"compete in the primary but support the ticket in the general"

[welshTerrier2]

with a few notable exceptions aside, most of us seem to accept the democratic premise that it's OK to fight hard within your own party, DURING THE PRIMARIES, for the candidate of your choice ...

but some add the tag line to that: but support the party after the primaries no matter what ...

i'm posting this with the hope that we can actually have a civil discussion about this ... i couldn't be less optimistic ... i'm afraid this will end up with one of those little "flame" icons and it will lead to nothing but more polarization ... but, i'd thought i would at least try to clarify voting strategies of those who MIGHT not support the ticket in the general election depending on the specific circumstances ...

let's start out simply accepting the fact that there are two divergent camps on this issue ... one is, "you have to support Dems in the general - do you want more republican rule?" ... OK ... that's clear enough ...

the other camp does NOT answer "there's no difference between the parties" ... the first camp seems unable to hear that message ... sure, a few may think that way but most do NOT ... of course there are important differences between the parties ... so, let's start there ...

so what's the deal with "camp 2"? are these "purists" (an absurd label) really coming from a "my way or the highway" all or nothing point of view? ... the answer is not black or white ...

i do NOT feel obligated to automatically vote for a Democrat in the general election if a candidate i supported in the primaries loses ... some think that's wrong ... they think "well, just cause you didn't win you're going to quit?" ... this fails to understand the reasoning of "non-automatics" ...

if my view is a "minority view" and it fails to gain adequate support in the primary, i don't change my view of the ISSUES i was supporting ... my commitment is NOT to party nor was it solely to the candidate i supported ... my commitment is to the issue ...

so, the question for me then becomes, "how important is this issue, or this group of issues, and what's the best way to fight for them" ... it does NOT say that there's no difference between the Dem and the republican ... it does NOT say that the Dem wouldn't be way better than the republican ... if you want to understand, you have to "get this" ...

so, what does it say? it says "if the Dem candidate actually strongly opposed the positions i care most about, even though they won in the primary, they are going to have to show some flexibility to "the minority" views or their election will further weaken the likelihood of seeing the changes i support ... FURTHER WEAKEN ...

the "automatic Democrats" don't want to put their emphasis on these issues in that way ... they want to have me focus on the "yeah, but what about all the other stuff" ... but that's the problem ... they don't get to choose the priorities of the issues i value ...

and, of course, the whole thing ends up in an unproductive screaming match ... the solution is to work for common ground ... the solution is to make sure that "minority constituencies" within the party can make at least some progress on their most critical issues ... if the door is slammed with a "deal with it!! my guy won", it's foolish not to expect some alienation and possible lack of support ...

rather than seeing those who MIGHT not support the ticket in the general election in negative ways, and some will refuse to accept that, it would be wiser to do all that can reasonably be done to find a way to compromise ... absent that, you'll get what you'll get ... "non-automatics" aren't you're enemies; they're your potential supporters ...

OK, there you go ... try not to whine and scream ... real discourse might actually build a little party unity ...

[wryter2000]

1. That's how I feel

I'd also like to add another distinction that I don't see often here. There's a difference, imho, between a Dem who doesn't always do the right thing and one who's actively toxic. DiFi falls in the first category. Zell Miller fell in the second. I tend to include Lieberman in that group as well.

For the DiFi's, I'm in favor of exerting pressure -- as loudly as possible. But there's a baby in that bathwater that I don't want to lose. She was organizing the filibuster against the extremist judges, for example.

When it comes down to someone who's giving the rest of the Dems a black eye, they need to go. But, thank heaven, there are few of them.

[blm]

3. I think you've weighed the issue and explained it perfectly.

.

[wryter2000]

8. Thank you

:hi:

[Warpy]

2. Yes and no

For instance, my state senator is a DINO. He has stabbed me in the back too many times for me to consider spending my precious vote on him. He is also pretty much assured of winning another term, the GOP is just offering token opposition.

I intend to vote Green.

If the race were closer, the decision would be a more difficult one. However, some way has to be found to send a message to these guys that they're on the WRONG TRACK. Letters, emails and phone calls haven't done it. Maybe a fair showing with the Greens will.

I'll be voting Dem for Representative. I may hold my nose and vote for our DINO governor, Richardson. However, my Senator has simply lost my vote. He will be returned to office without it, but the way to make my vote count is to vote against him.

[papau]

5. I like your procedure., n/t

n/t

[papau]

4. GOPers often vote for a given Dem in the primary because of single

issue, or a desire to get the weakest opponent. They then vote GOP in the general- or are deemed not fired up because they vote for nobody.

Is what you are suggesting is using this pattern of the "GOP BASE" on the Dem side?

On the GOP side, the "FUNDI" vote always seems to come out - even if not fired up - the change in the number of votes from them does not seem to have even modest drops over facts like no real implementation of solutions to their issue. It seems you only need to talk their game - and you are then allowed to walk away after the election.

Is this pattern if on the left ok?

What study has shown that anything is accomplished by single issue voting - or not voting -in a non-parliamentary form of government?

If something can be accomplished for the causes on the left, great, but I sure do not see how the process would work.

It seems simple to me, assuming the votes are really counted. If Dems walk in the General, the GOP wins, and your issue waits for the next election. Indeed, are you really a Dem if you are ok with GOP wins until your issue bubbles to the top of the pile?

Indeed other groups on the GOP side behave like the fundi's - if you are a Log Cabin GOPer - The group has their issue - which they know will never be addressed by the GOP - yet they either walk and do not vote, or they vote anyway. Why do they become members of Log Cabin GOP groups? What is the point. Because in this case their issue is not number one to them relative to other GOP positions. And I assume that is true for Fundi's.

If a Log Cabin like group for other issues is being proposed for the Dem party, I'd say that they already exist - as the Dem party is a coalition of many different number one issue groups.

Otherwise, if the voting in the general is strictly on a single issue, how is what you're speaking about different than "my way or the highway"?

And if the voting in the General is based on best fit on a number of issues, how are you different from an independent - which fine, but do not expect to have a lot of influence on the Dem party's priorities in that case.

[welshTerrier2]

11. "influence on the Dem party's priorities"

you asked how I am different from an independent ... perhaps i'm not ... i certainly see myself as an "independent thinker" ... i certainly see it as important to form my own views ... i've always voted for the Dem presidential candidate (btw, i can't imagine ever voting for a republican pres. candidate) ... so, perhaps i am "functionally" an independent ...

then you concluded with the very interesting statement that: "how are you different from an independent - which fine, but do not expect to have a lot of influence on the Dem party's priorities in that case."

well, that made me think ...

my conclusion? i think the Dem party has been strongly pushing to move to the right after what they see as centrist independents at the expense of the party's "progressive wing" (frankly, i hate all these spectrum labels but feel stuck with them) ... i see a party that's taken the left for granted and gone after "new customers" to broaden the base ...

at some point, and we each have our own level of tolerance and patience, people conclude "you can't get there from here" ... you're looking for documentation of historical success? yeah, we all know the track record of third parties ... your question fails to recognize the frustration many feel ... that's dangerous for the Democratic Party ...

you want to "keep score with history"; the people you may not be understanding and whose votes could help you are starting to lose faith in voting for Democrats ... they see that as a "status quo path" as well ... you end up with a "we might as well try something else" ...

and it's not altogether without logic, you know ... those who have left to form third parties seem to agree with your assessment that they may not be able to carry any influence on the Democratic Party ... they may well have concluded the only way to gain any influence, regardless of how long it might take, is to form their own political group ... if they become strong enough, not a majority but strong enough, perhaps Democrats will seek a coalition with them ... as individuals, they are subsumed within the Democratic Party like so many drops of green food coloring in a large bathtub ... together, though perhaps weak, they hope to at least be visible ...

again, i'm not pushing to leave the Democratic Party and support third parties; i'm pushing MY party to be more inclusive ... failing to so is becoming an increasingly dangerous business ... the divide is real and it's deep; the goal will either be unity or it won't ...

[papau]

13. Perhaps there are more centrist independents who vote than left of

center, or "far" left of center/single issue independents?

Getting to 50% plus 1 vote by constructing a coalition means everyone must leave differences at the door - which is what the GOP is so good at - namely voting on strict party lines - more or less.

The Nader experiment certainly showed that there are many on the left who are disappointed with the Dem Party and willing to go 3rd party. It also showed that Nader was full of Bullshit when he said that there was not a dimes worth of difference between the GOP and the Dems, so who actually won was of no consequence. After 5 years of Bush I do not believe there is anyone on the left who doesn't think that statement by Nader was not a flat out lie.

Whenever you add an issue to the coalition list, someone leaves the coalition because they are as strongly against that issue as the group promoting the issue are in favor of it.

It is a game of numbers - does adding this issue increase or decrease the coalition vote count. I believe that over the years we've found that "leaving our differences at the door" is the only way to get to a win on the limited number of issues we all agree on.

Third party replacing the current number one or number 2 party has happen - but rarely. But that can be a hope of a 3rd party or single issue voter. It was the hope of some "pro-life" types until the coalition with the GOP became the approved pro=life way. The pro-life folks bite there tongue when a pro-choice GOPer is elected, confidant that over time such folks will be removed from party power - and they have been right so far.

Working to get popular support at grassroots level and at the party power player level seems to work. How does third party or staying home work to advance the progressive cause?

The feeling one is not being heard is awful - but the solution is make noise within the party and show that more votes are gained by adding position A to the party objectives than are LOST by adding that same position A to the objectives. Of course certain positions should be "core" to any progressive party - but perhaps the Dem party is a coalition of progressives and centrists. If that is the case, there will be some "core" progressive positions that will need to be left at the door.

[welshTerrier2]

14. mostly agree ...

you have some very solid insights there ...

but i note two interesting themes implicit, or seemingly implicit, in your views ... perhaps i'm wrong about this inference ...

the first is exactly what i see as the party's problem right now ... you wrote:

"Whenever you add an issue to the coalition list, someone leaves the coalition because they are as strongly against that issue as the group promoting the issue are in favor of it."

i have a huge problem with that kind of thinking ... it's much too black or white ... while i'm talking about greater inclusiveness, you perceive a "zero sum" game ... if the party moves an iota in one direction, they lose an iota of votes from the other direction ... it's very Einsteinian ... matter cannot be created or destroyed ...

this view, at least to me, focuses too much on metrics and not enough on human beings ... people want to believe they are "part of the family" ... they want to know they are being heard ... they want to know there is room for them in the "big tent" ... i'm talking about a "reaching out" to alienated constituencies ... i'm talking about seeking meaningful dialog with all parties ... many of us feel like "crazy uncle albert who's been hidden away in the attack" ... that's no way to win our support ...

the point is NOT to argue that metrics aren't important; the point is to argue that it is not necessarily the case that more inclusive positions will automatically cost votes from an "equal and opposite" constituency ... some messages, values and policies are broader in their appeal than others ...

and your concluding paragraph was most unfortunate or perhaps reflected your own bias ... you said:

"but perhaps the Dem party is a coalition of progressives and centrists. If that is the case, there will be some "core" progressive positions that will need to be left at the door."

maybe it's just because of the examples we've been using and that would be fine ... if not, why is it that you don't also call for centrists to leave some of their "core" centrist positions at the door so the party can appeal more to progressives? it's important to be cautious, and balanced, when calling for unity ... misunderstandings are the enemy ...

[papau]

15. I agree with the above idea that "core" centrist positions will also need

to be left at the door.

Sorry that was not clear.

And I agree the game is most certainly not a "zero sum" game. Each issue has a net add or subtract value in terms of votes.

And some issues like Social Security are defining issues of what it means to be a Democrat so it is pointless to do or review any add / subtract analysis.

I think we are on the same wave length here.

It will be interesting to see how this thread develops.

[welshTerrier2]

16. i think we have a fundamental disagreement on voting strategy

however, i can't thank you enough for your thoughtful analysis and civil discourse ...

i wish we had more of that ...

[emulatorloo]

6. A dem majority in the senate would mean BYE BYE Pat "Cover-Up" Roberts

Just having a majority of Dems means that Democrats are committee chairs. It is another factor to consider in the whole "I Just Can't Vote for X, he is a DINO!!!!!" Sometimes you just have to be strategic. I might even vote for a Zell Miller type if it meant that Senator Pat Roberts could no longer use his position to protect the Bush admin.

Thanks for your post! Excellent!

[welshTerrier2]

7. "sometimes you have to be strategic"

thanks for your post ... i agree with what you wrote ...

my point with this thread is to "tone down the rhetoric" and to try to explain MY thinking on voting strategies ...

i have always voted for the Dem presidential candidate in the past; i'm also incredibly frustrated right now with the Party and WILL definitely consider a 3rd party candidate ...

i can't begin to tell you how much i hope it doesn't come to that ... i want to win too ... but increasingly, i see a party that just refuses to speak to the issues i care most deeply about ... i'm certainly not a "single issue" voter ... i'm certainly not inflexible ... i'm certainly not unwilling to be pragmatic ...

i exaggerate here to make a point ... my example is not meant to reflect reality but rather to show a direction: imagine an "automatic Dem" making the statement: "I know he wants to bring back slavery but so does the republican and it would give us a majority" ... nooooo, don't ask me to stand up for that guy ...

it's wrong to say "we have to do ANYTHING to win" ... i cannot, and will not, vote for someone so blind that they continue to support the death and misery in Iraq ... i cannot support someone who would deprive gays or women of their civil liberties and their right to equality ... there's room for compromise on short-term, pragmatic tactics ... there's no room for flexibility on making at least a deep verbal commitment to the ultimate goal ... voting for candidates that don't believe in full equality for all sends a terrible message symbolically and results in a blatant disregard for our Constitutional freedoms pragmatically ...

i don't take a 3rd party vote lightly ... i understand the reasons provided by "automatic Dems" and i would always consider them before making a decision ... but after years upon years of watching MY party drift to the right and even relegate some of us to the dark, hidden corners, i have to seriously consider whether a new path is called for ...

as i said, i hope it doesn't come to that but i did want to clarify my reasons ... those that revel in "bashing the Nader voters" just don't get it ... the only sane path lies in building alliances ... and they do need building ... how's that for being pragmatic??

[Totally Committed]

9. Nothing is "automatic" this time around for me...

I refuse to vote for "the lesser of two evils". I'm either given a candidate I can support with my whole heart, or no vote. Period. Never again.

TC

[sutz12]

10. This begs the question...

of: Are we better than the Republicans?

So often, we get attacked for our liberal values and accused of voting on strict party lines. Meanwhile, the Repubs are constantly harping that, "I could never vote for a Democrat." As if that isn't 'voting a strict party line.' The doublespeak always seems to work for them.

The key here IMO is that we all retain the right to vote our own conscience. The Right has nearly taken that away from so much of our electorate who vote because they think the other guys are more moral than we are.

This year, it is tempting to ask that everybody vote D come November no matter what. But in a true Democracy, you can't ask to pre-determine any individual's vote. It is un-Democratic, in both senses of the word.

[welshTerrier2]

12. quoted from the OP:

"it does NOT say that there's no difference between the Dem and the republican ... it does NOT say that the Dem wouldn't be way better than the republican ... if you want to understand, you have to "get this" ..."