Why I am not Voting Obama

You want a Blue Dog dem? Are you nuts? There is no more unpopular political position in the country than to be a somewhat-Conservative Democrat, which is what the Blue Dogs are.

Choosing between the lesser of two evils is no longer the only option.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You want a Blue Dog dem? Are you nuts? There is no more unpopular political position in the country than to be a somewhat-Conservative Democrat, which is what the Blue Dogs are.

So what? JPB wants to vote her conscience, and that's the kind of politician her conscience likes. Her conscience's vote needn't be popular, neither with you nor with the general electorate.

Quote:

Choosing between the lesser of two evils is no longer the only option.

IT NEVER WAS "THE ONLY OPTION."

I am voting for Obama...and I most assuredly do not consider it to be a vote for the lesser of two evils.

When Edgar says, "I'm a liberal and I'll stay home or vote socialist", he has the same impact on the Democratic party as Phoenix does when she says,"I'm a libertarian and I can go Democratic or Republican". Phoenix got courted when she started threads about her choice. Edgar gets treated like a disobedient schoolboy. There is no rational justification for such a difference in treatment.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

I plan to either vote third party or ride it out. They can no longer count on my vote, just because they sound less loony than the other guys.

It's better to get nothing you want than get 70-80% of what you want?

What world do you guys come from? I am literally baffled by this.Cycloptichorn

I think Edgar is coming from a world that remembers American history. While America has always had a two-party system, the two parties haven't always been the same. (Ask any Federalist or Whig if you can find one.) At the moment, both parties stand significantly to the right of the median American voter on the issues that matter most to voters. So why shouldn't Americans mix up their two-party system once more, establish a party to the left of the Democrats, and ditch either of the others?

If Edgar believes it's time to do just that, the mixing-up process has to start somewhere. A good place to start is that liberal voters in solidly Red or solidly Blue states support a left-wing third party instead of the Democrats. That's just what Edgar is doing, and I approve of that. (Not that he requires my approval.) He won't change the outcome in the electoral college, but will send a signal that Democrats cannot take the liberal vote for granted anymore.

Thomas wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

I live in a state that automatically votes Republican. So, my vote is practically non existent.

This is a point that your opponents in this thread seem to miss. They react as if your choice has terrible consequences for liberal causes. But it does not. You're in Texas. It makes no difference at all to Obama's reelection whether Texas Democrats lose by five percent or by ten. It does make a difference to Texas Greens or Socialists if they end up with one percent of the popular vote or five.

Sure it does! There are plenty of Democrats in Texas. If more of them voted, instead of insisting their vote means nothing, the Dems would have a shot to win that large and important state. Even if they only come close, it forces the candidates to campaign there, and address their needs for once, instead of just taking it for granted.

In 2008 turnout for the prez election was only 54% of eligible voters. That means there's potential for the D's to catch up - if their own people will actually support them, instead of sitting at home on their thumbs.

re: the third party thing: I'm not against people working to build a more liberal party, IF, they are actually DOING something to do that. Just stating that you won't vote for the guy in office who is kinda liberal, and then doing nothing, doesn't forward anything new in this country, and only serves to advance the cause of Conservatism.

Cycloptichorn

I hadn't said anything about it until just recently on this thread. (After the clarification.)

Just checked back on RJB's thread, I posted about other things but not that.

JPB, if I thought a protest vote worked, I'd be for it. I don't think it works.

I had this argument with people in 2004 re: Nader, and I still think that those who could have affected the election with their vote -- not the ones in a state where the result is preordained -- did the nation a disservice by allowing Bush to be elected for another four years.

That wasn't abstract, that was real, and had real effects on the country and the world.

America Elects is what folks are doing about it. David Walker isn't anybody's fool. There will be a candidate named by June and that candidate will be on every ballot. As I said earlier, upwards of 60% of registered voters have indicated they'd vote for an alternate (non-major party) candidate this year if that candidate stood a chance of shaking things up. Large numbers of folks are looking to shake things up. Choosing between the lesser of two evils is no longer the only option.

The problem with running an independent candidate is twofold:

1, the complete lack of institutional support. There will be no newspaper endorsements or governors campaigning with them. I don't give a **** about that stuff, but many lower-information voters do.

2, the difficulty in clearly delineating a message from the already existing candidates.

But there is justification because the distribution of political leanings is much more the bell curve and Edgar is on one extreme.