Mystery Series Part 2: Strategic Voting, Softball Edition.

As I mentioned yesterday, I’ll let loyal readers guess my proposed title for this series after I’ve posted all (or most) of it.  The “Mystery Series” is in response to Palace blogger and (self-proclaimed) Loyal Subject™ SJ’s questions, posed in a comment on my post from the other day.

As a refresher, here is a re-post of SJ’s comment:

Rhetorical question for Iris: Does it make sense to try to buy some time by voting for the LOSE Party (Lesser Of Shitty Evils), based on the unlikely and shrinking possibility that we may still have a fighting chance if Democrats win? Whereas if Republigoons gain control, we are not only fucked but doomed to live in a theocratic, fascist state for the foreseeable future (which, owing to my age, is probably the rest of my life)?

For sure the choice sucks, and that raises the following question: How did those CHUDs acquire such ominous power in a supposedly educated country? It seems like yesterday – I’m thinking of the Clinton years – that life here was at least somewhat decent, that there was actually hope that we were on track to a more rational, compassionate future. (Note: I’m not crediting Clinton, just making reference to a time when vile Repugs did not rule.) So I guess I’m going to do everything I can – which isn’t much – to try to ensure that the avowed Enemies of Humanity ([of] women in particular) don’t gain total and lasting control of the most dangerous country on earth. I say total and lasting because you would have to be extremely naive to think they will relinquish control once they attain it, demographic trends notwithstanding. Fascists don’t get voted out of power – it takes guns, and guess who has the guns.

Here’s my interpretation of the phrase, “totally fucked”: This country experienced a horrendous Civil War; now I have the uneasy sense that rivers of blood may flow again regardless of which gang prevails in the coming elections.

Darkness descends . . . am I delusional, or deadly serious?

__________

I want to bring as wide attention as possible to this piece By Ted Glick at Reader Supported News, entitled “Strategic Presidential Voting.”  Mr. Glick poses an interesting question of his own:

What if, in multiple states, 4 or 5 or more, [Green Party candidates Dr. Jill] Stein and [anti-poverty activist Cheri] Honkala received 5% or more of the votes? That would be a victory. It would say to the Democrats that there are a growing number of voters who are looking for something other than centrist, system-supporting candidates. More importantly, it would say to the American people that there is a political force in the electoral arena other than the Tea Party that is consistently progressive and growing.

New York State, for example, is ripe for a serious campaign to get at least 5% of the vote for the Green Party. The latest realclearpolitics.com polling results show Obama ahead of Romney by 25 points.

Voting for Barack Obama in New York State, if you are a progressive who gets it on how problematic the Democrats are, is a completely unstrategic, wasted vote.

It’s the same in a state like Utah, where polls show Romney ahead by 42%. In Idaho there are no polls at realclearpolitics, but it’s solidly red for Romney.

Other states where a smart 4th or 5th grader can predict who’s going to win on November 6: California (Obama by 17%), Illinois (Obama by 21%), Arkansas (Romney by 24%), West Virginia (Romney by 21%) and Massachusetts (Obama by 19.2%).

As Glick says:

Of course, these candidates are not going to win. But it would be, strategically, a positive thing for the independent progressive movement, broadly defined, if, in a number of states, they won a decent percentage of votes.

I agree.  If your desire is to keep Democratic politicians in power and push them leftward, this is a good tactical strategy in states where the outcome of the presidential election is all but certain.  A real and growing liberal voting bloc is a very scary thing to conservative Democrats.  It forces them to make a choice:  they can either actively represent the interests of their liberal constituency, risk losing their seats to more progressive candidates in primaries, or just get it over with and change their party affiliation to Republican.  Or, you know, they can always go with lashing out like petulant little schoolyard bullies.

It is virtually assured that Barack Obama will win New York State in the November election.  He doesn’t really even bother campaigning here—unless, for example, he comes to the city on a mission to undermine my congresscritter Jerry Nadler, a diehard supporter of having a public option in the president’s health care law.  Unfortunately for Mr. Nadler (and for everyone else in the country except health insurance executives), Barack Obama had already sold out the public option in a secret deal with the industry.  The president is always happy to swoop into town for big ticket fundraisers, of course.  In fact he was here last week collecting whatever’s left of Wall Street’s bribe money after the Romney campaign depleted its coffers.

The only way to “waste my vote” in New York State is to vote for Barack Obama.

__________

RELATED:
Mystery Series Part 1:  The RNC Platform
.

One thought on “Mystery Series Part 2: Strategic Voting, Softball Edition.

  1. Pingback: Mystery Series Part 5: The World’s Richest Banana Republic. » |

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s