Ralph Nader is a self-centered ass hat!

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@John Mace

AD:

Olentzero’s point is well taken. Just because some hasn’t voted in previous elections does not mean that a candidate shouldn’t seek that person’s vote. And don’t forget alll the 18 yr olds who have never had the chance the vote. Surely you are not suggesting that candidates ignore the potential new voters who might not vote unless someone reaches out to them.

Sure, I understand where he’s coming from. But then again, how long do you court a woman before you finally realize that she doesn’t care about you? And make no mistake, this is a courtship. The candidates will make promises, whisper sweet nothings in your ear and promise you the world, but when half the people you court don’t care, why should you waste limited resources on them and save your flowers for the people who care?

The new voters are a different problem. They were ignored until now because they literally didn’t matter. Now they have to show the candidates why anyone should care about them by going to the polls. Barring that, of necessity they are going to be pushed to the sidelines.

It’s a bitch, but it’s a fact of American elections nowadays.

[Olentzero]

I really cannot see any major candidate saying to him/herself and the campaign staff, “They haven’t voted yet 'cos they’re only 18? Fuck 'em. Let’s see which way they vote first and then we’ll start focusing on them.”

There’s also a wide difference between giving up on courting someone else because they don’t return your affections and actively making sure no other suitors come calling. “If I can’t have her, nobody can!” That’s not politics, that’s just stupid.

This whole “if you don’t vote, you don’t matter” idea is a crock of shit, in any case. Voting is not the only way to make change in this society. How did women get the vote in the early 1900s? They couldn’t vote for candidates who promised to get them the vote. So did their opinions not matter? How did Blacks finally earn the right to vote in the 1960s? They couldn’t vote for candidates who promised to give Blacks the vote. Did their opinions not matter? How do we get a bigger share of the political arena for third parties? By voting for a Democrat who promises to do something about it - with no real guarantees? Do the opinions of those of us, who wouldn’t vote for a Democrat under any circumstances because we’re as disgusted with them as we are with the Republicans, not matter?

People’s opinions and ideas matter, and whether or not they choose to vote every two or four years does not lessen their importance or relevance. We will still have as much ability to organize, mobilize, and fight for what we want the day after Election 2004 as we do now. Our opinions deserve to be heard whether we vote or not.

[artemis]

@Olentzero

I really cannot see any major candidate saying to him/herself and the campaign staff, “They haven’t voted yet 'cos they’re only 18? Fuck 'em. Let’s see which way they vote first and then we’ll start focusing on them.”

No, they say “let’s not pay too much attention to 18 year olds because most of them don’t vote even though they could” (which happens to be true). They’d rather concentrate on issues of importance to retirees - who DO vote in large numbers.

@Olentzero

This whole “if you don’t vote, you don’t matter” idea is a crock of shit, in any case. Voting is not the only way to make change in this society. How did women get the vote in the early 1900s? They couldn’t vote for candidates who promised to get them the vote. So did their opinions not matter? How did Blacks finally earn the right to vote in the 1960s? They couldn’t vote for candidates who promised to give Blacks the vote. Did their opinions not matter? How do we get a bigger share of the political arena for third parties? By voting for a Democrat who promises to do something about it - with no real guarantees?

Yep. That’s EXACTLY how women and Blacks got changes made - being unable to vote themselves, they had to persuade enough members of society who COULD vote to make changes in the laws. That’s how gays are going to have to take on the current anti-gay legislation, too; they don’t form a large enough block of voters to overturn such legislation by themselves, so they’re going to have to work to convince large numbers of straight voters to join their cause if they wish to effect change.

Of course, women and Blacks COULDN’T vote, and gays are a numerical minority. What’s preventing that 48% of eligible non-voters you keep mentioning from flexing some political muscle, other than apathy? No one’s listening to their concerns (whatever those might be) because they’re making no effort to engage the system in any fashion. Get a fair number of those people to vote Green, and you’ll be able to change the system without having to compromise any of your positions to win support from us insufficiently-liberal Democrats. Otherwise, working to change the system from inside is the only other option that will yield some results, if you actually want to see the government shift toward the left from its current position.

[Zoe]

John Mace: If the Dems can’t garner the votes they need, I see it as an indication that the American people don’t want them. That’s the way elections work. You have to convince enough people to vote for your candidate. It’s really that simple.

I wish! Just a reminder – more American people wanted Al Gore to be President than George Bush.

spectrum: Gore never had a chance in the South. To expect any Democrat to carry any state in the South aside from Florida is absurd.

Not so. This was the first election that Gore had ever lost in Tennessee. He had served for many many years as a member of the House of Representatives and then the Senate. Further, Tennessee has since elected a Democratic governor who is extremely popular. So Gore did have a chance – as do other Democrats.

As for Nader, if his first priority is still the environment, then I do not understand how he could do anything to endanger the removal of George W. Bush from office. He may not like many of the policies of the Democrats and sometimes the party is not liberal enough for me either. But nothing is more important than replacing the current Administration.

Can he really be considered a “Third Party Candidate” this time since he is running as an independent?

[Lemur866]

Has anyone really done any analysis that shows that the political preferences of the 50% of the people who don’t vote are very much different than the preferences of the people who do? In other words, there is some speculation that a lot of people who don’t vote are just waiting for a candidate who is left-wing enough, or right-wing enough, or whatever. But I believe it is much more likely that if all the non-voters suddenly started voting they would vote in patterns pretty similar to the way current voters do.

Or maybe that’s just my centrist bias. Yep, I guess everyone really is convinced that if only non-voters could be somehow tricked into voting they’d vote just like, well, ME.

[LCP2972]

@Olentzero

How did Blacks finally earn the right to vote in the 1960s?

small nit pick, on the timing of the the 15th amendment:

---

Article XV.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Proposal and Ratification

The fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed to the legislatures of the several States by the Fortieth Congress, on the 26th of February, 1869, and was declared, in a proclamation of the Secretary of State, dated March 30, 1870, to have been ratified by the legislatures of twenty-nine of the thirty-seven States. The dates of ratification were: Nevada, March 1, 1869; West Virginia, March 3, 1869; Illinois, March 5, 1869; Louisiana, March 5, 1869; North Carolina, March 5, 1869; Michigan, March 8, 1869; Wisconsin, March 9, 1869; Maine, March 11, 1869; Massachusetts, March 12, 1869; Arkansas, March 15, 1869; South Carolina, March 15, 1869; Pennsylvania, March 25, 1869; New York, April 14, 1869 (and the legislature of the same State passed a resolution January 5, 1870, to withdraw its consent to it, which action it rescinded on March 30, 1970); Indiana, May 14, 1869; Connecticut, May 19, 1869; Florida, June 14, 1869; New Hampshire, July 1, 1869; Virginia, October 8, 1869; Vermont, October 20, 1869; Missouri, January 7, 1870; Minnesota, January 13, 1870; Mississippi, January 17, 1870; Rhode Island, January 18, 1870; Kansas, January 19, 1870; Ohio, January 27, 1870 (after having rejected it on April 30, 1869); Georgia, February 2, 1870; Iowa, February 3, 1870.

Ratification was completed on February 3, 1870, unless the withdrawal of ratification by New York was effective; in which event ratification was completed on February 17, 1870, when Nebraska ratified.

The amendment was subsequently ratified by Texas, February 18, 1870; New Jersey, February 15, 1871 (after having rejected it on February 7, 1870); Delaware, February 12, 1901 (after having rejected it on March 18, 1869); Oregon, February 24, 1959; California, April 3, 1962 (after having rejected it on January 28, 1870); Kentucky, March 18, 1976 (after having rejected it on March 12, 1869).

The amendment was approved by the Governor of Maryland, May 7, 1973; Maryland having previously rejected it on February 26, 1870.

The amendment was rejected (and not subsequently ratified) by Tennessee, November 16, 1869.

---

I’m not saying it was easy or safe even for blacks to vote even up to the 60s, and I’m not denying poll taxes or anything like that.

I’m just saying that technically, they had the right to vote on either february 3rd ot 17th or 1870.

[LCP2972]

@LCP2972

they had the right to vote on either february 3rd ot 17th or 1870.

DOH!
I’m just saying that technically, they had the right to vote on either february 3rd or 17th **of ** 1870.

sorry, I even previewed.

[hansel]

The difference between all the “coulda, woulda, shoulda” arguments against Gore that are an attempt to invalidate criticisms of Nader’s Green candidacy, and criticisms of Nader’s Green candidacy in 2000, is that the former are arguable and speculative, while the latter isn’t.

We can talk all day about different things Gore could have done to mobilize more voters, or swing more centrists, but it’s (at best, informed) speculation. Whereas, if Nader hadn’t run, it’s as close to counterfactually certain that Gore would have carried Florida and been president. Nader’s support came from the far left, and if less than a couple percent of his voters in Florida had voted for Gore as a compromise leftist, Gore would have won (going by numbers quoted earlier in the thread).

There’s a world of difference, epistemologically, between the Monday morning quarterbacking of Gore’s campaign, and blaming Nader for costing Gore the 2000 election.

[Rubystreak]

@hansel

The difference between all the “coulda, woulda, shoulda” arguments against Gore that are an attempt to invalidate criticisms of Nader’s Green candidacy, and criticisms of Nader’s Green candidacy in 2000, is that the former are arguable and speculative, while the latter isn’t.

We can talk all day about different things Gore could have done to mobilize more voters, or swing more centrists, but it’s (at best, informed) speculation. Whereas, if Nader hadn’t run, it’s as close to counterfactually certain that Gore would have carried Florida and been president. Nader’s support came from the far left, and if less than a couple percent of his voters in Florida had voted for Gore as a compromise leftist, Gore would have won (going by numbers quoted earlier in the thread).

There’s a world of difference, epistemologically, between the Monday morning quarterbacking of Gore’s campaign, and blaming Nader for costing Gore the 2000 election.

The problem with this line of thinking is that there were a lot of factors that went into Gore losing Florida. How about the Jeb Bush/Kathrynn Harris factor? How about the goddamn hanging chads? How about the decision of the SCOTUS? To lay this at Nader’s feet, to me, ignores the actual wrongness, criminality, and flagrant disrespect for the American electoral process that took place.

How I wish the incense Dems would focus their bile on the abovementioned folks and chastise THEM as much as they do the Nader voters. After all, Nader voters didn’t actually do anything wrong. We exercised our right to vote as we wish, which is our honor and privilege as Americans. Seriously, the energy spent on hating Nader and vilifying his supporters would be better spent on productive undertakings that might actually have a meaningful outcome, like election reform for instance.

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Rubystreak

The problem with this line of thinking is that there were a lot of factors that went into Gore losing Florida. How about the Jeb Bush/Kathrynn Harris factor? How about the goddamn hanging chads? How about the decision of the SCOTUS? To lay this at Nader’s feet, to me, ignores the actual wrongness, criminality, and flagrant disrespect for the American electoral process that took place.

How I wish the incense Dems would focus their bile on the abovementioned folks and chastise THEM as much as they do the Nader voters.

Well, the incense Dems* DID so focus, and raise a howl about all those other factors They got called whiny spoiled brat losers for it, as I recall. Didn’t do any good then, did it?

That was three and a half years ago, now, and pretty much all of those factors in Gore’s loss are irrelevant this time around. What good would it do to revisit those old wounds? Nader’s interjected himself into the race and thus made himself fair game.

[SIZE=1]*As opposed to the beer and bratwurst Dems, who just belched in all directions.

[MMI]

Part of the problem with blaming the 51 million (or whatever) who didn’t vote is that not all non-voters are alike or equally valuable. If Gore had mobilized several thousand additional voters he would have been president, as long as they were in the right one or two or three states. If Gore had mobilized several million extra voters, concentrated in California and New York, the only difference it would have made is that half the country would feel even more aggrieved at the outcome of the election.

Heck, with some 90-95% of congressional “races” being safe seats a case can be made that in many places there is little point in voting for national offices. Of course I would especially like to encourage this view among those whose political views are significantly different from my own

[hansel]

@Rubystreak

How I wish the incense Dems would focus their bile on the abovementioned folks and chastise THEM as much as they do the Nader voters. After all, Nader voters didn’t actually do anything wrong. We exercised our right to vote as we wish, which is our honor and privilege as Americans. Seriously, the energy spent on hating Nader and vilifying his supporters would be better spent on productive undertakings that might actually have a meaningful outcome, like election reform for instance.

Well, the abovementioned did get a hell of a lot of chastisement, and ire directed at Nader voters had pretty much settled down until NADER DECIDED TO DO IT AGAIN!

I personally don’t blame Nader voters in 2000, who couldn’t have predicted that their votes would have been so crucial then, for whom the luxury of a purely principled vote had no foreseen consequences.

Will you at least admit now, though, that your vote was wasted on an asshat?

[Captain_Amazing]

@spectrum

Gore never had a chance in the South. To expect any Democrat to carry any state in the South aside from Florida is absurd.

That’s not true. In 1992, Clinton carried Arkansas, Louisiana, Georgia, Tennessee, and Kentucky, and in 1996, he carried Florida, Lousiana, Arkansas, Tennessee and Kentucky. So, a Democrat can carry southern states…Gore just couldn’t.

[Olentzero]

@hansel

Will you at least admit now, though, that your vote was wasted on an asshat?

No, because I didn’t vote for Gore.

[hansel]

@Olentzero

No, because I didn’t vote for Gore.

Really? Sincerely? So you’ll be voting for Nader again, a man who’s demonstrated that the basest narcissism is what drives him? At least leading the Greens, he could position himself as the leader of growing third-party movement; a vote for Nader, while certainly not a vote for a possible winner, could be a principled vote for a viable third-party alternative.

This time around, he’s in it just to see his name on the ballot, and a vote for Nader is nothing but a vote for spite–hardly a principled position to take.

[Rubystreak]

@hansel

Will you at least admit now, though, that your vote was wasted on an asshat?

No. Sorry.

[Saintly_Loser]

@Gomez

All you need to know about the 2,000 election is that without Nader, Bush wouldn’t be president. OK, it’s unfair to tar Nader with that in hindsight.

It certainly is unfair, 'cause it’s bullshit. What may be true is that without voters who would otherwise have voted for Gore voting for Nader, in the State of Florida, Bush wouldn’t be President.

The assumption that people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore had Nader not been in the race doesn’t hold water. Maybe they would have voted for the Green Party anyway, even if that party’s nominee was someone other than Nader. Maybe some of them were life-long Republicans who were so disgusted with Bush that they voted for Nader (don’t dismiss this – my dad is one of these. I was amazed).

[Olentzero]

@hansel

Really? Sincerely? So you’ll be voting for Nader again, a man who’s demonstrated that the basest narcissism is what drives him? … This time around, he’s in it just to see his name on the ballot, and a vote for Nader is nothing but a vote for spite–hardly a principled position to take.

A few of his statements from his interview on “Meet the Press”:

This is a fight for all third parties: Libertarian, Green Party, other third parties, other Independent candidates, all the way down to the local level, who want a chance to breathe politically. They want a chance to have a chance to compete. This is not a democracy that can be controlled by two parties in the grip of corporate interests.

We need to get out of [Iraq] as fast as possible because we are the magnet for increasing guerrilla warfare and increasing entry by al-Qaeda and others, just the opposite of what we were told was going to happen… We need to provide well-supervised elections with perhaps suitable autonomies with the acquiescence, of course, of the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. And we need to continue humanitarian assistance to those people in Iraq. That’s the way to get it done…Iraqis will be ruled by Iraqis. It will be ruled under fair elections by Iraqis. They’re very creative people. And we have no business being there. We have no business diverting hundreds of billions of dollars over there while our schools, clinics, public transit, libraries are crumbling for lack of repair. We need to cut–get rid of that tax cut for the wealthy, which is increasing deficits, and have a massive job-producing public works.

I support equal rights for same-sex couples.

That’s what I’m voting for - his stance on the issues, not the man himself. I don’t care if he’s running as an independent or as a Green Party candidate; that doesn’t concern me. His stance on the issues best match my own, and that’s why I’m planning to vote for him in November.

[Rubystreak]

@hansel

Really? Sincerely? So you’ll be voting for Nader again, a man who’s demonstrated that the basest narcissism is what drives him?

First, c’mon, isn’t base narcissism what drives ANYONE to run for president? Next, let’s be honest here: you don’t like Nader, you want your guy to win, so you’re calling names and trying to cajole and insult his supporters into changing their minds. Nader isn’t running out of narcissism, IMO. He’s running because he has something to offer that isn’t being offered by anyone else. I’m sorry, but it isn’t.

Which of the Dems has come out for legalization of marijuana and an end to the ridiculous, ineffective, and destructive War on Drugs?

Which has stated in no uncertain terms that he wants gays to have equal rights and protections under the law, including marriage?

Which will actually carry out election reform?

Which has shown active contempt for corporate welfare?

Which will promote the idea of a living wage?

If those issues are central to a person’s belief system, it would be a hideous travesty for that person to vote for someone who absolutely does not stand for those things. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

This time around, he’s in it just to see his name on the ballot, and a vote for Nader is nothing but a vote for spite–hardly a principled position to take.

So you say, and I am still undecided. However, I think it’s quite silly to think Nader is running for the sake of self-aggrandizement, when all he’s gotten for his troubles in vilified, dismissed, and laughed at. Really now.

[hansel]

@Rubystreak

Nader isn’t running out of narcissism, IMO. He’s running because he has something to offer that isn’t being offered by anyone else.

No, he doesn’t, because he won’t be elected, so he’ll have no opportunity to influence anything. If he cared about making a difference, he’d get elected somewhere–if an independent can win Minnesota, surely there’s a position somewhere that Nader can get that will make a difference. Jerry Brown lost the democratic primary, and went on to be mayor of Oakland because it gave him a chance to actually do something. Nader won’t even be an influence on other candidates, because he’s too fringe, moreso this time than last time.

Which of the Dems has come out for legalization of marijuana and an end to the ridiculous, ineffective, and destructive War on Drugs?

So what? He won’t be elected.

Which has stated in no uncertain terms that he wants gays to have equal rights and protections under the law, including marriage?

So what? He won’t be elected.

Which will actually carry out election reform?

Not Nader, since he won’t be elected.

Which has shown active contempt for corporate welfare?

So what? He won’t be elected.

Which will promote the idea of a living wage?

So what? He won’t be elected.

If those issues are central to a person’s belief system, it would be a hideous travesty for that person to vote for someone who absolutely does not stand for those things. Why is that so hard for people to understand?

Because the Democratic candidate may stand for watered down version of those things, but rather than compromise, you’d throw your vote away and incidentally help someone even worse get elected. You’re standing on principle so you can watch the nation burn down around you. You’re more concerned with feeling right than with accomplishing anything, even at the cost of things getting worse.

However, I think it’s quite silly to think Nader is running for the sake of self-aggrandizement, when all he’s gotten for his troubles in vilified, dismissed, and laughed at. Really now.

Really, yourself. What can Nader hope to gain except attention? Certainly not the presidency, nor any influence on the presidential debate. All he gets is some face-time with the cameras. That’s what I call narcissism.