The last presidential election was very close, and could have swung either way. However, winning the popular vote is, to a large degree, irrelevant. Candidates campaign in order to win the electoral college. If the popular vote mattered, they’d campaign differently and we just don’t know what the outcome would have been in that scenario.
And if Bush did govern further to the right than his campaign indicated, it would appear that the 2002 Congressional elections pretty much gave it the stamp of approval.
Of coures the pendulum could swing the other way in 2004, but my money is on Bush, especially if the economy continues to do well.
This is one of the more asinine sentences I’ve read on the SDMB.
If there is one group that approaches the “Angry Left” in its suspicion-bordering-on-downright-hatred of the so-called “neo-conservatives,” it’s the “Pat Buchanan right” (and the “Religious Right” for that matter). Buchananites believe Jim Crow-era America was the good ole days, while neo-conservatives favor using American might to spread political freedom and free market philosophy around the world.
I think the Buchanan right is the political outpost for people who hate things like NAFTA, abortion, gay marriage, foreign aid, immigration, and secularization of public schools. The Religious Right comes close to this.* The neo-cons want to expand free trade, American influence, and are rather ambivalent on domestic social issues (abortion, gay marriage).
(* - perhaps with the exception of foreign aid. The Religious Right has many sins, but they believe strongly (and have proven by their deeds) in uplifting the poor. Perhaps you read the article by Nicholas Kristof of the NY Times (definitely left of center); he wrote a laudatory op-ed on how Christian aid groups have played a huge role in getting food to those starving in Africa. Yes, they proselytize, but I don’t question the depth of their commitment.)
Anyway, if you think the “Buchanan Right” or the “Religious Right” hold more juice in the Republican Party than the neo-conservatives in 2003, I don’t think you’re paying attention, or just willfully seeing the world through rose-colored lefty lenses.
Gore lost Florida because of Nader’s votes. If even a small chunk of Nader’s votes had been votes for Gore, instead of defacto votes for Bush as it were, Gore would be president, we’d have no war in Iraq, no $500 billion deficit, no bait-and-switch kill-Medicare “prescription drug benefit,” no John Ashcroft and no drilling in Alaska.
Voting for a third party in a close election is an effective vote for the major party least aligned with your views. That’s how it’s always been, that’s how it will always be. The Greens have no broad base of support. They can’t win. They can only spoil the election for the Democrats. That’s their only electoral purpose.
The 2002 elections were merely the last echo of Bush’s support for his success in Afghanistan and for just being president during September 11. There is not and never has been a mandate favoring the right-wing extremism the Bush White House is pushing down America’s throat.
Nice try. The idea that Bush is “pushing right-wing extremism down America’s throat” is a prime example of left-wing extremism. If Bush were indeed a “right-wing extremist”, the Dems would have the election wrapped up and could just kick up their heels, relax, and coast into the Whitehouse with nary a campaign to worry about. Right-wing extremists are about as numerous as their left-wing counterparts in this country-- they’re both very small minorites. One thing they have in common, though, is the mistaken belief that the other “extremists” are always running things.
Interesting reasoning there. Because a handful of elected officials in a single county in south Florida fucked up, the will of the voters nationwide should be cast aside in favor of the runner-up.
Basically, the message you are sending is “we are not a reliable constituency: appeasing us means backing things that will likely cost more votes from the center than we can convince our own people to give you.”
If you want a lefty agenda, you must work it into the central party, and realize that only when you get power should you start to push for things that would never win you an election (and virtually every Green party platform is a huge election loser). The conservatives did it with the Republicans starting back in the post WW2 era, to great success. But then, they also had an agenda that Americans could actually buy into en masse.
To respond to the OP seriously – there IS a way the Dems can atttract Green votes while actually building votes in the center, and that’s by pressing environmental issues. Even Republican strategists have admitted that Bush admin. is WAAAAAY to the right of the American public on environmental issues.
Announce that as a Dem you will restore the Clean Water Act to its pristine glory, will protect ANWR from drilling, will restore the regs that prevent clear-cutting in our national forests, etc. etc. These are all things that the political center supports that Bush has either implemented (gutting Clean Water Act, clear-cutting forests) or would very much like to (drilling in ANWR).
This would remove any lingering doubt in the minds of Greens that there’s a clear defining line between Pubbies and Dems on environmental issues. The giant sucking sound you will hear thereafter will be votes leaving the Green Party presidential candidate.
This is a no-brainer, a win-win for any Democratic candidate, so clearly to his or her advantage that you have to think they’ll be SURE and do it. Sadly, I don’t have any faith at all in the political wisdom of the Democratic Party any more. They have the right values but have lost any sense of how to win an election.
The democrats do not need to be concerned about Nader or the Green vote. The last election was an anomaly, the underlying support is about .5-1% and that part is not available to the Democrats anyway.
The Nader vote got pumped up some because of the exceedingly close election and the fact neither major candidate’s position evolved much during the campaign. The media had to have something to show each night and Nader was a good fillin. Nader has pretty well used up his lifetime supply of media attention.
The centre of US politics is way to the right of the centre of the rest of the industrialised democratic world. The present administration is marginally to the right of this centre, the present opposition marginally to its left. That makes most Democrats far right in the eyes of the rest of the world. Given all of this, it is tricky to speculate on where the “centre of the SDMB” lies politically and our efforts might be better spent in debating the actual policies themselves.
As for the OP, an almost utter absence of genuine third party politics is I venture another peculiarity of US politics. Millions of voters in the rest of the industrialised democratic world see no problem in voting for the candidate who most closely correlates with their own actual, personal politics no matter how many candidates are standing.
After all, if not even you yourself will vote for what you actually believe now, why should anyone else ever?
Hogwash. Ain’t nobody here a “Karl Rove,” either from the left or from the right. Besides, giving this political “stew” a stir or two might just liven things up a little bit; we don’t want is separating out into incompatible, irreconcilable layers.
My post was a cautionary note to the left: W ain’t far-right. Good Golly MIss Molly! I could show you people that make AM Talk Radio seem center; fortunately, they have as much appeal to the average American as Ralp Nader did.
J. Average American realizes the W ain’t far-right, and the Dems. only ultimately hurt themselves by shouting “far-right agenda” from the rooftops.
If that’s what the Dems. (as represented by this unruly, disconnected lot on this MB) truly have in mind, then go ahead and shoot yourselves in the foot. I’ll be standing over there with the first aid kit.
And why might I be tossing out these little nuggets of unsolicited advice and wisdom? Why am I (still!) attempting an appeal to reason?
Let’s just say that a moderated center-left agenda is not a scary proposition to someone such as myself, and might not be unwilling to cast my vote for a center-left candidate who speaks to me on certain issues.
But go ahead; demonize me and moderate, centerist, open-minded people like me. Call us evil, call us stupid, mock us for our politcal views and beliefs.
You’ll just have to pardon the sound of our uncontrollable laughter when the lefties and Dems on this MB post silly-ass questions about why they lost the last election
I wish it were this simple. But frankly, the people we are trying to reach are the same who keep parroting that there were no actual differences between the candidates the LAST time around.
I always get the feeling that Greens aren’t looking for any specific policy initiatives- they are looking for a candidate with a ‘pure vision.’ This neglects the down and dirty side of politics- everything that is needed to actually win.
It’s the same sort of fanaticism that I see on the far right- and it’s no better simply because I agree with many of the far left’s positions.
But this does highlight something that the Left is either unwilling or (more likely) unable to see. Conservatism is what wins elections at the national level for the last thirty years or so.
Nixon runs against McGovern, one of the squishiest of liberals, in 1972, and stomps him royally. With the albatross of Watergate hanging around his neck, Ford would have beaten Carter if he hadn’t made a dumb remark about Poland in the debates in 1976. Along comes 1980, and Reagan boots Carter, and then is handily re-elected in 1984. Voters, assuming Bush Sr. must also be conservative since he was Reagan’s VP, and since he is running against another liberal loser, send Bush to the Oval Office. They then discover that Bush doesn’t really stand for much, and since the Democrats suckered him into reneging on his no-tax pledge, and Clinton tells some of the right lies about tax cuts and deficits, and so Clinton wins as a moderately conservative Democrat.
Slick Willy might be a moderate, but Hilary sure ain’t, and that plus the endless scandals of the “most ethical Administration in history” sour the voters. So Newt Gingrich comes up with the brilliant (and conservative) Contract With America. Presto chango, Republicans take over Congress, and balance the budget and enact welfare reform, and so forth.
The Republican party, having learned apparently nothing from this, picks Dole, a moderate Republican, to run against Bill. If Clinton is good at nothing else, he is good at triangulating, and he is re-elected. Jeffords abandons the pretence of being a moderate Republican, and the Dems even regain control of part of Congress.
Now along comes Bush Jr. All of you are identifying him as an extreme conservative. I disagree, but leave that on the side for now. He still won the election. (Feel free to chime in with kvetching about the Electoral College if you like - keep in mind that it is irrelevant. The general populace (in my view) does not perceive Bush as having stolen the election - that’s just sour grapes from the losing side. They do perceive the Dems as having been the ones to delay the election for a month trying to sue their way into the White House. Deal with it.)
And in the last Congressional elections, which party picked up seats in the Senate?
Do we see a pattern here? It is not impossible for Democrats to win, but in general, at the national level, the more conservative candidate has the better chance.
Which is why (sorry, Daniel) I think the Usual Suspects on the SDMB are out of touch. The general trend of the country is to the right. The general trend of many here (you know who you are) is to the left.
But, as I have said before, I have no reason to regret it if you choose not to abandon the liberal blinkers. By all means, continue to expect the the electorate is waiting with eager longing for a candidate who will publicly espouse the liberal Truth, and will sweep him into office with a mandate to tax and spend and give the federal government control over every phase and aspect of my life. And please, continue to think of Bush as an extremist, far Right, ultra-conservative hard-liner who is completely out of touch.
Brutus, I do not think I owe you a cite as this is a debate about HOW to contain the Greens, and the portion of my post you objected to is partisan wrangling and would only lead to thread drift, which may well be your goal.
Stonebow, I’m sure some portion of the Greens fits your description, but I bet the majority of them have at least some ability to think objectively.
I also don’t think you’re making enough allowances between Democratic CLAIMS of what Bush Jr. would do, and the evidence that now lies before us of what he has done. The evidence is a LOT more convincing, as many people have the idea that partisans will say ANYTHING to win an election … for whatever reason. So many Greens will be MUCH more disposed to see a major difference between the Dems and the Pubs in the next election. The claim that there’s no difference between the two major parties has effectively been proven wrong by Bush’s actions.
Well, slight detour here: A Green Party guy just did very well indeed in the San Francisco election to replace the Sweetness, losing by less than ten points. I’m having trouble linking, but it’s in the SF Chronicle and all. The main reason he lost seems to have been that he was seen as less tough on the homeless, who are really numerous out there. I mean, I’m from New York and I was astonished at it, and that was five years ago.
Anyway, check out the news. Only 3% registered Greens, and about 47% of the vote. Of course, this is San Francisco, but it’s interesting.
I hope you’re right…though for some reason, I don’t think so. But the idea that the Democrats need to move toward that group, risking the loss of the much larger voting block in the center, strikes me as silly.
Most other countries don’t run first-past-the-post elections, or have an Electoral College to deal with. Our system is structured around the concept of two parties, and marginal third parties only help the major party on the opposite side of the left-right divide in America.
If we were to have a proportional system of election, or proportional distribution of electoral votes, a third party becomes more viable. But until that happens, the American system requires two large, multi-faceted parties.
I think that’s the point someone upthread was making, though. You can get Green and other third-party wins in local and district elections (for state legislatures, for example) because a smaller voter pool is more likely to have a majority of a particular political affiliation. For example, the National Gay Fabulous Party is going to have a decent showing (even if it doesn’t get an actual win) in San Francisco. It may get a win in an election where the voter pool is drawn 100% from the Castro. On the other hand, an election with a voter pool consisting of northern California will see much smaller margins for the NGFP. On a statewide scale, they’d be a blip. On a national scale, you might as well start counting 1/100% if you bother to report their standing after election day.
Because it is. It’s solely the suicidal electoral posturings of the fanatic fringe Left.
Demanding orthodoxy to either side is demanding to lose an election. The Greens, if they had five brain cells to rub together, would realize it’s better to win and get 50, 30 or even 10 percent of what you want, than to lose and get nothing, or less than nothing.