Here’s the best rebuttal I’ve seen to the Nader supporters’ claim that they’re not “throwing their vote away.” Please read this with an open mind and share your reactions.
Interesting article, but what if I’m a liberal in Texas? Al Gore is about as viable a candidate in Texas as Nader. Can I vote for Nader then? The only way all of Texas electoral votes won’t go to Bush is if he declares that as President, all the world’s toxic waste will have a home in Texas. And even then, it will still be close.
I do not agree with his answer to the second letter. A good showing by Nader would push the Democrats to the left. After Perot did so well you saw both parties trying to co-opt his issues such as deficit reduction and term limits.
Interesting cite lissener 
BTW, I thought he was through with politics after that failed attempt at biological warfare.
Yes, but after Reagan beat Carter and Anderson, the Democrats began a move to the right that’s left them currently a hair’s breadth away from Republicanism.
I think he has a point: at least if I were looking at the results, I’d definitely assume the 49% was closer to what the public really wanted. Look at it this way: if the Dems react by moving left, they’ll lose the pseudo-Democrats/quasi-Republicans of the South and Silicon Valley, who will stay where they are as the Democrats pull away from them to the left. If Gore were more liberal, in other words, Bush would be leading by a great deal more.
The argument that Nader will inspire future Democrats to be more liberal is hollow and doesn’t stand up to examination. I really do buy Savage’s logic that it will ultimately have the opposite effect.
Oh come off it lissener. That’s anything but a good rebuttal to Nader supporters.
I still love Zen101’s comment.
"I don’t like Bush any more than Algore but at least his followers don’t act like fucking panhandlers. "
So stop begging. We aren’t going to change our minds. You want a point by point rebuttal?
To which I reply, it’ll end up with Democrats like lissener down in hell supporting Lucifer because Satan would be even worse. Tell me lissener if the race was between Dick Cheney and George Bush, would you vote for Cheney because Bush would be worse? If so, I must say that I’m shocked at your lack of convictions.
Bullshit. Gore is the most self-serving politician in DC. His stand on the issues is completely up to what the polls say. Plus he’s a liar.
Kinda like the price they’ve been paying under four years of Clinton? Clinton has pushed through more right wing proposals than Bush was able to. Why? Because people are complacent and he can get away with it. At least if Bush were elected there would be more activism.
The difference is, dumbfuck, you’re mom isn’t on the ballot. If she was, and she was running with a party I supported, I would vote for her.
Yep. That’s what they did in the 60’s. Coopted the movements. Also, he’s making the assumption that Nader supporters wouldvote for Gore if Nader weren’t on the ballot. An assumption that has never been backed up with facts.
Which shows why you shouldn’t vote for them. They simply follow the votes. If they move more to the right, then Nader will get even more votes next time, the greens will have an actuall chance of getting elected.
No, but it will enable them to get more state canidates, more federal canidates, and more local canidates elected. It’s a slow process.
Because the reform party was a vanity project of a looney. Unlike the greens it didn’t have real graasroots support, doesn’t have any kind of coherent platform, it was simply “I’m sick of the others, I’ll vote for Perot”
There is a world of difference between Pat Buchanan and the Green party.
He left the Reform party before it imploded, didn’t have an actual commitment to it, and see my arguments above.
kooks and losers. Excellent. yep. describes the greens perfectly. oooh oooh how about calling them closet commies too. Red baiting’s still popular (as Carol Midgen proved recently)
That’s again, a stupid argument. Perot got most of his support from the Republicans, they had no qualms about supporting him and allowing Bush to lose. They don’t suppport Pat, because, frankly, he’s Pat.
So will putting Gore in the White House. So did putting Clinton in the White House.
Now oldscratch, just a few things:
We’ve had this argument before, and if you’ve watched the debates there is a clear difference between one party and the other, despite what Ralph says.
This did not happen in a vacuum. Clinton went right because the voters shifted right. Remember the Republican congress and “Contract with America”.
Well please allow me. The Green platform is pretty much a populist platform (well until you get to that socialist economic platform anyway).
Coulda fooled me. I was a Ralph supporter till I got involved with the Greens of Alameda Party (I made calls and sent letter on they’re behalf), and learned more about the green platform. If that’s grass roots, you guys are in serious trouble.
**
I have, and haven’t seen any. Increase millitary spending by a lot or a little, even though the pentagon doesn’t need it. Want’s to ban abortions but claims he won’t vs wants to and will ban late term abortions. Oppose gay marriages vs oppose gay marriage. Wants the federal governemtn to censor what we see vs wants parents to make the choice (ok, there Bush is definetely more liberal, I’ll give you that.) Talks about the need for religion vs talks about the need for religion. Supports killing children and mentally retarded people vs supports killing children and mentally retarded people. Supports tin-pot dictators vs supports tin-pot dictators. Supports nafta vs supports nafta. Holds real people in contempt vs holds real people in contempt. Under the thumb of big business vs under the thumb of big business.
Nope, didn’t see any major differences.
**
Well, we could argue for a while on this one. I would argue that the average voter didn’t shift to the right, the left wing ones simply got disalousined, and the middle-wing ones were simply fed up with clinton. Plus if you look at how the Republicans won the majority it was by a very small margin. It simply gave Clinton the excuse he needed to shift right, he’d wanted to do so for years.
**
Still no facts. I’ve seen people who would support Bush support Nader, people who wouldn’t vote support Nader, and some who suppport Gore support Nader. I haven’t seen any studies or statistics on what would happen to those votes if he wasn’t on the ballot.
not sure I’m following you here. Could you elaborate?
Sure. For example, the Democrats are in favor of increased government spending for Medicare, including a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens.
The Republicans, on the other hand, are opposed to continued government spending on social programs and want to the the government out of people’s lives.
. . .what’s that? You say that Bush supports a prescription drug benefit for Medicare?
Oh.
Here’s my point, stuffinb (and 'scratch’s as well, I think). There may be some differences between the parties at the moment. But those differences are largely A) cosmetic and B) subject to change over just a few years.
Oh my. What an insightful article. I knew I should know better than to think for myself. Guess it’s time for me to grow up and stop being a pinko kook loonie, swallow my principles and vote for Gore so I don’t gasp! throw away my vote!
:rolleyes: Puh-leeze.
You know, oldscratch, it comes down to this:
You’re “theory” that the electorate is just itching for an excuse to shift left is the most utterly insane naivete I can think of.
Savage is right; you’re being childish.
Wow. What a response lissener. childish. You’re right, damnit. I never realised. I’m going out and damn it. I’m going to vote for Gore tomorrow.
must… resist… urge… to correct grammar…
Nope, I lost. YOUR. YOUR. Unless oldscratch is a theory, it’s “your”, damnit!
IMO, lissener, any time you vote for a candidate because you like said candidate’s ideas and policies you ARE NOT throwing your vote away. You are voting for something rather than trying to pick the lesser of two evils. Principle above expediency.
I am voting for Harry Browne this election. I know he will not win, but I would rather vote for a party the majority of whose policies I like than vote for the Gorebot or the Shrub.
Amen, Peyote.
Only thing I’d add to that, Peyote, is principle before resignation. As in: I’m not going to resign myself to voting for someone I don’t support.
I agree with you, Rasa.
I posted it before, but damnit it’s always a good quote.
Eugene Debs -“I’d rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don’t want and get it.”
Look, I know I don’t have a lot of room to talk because it’s usually me who lowers a debate’s tone flamewards, but oldscratch you dived into this both stinky feet first and turned it into an unpleasant, defensive argument, when the tone of my OP was meant (naively, I guess) to engender a real discussion and exchange of ideas.
Obviously I’m on your side politically, otherwise I’d be campaigning for Nader as the surest way to squeak Dubya into the Whitehouse.
I meant for this debate to be about the consequences of voting for Nader–the math, not the politics–and you’ve turned into just another “Republicrats” thread.
So excuse me if I resorted to name calling, but you really pissed me off by highjacking the tone of this discussion. You might want to examine the vehemence of your defensiveness; you sound a bit like a homophobe with a muscle magazine under your mattress.
[list]And Rasa, you know what? Why don’t you read through a few of my posts? I almost never make any kind of grammatical mistake in my writing in these boards–I’m a fucking copy editor, for god’s sake. If you’ve read any of my posts you’d know that I know the difference between you’re and your. I always get its and it’s right, too (and to and too), and imply and infer even. If I typed a bit fast, backed up and typed again, without previewing, then I’m sorry I ruined your day.
Yeah… what Debs said.