Should you vote for Kerry if you're in a "safe state"?

[drumwolf]

I've mulled over this point on a couple of threads in the past couple of days.

It's true that Kerry isn't as progressive as many of us would like him to be. And because of the electoral college system, it's safe for left-leaning voters to cast a "protest vote" for Nader, David Cobb or Kucinich if they're in states like New York and California (solidly blue) or Texas and Indiana (solidly red). So until just very recently, I wasn't inclined to care if left-leaning voters in "safe states" voted for someone other than Kerry.

But I've changed my mind very recently. It occurred to me that we shouldn't just settle for unseating Bush from the White House -- we need to humiliate him with a decisive popular-vote repudiation if possible. So now I'm more inclined to encourage people even in solidly uncontested states to vote for Kerry.

For my part, I live in overwhelmingly Democratic California, so I would have the luxury of voting for David Cobb if I wanted to. However, I decided a very long time ago -- in fact, even before Kerry got the Dem nomination -- that I would vote for the Democratic challenger anyway, even if for no other reason to make a symbolic statement against Bush with my vote.

1. pay attention to the terror alerts

there are no safe states, remember?

[LynneSin]

2. The fact that ballot boxes are so questionable out there...

...I'd vote for kerry no matter what. Who knows what states repukes have in play for election stealing even in 'safe' states like California, New York and even my own Delaware.

If you want to make a difference with candidates start with your local & state offices - that's where real progressive change will start, not with the office of President. We need Kerry to ensure that our judges won't be warped to one side, that our environment won't be totally destroyed and that our middle class won't be delegated to the working poor for the wealthy.

Your kerry vote counts!

[oasis]

83. Good point.

[mstrsplinter326]

3. Had your opinion drifted the other way, your post would be gone...

[Zynx]

5. As well it should be. This is the DEMOCRATIC Underground.

That is not small "d" democrat, that is large "D".

[mstrsplinter326]

13. not a kerry underground

and some democrats do not support kerry

[Zynx]

25. Then they are not Democrats.

They clearly don't wish to see the Democratic Party be victorious so therefore they are not Democrats.

[mstrsplinter326]

28. Wow that is so blatently totalitarian.

YOU'RE EITHER WITH US OR AGAINST US!

Like I've been repeating - dissention is not allowed!

-------------

It's better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it. --Jeseph Joubert

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president ... right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt, 1918
(Works for presidential candidates too.)

[Classical_Liberal]

32. Let's see, you don't actually know what a safe state vote is.

because Kerry would still win even if people did this. So what you just said is demonstrably irrelevant.

[Zynx]

63. That's irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if it's in DC as far as I'm concerned. We risk a great deal if enough people vote third party to give a left-wing third party more than 5%.

[Classical_Liberal]

66. You risk what?

not the election. You risk losing the 100% Kerry/Bush prowar mandate.

[Zynx]

87. If there is a legitimate left of center third party, that could spell doom

for the Democrats.

[Classical_Liberal]

90. Unless the democrats are a legitmate left of center party, they

deserve to be doomed. I am loyal to issues, not the party. The party is only a vehicle for advancing issues I care about. If it doesn't serve that purpose it can die.

Anyway thanks for the honesty.

[Kahuna]

110. The party are moderate liberals the way the majority of...

Democratic voters want them to be. They know that if they represent themselves as exteme lefties they would lose the majority of their base. Why in the world, would they abandon their base to appeal to the fringe minority? When would they ever win an election if they did that?

[Classical_Liberal]

112. I am not fringe. 95% of the delegates at the convention were

antiwar. The majority of Americans are antiwar. The people not representing the base were the prowar dems. Furthermore the prowar dems aren't doing this to win, they do it because they want war, and are trying to disenfranchise those to who don't.

[Sean Reynolds]

144. Is that you Karl Rove?!?

'Cause that sounds oddly like the Karl Rove and right-wing Republican talking point that if you don't support the president you're not American.

No wonder so many people don't like the Democratic Party, their opinions aren't welcomed.

[oasis]

86. What's your number one priority in this election?

[mstrsplinter326]

97. that does not change this website

or the banter that goes on here. we should still be allowed to talk about issues within the democratic party.

dissention is patriotic.

[oasis]

106. Did you not understand the question?

:shrug:

[mstrsplinter326]

119. I got it

you want this awnser: "Get rid of Bush" to which I give you

My wanting to get rid of Bush does not change the fact that dissention is necessary even among the members of DU - which was the argument I made that started this whole offshoot. If you haven't already, I suggest reading all the way back to the begining of this topic.

[oasis]

125. Post #13 "and some Democrats don't support Kerry". Here's a "fact"

Those so-called Democrats who don't support Kerry need to get their priorities in order. They'll be plenty of time for dissent after Nov. 2.

Like it or not, Kerry is the nominee of the Democratic Party. If you can't help us get him elected, please don't hinder our efforts.

[mstrsplinter326]

130. If it were bush saying this you'd see the crack pot logic

"If you can't help us get him elected, please don't hinder our efforts."
-Nothing is that black and white

"Those so-called Democrats who don't support Kerry need to get their priorities in order."

Especially touching because you called a fact (good one), and you attempted to insult me! This is not an argument, not worth my time.

I'm done with this.

[oasis]

136. Good. Your time would be better spent helping to get local Dems elected.

:hi:

[West Coast Democrat]

122. You just want to write in: Dave Mattews

:-)

[mstrsplinter326]

133. Following me around, are you?

:)

[West Coast Democrat]

134. You have a link to your homepage!

[mstrsplinter326]

135. I have a homepage?

Damn, I forgot all about that. Sweet, that excites me. I will have to update it more often!

Thanks!!!!

[DaveinMD]

4. Kerry

is as liberal a nominee this party has had in a very long time. In fact, he is really more liberal than Dean.

[Cheswick2.0]

155. Kerry is no longer liberal and Dean never was, nor did he claim to be

Good Grief.

[Monte Carlo]

6. I'm in the safest state, and I'm still voting for Kerry.

Because I'm not just anti-Bush, I'm pro-Kerry, and I have been since before the primaries. MA is usually fertile ground for rogue political action, but I just really, REALLY would like to see Kerry in the White House.

[LuminousX]

7. There are NO safe states

Vote for Kerry. Period.

[cam75219]

8. No.......

The time for this is the primary once you get to the election you need to vote Dem.

[meti57b]

9. only two possible ways to vote: for bush or for Kerry. A vote for ....

anyone else is a vote for bush..... even in a so-called "safe" state.

[gollygee]

10. This vote is a referrendum on George W. Bush

I think the larger the amount of the popular vote Kerry wins, the stronger of a referrendum on W. and the neo-cons.

[LuminousX]

19. Exactly... we need a landslide

[Classical_Liberal]

45. Voting alternative candidates in safe states is still a mandate against

Bush. It is an even bigger mandate against the fucking neocons.

[LuminousX]

55. I disagree

Look how the media ignored that fact that well over 50% of the country voted against Bush in 2000.

All that matters is how many people have backed a single person, not how many people have voted in opposition to that person. See, that is how our system works. Voting FOR people, not AGAINST them. I am casting an anti-Bush vote, but on election day it is counted as a PRO-Kerry vote. So be it. We need a landslide to officially repudiate Bush.

There are more issues at hand than the Iraq War and this election is not a referendum on the war alone.

[Classical_Liberal]

60. They ignored that 50% because of a percieved loss in the electoral

college and because the dems didn't raise cain about the disenfrachised blacks.

Safe state voting doesn't effect the electoral college.

[LuminousX]

98. And what has changed that will prevent them from ignoring it again

[Classical_Liberal]

100. Not following

Dems can still ignore blacks.

We can still get an electoral college loss because of it.

[LuminousX]

102. The key point is

Dems aren't ignoring blacks. Dems are pro-War hawks.

This argument reminds me too much of the 2000 "no difference between Gore and Bush" crap. The differences are HUGE and only a nit-picker can't see them.

I support your right to vote for whomever you desire, but I encourage every person who calls themselves a Democrat to vote for the Democratic candidate. Period. Tell me all you want how awful the Democrats are, that won't matter one bit to me. Yep, they are all disgusting. But we need to show the country, the media, the world, that we strongly support the only viable opponent to Bush.

Cast all the 'protest votes' you want, but mind you, Bush 'won' Florida by 500 some votes in the method used to determine who won that state. Protest votes be damned, they are only cast by contrarions and people who think it actually means something.

[Classical_Liberal]

109. Florida was not a safe state then nor is it now

so it doesn't really relate to safe state voting.

Just aside from that it was lost because of 35,000 disenfranchised black voters, and the Democrats are the ones who gave those up. Nader had nothing to do with it.

IF I thought there was no difference, I would advocate voting against them even in non safe states.

There isn't enough difference between them for me to committ to them completely and not try and create a real atlernative, and or stear them left. I believe this could do either of those things.

[LuminousX]

111. When has a protest vote ever made the news or affected change

in a party?

A vote for Mickey Mouse is a wasted vote.

[Classical_Liberal]

113. Eugene Debs definately steered the country left.

So protests votes have made a difference. Also the original republicans were a protest vote. The populists had a tremendous impact on both parties at the turn of the century. They made a difference. It shows there is a constituancy that is not happy. It can also create new parties when old parties are dying.

[LuminousX]

126. Was Eugene Debbs a protest vote?

Or did people actually support him?

What I remember of him and what I refreshed myself in regards to him at http://www.eugenevdebs.com/pages/histry.html was he was the representative of the socialist movement in the U.S. and nothing indicates he helped pull the debate to the left. His time in prison made him a clear fringe candidate in the final election.

He was pulling in good numbers but again, no clear indicator of affecting the overall debate. He gets to be a footnote in the history book. Good for him, that is the least I could hope for in my life.

As I said before, cast your vote for Mickey Mouse, but I am willing to lay a bet down that any vote not cast for Bush or Kerry will simply be ignored by the media and the parties - unless the vote breaches the 10% threshold like the Perot did so long ago.

[Classical_Liberal]

132. I will definately be ignored if I vote for Kerry, even in a safe state.

It tells the hawks that staked this that it is ok with me. It isn't. Voting for neocons is like voting for that mouse on binky and the brain. Eugene Debbs was a third party vote, and a protest vote, mostly pacifists, and the parties had to work to attract his voters, just like they did the populists.

[calico1]

11. That is what I pretty much said

in the other thread that was poofed. We need to send a strong, clear, unmistakable message to Bush and the GOP that their extreme right wing agenda is rejected by the majority of Americans. We do not need to give the GOP the impression that they only lost by a little so they can regroup and just get stronger in the next 4 years. And besides, with all the purged lists, and fraud that is likely to occur, is any state really safe? These are desperate people. I wouldn't put anything past them. This is such an important election we cannot afford to waste any votes. Any vote that does not go to Kerry will favor Bush.

[Cobalt Violet]

12. I'M in one of the safest states there is and will vote for Kerry/Edwards

[JSG]

153. Yes

I'm in Massachusetts, and I want Kerry's victory to be a resounding one.

[grytpype]

14. Yes, to get the popular vote count up.

[Classical_Liberal]

15. The trouble is Kerry isn't antiwar, so a cobb vote or any other vote

in a safe state is actually more humiliating to the prowar people. You see the neocons by selecting the candidates in both parties created a 100% mandate for themselves.

So I completely disagree on this. A safe state showing would be more humiliating to the war hawks.

[emulatorloo]

24. The World is not gonna care about your "Protest Vote"

If they see a mandate for Bush, we are toast.

They will not count your "Protest Vote." They see Bush is a madman, and Kerry is not.

If the American people give Bush a mandate, we are screwed w the rest of the world.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[emulatorloo]

35. Thanks, I understand and don't need your insults

1. I don't believe that all the "Safe States" are really safe.

2. I believe that there needs to be a popular vote CRUSHING BUSH and his right wing agenda.

[Classical_Liberal]

38. I believe that safe states can be pretty easily gauged by following polls

I wouldn't hesitate to vote Cobb in Texas but would in Iowa.

Furthermore, Kerry is so right wing, that I don't think electing him creates a crushing blow.

[emulatorloo]

42. Only on DU is Kerry considered "Right Wing"

and certainly not by our friends/allies in Europe.


and a few repugs I know in Texas are wavering and thinking about staying home

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[emulatorloo]

52. Sorry, still don't need your insults

my friends in Europe and the sense I get from the mainstream European press is that they would be disappointed (to put it mildly) if the American People gave Bush a popular vote mandate.

[Classical_Liberal]

54. Since a safe state vote doesn't give Bush a mandate

what are you talking about?

[emulatorloo]

67. Now we have come full circle!

it is my opinion that if Bush wins the popular vote, Europeans will not care that some people voted for third party candidates. They will be upset with the American People for giving Bush a Mandate to pursue his extreme policies.

Therefore, this is one of the reasons I hope that third party voters will vote for Kerry even in alleged safe states, so that there will be a clear landslide against Bush in the popular vote.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

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

[emulatorloo]

80. You can guarantee that?

Bush can indeed win.

At any rate, CL, I still don't need your insults. . .it doesn't help your case.

Best Regards. . .

:hi:

[Classical_Liberal]

93. If he does it won't be because of safe state voting.

.

[Bombtrack]

16. Why would you encourage the douchebags of the Green party with your vote

did you see their freaking convention? The sheer volume of mental instability in that room was probably higher than any place since the Manson family had their big gatherings.

[Classical_Liberal]

62. To discourage the douchbag neocons that selected Kerry and Bush.

.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

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

[Classical_Liberal]

94. They were manipulated by the neocon pundits into thinking

he was "more electable".

[Bombtrack]

138. Yeah, more than Edwards. But anybody with half a brain who was capable

of any objectivity could see he was more electable than Edwards. And I'm not even agreeing with most of your premise. For a comination of reasons, the Democratic electorate did believe that, more than any candidate Kerry was the most electable. But your inclusion of "neocon pundit" is really just a misguided brainfart.

[Classical_Liberal]

148. Oh the vast majority of pundits that attacked Dean aren't neocons.

Yeah right!

[Bombtrack]

156. Dean was the establishment right's dream candidate and anybody who can't

see that is a frigging psychopath or stupid. The effort to derail Dean was a left-wing movement.

[MallRat]

17. I think Kerry needs every vote, even in safe states.

If Bush wins the electoral vote, but loses the popular vote by 3 or 4 MILLION this time, it would be an unmistakable testament to the illegitimacy of a second * term.

-MR

[Claire Beth]

58. I agree! n/t

[cally]

18. Californians need to show the world that we do not support the madman

We need a lopsided vote for Kerry to show the press, the world, and fellow citizens that we repudiate all that these madmen stand for. Vote for Kerry.

[emulatorloo]

20. Europeans, etc are not going to count "Protest Votes"

If the US people appears to have given Bush a mandate, we are screwed w our allies. They won't count your Nader or Cobb vote. . .

if the US humiliates Bush w popular vote, our allies just might be happy to join w us again.

[Classical_Liberal]

22. Join with us on what giving Palestinians the shaft on the West Bank

?

Both Kerry and Bush should be beggers. The world and the US would be better off. The only people served by the American hegemon are the military elites.

[emulatorloo]

31. The "perfect candidate" isn't running, and if s/he was, s/he wouldn't win

Bush will NEVER listen to you re palestinians.

Kerry might.

Nobody but those two have a chance of winning.

[Classical_Liberal]

33. Bush won't win with a safe state vote so you aren't even talking to me

or the person who posted this thread.

[emulatorloo]

37. See my post 35

EOM

[cprise]

64. Europeans, etc are not going to care about Kerry's party

If his policies are the same on human rights and international commerce, they will dislike Kerry. If he wants to topple President Chavez (which appears to be the case) they will be incensed.

What's Kerry's position on Haiti? Hmmm???

Latin America in particular is becoming our enemy, and the Democrats show no sign of letting go of their Reaganite trade priorities and stopping this trend.

[Suziq]

21. I Am in New Jersey

A "safe state" according to the polls, but if you listen to the media, you would think NJ is in play. Not if I can help it . . .

The more popular vote Kerry gets, the better.

:hippie:

[ochazuke]

23. I vote for a Kerry vote

First, repudiate the right wing. Think about the emergence of a resurgent left later.

A Nadier vote would not help that scenario.

[Classical_Liberal]

27. A Nader or any other vote in a safe state hurts no-one

and makes the resurgent left more likely, by displaying it's numbers and power, not to mention organization.

Anyway, most strategic voters would be more interested in Cobb who actually advocates it, rather than nader who prefers suicide voting.

[LynneSin]

36. No matter what I would vote for Kerry

there are other races in all states where we can vote for 3rd party candidates.

With the antics of Diebold and BBV, I wouldn't even attempt to risk it in a 'safe' state. No one is safe until Bush is out of office

[Classical_Liberal]

41. Texas is sure think republican

Dems don't have a chance there. Won't for 10 yrs at least.

I am not that paranoid.

I believe most of the people who object just like Kerry better, and want a mandate for his agenda. I don't.

This is about mandates not winning.

[LuminousX]

131. Nor should we give the Right a talking point about Kerry not even

getting support from solid Democratic States.

If someone wants to defect from the Democratic Party, I'm not going to stop them. That is their right. But they certainly won't share the high fives with me when Bush is defeated.

[Zynx]

65. Voting for an unprincipled shill like Nader is wrong regardless.

[Classical_Liberal]

68. I am a Cobb voter, were I in a safe state.

. Cobb is not at all unprincipled. He advocates strategic voting. Nader is an unpricipled political tactition, of that I do not agree, but Kerry is too.

[LTR]

26. What's the point of voting for Cobb?

Every vote for Kerry is important.

Granted, nobody is going to agree with Kerry 100%. There's a few things I don't agree with in regard to him. And I wasn't thrilled with him a year ago when he announced his candidacy. I thought he was stale, and wasn't thrilled with his IWR vote.

Over time, I learned more about him, and I have to say I really like the guy, and I think he would be a great president. I learned more about why he voted for IWR, and I understand.

Keep in mind, Kerry will be the most progressive person elected president since the 60's. He's more to the left than Clinton.

What I'm saying is that it would be near impossible to make a hard swing to the left from the point this country is now. Change will and can happen over time. But the infighting within the party will only stifle it, and give the hard right more of a boost.

Let's get Kerry in, then work for the progressive cause. It will make your job much easier.

[Classical_Liberal]

30. It hurts no one either, and will be a demonstration of power

the left doesn't just have one or two issues with Kerry. There are many.

[LTR]

48. And I suppose Cobb getting 2% of the popular vote will be a wake-up call

Look, we'll never get a candidate that any person will agree with 100%. Just won't happen.

The Libertarian party gets this kind of result every election, and it still hasn't done much for them except get them on more ballots. Otherwise, it's a bunch of angry tavern owners bitching about the government.

When the Greens can prove some kind of track record, then let me know. Right now, they're just a bunch of spoilers trying to split the Democratic party. And division is what killed the DNC in past elections.

Do what you want in the election, but I like Kerry. And I despise Bush. So there are two reasons for me to vote for Kerry. Voting for Cobb (who seems like a decent guy) or Nader does nothing.

If you want to humiliate Bush, and drive a stake into the neocons, vote for Kerry.

[Classical_Liberal]

50. Nader only got two percent because he presued the dangerous

state policy, and the election was tight, so most of the green voted Gore. He would have gotten probably as much as 10% if he had focused on safe states. Cobb might be able to get more.

[LTR]

56. And you honestly think Nader would be a good president?

Nader runs for president because he has a massive ego. He wants to be a spoiler. He wants to irritate people. And he's suckered the far left into falling for his bullshit.

If Nader is so progressive, and cares so much for the left, why does he allow the GOP to prop himself up so much? Ever look into Nader's investments and see how well they've done under Bush?

Nader's a phony. It is much easier to make a progressive statement outside of being a spoiler. Being a potential spoiler only harms the far left, and exploits them.

Like I said, do what you want. But, in this election, if you aren't voting for Kerry, you're voting for Bush. And if Kerry is the lesser of two evils, then that is the road I'll take.

Remember, it will be much easier to work for change once a more sympathetic President is in the White House.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[LTR]

70. Hey, vote however you want

If you want to enable Nader, then vote for him.

I think he's a phony.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[LTR]

74. Like I said...

...vote however you want.

I'm a Democrat, and I post on Democratic Underground.

If you want to trash Kerry and pimp your Green spoiler, go to Green Underground.

[Classical_Liberal]

76. I am a democrat too

safe state voting will not spoil Kerry. He will still win, but so will the antiwar movement, which neither Kerry or Bush represent.

[Kahuna]

101. Nader's polling was consistently at 6% in 2000. So I don't know

where you got 10% from. Must be the same place where Nader is claiming to be polling at 8% this cycle. Only all polls show him at 2 to 3%. And if his supporters do the same as they did in '00. Nader will only get 1 to 1.5%. and a percent or so of them will vote for Kerry. That will be a very nice repudiation of Nader. Can you say, bye bye Naddy.

[cprise]

57. 3rd parties

So you admit the Libertarians are out there drawing votes on the economic Right.

The Greens already have a track record. They are the fastest-growing party in the US and have been for the past few election cycles. Before long, they may be taking over for the Democrats in local politics.

Votes for 3rd parties are an undeniable vital statistic. The strength they show indicates where major-party politicians should look when they need ideas.

[LynneSin]

116. Demonstration of Power?

You're kidding me, right?

You want a demonstration of power then you need to start working at the grass roots effort to help get more greens and other 3rd party candidates elected. Once they start getting into office on a more local level will folks realize that third parties do mean business.

Right now, people see 3rd party presidential votes and just have a good chuckle.

You can vote for whomever you like but no one is being fooled by any "Demonstration of Power" Don't disillusion yourself thinking otherwise

[cprise]

47. "He's more to the left than Clinton. "

I wouldn't say that. They are about the same, and I don't think Clinton would have made veiled threats at the President of Venzuela like Kerry has.

Kerry is 'progressive' according to the PPI, the Democrat's version of PNAC. If you look at other evaluations of his record, he's square in the middle.

The "lets get our guy in" doesn't work anymore for some of us. He's not our guy, he's DLC's guy. The world went through this already with Clinton. This time around, the Democratic president wouldn't destroy the economy of Argentina... it would destroy Australia's. Do you REALLY want our media corps to buy up most of Australia's broadcast stations and newspapers, putting another whole continent in their thrall? That's what Kerry wants. Oh no, wait, Kerry wants "FREDOM". Funny how he uses it in the freeper market-fundamentalist sense.

[Raskolnik]

34. HELL YES VOTE FOR KERRY

All you will do if you don't vote for Kerry is tempt fate.

If the last election taught us anything, its that we don't have the luxury of protest votes right now.

[mumon]

39. YES

The bigger the victory in popular vote the bigger the mandate.

'nuff said.

[Classical_Liberal]

43. and what mandate is that?

It isn't antiwar. Voting alternative antiwar candidates in safestates does create an antiwar mandate. The war hawk dems who stacked both parties deserve this.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[DemoTex]

40. Vote for Kerry like your life depends on it.

It very well might.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

44. There are no 'safe states'.

That is Republican propaganda designed to suppress Democratic turnout.

[Kahuna]

49. Yes! You're right. Popular vote repudiation of Bush is needed..

Let's wipe that stupid smirk off his stupid face.

[Classical_Liberal]

51. Safe state voting is still popular vote repudiation of Bush.

.

[Kahuna]

77. There are no "safe states!" If everybody who thought their

state is safe voted for a third party, Kerry would lose.

[Classical_Liberal]

79. Makes no sense

. My state isn't safe, so everyone doesn't think they live in a safe state, also you must be terribly insecure about the likability of Kerry in a field of candidates where there is true choice. It is pretty revealing actually.

[Kahuna]

85. Love your circular logic....

:eyes: Only a fool would NOT be "insecure" after watching how the election was stolen in 2000. These guys don't play fair. Haven't you been watching? Maybe you don't get it yet. This is a civil war for the future and soul of America. This is no time for game playing. PERIOD.

[Classical_Liberal]

89. I am not game playing

I can't win a civil war if my own side is not on my side, and the democrats aren't on my side. They chose a candidate with a prowar, deficite hawk position, that doesn't reflect me on many things.

Safe state voting will go far toward restoring loyalty, while still allowing a Kerry win.

[Kahuna]

92. Nobody said you have to vote for Kerry. That's your choice. However..

This forum is dedicated to deposing bush. Kerry is the only candidate in a position to do it. You're entitled to your own opinion at all times. Just don't act surprised when other "Democrats" don't take your side.

And for the record, I don't know what the percentage of the electorate is on "your side." But the majority still rules. It seems reasonable to me that the agenda that the majority of Americans support, versus 2% of the population should rule the day.

[Classical_Liberal]

96. Bush will still be deposed if people vote for alternative candidates in

safe states.

The 2% can expand to a larger percentage and probably will. The only reason Nader only got two percent was the two party system dictatorship. Anyway strategic voting is a way to overcome it.

I never complained because the majority dont' take my side, but the majority can be wrong.

[blm]

53. There are no safe states this year. Every percentage point matters

because the Repubs internal polls will dictate how much cheating they need to do in EACH district.

We have to EXCEED the polls.

[Classical_Liberal]

59. I fail to see how this would effect the polls one way or another

If anything it would make them harder to gauge. Also the best way to exceed the polls is to get people to vote that don't ordinarily do so, and Kerry's dlc tactics hardly serve this purpose.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

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

[Classical_Liberal]

137. BCI was a long time ago

He is to the right of Clinton on foriegn policy, and economic policy. He is beligerant toward Chavez in Venezuala. He is against a real two state solution in the middle east. He bitched and Clinton for not putting our embassey in Jerusalem and he won't negotiate with Arafat, and approves of maintaining most of the large settlements on the west bank. . He is also in favor of the damned wall. To top it off he favored the Iraq war

He is not proposing any thing daring like National Health insurance, so he is way to Clinton's right on lot's of things, and Clinton was no prize.

[blm]

139. You are SO WAY OFF. He is well to Clinton's left.

On both foreign policy AND economic policy. Kerry used to bring Clinton further to the left when he was advising him.

You obviously have no understanding of BCCI if you think it's ancient history.

And you cannot name ONE other lawmaker in the last 50 years who comes close to exposing the level of corruption that Kerry exposed in BCCI, IranContra, and the illegal wars in Central America. ALL of which are very much a part of what we are dealing with today.

If you are so certain about your declaration, I dare you to start a thread saying BCCI is irrelevant to everything that is happening today.

[Classical_Liberal]

145. It might be relevant if Kerry were still taking on neocons

He isn't. He is implementing their foriegn policy in every way. He isn't what he used to be, is all bcci proves. He also took back his words criticizing the Viet Nam war, and probably wouldn't prosecute BCCI at all if it happened now.

[Pabst Blue Democrat]

69. If you want Bush to lose the election

then Kerry is the only candidate to vote for. In addition to winning the EC, the popular vote gap has to be as big as we can possibly make it. If these guys have any wiggle-room to dispute the outcome, they will do it. A clear-cut victory, EC and popular vote, is the only option.

[Classical_Liberal]

75. You can also vote for other candidates in safe states, and Bush

will still lose. MOst of those candidates are actually antiwar, so you will be creating an antiwar mandate.

[Pabst Blue Democrat]

117. You CAN but

voting 3rd party does not increase Kerry's overall % and we need that to be as high as possible.

[Classical_Liberal]

118. He doesn't need it bad enough or he wouldn't be a war hawk.

.

[oasis]

81. That's correct Pabst Blue. "A clear cut victory" IS our only option.

[oasis]

78. In this particular election, the only "safe" vote is the one for Kerry.

[GoneOffShore]

82. I made my protest at the primaries

when I voted for Dean.
My feeling is that we (Democrats/Progressives/Liberals/Hardcore Lefties/Screaming Radical F***s) need to send a clear message to the Wingnuts, that we are indeed the majority. The best way to do this, in this election, is to show massive support for Kerry. We just need to make sure that our voices are heard after the election. We can't all go back to our comfortable existences and stay uninvolved in LOCAL and national politics. That's how we got into this mess in the first place.
Remember Joe Hill and organize, organize, organize.

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[Kahuna]

95. You are on the right track. There's only one way to repudiate the

conservative agenda. That's by kicking their arses out of office. If the Democratic candidate is in the position to do that, that's who we need to use to send the message. :D

[Classical_Liberal]

99. Safe state voting was hardly the way we got in to this mess

Florida and New Hampshire were sure not safe states.

[LuminousX]

104. Safe State Protest Votes Don't Mean Anything

How are safe state protest votes counted? Who honestly looks at those numbers and reacts to them? You might as well write in Mickey Mouse for all the good it does.

The only votes that matters are the votes cast for the winner. And for our purposes, that number needs to be at a record high.

[Classical_Liberal]

114. A safe state vote means that there are a number of people

who don't agree with either party. They are counted the way other votes are counted, and published in many papers like other votes. The votes for the winner only need to produce an electoral majority. They only need to be high to produce a mandate, and Kerry doesn't need one for his nuance agenda. The antiwar movement does, because I am antiwar.

[LuminousX]

127. They can vote for whomever they want, but if they don't vote for Kerry

they have my ire.

You are either part of the solution or the problem. Your choice.

[Classical_Liberal]

129. Since my vote in a safe state against him in no way contributes

to any problem I care about and because I suspect you liked the war, and thus Kerry and his position, I probably welcome your ire.

[LuminousX]

140. Yeah, my Dean sig clearly indicates my support for the Iraq War

Time to get over it. No vote you cast now will undo what has been done.

[Classical_Liberal]

147. My vote in a non safe state for Kerry will do precisely that

but I won't get over the war till we're out of it.

[VOX]

88. A vote for Kerry **is** a protest vote!!!

I'm in CA, which should be no problem for Kerry, and I sure as hell am going to vote for him.

I protest * himself; I protest the way BushCo has whittled away our freedoms; I protest how the * administration has led us into an ill-advised war unilaterally; I protest how this country has alienated itself from the rest of the world; I protest the Republican Party's acceptance of radical right-wing politics; I protest the Republican Party's indulgence of fundamentalist zeal; I protest how the elderly, minorities, gays, the poor, and children have been abandoned by this society; I protest a media that, by and large, fawns over and enables the right wing.

There's a hell of a lit more where that came from, and I will protest it all by voting for Kerry-Edwards. In California. In a large, liberal city. Too much is not enough in this case.

[eleny]

91. yes yes yes

[adamrsilva]

103. We want Kerry to have popular vote

Electoral it is close, but Kerry should have a big popular vote.

[LuminousX]

105. Should be HUGE

but if some people really want to vote for Mickey Mouse, I guess that is their right. I'll support it, but I won't pat them on the back and thank them for helping oust Bush.

[Classical_Liberal]

120. I don't agree

He is too prohawk to deserve the popular vote as well as the electoral college vote.

[wyldwolf]

107. Yes.

I want a message that we are unified and ready sent to the RNC.

[JohnKleeb]

108. yes

When are we really gonna have candiates that fully agree with us. Its like saying well I like FDR but I am gonna vote Norman Thomas, I like Gore but I am gonna go Nader, etc. Whats the point of being a democrat or democrat supporter if youre not gonna support our candiates. Not directing this at you drum.

[Bogus W Potus]

115. What the hell are you talking about?

If you open your eyes you will realize that John Kerry is one of the most progressive Democrats we have ever nominated.

His Americans for Democratic action lifetime rating is 93%. Ted Kennedy's is only 88%.

His American Conservative Union rating is under 10% lifetime.

Kerry has spent his whole life fighting for health care, education, and childrens issues. He campaigned agaisnt the Vietnam War and he is strong on national security to protect us from terror.


What more do you want from a president? I'm really tired of seeing these Kerry bashing threads becuase he IS our nominee and if you don't like it then don't vote for him. But don't encourage other people to not vote for Kerry, even if they are in "safe states". Last election should have taught you that there are no "safe states".

[JohnKleeb]

124. right

realized it a long time ago.

[West Coast Democrat]

121. I would vote for Kerry no matter what state I lived in!

[Proud liberal Kat]

128. If you can at all find your way around to it....

Voting is our most fundamental right so I can't see my way to telling someone who to vote for outright, but I do think every vote for Kerry in absolutely every state matters!

We had several fellows from Europe working in my agency for the past year and every single one I talked to just couldn't understand why anyone would vote for Bush or not vote or vote in a way that gives Bush an advantage. I think it is vital to our standing in the world to LANDSLIDE Bush out of office and unfortunately due to how our system is organized the only way this will be seen is if Kerry gets a HUGE amount of the popular vote. So World opinion is my biggest reason.

A repudiation internally of the policies of Bush I think will also be most clearly told by a landslide for Kerry.
Kathy

[oasis]

142. "landslide Bush out of office". Now that's the ticket.

:thumbsup:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

146. The people need to send a message of change! Change the Congress!

[oasis]

150. Kerry will have long coat tails by November.

[eridani]

141. Yes. Two words. Touchscreen voting. n/t

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

143. Yes, we should vote Kerry. Because I actually want him to be President!

Much more so than the other candidates you've named.

I don't want Ralph Nader to be president more than Kerry, so why would I vote for him? I don't think he'd be a good president. I think Kerry would (obviously the original poster disagrees).

[Onlooker]

149. YES, FOR GOOD KARMA!!!

Many of us probably didn't vote for Carter because we were confident he would beat Reagan. Let's not take any chances this time around.

[auburngrad82]

151. Yes!

In 2000 Bush squeaked into the WH with the help of some friends in high places and immediately started spouting off about receiving a "mandate" from the American people. A huge win in both popular vote and electoral vote for Kerry would send a true mandate that the failed policies of the neocons will no longer be tolerated. It will take many votes to convince Washington that we want change and to not vote for Kerry in ANY state will work against that mandate.

[rpannier]

152. Yes...

Humiliation all the way. I want it to rival Johnson over Goldwater numbers.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

154. I remember reading an article about a year ago that was posted here on DU…

About how KKKarl Rove and his strategists were plotting to keep the Democratic Party preoccupied with defending traditionally safe Democratic constituencies which would therefore divert funding and resources away from campaigns in necessary swing states and force the Democratic presidential candidate to focus on states which he would normally be assured of winning. One of the constituencies that they mentioned * would be targeting was New York.

Already I see evidence of this occurring. Consider this –the Republican Convention will be held in New York and * and his minions have scheduled the event to be as close to the anniversary of 9/11 as possible. You can be sure that * will seek to exploit the tragic and horrific events of 9/11 to his advantage in every way possible. If effective, such a strategy could cost us crucial votes. Also don’t forget Republicans now control the whole of New York –Pataki as Governor and Bloomberg as Mayor. You can rest assured that they will do everything within their power to ensure that * gets the highest possible vote in New York State. Why do you think that the RNC invested so much in terms of funding and resources into Pataki’s re-election campaign in 2002? And furthermore I’d be willing to bet that Rudy will be out in full force campaigning across New York for * and the extent of Guliani’s popularity and appeal in New York should not be underestimated. NYC voted for him twice and, after his leadership on 9/11, he’s been elevated to hero status. The potential exists for New York to swing over to *. It’s unlikely to happen but I don’t think we can entirely rule it out. Reagan won New York in 1980 and 1984 and Nixon won New York in 1972.

I’ve always believed that one of the reasons that * supported Ah-nuld for Governor in California was that he was convinced that it would make California into a swing state in terms of the presidential election. It doesn’t seem to have worked so far but who knows. Maybe * will get a bounce if Ah-nuld spends the next few months campaigning for him. Do you think California is too safe to go over to *? George Bush Snr won California in 1988, Reagan won it in 1980 and 1984 and Nixon won it in 1982.

Massachusetts is supposedly another safe Democratic state. But Reagan won it in 1980 and 1984 and Eisenhower won it in 1956.

Delaware? It went for Reagan both times and for George Bush Snr in 1988

How about New Jersey? It went for Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1984 and 1988 and George Bush Snr in 1988

Minnesota went for Nixon in 1972

Maryland? It went for Reagan in 1984 and George Bush Snr in 1988

Louisiana? Considered to be one of the most conservative states in the US but it went for JFK I (from Massachusetts incidentally) in 1960 and subsequently for Carter in 1976 and for Clinton in 1992 and 1996.

Texas went for Jimmy Carter in 1976 and for JFK I in 1960. Granted, JFK I probably won Texas because of the presence of Lyndon Johnson but nevertheless that doesn’t explain how Carter and Mondale won here. Even Clinton only narrowly lost Texas with a narrow margin both times

And so on and so on. My point is that no state should ever be considered truly safe for either party –no matter how liberal or conservative it seems. All states hang in the balance and can go either way.

[RhodaGrits]

157. I'm in NY - it's a lock for Kerry. I would not vote for Nader for

dog catcher at this point even though there are some things about Kerry that make me cringe. I like Kerry a lot more than I did a few months ago and I will support him vigorously. I hope Nader enjoys being in bed with the Repub's because he's alienated vast numbers of Dems with his obstinacy and ego.

[PaDem]

158. I won't vote Nader on principle alone

His views may very well be more in line with mine than Kerry, but I detest his candidacy in this election.