And I must say it’s a bit arrogant to characterize the Greens as a “vanity party”. They have been working in legislatures all over the world for decades. From the Greens Worldwide site:
It’s kind of nasty for Americans to set up a two-party, winner-take-all system that effectively blocks any sustained third-party participation and then sneer at third-party supporters for being “kooks” and “losers.” Really, the only way to change the situation is for the “kooks” and “losers” to stick to our guns and keep demanding a seat at the table for those outside the Republocrat duopoly.
And btw, I’m gonna keep reposting this advice on every other damn “am I wasting my vote” thread you people start from now to November 7:
I understand the principle involved. I’m just unwilling to ignore the actual, practical consequences of my vote in favor of momentary flush of self-congratulation, just before the Court swings right: fiddling while Rome burns.
lissener, it was an attempt at a joke… I’ve noticed a strong lack of tolerance here for any grammar/spelling errors and thought you mighta picked up on it too.
You really think this is a conclusively defensible argument in a country where less than half of registered voters bother to turn out?
To put it another way: Who’s to say that a progressive candidate with the backing of a major party couldn’t galvanize the legions of disaffected voters out there, the disproportionate plurality of whom are poor or minority or both?
Oldscratch After listening to several of my Green friends on how Bush and Gore are the same, I decided based on the information they gave me to support Nader. I like to get personally involved with my political choices and so started on the path to volunterhood, and info gathering. After leaving 10 messages and countless e-mails I was finally contacted. If that wasn’t bad enough, have you been to their Berkeley HQ?
Let’s just say I was underwhelmed with the people there trying to get out the vote, in numbers, commitment, and just plain knowledege of the campaign they support.
I like you lissener, I do, although you can be an unsufferable bastard sometimes.
I really can’t stand Dan Savage or his tone though, my tone was in relation to his article, not anything you said previously. This, however, this…
I would argue that the real one’s fiddling are those who are delusional enough to believe that they can vote for Gore and sit back and let him do the work for them. I don’t have it handy, but I’m going to go dig up my copy of Washington Babylon and post some exerpts, while a bit dated now, it shows the dangers of electing someone like Clinton, shows that he’s really anything but liberal. The idea that Nader supporters are a bunch of idealistic, pinko, morons, who really have no idea of the implications of their actions is incredibly condescending. You know what? Your comments make me want to go and vote for George Bush? Why? Just to piss you off.
I really don’t care if he or Gore is elected, it makes no difference to me. Do I want the man that is going to come up to me and spit on me? Or the one (to take words used to describe clinton by then head of Arkansas Labor federation) “Pat me on the back and piss down my leg”. I’d rather have the evil I know then the one I don’t. The one where I know what he’ll do, than the one who can’t be trusted.
Gadarene summed up the Nader side pretty well. The arguments of Gore supporters are childish. Why should I support someone like him? What makes you think I would vote for him if Nader weren’t on the ballot? You want to get extra votes for Gore? How about starting a thread on why Bush supporters should vote Gore, you’ll have much more luck, after all, Bush supproters are more likely to e swayed to gore than Nader supporters. Just look at Lizard, or some of the other posters who say they are undecided.
Got it. Thanks. I haven’t been to the Berkeley headquarters, and it is a shame what you describe. I’m not sayign it’s an ideal movement right now, but it does have a lot of support, it’s growing, and it has potential. I worked with the Greens when I lived in Madison, and I can assure you that the opposite was true.
Gadarene: your scenario, while still more appealing, is of course even less likely.
Kimstu: Thanks, that was the kind of input I was seeking. I went and read the article and I will save the link and pass it on to many interested parties.
The consequences of a Nader vote are not, then, as dire for Gore as I’d been led to believe, but I hope Nader’s supporters in the “swing states” consider their votes very carefully.
You still have not, as promised by the Subject Line, provided any “Serious considerations” for Nader supporters. The same tired arguments we’ve been hearing for months, but no real arguments. Would you care to provide some, as to why Gore is indeed better than Bush? Rall
I wasn’t speaking on how likely it was–kind of a vicious circle, isn’t it?–but simply countering your unfounded assertion that “if Gore was more liberal…Bush would be leading by a great deal more.” I simply don’t believe that to be true, as you fail to take into consideration the large mass of nonvoters out there, most of whom would likely be stimulated by progressive–or at least populist–stances on issue which mattered to them.
Given that, then, do you still stand by your statement?
Yes, Gadarene, I do, because I nonvoter is a nonvoter: I’m talking about the small subsection of our population who actually elects the elected. I don’t buy for one second that somewhere out there is a politician who can bring more than an insignificant percentage point or two into the polling booth.
Whoa. Settle down there. Relax. Take a deep breath, feel better? good.
I din’t say you were voting for Clinton. I refered to the dangers of electing someone like Clinton. Just like someone when speaking of Bush will refer to what happened under the Bush and Reagan administration. Do you have any evidence that Gore will not act like Clinton in office? Sure, he won’t be as cuddly or likeable. But, the essential policy decisions will be the same. Now, do you want to come back to the table and argue like a good calm Gore-head?
As I’ve said before, that was not the point of my OP.
And FWIW, many of Savage’s points are not points I’ve heard before, and they struck me (as a wistful Nader supporter who will vote for Gore) as particularly compelling.
I saw a pair of shoes I really wanted yesterday. But if I buy them, I might have to be late on my phone bill this month; in any case indulging in the shoes will necessitate future sacrifices I’ve decided not to make. I can’t afford to spend the money on the shoes, and I can’t afford to spend my vote on Nader.
[list=A][li]Every other word you’ve written is “Clinton.” You’ve mentioned him ten times in this discussion that is not about him.[/li]
[li]I disagree with you that the “essential policy decisions will be the same.” (Well, depending on how deep you define “essential.” Gore, “like Clinton,” will probably not support a flag-burning amendment, e.g.)[/li]
<snip> a whole list of differences I just wrote between Gore and Clinton because I refuse to follow that highjack.
If that’s how you’re going to argue this–criticizing my metaphor for being about shoes rather than reacting to its validity as a metaphor–pick another noun, who cares?–then I’ll just sit out this thread you’ve taken over, oldscratch, till you get remember what it is you’re supposed to be doing, or till you computer is repossessed, whatever.
With respect, this simply isn’t a tenable argument. Just because someone hasn’t voted in the past doesn’t mean they wouldn’t vote if a candidate came along who better represented their interests. (Though as the whole of the political spectrum is so well-articulated today, what with the Democrats and the Republicans, I guess it’s silly to think that very many people could feel that a choice between a centrist, corporatist, pro-choice candidate and a centrist, corporatist, pro-life candidate would be insufficiently representative. :rolleyes: )
Exhibit A: Jesse Ventura. As much or as little as you might respect the man, he galvanized a great number of people who would not otherwise have voted. Perot’s the same way. And I’m suggesting that an eloquent, mainstream, progressive candidate could indeed spur increased political participation from those segments of the population who have traditionally abstained.
Hell, I didn’t vote for president in 1996 because I didn’t like any of the candidates–does that mean there’ll never be a major party candidate I like enough to support? Practically, maybe–I’m informed enough that my standards are high–but theoretically, not at all. The right person with the right party backing could easily spur a groundswell of rarely tapped democratic participation; that this participation is so rare is at least as much due to the quality of the candidates and the nature of the system as to the character of the nonvoting public.
You know what, oldscratch? Fuck you. You haven’t responded to a single substantive thing I’ve said. “Clinton!” “Shoes!” “Bush = Gore!”–talk about the same tired arguments. You have yet to do anything but warble the same old defensive bullshit. Start your own fucking Pit rant; that’s all you’ve done here.
