Advice wanted: U.S. politics

[redbird]

Okay. New York has a Democratic presidential primary tomorrow.

I will vote: this is given. But I haven't decided who to vote for. Kerry and Edwards have both said they're against gay marriage, so it's going to be a bit of holding my nose regardless. I'm tempted to vote for Kerry, but that's partly because I'm sick of the whole "only a southerner can win" which seems to come down to the assumption that southerners are too prejudiced to vote for northerners, whereas the reverse isn't true, so we have to cater to their [perceived] prejudices.

Policy reasons--that is, the candidates' stated position or records--for voting for any of the remaining Democratic candidates are hereby solicited. Post early; we generally vote in the morning.

Comments

[lsanderson.livejournal.com]

If you're in favor of protest voting, I'd recommend Kucinich. I think I'm going to vote for him here in MPLS tomorrow.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

If Kucinich is on the ballot in NY, I'm going to vote for him. I relish those few moments when it's safe to vote my conscience.

Re:

[catamorphism.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't recommend it if you're pro-choice (he says he's pro-choice, but has flip-flopped). He also sounds like the biggest flake ever, though I agree with him on most other actual issues.

[peake.livejournal.com]

It depends what you're voting for. If you're voting to get rid of Bush, then Kerry seems the better bet. If you're voting for the best candidate, it's not so simple. Edwards seems to be basing more and more of his campaign on jobs, so I get a less clear idea of where he stands on most other issues. His protectionist stance, frankly, sounds unsustainable and will at least run into major problems with America's trading partners - but it probably plays well in the rust belt. But he doesn't have that much of a record by which one can judge him. Kerry has more of a record, but it doesn't exactly instill huge confidence. His judgement seems to have been uncertain on a number of major issues - I'd rather he was decisively wrong than indecisive. On the minus side he seems to be an animal of the party machine, a career pol; on the plus side he seems to be energetic, intellectually alert so he can take in complex arguments, and prepared to work long hours, all of which seems to be true of Edwards but decisively not true of Bush. I also get the impression that Kerry and Edwards are both far more honest than Bush, and so likely to head up a much cleaner White House. To be honest, therefore, from this distance there doesn't seem that much to choose between them. If there are local issues that you are aware of, let them guide your vote. Otherwise it's down to gut reaction, or the cold calculation that Kerry is fractionally further ahead of Bush in the polls than Edwards and as a more experienced politician might be that much better equipped to cope with the dirt that the Bush team is certain to try to fling at him.

[maviscruet.livejournal.com]

I try and follow American polotics, but it's not allways easy.

I think I agree, it's down to a "what do you want" position.

If it's all abotu Bush, and making sure he's gone. Then Kerry. He almost certain to win the nomination, but a long scrappy battle will just open up cracks in the democractic party and bush will exploit them.
So he needs to win and keep winning big so he quickly becomse the democractic challenger and can go after bush. Who's already started gunning for him.

Issue's wise tricky. with regards to Gay marriage, there both on the same stance. So if it's an important issue ask yourself if "which of these is taking this postion simply becaue what he wants 'gay marriage' will get him crucified and let bush win?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

The "long scrappy battle" being bad for Dems isn't necessarily true.

Edwards has a reputation for ALWAYS running a clean campaign, and Kerry tends only to go dirty when someone else goes dirty first. And a long Democratic battle on the issues, with candidates not actually tearing each other down, is not going to hurt the Dems. And, the longer the Democratic primaries go on, the more screen time the Dems get, and the less press Bush gets.

[maviscruet.livejournal.com]

It's a good point.

The long battle might be good, but a clear winner at the end is needed. If they hit the party conferance and end up cutting backroom deals it'll look less then good. They need a clear, almost universally supported contender to confront Bush.

And I think Kerry's that one.

[mightyafrodite.livejournal.com]

guess at this point that Kerry is going to get the nomination. Therefore, if you wish to make a statement, vote for Kucinich.

[lysana.livejournal.com]

I've come to the conclusion that while it's nice if a candidate stands in favor of universal marriage rights, it won't make a bit of difference. It'll be decided in the courts no matter whose laws get passed first. That said, I'd look at who best represents your sentiments on the issues that legislation will have an impact on, like how our taxes are spent.

[volund.livejournal.com]

The priority at this point is to render Bush unemployed in November, so whatever (principled) path leads us there ...

It doesn't help that Bush & Co. have already thrown down the gauntlet with this hateful and ridiculous talk about a constitutional amendment. It's clear to me that this is, among other things, an update on Nixon's infamous Southern Strategy, with new demons being invoked under a new set of code words (family values, defense of marriage, etc.)

Which may be why we have to hold our noses and understand that it might not be a good idea for the Democratic nominee to be drawn into that particular battle.

Bluntly, while I like what I've heard of many of his positions, Kucinich's candidacy at this point is either a vanity operation or quixotic tilting at windmills. The former is worthy of dismissal, the latter worthy of admiration and of hopes that some of those ideas make their way into the party platform.

But, imho, you don't vote for Don Quixote ...

I agree with you about the whole southern schtick, and I also think Edwards is/was a little too close to the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, and from what I've read, lacks a bit of needed depth on policy issues. The guy needs some seasoning.

So I think I'm voting for Kerry. We can do worse. Much, much worse ...

[porcinea.livejournal.com]

Kucinich sticking in the race is not vanity; delegates supporting his positions will be in the convention, pushing the party platform towards his more progressive positions. If you want progressive politics in the Democratic platform, then a vote for Kucinich is not wasted.

[lysana.livejournal.com]

You can still vote for Dean and have his delegates pushing for his agenda items to be included in the party platform.

Re:

[jholomorphic.livejournal.com]

Al Sharpton supports: DC enfranchisement; abortion rights (unlike Kucinich, as Kirsten has pointed out); same-sex marriage, as well as equal rights for gays and lesbians in general and insists that it be done at a federal level so that states can't abridge these rights; slavery reparations; returning voting rights to felons after completion of their sentences. Opposes the death penalty, recent American wars, trade pacts lacking environmental provisions.

Divisive, obnoxious, and trailing much baggage ...

[volund.livejournal.com]

Al Sharpton is also a willing tool of the type of skanky Republicans, such as Roger Stone (http://villagevoice.com/issues/0405/barrett.php), who are looking to gum up the works so as to help keep the current regime in power.

He can afford to talk so purty because he hasn't a chance in hell. His power lies in being the distraction to which attention must be paid, and the people around him have gone to some pretty unsavory lengths to ensure that that attention is paid to him.

I'd never be able to vote for that, no matter how prettily it was dressed.

[porcinea.livejournal.com]

Kucinich supports gay marriage, wants UN peacekeepers in Iraq and US troops out, has a universal single-payer health-care system, and consistently sticks to his principles. He faced down the energy companies in Cleveland, and now they (Clevelanders) have cheap energy (cost him quite a bit politically).

[zsero.livejournal.com]

Kucinich also thinks the Pentagon has sattelite-based mind-control rays. He's seriously a nut.

Meanwhile, offering you political advice is a bit of a tricky task, considering that there are very few issues on which we agree, and I won't be voting tomorrow because I'm registered as a Republican. I'm also very seriously considering voting this November, for the first time in 20 years, for the Republican presidential candidate instead of the Libertarian. Still, for the purpose of the following I'm putting that aside and trying to think as someone of your political persuasion.

If I were a Democrat, and had the interests of the Democrats in mind, I would want the primary season extended as far as possible, which means keeping Edwards in the running. The party isn't allowed to buy advertising until there's a nominee, which AFAIK means until the convention (or are they allowed as soon as one candidate has a majority of pledged delegates? Does anyone know?) So long as the nomination is still theoretically up in the air, both Democratic campaigns get lots of free publicity. As soon as the press get bored with the primaries, the free press will dry up, and the paid press won't yet be able to start. meanwhile the Republicans have no nomination contest, so they're allowed to buy ads whenever they like (I think).

[screaminghippo.livejournal.com]

My primary concern when voting is to get Bush out of office. I was thinking of voting Edwards because I am not convinced that Kerry is more electable. I, too, am a little put off by the notion that only a southerner can win and also by Edwards recent hammering on trade as an issue, but I could easily put these qualms aside if I thought it could de-Shrub-ify our nation. Then I got to thinking a bit further.
Will my vote actually impact the nomination? - almost certainly not. Kerry's polling ahead of Edwards in every state voting tomorrow and barring a major upset will probably have enough momentum to seal the deal.
Would voting for Edwards extend his campaign (assuming you buy that this would be good for the Democrats)? Doubtful, but possible. Delegates will matter, but he really needs to win a state or two to continue. In New York it's not even close. The people who get to decide whether Edwards' campaign will continue are in the states where he's got a chance, like Georiga.
Thus, it seems to me, that the logical choice is to vote your conscience, even if that means voting for someone who has left the race but is still officially on the ballot (I believe most former candidates are). I may actually vote for Dean, even though I probably wouldn’t have if he was still a serious candidate as my way of saying “Even though I thought you weren’t electable, you were a swell guy – thanks for running”
One possible exception would be if you believe one of the longshot candidates (say Sharpton) could actually get up to 15% of the vote in your congressional district, you might consider voting for them over one of the other longshots (say, Kucinich), because you need at least 15% of the vote in a given district to get any delegates.