If your candidate does NOT win the nomination will you

Note: #3's in there because I've seen people say this often...

so let's do this.
:nuke:

several factors in play.

Depends on who the candidate is. Kucinich is the only one I'm even moderately enthused about.

Depends on whether the candidate has any chance of winning my state (KY).

If the nominee would end up being Lieberman, for example, I would probably go third party.

Electoral votes are what count. If you live in a safe Bush state, there is nothing to lose voting third party.

...if it's Kucinich, Kerry, or somehow Moseley-Braun, I'll probably hold my nose and vote for him/her; if it's someone else, then it's Green, baby.

Is it still called the Green Party? I thought they'd bowed to truth in advertising and changed the name to the Spoiled White Children's Party.

Go Dean.

I guess you wanted to make your debut here by stirring up a flamewar? Why toss out such gratuitous insults? Either that or you're trying to give Dean supporters a bad name.

BTW, I thought Dean was trying to recruit Greens -- Greens for Dean? I don't think yours is an effective strategy.

ironic I think

:eyes:

who wont even be eligible
If Kucinich is to lose the primary, you bet I would be disappointed but proud of him, and would send him a thank you email for inspring me and others, and wish up the best of luck. I would support the nominee depending on who it is, I would actively or not support the person, if DK loses I will support either Gephardt, Kerry, or perhaps Dean remember I am pretty economically liberal so I like Gephardt, and I like Kerry's all around liberalism, I do like Dean but other than his views on gays and the war theres not much I know that thrills me.

Hey...if Repubs can pull vote shenanigans in FL, we can let you vote here at DU! :)

I remember during the `88 election I was so pissed. My 18th B-day was only a couple of weeks AFTER the election. Grrr! My friends all thought I was nuts...none of them really cared about the election. I doubt half of them even vote these days.

besides I think if I can I am gonna lead HHS for Kucinich if I can but you know, this area is gonna be hard but I am gonna be advertising for the man who has the best mission imo daily, who knows some kid may check out www.kucinich.us so if you hear about a lot of Kucinichites in Virginia, maybe I helped. All I can say is I think Kucinich would be the best man for the job and if he doesnt get the nod, a thank you and will support someone else, an all around liberal or populist.

Nice job lurking freeper :eyes:

Surely, based on some of the fine, "obviously progressive" threads
and replies one reads around here these days, this can't have
surprised you much, can it? We're full of DLCers and other Republican
wannabees (although I'm setting more and more of them on "ignore").

By the way, it's up to two votes for Bush.

Atlant

Actually it's now at 6 votes for Bush.
2 Directly
2 for the Greens
2 write ins or other 3d party. ANY vote that's not for the Democrat is a vote for Bush!

and count the 28 votes that wouldn't go to Lieberman as votes for Bush as well.

... Vote for PNAC (Lieberman), or you're voting for PNAC (Shrub).

So in other words, if Holy Joe wins the nomination it really doesn't matter.

Nader might have been wrong about the "dime's worth of difference" between Gore and Dipshit, but the phrase fits Holy Joe - at least when it comes to foreign policy.

It's NOT just foreign policy, or are you saying Leiberman (who I can't stand either) would appoint the same judges as Shrub, gut the enviromental egulations the same, try to dismantle headstart, etc? Just because Leiberman's Iraq policy is offensive DOESN'T make him the same as Bush on everything...

Woodrow fan called votes that showed people would vote 3rd party if {A} their candidate is not chosen to be votes for Bush. That is bullshit, but he and many others here are attached to that bullshit. My objection is that when people say they won't vote democratic if {B} Lieberman is the candidate they are doing something very similar to saying they won't vote for a candidate other than their chosen one. So if Woodrow fan is going to label the people who won't vote democratic if A happens as Bush voters, then he should also lable those who won't vote democratic when B happens as Bush voters too. Hence the "If you are going to be intellectually dishonest, at least be consistent (misspelled the first time)"

Nothing else in your post had even entered my mind.

On edit: recap: Only a vote for Bush is a vote for Bush.

I will not vote for another Republican democrat like Clinton like I did in the past. I will vote for at the time the one that I like. I think Ted Kennedy will probably run I will vote for him as well as Clark.

The other 8 stooges a vote for them is a vote for Bush.

I like Kucinich but he does not look presidential but I would vote for him if he is on the ticket in 2004 against Bush.

my stomach, etc. and vote even for Lieberman. Then if he can beat Bush, I'll put up with four years of more sanctimony than even Bush.

But seriously, AABB: Almost Anybody But Bush. I'd hate for Pat Robertson to entertain any false hope.

As I said before, I won't be holding my nose. I will be in a full hazmat suit, with a kevlar vest, while being hosed down by water, so as not to spontaneously combust!!!

:argh: at the thought!!!

...regardless of who it is, because I know that the massive grassroots efforts behind certain candidacies will continue to influence, and if necessary, oppose, certain actions and positions by any eventual candidate.

I've never voted third party but will if I have to. For several years I've doubted that Lieberman was a Democrat at heart. Wellstone was a Democrat, Kucinich as well as the other candidates are Democrats (Clark.....?) but Lieberman is an opportunistic MOLE. IMO

"Anybody But Bush or Lieberman"

Although, to be honest, if teh Dem were Edwards or Graham, I'd need
to think long and hard before I "pulled the lever". If I thought that
they were dragging the party further Right, I would vote further left.
The Democrats will be totally destroyed if they go any further Right
than they already are.

Atlant

I'll repeat what I've said before. We have to unite behind our candidate when the issue is settled. Personally I'm for Kerry, but I'm not against the others. I'm only against bush jr. & his rethuglican SS corps.:puke:

ANY D over any r in '04! :bounce:

It's a matter of religion with me.

I haven't yet chosen a candidate to support. I have eliminated the four vichydems from consideration, nor will I vote for them if they should get the nomination. If one of them should, I'll vote Green.

Kerry, Lieberman, Gephardt and Edwards. You know, the ones that supported the massacre (ongoing) in Iraq.

Either way, Nader or potato soup, KKKarl will love you. Chimpy will adore you. Ashcroft will cry out your name in the night with longing. Hell, Rummy may even write your initials on a couple of bombs.

That's the attitude that gave us Bush in the first place, Greens that didn't want to "settle" for Gore and voted for Nadar. Let's be clear people, any vote that NOT for the Democrat is a vote for Bush, period.

He seems to be the candidate Democrats would vote for who wanted to sacrifice the future for the sake of the present. He was a big reason why I voted for Nader in 2000; He is a self-hating Democrat. He has a quite a bit of taint on him. He says Dean will lead the Dems to the political wilderness; he doesn't admit that we are already there, and that he got us here.

Luckily, it looks like there is no chance that Lieberman will get the nod. He is too squishy to take the Oval Office.

But, otherwise, I will gladly vote for any other Dem candidate, even Sharpton.

al gore ain't gonna happen.

there have been numerous threads stating that people would support any democrat EXCEPT a candidate who voted for the war ...

that's my position ...

too bad your poll didn't provide this popular choice ...

If need be...ANYONE in the Democratic party is better than Bush!:kick:

Regardless of the name.

I won't like it but it has to be done. I don't agree 100% with every candidate. But that's almost always the way it is.

unless the Dem nominee is LaRouche or Lieberman, I'm going to fight like hell for whomever wins the nomination!!

(Which means, there's a 99.9999999% chance I'm going to be fighting like hell! :D)

If I recall correctly, some voters traded votes last Presidential election (that never really was). The way I understood it is that people in a hopeless state, like mine (Texas) would vote a protest vote (Green or other) while the voter who traded would vote Gore in a state that had a chance of going for Gore.

If I don't have this right, someone please correct me.

Anyway, perhaps we should start to encourage people to do this if they cannot bear to vote for certain Democrats. This might be a solution of some people and save a few votes from the black hole of a third party candidate.

That's an interesting approach.

Would you be willing to "take an action item" to remind us of
this come November, 2004?

(I'm not joking.)

Atlant

would vote only for one other candidate - and then say otherwise they would vote for bush.

So bush is better than most other options? Sorry, but why are you hanging out here? I find it curious that numerous "duers" would select this option.

It depends on who DOES get the nomination if my candidate doesn't get the nomination.

If Lieberman gets it I'm third party all the way.

Gephardt, Edwards or Kerry gets it and I'm "undecided".

Anybody else and I'm 100% behind them.