Nader Raiders?
October 30, 2004 7:09 AM Subscribe
Nader finally goes off the deep end. Looks like he got his debates after all ... with action figures?!
I mean, seriously. He mathematically cannot win. If he cares about the future of this universe, he needs to pull out and advise his supporters to vote Kerry.
You've made your point, Nader.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 7:53 AM on October 30, 2004
You've made your point, Nader.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 7:53 AM on October 30, 2004
I think Johnny should file a protest on behalf of Senor Wences that he was not included in the debate.
S'all right? S'all right!
posted by QuestionableSwami at 8:17 AM on October 30, 2004
S'all right? S'all right!
posted by QuestionableSwami at 8:17 AM on October 30, 2004
I mean, seriously. He mathematically cannot win. If he cares about the future of this universe, he needs to pull out and advise his supporters to vote Kerry.
You've made your point, Nader.
Clearly not.
posted by srboisvert at 8:28 AM on October 30, 2004
You've made your point, Nader.
Clearly not.
posted by srboisvert at 8:28 AM on October 30, 2004
Wedge at #mefi asked me to say that since Nader can now win a theoretical maximum of 278 electoral college votes, 8 above the winning threshold of 270, it is mathematically possible for him to win.
Cheerfully withdrawn.
FOR GOD'S SAKE VOTE KERRY STOP BUSH YOU IDIOTS
posted by Pretty_Generic at 8:48 AM on October 30, 2004
Cheerfully withdrawn.
FOR GOD'S SAKE VOTE KERRY STOP BUSH YOU IDIOTS
posted by Pretty_Generic at 8:48 AM on October 30, 2004
You've made your point, Nader.
Clearly not.
Why? Because Nader's point is that neither man should be president? This is a two-party system and these guys (whatever you think of them) are what the system produced. The idea that the Will of the People, as interperted by this system, should be overthrown in favor of Ralph Nader's opinion is elitism, Liberal-style. "The people need me to tell them what to think because these blue-collar, salt-of-the-Earth folks I worry about every day aren't smart enough to take care of themselves."
posted by yerfatma at 8:56 AM on October 30, 2004
Clearly not.
Why? Because Nader's point is that neither man should be president? This is a two-party system and these guys (whatever you think of them) are what the system produced. The idea that the Will of the People, as interperted by this system, should be overthrown in favor of Ralph Nader's opinion is elitism, Liberal-style. "The people need me to tell them what to think because these blue-collar, salt-of-the-Earth folks I worry about every day aren't smart enough to take care of themselves."
posted by yerfatma at 8:56 AM on October 30, 2004
This guy makes Perot seem...sane.
NPR did a piece last week on ralphplease.org, a group raising money that it will donate to Ralph's organization if he bows out. They had this wackjob Naderite talking about how it was "an attempt at bribery" and the group should stop all operations immediately. "Stereotypical Naderite kook," I thought. "NPR is going to catch shit for using this loon to represent Nader supporters." Then I realized that the nutjobt they were talking to was Nader himself.
posted by jpoulos at 8:58 AM on October 30, 2004
NPR did a piece last week on ralphplease.org, a group raising money that it will donate to Ralph's organization if he bows out. They had this wackjob Naderite talking about how it was "an attempt at bribery" and the group should stop all operations immediately. "Stereotypical Naderite kook," I thought. "NPR is going to catch shit for using this loon to represent Nader supporters." Then I realized that the nutjobt they were talking to was Nader himself.
posted by jpoulos at 8:58 AM on October 30, 2004
Wedge at #mefi asked me to say that since Nader can now win a theoretical maximum of 278 electoral college votes, 8 above the winning threshold of 270, it is mathematically possible for him to win.
Arguably, even if he was on less than 270 EVs worth of states, he COULD win, as long as he got at least one EV, and no candidate got at least 270. At that point, the House decides between the top three EV getters, which could include Nader, at which point he could win.
You know, if the House was completely insane.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 9:21 AM on October 30, 2004
Arguably, even if he was on less than 270 EVs worth of states, he COULD win, as long as he got at least one EV, and no candidate got at least 270. At that point, the House decides between the top three EV getters, which could include Nader, at which point he could win.
You know, if the House was completely insane.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 9:21 AM on October 30, 2004
Nader towers over his foes ! - A giant of a man and a leader !
He strides the lands, crushing the minions of the corrupt two party system with the force of his logic and the sword of his passion for justice !
_________
In his Go-Kart of lust for attention and power, sputtering along on GOP fumes, in one last desperate charge, Nader rear-ends the Pinto of Democracy !
posted by troutfishing at 10:16 AM on October 30, 2004
He strides the lands, crushing the minions of the corrupt two party system with the force of his logic and the sword of his passion for justice !
_________
In his Go-Kart of lust for attention and power, sputtering along on GOP fumes, in one last desperate charge, Nader rear-ends the Pinto of Democracy !
posted by troutfishing at 10:16 AM on October 30, 2004
I love it. Go ahead and have a good guffaw at Nader. You guys fail to realize Bush and Kerry *are* puppets.
Or, to put it another way, you're choosing between Kang and Kodos.
posted by fleener at 10:32 AM on October 30, 2004
Or, to put it another way, you're choosing between Kang and Kodos.
posted by fleener at 10:32 AM on October 30, 2004
NPR did a piece last week on ralphplease.org, a group raising money that it will donate to Ralph's organization if he bows out. They had this wackjob Naderite talking about how it was "an attempt at bribery" and the group should stop all operations immediately.
I don't see how that isn't bribery. I wouldn't try to stop the group, I think it's cute and a nice idea, but it's pretty cut-and-dry bribery.
Or, to put it another way, you're choosing between Kang and Kodos.
I hope your post was sarcastic, but given that I can't really tell: no, nevermind. If you can't see the difference between Bush and Kerry, your vote probably should be thrown out anyway.
posted by rafter at 10:39 AM on October 30, 2004
I don't see how that isn't bribery. I wouldn't try to stop the group, I think it's cute and a nice idea, but it's pretty cut-and-dry bribery.
Or, to put it another way, you're choosing between Kang and Kodos.
I hope your post was sarcastic, but given that I can't really tell: no, nevermind. If you can't see the difference between Bush and Kerry, your vote probably should be thrown out anyway.
posted by rafter at 10:39 AM on October 30, 2004
pepsi + cola
posted by andrew cooke at 10:40 AM on October 30, 2004
posted by andrew cooke at 10:40 AM on October 30, 2004
or coke, i guess.
posted by andrew cooke at 10:41 AM on October 30, 2004
posted by andrew cooke at 10:41 AM on October 30, 2004
Nader voters are people who still claim to listen to "alternative" music.
Bush is evil. Kerry may be but is unlikely to be as evil. It is a very simple choice. Nader voters are people who still claim to listen to "alternative" music. You need to wake up and see that you have the real ability to influence the world for good here, and you shouldn't throw it away for a temporary feeling of superiority.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:58 AM on October 30, 2004
Bush is evil. Kerry may be but is unlikely to be as evil. It is a very simple choice. Nader voters are people who still claim to listen to "alternative" music. You need to wake up and see that you have the real ability to influence the world for good here, and you shouldn't throw it away for a temporary feeling of superiority.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:58 AM on October 30, 2004
Spot where I should have used ctrl-X instead of ctrl-C.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:59 AM on October 30, 2004
posted by Pretty_Generic at 10:59 AM on October 30, 2004
I actually liked Nader before 2000.
posted by SisterHavana at 11:16 AM on October 30, 2004
posted by SisterHavana at 11:16 AM on October 30, 2004
I have spotted the "Preview" button, Pretty_Generic. I'm working on your task now.
posted by Kwantsar at 11:27 AM on October 30, 2004
posted by Kwantsar at 11:27 AM on October 30, 2004
Wait, wait... these Nader voters, they still claim to listen to "alternative" music?
If you can't see the difference between Bush and Kerry, your vote probably should be thrown out anyway.
The major similarity is that your country is very likely fucked either way for at least 4 years. If you can't see that, you probably belong to that special class of people who watch Titanic again to see if it ends differently.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:13 PM on October 30, 2004
If you can't see the difference between Bush and Kerry, your vote probably should be thrown out anyway.
The major similarity is that your country is very likely fucked either way for at least 4 years. If you can't see that, you probably belong to that special class of people who watch Titanic again to see if it ends differently.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:13 PM on October 30, 2004
That's right man, let's let it burn man. Then we'll start over in a new Utopia that we'll run. And then we'll ruin it. And then man, don't know if you can handle it 'cuz it's a reeaaal heavy trip, then it'll turn out we were THEM all along.
It's easy to say "fucked either way". It's a bit harder to work within the system to do something about it. Any clown (see Nader, Ralph) can sit on the sidelines and criticize the players.
posted by yerfatma at 12:24 PM on October 30, 2004
It's easy to say "fucked either way". It's a bit harder to work within the system to do something about it. Any clown (see Nader, Ralph) can sit on the sidelines and criticize the players.
posted by yerfatma at 12:24 PM on October 30, 2004
yerfatma, how exactly is Nader sitting on the sidelines? i mean, WTF? the level of partisan bullshit here is ridiculous. the Democratic Party: "you're either with us, or against us." unleashing lawyers to get non-Democratic candidates off the ballots is embarrassing and no better than the Republican scum who are propping Nader up b/c our electoral system is severely flawed.
i was all set to cast a vote for Kerry to ensure as big a mandate as possible against GWB, but now i don't know. those puppets are fucking awesome.
a vote for Bush or a vote for Kerry is a vote for war
can you disagree? shit, i mean, i *like* Kerry as a candidate. i'd much rather have him picking out judges than that Bush idiot, but both candidates will continue to grow our military, and more importantly (to me), neither candidate has any intentions whatsoever of addressing the problems in our electoral system. i'm still "undecided," i guess.
if you're angry about Ralph Nader as a spoiler, i can only suggest one thing: instead of throwing away your cash for another worthless TV ad from the DNC, give some money to Fair Vote (even though their site looks like shit in Firefox).
posted by mrgrimm at 12:59 PM on October 30, 2004
i was all set to cast a vote for Kerry to ensure as big a mandate as possible against GWB, but now i don't know. those puppets are fucking awesome.
a vote for Bush or a vote for Kerry is a vote for war
can you disagree? shit, i mean, i *like* Kerry as a candidate. i'd much rather have him picking out judges than that Bush idiot, but both candidates will continue to grow our military, and more importantly (to me), neither candidate has any intentions whatsoever of addressing the problems in our electoral system. i'm still "undecided," i guess.
if you're angry about Ralph Nader as a spoiler, i can only suggest one thing: instead of throwing away your cash for another worthless TV ad from the DNC, give some money to Fair Vote (even though their site looks like shit in Firefox).
posted by mrgrimm at 12:59 PM on October 30, 2004
Yeah, I also think the anger at Nader is misdirected. Its a deep flaw in our voting system that allows the paradox of a Far-Left candidate being a good thing for the Right.
People should be discussing run-off elections or preference voting, as mrgrimm alludes to.
That said, I'll be voting for Kerry but I'll be holding my nose while I do so.
posted by vacapinta at 1:21 PM on October 30, 2004
People should be discussing run-off elections or preference voting, as mrgrimm alludes to.
That said, I'll be voting for Kerry but I'll be holding my nose while I do so.
posted by vacapinta at 1:21 PM on October 30, 2004
Yeah, and 2008 should be a walk in the park. Hillary, Edwards (who I could maybe tolerate), Cheney (or even worse, DeLay), Jeb and... Nader.
I'm thinking fucked for the next four years is optimistic.
posted by cedar at 1:26 PM on October 30, 2004
I'm thinking fucked for the next four years is optimistic.
posted by cedar at 1:26 PM on October 30, 2004
If Nader had been working to build a third party with his spoiler votes, I could respect the effort. But he's just a joke now, like the Reform Party after Perot abandoned them. Surely even the most diehard two-party-hating Naderite is humiliated by what the guy has become.
posted by rcade at 1:59 PM on October 30, 2004
posted by rcade at 1:59 PM on October 30, 2004
Please note, all the "don't vote for Nader or Bush will win!" comments apply only if you are voting in a swing state. If I were in a swing state, I'd be voting for Kerry too, but seeing as Bush is showing nearly a 2-to-1 lead in my state, I'll be voting for Badnarik with a clear conscience.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:20 PM on October 30, 2004
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:20 PM on October 30, 2004
the democrats abandoned the people a long time ago ... why shouldn't the people abandon them?
and i don't feel the dubious privilege of getting a few extra crumbs from the government/corporate table is worth voting for a pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-patriot act kerry ...
and please spare me this crap about working within the 2 party system ... that's what people have been saying for 40 years and it still hasn't changed ... in fact, it's gotten worse
i'm voting for the green party ... sue me
posted by pyramid termite at 2:30 PM on October 30, 2004
and i don't feel the dubious privilege of getting a few extra crumbs from the government/corporate table is worth voting for a pro-war, pro-corporate, pro-patriot act kerry ...
and please spare me this crap about working within the 2 party system ... that's what people have been saying for 40 years and it still hasn't changed ... in fact, it's gotten worse
i'm voting for the green party ... sue me
posted by pyramid termite at 2:30 PM on October 30, 2004
i'm voting for the green party ... sue me
no... i'm not going to sue you... if george bush wins... i'll think it was dumb... but i don't want your money... just your soul.
posted by The God Complex at 2:36 PM on October 30, 2004
no... i'm not going to sue you... if george bush wins... i'll think it was dumb... but i don't want your money... just your soul.
posted by The God Complex at 2:36 PM on October 30, 2004
but i don't want your money... just your soul
i know ... that's why i'm voting against the system
posted by pyramid termite at 3:13 PM on October 30, 2004
i know ... that's why i'm voting against the system
posted by pyramid termite at 3:13 PM on October 30, 2004
Please note, all the "don't vote for Nader or Bush will win!" comments apply only if you are voting in a swing state. If I were in a swing state, I'd be voting for Kerry too, but seeing as Bush is showing nearly a 2-to-1 lead in my state, I'll be voting for Badnarik with a clear conscience.
Actually, the national popular vote needs to be beyond a slim margin for whoever wins, for it not to be tied up in courts again, many are saying.
posted by amberglow at 3:30 PM on October 30, 2004
Actually, the national popular vote needs to be beyond a slim margin for whoever wins, for it not to be tied up in courts again, many are saying.
posted by amberglow at 3:30 PM on October 30, 2004
please spare me this crap about voting for third parties ... that's what people have been saying for 110 years and it still hasn't changed ... in fact, it's gotten worse
posted by rafter at 3:32 PM on October 30, 2004
posted by rafter at 3:32 PM on October 30, 2004
Termite (and others), I hope you realize that Nader is running as an independent and is not affiliated with the Green party this time around.
Informed voters, woo.
I voted for Nader in 2000 and don't regret it -- my state went to Gore by a fairly comfortable margin. But I do feel slightly betrayed by how Nader held out the carrot of "national funding for a viable third party" to garner more votes. It's pretty obvious in hindsight that this was just a ruse. I also understand that Nader seems to think that by running, he'll pull the Democrats to the left out of fear that he'll spoil the election, but he's so ineffectual in this respect, especially in light of what Dean did during the primaries.
I'll be voting for Kerry this time around. There's too much at stake, and the "vote your dreams, not your fears" line doesn't work on me because Nader has forfeited his right to stand for my hopes and dreams. He's become a walking parody of himself.
So, termite, if you want to vote for the Greens, you can vote for them in local and state elections... but you can't vote for Nader.
I don't know, maybe this action figure thing is his way of scaring people away from voting for him without having to actually drop out?
posted by speicus at 3:40 PM on October 30, 2004
Informed voters, woo.
I voted for Nader in 2000 and don't regret it -- my state went to Gore by a fairly comfortable margin. But I do feel slightly betrayed by how Nader held out the carrot of "national funding for a viable third party" to garner more votes. It's pretty obvious in hindsight that this was just a ruse. I also understand that Nader seems to think that by running, he'll pull the Democrats to the left out of fear that he'll spoil the election, but he's so ineffectual in this respect, especially in light of what Dean did during the primaries.
I'll be voting for Kerry this time around. There's too much at stake, and the "vote your dreams, not your fears" line doesn't work on me because Nader has forfeited his right to stand for my hopes and dreams. He's become a walking parody of himself.
So, termite, if you want to vote for the Greens, you can vote for them in local and state elections... but you can't vote for Nader.
I don't know, maybe this action figure thing is his way of scaring people away from voting for him without having to actually drop out?
posted by speicus at 3:40 PM on October 30, 2004
yep, rafter ... that's why the federalist and whig parties still have a stranglehold on our politics ... and why the socialist party platform of the early 1900s is now supported by both parties
those pesky third parties never do anything, do they?
posted by pyramid termite at 3:43 PM on October 30, 2004
those pesky third parties never do anything, do they?
posted by pyramid termite at 3:43 PM on October 30, 2004
specius ... i'm voting for david cobb ... i'm not pleased with nader's abandonment of the greens at all ... and kerry, as far as i'm concerned, is a flip-flopping phony
posted by pyramid termite at 3:48 PM on October 30, 2004
posted by pyramid termite at 3:48 PM on October 30, 2004
Just think if you had to vote for 2 candidates, Nader would win. Maybe we should do that, instead of having leaders who half the nation hates and the other half loves, we'd end up with a moderate who more people on average think is ok. (not that nader is ok, but i'm thinking in the future).
posted by tomplus2 at 4:27 PM on October 30, 2004
posted by tomplus2 at 4:27 PM on October 30, 2004
and kerry, as far as i'm concerned, is a flip-flopping phony
I always wonder when I hear this meme if anyone has any real basis for the critique. It seems like Kerry shifts about as often as most polticians, perhaps even less, and definitely less than Bush does (and on much smaller issues). My only hope is it has nothing to do with the Iraq war, because that whole flip-flop over Iraq thing is a complete fabrication. I wish the Kerry campaign had the foresight to use Kerry's speech in the senate when he approved the use of force. Maybe they use it in swing states; I wouldn't know, living in Canada (only ones I see are what broadcasts on the cable news channels). Still, he said exactly what he's always maintained he did.
posted by The God Complex at 4:27 PM on October 30, 2004
I always wonder when I hear this meme if anyone has any real basis for the critique. It seems like Kerry shifts about as often as most polticians, perhaps even less, and definitely less than Bush does (and on much smaller issues). My only hope is it has nothing to do with the Iraq war, because that whole flip-flop over Iraq thing is a complete fabrication. I wish the Kerry campaign had the foresight to use Kerry's speech in the senate when he approved the use of force. Maybe they use it in swing states; I wouldn't know, living in Canada (only ones I see are what broadcasts on the cable news channels). Still, he said exactly what he's always maintained he did.
posted by The God Complex at 4:27 PM on October 30, 2004
Its a deep flaw in our voting system that allows the paradox of a Far-Left candidate being a good thing for the Right.
No it is not. It is the fundemental under-pinning of our system. The flaw is that we've become a nation of single issue voters who are more concerned with being right than getting better. It seems like partisans on both sides want their view to win 100% or take the ball and go home. We're supposed to fucking compromise and you can't tell me Ralph Nader's position is anything like a compromise between the two main points of view in this country.
Maybe our Founding Fathers never designed the system with such a world in mind. Perhaps that is a flaw, but I think it's a check: the only thing that is going to get us over this disgusting hump is for people who self-identify on either side of the aisle to start working with the other side again. All other roads lead to failure and that's not the fault of our electoral system.
I don't have an answer for this, but I feel comfortable saying Nader isn't it. I realize there's hypocrisy in that (me saying what's wrong without a plan to fix it).
posted by yerfatma at 4:39 PM on October 30, 2004
No it is not. It is the fundemental under-pinning of our system. The flaw is that we've become a nation of single issue voters who are more concerned with being right than getting better. It seems like partisans on both sides want their view to win 100% or take the ball and go home. We're supposed to fucking compromise and you can't tell me Ralph Nader's position is anything like a compromise between the two main points of view in this country.
Maybe our Founding Fathers never designed the system with such a world in mind. Perhaps that is a flaw, but I think it's a check: the only thing that is going to get us over this disgusting hump is for people who self-identify on either side of the aisle to start working with the other side again. All other roads lead to failure and that's not the fault of our electoral system.
I don't have an answer for this, but I feel comfortable saying Nader isn't it. I realize there's hypocrisy in that (me saying what's wrong without a plan to fix it).
posted by yerfatma at 4:39 PM on October 30, 2004
Actually, the national popular vote needs to be beyond a slim margin for whoever wins, for it not to be tied up in courts again, many are saying.
Uh, right. Explain to me just how third-party votes in states which are overwhelmingly for one candidate will lead to the election going to the courts?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 5:14 PM on October 30, 2004
Uh, right. Explain to me just how third-party votes in states which are overwhelmingly for one candidate will lead to the election going to the courts?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 5:14 PM on October 30, 2004
DevilsAdvocate:
If Kerry wins the electoral college, but not the popular vote, the Republicans are going to challenge anything and everything possible, and try to tie it up in court until they make enough votes disappear to swing it to Bush.
By voting for a third party in a solid red or blue state, you risk that Kerry will not have a clear enough victory among the people to withstand such an assault, by evil, power-hungry, amoral types like Rove.
posted by bashos_frog at 7:17 PM on October 30, 2004
If Kerry wins the electoral college, but not the popular vote, the Republicans are going to challenge anything and everything possible, and try to tie it up in court until they make enough votes disappear to swing it to Bush.
By voting for a third party in a solid red or blue state, you risk that Kerry will not have a clear enough victory among the people to withstand such an assault, by evil, power-hungry, amoral types like Rove.
posted by bashos_frog at 7:17 PM on October 30, 2004
What bashos said. Thinking you can cast a safe vote is not possible this year.
posted by amberglow at 7:48 PM on October 30, 2004
posted by amberglow at 7:48 PM on October 30, 2004
I think wanting alternative parties in America is a good thing, but let's face it, Nader would make a suck-ass president. Say by some incredible miracle he made it in. And say, by some other miracle, Congress actually let him guide public policy in the slightest. On the one hand, he'd be free from corporate influence - that's the good thing. On the other, he'd regulate the shit out of everything and drive the economy into the toilet. In Iraq, he'd be for an immediate pullout, which sounds good until the country devolves into another war-torn, terrorist-breeding hellhole like Afghanistan in the 80s.
I wouldn't vote for him, and I consider myself liberal.
posted by fungible at 8:45 PM on October 30, 2004
I wouldn't vote for him, and I consider myself liberal.
posted by fungible at 8:45 PM on October 30, 2004
If Kerry wins the electoral college, but not the popular vote, the Republicans are going to challenge anything and everything possible,
Even a state they've already won?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:49 PM on October 30, 2004
Even a state they've already won?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:49 PM on October 30, 2004
They won't contest a state they've already won, but the GOP will use any lack of an overwhelming popular majority for Kerry to contest any states or counties where it is close.
posted by bashos_frog at 8:53 PM on October 30, 2004
posted by bashos_frog at 8:53 PM on October 30, 2004
yep, rafter ... that's why the federalist and whig parties still have a stranglehold on our politics ... and why the socialist party platform of the early 1900s is now supported by both parties
those pesky third parties never do anything, do they?
My comment was mostly just snarkiness, but if you actually want to debate it, it was a rebuttal of your comment that "it still hasn't changed ... in fact, it's gotten worse" in the past 40 years that people have been saying "work within the two party system." You're right. Working within the two party system hasn't changed anything major. I don't dispute that.
But voting for third party candidates hasn't changed anything major, either, for twice that time frame. It has been all Democrats and Republicans since 1869.
So, voting for a third party nationally has not changed anything in 130 years. Voting for a Democrat or Republican has not changed anything major in 40 years (I'm not sure how literal your figure was, if at all). In an election this close, there is a clear difference between Bush and Kerry and the race literally will come down to handfuls of votes.
If I were looking out for my self-interest and the interests of my fellow citizens, I would vote for the lesser of two evils nationally, and then work like hell to figure out how to create viable national third party candidates. Voting for them in the past hasn't been any help, and it's not going to be anytime soon. So, by all means, elect a Green or other third party to mayor and then to governnor and then to state representative, and then to House and then to Senate and then to the Presidency. I would absolutely love to see a Green party President.
But now is not the time for voting for a third party. Not this year. Not when it's this close and when this much is at stake.
posted by rafter at 8:56 PM on October 30, 2004
those pesky third parties never do anything, do they?
My comment was mostly just snarkiness, but if you actually want to debate it, it was a rebuttal of your comment that "it still hasn't changed ... in fact, it's gotten worse" in the past 40 years that people have been saying "work within the two party system." You're right. Working within the two party system hasn't changed anything major. I don't dispute that.
But voting for third party candidates hasn't changed anything major, either, for twice that time frame. It has been all Democrats and Republicans since 1869.
So, voting for a third party nationally has not changed anything in 130 years. Voting for a Democrat or Republican has not changed anything major in 40 years (I'm not sure how literal your figure was, if at all). In an election this close, there is a clear difference between Bush and Kerry and the race literally will come down to handfuls of votes.
If I were looking out for my self-interest and the interests of my fellow citizens, I would vote for the lesser of two evils nationally, and then work like hell to figure out how to create viable national third party candidates. Voting for them in the past hasn't been any help, and it's not going to be anytime soon. So, by all means, elect a Green or other third party to mayor and then to governnor and then to state representative, and then to House and then to Senate and then to the Presidency. I would absolutely love to see a Green party President.
But now is not the time for voting for a third party. Not this year. Not when it's this close and when this much is at stake.
posted by rafter at 8:56 PM on October 30, 2004
you're choosing between Kang and Kodos.
Could be, but I think it's worth mentioning at this point that the man ultimately responsible for Kang and Kodos, Matt Groening, has promised to rename his strip "Life in Hell," to something other than "Hell" as long as Bush loses this election.
So maybe it's more helpful to think of it as, you're choosing between Bush losing and getting kicked out on his ass and Bush getting another pat on the head for yet another complete fuckup.
posted by soyjoy at 9:28 PM on October 30, 2004
Could be, but I think it's worth mentioning at this point that the man ultimately responsible for Kang and Kodos, Matt Groening, has promised to rename his strip "Life in Hell," to something other than "Hell" as long as Bush loses this election.
So maybe it's more helpful to think of it as, you're choosing between Bush losing and getting kicked out on his ass and Bush getting another pat on the head for yet another complete fuckup.
posted by soyjoy at 9:28 PM on October 30, 2004
or - pyramid termite - think of it in these terms : a vote against Bush is a vote against theocracy.
posted by troutfishing at 9:42 PM on October 30, 2004
posted by troutfishing at 9:42 PM on October 30, 2004
That's it ... pimp around those of us liberals who despise Kerry and are scrambling to find the slightest shred of a reason to vote for him in lieu of a genuine candidate. Blame us for your party's own shortcomings. Stamp, wheeze and snort that you don't have us in your back pocket, where we "obviously" belong -- just waiting for the opportunity to rubber-stamp the plate of offal you place before us. Yeah! That'll win us over. Great 11th hour strategy. Dump on the only ones left who MIGHT help you.
posted by RavinDave at 10:56 PM on October 30, 2004
posted by RavinDave at 10:56 PM on October 30, 2004
booo!
Abortions for none!
booo!
Abortions for some, miniature flags for others!
YAY!
posted by andryeevna at 12:38 AM on October 31, 2004
Abortions for none!
booo!
Abortions for some, miniature flags for others!
YAY!
posted by andryeevna at 12:38 AM on October 31, 2004
RavinDave: What a surprise to learn that you would vote Democrat if we hadn't bashed Nader and his last remaining holdouts on a Web site.
It's amazing how many times I've read a statement like that here and elsewhere over the last four years. If your convictions are so lightly held that random Internet users can shake them loose, why not join the rest of us liberals in compromise and vote for Kerry?
I'm happily casting my vote in Florida on Tuesday for the candidate less likely to get the country into World War III and spend us into ruin because he thinks Armageddon would be a good thing. Need another reason? How about the disdain that the current administration shows for science or any other flavor of empirical reality and the president's steadfast refusal to acknowledge error, fire anyone in his administration, or veto a single bill from the profligate GOP Congress?
Kerry supporters could spend time trying to woo the miniscule cadre of Naderites, but you're like those isolated Japanese soldiers on islands who didn't stop fighting World War II for decades because they never got the word it was over.
Sure, we could go island-to-island and try to wake you up to history. But your crowd is the kind of people who believe the U.S. has a social safety net today because Eugene V. Debs got nearly a million votes in 1920. Wouldn't our time be better spent on the people in the pragmatic middle?
posted by rcade at 4:13 AM on October 31, 2004
It's amazing how many times I've read a statement like that here and elsewhere over the last four years. If your convictions are so lightly held that random Internet users can shake them loose, why not join the rest of us liberals in compromise and vote for Kerry?
I'm happily casting my vote in Florida on Tuesday for the candidate less likely to get the country into World War III and spend us into ruin because he thinks Armageddon would be a good thing. Need another reason? How about the disdain that the current administration shows for science or any other flavor of empirical reality and the president's steadfast refusal to acknowledge error, fire anyone in his administration, or veto a single bill from the profligate GOP Congress?
Kerry supporters could spend time trying to woo the miniscule cadre of Naderites, but you're like those isolated Japanese soldiers on islands who didn't stop fighting World War II for decades because they never got the word it was over.
Sure, we could go island-to-island and try to wake you up to history. But your crowd is the kind of people who believe the U.S. has a social safety net today because Eugene V. Debs got nearly a million votes in 1920. Wouldn't our time be better spent on the people in the pragmatic middle?
posted by rcade at 4:13 AM on October 31, 2004
rcade -- I'm not asking you to convince me of anything. I'm pointing out that your time in these final stages of the election is better spent dealing with Bush rather than bashing Naderites or Deaniacs. How is it productive to remind us why we dislike party (as it currently exists) in the first place? You think you're going to "guilt" us into supporting Kerry? Fut! We may end up voting for him, but it WON'T be due to smug coaxing from the party faithfuls. And if we have to endure much more arrogance you will push us to the other side.
posted by RavinDave at 4:48 AM on October 31, 2004
posted by RavinDave at 4:48 AM on October 31, 2004
On the list of reasons to cast a vote, where does "arrogance of candidate supporters" rank? I put it somewhere between "commitment to flouridation" and "quality of candidate hair."
posted by rcade at 6:28 AM on October 31, 2004
posted by rcade at 6:28 AM on October 31, 2004
If Nader has demonstrated anything, it's that he really is arrogant and egotistical enough to actually be President. Apart from that, I agree with most of what has already been stated.
As far as it goes, Howard Dean is the successor to Nader's 2000 campaign. Nader is just plain irrelevant when neither the Greens nor his own Raiders will support him.
posted by psmealey at 6:48 AM on October 31, 2004
As far as it goes, Howard Dean is the successor to Nader's 2000 campaign. Nader is just plain irrelevant when neither the Greens nor his own Raiders will support him.
posted by psmealey at 6:48 AM on October 31, 2004
I put it somewhere between "commitment to flouridation" and "quality of candidate hair."
#2?
posted by yerfatma at 9:15 AM on October 31, 2004
#2?
posted by yerfatma at 9:15 AM on October 31, 2004
You're all a bunch of sellouts. Quit polluting the thread please.
posted by iamck at 12:25 PM on October 31, 2004
And now comes the turn of the Naderites to say... ahem.. perhaps you guys were a little bit harsh about Ralph Nader and perhaps you guys might want to get involved in the election next time and actually do something to help someone you believe in get elected instead of wasting all your energy dumping on a man who has done a lot to help consumers in this country.
Ralph continues to try to make positive contributions to the future of America. His pursuit of the recounts will help to ensure the accuracy of future elections.
The question is: why not try to help out with this? why not try to form a third party on your own? many people say that we need a viable third party-- well what are you waiting for?
posted by notmtwain at 2:31 PM on November 26, 2004
Ralph continues to try to make positive contributions to the future of America. His pursuit of the recounts will help to ensure the accuracy of future elections.
The question is: why not try to help out with this? why not try to form a third party on your own? many people say that we need a viable third party-- well what are you waiting for?
posted by notmtwain at 2:31 PM on November 26, 2004
« Older Promoting a candidate could get you thrown in... | turn down the lights... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by ColdChef at 7:23 AM on October 30, 2004