Elect Barack Obama
Impeach Bush & Cheney!
"Google" your Voter Registration
Register to Vote
Vote Early-Absentee-Nov4
Visit the Democratic Party
User loginNavigation |
How to Vote in Primaries and Not Be an IdiotA Short Instructions Manual 1. Virtually nobody votes in primaries (or caucuses) compared to general elections. Therefore, each individual primary vote is worth many times what it is in the general election. And, it's more likely to be counted, since there's typically less fraud and abuse of the system in primaries. So, if you vote in general elections, you pretty much have to vote in primaries in order to not be an idiot. Bring a few friends to vote too, and you're practically a genius. 2. If you have to join a party that you don't support in order to vote in a primary, you can always unjoin again immediately after the primary. In the meantime, maybe you'll have helped to create a party you can support. You can even vote in a primary without planning to vote in the general election. If the 50% of Americans who don't vote at all (or even a small fraction of them) voted in primaries, they would determine the candidates in the general elections, in which they might then choose to vote as well. 3. If there's no candidate you like in a primary, you can write one in. A relatively very small amount of organizing can even lead to a victory for that candidate. (Or some signature gathering could place your candidate's name on the ballot.) * 4. If there is a good candidate on the ballot, then an extremely small amount of organizing can lead to a victory for that candidate. And something short of a victory can still mean some number of delegates for your candidate going to the party's convention from your state, or momentum for your candidate in future states. Primaries, unlike general elections, are not winner-take-all. (You can even become a delegate for your candidate and get a trip to a convention out of this.) 5. In most presidential elections, the party's nominee is decided before many states hold their primaries. So, for most people, the point of voting is not to choose the nominee. (And therefore almost nobody votes, opening the door to effective action by non-idiots.) The point is also not to "show support and loyalty" for a nominee already chosen (democracies have no need for such displays, which are best suited to another type of regime). Rather, the point is to elect as many delegates as possible for the candidate whose positions you most favor, so that those delegates can influence the party's platform and the nominee's positions at the convention, or even make your candidate the vice presidential nominee. 6. In early states, surprise underdog candidates can build momentum, and voting for such a candidate does not entail spoiling the primary for a mediocre candidate who you believe has a better chance of defeating the worst candidate. This is because it takes several states over a period of days or weeks for one candidate to lock down a victory. A surprising showing for an underdog candidate with dramatically distinct positions can put that candidate into the running in the minds of future voters, and can very quickly move the mediocre candidates to become better than mediocre, and therefore better able to compete in future states. 7. Swing voters almost do not exist. Fewer than 4% of voters in 2004 ever planned to vote for Kerry and switched to Bush or vice versa. So, appealing to one's own base and turning those people out to vote is key to winning the general election. Therefore, Democrats who want to win the general election, for example, should nominate the most Democratic, not the most Republican, candidate in the primaries. (Republicans already know this.) 8. Pre-primary corporate polls that purport to tell us who is most "viable" and "electable" are primarily a product of corporate media coverage and spin, much of which is "coverage" of the previous polls. The way to determine which candidate is most viable begins by canceling your newspaper subscriptions and recycling your television. 9. In a democracy, the most electable candidate is the candidate whom the most people actually like. The most reliable gauge available to any of us of whom people will like is whom we ourselves personally and honestly most like. Therefore, there can be no distinction between whom you like and whom you consider "viable." The candidate you most like, honestly, in your own considered private opinion, is the most viable candidate. And you can make that even more so if you lead by example. Don't just vote, but campaign, promote, and contribute, as much and as early as you can. "To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men [and women], -- that is genius." - Ralph Waldo Emerson. 10. The following are majority positions among Americans, and overwhelmingly majority positions among Democrats: end the occupation of Iraq, impeach the vice president, create single-payer not-for-profit universal health coverage, withdraw from corporate trade agreements like NAFTA, and slash the Pentagon budget in order to invest in diplomacy, foreign aid, education, jobs, and green energy. Only one candidate supports this platform. He came in third in MoveOn.org's poll, and then second in Democrats.com's, then first in Democracy for America's, and most recently first in Progressive Democrats of America's poll. These are polls done outside the corporate media, polls of progressive activists. His campaign is where the energy is, but it is energy that must resist the influence of the corporate media. Our country and our planet are in peril, and we have no viable alternative. Nobody else comes close. His name is Dennis Kucinich. _______ * Write-in candidates are not permitted in some states.
|
What's HotStop Bush from Pardoning Himself
Replace Bush Democrats
Escrow to Keep Obama Progressive Local: connect with Democrats.com members in your State, County, and Congressional District Are you really registered to vote? "Google" your voter registration to find out Ten Reasons to Impeach Bush & CheneyParis Says: No Pardons!Out of Iraq PetitionForumsPollShould Congress Give Paulson $700 Billion Blank Check? Yes 1% No 99% Total votes: 146 Protest and Organize! |
Calling Other Democrats "Idiots?"
Calling a majority of Democrats who do not support Kucinich, "idiots", seems to be the main theme of his supporters. The operative word here is "viable", and sums up the goal of the Democratic Primary race: to put forward a candidate who has broad-based support, and who can actually win the General Election.
A 1-3% showing in the national polls (regardless of media spin) does not make a viable General Election candidate. This may not seem "right" in the eyes of Kucinich's supporters, but it's true...
I'm voting for another Progressive I know...
...My dog.
QUESTION:
Q: Should we each cast a write in vote for someone who best represents our position?
Here in Oregon, we vote by mail only...
All registered voters are sent their ballots, both for the primary and for the regular election.
Our participation averages around 70% participation. That is somewhat better I believe than those beknighted states that still force you to go to a precinct to vote.
If you are going to write in a candidate, check your voting laws first. Some states allow it and some don't. Always safer to check in advance.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
NO DAMMIT!!!
I'll WRITE IN THE BEST DAMNED CANDIDATE REGARDLESS!
It'll show em.
And tanks for taking da "bait".
;)
Of course not.
We should never under any circumstances vote for candidates who actually represent our interest. That would be democracy.
We should only vote for candidates who will give our money to big-money corporate interests as they send our children off to kill innocent people in Iran. Those are the viable candidates. I know, because the corporate media said so.
And again you evade THE QUESTION.
And again you change the subject.
You failed to change this Nation.
I failed to change it.
If Ralph Nader, Kucinich, Herb Albert, or Mo, carrying the Progressive banner, are not the overwhelming front runners then we have failed...and we HAVE.
(Though a dynamic front runner can make up for some of our failings.)
----------
I'll ask again in a different way, not that I any longer expect analysis or discourse from hit and run posters, but if a better Progressive than Dennis comes around a day before the election will you vote for them?
YES? NO?
If not, why not?
Oh hell, I'll answer the damned question for you: Because you know that new guy will NOT get elected and then you'll make zero gains.
----------
In case you have not noticed, I have never opposed Kucinich, just the argument that he is the only intelligent choice AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME.
The only opposition I have seen here came to balance all the finger pointing at warts on the Democratic front runners.
Who's changing the subject?
Yes, we've failed to change the nation. So far. Change is difficult. As I. F. Stone observed, an attempt at positive change pretty much always has to fail many, many times before it succeeds. Doesn't mean we should give up. (It's "Nader", by the way.)
I can't give a serious answer to your question, because it depends on circumstances. I'd have to weigh the benefits of one approach versus another. From what you say, that's little different than what you're doing -- we just came to different conclusions, that's all.
So tell me why Kucinich isn't the only intelligent choice at this time? Because it sure seems like a no-brainer to me. If Kucinich loses the primary, we're stuck with one of the big-money, pro-war candidates, which is no worse off than we'd be if we supported one of those candidates to begin with.
If Kucinich loses the
If Kucinich loses the primary...? He will not only lose, he will be lucky if he gets the needle off the peg.
Did you notice what you did?
You finally agreed with me!
-------
My argument was NOT about voting for Kucinich or not. Never has been.
It's been about allowing enough room for folks to argue the merits of voting for Kucinich or not.
Case closed...I hope.
-------
So we are in agreement (within context) on your first two paragraphs.
As to your third: ooy vey. How about we take a pause to let the agreed upon point sink in.
Without a pause I'm afraid more folks are going to be off to the races accusing others of being manipulated be MSM.
Jim seems frustrated...
WE are actually trying (and succeeding to an extent) to change the Democratic Party. You just seem to want to crap all over our efforts. Do you have any constructive ideas or are you just here to blast Kucinich supporters?
I have a mole of constructive ideas.
Track my posts.
(My consternation comes from folks trying to advance overly broad arguments while not answering specific objections to the logic.)
TECH POINT
Please hit reply so the conversation can be followed.
Thanks.
Bill_in_Mich, We have had lots of ...
constructive ideas. We are not here, nor have we been, just to blast Kucinich supporters.
We do respond to the arrogance and other nonsense dumped upon us by Kucinich Brownshirts. Many times, over the past few elections, the Brownshirts have come as a group and attempted to shove Dennis down our collective throats. A little bit of humility sometimes works wonders.
You are just one more of 'THEM' insofar as your posts indicate. They skew any poll they can get to. You doubt this: Then why is Dennis racing along at about 1%...maybe a stretch at 2%. Why should we vote for someone will never obtain the nomination.
Frankly, I'd much rather vote for Jim's dog.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
Please cut the hyperbole.
Personally, I've always felt that throwing around accusations of Nazi-ness is disrespectful to the people who died at the hands of the real Nazis. Regardless of what you may think of Kucinich supporters, none of us have been herding people into death camps.
As for the polls, what does "skew" mean? Do you have any evidence that there's been cheating? It's true that the Kucinich campaign has worked to get people out to vote in those polls. That's a good ability to have in an election. But I'll note that Kucinich also won PDA's poll despite the restriction that one had to be a member of PDA for something like six weeks in order to vote in the poll.
Nazis and "brownshirts" come
Nazis and "brownshirts" come in different flavors. The Third Reich was just an extremely horrible variation on a theme...
You are the one who is
You are the one who is frustrated. We at Democrats.com have been working very hard at changing the Democratic Leadership from the very beginning of this blog. It is Al From, Joe Liberman, and the other self-appointed neocon "leaders" of the DLC who have splintered our Party.
When you say "we," exactly who are you talking about? You Kucinich supporters evidently feel that you are somehow outside the grassroots activists who are advocating meaningful and realistic change, and feel superior to the rest of us. Get over yourselves.
Kucinich is a good Democrat -- he is just not presidential material. He has no track record of accomplishment, and he does not have the support of his fellow Democrats in Congress. He certainly does not have the support of the majority of grassroots Middle American Democrats, as evidenced by national independent (non-MSM) polls.
As a new member who obviously has not researched this blog, and has no understanding of what we are trying to accomplish, please do not presume to tell us that you are here to save us from ourselves. It is you who needs an education -- not us.
For those who are interested
For those who are interested in reality, here is but one sampling of the current non-MSM national polls:
"For the seven days ending December 9, Hillary Clinton earns 35% of the vote. Barack Obama is second at 26% followed by John Edwards at 14%. Bill Richardson is at 5%, Joe Biden attracts 3%, Dennis Kucinich 2%. Chris Dodd and Mike Gravel are at 1% while 12% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters are undecided .
The seven day results typically include interviews with more than 1,000 Likely Democratic Primary Voters. This includes both Democrats and those independents likely to vote in a Democratic Primary. In some state primaries, independent voters are allowed to participate in party primaries while in others they are excluded. The margin of sampling error for the weekly update is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence."
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2...
The major reason we need a Dem president...
is to protect the judicial system and the Supreme Court, now badly skewed. A fairly even balance in all the courts is essential.
A mind once expanded can never return to its original dimensions.
Anne Hathaway: 1556-1623
The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so.
The crappy candidates...
...will indeed do that.
And I'm not mentioning names ;)
Since Kucinich
doesn't really have a chance, and maybe even Edwards can't keep up with the Hillary-Obama momentum; it's a moot point. Between the two likely Democratic primary winners, we'll see which one really wants to save the Constitution and restore the balance of power in the courts, and support the many other Progressive issues. If talk is cheap for Kucinich, it's cheap for the chosen ones as well. We'll see what they say and how they say it; and what they do to show they mean it, or not.