dagblog - Comments for "A Plea to my Fellow Progressives"

And yes, a few votes can make

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 30 Jul 2016 15:48:20 +0000

In reply to Maybe you do not believe that

And yes, a few votes can make a big difference.

The process of democratic

A Guy Called LULU — Sat, 30 Jul 2016 13:49:50 +0000

In reply to By November, Russian hackers

The process of democratic voting requires a strong sense of trust – in the equipment, the process and the people involved.

Voting officials recognize that these technologies are vulnerable.

By November, Russian hackers

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 28 Jul 2016 20:36:59 +0000

In reply to Maybe you do not believe that

By November, Russian hackers could target voting machines. If Russia really is responsible, there's no reason political interference would end with the DNC emails.

It was not in MLK's make up

rmrd0000 — Mon, 25 Jul 2016 12:29:24 +0000

In reply to Who would you have voted for

It was not in MLK's make up to run for office. Shirley Chisholm ran in 1972. Jesse Jackson ran for President in 1984 and 1988.. Al Sharpton ran for President in 2004 and declined to run again in 2008. None of the black Democratic candidates ran as third parties. Your hypothetical is unrealistic, but I doubt that I would have cast a vote for MLK as a third party protest because he was more activist than politician.

If the goal is to change the Democratic Party, carry the fight to the Democratic Party. Once a person casts a vote for a third-party and then comes back to the Democratic Party demanding change, they are likely to get a cool response from people who stayed to fight within the ranks of the Democratic Party. Why should people who stayed to fight listen to what the person who left the party has to say? The person who voted third-party would be considered weak.

Hey back OGB. Thanks for the

A Guy Called LULU — Mon, 25 Jul 2016 07:13:34 +0000

In reply to Hi LuLu... Hmmmm . . .

Hey back OGB. Thanks for the comment. OK was responding to a comment of mine. If you go back to that point I think you will see how the dialog developed. My comment ended with: "The most important lesson from that election is that an election can be stolen. Our voting system is still a joke because it is still vulnerable to fraud". His response was about all the great progress we have made and it went from there.

"How ever far we still have to go we have traveled an extraordinary distance in a couple of centuries."

I already knew that we are exceptional.

Hi LuLu... Hmmmm . . .

oldenGoldenDecoy — Mon, 25 Jul 2016 06:53:57 +0000

In reply to Maybe you do not believe that

Hi LuLu... Hmmmm . . .

I didn't read anything connected to the following in OC's comment.

"Maybe you do not believe that Bush's first election was stolen."

As to the overall content of your comment. I agree. Although, specific to this...

"Besides the possibility of outright theft being eliminated there are other obvious improvements to our voting system that shouldn't take another 240 years to implement."

Yes, obviously improvements are needed. We are a continuous work in PROGRESS. And OC did point this out:

"How ever far we still have to go we have traveled an extraordinary distance in a couple of centuries."

~OGD~

Who would you have voted for

A Guy Called LULU — Mon, 25 Jul 2016 04:08:20 +0000

In reply to If you want to effect change

Who would you have voted for between Johnson and Goldwater? On voting day we couldn't know the future but Johnson was ultimately pretty good for the Civil Rights Movement while his foreign policy resulted in several million deaths. Suppose that you were convinced going into the election that Johnson would make bad decisions about war but Goldwater would make even much, much worse decisions when faced with the same choices. I'm guessing you would vote for Johnson especially with him being a Democrat. Now suppose that you lived in a very blue state and Martin Luther King was running as a third party candidate in that same election and you were for him and for his policies but you also knew that he had zero chance to win. If you had the chance to vote for him and help make his message more viable going forward without giving any benefit to Goldwater, would you have considered doing so?

Destroying the Democratic

rmrd0000 — Mon, 25 Jul 2016 04:02:57 +0000

In reply to If there were enough people

Destroying the Democratic Party without a having a viable replacement would put the system completely in the hands of the Republicans.

If there were enough people

ocean-kat — Mon, 25 Jul 2016 03:52:13 +0000

In reply to Sorry, Lu but your

If there were enough people who agreed on common goals to work together to destroy the democratic party and create a viable third party they'd have sufficient power and could more easily make the democratic party into their vision. I've seen no evidence that there are nearly enough people to do that.

I believe that any

Michael Maiello — Mon, 25 Jul 2016 03:49:30 +0000

In reply to I will sign on to your

I believe that any progressive such as I who lives in either a solidly red state or a some other who lives in a solidly blue state should vote strategically. I will vote either for Stein or maybe write in Sanders.

To me, this has always been a very good argument. You know if your state is contested or not. That creates great opportunities to vote for third party or outsider candidates without handing over the country to the opposite of what you'd want. Heck, I voted for Sander in the NY primary, despite supporting Clinton, because I was confident that Clinton would win New York anyway and believed that a strong challenge from Sanders would make Clinton a better person and the Democrats a better party.

I think the same logic would justify me voting for Stein. Clinton would still win New York and maybe, just maybe, I'd manage to help the Greens get back to major party status here. Honestly, the only think holding me back, (given where I am voting, of course) is that I believe Clinton will be our first woman president and I'd like to be able to say I voted for her, rather than for the no-chance woman running on a third party ticket.

There's a lot to think about here, at least for voters not moving the Trump needle one way or the other.