Where is the "protest vote" from the left? Nowhere to be found, obviously. What does that tell you?
One thing I'll say about the Democratic Party, as repugnant as I find it.....their ideals, their morals, and their candidates. They are extremely loyal to their party.
Ask Al Gore about the effects of a protest vote, one that has no cjance of electing a winner...can you say RALPH NADAR?
No Nadar vote, we have President Gore.
Why should there be one? Has the Democratic Party moved to the right in anyway? Truthfully now. You may have a candidate like ol' Slick run to the center for a bit but he's going to be loyal to the left once in office. As for the far left, you've got the Greens and a few others but there's not a real need for them as the left stays left.
The Republican party OTOH hasn't done that as much. And considering some of the fiscal moves doesn't appear to want to do that in the future. It appears, note I said appears, they're trying to capture the Reagan Democrats almost at all costs. Those in the middle. But to continue to appease these new voters over time what will have to continue happening to non-defense spending budgets?
Perhaps 'protest' vote is the wrong word in this situation. Because I think those that have committed to vote Constitution and socially conservative Libertarians (some of them at least) truly believe in their candidate. I'm not saying some Republicans and Democrats don't believe in their candidates, but it's almost a one upmanship in these cases. Almost a 'We don't really have a plan that you're going to very much like for a large part but we don't want to let the other guy in'. I keep going back to Washington's farewell address here recently but it's really been running over and over in my head because I don't think I've ever seen it so vividly as it has become in the past four years
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.
The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.
Washington said quite a bit more about some other things that aren't very popular of late but this just worries me. It is almost a 'spirit of revenge' of late between the parties. And in the long run that cannot be internally healthy for this nation of states
For good reason, like any other "good" communist party member - go along or you and your family are dead!