A while ago I labeled Democrats who vote third-party "Palin Democrats", and I realize I was wrong.

At this point that they are more likely to be "Bachmann Democrats".

:puke:

as long as Democrats act like Republicans you will loose the progressive/liberal vote and support.

:thumbsup:

you feel the same way?

We don't have any of them yet, I think. But I'd name the third-party voters after those Republicans, or possibly the lead one.

..and never disagree with Dear Leader right?:eyes:

;-)

when 3rd party is A OK!!

:shrug: lots of republicans are too. :rofl:

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

I'm sorry we don't want to all toe the party line, but I've noticed neither do you you. You want rid of Dennis Kucnich and probably want him replaced with some DLC Blue Dog, moderate, pragmatic centrist, which are all code words for corporate sell-out. You want rid of the Left so bad? The day may soon come that you get your wish, because a lot of the left is fed up with the democratic party. Then you can have your dream of having two conservative parties, while the people you mocked actually work to fix this country.

Also, why do you think I celebrated "Kucinich Week" in 2010, and had his picture as my avatar for a while?

Well said white_wolf...sad, but well said.

Pres. Obama or the repub nominee.

Not worth much, just sowing discord.

*now trotting off to find something more interesting*

To keep us distracted. To keep real progressives out of office. To keep the moneyed class in power and money.

They have us fighting left v right but it's all a vertical thing...moneyed class at the top v the rest of us (struggling) below.

strike two

Here in New York, candidates can be on the ballot more than once, on more than one party ticket. Most Democrats also run on the Working Families Party. Which is, you know, an actual progressive party. I voted for Obama on the Working Families ticket. I have never voted for a Republan. Am I "Bachmann Democrat"?

Might want to rethink your premise there...

Or, cut deals with them?

Boehner Democrats? Bush Democrats?

They're significantly differentiated. If you can find one that isn't, let me know, but please include a link to the voting record to give me some indication that you might have actually looked.

Or, does your rubric apply only to the common folk?

You still haven't answered the question.

How about common Democrats who vote for Republicans? Like the 300,000 that voted for Bush in Florida? Still Democrats?

If the Republicans vote to give every high-school student a copy of the Constitution, we would be obligated to vote against it? I fail to see your point.

Are Democratic politicians "obligated" to vote for Republican legislation? Are Democratic voters obligated to vote for Democratic candidates who do so? If the legislators(d) vote for Republican policies, i.e. Bush's invasion of Iraq, why aren't they labeled "Bush" Democrats? Or, why aren't Democrats who "enable" Republican policies, i.e. keeping Bush's tax cuts for the rich, called "Bush" Democrats"?

Whereas, single voters who vote 3rd party, which has no direct effect on legislation, are branded "Palin" or "Bachman" Democrats by you.

See "Double-Standard" for explanation.

who work closely with Republicans to dismantle the New Deal.

Harry Truman saw these kind of "Democrats",
and didn't like them very much.
QED:2010

I'll stand with Harry Truman, FDR, LBJ, Wellstone, Feingold, Grayson, and Weiner.

Oh, and Jim Hightower.

"The only thing in the Middle of the Road
are Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos."
--Jim Hightower

I think that group is growing faster than the "Democrats who vote third-party".

:shrug:

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

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And what is the point of calling them offensive names in the first place? Further, what is the point of crawling up onto a soapbox to announce to all that will listen that you have created an offensive term for them?

And more importantly, WHY IS ANY OF THIS PERMITTED?

I believe it's permitted because members of DU are expected to support Democrats for office, and people who vote third-party are not protected.

I have no dog in the hunt, haven't voted third party in my life. It just seems to me that going out of your way to piss off good people is the kind of thing that ought be against a rule. It's certainly offensive and rude, and that by itself is enough for me to question it.

I would think that threatening to unleash the Republicans as attack dogs to punish lack of purity, amongst members of an institution in which compromise is pretty inherent (as it's exchanged for the power in numbers one gains as a result of the compromise), and which has a mechanism to accomodate change in a safer manner, within a forum dedicated to members of that institution, is pretty offensive.

So you think threatening to unleash the republicans (as if anyone here would have that power since they're already unleashed) to punish lack of "purity" (you see this as purity not lack of advocating for democrats??) as exchanged for power in numbers as a result of compromise - (which by the way is not how the republicans do it, they take what they want and leave the democrats who care in tatters). And so the way it's being done is much "safer" now and that it's done within a forum dedicated to liberals and progressives is offensive.

Did I get this right? I still don't get some of it but really stop taking offense when liberals, progressives and democrats don't like whats happening. You don't have to feel threatened especially if the democrats actually get behind their constituents. It'll all work out one way or another anyway.

"you see this as purity not lack of advocating for democrats??" - that part is not correct.

"which by the way is not how the republicans do it, they take what they want and leave the democrats who care in tatters" - anti-abortion Republicans have for years had to compromise with the rest of the party.

"Did I get this right? I still don't get some of it but really stop taking offense when liberals, progressives and democrats don't like whats happening." - I'm responding particularly to threats to vote for third parties.

end up doing that. It's the ones who don't say a word who will just vote their own conscience and vote 3rd party and and we'll never know who they were. Lots of people get upset, get to the end of their rope and really want to vote for someone who will advocate for them but in the end will vote for the more liberal of the two parties.

Progressives are smart, we don't usually vote to hurt ourselves.

Still thinking of joining the Republican Party in '12?

I'd really have to look at whether or not my vote will make a difference in any of the Democratic primaries first. I'm also conflicted about how much each of the Republican candidates might alienate segments of their voters. It could turn out that Romney is more alienating to the further-right voters than Bachmann would be to the center, and obviously I would want to reduce their percentage as much as possible. You can switch at the polls, so I've got a while to decide.

Still doesn't say much, but two sentences! Yay! An improvement!