If a Third-Wayer should win in the Democratic Primaries in 2016, I'd be very

[Cal33]

disappointed, but I'd still vote for her/him. The Reason?

We'd still have 4 to 8 years of status quo. It's shitty, I agree, but the Democratic
Party would, at least, still be partially alive -- and where there is life, there's hope.

On the other hand, if a Republican were to win the presidency in 2016, I believe
that this time, all semblance of democracy still existing in our nation could very
well become history. Quite possibly there would be no more free elections. Or if
there should be any elections, they would be of the type used by Stalin in the days
of the former USSR -- just for show only. The Republicans' present-day practice
of fraudulent elections will be nothing compared to what will be in store for us.

The Republicans did not make an all-out Putsch to take over full control of the
entire country during GW Bush's two terms in office. I believe that the main
reason was that they were not quite sure of success at that time -- and a failure
in something of this magnitude would have been an absolute disaster for them!

That was then. Today the story is different. The Republicans have been gaining
considerably in strength and power. They might no longer hesitate about making
their strike! If the Republicans should gain control of all three branches of
government in 2016, it could very well spell the end of democracy in our country
altogether.

This is the main reason why I would still vote for a Third-Wayer. Where there is
life, there is hope -- the hope that more Americans will finally learn that Third-
Wayers' political views and what they stand for are simply too inadequate and
incompetent to accomplish any real change. So, in the following election, there is
the hope that a Real Democrat will finally be elected.

To those who would not vote for a Third-Way winner under any circumstances,
please be reminded that a short-term reaction to disappointment is understandable,
but don't just stop there. Please take a good look at the possible long-term
consequences of your not voting. Whether or not democracy will continue to exist
in our nation at all could be dependent upon what you choose to do. It's an awfully
big and huge decision you will be making!!!

Good luck to us all.

[arcane1]

1. I'd vote for a third-wayer, but I'll be ready to primary their ass in 4 years!

[Cal33]

2. Yes, most definitely! The sooner we get in a real Democrat, the better.

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. What we would have is a Pesident who appoints Supreme Court Justices.

Obama's and Clinton's appointments are the core of the liberal wing of the court. Take a look at what Bush & Bush appointed. Ask yourself, who would you rather see making these appointments. That doesn't even count the appointments to the appeals courts who have an enormous influence on law.

Now, if you add to that getting control of the Senate (very possible in 2016), that puts more power back to the side that will pass some laws that favor the poor and the middle class.

Will the Republicans raise the minimum wage? I don't think so.

Will the Republicans pass more massive tax cuts that benefit the wealthy? What do you think?

I don't expect very much from the Republican Congress, even after they return form Hershey. Pennsylvania.

If Democrats were in charge now we would not see a full court press on Social Security, we would not see more attempts to defund the ACA or an assault on the Presidents Executive actions to support immigrant rights and communities.

It matters who is in power.

[Maedhros]

4. The status quo is Endless War,

with 30-50 innocent civilians killed for every "militant."

No, thank you.

[Cal33]

5. There is some chance of not having wars with a Third-Wayer. There is no such chance with

a Republican -- Repubs. are definitely worse, and in every way. And I am by no means
fond of Third-Wayers.

And just take a look at some of the other important factors listed by Agnosticsherbet in
Msg. 3 above. We shouldn't base our decisions on one fact only, but try to look at the
whole broad picture before casting our vote.

[Maedhros]

6. The OP said they would be very happy with 4-8 years of the status quo.

And no, I don't think there is any realistic chance that a Third Way Democrat would rein in the war machine.

I can't be as cavalier about those civilian deaths as the Democratic rank-and-file, I guess.

[Cal33]

7. But they could prevent democracy from dying out altogether, long enough for the real Democrats

to be finally voted in again. I wouldn't like to live in an Oligarchy, would you?

[Maedhros]

8. Or, as we're seeing with Obama, they could just roll over and let Neocon policies

become the default.

[Cal33]

10. Either way we'd be having a dictatorship over us. Some think that we are already more than

half-way there. We are living in interesting, but incredibly dangerous, times. I believe that
as things now stand, Democrats still have a good chance of winning in 2016, and averting
disaster.

[Maedhros]

13. I think the Democrats' role right now is the "good cop."

When the get in office, they keep things just the same. Then Republicans take office and push the country as far right as it can go, then the Democrats hold place, wash, rinse, repeat.

I believe the only way out of our predicament is to stop allowing Democrats to get away with enabling the Republican agenda. They have no incentive to change as long as we vote for them anyway. We need to send a loud, clear message: start producing results, or hit the road.

[mazzarro]

18. +100% indeed!

Totally agree

I believe the only way out of our predicament is to stop allowing Democrats to get away with enabling the Republican agenda. They have no incentive to change as long as we vote for them anyway. We need to send a loud, clear message: start producing results, or hit the road.

A break in the cycle has to come about somehow - anyway possible.

[AndyTiedye]

20. It doesn't work that Way

What you seem to be advocating is letting the RAPEuglicans win.
The only "message" that would send to the Democrats is to move farther right.

[Cal33]

22. Where did I say that I'd be happy with the status quo? In fact, I wrote that it would be shitty,

but at least the Dem. Party would still be partially alive. This is quite different from being
"very happy."

[Maedhros]

24. Fair enough. I misread your intent. My apologies. [n/t]

[Cal33]

26. Thank you.

[brooklynite]

15. Out of curiosity do you think that President Warren or Sanders would bring all troops home on day 1?

If so, I think you'd be quickly disappointed.

[NYC Liberal]

40. "I hope she does [run]. Hillary is terrific." -Elizabeth Warren

There's going to be some serious cognitive dissonance around here come 2016 when Warren endorses Hillary and campaigns for her.

[brooklynite]

41. Well, of course she was FORCED to endorse her...

THEY wouldn't let her run...

She only endorsed Hillary to GET ALONG...

[Cal33]

43. No dissonance as far as I am concerned. I'd vote for Hillary if she becomes the Democratic

candidate against the Republicans. It's just that I'd vote for a more Liberal Democrat during
the primaries.

[blkmusclmachine]

9. There aren't gonna be any more "good" DEMS. The 1% will see to THAT!

[Cal33]

11. How about Warren, Sanders, Grayson, Franken, O'Malley....etc....? There are

quite a few good DEMS. right now.

[AndyTiedye]

12. ++

A "third-wayer" is probably the best we can get for the foreseeable future.
Even a real progressive will have to make a lot of fugly compromises to get anything through
Congress. We won't see a Democratic House until at least 2022, after the next census kicks in,
and even that is a long shot.

[Cal33]

16. I must agree. Democrats have done little against the dirty tricks of the Republicans.

They don't seem to be bothered too much, one way or the other, about them.
An example: last November my "solidly Democratic state" was still using
electronic voting machines. I looked for the name of the manufacturer. It
read: Diebold.

And after all these years!! Sometimes I do believe that we get what we
deserve.

[BlueMTexpat]

14. I will vote for the Democratic candidate.

Period.

[TM99]

17. Sorry, no I won't vote for a Third-Wayer

for President. If I wanted a Republican for President, which I don't(!), I would just vote for one instead of a Republican-lite.

I am an Independent, so I will likely sit this one out again as I did in 2008.

[DFW]

19. WHICH status quo?

The one Cheney left us with in January 2009, or the one we have now?

If you see no difference, my deepest sympathies!

[Persondem]

21. The OP makes good sense. A Rep prez would mean complete

control of all 3 branches of government by the R's for the foreseeable future. Imagine Ginsburg replaced by a Scalia wannabe on SCOTUS.

Sensible government tends to lead from the middle; this is what Dems tend to do. This can anger those on the left as we see at DU with some frequency, but true democratic leadership cannot be so polarized, else the other wing and the middle will shift their support away from the perceived extremism. In a true democracy, extremists lose power.

Republicans do not care about democracy or leading in a democratic fashion. That is why they pull government increasingly to the right - they get a little power, change some rules, diminish democratic process, get more power, change the rules more drastically, further restrict democracy, get more power and so on.

The sensible course is then to keep the White House Democratic so as to tilt SCOTUS to the left and reverse the republican rule changes (campaign finance laws, gerrymandering, voting restrictions). Once that is done the political center can stabilize and drift back to the left.

[Cal33]

25. I wonder how long it will take for the SCOTUS to tilt to the left -- its Democratic members

are considerably older than the Republican ones.

[Persondem]

28. Ginsbirg is the oldest at 81, but Scalia is 78 and

the unreliable Kennedy is 77, then Breyer (76) and Thomas (66). Thomas has been on the SCOTUS for 23 years so hopefully he will want to do something else soon.

Scalia is the one I hope finds another universe to dwell in.

Plus a sensible replacement for Ginsburg would be nice. She may even step down in the next 2 years.

A 2 term dem prez could replace 3 at least, and with Scalia and Kennedy gone, the court move decidedly to the left.

[Cal33]

29. Scalia looks to be very healthy. At one time it looked like Thomas was being

investigated about his income taxes, but nothing came of it, as far as I know.
Both of them will probably stay put for a long time to come.

Welcome to DU!

[bigwillq]

23. Thankful I live in CT

It's almost certain the DEM nominee will win in CT in 2016, so it allows me to explore other candidates if I am not satisfied with the DEM nominee.

[LiberalElite]

27. where ther's life there's hope - spare me - I no longer think

I'll live long enough for people to wake up. So its suck it up and vote for who I'm told to vote for. Aye Aye

[Cal33]

30. I might not live long enough either, but think of the younger generations -- I sure hope they

do. We've got to think of them.

[brooklynite]

31. I'm not aware of a "Third Way" candidate...are you?

I know some people like to lump Hillary Clinton in with them, but show me an actual policy that both of them endorse.

[Cal33]

32. Just look up any search engine "Hillary Clinton's policies that can be described as third-way." Here

is one:

http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/hillary-white-house

[brooklynite]

33. Fascinating - you supported your opionion with another opinion that doesn't mention Third Way at all

[Cal33]

34. Okay, here's another one from Google. My first example was from Duckduck. It doesn't matter, there

are a couple of million articles to choose from:

http://bluemassgroup.com/2013/12/hillary-clinton-is-a-third-way-adherent/

[brooklynite]

35. I see -- so a group that Clinton isn't a member of now is "basically" another seperate group...

...that Clinton isn't apparently a member of either, according to the personal opinion of someone else.

Wouldn't it be simpler than offering other people's opinions to point out a factual stated policy of Clinton's that matches a factual stated policy of NDC or Third Way that you object to?

[Cal33]

36. Yes. I get most of my information from reading and discussing with people. How do you get yours? :)

[brooklynite]

37. When it involves assertion of facts, I look for facts

I've visited the Third Way and NDC websites. In the past I've actually met with Third Way. I don't see scary neo-con foreign policy policies or "eliminate the minimum wage" economic strategies. Nor do I see any evidence that, whatever her past affiliations, Hillary Clinton specific advocates and campaigns on any policies you believe Third Way stands for.

As for the merits of opinion, I note that Elizabeth Warren, Howard Dean and Barney Frank all think it would be a great idea to have Hillary run for Presdient. Third Way sellouts?

[Cal33]

38. As senator, didn't Hillary vote for the war in Iraq, and to continue the embargo against Cuba? At

age 42 Hillary was on the Board of Directors of WalMart.

Below are further links on Hillary and the Third Way:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../what-you-missed-in-t...

http://www.dailykos.com/.../-Progressive-THIRD-WAY-FOUNDATI...

http://bluemassgroup.com/2013/12/hilary-clinton-is-a-third-way-adherent

FrontPage Magazine
Jun 22, 2000 - Hillary Clinton and "The Third Way" How America's First Lady of the Left Has Bamboozled Liberals and Conservatives Alike By: David Horowitz

[brooklynite]

39. Neither of which are Third Way Policies

Third Way: End the Embargo of Cuba

And no, She didn't vote to continue the Embargo, because it never came up as a Bill. By the way, Warren and Sanders never voted to overturn the embargo either.

You're welcome to hold the vote on IWR against her and Biden (I would argue that this was debate din the 2008 campaign and very few Democrats voted against him or her on that basis); has nothing to do with Third Way affiliation.

(and FWIW, none of your links work)

[Cal33]

42. I started using a computer 7 years after my retirement. Never did learn how to operate

it well. Can do only the basics. I noticed that the links weren't working, but don't know how to
get them going.

Would you please google "Proof of Hillary Clinton being a Third Way Adherent"? The links are
in the very first page. Thanks.

[brooklynite]

44. I did and they don't...

I get a bunch of opinion pieces that like to throw in "by the way, Clinton was a Third Way member" without evidence. One mentions she was a Third Way member 24years ago when Third Way didn't exist.

Again, you're welcome to support the alternative candidate of your choice if you think Clinton is too mainstream. Just keep in mind that your interpretation of her political philosophy doesn't seem to be supported by the bulk of Democratic voters, and if you'[re going to be promoting, say, Bernie Sanders, you'll need something a lot stronger than yelling "Third Way".

[Cal33]

45. I hope this link comes through. There isn't much to read, but pay special attention to the three

maps showing the important people and groups of people connected with The Third Way Foundation, which
is funded by WalMart. And Hillary was on the Board of Directors of WalMart.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/02/1228573/-Progressive-THIRD-WAY-FOUNDATION-Funded-by-the-WALTONS

[LiberalFighter]

46. There would be too much capitulation if there was a Third Way President.