How about a five-way race in November?
By Steve Benen Wednesday Apr 16, 2008 11:45amWe know John McCain will be on the presidential ballot in November. It's also safe to assume he'll be up against Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. In most states, Ralph Nader will probably be there, too, though his influence is likely to be limited.
The next question, though, is who else might appear on the ballot.
One need not look too hard to find Democrats unhappy about the prospect of Nader splitting the left and helping McCain, but it's worth keeping in mind that Republicans may have a couple of challenges of their own.
For example, Alan Keyes -- who, rumor has it, kinda sorta sought the Republican nomination this year -- is moving closer to another campaign outside the confines of the GOP.
Former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes announced Tuesday night that he has left the GOP and is considering joining the Constitution Party.... "They're considering me, I'm considering them," Keyes said in a conference call late Tuesday night. "We have so much in common that I find it hard to believe we won't be able to work out a common basis for working together."
For that matter, if Nader makes it a three-way race, and Keyes makes it a four-way race, there's also the prospect of Bob Barr making it a five-way race, running as the Libertarian Party's candidate.
Third parties rarely matter at the presidential level, and I suspect the McCain campaign isn't especially worried about Keyes or Barr. It's not even clear if either would be able to qualify for the ballot in every state.
But in a close contest, a percentage point here or there might matter. At a minimum, it's something to keep an eye on.
Login or Register to post comments.
It's already a race among the ruins.
This is, of course, presuming that the more left of the two Democrats is even there in November.
I want to start a pool for three four five. Who cares about one and two.
Nader: fricken opportunist.
Keyes: psycho.
Barr: most vocal ex-republican when it came to Bill Clinton's sexual exploits, all the while carrying on an affair himself.
THIS is the true meaning of "a shit list."
There seems to be no end to the media mediocrity we must suffer in this country.
I'm going to vote for Steve Buscemi.
Your forgetting Ron Paul. He still wants his issues to be part of the platform and has mostly been ignored and his supporters are very vocal.
How is the libertarian candidacy of Wayne Root going? This is an actual libertarian, not a GOP who quits long enough to get cameras on him during the general election. Basically, he's a Ron Paul conservative and he's running with patent attorney/poker player Greg Raymer.
Any rotten tomatoes start hailing down on Obama last night or did he avoid sensitive comments about rural and small town voters?
the dem-rep party is going to have a harder and harder time tamping down any other party to challenge the one party rule that has dominated for so long.
people are completely dissatisfied with the status quo, yet both parties keep arguing for the status quo. this is untenable.
Lollimom @ 4:
HAHAHAHA! Nader is an opportunist??? I'd call any slave to the two party system a MUCH bigger opportunist. You're ignorance is great because you're completely oblivious to it. Founding Fathers would be proud indeed.
your ignorance*
Lollimom @ 4:
the blatant disrespect for nadar is misplaced and depressing.
Let's dig up Reagan's body, put a lapel pin on it and run it for President.
Bob Barr will get more votes than Nader. I think there is a fair number of goopers that wont vote for McCain, but wont vote for dems either. He'll be the recipient of their disgust votes.
Alan Keyes is as crazy as they come..
..That being said, he's still probably a better candidate than Barack McClinton
I predict Alan Keyes will be #44. The public has finally learned that we haven't had enough batsh-t insane people for president.
-slag
Click here to tell the news media they suck!
Ron Paul most likely could be on some ballots too. Or maybe a blip at the convention.
The more the merrier.
Ron Paul will be written in by about 5% of the voters.
Bet your life on it.
Great.Three more clowns added to the circus.
Barack Obama/Chuck Hagel '08
Lock of the year.
Liberal AND Proud @ 14:
Mitt already had his turn.
How about a "no-way" race?
No normal person can stand, much less relish, seven more months of this.
Lollimom @ 4:
Hey thank Nader for automobile safety. A lot more of us would be dead if it hadn't been for him. And thank him for decades of 20 hour days and virtually no personal life to keep us a bit safer from Big Business Opportunists who would make the bare bones most unsafe bullshit then state "It's built to Gov't standards" when people brought up safety concerns-exactly as they do now, only to tougher standards, thanks in large part to Mr Nader.
Nader is HARDLY an opportunist.
Liberal AND Proud @ 14:
He'd win.
L.A. Confidential @ 24:
Indeed. It's a good thing I don't keep firearms-I drink too much to be tempted.
Gary @ 16:
Last time Barack ran against Keyes he beat him by about 40 percentage points. Bring Keyes on.
Alan Keyes is running. I guess he'll get the votes for all the republicans who really wanted to vote for a "Canadian" but just didn't think Obama was quite right on the issues.
David Hawes @ 28:
My urge is to clang their heads together Mo style. But I don't want to lower myself to base animal instincts.
Or, when Clinton doesn't get the Democratic nomination, a six-way race when she runs on the Independent Clinton-Liebermann ticket...
.
Don't forget the Green Party...
http://www.gp.org/index.php
Cynthia McKinney leads in the Green Party race...
http://www.gp.org/2008-elections/Delegate-Vote-Count.php
.
next person first in the comments gets nominated for president!!
good god, Alan Keyes couldn't win president of the PTO. The guy is a loony tune.
Well I'll check back later to find out what sh*t poured forth from the media scuppers today. Scuppers are outlet sewage blow holes on the sides of ships.
Later
Embittered-Max-Hussein-1 @ 33:
Jayzuz! Stick my head in toilet. Slam cover down.
David Hawes @ 37:
Don't cha mean waterboarded...?
O.K. I admit,
Franklin was more correct than we knew...
The National bird should have been the turkey, for that's all we get for presidents nowadays... NO?
.
I hope Keyes runs...it would be one way of siphoning of the complete-f*cking-looney-Christo-fascist-doushebag-whacko wing of the Republican Party away from McCain. Nobody who would vote Democrat would vote for that insane, wall-eyed prick in a billion years! I guess Keyes forget how badly Obama kicked his ass inthe Senate race a few years ago!
For what it's worth, the Ron Paul campaign is actually spending money advertising here in Pennsylvania, even though Paul suspended his campaign a while back (didn't he?)
Here's hoping that Ron Paul decides that in order to end the war in Iraq and prevent one in Iran, he needs to run as an independent in November and siphon votes away from McCain.
We could call it the McCain Mutiny! (It was the strawberries, I tell ya!)
Embittered-Max-Hussein-1 @ 38:
Yes and Yes
StirFry the Latte' Elitist @ 23:
HA!HA!HA!HA! Brilliant!!!!! ...and so true!
We arent supposed to have a poliburo - a nation controlled and run by political parties. But that is what we have - in fact. My vote isnt going to be used tactically as if I were buying a new car - Chevy or Ford - Mazda or Toyota.
My vote WILL NOT be from a multiple choice menu.
My vote will reflect MY choice and the country be damned. THAT IS WHAT A VOTE IS MEANT TO DO STUPID!
I will be expressing my preference by voting - as I did in the Arizona presidential preference election - for Kucinich.
If McCain wins it will be a result of people voting their preference for McCain - not me. And if that happens - and I wont be surprised when it does - it will be the will of the people. It will probably also result in the collapse of the nation. But then even now I am witnessing the collapse of the nation.
My vote will be honestly cast and will reflect my preference.
Dear Site Monitors,
Please tell your writers and reporters we want to see news about the Torture Issue and Condi Rice Chairing that meeting.
This is the first time concrete evidence shows that senior White House officials, "not only discussed specific plans and specific interrogation methods, but approved them," and then LIED to Congress about it.
The torture meetings were gruesome in detail, often choreographed "down to the number of times a CIA agent could use a specific tactic" or combination of tactics.
The ABC news report makes it crystal clear that torture committed in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay were not isolated incidents by a few "bad apples". In fact, these incidents were standard operating procedure dictated at the highest level of government and led by the current Secretary of State. Her directives to the CIA were unambiguous, "This is your baby, go do it."
anon @ 43:
You've been reading my mind. I'm impressed.
anon @ 43:
I echo your sentiments to the "T"
Well said, Thanks.
.
♣Bangkok Bob♠ @ 44:
C&L is one of the ONLY popular blogs pushing the issue, albeit it could be harder, IMHO.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/category/torture/
Although the call for IMPEACHMENT investigations has been all but crickets...
http://www.crooksandliars.com/category/impeachment/
.
Frank Dufek @ 11:
Your hysteria is duly noted.
Have we all forgotten about Fred Thompson?
Embittered-Max-Hussein-1 @ 47:
Thanks Max, I guess I have been coming on at the wrong times for news and miss a lot.
Jay Severin Has A Small Pen1s @ 49:
What party is He running on? The 'see I'm not dead,yet' party?
And what about Poland?
Samson- @ 13:
Samson
Very well said. The last thing that the Democrats, along with the Republicans, wish to see happen is for Nader to run, as evidenced in 2000, when both parties were complicit with the corporate media in making sure that Nader was not going to be seen and heard in the summer debates of 2000. For if Nader were to be allowed in the debates of 2008, the Democrats and the Republicans would be simply terrified that Nader would expose them for the frauds and phonies that they truly are.
Listen to Nader, he is the only one who will (and can afford to) tell the complete unvarnished truth.
I donate to both Nader and Obama (from my much shriveled resources).
I can only vote for one in November (too bad).
Let us hope that there a number of Republican sound alikes that run for President in the general. Hillary could even run for something as a Republican, though not President.
The more Republicans running for President the merrier.
Third parties rarely matter at the presidential level,
Are you high? Nader delivered Bush, and Ross Perot delivered Clinton. So, that's TWO elections of the past FOUR that have been altered by third party candidates, and you're telling me "Third parties rarely matter at the presidential level". That's some extra strength BS there bubba.
Tweakerbell @ 55:
People keep complaining about Nader in 2000 without ever mentioning Buchanan who took votes on the right.
Nader's voice and dedication to the country I value greatly.
Tweakerbell @ 55:
Are YOU high? SCOTUS delivered the chimp in a 5-4 decision. Last I checked, Nader was NOT a member of SCOTUS.
miss_kitty @ 57:
You are absolutely correct.
I don't know how many times it has to be said here that Bobby Kennedy provided sufficient evidence that the SCOTUS appointed Bush in 2000, and Diebold stole the election for Bush, in Ohio, in 2004.
Those are not conspiracy theories.
Hmmm? Would 21% be another "mandate'?
While I see most GOPers going with McCain (aside from the Ron Paul crowd, whose diverse views will probably scatter their votes across the board), the Democratic nomination will probably play a larger role in how much clout the third party vote has. From what I've seen the vast majority of Clinton loyalists would still go with Obama or even McCain if she doesn't get the nomination. However, for a large segment of the Obama voters, there's a huge level of discontent with the Democratic Party as a whole, and McCain is not an option. I could see a lot people in the Obama camp voting third party over Clinton. If the vote comes down to Clinton-McCain, I think we'll see the largest non-Perot third party vote in recent history.
There's a lot of really disgruntled voters out there who are getting really damned tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.
casper46 @ 59:
According to Jeff Gannon, yes, it would be a man date.
Lollimom @ 58:
It can't be said often enough. But many will still refuse to believe it. Greg Palast has also uncovered proof. As have other notable and indeed award-winning journalists. This is not a conspiracy theory. It's buried history.
Hell, why not a 7-way race? You could have:
1. Obama or Clinton (D)
2. McCain (R)
3. Nader (G)
4. Barr (L)
5. Keyes (C)
6. Hagel (I)
7. Bloomberg (I)
That'd be way cool! Not!
John Barringer @ 63:
Can you just imagine how Florida could "butterfly" that ballot?
John Barringer @ 63:
You are right, John B. It would not be cool at all for Americans to actually hear views that are not spoken by either a Democrat or a Republican. The last thing that Americans would wish to hear is how candidates like Clinton, Obama and McCain suck up to the corporate interests, how all three of them are against impeaching one of the most criminal administrations in the history of the United States, how all three of them are not contesting the bloated military budget, how all three of them are against the total and immediate withdrawal of troops from that slaughterhouse in Iraq, how all three of them have favored Israel over the rights of the Palestinian people, how all three of them are against a universal single payer health care system, how all three of them are in favor of nuclear power. We certainly cannot allow Americans to think that anyone could possibly have any wisdom and common sense besides a Democrat or a Republican, now can we?
More truth emanates from Ralph Nader in two minutes than what we got from Hillary and Obama in the last two years.
We will never have a thrid party president if we don't support one and vote for one.
Corporate interests have held complete domination of the Republican Party since Reagan. With Hillary Clinton as their nominee in this election, corporate domination of both parties will be complete.
Yet, somehow, self-identified progressives still consider runs by true progressives such as Nader to be traitorous.
Erroll @ 65:
Touche.... I guess.
But, as long as we have an electoral college and a political system with two parties running the show and nothing like an instant runoff election on a national level, having seven candidates - even three candidates - tends to screw things up.
The best we have right now for airing "alternative" views is the early primary campaign season. That's when candidates like Kucinich, Edwards, Paul and Gravel get to place their ideas before the electorate (to the extent that media permits them to).
fiver @ 67:
don't give bill a pass on that, he was a corporate-lackey too.
corporate domination has been around for decades in BOTH parties--which leads to the obvious conclusion that there is only one dominant political party, with the dems/reps being its 2 wings
fiver @ 67:
Traitorous, no, but foolish and self-defeating. Since you mentioned Nader, I will too. Nader has never had a prayer of winning a presidential election. All he has ever been able to do is take votes away from the viable candidate whose views most closely parallel his own.
That's what happened in Florida in 2000. Without the Nader vote there would never have been any question as to who had won the state and, therefore, the presidency. Brother Jeb and Susan Harris didn't steal enough votes to make up if the majority of Nader votes had gone to Gore.
You can say the same thing about Perot. Mostly he took votes away from Bush 41 and Clinton's vote total was only 43% of those cast. Bush, on the other hand, got 37.4% and Perot got 18.9%. If you add Bush's and Perot's totals together you get 56.3% so if Perot hadn't been in the race it's quite likely that Bush 41 would have been a 2-termer like the Shrub. <>
Chico Hussein @ 22:
Not going to happen. They may agree on Iraq, but they disagree on pretty much everything else
John Barringer @ 70:
SCOTUS gave the election to Bush. Gore won it and didn't fight. Also a million registered dems in Florida did NOT even vote, and Gore lost Tennessee, his home state. Tell me when a guy running for pres lost in his own state, not to mention a state he and his family served in an outstanding manner for decades, generations.
Nader had nothing to do with any of that. You're parroting the DLC excuse line, which is what they want you to believe that not fighting for every Floridians vote to be counted.
SCOTUS disenfranchised us and the DLC and Gore were complicit. Not Nader.
erm "You're parroting the DLC excuse line, which is what they want you to believe that not fighting for every Floridians vote to be counted... *was their responsibility*."
NJ Guy @ 71:
There's also this: Hagel, before getting into politics was the CEO of ES&S, the voting machine company, and, after landing a contract to supply all the voting machines for the state of Nebraska decided to run for the US Senate. Guess what? He won! Becoming the first Republican in 24 years to win a US senatorial race in Nebraska.
John Barringer @ 70:
John,
I disagree. I believe that with Bush's brother as Governor, Bush's campaign manager (Harris) in charge of "counting" the votes, and the Supreme Court to guarantee that no accurate count could be had, Nader was pretty irrelevant.
Moreover, why should Nader's votes have gone to Gore? When faced with a choice between the spoiled son of a rich, conservative political family and George Bush, what was a progressive to do?
Now, if the Al Gore we have today were running in 2000, it might be a different story. Al has changed a lot since his Establishment Wealth buddies stabbed him in the back.
miss_kitty @ 72:
The SCOTUS wouldn't have even been involved if the Nader vote had gone to Gore instead. What the Supreme Court did was stop a recount that wouldn't have been
necessary if the Nader vote, or even most of it, had gone to Gore.
If Gore had won Florida Tennessee wouldn't have mattered.
Sure he did, or his voters did. And I'm not parroting anyone, just stating quantifiable facts.
Again, without Nader in the picture the SCOTUS would never had an excuse to get involved. True, Gore and the DLC should have pushed harder but to call them "complicit" somehow suggests that they wanted things to turn out as they did. that's just plain wrong.
Nader is going to be on the ballot in some states...really?
What exactly makes you think this???
Did he send you an e-mail or something?
You should get out more....
This NOT something to worry about.
http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/1269-Substance-Not-Sound-Bytes....
Ralph Nader keeps getting kicked around but just read what he has written on his web site. It talks about everything you folks have complained about what this administration has done to the US and the world. But you people just go on like chickens squawking and taking the corporate red herring full gulp. Simply vote for him and you will see a different US... It is that simple.
Write-in for Kucinich.
By: Steve Benen on Thursday, April 17th, 2008 at 9:45 AM - PDT:
"Third parties rarely matter at the presidential level"
_________________________________________
Steve, neither of the last two presidents would have been elected without the third party vote - Clinton by Perot voters in '92 and Bush by Nader voters in "00! Is this what you mean by "rarely"?
John Barringer @ 76:
John B. states, apparently with a straight face, "Again, without Nader in the picture..." I checked my three copies of a document called the U.S. Constitution and in none of them was I able to find where it stated that either a third party candidate could not run for president or that Ralph Nader himself could not in the future decide to run for president of the United States.
As I tried to point out in comment #65, people in this country have a right to hear from someone who is neither a Democrat or a Republican. Here is a really radical idea John. Why not allow the people in this country to decide who they wish to vote for instead of you, in your tyrannical voice, hoping that Nader does not dare to exercise his constitutional right to run for president? What you have not addressed [because I suspect that you cannot] is that if Gore had run a competent enough race in 2000 in order to prove to Americans that he was the best candidate, then he would have had nothing to fear from Nader's candidacy. But as I mentioned at comment #53, the last thing the Democrats wanted to have happen in 2000 was to see that Americans actually had a choice besides the two corporate candidates running for office. Undoubtedly the Democrats also desire to make sure that Nader is once again shut out, this time in the debates of 2008. The hope is that they, the Republicans and the corporate media will not succeed in 2008 as they did in 2000 to make sure that Nader's voice was not heard in the summer of that year.
fiver @ 75:
I think he was, more or less. To the extent that he has changed, I think that's down to his experience in 2000 and 2001. In other words, we wouldn't have the Gore we have now had he not had the election stolen from him. It liberated him.
I think perhaps the dread of losing the thing he thought he wanted most in the world was an element in the stiffness and unapproachability he manifested publicly and which turned so many people off (though it was never as bad as it was portrayed by the media). When he did lose it he was forced to put it in some sort of perspective and came to the realization that it wasn't so important at all and that he could accomplish what he wanted to just as well or even better out of office. He was free to become himself at last.
Our problem is that guy doesn't want to be President any more.
Sorry, post should have read "without HELP FROM the third party vote."
jack @ 78:
Jack
Extremely well said.
Erroll @ 81:
And I bet you can't find it anywhere that I said anything like that either. All I'm saying is that, with the political realities as they are, all a third party candidate can hope to do is screw things up for the candidate they most closely resemble. Do I like that? Hell, no but it's the system we're stuck with for now.
I agree.
To the extent that I'm not happy about the prospect of a third party candidacy from the Left it's only because history has shown us what happens in such cases. It only serves to help the chances of the major party candidate who shares the least in common with that candidate.
The national race is tightening up with McCain faring well against either Clinton or Obama. If Nader enters the race every vote he receives is in effect a vote for McCain. That's just a fact. Nader will not win the general election and his presence in it only makes it more possible for McCain to win it.
I think I should remind you that, even with the bogus totals from Florida (and Ohio and New Mexico and God knows where else), Gore still got a majority of the popular vote. So, even though his campaign was far from perfect, it was good enough to poll a majority. If Nader hadn't been in the race Gores majority would have been increased, thus making the election harder to steal.
Well, I guess this all boils down to you being a Nader voter and I'm not. I hope you live in a state with no danger of going for McCain because your vote for Nader will just make that more likely.
And them's the facts.
Once again the MSM has forgotten the Libertarian candidate former Democratic former senator from Alaska and Va resident Mike Gravel. Long live NI4D!
Expand the House (Thirty-thousand.org)
William Mc Devitt @ 86:
Yeah, but he's nuts! <>
First of all, Nader is not running as a Green. He's never been registered Green and has never fully endorsed the Green Party's platform. And he specifically said that he is not looking for the Green Party line.
That's the present. As for the past, present & future, by making the argument that Nader took Gore votes away you imply that ONLY certain people have the right to run for office. YOU don't get to decide that, we supposedly have have a Constitution that does that. There are a lot of people I don't want running for office at all levels, but I respect their right to. If you're so hyped up on a candidate then do more to support her/him.
As for the history, Gore ran an absolutely abysmal campaign. Republicans stole Florida when even Tim Russert knew Florida was going to be the state that decided it WEEKS before the election. Gore's team made horrible decisions in terms of the recount.
We will continue to get the same results when we continue to support the same corporate-sponsored candidates. I won't make the argument that the Republicans and the Democrats are the same - it's just my bar is higher than either of them.
John B.
Allow me to attempt this one more time. This presidential race is similar to 2004 in that if the Democrats cannot soundly beat a war monger, in this case McCain, then they should, as Nader has correctly pointed out, simply pick up their marbles, dismantle their party and start all over again. But the way the Democrats are imploding, they will have, despite your protestations and irrational Nader bashing, have no one to blame except themselves. As I said before, the last thing that people like you would ever consider to happen in an [alleged] democracy is for a third party candidate to dare to exercise their constitutional right by running for higher office in this [alleged] bastion of democracy, the United States of America.
In Stalinist Russia and other totalitarian countries, there were only one or two choices. One would think that people in this country, especially those who comment on what is supposed to be a liberal site, would be overjoyed at the fact that more than two people could run for higher office. But astoundingly, this is not the case. This is all reminiscent of the novel Animal Farm-two legs good, four legs bad. Here, it is Democrat and Republican good, all others bad. So much for democracy being alive and well in the U.S.
Alan Keyes is a buffoon!
Stuart Bedasso @ 88:
I'm not implying anything, just stating facts. Those facts are:
1.) Nader never had a prayer of winning the presidential election,
2.) Votes for Nader were cast by people the majority of whom would have otherwise voted for Gore and who would NEVER have voted for Bush and
3.) Gore's loss of the Nader votes that would have otherwise been cast for him made it easier for the Republicans to steal the election in 2000.
Those are facts. You may not like them but they're still facts.
If you feel that eight years of Bush/Cheney is an acceptable price to pay for voting for (assuming you did), frankly, a no-hoper whose words resonated most strongly with you then I'm truly dismayed. You did worse than throw your vote away. You, in effect, cast your vote for Bush.
Erroll @ 89:
No need. I got you every time. I just don't agree and simply repeating yourself instead of addressing the points I have made is getting you nowhere.
That would get us where, exactly? There is no viable party right now to step into the void that be would created. Then you would truly have one party rule, namely the Republicans. Is that what you want?
I'm almost with you here. The Democrats are doing their best to throw away this opportunity. They began in earnest after the 2006 mid-term and have continued through this absurd primary season. But.... I think I've been completely rational and I have said nothing against Nader, not one word.
What are people like me? Is this where you descend into ad hominem attacks because you haven't the wit to defend your ideas?
As for the concept of a third party, I'm all in favor. The trouble is Nader is too much in love with his self image as a lone crusader to ever allow himself to be tethered to any real party's hierarchy, no matter what color.
Okay, so now maybe I've said something negative about Nader. C'est la vie!
Oh, please!
miss_kitty @ 72:
It has happened a few times before (sometimes depending on the definition of "home state"). James Knox Polk, in 1844, actually failed to carry his home state (Tennessee - AGAIN), and still won the election handily. You can check that and other elections out here: http://uselectionatlas.org/
John Barringer @ 92:
That is a wonderful bit of verbal gymnastics that you have done, by claiming that you are "all in favor" of a third party but then strongly imply that you are against Nader because he has dared to run as an independent third party candidate. But I am sure that because I have pointed out the deficiency of your argument, you will now claim that I am somehow engaging in an ad hominem attack against you. To use your words, Oh, please!
Your less than rational argument simply supports what I have said, which is, as I tried to point out in my example of Animal Farm, people can run for elections in the United States as long as they are either a Democrat or a Republican. Instead of arguing from an emotional standpoint, try doing it intellectually, i.e. by looking at the issues [as I tried to point out at comment #65, apparently to no avail] and how those issues make Nader the obviously logical progressive candidate that Americans, and especially [alleged] liberals, should vote for.
Erroll @ 94:
John Barringer @ 76:
Many people voting for Nader were Republican. Those were 'Bush votes' in your world.
All of what you say here does not indict Nader. It indicts the the two parties, their candidates and SCOTUS.
"...If Gore had won Florida Tennessee wouldn't have mattered..."
Hey! If Gore had won Tennessee, FLORIDA wouldn't have mattered. See how that works?
"...True, Gore and the DLC should have pushed harder..." and it's Nader's fault they didn't? Riiiiiiiight. IIRC, Nader was ready to go to bat along side the Democrats.
And you are a parrot. The 'Nader's fault' bullshit starts and ends with the Democratic Party leadership. There ARE no 'quantifiable facts' involved in bullshit. You proved that by not presenting any, only stating that there were some. Unless you are using a different definition than I am for 'quantifiable facts.'
miss_kitty Says:
I've heard that said before, but without supporting evidence, and I really doubt that there really were "many". The appeal of the two candidates is to a profoundly different voter.
I've not indicted Nader at all. He has a right to run for any office he chooses. It could even be argued that he has a responsibility to do so if he believes he has the correct vision for the country and the ability to implement it.
I'll happily indict the two party system for making third party or unaffiliated candidacies untenable. It's certainly correct to indict Bush for being an election stealing corrupt son of a bitch and maybe Gore for being too much of a wuss. The Supreme Court, however, would have never been able to insert itself into the mess if the Nader votes had gone into Gore's column instead.
Tenessee, at least as far as we know, wasn't stolen. Florida was. See how that works?
No, of course not and I never said it was. As to going to bat for the Dems, I think you're confusing 2000 with 2004 - and Florida with Ohio - and Nader with the Green Party.
I never said it was his fault. If you want to know whose fault I think it was - but you won't like it - I think it was the Nader voter's fault. Voting is a right we enjoy here in the US and voting is a responsibility we often neglect, either by not voting at all or by voting unintelligently. Voting for Nader in what promised to be a close election in 2000 had a readily predictable outcome. That predictable outcome is what came to pass. Nader voters voted for a candidate with no chance of winning at the expense of the candidate that they would have voted for if Nader hadn't been in the race.
I think most people who voted for Nader in 2000 realized their mistake. I think that's why Nader's vote total fell from 2,883,105 in 2000 to 463,653 in 2004. They didn't want to make the same mistake twice.
I've presented quite a few but here's just one of them again. If even half the Nader vote in Florida had gone for Gore then Brother Jeb & Crazy Susan would have needed to steal more votes than they did to call the election for Junior and the SCOTUS wouldn't have had a recount to stop. Gore "lost" Florida by 537 votes. Nader got 97,421. You should be able to figure this one out, right?
Gore didn't 'lose.'
And now your saying what? "...I never said it was his fault..." but it's the voters fault. So it's ok for someone to run against the two party system as long as no one votes for them. Gotcha. It's the VOTERS fault. Not the fault of the registered voters who didn't bother to vote.
"Tenessee, at least as far as we know, wasn’t stolen. Florida was. See how that works?"
It wouldn't have mattered that Florida was stolen if he'd worked harder to win his home state. And again, it was incumbent on him and the Democrats to fight hammer and tongs over the victory that the voters of all of the US had given him. Which they didn't. He and the Democratic leadership let the entire country down. So, according to you, this is the fault of Nader voters too.
You've made your opinion crystal clear. It's not a well thought out one and I choose to disagree with your entire premise. It's bullshit based, because it comes from the DLC. Which, by the way, is made up entirely of bullshitters.
miss_kitty @ 98:
Jesus! I know he didn't lose. That's why I put it in quotes.
It's okay for anyone to vote for anyone but when you vote for someone with no chance of winning it costs the viable candidate whose views most reflect your own and it can cause the candidate whose views least resemble yours to win. That's what happened to Gore in 2000 and it's what happened to Bush 41 in 1992.
In the words of Barbara Boxer, "Elections have consequences." So, are you going to vote for Nader this time? Are you prepared for that to hand the election to McCain? It could definitely happen that way.
The stakes are too high this year. This country can't afford (possibly can't survive) another Republican administration.
I'm really an Edwards supporter and seeing him on The Colbert Report last night actually brought tears to my eyed, as much in anger as in sadness. Should I write him in or should I vote for the Democratic nominee?
Miss Kitty
It is useless trying to talk to someone like John Barringer. He claims that he has nothing against third party candidates running for office as long as that third party candidate does not happen to be Ralph Nader. As we both tried to point out to him, Gore could not even carry his own home state as well as not carrying Clinton's home state of Arkansas. But perhaps according to him, this was also somehow the fault of Nader. As I mentioned to him, one would think that [alleged] progressives like John B. would be overjoyed to see as many candidates running for office as possible in what purports to be a democracy. People like John Barringer prove that [alleged] liberals like himself can be just as wrong headed as those on the other side of the political spectrum.
Erroll Says:
Here's what it takes to build a viable third party. You have to start at the local level and get candidates from that party elected to everything from the local school board to city councils to county courts to state legislatures. Then, after building a strong and viable party infrastructure at the state and local level you run candidates for the US Senate and House and get them elected.
You do this in every state you can and when you get solid party organizations in the majority of, or probably all, states you can begin to think in terms of a serious run at the presidency. This is the only way it's ever going to work. Anything else is just pissing up a rope.
So what? Gore still got a majority of the popular vote, even with the Republican thefts in Florida, Ohio and New Mexico and he got the majority in the Electoral College if you put Florida in his column. It all boils down to election fraud, knowingly abetted by the Supreme Court and unwittingly abetted by the people who voted for Nader in closely contested states.
Sorry, but that comment's just plain stupid.
John Barringer @ 101:
Now, now John, you are doing the same thing that you criticized me for doing and that is claiming that what I said was, to use your less than eloquent word, stupid. You keep insisting upon ripping apart Nader because he dares to exercise his constitutional right to run for office. As I tried to point out [ at the risk of being accused of using an {alleged} ad hominem attack] one would think that a liberal like yourself would be jumping for joy that a candidate like Nader is offering voters in America the chance to vote for a candidate who is, among other things, not beholden to the corporate interests. But you refuse to allow the people in this country the chance to vote for whomever they wish. This may be difficult for you to conceive but people in this country, even in George Bush's America, still have a right to vote for someone like a Ralph Nader, no matter how much that displeases you and the Republicans and that [alleged] agent of hope and change, Barack Obama, and that quasi war hawk, Hillary Clinton.
You claim, in your alleged wisdom, that Gore's defeat took place because, among other factors it was "... unwillingly abetted by the people who voted for Nader in closely contested states." Apparently it has never occurred to you that those people who voted for Nader did not believe that they were throwing away their vote. On the contrary, in all likelihood, they believed that they were voting for the best person that they thought should be president of this country. But you, in your unbridled arrogance, cannot possibly conceive that this could be true. It would not be surprising to see you advocate that Nader be kept off the ballots in all 50 states in 2008. After all, the last thing that you would seem to be in favor of would be to see a candidate like Nader offer to the American people a choice that they do not have by the two Democratic candidates who are bought and paid for by the Corporate Complex.
One would have expected that the close minded opinions that you express about Nader would belong to that of a neoconservative if not an outright fascist. As I mentioned at comment #100, [alleged] liberals like John Barringer can be just as obtuse and just as wrong headed as those on the other side of the political aisle.
Metroplexual @ 7:
All you fools who have never heard of Ron Paul deserve what you get! Get right
stil @ 103:
No, we know damned well who Ron Paul is. He's the guy who would allow the tyranny of the majority to flourish at the state and local level. But I'm sure you know all about HR 300 and all of Paul's previous efforts to strip our rights away from us.
Login or Register to post comments.