Why I am not Voting Obama

Gore ran a campaign so botched even his home state did not support him. In the debates with Bush, he came off as an oaf. Nader didn't so much beat Gore as did Gore. (The media giving Bush a total pass made as much difference as Nader, anyway).

But there is justification because the distribution of political leanings is much more the bell curve and Edgar is on one extreme. If Edgar thinks his protest will cause the Democrats to swing left at the expense of 3 or 4 Phoenixs he's mistaken. If he finds a candidate out there that supports his views, great but if he thinks by excluding his representation from the Democrats he is going to move them his direction I think the opposite is true. Edgar is working against his political aspirations by in effect supporting a party who represents everything he is against.

edgarblythe wrote:

You can post things I agree with, like these, but it does not change the fact the nation is steadily sliding to the right.

Wait, what?

Overt racism took a brief uptick after Obama was elected, but it seems to be subsiding, now.

Gays can serve openly in the military.

Same-sex marriage is gaining traction.

Do you remember the blue laws? No retail on Sunday? Gone. No alcohol on Sunday? Gone.

The push for teaching evolution in Texas schools failed.

Women are still under attack, but I think that's more a reaction to their success.



That's a bone I have to pick with the original article you posted. He said something like, "things are getting worse."

Thinking back on the 80's, I have to ask, "how, exactly, are things worse now?"

Then here's a follow up question: Would more or fewer voters turn out for more polar candidates?

Edgar,

I don't know if you have the time or inclination to reply, but I'd be interested in what you have to say.

DrewDad wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

You can post things I agree with, like these, but it does not change the fact the nation is steadily sliding to the right.

Wait, what?

Overt racism took a brief uptick after Obama was elected, but it seems to be subsiding, now.

True racists never give up. They might hide.

Gays can serve openly in the military.

Same-sex marriage is gaining traction.

These gains are fabulous. They don't have anything to do with my disaffection. They don't address the tax cuts for the wealthy, the botched health care system, the steady erosion of Medicare and Social Security, the endless wars, banks and so forth.

Do you remember the blue laws? No retail on Sunday? Gone. No alcohol on Sunday? Gone.

Gone because the conservatives got spoiled to comfort and convenience, like the rest of us.

The push for teaching evolution in Texas schools failed.

I assume you mean, the push to place creationism in the schools. That is a war that will go on for a long time.

Women are still under attack, but I think that's more a reaction to their success.



That's a bone I have to pick with the original article you posted. He said something like, "things are getting worse."

Thinking back on the 80's, I have to ask, "how, exactly, are things worse now?"

They don't have anything to do with my disaffection. They don't address the tax cuts for the wealthy, the botched health care system, the steady erosion of Medicare and Social Security, the endless wars, banks and so forth.

JPB wrote:

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.

I am a delegate to America Elects. But they have to find a good candidate and field a platform I can accept, if I am to go all the way with them.

failures art wrote:

Then here's a follow up question: Would more or fewer voters turn out for more polar candidates?

Fewer. Fewer voters make it more important for parties to mobilize their base and comparatively less important to swing Independents. If you're a liberal voter, and you want to move the Democratic party towards what's currently their left wing, your best tactic is to threaten them with abstinence. (Or with voting Green, whatever you prefer.) At least this is true in the District of Columbia, where you live, and which is solidly Blue.

Ross Perot, had he run an intelligent campaign, had a good shot at winning, that one year. It only took several weeks for him to split the polls into thirds. I know that would have been a disaster. But, the point is, Americans are not as loyal to the two parties as people seem to think.

DC is solidly blue, but are our democrats a deeper shade of blue? I don't really believe so.

edgarblythe wrote:

Ross Perot, had he run an intelligent campaign, had a good shot at winning, that one year. It only took several weeks for him to split the polls into thirds. I know that would have been a disaster. But, the point is, Americans are not as loyal to the two parties as people seem to think.

If he had run an intelligent campaign? You just said he split the polls in three. That's pretty intelligent if you ask me. Is it possible that he ran as good of a campaign as he could and simply lost?

A
R
T

failures art wrote:

DC is solidly blue, but are our democrats a deeper shade of blue? I don't really believe so.

That's not what I meant to suggest. I meant to suggest that if DC was truly in play, you would have to worry about Sozobe's dilemma that a vote for Third Parties is a vote for Republicans. But DC isn't in play, so the signals you'd be sending to Democratic strategists wouldn't have those side effects.

In the case of President, we actually are in play. It's one of the only votes we get. Also, I disagree: DC could put a DC Statehood Party rep on the ballot and could actually win all three electoral votes.

with the exception of a small other colored blip on the nation's capitol.