Reply
Thu 6 May, 2004 08:21 pm
Third party voting in the upcoming election is the most retarded idea I've heard of since the conception of the short bus.
Kerry isn't perfect, but he's better than Bush. It's insane to say you're not going to vote for the candidate you agree with more just because he doesn't agree with you enough - especially in an election which is so close that a lack of support for that candidate could get his opponent, who is your ideological antithesis, elected.
Nader and his supporters claim that there are no major differences between the parties. They are correct to a degree. Bush, however, has proved himself to be such a uniquely dangerous threat to the stability of global security, and domestic tranquility, that whatever similarities the two major candidates share is dramatically overshadowed by their differences.
Kerry has supported allowing the sunset provisions of the Patriot Act to expire, Bush wants to renew them. Kerry supports civil unions, Bush doesn't. Kerry cares about the environment, Bush doesn't. Kerry has a health care plan, Bush doesn't. Kerry has a service plan to help students without money, Bush doesn't. And, although Kerry voted to give Bush the authority to wage war in Iraq, it was Bush's reckless actions that bungled the endeavor.
Nader supporters cite principles as their primary motivation. However, they are analyzing their principles in a vaccum, and foolishly ignoring reality: one of two men will be the next president, neither of which is Ralph Nader. Period. The choice then, is not about which candidate mirrors your positions, but which candidate can bring you closer to a society where your positions are reality. For the majority of Nader supporters that man is not George Bush.
Nader voters cost the democrats the election in 2000. This is a fact. Nader cost Gore Florida and New Hampshire - both states which would have delivered Gore the presidency. In Florida, for example, Bush triumphed with a meager 537 votes while Nader pulled in 100,000. A less trumpeted fact is that there were five states where Gore barely won and Nader received more votes than the marjin of victory.
A poll by the Voter News Service showed that if Nader was not an option, 47% of his supporters would have voted for Gore and only 21% would have voted for Bush. Do the math.
This time around - although Nader is sure to get less than the 2.7% of the electorate he snatched in 2000 - his impact is likely going to be enough to re-elect George Bush. For further evidence of this, take a glance at the latest polls, which show Kerry will win a head-to-head race with Bush, but Kerry will lose when Nader is factored into the equation.
All I'm saying is that there is a time and a place to attempt to change the system. I don't like the system either. However, while some Americans might have the luxury of bucking the system for principle, the inevitable result of the election will be that one of two candidates will be president of the United States. Period. There is enough of a substantial difference between the candidates, that the election of one over the other will have tangible consequences.
I was part of the idiocy in 2000 - I supported Nader. But Bush is a global threat - not just some libertarian's boogey man like Kerry. There is a difference here, and if we lose because of this kind of fractured intelligence, I'm going to run myself on the "Kill All Stupid People" platform.
Kerry gets elected: The war goes on. The status quo remains unchanged. Yippie.
I have to agree that, given the American voting system, voting for Nader is very foolish.
Unless you are a Republican Bush supporter.
I will remain undecided most likely until the moment I walk into the voting booth.
Will someone point out the substantial differences between Bush and Kerry. If Nader gets 15 or 20% of the vote, I'll bet the DC do-nothings likeFrist will sit up and take notice
1. ILZ, I think I heard where you got your handle from today on WXPN outta Philly:)
2. I was a Nader supporter in PRINCIPLE, but supported Gore.
3. PA looks like it may "Green out" (Nader steals enough votes to give PA to Bush)
4. edgar: But who will end it sooner?
I'm sticking with Kucinich
I originally wanted Cucinich, but with not even a campaign, he'll be lucky to get a hundred votes.
Quote:
Kerry isn't perfect, but he's better than Bush. It's insane to say you're not going to vote for the candidate you agree with more just because he doesn't agree with you enough - especially in an election which is so close that a lack of support for that candidate could get his opponent, who is your ideological antithesis, elected. This isn't Clinton-Dole 96, progressives don't have the luxury of sitting back and complaining that the Democratic candidate isn't liberal enough, even if that might be true.
The problem is I don't think Kerry is better than Bush. Rather I would say that Bush is worse than Kerry. There is a difference.
I am not saying that I am "not going to vote for the candidate you agree with more just because he doesn't agree with you enough."
I am saying that I disagree with Kerry in a fundamental way. He does not represent me, and the fact that he is in the race at all means that I have no voice in the process.
So I can't vote for Bush because I fundamentally disagree with his positions. Likewise, I can't vote for Kerry because I fundamentally disagree with his positions. (The one that I can't vote for more seems kind of irrelevent to me.)
Now you are telling me that it is "immoral" to vote for Nader.
So, who the hell should I vote for?
--------
It's immoral and a bit anti American to call Nader voters immoral.
One other aside. This thread is a perfect illustration of the real reason the Democrats are having problems (and probably the real reason they lost in 2000).
If I were a Democratic supporter who wanted to attract a group of voters who were feeling they weren't being represented, what would I do? Well..
- Since I am asking for their support, I would make sure to treat them with respect.
- I would try to answer their concerns.
- I would certainly listen to the issues they raise.
- I would work to convince them that I think their principles are valid and will address them.
What I wouldn't do is this....
- Insult them. For example I wouldn't call them immoral or naive.
- Blame them for the last election I lost.
- Tell them their concerns don't matter.
- Attack them for having principles rather than showing them how you will support their principles.
- Spend all my time attacking the candidate that represents them.
I am an independent-- not a Democrat. But let me give ILZ and the Democrats a little free advice.
Insulting the very people who you are trying to convince to support you seems a little counterproductive.
Less whining and more principles might be a good strategy for a change.
edgarblythe wrote:Kerry gets elected: The war goes on. The status quo remains unchanged. Yippie.
This is mindnumbingly myopic. Going beyond the fact that the war in Iraq is only one item on a laundry list of issues affecting the election, equating Bush's policy towards Iraq with John Kerry's is nonsensical.
Both parties are responsible for the fact that we are there, Bush is responsible for the fact that we are there and neck deep in doo doo. Can you not comprehend the distinction between voting to go to war and botching all of the planning for that war and it's aftermath? If Bush had done the latter competently, or even at all, maybe Iraq wouldn't be such a train wreck.
It was Bush who chose to invade despite Hans Blix's assertion that Iraq was co-operating with weapons inspectors, it was Bush who refused to internationalize the effort, it was Bush who bungled the rebuilding, it was Bush who believed Chalabi's lies of Iraqis greeting us as liberators, it was Bush who fed Americans deflated cost estimates. The mess is Bush's and Bush's alone.
You would have me believe that re-electing a man with this track record is fine, because even if his opponant were in power "the war still goes on"? Please. There is far, far more to the issue than that - both to us Americans who have to foot the bill in terms of lives and money, and to millions of Iraqi's who have to live with the consequences of our war and its aftermath.
Does anyone here know what Nader really believes in? Has he stated his beliefs? Will he end the war by pulling out of Iraq? Everyone must know that if we just leave Iraq we will have another state that will go downhill by the route of civil war. Thousands of Iraquies will have died because the US destroyed what government Iraq had. As much as I hate this war we have a moral duty to stay untill a government that is good for the people is in place. We the US people elected Bush and are responsable for all the stupid practices he has put in place. Afganistan was a sensable act because Al Quada waa being protected by the Afgan government. If we wanted to take revenge on the people responsable for 9/11 we should have attacked Saudi Arabia since 15 of the 19 terriosts were from there. Today, right now many Saudis are still supporting Al Quadia with money and personal. Lets see what Nader has to say about his platform. And before any of you decide for whome to vote I think it would be a good idea to check the platforms of all the contenders including Kerry. Tune out the republicans version of what Kerry believes. And forget about the bunch of republican Vietnaum mouthpieces that were unleashed on Kerry by Nixon. My brother was in vietnaum and when he came home he had some terrible stories to tell about the American soldiers and the Vietnaum soilders and the terrible things they did to the innocents there. War is hell and many soilders revert to anamialistic behavier during thier time in combat. This is sad but true.
edgarblythe wrote:Kerry gets elected: The war goes on. The status quo remains unchanged. Yippie.
The war only goes on because Bush has done his best to eliminate any chance of us leaving. We can't possibly pull out without leaving the area in chaos, which is exactly why Bush disbanded the Iraqui military.
Anyone who thinks we're going to leave Iraq in the hands of the Iraquis is seriously misguided. We'll have "advisors" in place for decades to come, just to make sure the oil finds it's way to the US. And of course, Haliburton will be running the Iraqui oil fields forever...
If Kerry gets elected, at least the Bush theocracy will be over and more Patriot Acts won't be passed to take away our rights. It might not get us out of Iraq any sooner, but at least the homefront will be safe.
ebrown_p wrote:Now you are telling me that it is "immoral" to vote for Nader.
It may not be immoral to vote for Nader, but it certainly is pointless. Nader has absolutely no chance of winning. A vote for Nader is functionally a vote for Bush.
So you need to ask yourself which of the two major candidates you can live with best because, like it or not, you will be under the rule of one of the two major candidates. Unfortunately, a vote for Nader or Nolan or any of the other third party candidates is no different than staying home on election day.
I note that Kerry does not take issue with what Bush is doing; only that Bush does not do it well enough. Me too, only better does not cut it for me.
IronLionZion wrote:NeoGuin wrote:1. ILZ, I think I heard where you got your handle from today on WXPN outta Philly:)
Huh?
I heard a song that spoke of someone being "Iron like a lion in zion".
I thought it may be where you picked up your handle/
Someone asked a very important question, does anyone know what nader stands for that is so different than kerry? Or is he just someone different than Kerry? What kind of government does he believe in and what would change under him that would not change with Kerry. Has he said that he would pull all our troops out of Iraq immediately?
Cephus wrote:ebrown_p wrote:Now you are telling me that it is "immoral" to vote for Nader.
It may not be immoral to vote for Nader, but it certainly is pointless. Nader has absolutely no chance of winning. A vote for Nader is functionally a vote for Bush.
A Nader vote is not pointless.
I have already said that I will not vote for Kerry. This has nothing to do with Nader.
So I have two choices. I can stay home or I can vote for Nader. A vote for Nader is a far better choice.
Those of us who vote for Nader will have our votes counted. If 6% or 8% of voters choose Nader it will send a message that there is a significant block of voters who will not vote for a candidate that doesn't represent their principles.
Quote:
So you need to ask yourself which of the two major candidates you can live with best because, like it or not, you will be under the rule of one of the two major candidates. Unfortunately, a vote for Nader or Nolan or any of the other third party candidates is no different than staying home on election day.
This quote is scary.
In a two party system, each party needs to take care of their base. There is a pressure on each party that if they stray too far from their basic principles, they will lose support from their core.
This pressure is healthy. It ensures that the important voices in the nation are represented by one side or the other. This fact that people can choose not to support you is the key to making an essentially two party system representative.
Now the Democrats are tryng to take this pressure away. They want to leave the principles that many of us have to clamor for the mediocre middle. They most know they run the risk of losing the progressive wing of their base.
I am a progressive voter. I am not willing to give up my voice by supporting a candidate with views I find offensive. Doing this means that neither party needs to represent me.
I will point out that if Kerry wins in 04, we will have to make the same compromise in 2008 when we have a race between Kerry and Cheney.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace