That's your characterization, not mine. I vote for the candidate that best supports what I believe. I'm not afraid that one or the other person who doesn't support what I believe will win. I don't do it to feel good, I do it because I have a right to express my wishes at the ballot box. So do you. If you want to express that you support someone whom you do not in reality support, go ahead.
Are you trying to make the case that political parties don't sell fear as one of their primary "weapons"?
This argument is as old as Free Republic. (and older)
I'll vote for the lesser of two evils, and know I did what I could, instead of chasing a pie-in-the-sky dream .
You said it yourself, you vote for evil. OK, it's your vote. As to realism, it's in your mind. Jesse got elected, no matter what you think of him. The Socialist Party never elected anyone but got it's entire platform put into law.
As for fear; give the White House to the Dems.
I rest my case on that.
I'm not particularly more afraid of Dems than Repubs. You might be. Old debate, nothing new to be added. Good luck.
Well, then, I guess I misinterpreted your prior post (which I quoted):
Are you trying to make the case that political parties don't sell fear as one of their primary "weapons"?
Of course not. According to Democrats, Republicans want to kill our babies with second-hand smoke, pollute the water and the air, strip the forests bare, wipe out marine life with oil slicks, and kill the elderly by ruining Social Security. According to Republicans, Democrats want to... (Funny, I can't think of anything remotely comparable.)
You said it yourself, you vote for evil.
Sure. Don't you? Evil -- to recycle your words from a few posts back -- is a matter of degrees. When Jesus Christ appears on the ballot, we can both vote for non-evil. In the meantime, I guess we could do the write-in thing. It'd be no less effective than voting for the least of the 12 available evils.
Now, assuming instead you were talking about "evil" with respect to the candidates' adherence to the Constitution, much the same applies, unless you've found the perfect candidate. I haven't yet. So, I vote for the lesser, rather than the least, of the evils. Unless you've found that perfect candidate, you do, too. Therefore, don't be so quick to fault those of us who like to keep our heads out of the (colorectal) sand. (Nothing personal; no offense intended, as I'll explain later.)
As to realism, it's in your mind. Jesse [Jackson, I presume] got elected, no matter what you think of him. The Socialist Party never elected anyone but got it's entire platform put into law.
Interesting viewpoint you have there. I guess if I thought I was living in the equivalent of France or Sweden, I'd resort to those pie-in-the-sky dreams, and vote for whomever happens to be running against the two Saddams on Election Day. ;-)
But, seriously, if more people had voted for third-party candidates over the years -- how about Wallace in '68, Anderson in '80, Perot in (Oh, wait, he did help get Clinton elected; nevermind) -- we could have gotten here a lot faster. Too bad we wasted so much time making this the rotten place you seem to think it is. ;-) ;-)
As for fear; ["]give the White House to the Dems.["] I rest my case on that. I'm not particularly more afraid of Dems than Repubs.
A-HA!! Now we're getting somewhere. If one sees little or no difference between the possible winners, one might as well vote for their favorite candidate (Mickey Mouse or Pat Paulsen included). You see, when I said "the lesser of two evils," I meant it. You were the first one to use the term, when speaking of Bush vs. Gore. Therefore, I thought you meant it, too.
Obviously, I still see a (real or imaginary) significant difference between the two parties. Otherwise, I too would feel no qualms about voting for the best candidate on the ballot, be he Alan Keyes or Donald Duck. I trust that, if you saw significant differences between the Ds and Rs, you would stop wasting your vote. If you were to acknowledge those differences and continued to vote for hopeless losers, ... well, see "head in the sand" above. ;-) Idealism is cute but, absent realism, it accomplishes nothing good.
Aside from the fact that I knew I couldn't singlehandedly get Keyes elected -- we Iowans tried very hard in the '96 caucus, when he won my precinct and relatively large county -- I honestly wanted to give Dubya a chance to do the right thing once the primaries were over. Humor me if it takes a while yet before I lose all hope in him. One thing's for sure: I didn't want Al Gore in the White House. Give me any "R" over Al Gore. If that's fear, so be it.
At any rate, I suspect we agree on a lot more than we don't. FRegards to you and yours.