If a Republican supports Obama but not the Democratic party ideals and/or downticket races - then how are they any better/different than PUMA who will not support Obama but assuredly the Democratic downticket races?

I'd imagine that Republicans welcome the votes from PUMAz as much as Democrats welcome the votes of Republicans. Though, I'd also wager that each Party is not willing to let either group (PUMAz or R's voting D) determine the direction the Party goes in.

Part of supporting a Party is voting for those who will further the cause of it. In this case, the PUMAz who are voting for McCain are furthering the Republican agenda....while Republicans voting for Obama are furthering the Democratic agenda. Personally, as a Democrat...I prefer the latter.

This diary reminds me of this comment which I just wrote.

The mentality I see is that if a Republican is considering voting for McCain, we should reach out to them and see if we can convince them to join our team.  If an Independent is considering voting for McCain, we should reach out to them and see if we can convince them to join our team.  But if a Democrat is considering voting for McCain, we should denounce them as a worthless traitor and make sure that we never, ever do anything which might have the effect of bringing them back into the fold.

We used to hear again and again about all the people who wouldn't vote for Hillary if she was the nominee, particularly if she "stole" the nomination from Obama.  A lot of those same people are now wearing their little badges from the loyalty police and casting people into the outer darkness if they're not enthusiastic enough about our nominee.  But are they any more loyal to the party than the people they criticize?  Of course not, they're just lucky enough that their candidate won the nomination.  People who said they would never vote for Hillary (you could find hundreds of diaries in this vein at Daily Kos) are no more entitled to be called "loyal Democrats" than the PUMAs, yet they never incurred even a fraction of the grief.  In fact, hating Hillary was sort of a way to earn your progressive stripes.

I think we'd all do a lot better to try and understand the people who disagree with us.  In the best-case scenario, we can find ways to persuade them to agree.  In the worst-case scenario, at least we can figure out ways to counteract their arguments.  Instead, it seems people would rather take the easy route of labelling everyone who dissents as a McSame-loving traitor who wants the world to succumb to global warming, and it's frankly not that productive an attitude.  This is politics, and the goal is to build a winning coalition, not to sit at the door of the treehouse gleefully kicking people out of the club.

One could argue that, all things being equal, the office of the presidency has the greatest potential to hinder or aid the advancement of the Democratic agenda.  Therefore, supporting the Democratic presidential nominee arguably does more good than does casting votes only for down-ballot races.

on how bad you think McCain will be. Personally, I could pick a Dem out of a hat, and strongly prefer that Dem (sight unseen) to McCain. Given that context, I dislike PUMAs, and like R's voting D.

If I thought McCain wouldn't be awful, I'd be more concerned about downticket. In that case I'd probably take the reverse position.

I've met exactly one PUMA type in my life.  He's nuts.  Extremely unbalanced.  He's pissed at the world and he'll use his vote to let us know.  He wants revenge.

My Obamacan friends are crossing over on principle and for the country's best interests.

As to the internet folks?  I really don't know.  I'm not making broad assertions here.  I won't make a judgment on anyone I have not actually met.

To be perfectly honest I pretty much think the Democratic party sucks.  I just really hate the Republican party.  There are a couple Republicans I will probably vote for down ballot because I think they would do a better job representing my area than the democratic candidate.  Maybe that mind set is blasphemy here, but the two party system is a big load of crap if you ask me.

As to where we get votes from, I really don't care who votes for Obama as long as he wins.  An ignorant, bible thumping, gay bashing, nut job's vote counts just as much as the purest tree hugging liberal:)  

In the end I just want to win and don't care how we get there.

nobody feels that the Republican is coming here just to bait us into arguments that continue a debate about a primary campaign season that is now decided and done.  Nobody is wondering whether that Republican is a sockpuppet.  Nobody is clicking the Recommenders list to see the same list of names from a familiar dead-ender blog.  In other words, he's not trolling.

If the PUMA's whole point of existing is to prove a point to the Democratic Party and they state they will not vote for Obama as POTUS then why in the hell would they vote for Democrats down ticket?  Kinda defeats their purpose, doesn't it?

I mean if you really wanna stick it to the Democratic Party you wouldn't vote for down ticket Dems either, right?

Obamacans are gains -- by welcoming them we have an opportunity to increase the progressive base.

PUMAs are losses -- while they're still supporting the progressive movement as a whole, they're choosing to abandon it for one (important) vote.

That's the reasoning from my perspective.  Democrats constantly shoot themselves in the foot with bickering and stubbornness.  I'm not about to support the continual splintering of the Democratic base.  It's done as much to harm the progressive cause as anything.

But if we can increase that base in small increments, that's great.

I've got to say, this should really be the type of dialogue that's promoted around here, in terms of voter philosophy, etc.

Excellent, CG. One of your best ever.

IMHO, a lot of it has to do with labels. Or, more accurately: mislabelling.

Then again, there are plenty of instances where folks vote conservatively when it comes to their local rep's (as far as state, US House, and Senate candidates are concerned), and more liberally on the presidential level; and vice versa.

I know a lot of Yankee Republicans, here in the northeast, that are actually more liberal than quite a few Dems that I know, as well.

So, at the end of the day, perhaps it's more about personal philosophy than party labels.

I mean, wouldn't it follow that from a purity standpoint, if you're considering voting for any Republican anywhere, there's a school of thought that says you shouldn't be posting here? Perhaps, there's an answer to your questions in this last paragraph. (i.e.: The answer to your question may be that there is no black and white; like most other things, there's much more grey involved.)

(Don't you hate it when people answer questions with questions? LOL!)

Up until he declared his support for McCain, would Joe Lieberman have been allowed to post here?

Or, according to "the rules," should he have been banned the moment he lost the Dem primary to Lamont in 2006?

If a Republican supports Obama but not the Democratic party ideals and/or downticket races - then how are they any better/different than PUMA who will not support Obama but assuredly the Democratic ideals/downticket races?

But if a Republican is supporting Obama, technically they are supporting the Democratic ideals that he will eventually push. While they may not support downticket races they support the leader of the party, the leader who sets the platform and stage for downticket races.

I wouldn't say that an Obamacan is better than a PUMA [who is voting downticket]. I think they kinda cancel each other out.

This whole Obamacan v PUMA arguement is very much an 'us versus them' mentality within the mydd community. its like you either support Barack whole heartedly or you're a traitor type of deal; [cant say that I approve of it] and the 'traitors' seem hell bent on doing damage rather than push for progressive ideals.

If a PUMA came to mydd with a diary that didn't bash Sen. Obama but instead championed an issue that the progressive community should know about I would rec it. [but i doubt thats gonna happen]

How could a PUMA claim to be progressive but vote McCain, the anti-progressive-

(btw, I've lurked here for quite a while; this thread inspired me to create an account for the first time to reply)

The way I see it it's quite simple; it's not about WHO is making the post, it's about WHAT they're saying.

If an Obamacan comes on here to talk about why they support Obama, then they're supporting a Democrat, therefore their post is in line with the mission of the site and (as a general rule) should be applauded, even if that person is going to vote Republican downticket.

If that very same Obamacan comes on here to advocate the particular downticket Republicans they are supporting, or advocate against particular downticket Dems, then their post is clearly opposed to the site's mission and should be treated as a troll.

If a PUMA comes on here to talk about the particular downticket Democrats they are favoring, and to advocate for support or fundraising for those candidates, their post is in line with the mission of the site and should be applauded, even if that person admits they are voting McCain at the top of the ticket.

If that same PUMA comes on here to talk about why they are supporting McCain or to advocate AGAINST supporting Obama, then their post is opposed to the site's mission and should be treated as a troll.

Seems pretty simple to me - I'm not sure why we need to make it any more complicated than that.

(As far as how to deal with PUMAs in real life, it's mostly hypothetical to me, but I'd say that of course we should try to reach out to them, same as we should try to reach out to Republicans and Independents. But considering that the entire mission statement of the PUMA movement is, effectively, "screw you, we have no interest in being reached out to", reaching out to them would take a lot of patience. I have nothing but praise for people who have that patience, but I also have a lot of sympathy for those who don't. I don't think I'd be particularly good at it, myself)

Come to think of it, my Obamacan friends aren't holding out for a pony at this point.

trying to help Mitch McConnell or Liddy Dole get reelected.

Also, the PUMA's are a cult built on hatred of one man.  That's the entire raison d'etre of the movement--the unifying belief that Barack Obama is so singularly awful as a politician and a human being that they're willing to abandon everything they've ever stood for in order to help his Republican opponent win.

Awesome point!!! Thanks.

I appreciate the discussion my novice diary generated.  I attempted to answer your puzzlement when you commented the other day, but I seem to have only contributed to your annoyance.  Please read my diary in response to these questions for a broader view.