Just ran across this article on Yahoo!, which among other things noted:
So, instead of breaking to the left away from the Democrats like he did last time, he’s breaking right for that tiny center between the Democrats and the Republicans. Just dandy. He did, however, say one thing that applies to any disgruntled voters, not just Republicans:
True enough, Ralph. And if an independent whose politics and strategy I do approve of doesn’t come along, I’ll be staying home. Oh no wait, no I won’t. Nov 2nd is my birthday so I’ll be going out. Just not voting for Nader, though - simply partying it up.
I simply don’t understand his tactics. He can’t win, but he will likely draw votes away from the Democrats, making a Democrat win an almost impossibility.
We can only hope that there are a lot of disgruntled Republicans this November.
[QUOTE=Olentzero]
So, instead of breaking to the left away from the Democrats like he did last time, he’s breaking right for that tiny center between the Democrats and the Republicans. Just dandy.
See here’s your problem- conventional wisdom is the the ‘center’ tends to be several orders of magnitude larger than the fringes. Ralph is just going where the votes are.
Have fun on your birthday. Just don’t expect those of us that do go out and vote to pat you on the back for it.
Funny (depending on how you look at it) that I saw the current “if the election were held today poll” on CNN last night and it looked like this (I swear!):
I hate the attitude, “If you knew what you were actually doing by voting for Nader, you would be ashamed.”
I know what I am doing. I hate Kerry, I hope he dies. If the Democrats are losing their far left wing, maybe they should stop sucking corporate cock and dropping bombs, and above all, stop blaming the guy who happens to step in with a sane political philosophy. If there wasn’t room for Nader, he wouldn’t be there.
There is no such thing as “stealing votes.” The phrase makes no sense.
The Democrats are not getting my vote for very serious reasons. If Republicans keep winning in the meantime, as harsh as that reality is, at least the Dems may someday take a lesson from it. (Probably not, of course)
I have to admit, I don’t quite understand the OP. Is Nader running with the same political agenda and philosophy that he did in 2000? But now using semantics aimed at middle of the road voters? Or has something substantial actually changed in his philosophy?
Once again, let’s take a look at the numbers. According to the US Census Bureau, the population of the United States that was over the age of 18 (that is, the total population eligible to vote) was a shade over 209 million people. (To see the source, go here, select “Demographic Profiles”, then “Demographic Profile Data Search”, and pick “US Summary” from the list box.) Now let’s go to this tabulation of the 2000 election results from the Federal Election Commission. Scrolling down to the bottom of chart 3, we see that the total number of people who voted for any candidate in that election was 105.4 million - in short, just over half (and barely that!) of the people who were eligible to vote in November 2000 actually did so. I’m not sure what you mean by “fringes”, but it certainly seems to me there are a lot more votes that could be gotten by appealing to the crowd that wouldn’t vote either Democrat or Republican than by appealing to the crowd that usually does vote either ticket and might possibly consider switching.
And if I wanted pats on the back, I wouldn’t have posted about my disappointment with Nader here in March - I would just have trolled for congratulatory wishes on Nov 1st.
bookbuster, there may not have been major changes in his philosophy, but there have been changes in his agenda. Last time around it was “Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats deserve your vote, and here’s why.” Now it’s “I hate Bush just as much as the Democrats, so I’ll work alongside them to make sure Bush is out in November.” It’s disappointing, to say the least.
As little as I like the politics of the lesser evil, we already know Bush is evil. We suspect that Kerry is evil, but he’s not as evil as Bush. I doubt a Democrat would have appointed Charles Pickering or William Pryor to the federal bench, just to offer two examples among many. I find it hard to imagine a scenario in which Kerry could handle things worse than Bush has, and even if he handles them so that things get no worse that would be an improvement over Bush.
Although perhaps it’s cold comfort, while sliding into Hell, to be offered one’s choice of handbasket.
Nader’s contention that his run will in some way help the Democrats is ludicrous. Quoting from a Salon story which itself quotes from an earlier poll:
Where exactly does Nader see the help to the Democrats in this scenario, outside of his bloated ego and unconscious desire to assure that any good he has done in his public life will be washed out in the glare of being the man who delivered the White House to Bush for four, or eight, years?
No president is going to support one’s issues 100%. That’s a given. But does anyone who supports Nader truly believe hat given the choice of the two men, one of whom will be taking the oath of office next January 20, that Bush is closer to the values Nader purports to hold?
I’m all for voting third party when there’s some point to it. Hell, I even voted for Nader back in 1996. But after four years under the gentle hand of Gee Dubya, the idea of voting for a third party candidate that could contribute to Bush’s retaining the presidency ought to be unthinkable.
I don’t know. It makes perfect sense to me, as long as you accept the underlying premise that Nader’s run is now all about Nader getting his name in the papers again. That’s the only way I can see him even coming out to play making sense.
Not to interrupt the burgeoning panic and despair, but:
USA Today earlier this week ran a poll showing a 4-point Bush lead over Kerry (probably within the margin of error of the poll) whether or not Nader was included as a choice.
If Nader was not in the race, it’s far from a given that his supporters would vote for Kerry.
Given that we don’t have a parliamentary system which allows for the formation of coalition governments here in the US, the refusal to join and vote for Democrats on the part of people who allege themselves to be on the left is a sign of profound political immaturity, on the part of those people, whether or not their wasted votes contribute to the success of Republicans.
Either you want a better world, or you wish to piss into the wind. Don’t mistake pissing into the wind for doing anything constructive though.
Make your case, then. Why should I vote for the Democrats if I find them just as distasteful as the Republicans? It’s kind of like asking an observant Jew whether he’d like a ham sandwich or a pork chop for lunch.
Well put. Politicians don’t own the votes of any person or group of people. One politician can’t “steal votes” from another. The assumptions behind that kind of statement are actually pretty scary if you think about them.
One thing that would really help liberals (especially Democrats), in my opinion, is a shift in PR. Americans don’t like weakness, and liberals are perceived as weak. Weak on defense. Weak on crime. And weak on resolve now, thanks to Clinton. Even at the lowest levels, there’s this oh-please-don’t-beat-me-I’m-sorry-I-was-ever-born mentality, manifested in such things as the inability to live with being called “Charter Member” while other, less fortunate people late to the game, have to be simply a “Member”. Democrat leaders have gone to the center because that’s where the votes are. Clinton did nothing about gay rights because it was not politically expedient. Nader is at least a real liberal, and because I’m on an anti-conservative crusade right now, I intend to vote for him.
If it’s any consolation, it is essentially impossible that your vote could possibly have mattered in determining who would win the presidential race, even if you lived in a ‘key state.’
Are you speaking specifically of the 2000 race in terms of the Florida debacle or of elections in general? Either way, you’re the one who’s exhibiting foolishness. A cursory look at the 2000 election results shows that a shift of a few votes one way or the other would have made Florida moot. Gore won New Mexico by 366 votes. Every vote matters.