All This Third-Party Talk Has Got Me Thinking...

Mainstreamers hate/fear/disrespect the third partiers because... well, you've heard all the "logic" behind it. I'm wondering what the logic is behind targeting a group you need on your side, and calling them a bunch of idiots.

And to those who feel slighted by the Dems, a threat to go third party may be premature. Right now we have a string of candidates fighting to distinguish themselves from the pack. So far, their bold tactics have been limited to, "well I was the second-to-last to vote against Iraq spending, while my opponent was the very last."

Let's give one of the top 3-4 Dem frontrunners something to run on. I'm talking about targeted progressive pressure on somebody who wants and can get this nomination. The mainstreamers shouldn't mind, since they're going to vote Democrat regardless. Let's pick a candidate on the top 3-4 and commit. Maybe a letter-writing campaign that begins with, "I'm looking for a candidate who..."

So far, it seems that Edwards and Richardson have been talking a bit of the talk, with Edwards' focus on poverty, and Richardson's increasingly strong stance urging immediate withdrawl from Iraq. Why don't we throw some support their way, and maybe they'll see the untapped niche market that only Kucinich is filling so far? Dennis is in it to influence the debate as much as to inspire and keep the progressives from completely throwing in the towel. But I would consider putting my support to a candidate who adopts some of Dennis' ideas, and happens to be polling higher. I want to win, but I also want the right candidate to win. Maybe one that already has some mainstream acceptance and progressive leanings can be swayed closer to the base?

Let's pick one, commit, and see if some "positive reinforcement" changes the tune of any of these frontrunners.

Worth a shot, at least.

:shrug:

I hope some of the 'third party' wave take you up on this. It seems much more proactive than just saying that the candidates aren't addressing liberal issues.

I'm also biting my tongue to not give a snarky response to your first sentence. You seem to be saying that party loyalists are entirely at fault for the acrimony here & are giving the 'third party' DUers a pass. FWIW, I've seen acrimony & name calling on both sides. Of course, it's easier to see when your side is being called out.

edited because SCIMBF

I would think it would help bump up the progressive vote if people could choose both who they think could win and who they want to win.

It'll never fly.

:hi:

If Public financing is the first or second thing a new Democratic president does, we are golden. If not, I'm worried it'll be left on the back-burner to rot.

parties are unnecessary, IMO.

Mainstream as well as others.

I wish we lived in a country where you could just vote how you feel and not be chastised for doing so.

as long as they're winning.

I'd say Edwards, but I'm willing to listen regarding Richardson.