I dare say that threateners of the Democratic Party probably do not follow through.

[LoZoccolo]

We've been through a few elections together since Democratic Underground first came to be. Every time there are people threatening to vote third party, or write in the name of their primary candidate in the general election. This is against the DU rules that forbid advocating candidates not nominated by the Democratic Party. And yet, when it is all over, we never hear people brag that they followed through on their threat! This is probably not against the rules because it's just a historic fact, not an advocacy of a position. Despite this immunity, I can't really remember people admitting that they carried through their protest vote.

This observation tells me that threateners of the Democratic Party probably do not follow through.

[John Q. Citizen]

1. Ralph Nader

[AllentownJake]

2. Unemployment has never been 10%

With leaders talking about a jobless recovery. In reality it is around 20%

Welcome to the new Great Depression. An ideological war is about to be fought.

The worst thing for any establishment is for the educated to become unemployed or underemployed. That is the toxic mix that leads to revolutions. Whether the revolutions produce a better society is debatable but history has shown when the educated start to suffer the same fate of the lower classes shit happens.

[closeupready]

5. Yup. The corruption and crookedness go unchecked only so long.

When people start losing their homes, jobs and hope (I'm beginning to hate that word), the ruling class is in big trouble.

[AllentownJake]

6. There will be a show down

and when that happens, the people will ask a question.

Mr. President whose side are you on.

FDR answered that by providing federal troops to protect union organizers. We will see what this President does.

[Midlodemocrat]

3. Who cares about that? What does Oasis think?

[Sebastian Doyle]

19. Noel thought it was a "shit statement"

Couldn't tell you what Liam thought. He was passed out when I called them. :boring:

[bobbolink]

4. Think whatever makes you feel good., What is your motivation for even posting this?

:eyes:

[LoZoccolo]

8. To deflate the manipulative claims of the threateners. n/t

[bobbolink]

31. In other words, to attack those whose ideas differ from yours.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

7. Under your criteria Obama himself would not meet the standards

since he aided Lieberman over Lamont.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/10/175424/972/328/533607
Obama's worst decision
by kos
Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 03:07:41 PM PDT

[LoZoccolo]

9. I'm a little confused; what standard did Obama not meet?

Obama endorsed Lieberman in the primary and Lamont in the general.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

10. Well, it's right there in the diary, written by Kos himself, no less

"Then, in the general election, rather than get behind Lamont as the Democratic nominee, he undercut him by refusing anything more than a pitiful email to a pitiful 200+ recipients. In other words, Obama ran interference for Lieberman.

Now, Obama reaps what he sowed, with Joe Lieberman transformed into one of John McCain's top attack dogs.

Supporting Joe Lieberman and undermining Ned Lamont was likely Obama's worst decision the past two years. And while a heaping spoonfull of "I told you so" is in order, I'd be satisfied with a full-fledged ouster of Lieberman from the Democratic caucus. Senate Democrats (and Barack Obama) cannot allow a betrayal of this magnitude remain unpunished.

Update: The past two years, Lieberman has used his chairmanship at Homeland Security to cover Bush's myriad f'ups from port security to Katrina. How much does anyone want to bet that if Senate Dems inexplicably let him keep his committee in 2009, he doesn't use it to conspire with Republicans and undermine Obama's presidency? Bet on it."

*************************************************************************************************************************************
Did that help?

[LoZoccolo]

11. I'm even more confused.

I'm talking about people who post on here saying that they are going to vote against the Democrats in a general election. Did Obama do that?

[LoZoccolo]

12. I'm even more confused.

I'm talking about people who post on here saying that they are going to vote against the Democrats in a general election. Did Obama do that?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

13. Yes, yes, I'm sure you are (confused)

Is voting against the Dem in a general election any different from supporting the third party candidate against the Dem? I'm just pointing out that since you are generally such an enforcer of party line and thought that even the standard bearer for the Party ,our President, would not stand up to your scrutiny.

Or is that a "shit statement"?

[LoZoccolo]

14. Lieberman wasn't a third-party candidate at the time, and Obama had no way of knowing he would be.

n/t

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

15. You're being deliberately obtuse or you are unable to read.

The link is very clear. It just doesn't fit in with your rigid world view. It's ok. Don't worry about it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. I voted as I said I would. For the most progressive, anti-war, candidate on the ballot.

I vote issues. Not candidates or Party.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789.

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795.

“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." --John Quincy Adams

[Individualist]

17. Do you honestly think most people allow an internet forum to determine their vote?

[Alexander]

18. This from the guy who still supports Joe Lieberman.

Your opinion isn't worth anything.

[LoZoccolo]

20. When the fuck did I do that?

You're free to point out any ongoing support of Joe Lieberman past the 2006 primary.

[Alexander]

24. Repeatedly.

And everyone knows it.

[LoZoccolo]

26. Here's the deal: you document, or apologize, within 24 hours, or...

...I will begin to avail myself of the option to alert every single instance of it as you are accusing me of breaking the rules, which is itself against the rules. No one can document any support by me of Lieberman, and yet I can (and you can too) dig up several endorsements of Lamont. You are simply one of a pack of people who are feeding each other this rumor that has no basis in fact, and several pieces of evidence to the contrary. You are simply repeating what other people have alleged, which others take as evidence, and none of you people bother to actually find any of my pro-Lamont posts despite your ability to actually do so.

Ask AntiCoup2k4 or that McGrath fellow (forgot his first name) what happens when you thread-stalk people with false accusations. You'll have to find them on other boards, because they've been tombstoned. I'd advise you to think before you respond to this. Don't fuck around and be an Internet tough guy; you threw out this charge flippantly, now take responsibility for it.

[Electric Monk]

28. You're ignoring post #15 in this thread to post this instead? That says a lot. nt

[LoZoccolo]

29. I tolerate simple rudeness more than I do false accusations. n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

21. Both parties should feel the pressure from a third party

How else do we as voters hold any leverage? How do we let them know that if they don't stop taking money from lobbyists that they will be thown out on their butts? Universal healthcare use to be my number one priority but knowing we will never get it without campaign reform I hope we hear from candadites that are willing to do something about campaign reform. Maybe a third party willh help keep the pressure on.

[LoZoccolo]

22. Yeah, threaten to kill millions of people via the Republicans, that's an awesome idea. n/t

[liberal_at_heart]

23. After eight years of the republicans I'm not eager to have them in office again

However, if democrats are taking money from lobbyists and not coming through on their campaign promisies then they need to be held accountable for that. I can see voting against the republicans just to make sure they don't get back in office. However, that won't solve our problems. We need politicians that are willing to take on the very corporations that own our country.

[Feron]

25. These aren't ordinary times.

The middle class keeps the poor from strangling the rich. Well when that middle class is being decimated, anger and discontent are the result.

And the anger will only get worse if nothing is done with health care reform, job creation, etc.. History is your friend.

The anger isn't confined to the left, it's also on the right. Unfortunately the LED light hasn't flickered on in the teabaggers' heads that their policies are part of the problem. Eventually I do see both sides joining forces for a common cause. They are already uniting in support of auditing the Fed.

You have nothing to lose voting third party when you have nothing to gain voting R or D. It's about damn time a real progressive party popped up too.

[Juche]

27. I am following through on primaries from the left

I have donated money to Sestak. I will donate time and money to other elections in 2010 and 2012 where members of congress have a primary from the left.

I already am following through on my threats. And at the risk of getting penalized for saying it, if Reid screws up royally I won't cry if he loses in 2010. Why have a senate leader and 60 seats if they aren't going to be used effectively?

[NMMNG]

30. Smells like a duct tape fatwa

BTW, my wife and I both voted third-party for president in the November, 2008 election (Cynthia McKinney if you want a name). It had nothing to do with "threatening the Democratic Party" as you claim, but with refusing to vote for "the lesser of two evils" just because s/he is (marginally) "the lesser of two evils" and nothing more. Neither of us regrets our decision and we'd do it again if we had to. From now on politicians have to earn our votes, not just have a "D" after their names.

[Marr]

32. I voted against one of my Senators (Feinstein).

I've done the same in various other races when I had a chance to vote against a corporate Democrat, and I almost always vote Green locally (and at the state level, depending on the dynamics of the race).

Are you only referring to presidential elections?