PeterDavid.net

Did Nadar actually make an impact last time? With all the talk of Florida, I can't remember.

KIP

Did Nadar actually make an impact last time? With all the talk of Florida, I can't remember.

The basic thinking is this: If half the voters who voted for Nader had instead voted for Gore (i.e., if Nader hadn't been on the ballot) then Gore would have slam-dunked Florida.

The fault in this logic is that it's possible that the Nader voters--if Nader hadn't been running--would have just stayed home rather than vote for Gore. So we'll never know for sure.

PAD

Yeah, I had similar thoughts. What this otherwise intelligent and decent man can be thinking when the stakes are so high is beyond me.

It occurred to me afterwards that if Nader really wanted to make a difference and get his message out he could do one of two things, either one of which would be more effective than a doomed run for President.

1) He could run for an office he could actually win. Mayor of my old hometown of DC comes to mind simply because it's reasonably high-profile and it would be easy to improve upon the records of previous office-holders.

2) Do a daily talk radio gig. Supposedly there's a liberal radio network in the offing. Tell me such an organization wouldn't jump at having Ralph Nader on weekday drive-times.

Bottom-line, there are other ways to fight the good fight than a quixotic run for the White House.

This run is more for ego than anything else and that is distasteful to me. If he were serious, he'd have SHOWN folks that he's a viable leader by running for and winning another political office.

Yeah, his ideas are different...but can they work? Without at least a proof of concept, it's just an ego trup.

This is the truly unfortunate thing about someone like Nader. Even though they operate at the fringes of their political spheres, they still manage to sound attractive to a significant minority of people. And it is not hard to make their targets sound attractive. I mean, which liberal wouldn't want better standards of education, environmental care, racial and economic equity?

But the sad thing is that they have no realistic way of addressing these problems. You can't just expect to legislate away basic human wants and needs with any great level of success, but that is pretty much what Nader and his ilk wants to do.

CAVEAT: I haven't really paid much attention to Nader since the last American election, so I don't know whether or not he's changed his tactics somewhat. However one of the local parties (The Australian Greens) is set up in a similar fashion to his group and in fact consider him to be one of their "mentors". Also, the fact that he is (considering?) running again implies that he hasn't learnt much from the last elections.

Now to wait for the (Bush) = (eventual Democrat nominee) crowd to get whipped up again. After all, it worked *so* well for them the last time.

Back in 2001 or perhaps early 2002, I brought Nader onto an AOL live chat to talk about his latest book from Seven-Stories Press. I did the typing for him, fielding questions for him while wearing a headset to transcribe his responses in real time. Even then, he was obviously tired of the incessant "didn't you wreck things for Gore?" questions. But I must admit that while I tried to pick other questions, I felt the same way. This time around, I feel the same, but more so. I suppose you could make a case that Gore didn't seem all that different from Bush in 2000--but it's a hell of a lot harder to make that argument about Kerry (with his very liberal ADA score) versus the Bush-as-President we've all come to know.

But I think our amiable host is right in supposing Nader won't be a major factor this time around. Not only are the Democrats far more energized than they were in 2000, but Nader has split from the Greens. Their party may not be huge, but they were already organized. Nader has to build a whole organization--and he has to do it with the ghost of the 2000 election debacle hovering over him. He'll be irrelevant.

I really feel like I can't fault Nader for 2000 - of all the little things that affected the Florida votes - the mass disenfranchisement of eligible, mostly minority voters, the poorly-designed ballots, the throwing out of overvotes that had clear intentions, etc. - Nader was only a relatively small part. It's not like he knew ahead of time what was going to happen.

This time around, though, I'm not entirely sure I see what his point is, besides gratifying his own ego. He's running without Green party affiliation, which invalidates one of the main priorities last time, and his message that the two parties are the same has been completely disproven by the intervening years.

This is going to end up being a stain on an otherwise distinguished career - though I don't think it'll affect the election much this time around either - because it represents a real step backwards. Had he simply said "I've made my point," and continued to advocate liberal causes, he'd have had a lot of credibility and probably be able to make some genuine progress. All he's going to generate now is resentment.

Here we go again. It reminds me of the college students my Dad teaches who complain that their bad grade in his class cost them a slot on the honor roll or a chance to graduate with their class. As though my Dad had any say in what they chose to do (or rather, chose *not* to do) in their other classes. That was Gore's problem in 2000. If he had won his home state, or not held back in the debates, or piggybacked on Clinton's accomplishments more, Florida would have never been a factor in the first place. And that's not Nader's fault.

-Dave O'Connell

I agree that the comment...

Pat Buchanan also got votes. doesn't make sense. Perhaps he might have been better saying that the Socialist Party also got votes (I think at least 1,000). The number might not be quite right (I saw it flash up on the newschannels and didn't write it down).

So the Socialist Party is as much at fault as Nader, I'd suppose.

A more interesting question (I'm not from the US), so please forgive my ignorance. Why didn't more people, after hearing what Mr. Nader proposed, support him? I heard him speak and he made more sense than Gore and Bush combined. The issues he raised, if implemented, would bring a great improvement to the country. Gore sounded like he might at least keep things from getting worse and Bush, to anyone who actually paid attention, was not in the least competent.

I suppose that question could extend to why Dennis Kucinich & Al Sharpton got so little airtime, when they made more sense than the other lot (my opinion on this of course)

Thanks

I just saw the replay of Fox News Sunday (which plays opposite MTP in the morning - I really hate that), and it was pointed out that Nader only impacted the electoral votes of two states: Florida and New Hampshire (assuming all Nader voters voted and all went to Gore). Like everyone else, no one figures Nader to have much of an impact against an energized Democratic base.

However, I also really hate the assumption that Nader cost the Democrats the election as much as I hate the same assumption that Perot cost the Republicans the election. Votes do not belong to a party or candidate. If you like Nader, vote for him. The only way for a third party to ever get a toe-hold is if enough people actually buck the system that the two primary parties have institutionalized.

I don't know much about his run this time, but in 2000, Nader's stated reason for running was to get the Green Party enough votes to get it a permanent place on the ballot & thereby breaking the 2 party system.

As for Nader "Taking votes away from Gore", I say bullsh*t. If people didn't vote for Gore, it's because Gore didn't convince them to. Just look at all the opportunities Gore passed on that could have gotten him thousands more votes.

Two major opportunities he passed on were:

1) not playing on the successes of the Clinton administration, instead of distancing himself from them. Remember, despite all the noise being made by the right, Clinton was tremendously popular.

2) At the Republican Convention Bush said "we've had 8 years of peace & prosperity, and it's time for it to end". If Gore had used this in a commercial, it would have been pure gold for his campaign.

A lot of people have mentioned above that they think Nader's run this time around is about ego. Is it at all possible the man has a passion for making a change and he believes enough in his convictions to put it all on the line?

"As for Nader "Taking votes away from Gore", I say bullsh*t. If people didn't vote for Gore, it's because Gore didn't convince them to." -Michael Brunner

Excellent statement.

Admitedly, I don't know too much about Nader or his philosophies, but the mere fact that he is another option in a stale two party system is refreshing. The more options we have as voters, the less likely it will be that we'll be faced with a "lesser of two evils" situation.

Monkeys

not Gerbils

I'll agree with the chorus of folks who say that Nader didn't cost Gore the election. Gore lost the election by himself. Sure, Nader got 2.7% of the popular vote and impacted the electoral votes of two states (and that last one is a BIG maybe, because quite a few of those people who voted for Nader, as PAD said, may not have voted at all if Nader hadn't ran).

I'll also agree with PAD...I don't think Nader will have any significant impact. The distaste for the Bush Administration among everyone I know, from the Republicans who think he's being fiscally irresponsible and not definitive on social issues to the Democrats who don't like his political attitudes, is substantial. I think Bush has moved people everyone to have stronger opinions about their government, on both sides of the aisle. I think the race for the White House will still be close.

The only thing that might push Bush over the top would be the capture of Osama bin Laden. Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to see bin Laden captured, but I think some Americans would attribute that to Bush, instead of the intelligence community and the military strategists.

I listen to Nader, and I think, "Yeah. Everything he just said is true. I agree. I completely agree. But he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning." I honestly just hope that Bush doesn't win, not because I don't like the man, but only because I don't agree with his political stances on the issues of the day, and think the country has been negatively transformed under his watch. Is it all his fault? Nope. But I've been patient with our President. Now I want to see what someone else can do. ;)

Well put, Mr. Cravens. But, as far as one of your last comments about Nader not having a snowball's chance in hell, despite the fact that you agree with him-therein lies the reason we are pretty much still stuck with two parties and two candidates. Because, even if people agree with someone and would love to see them in the White House, they are conditioned to not vote for him because he's not one of the big two. It sucks. It really sucks. Because if all of us out here actually voted for who we liked regardless of party name, we'd at least start a change in the way things work. If every election a non-Democrat or non-Republican got just a few more votes, sooner or later people would take them more seriously and not consider them a throw away vote.

Monkeys.

A lot of people have mentioned above that they think Nader's run this time around is about ego. Is it at all possible the man has a passion for making a change and he believes enough in his convictions to put it all on the line?

Show me, don't tell me. Show that you can handle a major municipality or work with others in a plcae like DC. That's why I didn't think Clark was a viable candidate (and to a great extent that was ego as well).

For years Nader has said (to great applause) that both major parties are beholden to the special interests and major corporations. But when he goes and actually DOES something about it he get crucified by liberals for "stealing" votes from the lesser of two evils.

From his point of view there may be long term benefits to third party candidates continuously costing the Democrats the presidency--it will force them to move further to the left to assuage those voters who keep abandoning them for Nader and those who will follow.

I don't think that would be good for the party but Nader does and is acting accordingly. Visionaries don't always think on the same kind of time constraints as the rest of us.

That bit about "maybe Nader voters would have stayed home if Nader hadn't run" doesn't fly if you look at the numbers. Nader got 97,448 votes in Florida; as we all know, the recorded final score in that state had Bush winning by 537 votes. So unless you're prepared to believe that 96,911 of the 97,448 Nader voters would have stayed home that day, Gore would be President today had Nader not been on the ballot in Florida.

Ha. My single favorite comment on Nader's reemergence is at Tim Byrd's blog: http://www.livejournal.com/users/outlawmoon/

Vote spliting has caused some serious problem here in Canada. It has allowed the ruling liberals to stay in power long after they should have been shown the door. Now we have scandal after scandal and no viable alternative.

DonBoy, your also assuming that some of those people who voted for Nader would NOT have voted for Bush had Nader not been on the ballot. Some of them may have voted for Gore, some for Bush, and some wouldn't have voted at all. In the end, though, I think saying that anyone stole votes from anyone else is silly because that person earned those votes (or had a core of blind followers who supported him and were going to vote for him no matter what), and if one of the other candidates had convinced those voters they were a better choice, then they would have earned them instead. To say that "if so-and-so wasn't on the ballot then..." is saying that either diversity and greater options for choosing a president is bad, or that nonDem and nonRepub candidates shouldn't be allowed to be on the ballot unless no one is going to vote for them anyway.

Monkeys

Man, I'm posting a lot today. Sorry.

At the Republican Convention Bush said "we've had 8 years of peace & prosperity, and it's time for it to end". If Gore had used this in a commercial, it would have been pure gold for his campaign.

Did he really say that? I know there was a funny Onion bit on that theme but the Onion, though funny, isn't an actual news source.

If true, then yeah, they missed a good one. I've often thought I could do better ads for either party than the ones they presumably pay big bucks for.

DonBoy, your also assuming that some of those people who voted for Nader would NOT have voted for Bush had Nader not been on the ballot. Some of them may have voted for Gore, some for Bush, and some wouldn't have voted at all.

I suppose some Nader voters might have had Bush as their second choice, but, again, out of almost 100,000 votes, I'm comfortable concluding that the spread in favor of Gore would have more that 537 votes, stay-at-homes included. Of the rest of what you say: I've said nothing like anything you mention, although others have gotten into it a little. I'm just working on "What would have happened if Nader had not been running?", not "What should our feelings be about third party candidacies and the general state of the American election system?"

But I will say this: in the final round of any winner-take-all election, the more choices you have that are close to your preferences, the worse off you are, for exactly the reason we're discussing here; it makes it more likely that someone you definitely don't want will win.

I'm pretty sure I've seen a film clip of Bush making that statement & being cheered by the crowd (But I'll admit I could be wrong & might be repeating an urban legend. I haven't been able to find attribution for the quote yet.).

Even if he didn't, using it would be no different than all the "Al Gore said he invented the internet" nonsense. The truth on that one is that Gore was one of the main proponents of (& fought to get funding for) the program that eventually became the internet.

What will be interesting to see is if the disenheartened Deaniacs flock to Nader, or simply fade back into the Internet woodwork.

Don't blame me, I voted for Perot.

"But I will say this: in the final round of any winner-take-all election, the more choices you have that are close to your preferences, the worse off you are, for exactly the reason we're discussing here; it makes it more likely that someone you definitely don't want will win. " -DonBoy

Good point. I hadn't actually thought of it in that light. I still think more options is better, but it all seems to be a vicious cycle. More choices could mean more honest candidates (or candidates that would take the best of both current parties), but it could also cause polarization, winding up on two different sides again in order to please as many people as possible. You have given me something to think about. Thanks.

Monkeys.

Toby said: "The more options we have as voters, the less likely it will be that we'll be faced with a "lesser of two evils" situation."

'Lesser of two evils' is the exact phrase that I use when I tell people how long it's been since I've voted for President. The sad fact is that even the 'third party' candidates don't really fit my idea of a good presidential candidate. Which infuriates the hell out of me.

To make matters worse, we have these idiots telling us that not voting is wrong. Perhaps that would be true if the ballot had an 'Each Candidate is a Scumbag' option. Why should I waste my vote on someone I don't believe in? The very notion that it's our duty to vote no matter what is just plain ignorant. Rather, I believe it is our duty to elect candidates that will represent "We, the People" instead anyone who can foot the bill for services rendered.

Sounds like I'd be a Nader supporter on the surface. And, yes, I agree with alot of what the man has to say but as other's have stated he has no 'work history.'

(Here's a toast to Toby)

Gorillas. With poor depth perception.

Salutations,

Mitch

I'm sorry but Nader lost me when he started talking like an ultra-extreme left winger saying that Bush should be impeached. Screw that. Nader sounding like Dean is not a good thing.

Kerry on the otherhand will not get my vote because he voted for

1.the iraq-war 2.the patriot act

3.no child left behind 4. free trade and several others. That's not what bothers me, what bothers me is that he is such a flaccid wimp that he won't defend his own decisions to vote for these things and passes them off as the republicans fault. Sorry but if it comes down to Nader Kerry or Bush, I'm gonna have to vote for Bush.

If only the democrats could get somebody with balls. Oh well, maybe Hillary will have bigger balls then Kerry in '08

-a pissed off democrat

BTW,

The only thing that might push Bush over the top would be the capture of Osama bin Laden.

I direct your attention thusly:

http://www.sundaytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,9353,8752173-28778,00.html

and

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5728.htm

Hmmm ... and the election just around the corner & Bush's numbers falling.

I learned my lesson in 1980 after I voted for John Anderson. Much as I might love to see some third-party candidate win, I will not throw away my vote if it means my second choice will lose to the third candidate. (And this from someone who will vote for a dogcatch before she votes for Bush.)

Yeah, I'd read those articles online about bin Laden supposedly being surrounded. I don't think it's a conspiracy. It'd be a lucky coincidence. Like I said, I'll cheer with they capture bin Laden, but you just know Bush would take that film clip, put in in a TV ad with some words like "Bush stands for freedom. Freedom against tyranny. He brought to justice the terrorist behind the 9/11 attacks. Vote Bush." ;-) I'd chalk any capture of bin Laden up to the military or intelligence community, but maybe that's just me. :-)

Toby: To a certain extent, I absolutely agree with you. We are trained and conditioned to choose one of the the candidates from the big two parties. But you know, I like the two party system, in theory. In reality, I think that both parties have become so much the puppets of special interests, private and public, that I honestly don't trust either one. When I said that Nader didn't have a chance of winning, I guess I was referring to the fact that Nader has, since the 70s, been perceived as very liberal, and like it or not, about half of all American voters have conservative leanings on at least some issues which would compel them to avoid a vote for Nader, just as they avoided a vote for McGovern in the 70s and Mondale and Dukakis in the 80s. I think even if you get most of the liberals to vote for Nader, he'd still have hesitant conservatives to deal with, and I don't think he'd win.

I like the principle of the two-party system, as I said. But because we're at present so polarized as a society, with 50% of voters on the right side of the political spectrum, and 50% on the left side of the spectrum (with varying degrees in between), the only candidate who can win is moderate. Nader doesn't seem to be perceived as moderate.

So, once again, I'm faced with a dilemma. I don't want to re-elect Bush. I'm not a huge follower of either Kerry or Edwards. I want my vote to count. So what do I do? You know, I know there are some people who visit this site who watch "the West Wing." I'm reminded of a first or second season episode, with a flashback to when Leo was campaigning with Bartlet for the nomination. Leo said something like "I'm sick and tired of voting for the lesser of who cares."

I'm sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, the lesser of who gives a damn? I want a President I can admire; a President who is one of the smartest people in the room at any given moment; a President willing to do the right thing for the American public, regardless of what the party leaders would say or what the lobbyists or special interests might think; a President of principles, compassion, intellect, and commitment.

You give me a Presidential candidate who meets those criteria, and I'll vote for them in a heartbeat, Republican, Democrat, or Independent. :-D I'm so sick of watching the political games, the attack ads, the mudslinging, the dance we call American politics. Show me a candidate who displays that he is above such behavior, and like I said...he or she will have my vote in a heartbeat.

But what do I know? I'm just a law student.

Monkeys. :-)

What will be interesting to see is if the disenheartened Deaniacs flock to Nader, or simply fade back into the Internet woodwork.

That might depend on who the eventual Democratic nominee is and what happens at the convention.

This particular Dean supporter will swallow a live toad before he votes for Nader at this point -- as others have said above, for him it now seems much more about ego than about policy. I'm not voting for that.

The two-party system is a major, major problem, however. Any candidate who seriously advocates switching to instant-runoff voting on a national level is probably someone who'd have my vote for life.

It would have removed all the claims of Nader/Buchanan/Perot "handing the election over to" whomever, for one thing. My suspicion is that if we'd had IRV in 2000, (1) the Green Party might have gotten a lot more votes (since people wouldn't have been worried about "throwing them away"), and (2) Gore would have been an obvious winner.

(What would've happened in '92, I wonder? Who was the second choice of most Perot voters?)

TWL

There are few things more pathetic than listening to a democrat complain about how Nader cost Gore the election last time around. You know who cost Gore the election? Gore. It wasn't Nader's fault the democrats nominated such a light weight who was unable to keep democrats from jumping ship at the first chance.

And now they've gone and nominated Kerry, who wouldn't even be able to beat Gore on his best day. When the democrats lose again (and I can't see how they won't), hopefully they'll finally realize all the blame is on the jackasses they've chosen to represent their party in the elections.

John Kerry? They think they're going to beat Bush with John Kerry? Hell, I'm not even sure I'd prefer Kerry over Bush anyway.

Bring on Nader. Now that's a person who deserves my vote.

Why did so many democrats abandon Gore in favor of Nader? Because sometimes it's nice to vote for a candidate you actually respect, instead of voting for a candidate you just hate least.

Nader didn't split the vote, the democrats did.

By the way, this is sorta related to the topic at hand. I was watching the Daily Show with Jon Stewart a week or two ago (the only TV news worth watching!) and I saw that guest he had on about the buying of the President 2004, promoting the book about lifetime patrons to each of the candidates, including President Bush.

Here's a link to the site. To see the career patrons section, scroll down, and on the left you'll see the candidates. Click on a name and you have various options.

http://www.publicintegrity.org/bop2004/

Bush's number one career patron? Drumroll please...well, let's just say it starts with an E, ends with an N, and has NRO in the middle. ;-)

Interesting site, to say the least.

I share mi life between Italy and Argentina.

At the moment, I know better the candidates for the U.S. President than the ones for my countries.

I just wanted to say what someone once said in Italy, and that the president of United States is so important in the world that is unfair only americans can vote for him.

Great. Nader's running again.

He's going to attract all the wimps and losers who are too damned weak to stand up and make a choice between Bush or the Democratic candidate. Instead, they'll choose the one likely to lose, not only flushing their vote down the shitter, but in fact HARMING the chance to remove Bush from the White House.

Bush already has the inbred, knee-slapping, sister-screwing hillbilly vote. Now he's making sure that the intelligent people of this country whose interests do not lie in big-money don't vote democrat.

By that, of course, I mean the idealistic yet extremely naive college student who thinks that voting independent will make a difference.

Here's hoping someone will put a bullet in Nader before November rolls around.

The Big Lie, or Why your vote doesn't Count

New York city has a population of aproximately 8 million people, I believe everyone will agree with this.

There are aproximately 3 million registered voters in New York City, thats all five boroughs, thats about 38% of the population of the city.

During the 2001 Mayors Race, 1.5 million voters came out to vote, or about 1/2 of the total registered voters of the city. This equals 20% of the population of the city.

Mayor Blumeberg received 48% of the vote and won the Mayorial Election about 700,000 votes. This is equal to about 8% of the total population of the city.

So in effect less than 10% of the people are choosing who is going to represent the other 90%.

Conclusion, the reason your vote doesn't count, is because you don't use it!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone who wishes to see the results for 2001 Mayrs race or any other race can view it at the NYC Board of Elections Web site

www.vote.nyc.ny.us

Most states by this point have election data available on the web, you can find it easliy by going to

*state'sname*.gov

and searching for election results.

SPB

I voted for Nader in 2000. I will vote for him again this time unless Abe Lincoln or Walt Disney is revivified and placed on the ballot (in the latter case, after he stabs Mike Eisner dead for the evil things the Mouse has done in Unca Walt's name). Nader is a crotchety old ballbuster who scarcely brooks introductions to arguments against his positions before he breaks in with his standard diatribes, but he is honest and looking for something better in this country. He is a voice of dissent where it is very much needed, in a country where vaguely bitching about iceberg tips of issues is as close as most folks ever get to civic duty. The idea that your vote is wasted unless it is spent on someone who might actually win is the most ludicrous, asinine argument anyone could possibly make. It is the vote of someone afraid to be in the minority. It is the white man's burden. Vote for what you believe in. If what you believe in is George Bush going home, then vote for Kerry. He will bend you over just like Dubya does, albeit in a different direction. In my case, I believe in the goal, however faint it might be, of more intelligent public discourse and government by the people and, for a change, for the people. Nader wouldn't do jack all for U.S. foreign policy, but he talks about the things that no one else is talking about, things that very much need talking about, and for that he will get my vote.

The idea that your vote is wasted unless it is spent on someone who might actually win is the most ludicrous, asinine argument anyone could possibly make. It is the vote of someone afraid to be in the minority.

I'm thinking not. Personally, I'm not afraid to be in the minority. I've taken stands on any number of positions that I know aren't shared by the majority of Americans.

I'm thinking of it more as the vote of someone who just doesn't want four more years of Bush and firmly believes Nader, with zero years of governing experience and zero political support, not only can't stop that from happening, but could conceivably help make it a reality just by his presence.

PAD

"To make matters worse, we have these idiots telling us that not voting is wrong. Perhaps that would be true if the ballot had an 'Each Candidate is a Scumbag' option. Why should I waste my vote on someone I don't believe in? The very notion that it's our duty to vote no matter what is just plain ignorant. Rather, I believe it is our duty to elect candidates that will represent "We, the People" instead anyone who can foot the bill for services rendered. "

I think that you should ask for a write in ballot. I'd also suggest that even if the third party candidates don't thrill you, voting for one of them sends the message "I'm still here, Im pissed, I'm not going to roll over and accept the two party majority, and I'm open to different, innovative ideas."

I'm sick of hearing the same complaints year after year. When citizens have had enough they will either: 1) Remember a third party candidate named Lincoln and realize that third party candidates *can* win or 2) Use the initiative process to make instant runoff/preferential voting available in their state. Anyone know of such initiatives under way?

Re: Nader and special interests. Well, at least according to Andrew Tobias writing about his attempt to make California auto insurance 1) no-fault and 2) paid for via an addition to the gas purchase price, Nader certainly seemed to be in thick with trial lawyers.

As for Gore's Internet comment, I've read his exact comment. While it doesn't go so far to claim he created the Internet, it struck me at the time and now that it was an exaggeration of his impact. Yes, he helped get funding...right at the time when the Internet was about to explode for many other reasons. A critical mass of recent college graduates who'd had access in school but lost it when they graduated. PCs really getting into the homes. Increased bandwidth. AOL/Compuserve/Prodigy starting to take off. Etc. Yeah, Gore helped some, but not in any core or truly significant way that wouldn't have happened within a year or so anyway. Given some of the Internet things the Clinton administration did pass (Communications Decency Act, for example), my take on Gore was that he understood the Internet just well enough to think that it had to regulated and controlled.

When citizens have had enough they will either: 1) Remember a third party candidate named Lincoln and realize that third party candidates *can* win

If Lincoln were running today, voters would be turned off because he's not telegenic enough, and reporters would be having a field day writing about his homely, big spending, weird wife.

PAD

PAD,

Re: "Andrew" who posted "Here's hoping someone will put a bullet in Nader before November rolls around."

I realize you addressed inappropriate comments in a previous thread. Also, you wrote movingly of "taking threats seriously."

Does this constitute the yelling of "fire" in a crowded theatre?

Does it belong on this board?

My own feeling is it has no place in a civil discussion. Substitute "Bush" for "Nader" and Andrew gets a well-deserved visit from the Secret Service.

I'm thinking of it more as the vote of someone who just doesn't want four more years of Bush and firmly believes Nader, with zero years of governing experience and zero political support, not only can't stop that from happening, but could conceivably help make it a reality just by his presence.

But if you find yourself agreeing with Nader, why not vote for him so your voice can be heard, even if it is in a losing cause? If everyone actually voted for the candidate they really liked, maybe elections would be a more honest poll of public opinion. Instead, US politics is "Column A" or "Column B".

The only people that can be blamed for the Bush presidency are the people who actually voted for the goofball.

You don't really think that Nader meant that Buchanan's voters would have voted for Gore, do you?

Bush already has the inbred, knee-slapping, sister-screwing hillbilly vote.

Here's hoping someone will put a bullet in Nader before November rolls around.

Wow, you're quite the charmer. Maybe the DNC can hire you to write ads for them. A reference to incest and a plea for the asassination of someone who has the temerity to (gasp)run against your guy. Wow. THAT doesn't sound at all insane.

I feel the same way. I really didn't know Nader's position on *anything* 'til a few weeks ago, and really, about most things, he's spot on. Damned intelligent. I just think he's going about things the wrong way, in the same way that Ross Perot had the right idea but the wrong methods.

I was more in tune with the Reform platform (pre-Buchanan) than any other, and while it was Perot that got me motivated to actually vote at all, I realize now that anyone making a direct run for the Top Job as a 3d party/independent candidate is futile... that focusing on the lower levels of government first and working up would build a voter base that just doesn't exist by shooting for the top.

I think Nader would serve his views better if he tackled the Dem. party directly, and worked from within to make changes. He's obviously not a fan favourite with most Dems right now obviously, but he'd accomplish alot more, and save himself serious $$$, if he made the attempt.

I don't think he'll make anywhere near the same impact he had in 2000, as there aren't as many who believe his line that there's "no difference" between the parties.

For once, I'm actually pleasantly surprised that there is some intelligent and not so much "jumping on the band wagon" going on here in the discussions. I personally agree with Mr. Cravens; give me a candidate who is actually worth voting for. I'm not a law student, but have similar views from my own life experiences, and believe that not voting doesn't really mean a whole helluva lot either. I also believe that voting (president only of course) doesn't really mean jack squat either... And before everyone starts jumping on me for it, this is why.

The Electoral College. There is absolutely no reason to vote for president if your vote can be used against you. Reminds me of an election that was held in Iraq recently. The only name on the ballot was Saddam Hussein, and some people with automatic rifles went to your door and told you to vote, or else... Well, maybe not quite the same thing...

I'm sure I'm in the minority, however I fully remember sitting in my high school government class and studying the constitution and thinking that this Electoral College was a joke now. I can understand why it was created back then, but now it's a sham. I vote, then my vote is recast by someone else, and it doesn't have to be the way I wanted it to count to begin with?

A lot of people throw Florida 2000 up when that argument is made, but I still believe that the whole chad bit in Florida wouldn't have been anywhere near as publicized if there were no Electoral College to begin with. Why? It wouldn't have mattered at that point. With the internet and computer technology the way it is now, popular votes are not only feasable, but becoming more and more apparent to be the "correct" thing to do. Would this affect campaigning and voter turn out? I would sure hope so.

One republican nominee and one democrat nominee actually forced to work and convince the American public that they are the right person instead of relying on electoral votes... *Gasp!*

As for Gore's Internet comment, I've read his exact comment. While it doesn't go so far to claim he created the Internet, it struck me at the time and now that it was an exaggeration of his impact. Yes, he helped get funding...right at the time when the Internet was about to explode for many other reasons. A critical mass of recent college graduates who'd had access in school but lost it when they graduated. PCs really getting into the homes. Increased bandwidth. AOL/Compuserve/Prodigy starting to take off. Etc. Yeah, Gore helped some, but not in any core or truly significant way that wouldn't have happened within a year or so anyway. Given some of the Internet things the Clinton administration did pass (Communications Decency Act, for example), my take on Gore was that he understood the Internet just well enough to think that it had to regulated and controlled.

You show very little actual grasp of what Gore did or said. Let's look at a quote from someone actually on the hill during the development of the 'net to get a better idea:

NEWT GINGRICH: In all fairness, it’s something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is—and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got [to Congress], we were both part of a “futures group”—the fact is, in the Clinton administration, the world we had talked about in the ’80s began to actually happen.

Gore didn't just help get some funding wwhen the Internet was about to explode as a cultural force, he was instrumental in having it built in the first place.

The Washington Post’s David Maraniss, August 2000, on CNN’s Reliable Sources: “Gore really was instrumental in developing the Internet. He was the one congressman who understood the whole thing in the ’70s, when no other congressman gave a darn about it.”

Martin Walker in The Guardian, 12/30/88: American computing scientists are campaigning for the creation of a “superhighway” which would revolutionise data transmission. Legislation has already been laid before Congress by Senator Albert Gore of Tennessee, calling for government funds to help establish the new network, which scientists say they can have working within five years, at a cost of Dollars 400 million.

Nine months later, the Wash Post reported that the Bush administration “plans to unveil tomorrow an ambitious plan to spend nearly $2 billion enhancing the nation’s technological know-how, including the creation of a high-speed data ‘superhighway’ that would link more than 1,000 research sites around the country.” This network was “comparable to an interstate highway system for electronic data,” the paper said—and it noted that “a similar plan has been proposed by Sen. Albert Gore (D-Tenn.), whose legislation also proposes creating a vast electronic library that could be accessed by users seeking federally gathered information.”

On March 21 in the Washington Post, Jason Schwartz quoted several Internet pioneers, including Vinton Cerf, the man often called “the father of the Internet.” Cerf praised Gore’s role in the Net’s development. “I think it is very fair to say that the Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the vice president.”

And what did Gore, who worked hard on getting th Internet built from the earliest days and was the main guy at the head of the charge, actually say?

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth, environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

Oh, that braggart and liar.

Moreover, absolutely nothing was made of his statement, made on March 9 to Wolf Blitzer, until two days later, when the Associated Press started reporting on a press release from the Republican National Committee which claimed Gore had called himself the father of the Internet. After that, he was constantly misquoted as having said he "invented" the Internet, and we know how many idiots bought that chestnut and kept it near and dear to their ill-informed little hearts.

No offense to any idiots who might be reading.

Canada is faced with a similar problem. We've got someome angling to become Prime Minister who has zero political experience, Belinda Stronach, a blonde airhead (has anyone here listened to her? all she can do is mouth the pre-scripted responses prepared for her by the Old Boys backing her) whose only achievement is running daddy's company. Fortunately, she has the backing of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, possibly one of the most despised politicians ever. This should ensure Stronach's defeat and have her looking for another hobby soon. Of course, this would mean another four years of the undeserving Liberals, but there's no help for it until Canadians (not unlike Americans) start to think seriously in terms of people OTHER than the two main parties.

Oh, and Gregor, thanks for the shout-out.

To all those thinking about voting for Nader....

There's one reason that we need to be particularly worried about Bush being reelected, and I think you need to consider a bit of pragmatism this year - the Supreme Court. If Stevens or O'Connor (or likely both) get replaced with an Antonin Scalia type, there's serious risk of the recriminalization of abortion and homosexual behaviour. The Supreme Court would become a rubber-stamp for the Bush administration, and that would stay the case for long after his term is over. We cannot afford the risk of getting any more Scalias in the court; the man is dangerous. And he's Bush's favorite justice.

And he's Bush's favorite justice.

Not to mention Chaney's favorite fishin' buddy.

Bring on Nader...

The only thing Democrats can agree on is that they want Bush out of office. They can't vote on any issues because all they have is raising taxes, and spending more money on a socialist health care system that doesn't work. Not to mention the fact that Bush has taken every single issue from them during his term they have nothing to run on. (Health care? Check. Prescription drug plan? Check. Education spending up the wazoo? Check.)

I had this discussion last week with a friend before Nader was in. Bush will take 45 states easy. The only states Kerry will get will be CA, NY, MN (their brains are too frozen from the cold weather to know any better, and I lived there for 21 years), MA, and one other state.

Watch for claims from democrats about voters being unable to vote but with no proof to back it up. (After all, it is the seriousness of the charge that matters.)

Waiting for my first born to come in to this world, I have no problem making abortion illegal.

Nader just came out and said he would not be critical of the Democrat nominee. Well, that just makes no sense to me. If one party has a guy who has positions you don't disagree with why run?

Maybe Nader thinks he can attack Bush in a way that Kerry can't. I dunno, I suspect Nader overestimates his power. I remember seeing him way back in 1980 at a college speech, salivating over the opportunity to take on Reagan. "we can't wait!" he said, "we're gonna have fun with Reagan!"

Time will tell.

I know this sounds crass or arrogant but I honestly think that Nader supporters don't get how government works.

In other words, the president doesn't just wave a magic wand and make all the policies he supports happen.

Even if Nader got elected by some act of God, he would face a hostile Congress -- not just because it's GOP controlled but because he would have zero support, perhaps even less, among Democrats. He would accomplish nothing.

This is why I supported Kerry more than Dean even before Iowa -- Dean always struck me as someone who would not be capable of dealing with a GOP Congress, while Kerry -- with his background in the Senate, which unlike the executive nature of being a governor, requires more of a sense of compromise -- would be able to get more done.

The presidency is not an entry-level position. I'm not crazy about the Big Two, either. I usually vote for Democrats but as a classic liberal (usually referred to as a libertarian), I'm not at home with either party (and I hate the identity politics of Democrats).

So, I would love to see a third party that represented my views more fully. The way to do that, though, is not to run for an office you could never win but to create a base of support -- representatives in Congress, governors, and mayors as a start. And then, after years of this, you run your candidate for president. But this ass-backwards way is just... dumb.

That said, I find the resentment toward Nader unfair. If Nader can convince people to vote for him, he's not stealing votes. It's up to the Democratic nominee to earn those votes. Gore has himself to blame for Nader's relative success in 2000. He selected a *conservative* Democrat as his running mate, after all, when he was already worried enough about Nader that he'd asked him not to run. Didn't make a lot of sense to me then but Al Gore is not the greatest politician in the world.

I personally feel that both the Republicans and Democrats sold out the middle class a long long time ago. It's a shame that such pressure to not run for office in sevice of this country is applied to people who speak their minds or their consciences rather than a party line shaped by their party's patron political interest groups' money.

If non-Republican and non-Democrat candidates get more votes this year than in the last election, then a vote for the right independant candidate whose goals and values seem to match your own is not wasted. It gives a voice to your stand on those goals and values that other politicians will listen to when shaping their future platforms if they think that it will gain them enough votes to be elected. It is also taking us one step further away from the two party system in which we are stuck. If I have the choice of voting for someone with good ideas and seemingly good intentions or voting for the lesser of two evils then, regardless of the apparent electability, I'll vote for the "good" over the "evils" every time.

>There's one reason that we need to be particularly worried about Bush being reelected, and I think you need to consider a bit of pragmatism this year - the Supreme Court.

I'd swear I heard that argument four years ago... and what changed? Oh but now we REALLY mean it.

Sorry. Not cutting it.

**Re: "Andrew" who posted "Here's hoping someone will put a bullet in Nader before November rolls around."

I realize you addressed inappropriate comments in a previous thread. Also, you wrote movingly of "taking threats seriously." Does this constitute the yelling of "fire" in a crowded theatre?**

No, nor does it even constitute falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater, which is the actual quote. My major concern is how people treat each other here so as to avoid needless flame threads.

That said, I believe that although the poster wasn't serious, it's still an exceptionally inappropriate thing to say...and yes, in this day and age, if said about Bush, could get you a visit from the Secret Service. Wishing a violent death upon just about anyone is just poor taste (I admit I'm leaving the door open for anti-bin Laden comments, although my desires for him would be more along the lines of slow torture...)

I just want Raplh Nader to come out and say, "I was wrong, the last four years would have been different if Gore had been elected."

Sweet, I managed to piss people off.

While I don't actually want someone to shoot Nader, he needs to be taken out of the race.

The stuff about Bush and the hillbillies stands, however. The less teeth a person has due to an excessive intake of white lighting, the more likely they are to vote for Bush.

RE: the idiotic threat against Nader's life.

It's not really a matter of saying something about the president in "this day and age" that would get you a visit from the Secret Service. It's always been the case that threatening the president's life -- even in jest -- was a serious matter. Just ask Groucho Marx.

While Nader is not president nor even under Secret Service protection, it is incredibly rude to make such a suggestion or even to "hope" that something so horrible would happen to him.

And even as a joke, it implies a lack of respect for diversity of opinion and free expression. Why would you find Nader that dangerous?

What annoys me is the belief that somehow there is a finite number of votes to be had. So few people vote in U.S. elections that I'm sure that about twice the number of people who voted for him didn't vote at all.

Three quick thoughts:

1) Run-off voting. We needed it in 2000, we'll need it in 2004. We should have it. It works.

2) I voted for Nader in 2000 with a clear conscience, given that the state I lived in was an electoral lock for Gore. Had I had a run-off option, I'd have voted for Nader as my second choice. I will not be voting for Nader in 2004, even though my state will (likely) be an electoral lock for the Democratic candidate, becuase this time around Nader's not running as a Green, so I have no interest in party-building that I can express via a "wasted" vote for him.

3) Nader's lost a lot of my respect. His postions are still solid and sensible, and his record of accomplishments for consumers, the environment, and "average citizens" is all-but unimpeachable. But this run is egotism at its most plain and pathetic. He's forgotten the cardinal rule of good environmental thinking (and good government): just because you can do something and have the right to do it doesn't mean you should.

Andrew: The stuff about Bush and the hillbillies stands, however. The less teeth a person has due to an excessive intake of white lighting, the more likely they are to vote for Bush.

You really are going out of your way to alienate people today.

You have advocated the assination of a candiate for president of the united stations and now you are offending the 49% of the voters in this county.

I voted for Bush. I find your language insulting. I have the usual number of teeth and do not excessively intake white lightning.

Can't say much that hasn't already been touched by others, so I'll be brief:

1. I've never voted for Nader, but I support his decision to run. It's a free country, after all -- at least until John Ashcroft and Paul Wolfowitz gets through with it...

2. Blaming Nader for "making" Gore lose the 2000 election is silly. The proper dispensation of blame would require doling out 10% of it to Gore (for not running a better campaign), and 90% of it to Jeb Bush, Katherine Harris, John Ellis, Sandra Day O'Connor, Clarence Thomas, and William Rehnquest.

3. I suspect the majority of Nader supporters this time around will say, "Sorry, Ralph, we love you, but this election is too important to waste my vote on sending messages."

4. Wouldn't it be amusing if an independent right-wing candidate were to try to run as well? Just to toss the election into a four-way ideological horse race? I hear Roy Moore is considering such a move...

As a native and current inhabitant of Georgia, and a long-time observer of Zell Miller, I have to admit to seeing some truth in what Andrew is saying.

The hillbillies, they do love a man who looks out for them.

"THEM, n. Folks who could buy fifty pick-em-up trucks like the one I drive to my minimum wage job and still be rich."

Gore didn't lose the election because of Nader. He didn't lose it at all.

Bush, however, found it easier to steal the presidency than planned thanks to Nader.

Oh, and no, for the thick, I have neither a pick-up truck nor a minimum wage job, so don't bother parsing that definition for personal info. I was using the Jeff Foxworthy If You Can't Read This, You Might Be A Redneck Dictionary.

Balder, I will admit to not paying all that much attention when it happened, but I'm pretty sure that Bush's health care plan and prescription drug plan weren't exactly lauded by either side. So, in that sense, I don't think he really took anything away from anyone as far as issues go. As far as educational spending up the "wazoo", I don't know. Maybe it hasn't gone into effect yet, but I just read about my old high school now charging seniors to park in the parking lot, and charging $100 (and due to increase) for every extra curricular activity a student wishes to participate in from football to the foreign language club. I find that sad and disturbing.

As for your impending first born, congratulations. I (well, my wife, really) had our first five months ago. But, not to get waaaaaay off topic, I don't support making abortion illegal. One reason is I don't want to tell someone what they can or can't do with their own body. Two, is I don't consider a fetus a true human life until sometime in the third trimester, where it could feasibly survive outside the womb (as in premature births). Yes, it can't fend for itself, but it can breath on it's own and it's crucial bodily functions can happen on their own. Anytime before that, it's more or less a parasite. I don't think abortions should be used wantonly like birth control, but I think there are circumstances where it could be necessary (such as a 13 year old being raped and impregnated among others).

Sorry for the tangent.

Monkeys

The hillbillies, they do love a man who looks out for them.

Well, ANY group loves a man/candidate who looks out for them. Goes without saying, doncha know...

I'm trying to see how "hillbillies" isn't just a derisive way of referring to poor people from the South. It's disrespectful. There are many poor people who live in trailer parks who are decent and upstanding. They deserve better than that. In this regard, I think Nader is right about how similar Republicans and Democrats are -- they both seem to represent the rich and the fortunate with no real regard for the poor and unfortunate.

I'm trying to see how "hillbillies" isn't just a derisive way of referring to poor people from the South.

Zell Miller's a hillbilly and he's a rich guy from the South. It's more an attitude of peevish small-mindedness than an economic thing.

My father's side of the family are all pretty much hillbillies. They're all small-minded, under-educated, racist, Baptist, salt-of-the-Earth folks, too.

Guess who they voted for?

I very much doubt Nader will have any serious impact this time. Democrats are so focused on wanting Bush out, I'd be amazed if even one half of one percent were willing to risk that by throwing away their votes on Nader again.

Actually, I think my daughter's going to vote for Nader. And I can't argue her logic. After all, in 1980 I voted for astronomical longshot John Anderson, an independent, rather than vote for Carter again. And I sure didn't feel as if my vote was wasted.

Well, ANY group loves a man/candidate who looks out for them.

Um, not sure you had your Irony Meter on when you read my post...

If having to deal with Bush was the price to pay for sending a message to the democrats that they need to change their methods, then I'd be more than happy to see him win.

As much as I dislike Bush, I don't like Kerry any more...and for the past decade or so (starting in Clinton's second term, if not sooner), the Democratic party has been run by a bunch of ineffective, wimpy, hypocritical jackassaes. They don't deserve to win. They're politics may be *slightly* less corrupt and immoral than the Republicans, but not by much...and at least the Republicans have the ability to get stuff done, even if nobody likes the stuff they're doing.

I'd love it if Kerry gets his ass kicked in this election, with Nader splitting the Democratic vote be fifty percent. That would be beautiful. That's what it would finally take to make the Democrats wise up and realize that they've become a joke.

John Kerry? That's the best they've got? John Kerry is so bad he almost makes me miss Howard Dean.

The stuff about Bush and the hillbillies stands, however. The less teeth a person has due to an excessive intake of white lighting, the more likely they are to vote for Bush.

What I find scary is that Al Gore, who almost all Democrats were swooning over four years ago, and who missed being president by an eyelash, is now the social leper of his own party. How crazy is THAT??!! The "Man Who Would be President in 2000" is now the man who recently torpedoed the chances of his own former running mate AND the then Democratic front-runner (Dean) -- all in the space of a few weeks! Saturday Night Live's recent spoof of Gore's plight was dead-on.

I'm thinking of it more as the vote of someone who just doesn't want four more years of Bush and firmly believes Nader, with zero years of governing experience and zero political support, not only can't stop that from happening, but could conceivably help make it a reality just by his presence.

You know, I'm actually hoping that Bush wins because when the Islamic fundamentalist faction takes over Iraq after a bloody coup in 2005 because Bush is rushing to make a show of turning over power before November, the political fallout will get ugly. If Kerry or whoever wins, it'll take the GOP about three seconds to conclude that it was entirely his fault.

On the other hand, if Bush wins, they'll have to stick with their usual strategy of blaming it on Clinton getting a blow job.

On the Supreme Court:

I'd swear I heard that argument four years ago... and what changed? Oh but now we REALLY mean it.

Actually, what's changed is

(a) We have first-hand evidence of the sort of judges Bush would appoint were a vacancy to open up. The recent recess appointments are proof enough of that.

(b) All the justices are four years older and even more likely to step down than in 2000. (The average age there is about 127, I think. I could be wrong, though.)

So yes, I think things have changed. I don't consider it THE overriding reason to want Bush out, but it's pretty high up on the list.

And from our own god of love and peace, Balder...

The only thing Democrats can agree on is that they want Bush out of office.

Which puts them one-up on Republicans, who are starting to splinter over whether they want Bush back in.

You over-generalize, I'll over-generalize. Sheesh.

Not to mention the fact that Bush has taken every single issue from them during his term they have nothing to run on.

He's tried. Given that most state legislatures are rebelling against No Child Left Behind, I think education is in play. The health-care issue is still very much on the table -- how many people can you name who think Bush's policies have actually helped them?

(Of course, he's also handed them issues like a job-losing economy and two invaded countries in chaos -- but hey, pick and choose your facts all you like.)

I had this discussion last week with a friend before Nader was in. Bush will take 45 states easy.

I'll take that bet. What stakes are you offering?

I mean, I don't especially like Kerry and have my doubts about whether he'll win -- but your claim is outright absurd. What are you willing to put up in defense of it?

Watch for claims from democrats about voters being unable to vote but with no proof to back it up. (After all, it is the seriousness of the charge that matters.)

"The seriousness of the charge" -- and the ability of the people IN CHARGE to conceal all the evidence. Not that I'm buying into conspiracy theories at the moment ... but for you to maintain in turn that the voting process in this country is above reproach is quite frankly moronic.

Waiting for my first born to come in to this world, I have no problem making abortion illegal.

And waiting in turn for MY firstborn to come into the world, I'm just as happy that my wife and I are doing so by choice rather than by executive fiat, thanks very much. I don't know exactly who appointed you overlord to tell my wife what she can do with her body, but I plan on making sure you don't get the chance to use this self-appointed ability.

TWL

looking around for a dart made of mistletoe

What I find scary is that Al Gore, who almost all Democrats were swooning over four years ago, and who missed being president by an eyelash, is now the social leper of his own party. How crazy is THAT??!!

In politics, the only thing worse than being a loser is being a bad one.

You have advocated the assination of a candiate for president of the united stations and now you are offending the 49% of the voters in this county.

Actually, around 100 million people voted in the 2000 Election iirc.

So that's around 1/3rd of the population of this country.

And half of the 100 million voted for Bush, so that's 1/6th of the population of this coutnry.

That's only ~17%.

Now, 17% of the population of this country isn't redneck, inbred, or otherwise, but the %-age is still noticeable. ;)

I suppose I should add: I'm not sure how many people actually qualify to vote, but it's certainly more than 100 million, making it far less than 50% of the people that actually voted for Bush.

I just want Raplh Nader to come out and say, "I was wrong, the last four years would have been different if Gore had been elected."

Actually, he said the exact opposite, even claiming that Gore would have invaded Iraq. Which I don't believe for a microsecond, if for no other reason than that the GOP congress would never have given him the power to do so.

PAD

Why do we have a two-party system in this country? Because our method of voting demands it. A single-round winner-takes-all system is inevitably going to result in a two-party system. Any third party is going to appeal more to members of one party (call it the More Desirable party) than the other (the Less Desirable party), and will thus draw support away from that party. This has the effect of (relatively) strengthening the Less Desirable party. Anymore, most people can figure this out, and therefore will vote tactically.

Some here have claimed that Lincoln's win in 1860 was a third-party win, but by then the Republicans weren't a third party. The Whigs had ceased to exist after the 1852 election and the '56 election had been, in part, a fight between the Republicans and the Know-Nothings for status as the new second party. The Republicans won.

Since then, the most successful third-party effort has been Teddy Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party...and all that accomplished was to split the Republican majority in the electorate and hand the Presidency to Woodrow Wilson.

In short: unless a third-party candidate shows signs that he or she can actually outright win (Ross Perot before we found out he was a paranoid loon), people will not take the chance of strengthening the Less Desirable party by voting for a third party.

The only way I can see to change this is to change the way we elect people. (We could move to a proportional representation system, which wouldn't greatly affect the Presidential race but would give third parties a real shot at seats in Congress, or we could move to a preferential ballot system which would let people vote for who they want without taking support away from who they can stand.) Unfortunately, any such change would inevitably reduce the power of the two major parties, so fighting it would be something they could both agree on. In the face of opposition like that, I don't see it happening.

Dav2.718

Democrats should worry less about the people who voted for Nader and more about the Democrats who didn't vote at all in the last electon and figure out how to get them to the polls this year. Seriously, half the people I hear around my office complaining about Nader today didn't even bother to vote in the last election and I bet they won't in November either.

I can't believe I'm about to comment on one of these political threads. The quote that people are disecting with New Math:

You have advocated the assination of a candiate for president of the united stations and now you are offending the 49% of the voters in this county.

He didn't say "49% percent of the population". He said "49% of the voters in this country." If you define the voters in this country as the people who actually voted in the 2000 election (hardly a radical interpretation given the context of his statement), then you can simply use the percentage of the popular vote that President Bush got as the number this fellow was trying for. There is no need to try to chop that number down with demographic guesswork to make appear President Bush less popular than he is.

Oh. Final Note: I'm not one of that 49% of the voters who voted for Bush. I don't plan to be part of whatever percentage votes for him this year. I plan on seeing if the Democratic canidate passes the all-important Yellow Dog Test. If he does, that's the way I'm going. Anybody But Bush. However, playing numbers games to make it appear like he'd have lost if all eligible citizens have voted is pointless and just wishful guesswork. The sad truth is that about half the people eligble to vote didn't care enough to do so. Let's just assume they decided to mark the invisible "None of the Above" box on ballot and move on.

It should be noted that hillbillies are from Kentucky..ie, the Blue Hills...

Southerners are Red Necks.

Not according to Websters. I'm not gonna fall into the rhetorical trap of quoting the dictionary, but if you look it up, you'll find it defined rather more broadly than that.

Redneck is more specifically tied to a region, and yes, it's the South.

Again, there's a reason most of the South handily goes for Bush.

You did hear that a major GOP operative (one behind the mob scenes stopping Miami ballot recounts in 2000) was actually running Al Sharpton's campaign. [See this link for details.]

So what you suggest isn't quite so farfetched...

So, explain to me why it is your contention that only the uneducated and ignorant voted for Bush, when the Dems are supposed to be the party for the blue-collar worker, those that have the high school or less education? Or is that just rhetoric to gain their vote?

Actually, he said the exact opposite, even claiming that Gore would have invaded Iraq. Which I don't believe for a microsecond, if for no other reason than that the GOP congress would never have given him the power to do so.

I think you're right. In fact, I expect that that we'd still be mired in congressional hearings investigating Gore about intelligence failures relating to 9/11 and the independent counsel statute would be revised so that one could be appointed to investigate Gore as well.

**It should be noted that hillbillies are from Kentucky..ie, the Blue Hills...

Southerners are Red Necks.**

So, in other words, All hillbillies are rednecks but not all rednecks are hillbillies. :)

So, explain to me why it is your contention that only the uneducated and ignorant voted for Bush, when the Dems are supposed to be the party for the blue-collar worker, those that have the high school or less education? Or is that just rhetoric to gain their vote?

The fact that blue collar workers have been abandoning the democrats in droves over the past 20 years should answer your question.

Boy, I’d sure like to believe that Ralph Nader’s on Meet the Press delivers the election to President Bush. But I have a feeling that Nader’s vote catching success in 2000 won’t be repeated in 2004.

Four years ago, the Clinton administration was a fresh memory, and many Democrats, especially left-wing Democrats, were very embarrassed by it. The Clintons’ high living and big money..their endless scandals..and then finally their poor record of delivery on left-wing agenda items..all together persuaded many Democrats that 2000 would be a good year to vote their consciences rather than their party loyalty. (Many Republicans felt the same way in 1992.)

Democrats are voting tactically this year. They want to win much more fiercely than they did four years ago. They are making compromises and facing facts. Fact number one is that there is no mass movement of angry, disaffected nonvoters out there waiting to be galvanized by a charismatic populist. Howard Dean spent $41 million..and pulled fewer than 400,000 people to the polls to vote for him before he quit for good. There's a lesson there, and the angry anti-Bush constituency has learned it. My guess is that the dropoff in Nader’s vote between 2000 and 2004 will be even sharper than the plunge in Ross Perot’s. If President Bush is to win this race, he will have to do it on his own power.

My father's side of the family are all pretty much hillbillies. They're all small-minded, under-educated, racist, Baptist, salt-of-the-Earth folks, too.

Assuming "salt-of-the-earth" is used more to describe how these people think of themselves, not how you truly see them, I'm rather annoyed to see "Baptist" listed in there in that group of insults.

It's tantamount to using "Muslim" in place of "Terrorist," in my mind. Just because some Baptist teachers seem to thrive on spreading small-mindedness doesn't mean that all Baptists are guilty of that crime. It also doesn't mean that their teachings are truly indicative of the basic tenets of the Christian faith (or the Baptist subset of said faith).

There was a rather cogent comment on this in the forum boards for the San Diego Union-Tribune (www.signonsandiego.com/forums/upload). As best I can reproduce it from memory:

"Nader's right, there is a cancer on the body politic. However, in 2004, the body politic is also suffering from multiple puncture wounds and blunt-force trauma, there's blood everywhere, it's in the ER, the doctors are working frantically but nobody's sure how it's gonna come out. We're engaged in triage right now, and if we don't take care of the short-term problems, there might not be a long term to worry about."

I have absolutely only one thing in common with Nader. I think it should be easier for him or anyone else who wants to run for office to simply do so. If people want to throw away their vote on an unelectable candidate, it's their right to do so.

I also have a question. If everyone is so sure that Gore would have been president if Bush hadn't "stolen" the election, why didn't Gore run again? Seems like the Dems would have simply given him the nomination and the presidency. Also, why didn't Gore endorse Lieberman. Other than the fact that I don't think the Dems will EVER vote a black or Jew into office, and they call Republicans racist, I have to wonder.

Re: Tim Byrd's rebuttal on Gore and the Internet. Um, I've been on what became the Internet since 1980. Initial funding for the start of it came from DARPA in the Defense Department. Later significant funding came from the NSF. But Usenet originally had funding on a site by site basis, usually sneaked in under other budget items; no direct government funding at all.

By 1988, yes, funding was welcome and useful, but it certainly would've happened within a year or two anyway because it had proved its usefulness in the tech community and would've been high up on the wish list for funding generated bottom up, instead/in addition to top down.

And what truly irks me in Gore's statement is the word "created". No, it's not "invented". But at best, Gore assisted the middle stage development of the Internet by being an advocate for funding that would increase the reach of something that already existed. To be honest, the followup question I wanted to see, but to my knowledge never was, would've been a very simple "Mr. Gore, please state what your first email address was, and when you obtained it." I'd bet it wasn't until the late '80s, whereas guest accounts (with remote access via DARPA TIPs) were available at MIT back in the late 70s, and UUNet was active in the D.C. area from the early 80s.

Now, if Gore had said something like "While in Congress, before it became generally known, I recognized the importance of the Internet and advocated/initiated funding for its expansion.", no problem. But "created"? Nope, not even close.

I was waiting for Tyg's rebuttal of Tim's rebuttal.

Tyg being one of the dinos of the internet:-)

Rednecks are Southern.

They generaly farm or ranch and drink beer.

Hillbillies are more northern. They hunt with big muskets and drink moonshine.

Bugs Bunny cartoons wouldn't lie.

Regarding the Supreme Court issue....

There are other differences between now and four years ago. One BIG one is that there's evidence that the justices agreed, in exchange for taking Bush v. Gore, not to retire until after the term was over (thus so that their decision couldn't be affected by a desire to retire). Were it not for the Supreme Court issue, what we're worried about now would have happened in 2001 (most likely just O'Connor not Stevens, and Rehnquist, who'd get replaced by someone very similar and thus doesn't really count). Unless the Supreme Court decides this election as well (which I think we can safely say won't happen) the winner of the 2004 race will appoint at least 2, and maybe as many as 4 justices.

The biggest effect Nader had was making states like Oregon, Wisconsin, and Washington competative. If Nader had not been running Gore would not have to waste time and money in those states. He could have concentrated more ofhis efforts on Florida, NH, Tenn, Ohio, or NV and won at least one of them.

A few things...

First, I'm not actually as small-minded as I've come across the last few posts I've made. I allowed myself to get into Goad Mode, and didn't bother tempering it. No, not all people who voted for Bush are ignorant hillbillies. But I'd reckon most ignorant hillbillies voted for Bush. And they think because he's a goofy-smilin' simpleton who believes in God like them that he's looking out for their interests. They couldn't be farther from the truth.

Second, I meant to type "Southern Baptist," rather than Baptist. If I still paint too large, I can live with that, having been raised by the breed and having been around them all my life.

Third, Gore wasn't the darling of the DNC even when he ran, but he was a sitting vice president under an enormously popular and successful Democratic president, so he had the chance to go for it. He lost, and though the final huge chunk of that loss was due to the cheating of the other side, he got close enough for them to cheat because he made serious errors in the race, distancing himself from Clinton being one example. He could have run again, but there were strong forces inside the party already bucking against him, and he was already saddled with all the bullshit baggage that got attached to him last time (like the "inventing" the Internet bit).

Leiberman was chosen in the first place as a sop to draw more conservative voters, not because he and Gore were philosophy twins. He also played right into GOP hands when he pussied out on live TV and let them corner him into saying they shouldn't make any strong attempts at filtering the votes of absentee military voters, making it very difficult for the Gore campaign to make certain those votes were accurately and legally counted (which the evidence indicates they were not). And Leiberman wouldn't win the Democratic vote not because of his race, but because he is so conservative. As John Stewart put it one night, "Joe Leiberman, for those who think they'd really like to vote for Bush, but he's just not Jewish enough.

And as far as Dems voting in blacks and Jews...uh. They do. That's how Leiberman, among many others, got in office in the first place.

If you're talking to me about the presidency and vice presidency, how many black or Jewish contenders for that have the GOP offered up?

Actually, he said the exact opposite, even claiming that Gore would have invaded Iraq. Which I don't believe for a microsecond, if for no other reason than that the GOP congress would never have given him the power to do so.

I'll go you one better, PAD. I don't think Gore would have attacked Afghanistan, even if Bin Laden had taunted him. I think Gore would have tried to get the UN to get Bin Laden. They would have said "no" of course, peace loving folks that they are, and would have said the attack was a reasonable response to US aggression, arrogance and imperialism. You know, kind of like many countries (some of them our "friends") did anyway.

Oh, and also under a Gore presidency, not only would we not have gone to war with Iraq, the UN wouldn't have restarted their weapons search, Saddam would still be alive and killing hundreds of Iraqis every month, he would still be sending money to the Palestinian families of suicide bombers, and human rights organizations would still be claiming that all the deaths in Iraq were really the United States fault for keeping sanctions in place, evidently for possessing WMDS that the even UN still believed that they had.

I'm thinking not. Personally, I'm not afraid to be in the minority. I've taken stands on any number of positions that I know aren't shared by the majority of Americans.

Your position (liking Nader but expecting you will vote for someone else) isn't what I am arguing against. I said "the idea that your vote is wasted unless it is spent on someone who might actually win is...the vote of someone afraid to be in the minority" in response to the previous poster who referred to potential Nader voters as "wimps and losers...too damned weak to stand up and make a choice between Bush or the Democratic candidate." You didn't argue that a vote for Nader is wasted, just that it is not your strategy of choice, which is an entirely different story. I am arguing against the implication that the only choices are the potential winners, that anything else is a cop-out. When the powers that be get everyone to the point of thinking that Donkey and Elephant are the only two worthwhile options and that thinking outside of that particular box can be dismissed as "weakness," we will be a fully owned and operated subsidiary of politics gone dreadfully wrong. Hell, they own most of our shares already.

Where you and I differ is in a place where I'm pefectly happy to differ: you place a value on getting rid of Dubya Deficit that makes your voting for the other of the two potential winners a worthy strategy, whereas I think the differences between Kerry and Bush so insignificant to my country's future that I would rather spend my vote on someone who is closer to what I want to believe in, even knowing that my guy ain't hitting the tape first.

I'll go you one better, PAD. I don't think Gore would have attacked Afghanistan, even if Bin Laden had taunted him. I think Gore would have tried to get the UN to get Bin Laden. They would have said "no" of course, peace loving folks that they are, and would have said the attack was a reasonable response to US aggression, arrogance and imperialism.

I don't believe this for a second. And international reaction would have been the same after 9/11 no matter who was president.

I think Gore would have been more timid in Afghanistan (and this would have probably been a mistake), but to say this is just knee jerk "thinking."

Greg Palast has written a lot about who controlled and manipulated the ballots in Florida, and it sure wasn't Ralph Nader. That's the most interesting story about the last election.

Tim,

I hope I didn't come across as having been horribly offended. I'm a bit annoyed by statements like that, but the annoyance tends to be more at those who CAUSE that stereotype than those who believe it.

I've read Palast's book, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy", and it sure is an eye opener. Before anyone talks about politics in America they should make this required reading. In it you will learn that both parties are owned by the corporations and the truth about how Bush stole the election with good old Jeb's help. That said, I plan to vote Democrat, even though Nader is right about both parties being bought and paid for. Bush isn't even trying to be subtle about helping the wealthy become wealthier. How much is enough?

On another note, I lived in the south and had many Southern Baptist friends. These were the only people who ever told me I was going to hell and they were only trying to be nice! They were concerned for my soul. This attitude permeates the south. That's why we live in Washington state now.

Nadar is my hero. He does what he wants and could careless about the Dems. I love it when he sticks it to them like he's doing now.

Goooooo Ralph!

PS: And, As an Indie Voter (and proud of it) Ralph will have my vote, always.

You can keep your Gore's and your Kerry's which will never beat Bush. I will take the Nadar's of the world every time! :-)

I just had to add that.

Who is this Nadar you speak of, Dee? He sounds intriguing. Likely far better than Nader, the man we were talking about.

Ack. There I was picking on the unfortunate, and I was spelling the name wrong too.

It's "nadir." Of course, that's with a lower case "n."

When spelled as a proper name, it's "Bush."

And as far as Dems voting in blacks and Jews...uh. They do. That's how Leiberman, among many others, got in office in the first place.

Uh, I was talking about the presidency, but as long as we're talking about the black politicians in office, most of them come from "Safe" districts, meaning that the voters there are most likely predominately black. Jews are white people. As long as they don't play up the religious aspect too much, other Dems will vote for them. Heck being Catholic almost cost Kennedy the election, and in fact, he did lose the popular vote I believe.

f you're talking to me about the presidency and vice presidency, how many black or Jewish contenders for that have the GOP offered up?

Hmm, well right off hand I can think of at least three. Alan Keyes, Colin Powell and JC Watts. Although admittedly the last two were asked but declined the offer.

As for Jewish, well, considering what's said about conservative Christians can you honestly believe a conservative Jew would put his neck on the line? Of course, you could just ask Joe Lieberman.

Heck being Catholic almost cost Kennedy the election, and in fact, he did lose the popular vote I believe.

Un, no he didn't. He did, however, lose the electors from West Virginia, who decided to throw their support to Sen. Byrd.

Saddam would still be alive

You mean he isn't??

Are you saying the government secretly killed him and now are holding a body double prisoner for the show trial?

Okay, so the Democrats are actually racists because they uh...because you think so. Not based on the fact that they elect Jews and blacks, not based on the fact that they run Jews and blacks for the presidency, not based on the fact that they field a lot more Jews and blacks than the Republicans (who wailed "Oh no, there goes the black guy from our big tent! when Watts stepped down)...just because you think so.

Surely you weren't implying that Dems are racist because they may never elect a Jew or black, because I'm doubting your gifts of prophecy, and lacking such, that'd be a pretty facile argument. It also seems to imply that the GOP is more likely to do so, and that seems insane considering current trends and attitudes.

I don't believe this for a second. And international reaction would have been the same after 9/11 no matter who was president.

I didn't say it wouldn't, but to be honest, I had more than one discourses with certain people (most notably a certain German who posts in this forum and on AOL in PAD's forum there) who seemed to think that the United States was asking for it. Heck, the Saudi Prince offered money to New York to help rebuild, but at the same time he says the US asked for it. Guiliani refused the money, so don't tell me the international community can't be two-faced about this.

I think Gore would have been more timid in Afghanistan (and this would have probably been a mistake), but to say this is just knee jerk "thinking."

You basically agree with me then accuse me of "knee jerk "Thinking""? sheesh! Can't win with you guys.

The small minded "goading", as he calls it, from Tim is "knee jerk thinking". My thoughts about Gore are merely supposition.

I'll go you one better, PAD. I don't think Gore would have attacked Afghanistan, even if Bin Laden had taunted him. I think Gore would have tried to get the UN to get Bin Laden. They would have said "no" of course, peace loving folks that they are, and would have said the attack was a reasonable response to US aggression, arrogance and imperialism.

Nah, I don't think so. After all, Bush's immediate reaction -- attacking Afghanistan -- was a political maneuver that was supported by the overwhelming majority of the people in this country. We would have cheered Gore into enough of a fervor that he would have attacked Afghanistan, and though it's hard to imagine anyone doing a worse job than the Bush Administration (intermittently bombarding the country with weapons and food, warn the Taliban where we're going to strike with plenty of notice so the only people remaining when the bombs hit are innocent civilians), I'm still willing to entertain the possibility that he would have.

I think Gore would not, however, have attacked Iraq afterwards. His motivation to do so wouldn't have been nearly as strong as Bush's. He may have tried to go there politically, but would have gone with the idea that Korea, who definitely has WMDs and is taunting us with that fact, is more dangerous to world security than Iraq, which in all likelyhood has found a place to hide theirs (we know he had them; we gave them to him).

You know, all things considered, if Powell had run in 2000, I would have voted for him.

For me, it didn't matter which party he was in, or even that he's black (me being the not-quite-middle class white guy from the Midwest), I just had respect for him.

Too bad he lost that respect when he joined the Bush Administration.

That, and isn't his son the head of the FCC?

I can't stand that Powell either ("It's a NIPPLE! It's the end of the world!").

The only disingenuous statement he made was claiming that he shouldn't be singled out for Gore's loss in Florida because, hey, Pat Buchanan also got votes. Which is ridiculous since Buchanan's voter base wouldn't have voted for Gore if he'd been the only candidate available.--PAD

If I remember correctly, a lot of people (specially in West Palm Beach) MEANT to vote for Gore but punched the Buchanan chad (in the BUTTERFLY BALLOT) by mistake.

Maybe that's what he meant.

If you want to check out the ballot, here it is:

http://www.andrys.com/vballot.jpg

Okay, so the Democrats are actually racists because they uh...because you think so.

Coming from someone who just recently castigated an entire region of the country as being "hillbilly", you sir can't talk. Also, I never called the Dems racist

Not based on the fact that they elect Jews and blacks, not based on the fact that they run Jews and blacks for the presidency, not based on the fact that they field a lot more Jews and blacks than the Republicans (who wailed "Oh no, there goes the black guy from our big tent! when Watts stepped down)...just because you think so.

Well, yeah. Not that I actually SAID any of that, but if I HAD, everything I say on this board is based on what I THINK unless I specifically state otherwise. In which case, I'll usually back it up with facts and figures and even links to where I got the info. And once again, comming from someone who just castigated an entire REGION of the country, I don't think you have room to talk.

Surely you weren't implying that Dems are racist because they may never elect a Jew or black, because I'm doubting your gifts of prophecy, and lacking such, that'd be a pretty facile argument.

Once again, didn't say that. On the other hand, the fact that the few black candidates that have run received votes predominately along racial lines kinda supports the argument. You can just look at Sharpton's recent wins in South Carolina and DC for more evidence. AND the fact, which you DIDN"T address, that many Black Democrats in Congress come from "safe" districts, meaning that their districts have probably been gerrymandered to be predominately black or, at least Democrat, thus insuring that they'll keep their congressional seats.

It also seems to imply that the GOP is more likely to do so, and that seems insane considering current trends and attitudes.

Once again, didn't say OR imply that. But then again, considering everything you just pointed out to me, I notice that you have no problem once again castigating an entire organization because YOU think the "current trends and attitudes" say so.

Heck being Catholic almost cost Kennedy the election, and in fact, he did lose the popular vote I believe.

Un, no he didn't. He did, however, lose the electors from West Virginia, who decided to throw their support to Sen. Byrd.

My bad. He won the popular vote by less than 1 percent. That, on the other hand, doesn't detract from my statement about him being Catholic.

My bad. He won the popular vote by less than 1 percent. That, on the other hand, doesn't detract from my statement about him being Catholic.

Interestingly enough, though, is that he won in 1960 by promising to respect the idea of separation of church and state and not bow to the wishes of Pope in making US policy.

Today, conservatives would blast him for being anti-religion.