Nader for President in 2004

[spacecowboy]

Stone, I'll save myself from having to copy your whole piece, but you've simplified things way too much. Should you focus only on swing voters, you run the risk of alienating your own supporters and they could turn against you. It happens in every political election. Most of the time, candidates see the loss in party votes made up by the swing voters they bring it, but it doesn't always work that way. Eventually, your strong supporters get fed up a vote the other way. It's happened to both parties, more recently with the Democrats in 1994. So, like I said, you can't continue to focus on the swing voters and expect to remain in office long. Your own supporters will turn on you.

Funny how all those scenarios you ran never had Democrats winning. And I may have underestimated the totality of your assholeness. People don't vote Green to put Republicans in power, they do it because that's how they feel like voting. Should the Republicans who get elected ignore their left constituency they won't be in office long and will probably fail at any initiative they promote. Stone, try to think more real worldly instead of the world of academia. How about this scenario:


Bob is a Democrat. Rob is a Republican. Joe is a swing.
Republican focus on Joe while Democrats focus on Bob. Joe goes Republican, but Rob dislikes the Republican pandering and decides to go Democrat. Democrats win.

It works both ways, but I hope you can see my point.

SC

[Stone]

Shit, I thought I was being nice.

Stone, I'll save myself from having to copy your whole piece, but you've simplified things way too much. Should you focus only on swing voters, you run the risk of alienating your own supporters and they could turn against you. It happens in every political election. Most of the time, candidates see the loss in party votes made up by the swing voters they bring it, but it doesn't always work that way. Eventually, your strong supporters get fed up a vote the other way. It's happened to both parties, more recently with the Democrats in 1994.

Well, nonetheless, guess I underestmated how stupid you are - why would Rob go Democrat? If he's a real, solid Republican, he's not just going to switch to the Democrats - they aren't going to start supporting tax cuts, the military, or anything else anytime soon. You support the people who do what you want them to do.

If you alienate your core constituency, they stop voting - they don't vote for the other party. "Shoot-The-Minorities" Republicans, when confronted with a candidate like President Bush (who they're presumably unhappy with), don't go and vote for Lieberman - they stop voting altogether. That's a -1 vote for you, but it's not a +1 vote for someone else - whereas a swing voter you lose is a -1 vote for you AND a +1 vote for someone else.

Is this shit really that hard to understand? This isn't obscure academia half-assedly being applied to the real world, this is simple reality.

Eventually, your strong supporters get fed up a vote the other way. It's happened to both parties, more recently with the Democrats in 1994.

You think the Republicans won in 1994 because ultra-left-wing Democrats dissatisfied with Clinton's moderate tendencies decided to...vote for Republicans? The people who voted for the Republicans in 1994 were...SWING VOTERS. This is what thinking "more real worldly instead of the world of academia" is to you? Christ.

Funny how all those scenarios you ran never had Democrats winning. And I may have underestimated the totality of your assholeness. People don't vote Green to put Republicans in power, they do it because that's how they feel like voting. Should the Republicans who get elected ignore their left constituency they won't be in office long and will probably fail at any initiative they promote.

And, god, I have to be more obvious? Go back to the dialogue and switch "Democrat" with "Republican". Switch "Green Party" with "Libertarian Party". Pretend it was the Democrats winning every time, who cares - it works the same way, dumbass.

[spacecowboy]

Stone, read some damn research on the stuff. People who vote regularly and are committed to one side do tend to vote for the other candidate when they see their values being overlooked. There are statistics on stuff like this. But I won't do your homework for you, dumbass.

SC

Edit:

Originally posted by Stone
And, god, I have to be more obvious? Go back to the dialogue and switch "Democrat" with "Republican". Switch "Green Party" with "Libertarian Party". Pretend it was the Democrats winning every time, who cares - it works the same way, dumbass.

Actually my comment was in regards to your long winded spiel about why you like Greens. Dumbass.

[Stone]

I have done some damn research on the stuff, and no, committed Democrat voters in the thick of the left weren't switching over to the Republicans in significant numbers, despite Clinton's moderate tendencies. Yes, there are voters who get pissed off when their candidate doesn't do what they want, and vote for someone else - do you know what they are? SWING VOTERS. They are rarely part of the core constituency.

Goddamn, think about what you're saying. You're saying that theoretically someone with your political background, if unhappy with the moderate tendencies of an Al Gore level candidate - would then decide to vote for Bush? That Ithaca, NY, Berkeley, CA, Ann Arbor, MI, all of these cities were in danger of becoming Republican strongholds if Clinton veered too far to the right?

What are you going to do if Lieberman and Bush are the Dem and Repub candidates in 2004? Enter a protest vote with the Democrats by voting for Bush?

What the hell have you been reading?

Originally posted by spacecowboy
Actually my comment was in regards to your long winded spiel about why you like Greens. Dumbass.

Funny how all those scenarios you ran never had Democrats winning.

Unless "funny" is listed as a synonym for "arbitrary" in your thesaurus, then, no, your comment was also about my choice of parties for the analogy, dumbass.

[spacecowboy]

Originally posted by Stone
I have done some damn research on the stuff, and no, committed Democrat voters in the thick of the left weren't switching over to the Republicans in significant numbers, despite Clinton's moderate tendencies. Yes, there are voters who get pissed off when their candidate doesn't do what they want, and vote for someone else - do you know what they are? SWING VOTERS. They are rarely part of the core constituency.

What you just said doesn't make sense. You seem to cover anyone that isn't at the farthest left a swing voter. Swing voter lie almost exclusively at the middle if maybe a few points in either direction. So if someone is a moderate Democrat, they're a swing voter? Not the last time I checked. Should you alienate one group, some of your supporters will go with the other candidate. First of all, it's factual, secondly it's common sense.

Goddamn, think about what you're saying. You're saying that theoretically someone with your political background, if unhappy with the moderate tendencies of an Al Gore level candidate - would then decide to vote for Bush? That Ithaca, NY, Berkeley, CA, Ann Arbor, MI, all of these cities were in danger of becoming Republican strongholds if Clinton veered too far to the right?

What are you going to do if Lieberman and Bush are the Dem and Repub candidates in 2004? Enter a protest vote with the Democrats by voting for Bush?[/quote]

I'm talking on a national level. And if Lieberman is the Democratic, no I won't vote for Bush. But I won't vote for Lieberman either. Like I said, supporters can turn against you. Doesn't mean Republicans will vote for Democrats, but they'll vote for a third party that takes away from Republican votes. Remember Perot? Read my other posts if you don't understand where I'm coming from. Your simplistic views of black and white don't hold up under any sort of factual scrutiny.

Unless "funny" is listed as a synonym for "arbitrary" in your thesaurus, then, no, your comment was also about my choice of parties for the analogy, dumbass.

Yes that part was about your choice of parties. It was just a light-hearted comment. I'm speaking on the rest of my quote that you included with it. Dumbass.

SC

[Stone]

Originally posted by spacecowboy
What you just said doesn't make sense. You seem to cover anyone that isn't at the farthest left a swing voter. Swing voter lie almost exclusively at the middle if maybe a few points in either direction. So if someone is a moderate Democrat, they're a swing voter? Not the last time I checked. Should you alienate one group, some of your supporters will go with the other candidate. First of all, it's factual, secondly it's common sense.

The Reagan Democrats were "swing voters" - yes. The "furthest" left are the people who vote for the Greens, the "furthest" right the people who would vote for Pat Buchanan - beyond those groups, there is a huge group of committed Democrats/Republicans that form the center of each party.

There are a lot of people who would never vote for a party that opposed abortion. Those people are committed Democrats, the core constituency, a group that will probably never vote for Republicans - and they sure as hell aren't entirely on the "furthest left".

There are a lot of people who would never vote for a party that supported abortion. Those people are committed Republicans, the core constituency, a group that will probably never vote for Democrats - and they sure as hell aren't entirely on the "furthest right".

---

I'm talking on a national level. And if Lieberman is the Democratic, no I won't vote for Bush. But I won't vote for Lieberman either.

If you alienate your core constituency, they stop voting - they don't vote for the other party. "Shoot-The-Minorities" Republicans, when confronted with a candidate like President Bush (who they're presumably unhappy with), don't go and vote for Lieberman - they stop voting altogether. That's a -1 vote for you, but it's not a +1 vote for someone else - whereas a swing voter you lose is a -1 vote for you AND a +1 vote for someone else.

---

Like I said, supporters can turn against you. Doesn't mean Republicans will vote for Democrats, but they'll vote for a third party that takes away from Republican votes.

Yes, very good, they will vote for a third party that takes away from Republican votes - if a significant one exists, one seen as being worth voting for, one as significant as the Greens. The Reform party isn't as significant as the Greens - it got about 1/6th the votes of the Greens in the 2000 election.

My entire fucking post was about the extreme disadvantage the Greens present to the Democrats, by giving supporters a place to turn to when dissatisfied with the party. Right now, Democrats have a viable second choice - Republicans don't. As long as we can maintain this situation, the Democrats will be in trouble - leftwing Democrats will turn away from the party, which will force the Democrats to the left or cause the Democrats to lose votes.

The Republicans should support the Greens while fighting against any potential right-leaning 3rd party, so that we can see Democrats turning away from the main party (to the Greens) while not giving the Republican-defector-analogues the same choice. READ THE POSTS BEFORE RESPONDING.

Hopefully the Republicans will be able to do something to keep a party like the Greens/Perot's Reform party from coming into the picture. If the GOP had another Perot on its hands, then yes, his candidacy would eat away at the Republican constituency, in exactly the way I described the Nader's candidacy eating away at the Democratic constituency.

[Timber]

The last time I voted it was for Nader in the 2000 election. And I'll do the same next year.

[skelly]

"I'm voting for Nader, I'm going with my conscience!"

As Stone is saying at great length, voting for Nader is the best possible way to ensure Bush gets reelected, short of outright voting for Bush.

Is that what you guys want? While I disagree with Stone's politics, he's absolutely correct in his analysis in this thread. What's there not to understand?

Voting for your "conscience" may seem cool (I agree, theoretically), but it's also ignoring the reality. If you want to see Bush lose the next election, you must vote Democrat. That's all there is to it. Pat yourself on the back for backing a noble loser or effect real-world change. Your choice.

[Tommy Tallarico]

Originally posted by BenT
Voting for your "conscience" may seem cool (I agree, theoretically), but it's also ignoring the reality. If you want to see Bush lose the next election, you must vote Democrat. That's all there is to it. Pat yourself on the back for backing a noble loser or effect real-world change. Your choice.

Voting for your concience is what this nation was founded on. If you think that America is about choosing between two of the worst that we have to offer for the highest office in the land, rather than standing up and using your voice for what you believe is right, then I pity you.

Ralph Nader is a man, and I'd rather cast my vote for a man. If that costs Puppet 1 the election over Puppet 2, I can still sleep at night.

[skelly]

Pity me all you like. You must not believe very strongly in your ideals if you'd let someone who is completely opposed to them remain in office. That is what you're doing. Think about it.

I'm not trying to be mean, but I feel somewhat exasperated at how many folks don't seem to grasp this.

[Tommy Tallarico]

Originally posted by BenT
Pity me all you like. You must not believe very strongly in your ideals if you'd let someone who is completely opposed to them remain in office. That is what you're doing. Think about it.

I'm not trying to be mean, but I feel somewhat exasperated at how many folks don't seem to grasp this.

Democrats are no more on my side than Republicans, just because different words come out of their mouths. To me, this country isn't about who's better, it's about who's best.

[Master]

He's a spoiler.

[Stone]

Originally posted by BenT
I'm not trying to be mean, but I feel somewhat exasperated at how many folks don't seem to grasp this.

Me too - thanks for your response, heh, it seemed like I was alone. How many of you people really think Gore's presidency would've been exactly the same as Bush's presidency?

What do you think about the tax cuts?
What do you think about the Kyoto protocol?
How do you think Gore would have handled the Iraq situation?
Do you think the judges Bush is putting up for the Supreme Court have the same opinions as the judges Gore would have put up?

You're saying "puppet 1", "puppet 2" - so, what are you suggesting their politics are identical? They're not. You going for a "High taxes, low taxes, high crime, low crime, who cares, the man always wins anyways!" position?

[YellerDog]

Political Masturbation Week at TNL!

[station82o]

political ejaculation week actually.

[spacecowboy]

Originally posted by Spacecowboy
While I don't agree with Stone's reason for supporting the Green party, his idea is sound.

If anyone had bothered to read this, you might have noticed that I agree with Stone on the matter of Greens taking votes away from Democrats. I can see how your argument for voting agains the Democrats when Gore was running might have made sense, but looking at the current crop of Democratic candidates, I don't think voting for any of them would be any better than Bush.

SC

[burgundy]

Originally posted by Stone
(Honestly, though, anyone agree with me that a few major right-wing donors would be better off donating to the Green party campaign than to the GOP? I'd say that every Nader vote probably siphons off at least 70% of a vote from the Democrats. Given that, I wonder whether at some point right-wing voting dollars would be better spent promoting the Greens against the Dems than by promoting the Republicans against the Dems. It'd be a sort of two-pronged attack - fight against the Democrats for moderates on one side, and then eat away at the Democrats' left-wing base by promoting the Green party. Muahaha.)

This is why I won't vote for him, though I generally agree with his politics more than anyone else's.

[Stone]

I dunno, I still find strange the argument that, say, John Edwards and President Bush would run the government virtually identically, and that the congressmen brought in by the midterm lift would do the same thing, Republican or Democrat.

[frostwolf ex]

oh fuck, its mobius thread time, jimmy, ali, time for you guys.

[Wolffen]

As an experiment, I'd like to see someone do a mock election with a ballot like the following:
_________________________________________________________
PRESIDENT: Please check one
[] Republican
[] Democrat
[] Other
-------------------------------
SENATOR: Please check one
[] Republican
[] Democrat
[] Other
_____________________________________

and so on. You get the idea. Party listed, but no names. I'd estimate that the results would be the same as most any other election. This damned party system is so ingrained in the American mind. I believe that most voting Americans would prefer the above ballot, since it simplfies things to the way they vote anyway. Plain idiocy. When I listen to "Democrats vs Republicans" shit, I feel like I'm hearing two kids argue about which is better, the PS2 or Xbox? Arrrgh! Anyway...

Here's a great idea: let's go back to the old days for presidential election rules. There shouldn't be a vice presidential candidate. The VP should be whichever presidential candidate gets 2nd place. That right there would make things real interesting, IMO.

[enigmajelly]

I want Colin Powell to actually run, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat

[skelly]

A simple solution to this dilemma would be instituting a "second choice" bit on the ballot. People could vote their conscience or whatever, but have a realistic backup if (when :P) their first choice loses. You could then vote Green without helping the Republicans, for example.

[Stone]

That's a nice idea, BenT - it'd also allow candidates to get over 50% of popular support, in theory.

Say you're a moderate who supports the Democrats (or the Republicans, spacecowboy, I'm sorry). However, you want to express your moderacy, your support for the president, whatever, by choosing Republican as your second choice.

Democrats lose, and all of the Democrat/Republican votes are tacked onto the Republican total - probably pushing the Republican candidate over 50%, thus giving him a 'mandate'. The effect would just be psychological, but still, it'd be good to have Presidential candidates with 50% effective support of voters.

That's actually a really spectacular idea, BenT - you think of that yourself? I've never read about it, dunno who/if anyone uses that system.

[Master]

Originally posted by enigmajelly
I want Colin Powell to actually run, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat

Why? Because he's black? I have no problem with the guy, but he isn't some savior just because he's a prominent politician who happens to be african american.

I'm not saying you, but I'm sick of people trying to shrug off any semblance of racism by giving Powell a push. He isn't going to run for various reasons, and nobody should be president when they don't WANT to be.

Again, not saying you are a racist, but I'm tired of people using the only Black Republican they can think of as an excuse to try to be trendy hipsters.

Ugh. I'm so full of shit. I should just shut up. PTI.

[Stone]

You're not full of shit, Master - I don't know how many people I've talked to who think that all Republicans are evil...except for Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, who are just confused/trying to work for change inside of the party. This is a really, really common view on my campus.

It's stupid, but it's also racist, in a way - what, whites know enough to be actively evil Republicans, but African-American Republicans are just unwitting dupes?

[Master]

All I have to say is:

Vote for whom you believe in. You may think that your votes for Nader go unnoticed, but the more votes they get the better the chances of getting funding from the Government. What's the magic number? Is it 12% or 15%?

Either way, I won't be voting for Nader unless he impresses me with some changes to his political beliefs.

[Stone]

5%'s all you need for matching funds, as far as I know.

I don't think you should vote for whom you believe in, you should vote for the policies you believe in. Figure out what you want the government to do, and then pick the candidate with the best shot of accomplishing that.

[skelly]

Originally posted by Stone
That's actually a really spectacular idea, BenT - you think of that yourself? I've never read about it, dunno who/if anyone uses that system.

Nah, I think I saw it suggested in some political article a few months ago. I really liked it, and would love to see it implemented nationwide.

[Diff-chan]

Originally posted by spacecowboy
PS. Station, Al Gore isn't running and does it really matter? It's not about the individual, it's about the ideology. Al Gore is the same as every other Democrat and Bush is the same as every other Republican. There is rarely (ie Clinton) a candidate that takes a third way.

SC, Id wager that every Republican is the same as every Democrat. Sure, some support abortion, some dont, blah blah, but really at the core of it they're all money-grubbing whores who will grovel to whomever throws money in front of it. The Democrats have basically defined their organization for decades on "whatever the Republicans aren't doing". Its really quite sad and America is in need of another Populist party.

[spacecowboy]

Originally posted by Stone
5%'s all you need for matching funds, as far as I know.

I don't think you should vote for whom you believe in, you should vote for the policies you believe in. Figure out what you want the government to do, and then pick the candidate with the best shot of accomplishing that.

Yes it's 5%, but you also have to raise something like at least $5000 in 20 states as well.

So what if someone does like Colin Powell or Condi Rice? Does that make them racist because they like black people? How does that make sense? While I don't care for either's politics, I think they are actually good people. I don't say this because they're black, but because I believe them to be good people. I can say that about a lot of people, regardless of skin color. So how does that make me racist? Once again, your logic doesn't make sense.

BTW, I wouldn't vote for Powell or Rice for that matter, although it might be nice to see a woman as President.

SC