In previous threads, folk were arguing about whether a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush, or other various interpretations/permutations.
I was wondering if anyone’s feelings have changed after last night. I believe Ralph got 100,000 or so votes in Fla, and Bush leads the poular vote by less than 5G.
I know, I was sick of hearing it. So one candidate is supposed to step down so another one can win?
While I don’t think that Nader should have dropped out, I have heard reports that have accused him of campaigning most heavily in the states that were very close, which sounds pretty bad to me. If this accusation is true, and Nader was playing the role of an intentional spoiler, then IMHO he’s even more of an unlikable prick than I thought.
According to the Washington Post on-line results, Bush won Florida by a margin of 1,655 votes.
Nader carried 96,896 votes.
However, nearly every third party candidate carried more than 2,000 votes in Florida. So you might as well decry Haeglin for not dropping out. Or Browne. Or Buchanan.
Bluntly put: Yes. It’s called strategic voting. You can vote your conscience if you want. BUT it seems to me that your vote may count more if:
>the two front running candidates are so close that no one is predicting a winner,
>your candidate is a distant third,
>one of the two front runners is closer politically to your way of thinking than the other.
The strategic vote would be given to the individual closer to your thinking. Compromise, negotiation, strategy are major components of the democratic process.
Another alternative strategy is to win enough for federal campaign contributions. Or to provide a large enough block that you “make a deal” with the potential winner. Neither of these alternative strategic voting issues were pursued successfully in this election.
I think the Green party lost significantly besides not making 5% of the vote. It was dumb politics because of the economy - third parties tend to win on specific issues or poor economics. Hitching up with Gore would have brought in greater influence in the political process if Gore had won. What does Bush bring? He brings an exceeding poor level of performance on environmental cleanup [Texas is our version of Eastern Europe], pro-business, could care less about informed community control.
So, bottomline, what did the Green party win? not a damn thing.
Except that Nader voters, when asked to choose between Gore and Bush, preferred Gore by a 4-to-1 margin.
Let’s try that again…
Except that Nader voters, when asked to choose between Gore and Bush, preferred Gore by a 4-to-1 margin.
And fifty percent of Nader voters stated that they’d vote for Gore if the election were close, which it was up to the last in Florida.
Meaning that, in all likelihood, the percentage of Nader voters were evenly split between “coula been Bush voters had Nader dropped out”, “coulda been Gore voters had Nader dropped out” and “woulda just stayed home”. So drawing any “Gore would’ve won had Nader stayed out” conclusion is specious at best, and leads immediately to “Yes, but Bush probably would have a much better defined majority had Buchanan or Browne dropped out.”
I was under the impression a number of Nader supporters checked in prior to the election expression their various reasons for voting asd they intended to. I’m curious to hear their reaction today.
This seems like circular reasoning to me. Nader campaigned most heavily in states in which he was most popular. This gave him the largest opportunity to draw the most votes. It also caused the election to become very tight, as he took alot of Gore voters away.
Well, no.
Because in exit polls (i.e. polls of those who actually voted), more than half of the Nader supporters said they would have voted for Gore in a two-way race. Another 1/3 said they would not have voted at all.
So Nader was clearly the difference in Florida, and by extension, the difference in the national race.
My reaction is the same as it was yesterday and the day before.
Why did I vote for the Green Party candidate?
Because I believe that the Green Party platform and the candidate’s platform most closely espouse the values and issues which I consider important.
I had significant political differences with the other candidates.
If the Green Party had not fielded a candidate, I would have voted for the David McReynolds/Mary Cal Hollis ticket (socialist party).
So what?
Voting one’s conscience is a perfectly valid and respectable course for a citizen in a democracy. So is voting “strategically”.
How is that circular reasoning? The allegation is that he specifically targeted states where the race between Dems/Repubs were tightest. In other words, he went to states intending to tip the election away from the party most aligned with his own toward the party that most diametrically opposes his own. There are reasons that this might make sense politically: to draw the Dems left or in the hopes that Bush’s environmental record will make it an issue in the next election. IF these allegations are true, then it seems to me that Nader is a jerk who puts personal advance over his own environmental policies, or that he is willing to risk a dubious period of anti-environmental legislation and policy-making (which is the image of the Republicans as seen from the left after all) just in order to make himself look like a more attractive choice down the road.
Spiritus Mundi, you are very correct about the validity of conscience and strategy. But the bitter irony of this case will soon be evident to all. Thousands of voters in Florida went with their conscience and voted for Nader. This is what they have wrought:
They have swung the vote away from Al Gore, in Florida, thereby giving the election to Bush.
The Bush camp announced some time ago that were they elected, their first choice for Secretary of Interior would be Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA).
Gorton is now indeed the projected loser in the Washington Senate race, and therefore will be available for the job with the prospect of easy approval from his Republican congressional buddies.
Gorton’s environmental record rate a big, fat zero percent rating from the League of Conservation Voters. That’s right, Gorton opposed or failed to support every single conservation issue that this particular environmental group considered important in the 105th Congress. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
In fact this man’s record on the environment is nothing short of disgusting. I invite people of all political persuasions to look at this partisan page. It does not lie, although it does present the issues rather one-sidedly.
It was Gorton who hatched the sophistic “owls vs. loggers” campaign, which disingenuously misfocused the argument on the preservation of the last stands of old-growth forests. This disinformation campaign is now a case study in many environmental policy courses as an example of how to use deception as a means of swaying public opinion.
Gorton is in the pocket of the mining, logging, and fishing industries. He himself is the inheritor of the Gorton Fisheries empire. His record has consistently shown that conservation, preservation, and pollution all take a back seat to short-term profit.
And the Naderites, Champions of the Environment, just insured that this truly evil man will control:
The Fish and Wildlife Service
The National Park Service
The Minerals Management Service
The Bureau of Land Management
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
Congratulations, Florida Nader voters. You just destroyed America’s environment. I hope your conscience feels better.
True. Even though right now I’d like to throttle Nader, the simple fact is the way you vote is a very personal thing. We have to remember that Gore would not be in this position if he had carried Tennessee, only his home state after all, or Arkansas, Clinton’s home state (Nader was not a factor in either state). Either one would have taken enough electoral votes away that Bush would need both Florida and Oregon to win. As I write this, both are still up for grabs.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ptahlis *
**
I understood your point, but don’t think you are proving motivation. You are suggesting that the fact that “he specifically targeted states where the race between Dems/Repubs were tightest” is because “he went to states intending to tip the election away from the party most aligned with his own”. I don’t think that follows. I think the reverse is more likely true. He did not go to those states because they were the tightest races - those states had such tight races because of the same reason that he went there - he was popular there and drew votes from Gore supporters.
In other words, he went to Wisconsin, for example, because he was popular there and had the potential to gather more support there. This incidently had the effect of making the race tighter, as much of Gore’s support went to Nader. He probably did not go there because he thought that it would be close anyway and that he had the greatest possibility of making an impact by throwing the election to Bush.
Point taken Izzy. One cannot know if such was his intent or not, and your scenario is as or more plausible than the other. I would need to see something I could point to to conclude that he did, in fact, act as an intentional spoiler. If, for instance, he seemed to avoid states where conventional wisdom said Gore was a lock, despite being somewhat popular there, then I would start to think maybe the folks advocating Nader as intentional spoiler had the right of it.
I have been careful to say “If true” because, as someone who dislikes Bush intensely, I really do want a convenient “bad guy” to aim my frustration at. So emotionally, I am all too willing to think of Nader as even worse than I previously thought him. But I recognize this fact, so I am attempting to give him the benefit of the doubt (although I’d like to give him a damned Corvair, with Firestone tires no less;) )
I’ve not followed his campaign at all. What did he do in California and NY?
Your allegation that Floridians are responsible for Gore’s loss (which is still tentative at this juncture) is unfounded. It must be the 22,156 individuals which voted for Nader in New Hampshire and could have compensated for Gore’s loss by 7,282 votes. Although a declared winner remains outstanding, it must be the 54,618 individuals which voted for Nader in Oregon and could have compensate for Gore’s potential loss where 24,560 votes currently differentiates Gore and Bush. Then again, if Bush had won, it would have been the 3,256 individuals which voted for Browne and Buchanan in New Mexico in addition to the 8,187 republicans which were absent and allowed Gore to win. No, it would have been the 10,102 individuals which voted for Browne and Buchanan in Iowa which detracted from Bush’s total and allowed Gore to win by a margin of 5,253 votes.
Voting is a right. One has the ability to choose to vote for an individual which espouses the ideas to which one ascribes. One also has the ability to choose to vote against an individual. Blame the Nader voters. Blame the Buchanan voters. Blame the Browne voters. Blame the absent voters. Who’s is blaming the McReynolds voters? Oh, he didn’t get enough votes to fuss over–nevermind. Did anyone expect that Nader would have won? I highly doubt it. Did anyone hope that Nader might get five percent of the vote and therefore introduce federal funding to parties other than those persent in the bipartisan system? I’d put money on it. You may not be happy with the results, but you can’t refute the rights of others.