Hillary won't get the nomination

Cypress said:
You have to put a coaltion together, to win anything above a school board seat or a city council seat in this country. Ideological purity doesn't win elections above that level.

I think you have to change the existing left-center coalition in this country (i.e. the Democratic party), unless there's a realistic strategy to replace them, a la' the republicans replacing the whigs.
Click to expand...

Well, my personal opinion is the democrats sat back and allowed the republicans to move the center so far to the right that a center-left party really doesn't exist at this point. So I disagree with you there. However, I think there is still a populist wing of the democratic party, albeit a small one, that could break out and move away with the right candidate in front of it. Hillary, no, Edwards maybe, Gore, yes.

The reason why I am not jumping on the third party bandwagon is really simple; health care. There is a difference between the two parties there, it does mean lives, and, we're not going to get a green as president at this time.

That is the pragmatism that Onceler is speaking of, and that I think you are speaking of, and I agree with both of you in many ways.

I mean, this just is not so cut and dried to me. I can't come out and say, oh I'm voting third party, screw the dems, but on the other hand I can't say, I won't vote third party no matter who the dems put up. I am of mixed feelings on this, and I haven't sorted it all out yet. My anger at the democrats grows by the day. That is the one absolute for me here.
 
Darla said:
Well, my personal opinion is the democrats sat back and allowed the republicans to move the center so far to the right that a center-left party really doesn't exist at this point. So I disagree with you there. However, I think there is still a populist wing of the democratic party, albeit a small one, that could break out and move away with the right candidate in front of it. Hillary, no, Edwards maybe, Gore, yes.

The reason why I am not jumping on the third party bandwagon is really simple; health care. There is a difference between the two parties there, it does mean lives, and, we're not going to get a green as president at this time.

That is the pragmatism that Onceler is speaking of, and that I think you are speaking of, and I agree with both of you in many ways.

I mean, this just is not so cut and dried to me. I can't come out and say, oh I'm voting third party, screw the dems, but on the other hand I can't say, I won't vote third party no matter who the dems put up. I am of mixed feelings on this, and I haven't sorted it all out yet. My anger at the democrats grows by the day. That is the one absolute for me here.
Click to expand...


I know what you're saying. The Democrats, as a party, are pretty lame. I mean, I'm happy with my senator - Boxer - but, we need more boxers, more fiengolds, more Sanders.

I'm just dubious about the whole third party thing. There's virtually no historical evidence, that one party can really supplant another one, in the context of a transforrmational social and political movement. The only one in 250 years I can think of, is the GOP replacing the Whigs.

There is a lot more historical evidence for changing the existing major coalitions. FDR with the Dems. LBJ. Reagan with the Republicans. It can take years, even decades. The republicans didn't go from being the party of prudent, yet moderate businessmen/women, to being the party of raging theocrats overnight. But, it demonstrates, that existing coaltions can be changed.
 
Cypress said:
You have to put a coaltion together, to win anything above a school board seat or a city council seat in this country. Ideological purity doesn't win elections above that level.

I think you have to change the existing left-center coalition in this country (i.e. the Democratic party), unless there's a realistic strategy to replace them, a la' the republicans replacing the whigs.
Click to expand...

I have a strategy.

I expect nothing from the Democratic Party and I rarely vote for them when there is a Green alternative.
 
Cypress said:
I know what you're saying. The Democrats, as a party, are pretty lame. I mean, I'm happy with my senator - Boxer - but, we need more boxers, more fiengolds, more Sanders.

I'm just dubious about the whole third party thing. There's virtually no historical evidence, that one party can really supplant another one, in the context of a transforrmational social and political movement. The only one in 250 years I can think of, is the GOP replacing the Whigs.

There is a lot more historical evidence for changing the existing major coalitions. FDR with the Dems. LBJ. Reagan with the Republicans. It can take years, even decades. The republicans didn't go from being the party of prudent, yet moderate businessmen/women, to being the party of raging theocrats overnight. But, it demonstrates, that existing coaltions can be changed.
Click to expand...


Political courage and will creates the precedent.
 
uscitizen said:
Umm that could be applied to the Republicans and Bush....
Click to expand...

You're correct. They had the courage and the will to steal two national elections and take the country to war on false premises and the democrats had neither the courage or the will to stop them.
 
Something occurred to me. So I looked it up.

1992 Tennesse results:

Bill Clinton 42.9 %
Bush Sr. 37.1 %
Ross Perot 18.8 %

1996 Tennessee election results:

Bill Clinton 49.2 %
Bob Dole 40.7%
Ross Perot 8.4 %

2000 Tennessee election results
ROSS PEROT DOES NOT RUN
Gore 49.5% of the vote, garnering more votes than Clinton EVER DID IN THIS STATE, EVEN THOUGH CLINTON WON TN CLINTON WON TN CLINTON WON TN, WHY COULDN'T GORE?????
The Moron, W 50.5 % of the votes
And, drum roll please...

Ralph Nadar, 2.7% of the votes.

Now, SF and cawacko and Damo, the next time any of you think to say that usc made a stupid point because 'CLINTON WON TN CLINTON WON TN CLINTON WON TN, WHY COULDN'T GORE" say nothing and instead, STFU AND STFD
 
Supposedly Ross Perot only garnered evenly throughout, your point is moot, or the idea that Clinton would have ever been President without Perot is.
 
Damocles said:
Supposedly Ross Perot only garnered evenly throughout, your point is moot, or the idea that Clinton would have ever been President without Perot is.
Click to expand...

Supposedly?

No way, he took far more from the right. Find me a liberal who voted for Perot, you can't swing a cat without hitting a con who did.

I just demonstrated that Al Gore won more votes in Tennessee than Clinton ever did, rendering your "point" of "Clinton won Tn, why didn't Gore? moot.

Sorry, but once again, I kicked your butt on this thread as well as SF's, and of course, Cawackos.

Al Gore won more votes in Tennesse than Bill Clinton ever did. Fact.
 
Darla said:
Something occurred to me. So I looked it up.

1992 Tennesse results:

Bill Clinton 42.9 %
Bush Sr. 37.1 %
Ross Perot 18.8 %

1996 Tennessee election results:

Bill Clinton 49.2 %
Bob Dole 40.7%
Ross Perot 8.4 %

2000 Tennessee election results
ROSS PEROT DOES NOT RUN
Gore 49.5% of the vote, garnering more votes than Clinton EVER DID IN THIS STATE, EVEN THOUGH CLINTON WON TN CLINTON WON TN CLINTON WON TN, WHY COULDN'T GORE?????
The Moron, W 50.5 % of the votes
And, drum roll please...

Ralph Nadar, 2.7% of the votes.

Now, SF and cawacko and Damo, the next time any of you think to say that usc made a stupid point because 'CLINTON WON TN CLINTON WON TN CLINTON WON TN, WHY COULDN'T GORE" say nothing and instead, STFU AND STFD
Click to expand...

Well, I would argue citizen always makes stupid points - if he even makes a point but that is neither here nor there. I don't even think he was part of the conversation.

I not sure what the point you are making is. I see the numbers you presented but not sure what you are trying to imply. The point still stands that if Gore won Tennessee he would have won the election (without winning Florida).

Can anyone tell me what STFD and QED mean. Thanks.
 
Darla said:
Supposedly?

No way, he took far more from the right. Find me a liberal who voted for Perot, you can't swing a cat without hitting a con who did.

I just demonstrated that Al Gore won more votes in Tennessee than Clinton ever did, rendering your "point" of "Clinton won Tn, why didn't Gore? moot.

Sorry, but once again, I kicked your butt on this thread as well as SF's, and of course, Cawackos.

Al Gore won more votes in Tennesse than Bill Clinton ever did. Fact.
Click to expand...
I agree he took more from the right. But just today, Jarod and Cypress both told me that it was EVENLY distributed across party lines.

It doesn't change that it was certainly possible for him to win in Tennessee. And that the previous D President did so, twice.
 
Darla said:
Supposedly?

No way, he took far more from the right. Find me a liberal who voted for Perot, you can't swing a cat without hitting a con who did.

I just demonstrated that Al Gore won more votes in Tennessee than Clinton ever did, rendering your "point" of "Clinton won Tn, why didn't Gore? moot.

Sorry, but once again, I kicked your butt on this thread as well as SF's, and of course, Cawackos.

Al Gore won more votes in Tennesse than Bill Clinton ever did. Fact.
Click to expand...

Getting more votes doesn't matter. The argument was never about who got more votes between Clinton/Gore and Gore/Lieberman it was about who won the state.
 
blackascoal said:
I have a strategy.

I expect nothing from the Democratic Party and I rarely vote for them when there is a Green alternative.
Click to expand...


BAC, I respect your opinions.

But, they are not the only valid options.

Nobody on this board has better progressive street cred than Senator Bernie Sanders - and he chooses to caucus with, and work with the Democratic Party. He chooses to work within the system for change.

Here's what I ask myself: in order to get some form of increased, perhaps even universal, healthcare coverage, for working americans, which of the following scenarios is more likely to achieve that:

1) A filibuster-proof 60 seat Democratic senate, plus a Democratic president?

2) Or voting Green, and handing the senate and whitehouse to the GOP.

For me, its really that simple. But, I have no problem with progressives who choose to work outside the system for small, third parties.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top