so let's talk about third party voters

this is NOT a thread about condoning those who vote for third parties ... nor is it a thread meant to invite the usual DU bashing of third party voters ... i have no confidence that certain DU neanderthals will be able to avoid that but still think the issue is worth raising ... the goal here is to try to understand why people who may have been Democrats now vote for third parties (whether we agree with them or NOT) and what if anything the Democratic Party can do to win back their support (that would be a good thing, wouldn't it?) ...

ultimately, one key goal of any political party, and certainly the Democratic Party is no exception, should be to attract as many voters as possible ... there are several different ways to attract voters ... some voters are "true blue automatic" ... you're a Democrat; you get their vote ... not much work to do there ... but there are other voters, and equally as important non-voters, who don't fit that category ...

some in the Democratic Party, and here on DU, subscribe to the belief that we can attract moderate republicans and independents by moving the Party's political ideology to the right ... it is NOT the intent of this post to explore that strategy ... this post is specifically intended to discuss those who vote for third parties, and to speculate why they do so, and those who don't vote because they have lost faith in the government itself and more specifically in the Democratic Party ...

we have a political situation where some percentage, be it small or large, of previous Democrats have left the Party ... with regard to the Party's "left wing", one can reasonably conclude that these voters no longer believe the Party represents their views on key issues ... classic DU criticisms of these voters are "Nader gave us bush"; even if true, this does not address changing the status quo to attract these alienated voters ... you do not build your party by bashing those who have left it ...

too many of us are trapped in the left versus right paradigm ... you hear arguments like: "if we moved the party way to the left, we'd be catering to one extreme and would never get anyone elected" ... the whole model is deeply rooted in the belief that the political spectrum determines the outcome of elections ... it sees the world as a political continuum on which each and every candidate can be neatly assigned a location ... my view of the world is that the political spectrum is largely a myth that constrains all ideas and political discourse to an extremely narrow spectrum of ideas ... accepting the spectrum myth essentially enforces the status quo with all "at the margins" arguments being labeled as extremist arguments ...

but spectrum arguments quickly breakdown when talking about ideas like reform, ideas like democracy and ideas about making America live up to the ideals of our Constitution ... is it "left-wing" to talk about wanting the Congress not to succumb to lobbying pressures? should right-wing fundies want a government that serves their best interests ahead of the interests of a narrow band of greedy corporatists? reforms are needed to restore our democratic institutions and make government accountable to the masses ...

so what does this kind of thinking have to do with third parties and Democrats? good question ...

my view is that the Democratic Party needs to open a real dialog with the American people on issues like the reform of our government ... the Party needs to be more effective in reaching out to those in third parties who believe both parties are beholding to special interests ... i don't see fighting against big money lobbyists as a left and right issue; i see it as fighting for the public's interest ahead of special interests ...

all the gibberish about "purists" badly misses the point ... the Democratic Party should fight hard to get big money out of the halls of our government and should reach out with a positive message to third party voters to return to the Democratic Party to help them accomplish this mission ... reforming a corrupt, unresponsive political process is a very powerful message ... again, this has nothing to do with shifting the party to the left or the right or any other place; it has to do with the fundamentals of democracy ...

it's time to stop the bullshit bashing of Greens and other alienated voters and non-voters and start designing a realistic process to "bring them home" ... those neanderthals who delight in the bashing are not doing the Democratic Party any favors and are certainly not proposing constructive ideas on how to recapture these lost votes ... and after all, gaining more votes for Democrats rather than driving voters further away from Democrats is one of DU's stated missions, isn't it? let's put an end to the third party bashing and get back to discussing some positive approaches to attract these voters ...

if you want voters from other tents besides the blue tent speak to their needs. If their needs are in conflict with your blue base, then dump them.

So we shouldn't be going after red voters who think gays should be strung up by their nads, and we should be going after the issues that turn people to Green and Independent and other third parties - their POV's are usually not in conflict with our core dark blue middle.

consider the following "reform issue": the oil industry and their powerful lobby has a strangehold on our government ... we have sky-high energy prices, we face the risk of peak oil, we have global warming and we have a government that continues to cater to Big Oil at the expense of the American people ...

now a typical left-right debate springs up, say between a right-wing and left-wing pair of Congressional candidates about whether the government should mandate solar energy panels for every house in the country ... one side sees it as an expensive intrusion into the lives of Americans; the other side sees it as a common-sense way to prepare for our "energy future" ... and back and forth they argue and all they achieve is a bitterly divided electorate ...

but the larger issues never gets addressed ... it is conceivable, at least to me, that Democrats running on a "reform" platform could point out that whether the solar panel issue is a good idea or not, it's in the best interests of all Americans to ensure that the Congress is voting in their interests rather than in the interests of a very narrow, very wealthy, very powerful few ... the reality is that 1/10 of one percent is getting the lion's share of benefits produced from federal policies and the rest of us, left, right, and center are left to quibble over left versus right minutia ...

so you may be right that strongly anti-gay voters might never vote for a Democrat ... but i believe ALL constituencies are worth pursuing because a genuine reform message is in the best interests of 99.9% of the population ... that's what i think we keep missing here ... and some on the right will be blinded by their gods, gays and guns ideology; but some will understand that regardless of which party is in power, when someone's got their hand in the cookie jar, most of us aren't going to get too many cookies ...

I'm a yellow-dog "true blue automatic" Dem with a mind of my own. It would be very difficult if not impossible to abandon the party as a whole.

That doesn't mean that I can stomach a vote for those Dems I consider just short of reprehensible. It also doesn't mean I can be swayed toward thinking that a third party is my only alternative.

One weakness I see is that no one, but no one, in the Party is paying any serious attention to sites like Democratic Underground, My DD, or Daily Kos, among the many. ZI yell it at them, I scream it, but again it appears no one in the party leadership is paying any atention.

There's a billion dollars worth of political wisdom here. and it's all free, DNC. If you can't take all of it, just put Husb2BSparkly on your buddy list and go from there. I don't always agree with him, but he has had some fucking brilliant strategy in the past.

in the party have done nothing for me in the past three decades and have no plan to do anything for me in the future, as their platform clearly states. Party conservatives seem to think we're a nation composed entirely of the upper middle class and have completely ignored the party's working class base so long the base has lost all hope and sits home on election day rather than vote for business as usual.

I will vote, but I will vote third party. Even a Quixotic vote with no hope of success will send a message to the hidebound conservative elitists running the party from within the I-95 beltway around DC.

When a party deserts its base, it deserves to lose. The GOP knows that, and when it broadened its base to include religious people, it continued to pay close attention to what they wanted and needed, even as they stole them all blind along with the rest of us.

Until the Democrats at the center of party power stop taking the working class base for granted and start to respond to its issues, it will continue to lose to GOPs who promise bait and switch tax cuts combined with old time religion. It will deserve to lose.

Surprisingly, my politics are pretty close to how you describe yours, but as I mention above, I just can't see myself abandoning the party.

What are some ideas/issues/strategies that could help us bring you and the many, many, many like you back?

Well I feel Green are more Dem. than what we have in Congress or who is running but I would take a Dem. I sort of like than a far right GOP. Nader seems to stand for more than Gore ran on and that is some what unsettling to me. I think Gore is a Dem but what was he doing when he ran? I voted but was unhappy with him. I usually feel good about Kennedy as I seem to know how he feels. Even Kerry was odd when he ran. Yet I have always liked him. I can not understand why any of these men let Bush have all that power. Only Mn. Sen had any guts. It is a pesty thing going on in Congress.My mind is unclear on what the Dem. are doing.

For the love of God, how much clearer can it be. We have the Republican Party breaking in two, which I said we should work towards right after Nov 2004. Force the liberal Republicans to choose between party and the right wing nuts. Well that's happening and the liberal Republicans are finally balking and would readily go do a mainstream Democratic Party. IF the Greens had built the left from the OUTSIDE, we would now have a mainstream party that could win AND a strong Green Party to be the minority that the Democrats are now. We could have joined together to push the right wing extremists back into their corner, where the left is now. We would have won the "culture wars" and totally changed the direction of the country.

But noooo, we still have to fight over a strategy that clearly doesn't work. It didn't work for the Republicans, see the disarray. It won't work for Democrats, see the disarray. Democrats or Republicans will represent the great middle. That's choice A. Choice B is whether the main fringe party will be Greens or the Christian Coalition.

Decide.

Any party who cannot capitalize on this mess by 2004, 2006, whoa 2008 is DEAD. Billary had better not be in the front-runner position in 2008.

i would be interested to know what kinds of changes from the Democrats you require if you are to vote for a Democrat in 2008?

taking minority voters for granted. Getting out of WTO/NAFTA. Actually doing something about renewable, sustainable energy. As the Dems have no power, being in front of a camera every chance they get bringing up these issues is a start. Not voting with Republicans because they don't want to be on the loosing end. Not be "pink tutu Democrats," afraid of their shadows or anybody (Dean, Hackett) who stands up.

They have my vote in 2008 unconditionally unless Billary is the top candidate. If she is, I may write in someone else. Unless there is a swing back to the progressive left, I'll be Green. Tired of the spinelessness.

That's the entire point of my post. We would be in a much better position with a strong left voice that has its own identity. If 50% of the country had the views of the Greens, the Democratic Party would BE the Green Party. They aren't. Because Democrats are not Greens.

or agrees with Dem point of view. I do believe there is a lot of collusion due to the poor Dem leadership, but haven't given up yet.

Yes. Exactly. A unique voice that votes with the mainstream Democrats. The alternative is the Pat Robertson voice who gets people like Santorum and Coburn and Allen into office who vote with the Snowe Republicans, and have now hijacked the party from them. I do not understand how it could be more clear. Stop trying to transform the Democrats and make a strong left to stand beside them.

It was our party after all.

When did that happen? Aren't we still the party that fights for social security, college assistance, minimum wage, 40 hour work week, child labor laws, agriculture aid, small business assistance, housing assistance, and on and on.

I think we've only had the Presidency and both Houses for the 2 years after Clinton was elected. Not much of an opportunity to push a Democratic agenda through.

The Green Party isn't the New Deal party and it isn't the Democratic Party. They are much more socialist and anti-corporate, anti-military. There isn't any way for them to peacefully exist within the Democratic Party, Greens aren't Democrats just like socialists and communists weren't Democrats at the turn of the last century or in the 30's and 40's. I really don't know why they don't understand it.

Defending 70 year old programs and doing little to push them forward is contrary to the actual principles upon those programs were founded.

Universal health care; minimum wages that people can actually live on; a 35 hour work week; real support for public transportation; maternity, family, and medical leave policies that mimic European ones more than they do the tepid ones put in place by Clinton; a serious commitment to funding education properly (including early education for pre-schoolers)in all school districts--these are the sorts of things that constitute sound policy and are the sorts of things I'd like to see more of. But all too often prominent Democrats only offer half-assed proposals on such things for fear that they be branded with the "L" word.

I'd like to see today's Democrats aspire to FDR's willingness to take bold action. I'm not talking about class warfare or communism. Just investing in our society and making sure nobody gets left behind. These common sense views, which would put me slighly left of center on the political spectrum in any other Western democracy, mark me as the "left fringe" of the Democrats and frankly that frustrates the shit out of me.

Did you miss the last 25 years when we have always had at least one Republican house to deal with??

Not to mention that there was progress with SCHIP, after school programs, teen programs, early childhood programs from birth, respite care for handicapped kids, mentors in the classroom for special needs kids, child care, medical for pregnant women, we made alot of progress in the 90's.

I think some people really are just habitual whiners.

They keep playing this "play along to get along" bullshit and it has gotten so old. It really has plus how further to the right must the Democrats go until they become Republicans? I tend to think the strategy that some Dems, mainly DLC types are actually neutralizing and destroying the Democratic Party. It is people like Howard Dean, Russ Feingold, Dennis Kucinich, and Barbara Lee among others that are keeping it alive. I really think what happens later this year and 2008 is going to be the crossroads for the Democrats. They better change their ways or it is over. This means Hilly Clinton MUST not be the candidate or anybody else that is going to play Republican Lite.


John

to the Democratic side of the fence.

We need the liberal thirds back in the party to strategize, work, and keep our guys on their toes. If we can bring them into the fold, we will still sway a majority of the fence-sitters and become the great party we once were.

at a time when party politics is no longer relevant.

Still a balance must be struck between purism and pragmatism because, BBV aside, the one with the most votes still wins. That requires compromise, a notion distasteful and simply out of the question to some.

Like my father used to say, there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians.

First, over the last several decades the Party has lost far more voters to the Republicans than it has lost to various left splinters. Dismissing this migration as not being made up of "real" Democrats would be foolish and futile, for they are mostly working class people from social blocs that have traditionally been considered the base of the Democratic Party. They represent a much greater number of votes than anything that could be netted fishing towards committed left circles. Further, because their votes now go directly to the enemy, re-capturing them would be doubly effective, not just augmenting our strength but diminishing the enemy's in precisely equal proportion.

Second, a great many of the left third party voters are not, in any meaningful way, really Democrats, despite occassional protests to the contrary. They are generally people whose real interest is quasi-revolutionary, and who desire to achieve somehow through elections a degree of social restructuring that is not really in the power of that mechanism to achieve, or at least to achieve over a time span less than the generational. Such persons will sometimes make a sort of temporary alliance of convenience with the Democratic Party, because it is the "left" of the mainstream electoral spectrum, but the arrangement is always a fragile one, and tends to founder over the irreducible fact that the Party really cannot be made over into a revolutionary spearhead, which realization must sooner or later work a disgruntlement into such a person.

Third, a good deal of the draw to left third party allegiance is at bottom merely a compound of lack of self-discipline and unwillingness to adopt the necessary mores of coalition politics. Our political system differs from a European parliamentary party-list system in that in our system, it is necessary to assemble the governing coallition prior to the election, rather than after it. This means that a high priority must be assigned to blocking the success of the enemy if one's own side, most broadly defined, is to prevail and secure the governing power. Indeed, this priority must often be higher than the complete satisfaction of one's own desires, as too great an individual insistance on the latter by elements of the coallition may well injure the prospects of the whole of the coallition, and so lead to a situation in which the other side takes the governmment, and is then free to act without the least fetter against the coalition that has been unable to hang together over-all. Persons participating in such a system must look at the realities of its function with clear eyes, and conduct themselves in accordance with its demands. This will, often, require individuals to put aside their own personal priorities in the interest of a collective good, that may be only slightly more aligned with their desires than the available alternative. This requires a degree of self-discipline, and a concentration on achieving what is actually achieveable, which is incompatible with a view of political life as a stage on which displays one's own moral character, and damns the consequences.

i fear my "read between the lines" of your post has me seeing you as rejecting my definition of the political spectrum as a myth ...

your first paragraph, discussing the benefits to be derived by pursuing republican voters, perhaps by implication moderate republicans, is needlessly dismissive of my central theme ... if you read my second post in this thread, somewhere above, you'll see that my call for an agenda of reform is NOT intended to solely focus on attracting voters to the party's left but rather ALL VOTERS ... the intent of this thread, which did indeed single out third party voters with perhaps an emphasis on Greens, was to start thinking about this issue in a constructive rather and a bashing manner ... encouraging the pursuit of alienated voters in third parties should in no way be construed as an argument that republicans or independent moderates should not be pursued as well ...

as for your second and third themes, i think you've done a great job making my argument for me ... your second point was that many "left third party voters" are not really Democrats ... my response is that first of all, i think many of them once were Democrats and that, more importantly, i believe many third party voters waft back and forth across the political divide between "voting for someone who can actually win" versus voting their key beliefs ...

i'll go so far as to use myself as an example ... ultimately, i think it will require the destruction of capitalism to provide any semblance of democracy in this country ... without getting into the details or making any supporting arguments, i believe capping wealth is an essential ingredient if we are ever to restore the ideals of American democracy ... i guess i see this as a revolutionary view (if i must label the view) ... i certainly do NOT see my view on this issue as politically viable or likely to happen during my lifetime ... and i might consider voting for a third party candidate depending on certain circumstances ... but i'm a registered Democrat; i'm an active Democrat; i'm even an elected Democratic delegate to my state convention ... so i struggle with your definition that third party voters aren't Democrats ... i just don't see things in such black and white terms ...

which brings me to your third key point ... you wrote about "self-discipline" (i heard it as immaturity) and the refusal by third party voters to work for the collective good and to appreciate the importance of coalition parties and governments ... the key point i'm raising is that if Democrats want the votes of those voters who are "outside the coalition" you describe, there are actions, ideas and communications they can make to broaden the coalition without a fundamental shift in the party's underlying platform ...

when alienated voters make statements about "there being no difference between the parties", i'm afraid they are often badly misunderstood by "my way or the highway" Democrats ... i believe, and i've experienced this in my personal discussions and debates with Greens, that the real message is that both parties are badly influenced by big money corporate lobbyists ... Democrats are just a little too quick to point out the virtues of the Party's positions but fail to hear the message they're being sent ... yes, Democrats are better on a wide range of issues than right-wing republicans; but that doesn't address the concerns being raised by alienated third party voters ...

i believe that a real message of reform, including a program that kicks the damned lobbyists out of the halls of our government, would and should be highly appealing to all voters ... you talked about the lack of self-discipline for those who won't build coalitions; i'm promoting exactly the idea of building a pro-American ideals coalition to attract voters from across the political spectrum ... this is not just a message for left wing third party voters; it's a political strategy for the Democratic Party ... i prefer not to focus on the criticisms of third party voters you have alleged but rather to focus on third party voters, and all voters, as potential Democratic constituencies ... i believe that a real message of reform, absent any left, right or center labels, is not only in the best interest of the country; not only in the best interest of all voters; but also in the best interest of the Democratic Party itself ...

at least that is my little view of what the Democratic political strategy should be, my good sir ...

:applause:

What is so difficult to understand, and why would any one argue to the contrary?

We could start this conversation with an identification of why people left the party although I think that the conversation needs its own thread. But just for starters, and because I noted that it was mentioned in an above post that many left because for more conservative views: well, what were those views? A bulk of people left because of racial issues. Yes, they did. That's when Democrats lost the South. Are we proposing that we should turn back the social calendar and embrace their bigotry by playing the Reagan race card? Willy Horton-bush?

Should we now turn our backs on women, unions, or the environment? Is this how we lure back the lost?

Two things: Living in a red zone, I talk to republicans all the time. I always start the conversation with: "We both love our country, and I'll just bet we agree on more than we disagree." The conversation then proceeds to issues. We do want something done about special interests, health care, jobs, our kids' future, energy prices and availability, and pork. We don't agree on all social issues, but I've found that they have some legitimate beefs. Factory owners who want to comply with good environmental practices, but can't stand the nit-picking and paper work. Gun owners who really don't trust the Democrats. NAFTA. And they do listen to the propaganda radio which doesn't help. For the most part, they don't like bush, they're sick of the war, and they don't trust the Democrats to do much about it.

They are not Greens. What is odd is my Green friends also don't trust the Democrats. Currently we have an on going issue in my area: out of state dumping of construction waste. The state government, run by Democrats will not listen to the local people. And now we've learned that the brother of our Democratic governor is in on the deal.

Someone recently on one of the cable programs made a very interesting comment: "The government in Washington has become very good at getting re-elected, and very bad at governing.

So what are issues? What are the issues that pushed out those already gone, the Greens, and threatens to dump those on the brink? I think that we all love our country. And I think if we start talking about acting for the good of the people, building bridges fortified by actions not pandering, we could both rebuild the Democratic Party, and have a party that represents the people.

we have a political process that demands the raising of huge sums of money to be competitive ... so, what is the skill needed to obtain power? is it the greatest intellect we reward? is it the "best" views on the issues? is it the farthest left? the most in the center? the farthest to the right? the system we have rewards the best money raisers ... fat, ugly candidates with screechy voices, no matter how good their ideas might be, start out as significant underdogs ... and of course, it's extremely difficult to unseat most incumbents ...

you wrote: A bulk of people left because of racial issues. Yes, they did. That's when Democrats lost the South. Are we proposing that we should turn back the social calendar and embrace their bigotry by playing the Reagan race card? Willy Horton-bush?

Should we now turn our backs on women, unions, or the environment? Is this how we lure back the lost?

the answer is a very loud and clear: NO WAY !!! well except for maybe women ... you have to admit some of the really bright ones are getting "kinda uppity" ... that just won't do ...

and that's the whole point ... i'm steering clear, at least in this thread, about whether the Party has already turned its back on several of its core constituencies ... certainly, turning our backs on any legitimate liberation movement that empowers citizens and honors their freedoms and Constitutional rights is never acceptable even if some jackass believes it would help the Party win ... we should honor all races and religions; we should honor women; we should honor unions that fight for the best interests of American workers and we cannot afford to abandon our environment which faces critical problems ... there's no room for supporting repression to win votes ...

but the issues you discussed in your last paragraph, and this was an essential point of the OP, identifies a calling even higher than any individual issue ... it embodies the understanding that, absent a real democracy where big money cannot buy the government and dictate its policies, any stand from anywhere on the political spectrum becomes meaningless ... my silly analogy is to have two Americans pulling in opposite directions on a car's steering wheel; one pulls left and the other pulls right while federal policy quietly steals the engine from the car for its own greedy gain ... we cannot afford the luxury of debate until the corruptions of our democratic institutions are healed ... to think otherwise distracts us with issues that, in the current context, are just not relevant ... we, the citizens, either have power via a representative democracy or we do NOT ... and it matters very little in that context whether you would ultimately fight for right policies or center policies or left policies because the wealth and lifeblood have been sucked out of our country by a greedy few ...

the policy that transcends the status quo and could shake Americans from their coma cannot be stated any better than you stated it: "I think that we all love our country. And I think if we start talking about acting for the good of the people, building bridges fortified by actions not pandering, we could both rebuild the Democratic Party, and have a party that represents the people."

in the end, we must all learn that it is the best policies that make the best politics ... some think political tinkering, image making and marketing are the path to power; but shallow people like these will never make the lives of Americans better ... we must, at our core, offer real solutions to real problems ... with a passionate commitment to this objective, then, at the margins, there's a little room for packaging and political gamesmanship ...

Great OP, WT2. And the simple answer contained in your comments....


“... the goal here is to try to understand why people who may have been Democrats now vote for third parties (whether we agree with them or NOT) and what if anything the Democratic Party can do to win back their support (that would be a good thing, wouldn't it?) ...

“ ... is it "left-wing" to talk about wanting the Congress not to succumb to lobbying pressures? should right-wing fundies want a government that serves their best interests ahead of the interests of a narrow band of greedy corporatists? reforms are needed to restore our democratic institutions and make government accountable to the masses ... "

"Left-wing"? Not anymore. This is the single most relevant, urgent and unifying issue (that encompasses all other issues) that we all (on the political non/spectrum) have in common.

“...when alienated voters make statements about "there being no difference between the parties", i'm afraid they are often badly misunderstood by "my way or the highway" Democrats ... i believe, and i've experienced this in my personal discussions and debates with Greens, that the real message is that both parties are badly influenced by big money corporate lobbyists ... Democrats are just a little too quick to point out the virtues of the Party's positions but fail to hear the message they're being sent ... yes, Democrats are better on a wide range of issues than right-wing republicans; but that doesn't address the concerns being raised by alienated third party voters ...

“i believe that a real message of reform, including a program that kicks the damned lobbyists out of the halls of our government, would and should be highly appealing to all voters ...”

You are right on about that. This coalition would appeal to the savvy, cynical young non-voters who think there’s no point voting as long as global corporations run the Congress (and the planet)........ the Republican Lite voters who would vote Democratic if they didn’t think both parties were equally corrupt and in bed with the corporations......... the Independents who will vote for the first candidate that stands up and speaks something resembling truth rather than corporate style sloganeering..... the Greens who would have voted for Gore in 2000 if there had been some sign that he wouldn’t continue the globalization/corporatist agenda of the Clinton years (while Nader was saying what needed to be said, and needs to be said OUT LOUD now)...... with a “a real message of reform, including a program that kicks the damned lobbyists out of the halls of our government.”

“Not only is this “a pro-American ideals coalition to attract voters from across the political spectrum” and “a political strategy for the Democratic Party ...”

Not only that but it would address something that the Magistrate brought up:

The Magistrate 10. Several Small Points, Sir
“...a great many of the left third party voters are....generally people whose real interest is quasi-revolutionary, and who desire to achieve somehow through elections a degree of social restructuring that is not really in the power of that mechanism to achieve, or at least to achieve over a time span less than the generational....”

We might disagree and also agree, in a sense, with these words. Over the past generation this nation has been commandeered by business interests that have promised the public trickle down and hoodwinked them not to notice they’re being trickled on. The “radical” question you raised or the “quasi-revolutionary” suggestion of the Magistrate is only rash and shocking if a return to true American values and principles is radical and revolutionary-- and necessary.

The coalition and the strategy you are suggesting what Thom Hartmann calls the “Radical Middle” and a “return to the principles upon which this nation was founded and that made this country great” (paraphrased)............ it’s not radical, it’s common sense.

And while we butt the corporations out of the Congress and the White House AND THE VOTING BOOTHS, we need to also butt the MBA corporate clone handlers out of our elections, out of the campaign offices of our candidates.

All the voters on the range of this illusive non-spectrum are WAITING AND EAGER FOR SOMEONE TO STAND UP AND TELL THE TRUTH.

They’re not waiting for a third party--

they’re waiting for a second.

Why I only register as either Independent or Green, depending on whether the Dem primary interests me (Greens cannot vote in it, Independents can in this state.)

1) Position on immigration. Don't get me wrong the Dem position is oodles better than the Republican position but there's too much PC self-hate and not enough even-handedness/level-headedness/sense of priorities.

2) "Good Old Boys" network penetrates deep into the party. I'm more for empowerment of the disempowered than kissing the feet of the corporately connected while they stick a knife in my back. So what some would call "the DLC" (but I view as a problem that extends into the party as a whole, though DLC is definitely a nexus for it) really bugs me. A lot. Because I live in MA where we get to see "establishment Democrats" pull some really outrageous contrary-to-the-will-of-the-voters stunts based on who knows what kind of back-room dealings. I like to keep those folks from getting too much more comfy by adding to the looming fact that most voters in this state are registered as independent.

3) Position on gun control. This may chase me out of the Green party, too, since they have been making platform changes in this regard.

4) Tendency to support smoking bans without adding exceptions for owners who are willing to invest in advanced HVAC. Tendency to absurdly ignore the opportunity to address general indoor air quality health issues while doing so.

5) Still support the nation-damaging War on (some) Drugs, which is probably still in the lead over the WoT in total amount of damage against citizens accrued. Promising murmurs from Dems, but no real action. Afraid to be called "soft" for exhibiting some common sense on this issue.

6) In general I view the party as having several "character" faults when taken in the aggregate. The rank and file is easily distracted by silly issues which is bad even when they are in the right. Despite the general impression of Dems being populist they are far more likely to pass legislation that shifts burdens onto the masses than the corporations. For example, they'll tighten auto emissions costing every single driver in the state, and taxpayers for the testing equipment, and that would normally be fine except that they will do this before they deal with the 4-5 owners of old coal plants, if they ever do. Above the rank and file I think the "elitist" label unfortunately does in fact stick. Sad to say, but the "we-know-better-than-the-voters" instainct is blatantly evident here in this state.




Don't flame. You asked. I answered. Don't think you're going to change these opinions by a single comment -- they have slowly accumulated over the years and it will take years of good performance on the part of Dems for them to wear off. My best advise: lose the gun control platform plank. Send it to the states, and let the states send it to the counties if they deem that appropriate. It's not the issue I care the most about, but it is definitely the most mind-numbingly counterproductive plank in the platform from a tactical standpoint.

no flames here ... this is exactly the kind of exchange the Party should be having with registered Dems and with those who have left the Party ...

what i'm proposing, a strong push for reforming and restoring the ideals of democracy, is a necessary first step to return power to the people ... in the end, once this is achieved, we may ultimately agree or not agree on the detailed issues you discussed ...

my hope is that a recognition that the people have been scorned and disempowered by the "political class" will be an adequate, or at least a temporary lure, for those who feel they currently have little or no representation ... once power has truly been returned to the people, then we can have meaningful debates over the many policies that affect our lives everyday ...