer to as "splinterists."

It's really up to you. Start having that conversation with the voters who will be choosing the nominee: the Democrats. This ball is in the Democratic court.

Please note that I have responded to you honestly and sincerely, giving you the benefit of the doubt. As if you really did care about those splinter votes, and weren't just setting up those voters to take the blame for poor Democratic voter choice.

The real question is why so many people still feel the need to even express such opoinions, eight years later.

The question is why the Democratic Party is so stubbornly resistant to change, to the extent that many people still see a third party (or sitting it out) as the only viable alternative?

I was among those who defended Nader here, because I was really frustrated by the direction -- or lack of direction -- of the Democratic Party in 2000.

I've changed, because the experiences of the Bush years were a stark remeinder of how important it is to keep the GOP Creeps at bay.

But my basic frustration with the Democrats has only increased (with some exceptions). When they were a minority in Congress they failed to present a unified opposition to Bush. When they were (are) the majority, they fail to use their clout -- and instead keep getting rolled over by Bush.

More importantly, the Democratic Leadership seems determined to force the same kind of ineffectual and Corporate Conservative bullshit on us again. More of the same old, same old that is selling out the country and keeping us as an ineffectual minority.

The splinterists can express an opinion in dozens of different ways outside of the voting booth. Why do they choose this way over the others? Does it get them what they want? If it hasn't done so, why do they still do it?

than he did Bush. He, and his supporters, would rather see a full-blown conservative they can protest than see a "compromised" liberal they would feel they had to begrudgingly support.