Kerry has lost my vote.

Quote:

A stronger than expected Nader showing (i.e. 6-8%) will be the best thing for the country. It means that people who think like me can no longer be taken for granted by one party and ignored by the other.

How will a 6-8 % be meaningful and keep the constituency from being ignored at the next election? It is nothing more than a protest vote and usually hurts the party most aligned with it. The republicans I am sure are delighted with a run by Nader. In addition based upon the fickle nature of the electorate it will more than likely be forgotten by the next election and most assuredly when Nader is no longer around. To be heard there is a need for a grass roots movement where third party members are elected to legislatures and congress. No one goes from graduating college to CEO without the intervening steps.

In addition many of the responders have a negative view of Kerry even those who say the will vote for him, However, few if any give a reason why? It would seem that the Bush ads are effective.

0 Replies

It would seem so.
Sigh.

0 Replies

My political views are more antiwar in general than Kerry's. I think many other responders on this topic think that Kerry's views are more toward the center than ours, however we may differ on particulars.

I chuckle at the idea that Bush's commercials/public relations efforts make me antiKerry.

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

Quote:
A stronger than expected Nader showing (i.e. 6-8%) will be the best thing for the country. It means that people who think like me can no longer be taken for granted by one party and ignored by the other.

How will a 6-8 % be meaningful and keep the constituency from being ignored at the next election? It is nothing more than a protest vote and usually hurts the party most aligned with it.

A protest vote *is* meaningful. It should keep the constituency from being ignored at the next election -- the only reason it didn't it the incompetence of the Dem elites.

As far as hurting "the party most aligned with it". This is foolishness. The Dems don't own my vote and Kerry doesn't deserve it.

If anyone is hurting anyone here, it is the Democrats hurting me by claiming to be the party that is "most aligned" and then aligning itself with the other side on issues that are very important to me. I am hurt when there is no party with a shot at the white house who represents my viewpoint.

A protest vote is valuable. The purpose in this case is to keep the Democrats from claiming to represent me and then abandoning the values I consider important to pander to the supposed center.

If the Democrats are "hurt" it is because they are taking my vote for granted. The Democrats are hurting themselves.

Quote:

In addition many of the responders have a negative view of Kerry even those who say the will vote for him, However, few if any give a reason why? It would seem that the Bush ads are effective.

I have made the reasons for my negative view of Kerry very clear. I haven't seen the Bush ads.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

A protest vote *is* meaningful. It should keep the constituency from being ignored at the next election -- the only reason it didn't it the incompetence of the Dem elites.

IMO, it's naive to think that it would mean anything other than to the protesting individual and peers.

IMO, it will do absolutely nothing to "keep the constituency from being ignored at the next election".

But unlike most here I couldn't care much less about one vote and personally I recommend that you vote in the way you outline as I think it will make you happier to do so.

Quote:

If anyone is hurting anyone here, it is the Democrats hurting me by claiming to be the party that is "most aligned" and then aligning itself with the other side on issues that are very important to me.

1) The Democrat's make no such claim to represent you.

2) The party that derives the most benefit from your vote will be one that is further to the other side on those very issues that are important to you.

But I say "go for it!"

If you think it's a good expression of protest it will at least be a therapeutic one and it's just one vote, convince a couple of people not to vote for the current administration and you'll more than atone for it. ;-)

Edit: fixed quotes

0 Replies

One more thing...

If you want to see the folly of the Democratic strategy, contrast it with the Republicans.

Bush and the Republicans take care of their base before they pander to the center.

There was never any doubt about how Bush felt or what Bush would do about abortion. There was no question that Bush would be friendly to the NRA and that he would favor business over environmental issues. These are all issues that are controversial to voters in the center.

Yet Bush is in the White House. There is no third party conservative candidate becuase none is needed. The "progressives" on the conservative side feel they are adequately represented. The right wing takes care of Bush because he takes care of them.

Why can't the Democrats learn from this? It would not only be better for them politically, it would be better for the country. It would allow a real national debate on defining issues.

I am not voting for Kerry because he does not represent me. I would bet that he would do better in general if he didn't abandon his would-be progressive base.

0 Replies

eric,

You make an interesting point about the base of the parties.

But, IMO, you underestimate the slide to the right in national opinion after 9/11.

I hope the Dems pander a bit to the right in these rightward times or I fear they will setup a Republican dynasty.

IMO, staunch liberals who think that if the Dems would just be more liberal and be the very anti-thesis to the current adminitration they would win are projecting their wishes onto the political landscape.

0 Replies

Craven has given a brief description of how a republic works.

0 Replies

Here's something I received from the Democratic National Committee. Just an FYI.

Nader Can Make Third Parties a Reality in 2006
But he has to DROP OUT to do it. Ralph, we have a lot of respect for you. But you're making a big mistake.
Having real world principles means that sometimes you need to do what's pragmatically best, even it isn't ideal. That's real commitment. Sticking with stated rigid so-called "principles" to the bitter end, regardless of the consequences, regardless of reason, regardless of hipocrisy, is what people like John Ashcroft and Paul Wolfowitz do. You're better than that.
PLEASE. GET OUT OF THE 2004 ELECTION!
http://www.democracymeansyou.com/nader/

0 Replies

The point of politics is not ideological purity, where you can sit on your pedestal in splendid isolation. But fashioning a policy that can appeal to the majority without violating the basic principles for which you stand.

0 Replies

suzy wrote:

Here's something I received from the Democratic National Committee. Just an FYI.

Nader Can Make Third Parties a Reality in 2006
But he has to DROP OUT to do it. Ralph, we have a lot of respect for you. But you're making a big mistake.
Having real world principles means that sometimes you need to do what's pragmatically best, even it isn't ideal. That's real commitment. Sticking with stated rigid so-called "principles" to the bitter end, regardless of the consequences, regardless of reason, regardless of hipocrisy, is what people like John Ashcroft and Paul Wolfowitz do. You're better than that.
PLEASE. GET OUT OF THE 2004 ELECTION!
http://www.democracymeansyou.com/nader/

I heard Nader say in an interview just before he decided to run that he resented the DNC or anyone else to ask him not to run. He feels it's his duty to advance another party.

0 Replies

Isn't Massachusetts considered safely Democratic? What would a few votes for Nader or Bush mean to the overall state vote? Kerry would still take it, which is much more important in a presidential election.

Texas is safely Republican, so it doesn't matter who votes for Kerry or Nader, Bush will still take it, so I'm voting my conscience. I'm voting for Nader--again.

0 Replies

Presidents aren't elected simply by states, aside from Florida.

0 Replies

Acquiunk wrote:

The point of politics is not ideological purity, where you can sit on your pedestal in splendid isolation. But fashioning a policy that can appeal to the majority without violating the basic principles for which you stand.

I agree with this.

The policy Kerry is fashioning does not appeal to me. Whether he can appeal to a majority remains to be seen. The Dems made a strategic decision that has alienated at least one voter. If this gives them an equal number of voters in the center then, strategically speaking, they guessed right.

Whether they have violated "the basic principles for which [they] stand" is a judgement call.

0 Replies

I also want to emphasize again that I named this thread "Kerry has lost my vote". This is what I meant. Nader is just a tangent to this discussion as I would not vote for Kerry even if Nader didn't exist.

For me the problem is Kerry and the Democrats. They are abandoning issues that are important to those who think like me.

The Democrats would do well to realize this. Reading suzy's post makes me sad.

0 Replies

ebrown_p:

I respect everything you're saying so far but I've got a big HOWEVER to post.

I'm guessing that the dems have gone with Kerry because he will appeal to the republicans who are fed up with Bush. And I believe that there are a lot of republicans who aren't happy with the current administration.

The dems probably figure that they've got everyone who's left of centre in the bag, because anyone on the left certainly won't vote for Bush. If they are campaigning with more of a rightish position than usual it's likely in an effort to pick up 5-10% more votes from the centre-right crowd.

Once elected, the dems don't have to do everything they say they're going to - look at bush/cheney as an example for saying one thing and doing another in order to get votes or maintain strong public opinion.

If people like you, who would vote dem if there was a solid candidate, vote for Nader or someone else, then they are going to lose the 5-10% of the left that they are going to need most.

Aren't targeted killings a better way to go than decimating an entire country by having to use the war machine?

Bush can't be around after November - that's just not gonna be a pretty sight - Bush/Cheney knowing it's their last term...scary.

my two cents.

edited once for clarity - removed a "the", inserted a "the", and fixed a couple of spelling errors.

0 Replies

"I'm guessing that the dems have gone with Kerry because he will appeal to the republicans who are fed up with Bush. And I believe that there are a lot of republicans who aren't happy with the current administration." I think so too.

0 Replies

I think most thoughtful Americans who are right of center will vote for Bush even if some have to hold their nose to do it. And the Supreme Court plus commitment to the war against terrorism will be the primary reason.

Where the 'left' thinks the 'right' wants to take away certain rights, the 'right' is equally concerned that the 'left' will take away more of other rights.

I personally want Supreme Court judges who will interpret existing law rather than create new law through legislation. I believe George Bush, given an opportunity and considering his track record on appointments so far, will appoint that kind of judge.

For the record, GWB has never suggested that Roe v Wade be overturned; in fact he has publically stated he does not think that is the way to go. Again given his track record, I can't imagine he would intentionally seek out judges who had a personal agenda to overturn Roe v Wade.

GWB overall has picked very good, very well qualified people for judicial appointments. There is no reason to think he would blow it when it comes to Supreme Court justices.

0 Replies

I think we should continue to voice and say what we think and still vote for Kerry even if we don't agree with him on everything because otherwise Bush will win (he might anyway)and that is the thing to be avoided if at all possible. Once he is in office then maybe more reasonable voices will be heard and an honest give and take can take place to figure out where our country needs to be headed rather than having an administration with an agenda and sticking to it no matter what happens who also degrades and discredits anyone who does not prescribe to that agenda so that other options and ideas and opinions can't be brought to the table for consideration.

0 Replies

For the record, GWB has said a lot of things and then done practically the opposite!
He hasn't proven to be trustworthy.

0 Replies

Kerry has lost my vote.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know