Is withholding votes the only way to affect change?

Headquarters meeting or even their local District meeting

it usually shuts them up fast :evilgrin:

...there's usually more than one issue group dedicated to it. There are meetups for grassroots Democrats in my area through Illinois Dem Net and we have speakers from groups like People for the American Way there to talk about what's going on in those organizations.

If people want politicians to listen, they are probably going to have to get more people to care about their issue as well. Then politicians can't ignore it. But that requires work!

I would definitely hit the alert button then...

And you can be a part! Simply alert whenever you see third-party splinterism.

You said that people were threatening you.

I get where you're coming from, but as long as someone isn't voting for the repug (or other right-winger) I have no beef with them.

Do you really think that "shielding" people from Naderites by alerting on them every time you see them is going to win voters back to the democrat side?

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, my friend. Instead of having witch hunts, I'd rather we keep dem candidates' feet to the fire, and ensure that when they do take office, the progressive-sounding platitudes of the campaign aren't just forgotten.

The DLC, its philosophies, policies and tactics have driven far more democrats away from voting dem than Nader or anyone else ever could, IMO.


(And please understand that I am anything BUT a Nader supporter. I think he's an egomaniac and should have dropped out of the race in 2000, but again that was SEVEN YEARS ago.)

they'll refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee if "X" or "Y" or "Z" are nominated.

Like that's reeeeeeeeeeally productive. Look how well that turned out in 2000. :puke:

It's kind of infuriating!

I like to have as many resources in my toolbox as possible when I want to demolish, repair, maintain, re-build, or engage in new construction.

Damn their snotty self-righteous lying little brains.

Look how it all changed after bushco took over.

Such an improvement, eh?

During the Clinton era, many democratic voters grew complacent and uninformed. Blissfull in the notion that Bill was taking care of things.

But Bush has stoked a fire of outrage and thirst for knowledge in millions of democratic voters like has not been seen in more than a generation. If it takes a warmongering thug who takes America to the edge of fascism to wake up the voters, then that may be a good thing, because let's be honest. Bill Clinton pretty much continued Reagan's economic policies as it pertains to hands-off of big business and low income taxes on the super-rich. Offshoring was already a terrible problem and he signed NAFTA. I hope that because of all that's happened, any future democratic president won't be given a free ride by progressives like Bill Clinton was. It's time to start demanding progress, instead of always just settling for less-evil.

JUST VOTE, DAMMIT!

Nader voters are not all that many people, and do not represent a huge slice of posters here.

Many of them are repentant, maybe some are not, whatever - that was SEVEN YEARS AGO.

I didn't answer your question because it's disengenuous. I don't owe my vote to any party or candidate. There may be a time when witholding a vote or voting for a third party *IS* the best answer.

When I lived in San Francisco, progressives were viable on the ballot as well as democrats (GOPs were not!), so I voted for the progressive candidate instead of the big-money, Pacific Heights democrat.

If only the rest of the country were like that!

Obviously, the fact that you feel Nader voters and non-voters handed the presidency to POS Bush is REALLY bugging you. I understand your anger. It's been a HORRIBLE 7 years. But please don't forget that Gore WON the popular vote by a wide margin, and that POS Bush only won in Florida by using choicepoint to illegally and fraudulently disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters. Maybe that criminal activity should enrage you more than a few people who were simply exercising their right to vote. After 8 years of highly copetent and effective leadership under Clinton, I personally thought the election was a slam-dunk for Gore. Never in a million years did I think what happened would happen. I'm sure the Nader voters wouldn't have voted for him if they thought it would be enough to push it into the (R) column. It was a protest vote against the DLC/corporate philosophy that had been in effect under Clinton, not an actual vote for Nader himself- nobody thought we would win.

The OP is completely obsessed by a washed-up guy who likely will get less than 1% of the vote, if he actually runs at all.

Rather than re-fighting the 2000 election, I'm moving forward rather than backward.

It is my chosen place in the 2008 election.

FUCK NADER!

Weird place, but someone's gotta go there.

Credit where it's due, you certainly have passion. We need more of that.

LoZoccolo, you are the official Anti-Ralph of DU. I don't quite get it, but hey, there are many things I don't understand.

If fighting the <1% of Ralph supporters leads Democrats to a 2008 victory, then let's party!

I respect your conviction. :thumbsup:

I didn't answer your question because it's disengenuous.

How can it be? I gave two polar opposite choices. You either think one or the other. There is not an answer missing in this poll.

And I'm talking about right now, not some theoretical point in the future.

You know what I like? Coming out of the office and finding pizza at the executive assitant's desk. Man, that helps to break up the afternoon. Delicious pizza, mmmmmmm.

cash is the only way to go.

Not Affect!

:banghead:

unless you mean to change the process of change--but I think you just mean "cause change."

You can get more things accomplished by doing things than you can by not doing them.

the world over by giving republicans a head start so to speak. I would hope any progressive who is even slightly educated on the reality of politics these past years would know how monumentally risky and moronic it would be to not vote for the Democrat. After all we've seen since the huge error of judgment that was Nader in 2000, how could any progressive still be thick headed enough and ignorant enough to vote for him or not vote at all? That still perplexes me LOL

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

My position is to work like hell, and possibly donate money if I can afford it, for any true progressive challenging my very own ineffectual Vichy-Dem congressperson in the primaries. However, if the progressive loses, I won't take a chance on helping elect a republican by either not voting or voting third-party.

That doesn't mean we don't need functional third, fourth, fifth, seventeenth parties. Clearly the two now running the show are either despicable or useless to a progressive. But as it currently is, even with a thoroughly dysfunctional two-party system, a Vichy Dem is preferable to a moderate republican, if such exists anymore.

The other avenue to change is violent overthrow of the power structure. As Mao said, political power comes from the barrel of a gun. I think that's generally true; look at who has the most guns now -- police, mercs, official military, federal alphabet soup enforcement agencies -- and it's not just guns, but jets and ships and missiles and oh so many wondrous implements of total destruction. Which makes me think that an attempt at violent overthrow is almost certainly doomed to end in death and heartbreak.

So for now, I'm sticking with strategy #1. If that continues to fail for another few election cycles, it might be time to consider other options.


wp