Being elected isn’t the be-all and end-all of politics. Like I alluded to earlier, the Republicans didn’t win their first presidential election - Frémont in 1856 - but getting the Republicans into national politics paved the way for Lincoln’s victory in 1860 and 1864. You have to start somewhere.
Side note: I seem to recall the Democrats losing a lot of seats in Congress to the Republicans in 2002. Is Nader at fault for those Democrats’ losses as well?
Would you kindly indicate which Democratic candidates still in the race stand for watered-down versions of the issues Rubystreak and I have noted in this thread? And why compromise merely for the sake of compromise? If I don’t find a compromise acceptable, why in the hell should I do it?
If I thought that politics only involved pulling a lever every two or four years and then going home and sitting around with my thumb up my ass until the next election, then you’d have a point. Fortunately, I know better than that, which is why I’ll be out in New York later next month protesting the occupation of Iraq, and why I’ll be marching with womens’ organizations to defend a woman’s right to an abortion here in DC in April. And, more than likely, out to fight for the rights of gay and lesbian couples to marry if anything gets organized. As Howard Zinn has put it:
That is not what I said. I said, if [some] people think they are achieving their ends by voting for someone without concern for whether or not a vote will impact who wins, then they should carry on smartly. I didn’t say their vote has no impact as to who wins; clearly, I feel they do. It is a large reason I’m posting in these threads.
I don’t want it both ways. Personally, I think he’s an asshat. Secondarily, his presence does help fracture the left. He’s not stealing the election; the people voting for him are making an error if their intent is to shift politics to the left.
In case you missed the whole election process and have no fucking CLUE how elections are determined, the most popular candidate wins so in a pretty strict fucking sense elections are popularity contests. What the fuck.
When I vote, I will vote with the following procedure:
Is my favorite candidate likely to win?
If not, who would I rather my vote went to of those who could win?
As you might see, this procedure will maximize the return from my vote. I will know that I have done all I could do to align political power with my own interests in a manner that was actually available to me.
I don’t care if third parties run if they didn’t get votes. In fact, it seems that in many elections the fringe parties don’t affect the overall outcome even when they do get votes. You seem awfully concerned about logic, right up to the point when logic dictates that sincere voting isn’t rational, in which case logic be damned?
Vote how you want. I’m just giving you information and trying to sway you, yes, but vote how you want, for who you want. Just try to realize the very small number of things a vote can actually say rather than some of the Grander Visions[sup]TM[/sup] some might want you to think. You don’t check “Bush, because he’s cute” or “Bush, because I like his foriegn policy,” or “Nader, because the democrats are too close to the center,” or any of it. Votes don’t allow you to express that. Ballots simply don’t allow that expression.
First of all, according to you, voting for Nader DID EFFECT WHO WON. Didn’t it? Didn’t Bush win because of all us bastards who voted for Nader?
Why does it matter if >2% of the population votes for Nader, as in the last election? Why? Because, according to you anyway, it has an impact on who wins. But, you persist, Nader can’t win, so why would you want to vote for someone who can’t win? Because my vote makes a statement: I will only vote for a candidate whose integrity is sound, who represents my issues and gives a fuck about that which I hold dear. Is that clear enough for you?
The DEMOCRATS fractured the left when they abandoned the core values of traditional Dems and turned into Republicans Lite. Nader is filling the void where there used to be liberal Democrats. Place the blame where it belongs. Nader would have no pull if the Democrats were representing The Left. They aren’t.
[quote]
In case you missed the whole election process and have no fucking CLUE how elections are determined, the most popular candidate wins so in a pretty strict fucking sense elections are popularity contests. What the fuck.
Um, not in the 2000 election, he didn’t, so who has no fucking clue? But of course, as usual, you are missing the entire point I’m trying to make, which is that the most popular candidate wins because he gets the most votes; he doesn’t get the most votes because people think he’s going to win, which is what you’ve said is your voting strategy.
I do not think you are maximizing your vote whatsoever. You are voting for the guy you think is going to win, regardless of whether or not he represents your values and issues. In other words, the guy with the best TV demeanor, spin doctors, sound bites, and slick line of bullshit is your man, issues be damned (or at least, watered down to the point where they’re laughable). I’m only saying that because issues and values are nowhere on your list of procedures; you’d abandon your “favorite” candidate in favor of who will most likely win. To me, you are missing the whole point of voting and helping our political arena remain a shallow circus.
If your goal has been to convince me to vote Democrat, you’re doing a very bad job. I think your argument (that I should vote for who will win, essentially, whether or not I think he’s an asshat, as you so eloquently put it) is crap. Ah well, this is fairly typical of the Democrat mentality, so it’s no wonder I’ve run screaming.
Neither is voting your conscience 100%, regardless of the consequences.
Which is why I don’t blame people who voted for Perot in '92, or Nader in 2000: while they didn’t have a real chance of winning, there was a pragmatically useful third-party vote to be cast.
Nice strawman: I’m not blaming Nader for the poor shape the Democrats are in.
Here’s a handy checklist. If you weren’t so invested in conflating the Democrats and the Republicans to legitimize your radical choices, you might notice that one is a bit more palatable than the other.
Strawman #2: I’m not suggesting that compromise for the sake of compromise is important. I’m saying that a vote for Nader in 2004 is a 100% wasted vote that helps Bush. Like Erislover said, you should try to maximize the value of your vote by picking the best candidate that might actually make a difference.
Yes, you’re very good at laying down your radical cred and your excessive principle. You shame me. Enjoy voting for Bush in 2004.
This is possibly the silliest ding-dang statement that I’ve ever heard. The BushBaby knew that winning was the only thing that counts! Otherwise, how could he run an unjustified war, outsource our national economy, and use the Bill Of Rights for toilet paper the way he has?
And Nader has been there, done that. And was roundly cursed for it.
So, he’s gonna do it again? He’s “paved the way” for the Green Party to be resented, & alienated them from the Moderates.
What has he achieved? Nothing.
And why should anybody vote for him? He’s never held elected office, never held high military or diplomatic posts, never ran a corporation. He would merely be a Jimmy Carter, with an especially snotty smirk.
Nuts to that! I’d sooner vote for the Lone Ranger.
So do you think the poor shape the Democrats are in might have had more to do with Gore’s loss than Nader’s candidacy, or did the Democrats only fuck up in 2002?
I note that Nader is the only one with a checkmark in every row. Sure, the Democrats might be more palatable than Bush in that comparison, but neither Kerry nor Edwards seem to be as palatable as Nader.
So the Democrats are back in shape again? Do they, have, like, political biorhythms or something? They were in shape in 2000, so Nader spoiled the election, they were in lousy shape in 2002, so losing Congress seats was their own fault, but now in 2004 the only reason they’d lose is Nader’s candidacy?
Well, I don’t look the candidates alone for change.
I am just amazed at people’s negative reactions to Nader entering the race. Let’s get one thing straight. It wasn’t Ralph Nader that lost Gore the election in 2000. It wasn’t Pat Buchanan who lost the election in 2000. It was the democratic leadership who lost the election in 2000. And if they aren’t careful, they’ll lose 2004. They have shown again and again that they are a bunch of idjits who can’t differentiate between an asshole and a hole in the ground.
Let’s re-visit 2000:
The democratic leadership endorsed a fucking robot for president. Bill Clinton was charismatic and smart and, let’s face it, presidential. As an encore, they give us…Al Gore? That’s like substituting ground chuck for filet mignon and hoping no one notices.
Instead of committing to a clear, defined platform, Gore overnight morphed into George Bush. I don’t know who said “family values” or “prescription drugs for seniors” more often, but instead of emphasizing their DIFFERENCES, Gore emphasized their similarities. So we ended up having to choose between Mary Kate or Ashley. And since Republicans are notorious for voting the party line, they won! IIRC, Gore couldn’t even come right out and say “I’m in favor of abortion rights for women.” or “I’m for gay marriages.” It’s hard to vote for a man who can’t come up with a clear, definable platform. He was wishy-washy. For all Bush’s flaws, at least he told you up front how he was going to vote.
Clinton was an amazingly popular president, esp. with democrats. Al Gore should have stuck to him like gum on a subway seat. Instead of coasting on Clinton’s coattails a la George Bush I after the Reagan reign, the dem leadership decided that he should distance himself from Clinton to the extent that Clinton couldn’t even appear side by side with Gore. Great move, guys. Clue: The people that hated Clinton were NEVER going to vote for Gore, so why bother sucking up to them? In distancing himself from Clinton, Gore lost a lot of Clinton supporters. And there were a lot of them.
The Republican leadership proved that it was organized and effective by immediately mobilizing in Florida and winning key decisions. The democratic leadership looked like amateur hour in comparison.
A poorly designed ballot, approved by democrats, was used in Florida and hundreds, perhaps thousands, of votes were cast for Pat Buchanan instead of Al Gore. I’d bet large American dollars that the Republicans have experts on ballots whose only job is to review ballots.
If the Democratic leadership would remove their heads from their collective asses, they have a shot at winning the next election. But only because Bush is so unpopular among the democrats. They still need a decent game plan, though. That means responsible, sound leaders who will make sure a man who is ELECTABLE will get the nominations. That means no more Mike Dukakises. No more Geraldine Ferrarros. No more Al Gores. They need someone who is likable, charismatic, and not afraid to commit to say “I’m in favor of gay marriages.”
That means trumpeting that a vote for Al Sharpton or Ralph Nader or Lyndon LaRouche essentially means a vote for George Bush.
That means making sure that their candidate does not look like Lucky the Clown during a nationally televised debate.
Because, in contrast, the Republican leadership has their shit together. Ever notice how the Republicans are screaming how Pat Buchanan is going to cost their man the election? Gee, I wonder why.
97,488 votes for Nader in Florida, a difference of 537 between Bush and Gore. “The Democrats are a mess” is a convenient excuse for voting for Bush, isn’t it? We can argue different strategies for the Dems all day, all of which probably seemed brilliant at the time, but we have hard numbers on what Nader cost the U.S. in Florida. Shall we add the body count from the invasion of Iraq?
Perhaps, until you consider that they stand a reasonable chance to act on the checkmarks they do have in common. Nader’s checkmarks are pipe dreams.
Apparently you don’t look to them at all for change, since you ignore those who might actually be in a position to do something
This is a whoosh, right? I mean perhaps they would be “screaming” if he were running. Perhaps you are suggesting that the Republican leadership is so effective it convinced him not to run. Yeah.
Otherwise this would be a very uninformed comment. Kind of like suggesting that Gore should have made a push for gay marriage part of his 2000 platform if he really wanted to be elected. Yeah. That would have reflected an organized democratic leadership.
Clearly you were swayed by Bush/Roves’s argument about losing the popular vote: “We had a strategy to win the electoral college.” Yeah, we meant to lose the popular vote! That’s the ticket! Otherwise you would feel silly about putting forth the argument that Gore was such an exceptionally weak candidate. That, and the fact that Gore won 50,996,116 votes in 2000, compared to 44,300,236 for Clinton in 1992 and 47,401,185 in 1996.
Should he have sighed? No. He should have done a lot different. Would he be president if Nader hadn’t been on the ballot? Yes.
I forgot to add that Gore’s popular vote count was the largest in history. I’m glad I didn’t, because after double checking, it was the second largest in history, to Reagan’s 1984 vote count. Yeah, it’s dubious to compare raw counts across long periods of time, but it kinda suggests that Democrats, and people in general, weren’t steering away from robotic, wishy washy Gore in droves, losing huge amounts of Clinton’s supporters, as PunditLisa might like to wish. He could have won more votes, perhaps by pandering to interests in the rust belt, keeping Clinton on, relying more on James Carville, kissing Tipper longer, not kissing Tipper so long, or doing a hundred thousand other things.
Of course, Nader only had to do one thing: stay home.
Let’s see… Clinton was in a position to offer us universal health care - as a matter of fact, it was one of his campaign promises. Where is it? I also seem to remember he was in a position to improve the situation of gays and lesbians in the military, and all they got was “don’t ask, don’t tell”. Why in the hell should I therefore trust Gore or Kerry to do anything? Especially since, as I’ve already stated, I have a good idea of what Kerry wants to do as President and I don’t agree with any of it.
Let’s just take a look at the Florida returns a moment, shall we? By my count, there were seven other candidates who got a number of votes larger than the difference between Bush and Gore.
Curse you, Libertarians! A pox on both your houses, Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Party! Your mother wears army boots, Natural Law Party! You won the election for Bush! And you’ll do the same if you stand candidates this year, too!
…or is there some convenient excuse you can use to write off those ~40,000 votes that doesn’t apply to Nader?
He’s also the fourth president who didn’t win the popular vote, the number one job-losingest president ever, and the first president to ever have a national debt of over 7 trillion dollars, but will be the second Bush to get booted out of office after only one term. He’ll still be the #1 fuckup in all of our hearts though.
Um…maybe the fact that he is singlehandedly responsible for twice as many votes as all of them together? Could that be it?
I see a common theme here among Naderites: “Why are you discounting all of these hundred other little reasons and focusing on one of the biggest?”
“The chair collapsed! Why aren’t you blaming the Swedish furniture maker, the shoddy overseas transit conditions, the humidity, the faulty screws, and the positioning of the chair instead of your 400 pound uncle who plopped down in it?”
So it’s just that he was the third-place contender, then. Would you be this angry at Harry Browne if he’d netted 97,000 votes in Florida, and Nader only 16,000?
Never in my life have I seen people being so derided for acting out of conscience. Surely you must understand how hard it is to see your opinion as enlightened when you so easily admit that you’re asking us to act contrary to what our conscience dictates.
This checklist was hilarious. Did you notice that Nader had checks in ALL the boxes? And your guys didn’t? Does that little graphic help you understand that the interests of people who support Nader aren’t really represented by anyone else?
A bit more palatable, but still rather unpalatable overall. Bush is nauseating; Kerry and Edwards are just disappointing.
No, erislover said that we should all just vote for whomever we think will win, regardless of the issues we hold dear. Us radicals find that excessively UNprincipled. Also, I have to laugh at the idea that voting for a candidate who represents your interests is radical.
Can I ask what the hell is “excessively principled”? What you meant to say is “extremely principled.” And that’s not an insult, nor is it anything a person should want to change in himself.
I don’t feel I’ve been particularly unclear on this point.
Protests make a statement for fuck’s sake. Votes align political power. Sweet fucking christ, we vote to shift power in politics, not to pass notes in class.
I am not interested in blaming anyone for anything.
[quote=Rubystreak]
That would still be you. The popular vote is not how elections are determined in this country, so your appeal to it shows further denial about how things actually work.
I was fairly clear about what my strategy is. I even broke it down into two easy to swallow points. Yet somehow, this is what you came up with.
Obviously not. I would vote for my favorite candidate first, if I thought he could win. If he couldn’t win, because I’m so fucking particular about some things and the rest of America isn’t, then it is still in my interest to use my vote to shape the outcome of the election. To do this, I look at the candidates likely to win and select from them. Obviously I am still voting my preference, I have just compromised on some issues so that my vote still promotes my issues to some degree.
Try reading it one more time. It isn’t that hard.
Yeah. Bush is very proud of your integrity. Don’t let it go. :rolleyes:
It has been to present to you rather unequivocal facts about how our system is set up, what votes can possibly mean, and how to maximize the return from your vote wrt the election. A vote isn’t a poll, Gallup conducts those. A vote isn’t a statement; buy a fucking t-shirt. It is an attempt to affect the outcome of an election in favor of your opinions to whatever degree you can. Everything I’ve said here applies to anyone who thinks about voting third-party.