A quick attempt to end stupidity (re Sheehan)

Stupidity in the form of people suggesting a Cindy Sheehan candidacy could cause San Francisco to send a pug to DC.

http://vote2004.sos.ca.gov/Returns/usrep/0800.htm

Nancy Pelosi Democratic 224,017 84.7%
Jennifer Depalma Republican 31,074 11.7%
Leilani D. Dowell Peace & Freedom 9,527 3.6%


If you disagree, I am interested in seeing the math behind it.

edit to clarify subject

:applause:

Maybe because the trolls don't have a counter to it?

I'm kicking it with the new title.

Just askin'.

:shrug:

I was going to wait to deal with people calling other people stupid for giving Cindy any encouragement, etc, until after she declares she is running. Your edit changes things. I'm tired of dealing with the "omg what if..." stuff about whenever Cindy expresses her frustration. Thanks for the numbers, and the clarification.

:kick:


And recommended. ;)

They are probably PMing each other furiously right now, trying to figure out how to spin this.

instead?" :shrug:

I can't read Cindy's mind, but that's one good reason.

if that's the point.

And it's highly unlikely, unless I win the lotto, that I will find myself living in SF in 2008. Even if I did, I can't say whom I'd vote for until I watch the campaign.

The media angle I'm talking about is forcing Nancy to campaign more to the anti-war movement. If she did that I would vote for her, just as I will vote for Hillary if her campaign is strong enough against the war.

But I do like the IDEA that I might have a choice, and that my vote could actually send a message to Washington, instead of being a completely reliable, automatic entitlement for the Democratic party.

She said BEFORE the election that her desire was to "change direction" and "impeachment is off the table." Now we have Sheehan saying "impeach or else." Not, "cut funding or else" not, "end the war or else" not, "investigate or else" but "impeach or else." She's not accomplishing anything but division with that tactic. Lastly, she can give people a choice - in the primaries.

But with Sheehan to debate she may need to come up with something stronger and more specific than "change direction."

Why pamper our pols? They get a bigger slice of the pie than we do and they should sweat for it.

Not because of her. ;) Prolonging this war only hurts Dems. Republicans have an interest in doing so, financially and electorally and I hate to see well intended progressives assist.

She left the Democratic Party back in May. That would effectively prevent her from running in the Democratic Primary.

to remedy that situation.

She has made it clear that she does not agree with the current direction of the Democrat party and is under no obligation to justify running in the general election as opposed to running in the primary.

And DU is under no obligation to support her candidacy should she run against a Democrat as a Libertarian or whatever she's become as of late?

You are under no obligation to support her, and it would be inappropriate for DU, or anyone posting on DU, to support her running against a Democrat.

I was not saying what I said in support of her (potential) campaign, just in support of her right to run as she chooses. I don't support her doing this, I was just responding to the question about why she isn't challenging Pelosi in the primary.

That's a rather broad brush you paint with.

The people trying to paint Cindy as a Nader when they have no numbers to back it up are shit-stirrers, at the very least. They are either party hacks trying to discipline the antiwar contingent, or saboteurs from the Other Place.

they love the new Cindy crusade.

who think it could win them the district.

:evilfrown: = Other Place

And if Cindy spends more time going after the Dem Party than the Republican Party, then yes, she will remind me of Nader. Has she wheeled out "dime's worth a difference" yet?

electoral threat to the Democrats, you can back it up with numbers or not, but if not, your opinion is meaningless.

.

which tells me you're only here to be petulant... or what?

which seemed to imply that anyone who disagreed with you was one.

you're a troll in my book. Take exception all you want, Little Clarkie.

:shrug:

you pompous prig.

And your premise is moronic.

wish I'd brought my trenchcoat.

:rofl:

wouldn't they be on the same side as people who help Republicans and attack Democrats? If I wanted to troll in Freeperville I'd call myself a Libertarian and try to get Freepers angry with the GOP for not being right wing enough.

sophisticated trolls try to undermine organization.

No one is telling Pelosi supporters to "STFU and leave and start your own Underground." It's the parrots of that meme that j'accuse.

They are interested in undermining the Democratic Party, which is the only institution that stands in the way of their fascism.

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

And you will often find that those spouting accusations of 'they're a troll!' are far more likely to be ones themselves (though that's not foolproof, of course).

Too bad there wasn't some filter to expose who is and isn't ya know? So many stir up shit attacking the Dem party here but for legitimate, though possibly flawed, personal reasons. But others do so merely for sake of disruption and they laugh their heads off at us seeing the buzz they create. We just have to be vigilant in our recognition of the tactics the best we can.

Right?

if I were foolish enough to embark upon it.

I am still waiting for anyone to make the argument that Cindy's candidacy could result in a Repug representing CA-8.

Only that as an Independent it would be interesting to see if the rules apply to her supporters as they did to Lieberman's supporters when he ran against Democrat Ned Lamont.

I've seen people argue that she's jumped the shark.

Several people have been insulted by her comments that we are the party of slavery and started every war in the 20th Century.

But no, I've not seen anyone even remotely suggest that a Republican will get her seat. On the contrary, most folks, even some of her supporters, reckon that she'd lose pretty badly to Pelosi.

So I'm not particularly sure why you bring it up, considering it doesn't seem to have been a concern. You're batting down something that hadn't reared it's head until you brought it up.

accuses her of "splitting the vote."

they "may" win with a moderate R. I live in Minnesota, and I've seen it all. However there is one way to be sure. >>>> Run against Dems in the primary races instead of in the GE.

Ya know what's really stupid - suggesting that Pelosi will make decisions based upon threats to do X or else.

because that person is stronger on ending the war, that might send a wee message, don't you think?

Minnesota is not San Francisco. Really, show me the math. How do you get from the 2004 numbers to a Republican victory? What Republican is "moderate" enough to win even 20% of the SF vote?

:crazy:

Cindy's son is dead because of that "message." I've had enough "messages" personally.

Send messages in the primary races, not General Elections.

I too think independent challenges of Democrats is strategically moronic--you don't split your electorate when the slim majority fighting for its life just because that majority is too lazy. Split our vote too much, and you put enough Republicans back in to the point where our more pure Democrats can stop -nothing- instead of just stopping too little. But I agree with the OP in that Sheehan is unlikely to cause SF to send a Republican to the House.

If progressives "flee" when we inch toward progress, what's that leave us?

the work of the letting fascists take over is OK if we send a message crowd was to run to the middle. The years between the 2000 Green Party betrayal and 2004 were the most spineless years the Democrats ever had. Democrats were in a position where they could no longer count on the base and had to make up the votes from the middle. I've yet to hear one elected Democrat say we should have caved in to Ralph Nader.

:(

I've been saying for years the Greens should drop their presidential campaigns and go for House seats, State legislatures and local seats.

That sure seems like a smarter plan than running a prez candidate.

:hi: As for local seats, I say bravo!

Laying the WAR at Ralph Nader's feet, especially since you must know by now that Nader was NOT a factor in the 2000 race.

eom.

You seem to have some very different data than I've seen. Care to share?

Where's your data that disproves this?

was a fraud perpetrated by the Bushies and blessed by SCOTUS.

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

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

Hmmm...so far we have:

purest idiot
unsupportable nonsense
hothouse flower douchebag

All because his hyper-anal parsing of a single phrase didn't match up to the expectations of his tiny reptile brain.

Of course, in jp's world, he gets as many bullshit statements as he wants. And if you call him on it, you're trying to "weasel out" of something.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?

You fucked up. You posted an argument you couldn't support, and now all you can do is try to run away from it, contradicting yourself and acting like a supercilious, bloviating fool in the process.

:rofl:

Your endless downspiral into self-irony and contradiction in trying to defend your unsupportable original claim is immensely entertaining. If you had just called Nader a minimal factor, we'd have nothing to argue about. Apparently, that's what you actually believe! But of course, you had to go for hyperbole. ;-)

Nevermind. Caffeine!

we wouldn't have Bush. If the election was stolen the attempt would have failed were in not for Nader making it close.

I am Nader the Great and Terrible! Fasten your safety belts!!

Fraud would not have prevailed without him/

voted for Gore had Nader stayed out of swing states like Florida AS HE SAID HE WOULD. Gore "lost" by just over 500 votes, YOU do the math.

More info here: Those four are also among Nader's stronger bases of support, judging from the last time around. Nader got 97,421 Florida votes in 2000 as Bush won the state by 537 votes. In 2000, Nader won 91,434 votes in Colorado — 5.25 percent of the vote — one if his best showings. In Wisconsin, Nader had 94,070 votes, or 3.62 percent, in a state that Gore carried by 5,708 votes. In Michigan, Nader had 84,165, or 1.99 percent.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200405180859.asp

On edit, I'd love the "data" you've seen.

And that's assuming the count was fair (it wasn't). To place the blame on Nader -- especially to take it to the level you did -- lets *, Jeb, Harris and Gore himself off the hook.

The election was stolen. The count was close because they only stole it as much as they needed to. The only way Nader was a factor is that while the Dems all focused their outrage on him, Bush walked away with our country.

Why are you?

Florida had paper ballots, Nader was a huge factor as I've proven above. Nader promised not to run in swing states and betrayed his naive supporters by doing so after collecting their money and their time. Nader SWUNG the election to Bush - along with - Jeb and "Kathy" and the SCOTUS.

You see, I can factor in everyone responsible and chew gum at the same time.

The only difference IMO between Nader and the RW assist is that Nader claims to be a progressive and people like YOU defend his raggedy convoluted ass here. I've not seen anyone defending Harris, or Jeb have you?

I presume you have "go search Google!" at the ready to defend this new argument.

I should have realized that, with the level of effort you put into trying to appear superior to others. I'm going to go now, sit at my piano and play some tunes with my girlfriend. You can have your little sandbox all to yourself.

But we'll raise a glass of prosecco to you, and thank the powers that be that we have better ways to occupy our time.

Buh bye.

Does that make my life superior to yours? Of course not, but I'm not the one claiming such things. You're taking this way too seriously. Calm down. Losing an argument because you made an oversimplified statement isn't the end of the world, and it doesn't define you forever as a person. You made an unsupportable claim, you got challenged, you tried to frighten away requests for supporting data with high-handed posts, and your opponent didn't give up. Admit the mistake, and move on. If your argument style is to browbeat opponents by insinuating that they must be anal-retentive losers when they question a false claim, I'm not surprised you believe anyone who disagrees with you feels secretly superior. I don't know you--how could I feel superior to you? I just disagree with one post you made.

:shrug:

Laying the whole thing at Nader's feet is also idiocy, but let's avoid both extremist stripes of such, shall we?

Go try The Google, then get back to me.

The evidence is below...I just wanted to point out how you're fudging the rhetoric to set the bar as high as possible. Since I'm doing your homework for you, perhaps you'd be kind enough to provide "proof" that anyone suggesting something other than Nader cost Gore the election is "purest idiocy". (Remember, it has to be purest idiocy. Only 99.4% pure idiocy? then you're wrong)

Have you done any research on the Diebold machines in Volusia county (among others)? If not, you may want to start here:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0310/S00211.htm

How about the 94,000 minority voters that were purged from Florida's roles before the election?
http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file/print.html

For other evidence, you might try googling "brooks bros riot" and "stephanie tubbs jones". You might also want to ask how a candidate so weak he couldn't carry his home state could possibly blame his loss on a small third party challenge.

The fact is the 2000 election was stolen. Without Nader, they just would have stolen it more, or stolen it differently. The results would have been the same.

Of course, if you haven't figured that out by now, you're probably beyond the reach of any evidence. What's that old saying? "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't pound the truth into his head with a sledgehammer and a railroad spike." Or something to that effect...

You've posted an incomplete string of voter fraud examples, of which every politically-active person is aware. What does that have to do with Nader taking votes away from Gore?

I posted that Nader didn't singlehandedly cause Gore's defeat, and that the only help he gave was to Bush. You saw fit to disagree with this and claimed "Google" would prove you correct. I have no quarrel with the idea that Nader's effect was minimal, but to say it didn't have -any- effect on Gore is total stupidity.

Remind me again who broke out with the "purest idiocy" characterization? This kind of disingenuous re-parsing is the worst kind of debate tactic on DU.

The fact is that there is more than enough evidence to support a claim Bush would still be pResident without a Nader candidacy (jpgray: That's not what you said! You said blah blah blah).

Anyway, there's more than enough evidence to suggest that Nader did not effect (was not a factor in, caused no meaningful change to) the final result (i.e.. The dude in the white house) of the 2000 election. Calling such a claim "purest idiocy" is, well, idiocy.

Who's being ridiculous? Many factors hurt Gore. Nader was one of them. If his 90,000 votes in Florida don't matter but a similar number of minority votes for Gore suppressed does, how can you expect anyone to give what you say the smallest amount of respect? By your logic, minority suppression doesn't matter because they would have "stolen it more." Do you read your posts, or just type blindly and hope no one notices the contradictions?

Exactly, and HE WANTED to.

Why do you point fingers? Because you can't defend the actions of the Greens.

over CS threat to run against her in 2008...

:(

They "think alike". :shrug:

:(

You are ill informed.

SF might put in Sheehan over Pelosi in the Dem primary (unlikely, but they might). But no matter what happens, a Dem will win the seat.

I think people are more concerned with the idea of running progressive independents to challenge unpalatable Dems as a wider strategy--purity is noble enough as a goal, but eschewing primaries to split your electorate in mass politics seems like strategic suicide to me.

It is strategic suicide.

Now, short of the usual mindless accusation of narcissism or stupidity, what would make a reasonable person choose strategic suicide?

We really need to understand both sides of this divide in a less knee-jerk fashion than we have (collectively, of course, not you in paticular).

In my opinion, a reasonable person would only choose strategic suicide if they felt that their back was against the wall and the strategy itself was to blame. The Democrats, because of their tendency to back down and capitulate to build capital for upcoming elections, have been shedding supporters like wildfire.

The country is heading off the deep end...the fringes are coming apart at the seams in many spheres of our lives. Our strategy is not working and a course correction is needed in order to head off the worst of it.

January 20, 2009 is too far away, and our current party infrastructure and avenues to power would not allow necessary change to be properly exercised after 2008 if this course correction is not made. This has become evident in not only the behavior of the Democrats, also but in the overt sucking-up the corporations have been doing with their favorite Democrats (we all know that cash and support is not for free, and not in the best interest of the People).

Cindy Sheehan's ability to cause this much strife with a simle announcement heralds the necessity of this course correction. We have created one hell of an issue vacuum with this war, and a hell of a faith-vacuum with the capitulations.

The good thing is....as of late, more Democrats are starting to make this course correction. Reid, Durbin both had a heck of a day today.

But I support Cindy in her actions for now, because she is only doing what the primal forces of poltics in America will do.....fill a vacuum. Will it be Cindy (as she has bore this issue on her back for so long)...or will it be the Democrats. Our choice. But to choose for Cindy to fill the void is strategic suicide just as assuredly as splitting the progressive vote in the general election.

Fill the void...fight like hell!

Like many people, it never occurred to me to look up the actual numbers. :dunce:

stupid is as stupid does

A little fear of the people she supposedly represents?

You think she's better off feeling re-election is absolutely assured forever?

They have to know that people are willing to challenge them. EVERY incumbent should be challenged, EVERY year.

If the "people she supposedly represents" dont like her, well gee, I dunno...just guessing....WOULDN'T THEY VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE THEN?

I'm getting a fucking headache

See, they can only "VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE" if there's actually SOMEONE ELSE TO VOTE FOR. We call those people "candidates", and you get them when folks like Cindy Sheehan run against incumbents.

Most San Franciscans, contrary to popular belief, are too mainstream to go P & F or Green.

Cindy is a mainstream figure and would present an actual alternative in a town where few people are stupid enough to buy into, "If you aren't a democrat, you must be a republican."

Unless, of course, you've never been west of the mississippi in your life.

We really need a DUzy equivalent for the most ironic post of the week.

Although she'd probably blame them for the gulag first time they crossed her.

It is no ones place to judge her , she has her own reasons . At least she is trying to do something to get this crime family out and end this insane occupation .


For the political freaks who follow this political process to the tee , you need to wake up , it's not the same process as it used to be and we need change .

I will never understand the reasons given by the dems about why they won't impeach .

:rofl:

right over my head with that one.

Huh?

The poster is steamed over the quotes that Alexander quoted to me. I get it. Not very clever, but I get it now.

but it's ridiculous to think she poses any threat in the GE--other than winning herself, which seems well-nigh impossible but would not be a bad outcome IMO.

From what Cindy says about her own followers they probably couldn't even successfully circulate a nominating petition for Cindy. What does bother me is Cindy is leading an explosion on the net of people who aim to shave a few percent of the vote off the Democrats and give the next election to the Republicans. Republicans will bring fascism. When history is written, the Bush years will be known as the early stages.

that she had no faith in either party so that pretty much explains why she may run as an independant or maybe green party . She's been bashed and ignored by both sides .

She should be what she is, an Independent.

Green has too much baggage.

in the Party." ;)

she'd be a hypocrite of the first order if she ran as a Dem now.

In the beginning she was a mother who lost a son. She was an apolitical figure against the war and that was what made her so great and why her message touched across partisan lines.

But now she is not a political neophyte. She has done some homework, discussions around the campfire at Camp Casey were probably quite fascinating. Though her attack on the Democratic Party seemed classic Libertarian, her embracing of Hugo Chavez would seem to exclude that. So I am betting she has embraced one of the collective or communal anarchist philosophies.

Then again she may have just Googled Democrats+Suck and Bidened from attacks that sounded good but don't necessarily reflect her own political philosophy.

here on this board that she takes no counsel from anyone, but I'm not stupid or naive enough to believe that.

Agreed, she had much more credibility when she was presenting herself as an apolitical grieving mother.

I no longer approve of Cindy. She is unrealistic. She can only hurt both the ant-war movement and the Democrats.

:P

that Cindy might split the vote and cause an R win.

However, the "hurt" you perceive is one I do not.

Let's undermine our own causes while we're at it. :eyes:

She's running against the democrat who took impeachment off the table.

How can a candidacy with two possible results--

a. very unlikely, Cindy Sheehan goes to DC representing CA 8

b. very likely, a Nancy Pelosi with a stronger anti-war stance (in line with the great majority of Americans) returns to DC

how can either of these results hurt the Democratic party or the anti-war cause? No one has explained this to me.

she obviously has no problem running in districts where she's never lived.

Running against a liberal Democrat is just going to make people here at Democratic Underground not like her.

Yeah, that would really strengthen her message. Any district that elected a DINO is not going to turn out for her.

Surely Cindy would do far better than 1-3%, even in the reddest of red districts. After all, Paul Hackett nearly won that race in deep red Ohio.

Unless maybe people are just tired of her?

:shrug:

she will not campaign well outside her region, but she will campaign VERY well here. The anti-war/pro-impeachment electorate is not a monolithic body. In the districts you refer to, a social conservative who wants to end the war and impeach Bush would be the appropriate challenger.

"she will not campaign well outside her region, but she will campaign VERY well here."

What's your basis for making this statement?

The more Sheehan speaks regarding topics she knows nothing about, the more irrelevant she will become.

and are ill-informed on the issues. I don't know what you mean by "speaking regarding topics she knows nothing about," but put a down-to-earth mom up against pearls and plastic surgery, and a lot of Bay Areans will step up regardless of the campaign's content.

Excuse me if I prefer someone with knowledge and experience to the person who "seems like me!" Sheehan isn't anything like Reagan or George, but isn't superficially identifying with a candidate not always the best judge of quality?

if I could afford to live in her district. But I think a populist anti-war challenge will make her a better candidate and leader.

She has every right to run. What I don't like so much is her strategic thinking. Sheehan reminds me a bit of what happens to war protests sometimes. What might be more effective as a strong, clear, united antiwar message turns into isolated groups touting peripheral issues, and thus the protest becomes ripe for caricature. Such caricature is unfair, and those folks have every right to participate, but politics isn't fair and I think there's a middle ground between submission to our corrupt political system and self-defeating, divisive idealism.

"People want people like themselves as candidates and are ill-informed on the issues."

That's funny - my impression of San Franciscans is that they are generally well-informed compared to most of the United States.

"I don't know what you mean by "speaking regarding topics she knows nothing about,""

You don't?

Topics like this?

"Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy … not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy."

And this?

"The Democrats are the party of slavery and were the party that started every war in the 20th Century except the other Bush debacle."

Sounds like someone could use a refresher course on Ms. Sheehan's views.


"but put a down-to-earth mom up against pearls and plastic surgery, and a lot of Bay Areans will step up regardless of the campaign's content."

Oh, I get it. It's about image, not issues. Why else would you mention "pearls and plastic surgery"?

Sheehan knows hardly anything about the issues. And I see you know hardly anything about what comes out of Cindy Sheehan's mouth, and why people might not like everything she has to say.

As for "down-to-earth mom"...since you're all about image, I might as well say that the image Ms. Sheehan has created for herself since "Camp Casey" has not been a flattering one.

so I guess I'm an idiot too. Out of context, everyone has said things that can be made to look bad.

As I said above, I would probably vote for Pelosi if I could afford to live in her district. But I think a strong progressive challenge will make her a better candidate and leader.

"so I guess I'm an idiot too."

Find where I called you an "idiot", or knock off the straw men.

"Out of context, everyone has said things that can be made to look bad."

Nice excuse - unfortunately, both of Sheehan's comments were completely in context.

"As I said above, I would probably vote for Pelosi if I could afford to live in her district."

Great.

"But I think a strong progressive challenge will make her a better candidate and leader."

I disagree - she will easily shrug off this challenge.

"Topics she knows nothing about" implies idiocy to me.

It is true that the Democrats held the South until LBJ because Lincoln happened to be a Republican.

It is true that Democrats were in office at the time the US joined every major war of the 20th century.

I don't think these facts reflect on the party today, but Cindy's statement had a basis in fact.

I do think that the decision to invade Iraq was heavily influenced by the PNAC agenda.

I believe the PNAC is pro-Israel but not that it is controlled by Israel.

Cindy is guilty of a bit of hyperbole here, but I don't see the statements as proof that she "knows nothing."



Now, if you are so convinced Pelosi will squash Cindy like a bug, why do you care enough to keep posting in this thread?

Picking your battles is important. I think Cindy picked the wrong one.

Who knew?

Cindy can gather a majority of Congress to support her causes?

Who knew?

What's your point?

:)

She's not a threat. She's making herself more irrelevant, and seem more ignorant each time she speaks now.

I say she should run. At the worst she'll make a fool of herself. It's unfortunate she got to this point. While the Democrats have not been doing a great job against Bush, you're not going to accomplish anything politically by simply burning bridges.

than it would in your neck of the woods. I expect a pretty good fight.

The Speaker of the House almost always beats a challenger, barring a devastating personal scandal.

It is her choice.

Amusing.