Do you agree with Obama's compromise?

[weemadando]

Isn't that thinking cyclical?

People refuse to back third parties because they have no power. They have no power because nobody votes for them.

The only way for a 3rd Party to be so much as credible is if a sizable number of politicians from either or both parties break away and set up their own shop. Otherwise, it won't work.

That's how the Democrats were formed in Australia, but The Greens over here have run from scratch and are now the third party who hold the balance of power in both houses.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

That's how the Democrats were formed in Australia, but The Greens over here have run from scratch and are now the third party who hold the balance of power in both houses.

What works in Australia won't work in America because of the slush of funds etc. that come from the rich and big corporations that goes into the political parties. Any third party must attract a sizable stash of funds from these sources for it to work.

In any case, Americans like to argue black and white to the death with no grey in between. I can't ever imagine them having a 3rd party since the culture may well not support it.

[darthdavid]

My state is fairly deep blue so I don't feel bad at all voting third party in the next election. Obama got my vote once and he's done nothing at all to show that he actually deserved it.

Even if it is a 'throw away' vote well, these days the Dems are little better than the Repubs. I'm pretty damn liberal. Why should I vote for a center right party that occasionally pretends to be progressive when it thinks that will make people vote for them (let alone the regressive moron party)?

If neither party with a legitimate chance of winning is going to do anything I agree with anyway does it really count as 'throwing your vote away' to vote third party? What I want to see happen won't no matter what and at least this way I might possibly be helping a third party get enough votes to hit critical mass and actually become a legitimate contender in a future election.

[weemadando]

That's how the Democrats were formed in Australia, but The Greens over here have run from scratch and are now the third party who hold the balance of power in both houses.

What works in Australia won't work in America because of the slush of funds etc. that come from the rich and big corporations that goes into the political parties. Any third party must attract a sizable stash of funds from these sources for it to work.

In any case, Americans like to argue black and white to the death with no grey in between. I can't ever imagine them having a 3rd party since the culture may well not support it.

You think corruption and slush funds are exclusively American issues?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

You think corruption and slush funds are exclusively American issues?

Certainly not on the same scale.

[weemadando]

You think corruption and slush funds are exclusively American issues?

Certainly not on the same scale.

I'm sorry, but did you have a sitting President backstabbed and kicked out of office because they proposed a policy that threatened the exceedingly massive profits of an industry?

Because that happened to our last PM.

[Soldier of Entropy]

I plan to vote for him, though I disapprove of his actions, because I don't know what else he could have done. At this point, I am seriously doubting the idea that the American public will wise up to the media, political, and procedural tricks of the right-wing lunatics who are dragging our country down with anything less than a major depression, and even that isn't a sure thing. Do I want this? No. However, I doubt that it is, at this point, avoidable. Perhaps I'm being defeationist, but it's how it looks to me.

[SirNitram]

Third party

Which one has the powerbase, voter base, and infrastructure to offer a credible chance of getting to the top? As opposed to just, you know, talking about it or having debates with finger puppets(One might guess I don't like Nader. They'd be right.)?

Isn't that thinking cyclical?

People refuse to back third parties because they have no power. They have no power because nobody votes for them.

This thinking is logical. If it reveals ugly truths about the political system and the reality of third parties, that is not the fault of those pointing these facts out.

[Bluewolf]

To be honest. Obama has shown more and more to be licking the boots of the Republican party. With this mind, the whole "At least he's not a Republican" defence is falling to bits. Who cares anymore? Obama allows and defends torture, continues tax cuts, engages in austerity measures, 'compromises' on many potions to the point of practically being GOP ones, is a lacky of corporations and so on. Sure you could argue he is doing better with the whole DADT affair and some other areas and while that is significant, there is little to separate him from a member of the GOP anymore.

So, I am sorry Nitram I can't fault some people at least TRYING to introduce an alternative when the main options are mainly separated by two colours. You cannot blame people for wanting another way out of this. Maybe another Republican term is the price of such an action (due to lost Democrat votes) and maybe it's worth it. Voting Obama is only buying times and it's not like you're being saved from the right wing clap trap that the GOP have often pushed. In a perverse way, sadly, maybe the GOP need to damage America more before people actually sodding realise. I don't think of what else would work. It's inevitable they will get in anyway. On top of that, the Dems or the Republicans have no interesting in changing the voting system, in benefits them.

So in the a way, maybe we need people voting heavily in third parties and as said, maybe a GOP term of two is what is the price for such actions.

PS: Of course, you could just have dissatisfied people not vote instead of voting Dem stuck in a constant lesser of the two evils scenario.

[Simon_Jester]

Bluewolf, that's the sort of argument which is much easier to make casually when you don't have hostages to fortune who will have to deal with the predictable consequences of a Tea Party president. You, living on the other side of an ocean, don't have to deal with the problem yourself and probably aren't all that close to a lot of people who will.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I'm sorry, but did you have a sitting President backstabbed and kicked out of office because they proposed a policy that threatened the exceedingly massive profits of an industry?

Because that happened to our last PM.

Oh please. I am not even American, but if you think industry using the press to push its own piece is the only thing that happens in America, you are damn hell wrong. You have god knows how many think tanks, organizations masquerading as whatever funded by rich fucks who use them to push their own ideology whatever. The Tea Party is just the only most extreme example.

Your Prime Minister got backstabbed by his own party is because his own party doesn't have the balls to close ranks and oppose them and fight the press, or rather your politicians surrendered the press to Murdoch.

[Bluewolf]

Bluewolf, that's the sort of argument which is much easier to make casually when you don't have hostages to fortune who will have to deal with the predictable consequences of a Tea Party president. You, living on the other side of an ocean, don't have to deal with the problem yourself and probably aren't all that close to a lot of people who will.

While it'd be arrogant for me to say that I know all about such a grim situation, I can relate. In the UK, we have the same problem of the same two colours getting in and both going further and further right wing. Hell, even our third main party went that way. It is approaching the same sort of sad "lesser of the two evils" routine. I admit I'd be sheltered from the consequences of my argument and if I had a livelihood and family or knew someone like that with, my view would be quite a painful one, one that'd be much debated over in my mind. I can respect that pain is very real for many people here and elsewhere.

Yet, I just don't it as any other option at this rate. Democrats seem to be a slow slide into this teabagger nightmare whereas the Republicans are the quicker option. Sadly though, if this cycle has any chance of being broken, you have to take that plunge. Otherwise we are going to have this problem repeat itself for another decade and another.

[Temujin]

I don't approve, but was already not going to vote for him again anyway as at this point he's as much a part of the problem.

He either wholeheartedly embraces Republican policies (e.g., the whole torture issue) or puts up an anemic defense (helped by the many spineless Democrats), only allowing the issues to be continuously dragged further to the right. All the while he's up there trying to present himself as some sort of Solomonesque figure, constantly yapping about bipartisanship while often turning around and bashing his own party and supporters, particularly the progressives.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I don't agree with his capitulation and I'm not voting for him. As far as I'm concerned, he and the Democrats are part of the problem, not the solution. If I wanted Republicans controlling legislative decisions I would've voted for them. I've already made up my mind to vote Socialist Party USA come election time.

[erik_t]

Shut-in clueless morons 'showing the Democrats' by making protest votes (or no vote) is how we ended up in this fucking mess in the first place. But go ahead, keep doing more of the same. When your state ends up the next Wisconsin or Ohio, you'll find no pity from me.

[Broken]

While I personally think Obama is making the only realistic choice in this mess since I don't see how letting the nation default could possibly be a better choice, I don't approve of the spinelessness and preemptive surrender tactics the Democrats and especially White House has engaged in. And yes, the dismissive backhanding of the progressive wing by the White House is getting sickening.

Honestly though, no one should be surprised. Remember Grover Norquist, "drown government in a bathtube" anti-tax lunatic. The guy whose pledge was reportedly signed by 233 of 240 House Republicans and 40 of 47 Senators (Democrats have 2 House and 1 Senate signers) who seem to hold that oath as more binding then their oath to the Constitution. Way back in 2003 at a class reunion he explained what was going to happen. Washington Post



During his presentation, Norquist explained why he believed that there would be a permanent Republican majority in America.

One person interrupted, as I recall, and said, “C’mon, Grover, surely one day a Democrat will win the White House.”

Norquist immediately replied: “We will make it so that a Democrat cannot govern as a Democrat.”



It would be one thing if this was just one guy with his anti-tax fetish. I don't think there is any super-plan to make the make it impossible for a Democrat to govern effectively. I do think at the moment we have a critical mass of allied interests on the Right that refuse to accept any outcomes other then "we make the rules" regardless of who happened to win those pesky elections.

And yes, I will vote for Obama again because I happen to live and vote at the moment in Florida and truly do not wish to see and Bush v Gore nightmare.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Shut-in clueless morons 'showing the Democrats' by making protest votes (or no vote) is how we ended up in this fucking mess in the first place. But go ahead, keep doing more of the same. When your state ends up the next Wisconsin or Ohio, you'll find no pity from me.

The Democrats are the ones who keep making 'compromises' that are really nothing but total capitulation that perpetuate our continuous skewing towards the right. It's patently ridiculous that one can't decide that they're sick of the so-called liberals not being liberals and want to vote for someone who actually does represent their views without being labeled childish protest voters.

[Simon_Jester]

Shut-in clueless morons 'showing the Democrats' by making protest votes (or no vote) is how we ended up in this fucking mess in the first place. But go ahead, keep doing more of the same. When your state ends up the next Wisconsin or Ohio, you'll find no pity from me.

Yeah, I kind of agree. If you really want to make a protest vote, it should be in the primary, or in internal party dynamics. The general election is not the best time for protest votes, unless you have the luxury of living somewhere that you can be reasonably sure the protest votes won't flip the outcome.

For example, I won't be voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, because out of the probable field of Democratic candidates, I am fairly sure that there will be better people seeking nomination on the Democratic ticket. Obama will probably still win anyway because he's a sitting president, but I do have some honor as a voter to consider.

What will I do in the general election? I'm going to be voting Democrat locally- local Dems in my state are pretty cool, good enough to suit me anyway. I may well be voting Democrat nationally- although, again, I live in a blue enough state that I have the luxury of protest voting. But then, if the greater of two evils is really really bad, maybe I will vote for the lesser, just to avoid any risk of having to deal with the greater. I don't know.


On a largely irrelevant side note, if the Republicans hold an open primary in Maryland this election cycle, I will be sorely tempted to write in Shep for that...

[Aniron]

Shut-in clueless morons 'showing the Democrats' by making protest votes (or no vote) is how we ended up in this fucking mess in the first place. But go ahead, keep doing more of the same. When your state ends up the next Wisconsin or Ohio, you'll find no pity from me.

The Democrats aren't even left-leaning, moron. They are center-right assholes, compromising on things because they are pussies and are afraid of losing in the next election. Why should I vote for them again when I despise and loathe them as much as Republicans because of this? Besides, voting in the Bible Belt for anything other than Republican is a waste of time and a vote because a party switch will not occur. My state ending up like Ohio and Wisconsin will happen with or without my vote.

[Alphawolf55]

Question what was Obama realistically suppose to do in this instance? The fourteenth amendment probably wouldn't work (and could potentially get him impeached) and the tea party were refusing compromises what so ever. How do you honestly deal with a group that a majority in the House, votes in lockstep and is willing to bring down the entire country for mere ideals.

It seems that rather then make symbolic votes that only help Republicans like voting for third parties, the main focus should be getting rid of tea party house members in 2012.

[Simon_Jester]

Shut-in clueless morons 'showing the Democrats' by making protest votes (or no vote) is how we ended up in this fucking mess in the first place. But go ahead, keep doing more of the same. When your state ends up the next Wisconsin or Ohio, you'll find no pity from me.

The Democrats aren't even left-leaning, moron. They are center-right assholes, compromising on things because they are pussies and are afraid of losing in the next election. Why should I vote for them again when I despise and loathe them as much as Republicans because of this? Besides, voting in the Bible Belt for anything other than Republican is a waste of time and a vote because a party switch will not occur. My state ending up like Ohio and Wisconsin will happen with or without my vote.

Why write off the Democrats instead of trying to reclaim them?

I've never quite understood this thinking- why does it make more sense to go found a third party than to try to mobilize an effective caucus for your interests within an existing one? There's already a progressive caucus in the Dems, after all; it's just not very big or influential in this election cycle because the national policy is still pursuing a center-right platform. But that can be changed.

[erik_t]

Question what was Obama realistically suppose to do in this instance? The fourteenth amendment probably wouldn't work (and could potentially get him impeached) and the tea party were refusing compromises what so ever. How do you honestly deal with a group that a majority in the House, votes in lockstep and is willing to bring down the entire country for mere ideals.

It seems that rather then make symbolic votes that only help Republicans like voting for third parties, the main focus should be getting rid of tea party house members in 2012.

Wave your magic pony fairy wand, or take your ball and go home. Or something. Because when your frustration is that you get lots of nice-sounding talk but no real result, the obvious solution to the problem is to vote Socialist Party USA.

[Minischoles]

Shut-in clueless morons 'showing the Democrats' by making protest votes (or no vote) is how we ended up in this fucking mess in the first place. But go ahead, keep doing more of the same. When your state ends up the next Wisconsin or Ohio, you'll find no pity from me.

The Democrats aren't even left-leaning, moron. They are center-right assholes, compromising on things because they are pussies and are afraid of losing in the next election. Why should I vote for them again when I despise and loathe them as much as Republicans because of this? Besides, voting in the Bible Belt for anything other than Republican is a waste of time and a vote because a party switch will not occur. My state ending up like Ohio and Wisconsin will happen with or without my vote.

Why write off the Democrats instead of trying to reclaim them?

I've never quite understood this thinking- why does it make more sense to go found a third party than to try to mobilize an effective caucus for your interests within an existing one? There's already a progressive caucus in the Dems, after all; it's just not very big or influential in this election cycle because the national policy is still pursuing a center-right platform. But that can be changed.

How exactly are you going to reclaim the Democrats? pretty much Obama's entire term has shown that at best he's a centre right candidate, the only reason Americans even consider him left wing is because he's to the left of the far right wing GOP.

You will never 'reclaim' the Democrats by continuing to vote for them, you'll just continue to perpetuate the same problems that led here. It'll just prove they can do whatever they want and just point a the GOP and go 'at least we're not them, keep voting for us'. The only way they'll ever change is if they lose the only thing politicians understand, if they lose a shit ton of votes.
Admittedly at this point you'd probably be handing the country to the GOP, but then again would you really notice the difference? Obama already bends over and asks for it whenever the GOP want something.

[Darksider]

I think IP's comparison of liberals who vote democratic to battered wives is correct. Aside from a few individuals the democrats have never stood up for the principles espoused by the left wing, and I doubt they ever will. The fact that so many people think they have no choice but to vote democrat when they are a center-right party at best just shows how broken our political system is.

Honestly, at this point I'm just doing everything I can to get the fuck out of here as fast as I can and emigrate to a country where people actually have a voice in government.

[Bluewolf]

One must wonder how much different things would be now if McCain would have gotten in. I mean hypothetically he doesn't seem that far off anymore. (PS I don't give a shit abut the "What about Paaaaliin if he dieeed stuff, I am thinking if he served the same term length as Obama has so far).

Anyway we have just hit the problem with this. In order to change either the Democrats or empower an alternative, you have to kill a fair bit of the Democrats voting base. This would probably mean a GOP candidate gets in. There is no way to dance around this or go what if. No one is in those top two parties wants to damage their parties chances with a new voting system. No one is going to magically shift to the left. No one is going to magically change like pixie dust in 2012. Votes and money speak louder than words and the only way to make the Dems realise the wants of it's progressive wing is to starve them of those two qualities. It's grim, painful and tragic but that's what it's come to.

Honestly, at this point I'm just doing everything I can to get the fuck out of here as fast as I can and emigrate to a country where people actually have a voice in government.

Have fun with Cana-oh shit, wait.