Remember: If you don't vote for the Federalist or Whig candidate...

you are throwing your vote away.

America only has room for two political parties and those parties NEVER change. Ever.

I think i'll get back in line then ****scooches over*****

I don't know that much about the political history of the two party system.

Whigs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_Party_%28United_States%29

Federalists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Party_%28United_States%29

because dividing the party works really well?

Dixiecrats, 'Southern Strategy,' American Independent Party, Reagan Democrats ... etc. etc.

:shrug:

Some "Democrats" only turn 'blue' when they hold their breath or throw a tantrum.

Wahhh! "Unless there's a Southerner on the ticket, I won't vote for it!" Wahhh!
Wahhh! "I won't vote for whack-job liberals like Eugene McCarthy! ... like Jimmy Carter! ... like George McGovern! ... like Mike Dukakis!" Wahhh!

These are the DINO mantras I've heard far too often to count.

The liberal, "New Deal" Democrat have been used like doormats in their own party for over 40 years.

(As an independent liberal, I find it disgusting that the Vichy wing is again whining.)

"Waaah! I won't vote for Hillary Clinton!"

All Quid and no Quo. :shrug: Deal with it.

I guess you have too much dirt on your monitor to read the denigration and insults thrown at Kucinich and Edwards, huh?

What's the ethical difference between "he's unelectable" and "I won't vote for him"??? (At least the latter doesn't suffer from cowardice and projection.)

"I will not vote for this candidate in the GE, and in doing so give the election to the Republicans, because I am pissed off that the Democratic candidate appeals more to the moderate wing of the party than he/she does to me."

The other is,

"I will not vote for this candidate in the primary, because I do not believe he will win in the general election." Given that Kucinich runs twenty points below Republican candidates--while HRC, JE, and BO all run five or more above--I think that's fair.

The same people saying they won't vote for someone because OTHERS won't ... are reading polls where THEY THEMSELVES (as a statistical group) are being polled. This is the (metaphorically speaking) negative hysteresis loop of such opinions. How would people react if it were the black or the female who "others won't vote for"?? Don't you think most of us (on DU, at least) would see through that bullshit? I would. So, it's projection, pure and simple. The folks who claim that rationale are the ones CREATING the very 'evidence' for it. It's self-referential.

I find it a bit disappointing that something as obvious as this needs to be pointed out on DU ... and that so few even accept it when it's pointed out. It's really not rocket science.


On edit: As a mental assist, try to imagine ALL of the people who say that their prevalent reason for voting for (whomever) even though they themselves prefer Kucinich are gathered in a huge group. Imagine them saying "The reason WE will vote for our second choice and not Kucinich is because WE won't vote for Kucnich." After all that's the logical equivalent of what folks are saying when they say he's their personal preference but he's not 'electable.' That's why it's fallacious circular reasoning.

... unless, of course, they're just liars. :evilgrin:

why would people be thinking about a candidate's "viability" in the GE? Viability and electability are what primary voters compare themselves with. Few would decide to vote for Giuliani instead of Kucinich because they think Kucinich "couldn't win;" once the general election is reached, inevitability is not the force marginal political blocs decry it as.

Independents and moderate-to-conservative Democrats vote for the Republican when Kooch is on the hypothetical ballot because they would prefer a Republican to him, not because they think other swing voters might not vote for DK. Democrats looking ahead to the primaries see that Kucinich is getting demolished in head-to-heads and decide that they'd rather not reenact the Charge of the Light Brigade and that instead they'll select someone who isn't getting murdered in the polls.


Perhaps the reason it's so simple in your head would be that you're connecting threads that don't exist in reality.

Such polls are 'gamed' by those who climb on a 2nd choice bandwagon for another candidate. The phenomenon I describe, however, is a first stage phenomenon, as I see it - preceding the specious head-to-head polls. At the first stage dynamic, the opportunity to create "name recognition" is preempted by the "Devil made me do it" self-inflicted victims. This exacerbates (fails to offset) the second order effect of low name recognition in the head-to-head polls. These two effects skew the polling and serve to amplify the negative hysteresis.

Clearly, the 'conclusive' memes then drive the voting herd further away from their 'greener' pastures and all get on the "same page" and harmonize in the faux communitarian mythology. Thus, perception BECOMES reality and we're all self-aggrandizingly happy we have such a good handle on "the way things are."



Your comment that "Perhaps the reason it's so simple in your head would be that you're connecting threads that don't exist in reality" is interesting. It adopts the "isolated subsystem" POV ... the idea that we can form mental models of some dynamic social behavior under the pretense that there are no exogenous influences of significance. The fact of the matter is that all such 'threads' ARE connected in reality, and it's only in our over-simplifications in forming our mental models that we pretend there are no 'connections.' The constant reminder I give myself is: "The map is NOT the territory." (The model is not the reality.)

:patriot:

Sure, they stole Florida. Sure they illegally purged huge numbers of Dem voters.

BUT, the votes that went to Nader could have elected Gore President.

How can anyone ever forget this fact? Yet, THOSE progressives think the DEM mainstream should listen to them. Go figure!

As it is, I go into my paperless touchscreen voting booth during the the General Election and I could swear I was voting in the Republican Primary...

The "moderate" Dems? The "silent majority" and the "Reagan Democrats"?

But those who voted for another left-wing party are Satan's minions.

have understanding that you were given Nader as a "scapegoat."

Nader brought in huge numbers of voters who voted for Democrats -- voters who would not have come to vote if not for Nader --

Additionally, rather than investigating the uncounted votes -- Nader was offered up to be bashed around. NOTE that Theresa LaPore and the butterfly ballots would have ALSO put Gore in the White House . . . was it just coincidence or was this purposeful?

So -- there you go, a Democrat screwed up accidently or on purpose --
Later, I think there was some connection found with LaPore and the GOP -- wasn't there?

This wimpy little man with NO Corporate backing, No "Warchest", no incumbent support managed to knock the wheels off the entire Democratic Party and forced them to lose the election!

Its soooo much easier to blame Nader than to look at the problems inside the Democratic Party.

It is soooo much easier the say that Nader stole those votes instead of saying that the Democratic Party did NOT win those votes!

If we just blame Nader, then we NEVER have to fix what is wrong with the Democratic Party, and we can keep doing the same fucking thing every 4 years.

A Hillary nomination will catalyze a 3rd Party challenge from a REAL Liberal/Populist/AntiWar/ProLABOR/ProConstitution/Not-for-Profit HealthCare challenger that will net most of the Independents and a good # of AntiWar Democrats = 2000Redux.

Keep making Nader out to be a SUPERMAN. Its easier than admitting that there may be a problem inside the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

Certainly the United States at the end of the 19th century sucessfully bore out many of the ideas espoused by Washington, Hamilton and others.

There's nothing wrong with pro-growth policies--Madisonian trade policies were a disaster--but Hamilton also had a habit of tiptoeing too close to the idea of military interventions in political affairs.

(Okay, so now who's wonkier?)

That thread got locked:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1938161&mesg_id=1938161

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

of urging progressives to work in the primaries for better candidates. :hi:

look deeper than the Party label.

They're just not.

If we want the Democratic Party to change direction, we're going to have to work our asses off in the Primaries. And before that has a chance, were going to have to reform the way votes are counted.

or having connections with wealthy people which guarantees that they will get support of the Democratic Party -- $$$$

Unfortunately, people come in, work in campaigns and get discouraged and move on and you don't hear their stories.

But, it was very quickly clear to me that a lot of energy goes into campaigns -- usually by volunteers -- and then the elected officials go back to sleep.

The other first thing you notice is that there is a HUGE money barrier --
few get past it --

I can also tell you that my sister ran for office in Boston -- same thing --
you have to have $$$$$

OR WE HAVE TO HAVE PUBLIC FINANCING OF CAMPAIGNS --

various and diverse elements of the population. How can anyone reasonably expect a young single working mother in Brooklyn, a married man in the Air Force w/ one infant in Montgomery Alabama,a single guy in College in San Diego, a 50 yo divorced woman that owns a publishing company in New Orleans, a rancher in Utah, a farmworker in Arizona,how are all these folks and countless others supposed to fit into one of two boxes? It's absurd on the face of it.

without proportional representation, we're doomed to a one party system.

Both telling the citizenry that they aren't "as bad as" the other.

"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." Thomas Paine

:eyes:

There is NO level of performance that's so low that we can't find a standard that's lower!

All hail the System! Bow down to the System! Only God can make a System!

:dunce: :crazy:

Life is not black and white, this and that. How in the world could politics follow that pattern?

and just vote.... without even knowing what they are voting for.

People always tease me about being so interested in politics - and I always reply - how can you not be?
Politics touches so much of our lives.

:-P

sorry for the abrasiveness...