Leftist American voters not very bright...

44% of the 4% Americans who called Obama "Too Conservative" voted for John McCain. How the fuck does that work? With oodles of crack-cocaine?

haha

Source?

Noooooooo Shit?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/res...s/#val=USP00p5

The other possibility is that the people understand too little English to have understood the question, which is plausible in a society as multicultural as the USA.

they could be ultra-leftist morons.
Who want to spill the blood of the working class around them in order to get their perfect Utopian revolution to happen.

Liberal does not equal leftist. Maybe these people are Social Liberals but diehard anti-welfare staters.

The ultra-left doesn't participate in parliamentary elections and doesn't care which fraction of the bourgeoisie is supposed to be more progressive. Your claim that misinformed voters are ultra-leftists is complete and utter nonsense.

Okay, just so you know: Calling the people who voted for Senator Obama "leftist American voters" is silly.

Not trying to flame you, just reminding you that, in the scheme of things,voting for Obama instead of McCain, is voting about 2 degrees to the left, on a line that's 180 degrees.

If 0 degrees were Marxists, and 180 degrees were fascists, McCain is at 140, and Obama is at 138.

What does the circumference of a circle have to do with anything?

in 2004, 1 out 10 voters based their decisions on policies.

I suspect this years election will be even less.

Groups like Solidarity and the Workers' International League endorsed McKinney, while groups like Socialist Alternative endorsed Nader.

Groups like the Communist Party USA endorsed Obama.

So there are parts of the "socialist" left that will give support to capitalist candidates without considering socialist campaigns (Moore, La Riva, Calero) or running their own.

It's funny - in the past the IMT really chastised the CWI for having their American section support the Greens because it is a bourgeois party (which is correct, I guess). Suddenly the Green party turned into a workers' party, I suppose. Oh well, no big surprise - if the PPP can do it and the PSUV can do it, anyone can.

I'm pretty sure the circumference of a circle is 360 degrees. I used the sum of the sides of a triangle, so the numbers would never meet.

Be that as it may, I think my post makes sense. I was simply trying to give an example to my opinion, that socialists are leftists, in the true sense, and that people voing for Obama were hardly leftists.

While I don't believe the USA is a true fascist state, I do believe it is a corporate state with some meaningful rights for its people, and very slow progress on important matters. In no way, in my view, however, should the USA, or the conduct of its general population, be considered, "leftist". That's all I was getting at.

I voted for Obama, mainly due to my literal hatred of the religious right. But I have no illusions that he, when installed in office next year, will act in a progressive manner.

The only progressive change in the USA will come from people taking to the streets and demanding change, if not actual end to the current government, and its semi-police state.

I think my story can shed some light on this matter.

I became a revolutionary leftist in 2003, starting out as an anarchist but turning to communism/socialism. The war in Iraq was what drew me to the socialist left. I was introduced to the ideology, but I had no party to guide me. I had posted on this board under a different name (back when it was called Che Lives).

When 2004 came around, I was still thinking of myself in that manner. But Anybody But Bush swept me up and I was caught in the spider web of the Democratic Party. Of course, I supported Kucinich and hated John Kerry. I saw John Kerry as being the pro-war candidate. But when Kucinich endorsed Kerry, that suddenly changed and I swooned over the man's acceptance speech, emotionally watching the Democratic National Convention. I was a good sheep. In fact, on the socialist forums I frequented, I commonly said "Don't vote for Nader - vote for Kerry" and then I tried to "prove" why he was good for socialists to support. I was 15 and couldn't vote, but I convinced my mother to vote for Kerry.

After the 2004 election, I was firmly entrenched in the Democratic Party. Amazingly, I still had the illusion that I was a socialist. I was very much like the members of the Communist Party USA. That was in fact the first party I considered joining, but I didn't. After all, who needs to join the CPUSA when you can join the party they support. So I was supporting capitalists. I was a good little progressive Democrat.

In the fall of 2005, I began to drift further and further away from the Democratic Party. Of course, I went straight to supporting the Greens. But then I did some thinking about the Green Party, realizing the error of my ways. I started to support the Socialist Party USA. And here I am today.

I voted for Brian Moore. I was disheartened to see "socialist" groups endorse Nader, McKinney. They didn't have an excuse like me. I was not tied to any group. I was susceptible to the winds of capitalist mind control.

Putting on a "grassroots" and "progressive" appearance does not challenge the capitalist system. There are many countries with multiparty systems that have capitalism in full effect. The task is not to build up "progressive alternatives" but to build up a socialist alternative. It is quite ironic that Socialist Alternative is the name of the group that endorsed Nader.

Your metaphor made sense to me; but I would say McCain is 160 and Obama 158. Incidentally, the USA today is a fascist state. If it's not, give me examples of fascist states and explain in what sense they differ from the USA.

I don't think that you can take 4% that would vote for a conservative to be a good representation of American Leftists.

I believe it is an "insult to history" to use certain words in situations far different than what occurs during their true nature.

Many Marxists would say, for example, that America is a "slave nation", as its workers are exploited, and we ultimately work for the capitalist class Using such an expression, however, is an insult to the many slaveries such as the one employed by the Egyptians thousands of years ago, and the Incan, European, and North American slavery a few hundred, or one hundred fifty years ago.

Many Marxists argue that America is a right-wing religious nation. While I don't deminish the power of such forces, if this were the actual case, and the nation were such, McCain would have won the election, and the religious right would not be allowed to look so impotent, as they have since 2006.

I view Italy in the 30s a fascist state. If you believe the USA is the same, you and I have vastly different views on how to define the term, and, without trying to start an argument, our frame of reference is so far apart, there's no point in the discussion.

Vermont has elected to its state house, more than one Democratic Socialist party member, and this would clearly be prevented in a fascist government.

Revleft.com is alive and well, and not shut down. There are newspapers in the U.S. that support workers rights, and even attack the capitalist class.

I suppose, in my opinion, THE biggest "proof" the USA is not fascist, is that over the past 4 years, May Day, a total joke throughout the nation's history, is now a genuine holiday, bringing, now, hundreds of thousands of workers to the streets.

I just don't use that word to describe the USA, mainly because it makes our cause look "dumb", as if we don't know the difference between a nation ruled 80% by a corporate class, and one that looks like Hitler's Germany.

There's an episode of the Sopranos, where a federal judge asks Junior Soprano if he would wear a leg identificatoin device during his house arrest. His response is, "Sounds like Nazi Germany." To which the judge replies, "You obviously don't know your history."

Okay, fair enough. I was actually comparing the USA to the original fascist state, Italy. The similarity seems to be the use of massive state power to overcome a crisis of corporate capitalism. To me this similarity is so important that it overwhelms, for example, the tolerance of meaningless dissent and criticism. With regard to Nazi Germany, I hesitate to put that frightening regime in the same category as Italy. But I think even you would agree that all modern Western states have fascist tendencies because of the close collusion between state and capitalist interests with all that that implies (state power to overcome crises and contradictions, the socialising of losses, the control of dissent). It's just done in a more adroit fashion these days.

First, I do realize many separate Italy's totalitarianism from Germany's in the 1930s. Totally reasonable to do so; many arguments can be made about their differences.

Where you and I agree here (and, no offense, but I think you wrote your view a lot clearer in the above post), is that the capitalist control of the USA, successfully works to margainalize SERIOUS opposition to the ruling class. In this, we are in 100% agreement.