Vote for Democrats.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

LINK

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

1. You're a third way-er. Yes or no?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

2. What the Hell is this - court?

I'm a Democrat. That's the answer you get.

Yes or no...I'll answer any way I want.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

3. It was a question that your sig line answered fairly well.

Verdict is in.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

4. I'm a huge fan of Bill Clinton

The quote is displayed in the library in Little Rock. I visited in December.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. Good for you...

[moriah]

39. And my signature line identifies me as Pagan.

Last edited Sun May 8, 2016, 07:22 PM - Edit history (1)

... but I'm sure someone'd have thought it was something snarky about Bernie if they didn't know the background. She's discussing the "call to action" inherent in the Wiccan Rede. The rest of that part goes "Make a realistic plan that includes all your assets... then begin taking the first steps now."

(Edit to fix poor language choice)

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

41. Nice try, but no.

[moriah]

42. Well, I assure you (singular) that when I said "you"....

That I was using it in the plural and not necessarily "you" yourself.. but I need to be more careful. "One might assume" is more what I meant.

But it's been part of my sig line at least since DU3 if it wasn't already part in DU2.

And yet, it's attacking "waiting for the revolution" and dwelling on the broken system. Because I use mobile I rarely see signatures. I was worried someone might take it as an attack on the use of the words. Unless they actually Googled "Judy Harrow".

[baldguy]

17. And you think Trump is a better choice for president than Clinton. Yes or no?

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

18. Hey look everybody! I have a fan!

[baldguy]

20. You want to be able to interrogate people, but can't handle it when you get interrogated.

Typical BS double standards.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

21. I don't take purity tests so the brownshirt can't purge me later

[baldguy]

22. Unless you catch someone who you define as "Third Way", whatever the hell that means.

No purity test there.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

24. Perhaps if you stomp your feet when you write that I might

take you more seriously.

but speaking of "seriously" if you seriously read the OPs sig line there was a quote about the third way. The third way is corporatist bullshit.

But being serious, I have no quote of donald trump in my sig which shows a lack of reading comprehension on your part, party myopia as well as a lack of seriousness...friend.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

28. To many DUers, "Third Way" seems to mean anyone to the political right of Eugene Debs

..or perhaps Trotsky.

I interpreted the Bill Clinton in my sig line quote to mean working with political opponents to find common ground and common sense solutions.

[baldguy]

29. The Democratic Party has historically - since the 1960s - been a wide coalition

encompassing many economic, social, and demographic interests, working toward common goals.

The BernieBrats would like to see that coalition destroyed, and if they can't have that, at least see the party lose a few elections the the Republicans. They see the RW Tea Party as something to emulate, forgetting or ignoring the fact that the supposed grassroots nature of the "movement" is a fraud.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

30. I think we're back to 2000

Some progressives were unsatisfied after eight years of Bill Clinton, so in 2000, these so-called progressives (not all, but too many) decided that Gore was just as bad as Bush, and they'd vote for Nader. We saw how that turned out. Sam Alito, John Roberts (although he's had interesting moments), the Iraq war, torture, Enron, Gitmo, Abu Graib, economic meltdown, and a host of other issues that Barack Obama inherited. Obama basically had two years to accomplish anything before a blowback midterm. Eight years later, they are unsatisfied with Obama.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

19. A corporate suit is a corporate suit.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. I think everyone should vote for the candidate they prefer. For the reasons they choose.

It's also known as Freedom of Choice. Or, democracy.

I don't vote for labels.

[Zynx]

8. That's all well and good, but every democracy in the world is organized around parties.

[artislife]

9. Some get more political parties though.

[Zynx]

16. All have the same problems and face the same accusations.

Find one governing party that doesn't.

[CBHagman]

25. And we have a system with both the popular vote and an electoral college.

That's a given, and therefore anyone who actually wants to get anything done has to form a strategy accordingly. Ideals, dreams, and plans don't mean much if the vote splits in a way that ensures defeat of even the slightest fulfillment of those ideals, dreams, and plans.

[CBHagman]

31. Yes, about those "other parties" and "the natural evolution of things"

It takes an adequate number of votes with individual elections and within Congress to get anything done, so splitting the vote will have a human as well as a policy cost, as the presidential election of 2000 illustrates.

There's some suggestion that third parties can change the national conversation by bringing key issues to the fore, but the parties themselves generally do not gain a permanent legislative and executive presence. The last time they actually did was in 1860.

[url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/politics-july-dec04-third_parties/[/url]


For now, most representatives in Congress are in so-called safe districts, and another round of redistricting won't take place for years.

Then there's the makeup of the electorate and its voting patterns. Much has been made of demographics and self-identification (i.e., as an independent, Republican, or Democrat, or as a liberal, moderate, or conservative), but the fact is that every election result is down to who's casting the votes. Participation is everything, and so, for that matter, is strategy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. So?

If a candidate wants to pick a label, that's up to him or her.

If that candidate appeals to me I may choose to vote for that candidate. The label is meaningless.

[Zynx]

15. The point is that you do have to pay attention to the context of parties and affiliations.

[840high]

12. .that^ X100

[pat_k]

11. ...at least until we institute IRV/ranked choice voting.

Support http://www.fairvote.org/

[silvershadow]

13. We can't even get disenfranchisement taken care of, and after this cycle, it we appear to be

going backwards. Not sure how that might ever happen, or what I might think of it. I am initially suspicious of any new vote scheme. Most are right wing, that have seen floated. We just need to fix some of the issues within the basic system first.

[PowerToThePeople]

14. I am sure I will vote for many Democrats.

[Yurovsky]

23. This is not on me - it's totally on HRC for selling out to Wall Street...

and I'm just supposed to STFU, do as I'm told and live under corporatist domination of both my country and my party?

No thanks. I'll vote for plenty of Democrats. Probably won't vote for any that have sold their soul to Goldman Sachs or WalMart though...

[HassleCat]

26. That's a lot of ifs!

Bashing, trashing, undermining... I understand this to mean, "If you criticize a Democratic candidate, we will hunt you down." I guess this is OK if you want to make DU a small cluster of the uber faithful.

[hellofromreddit]

32. Sounds like democrats need to present candidates worth voting FOR

instead of admonishing us to vote AGAINST boogeymen.

Just thought I'd throw that idea out there.

[DookDook]

33. This.

Vote for the candidate that best represents your views. If you're voting out of fear, then you're letting someone else do your thinking for you. And I've learned that when you let other people do your thinking for you, they don't always hold your best interests at heart.

[Lizzie Poppet]

34. Party branding means two things to me. One of those things is "jack."

I'm sure you can guess the other...

I will vote for liberals/progressives. Period.

[Algernon Moncrieff]

38. Liberal and progressive are meaningless labels in the current context of a two party system

I vote for Democrats.

[Lizzie Poppet]

40. I glad that works for you.

For me? Not even a little.

[Joob]

36. I'll vote for Bernie!

But hill no I won't vote Hillary. Nope. Never. I'm against what she has done and what she is for.

[realmirage]

37. This won't be a problem for me since I will be supporting Hillary in the General Election