>I see the principle: "Anyone voting for a candidate to the left of the
rightmost
> candidate that Nathan Newman can currently manage to support is a stupid
> left sectarian." Just give it time; you'll be lunching with Al From any
day now.
Yeah, yeah-- just flacking for the DLC. I'm not really offended at this line, just bored with its monotony and lack of originality.
Why is it so hard to understand the principle of not voting for candidates who have no chance of winning and therefore electing candidates who are the least desireable? It's not a question of voting for candidates who I agree with-- I expect to have to vote to my own Right most of the time-- I just want the most leftwing candidate possible elected.
Having a runoff between the two rightwing candidates in France is an obvious testimony to strategic incompetence of the left parties. That folks see this statement as some kind of DLC flacking just shows a blind defense of strategies that have not shown any success, except for winning power in the Peoples Ecotopia of Arcada.
As I've noted before, I've voted Green, I've campaigned for Green candidates, I've been appointed to city commissions by Green city councilmembers in Berkeley. So I don't come at my positins from a kneejerk anti-Green or anti-third party position; I just haven't seen any concrete gains from the strategy and a pile of failures due to the spoiler effects. I could be convinced that the spoiler losses were offset by the gains, except there ae almost no gains, only losses from the strategy.
A demand for proof of a strategy's effectiveness is not rightwing; it's a basic requirement for left success.
-- Nathan Newman