I didn’t vote Nader because the Corvair was a cool car.
And this is exactly why I vote 3rd party. I’m already at the voting place hoping to make a difference in local elections (the only place my vote will actually count) so I might as well vote for president.
Imagine for a moment that your two biggest issues are abortion rights and gun rights. You hold these two approximately equal in deciding for whom to vote, maybe split the other issues right down the middle giving half to Dems and half to Pubs if you don’t like being a single issue voter.
Now, who do you vote for?
If you vote Republican, you are sacrificing half of your ideals and knowingly acting to damage your country and remove rights from your own and future generations.
If you vote Democrat, you are sacrificing half of your ideals and knowingly acting to damage your country and remove rights from your own and future generations.
If either party was to make the bold decision to run a candidate that didn’t turn my stomach, I would probably vote for that person. Alas, this hasn’t happened in longer than I care to remember.
I can’t imagine that my basis for voting would come down to two things like that, so it’s hard for me to answer this question. Just being honest. Abortion and gun rights are as minor to me as cigarette taxes and the V-chip.
Why work with a hypothetical when we can talk reality? Gore and Bush differed on more than just two issues and they were important issues (defense, environment, economic priorities, etc.). But issues aside, there’s more to a president than just that, which is why when Nader voters justify their decision with false equivalencies it’s hard for me to think they were really informed voters. Back in 2000, it was obvious to me that Bush didn’t have the stuff to be a good president. Plainly put, he never showed himself to be smart enough for the job. He was an ineffective communicator and all he had was a good ole boy charm to compensate for his substanceless answers during the debates. Gore was leagues above him in just that one particular area, as boring as he came across on stage.
Just to say, I’m being intentionally hyperbolic with this statement. Abortion is important to me (not gun rights, though). I just think its more important than the economy and social programs.
Nader had a policy to fix the system. He pointed out how corrupt it had become. Just by pointing out how corporations had changed the country ,he did good . His message needs to be heard on a large stage.
There is a difference between the Dems and Repubs but it gets smaller and smaller as money takes over. There has to be public financing of elections to trim the power of the rich and powerful. Nader would inform the people of what has happened. How he would actually run the country ,I do not know. I am sure we would cut back on military spending and become a peaceful nation. How bad would that be.? I voted for Kucinich in Michigan primary. He had many of the same messages and was marginalized by the press.
But for me that’s not a hypothetical. I agree with neither the Dems nor the Pubs on a majority off issues. To me, each is as self-serving and evil as the other, and I believe neither the Party nor the candidates are interested in bettering the country, only in building up more power for themselves.
And I would amend this statement to read something like “Back in 2000, it was obvious that neither Bush nor Gore had the stuff to be a good president. Neither showed themselves to be smart enough for the job, both were ineffective communicators. The choice came down to a brainless Texan who sold his soul vs a career politician with no soul to trade for the power he craved.”
Neither was worth crossing the street to spit on, so why in the name of all the dark gods would anyone expect me to vote for one of them?
And I keep being bewildered at how you fail to understand that, given our current system, it was a stupid thing to do. You can vote the principle (ie, tilt at windmills, but don’t pretend that your symbolic vote for an idiot had any effect other than negative on the movement.
Whoa! So were you supporting a movement or were you trying to punish the Democratic Party? If you were supporting a movement, then it shouldn’t have mattered what the Dems did or didn’t do. If you were trying to punish the Dems for not adopting your favorite position on whatever issue got your panties in a twist, then all of the commentary above regarding centrist positions in a first-past-the-post system do apply and you DO bear responsibilty for acting like a petulant child with a loaded gun and shooting yourself in the foot (ie, the first four years of Bush).
What Nader says, and why people voted for him, two different things.
Want to know something funny? I’m supporting Obama now, and one of the reasons is because I think he has a better chance of winning the presidential election than Hillary. This would show that I’ve learned something from my experiences with Nader and the Greens-- I’m actually trying to support a candidate on the basis of his chances of winning the White House. Yet in the “I’m Sick of the Clintons” thread currently also running in the Pit, I and others are getting shit for saying that we think Obama has a better chance of winning than Hillary, and that’s an ignorant and hateful reason not to vote for Hillary.
Now, Dippity-do. The present? The post-election? The argument we’re STILL having seven years later? I’ll say it again, it is you (you personally and your ilk) that needs - desperately - to see the whole 2000 election fiasco in a way that protects your self-identity, that reinforces that there is nothing wrong with the status quo, that the actions of your preferred party/candidates/operatives had nothing to do with the Bush ascendancy. More than anything the above paragraph shows that a nerve has been struck. Your defensiveness is showing.
I was just at the Nebraska Democratic caucus yesterday. Sites all over the state were overwhelmed. In my county alone, over 30,000 Democrats, new registrants, and party-switchers (that would be me, amongst hundreds) all showed up to spend our Saturday morning at a caucus. In a state dominated by the Republicans for decades. Obama won 3-1 overall here. The Hillary supporters were a pittance comparatively. There IS a strong current in the left that wants something new, that wants the Democrats to live up to their promise, to stop fucking apologizing for our values, that wants a party we can be proud of, that wants to vote FOR something and someone and not just against someone. I’m sure you think that’s quixotic.
And Rubystreak, that’s exactly the feeling I’m getting from the Clinton camp. The desperation that if we don’t stick with the safety of the past, if we go out on the ledge and dare to do something different, then it’s going to be our fault when McCain wins the White House.
Interesting analysis. Based on what I’ve said in this thread, how did you come to any of these conclusions about me? I don’t think that I’ve ever said that mistakes weren’t made or that the system is perfect. Gore ran one of the worst campaigns I’ve ever seen and did not deserve to win. I just don’t think his mistake lets you off the hook for putting your personal pissyness ahead of your self-interest. Now that we can agree that it wasn’t about Nader, the Greens, or any noble third-party effort. You were mad at the Dems and set out to throw a tantrum.
Not at all. I want those things too. My question though is: What happens if he doesn’t get the nod? Gonna vote for Nader or Bloomberg or whoever the hell else? What if Huckabee’s the Republican nominee (as unlikely as that seems right now)? Willing to risk it again?
You are free to think what ever you want. I am tired of explaining my position to you. Frankly, you’re boring. You don’t agree and can’t help yourself from being an ass about it. You need to see what you need to see - a tantrum? Project much? I’ve dealt with your ilk before, and it is never about me, but rather about them. It won’t matter what I say, you will twist to fit your justifications, to fit what you need to see to make it ok. I understand. Good luck and godspeed.
They voted for the party out of principle. Good lord, are you two just incapable of reading comprehension? I don’t know about you, Ruby, but I’ve developed a welt from pounding my head on my desk.
I’ve let you draw me into this ridiculous discussion - heh - for too long. Your opinions are entrenched and impervious to even the possibility of listening. I’m done with you fools.
Haven’t you ever tried to do something you knew you’d fail at, because it was the right thing to do? I have. Is someone who does that a liar or a fool? I say neither. I say was a symbolic effort done in the hopes of building something better in the future. That’s the best answer I can give you. If you are hell-bent on reducing it to lying or stupidity, nothing I’m going to say is going to convine you otherwise. But that’s how I see it, as someone who “wasted” lots of man-hours working for the Greens and Nader in 2000.
I’ve tilted at plenty of windmills. But Nader didn’t acknowledge that he had no chance to win. So he was either lying or seriously deluded. I’m not sure what priciple is served by voting for a party that runs either of those as a candidate.
I’d be defensive too if I was responsible for all the damage that Bush has caused. The very least you could do is write letters of apology to the 3,000+ plus families of the US soldiers who died in this damn fool war.
Ever been on the track team? Our coach used to tell us to run it like you were trying to win it, even if you knew that you were going to be the last person over the finish line. There’s no point in running it like you’re going to lose.
As for “writing letters of apology” to the families of the soldiers that died… I will after all the Republicans who voted for Bush do. Deal?
It’s not a deal with me you need to make, it’s with your conscience. You probably thought was a big laugh when you thumbed your nose at the system, not so fucking funny now is it.
