Fck ff nd d, Rlph

[womzilla]

Daily Kos has poll numbers:

New Mexico

American Research Group. 3/30-4/1. MoE 4%. No trend lines.

Bush 46
Kerry 45
Nader 3

(Entry title courtesy of Xopher. If you don't get the joke, you should probably read TNH's blog Making Light more often.)

UPDATE: Be sure to read the comments for more about why Rlph should fck ff nd d.

Comments

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

Yes, there are quite a lot of Christians who are undecided. Or do you think that it's more important for Kerry to write off the 70-80% of Americans who are self-described Christians in order to court the 10-20% of us who aren't?

Anyway, I attack Nader because he's a known liar. I don't try to court Nader supporters because I honestly don't understand what would make someone want to vote for Nader this year. Can you tell me?

[dougo.livejournal.com]

I guess by "Christians" I meant "Christians who want their leaders to be quoting scripture in public speeches". I think Bush would win that contest by an order of magnitude. I have no problem with Christians who support the separation of church and state.

Right now, Nader's the third least of evils. Kerry is so ridiculously uninspiring and unappealing to me, and I have yet to be convinced of the "anybody but Bush" logic. I probably won't vote for Nader this time—I think he's too old to be President—but I'm more likely to go Libertarian or something than to endorse Kerry.

Nader supporters care about things like voting reform, ending the drug war, legalizing same-sex marriage, restoring civil liberties, breaking up media monopolies, etc. Check out his platform (http://votenader.org/issues/) for the full list and tell me how many things are likely to even be mentioned at the Democratic National Convention.

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

Thank you for the pointer to the platform.

There are twenty-three sections listed there. Of those twenty-three, I fail to see any point where having Bush in office in 2005 brings any of them closer to reality than having Kerry in office that year would. For instance, let's take it as read that a voter believes "Wants to end poverty in the United States" is a good reason policy position upon which to base the vote.

Now, the voter has several choices. She can vote for George Bush. She can vote for John Kerry. She can vote for Ralph Nader. She can vote for Libertarian-of-the-year. She can write-in Joshua Norton.

Which of those voting choices is likely to actually result in policies changes which move the United States closer to the goal?

In this particular case voting for Ralph Nader is less likely to produce policy changes which lead to that goal than voting for Kerry is, because John Kerry will have the support of approximately half of Congress in his attempts to implement policy. And, I think it's clear, in the other twenty-two cases, Kerry's positions are consistently closer to the stated Naderite goals than Bush's positions are; I can't think of a one where Bush's positions are closer than Kerry's.

If you wish to use your vote for a purpose other than actually moving the United States closer to the goals espoused, that is completely and utterly your right. But it seems to me that one's vote is one's strongest tool for bringing policy into being, and one should spend it where it will have the greatest chance of actually creating policy.

[dougo.livejournal.com]

Which of those voting choices is likely to actually result in policies changes which move the United States closer to the goal?

Realistically, none of them. Only Kerry or Bush has a chance of winning, and neither is likely to change the status quo on these issues enough to notice. Certainly Clinton didn't get anywhere after 8 years (with a Democrat-controlled Senate). The Democrats might pay lip service to things like health care and civil rights, but their priorities are elsewhere.

But it seems to me that one's vote is one's strongest tool for bringing policy into being, and one should spend it where it will have the greatest chance of actually creating policy.

Actually I imagine there are many better ways to effect policy change than by voting for President (especially living in a Foregone Conclusion state like Massachusetts). Yet another Nader hobby horse is citizenship and civic activism, which sadly I have yet to actually get involved in myself. If I did, I would probably start with electoral reform (http://www.fairvote.org/get_involved.htm). The rules of the game are broken, and I'd rather fix the rules than play the game as it stands.

[spacecrab.livejournal.com]

> >Which of those voting choices is likely to actually result in policies
> >changes which move the United States closer to the goal?

>Realistically, none of them. Only Kerry or Bush has a chance of
>winning, and neither is likely to change the status quo on these
>issues enough to notice.

How to say this politely? I believe there's a real possibility that Bush may change the status quo enough so that you, your friends, and people you depend upon in order to continue to live your life as an American citizen will be a) unemployed; b) bankrupt c) stripped of common privileges of American citizenship such as the ability to board an Airplane or publish a political ad, or in the worst case, d) dead.

You might notice those changes in the status quo. If you believe the likelihood or unlikelihood of these scenarios is the same for either a continued Bush or a new Kerry administration, I believe you haven't been paying enough attention to the changes that have already occurred under Bush. To continue in this melodramatic vein: if you would like the chance to empower Green candidates and points of view in subsequent elections, you might consider voting for Kerry in this one -- while we still have elections.

It's true that four more years of Bush and Cheney may not result in a new Great Depression, Soviet-style puppet elections, or a worldwide revolt against U.S. attempts at Hegemony. It may be that your vocation and class status (or mine) will allow us to escape the brunt of the cruelty and misery that a continued Bush regime will bring into the world -- that it will simply be our lives and protests in an ever-worsening situation against their increased money and entrenched power. Do you actually think it will be easier to engage in the campaigns you dream about with the Republicans in control of all three branches of government for another four years?

[dougo.livejournal.com]

Is this a joke? If not, get a grip... I'm sorry that your team isn't winning, and I agree that things will probably get worse before they get better, but honestly I think you're going way too far in your rhetoric. Bush is not another Hitler or Stalin, and the American system as we know it will not come crashing down if he gets re-elected. It's counter-productive to blow things that far out of proportion.

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

Actually, right now, our team is winning.

And if you agree that things will get worse, why do you think that they will get better? What magical mechanism do you see in which things get better despite the continuing electoral success of the worst choice?

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

What spacecrab said.

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

Let me re-phrase my question slightly, then. Instead of "Which of those voting choices is likely to actually result in policies changes which move the United States closer to the goal?", ask yourself, "Which of those voting choices is likely to actually result in policy changes which move the United States further from these goals?"

If you genuinely believe that George Bush is no more likely to erode, say, reproductive rights or civil rights for gays than John Kerry, then, sure, there's no reason not to write in Joshua Norton. I believe you're as wrong about that prediction as you are about the facts of politics--the Senate turned Republican in the same year that the House did, 1995, and Clinton spent the last six years of his presidency fighting a holding action against the revolutionary thugs in Congress.

[dougo.livejournal.com]

Sorry, that's what I get for posting late at night without fact-checking. I don't know why but for some reason I was thinking the Republicans had the House but not the Senate. I had forgotten that the Dems actually gained seats in 2000 to make the 50-50 tie.

[(Anonymous)]

"Realistically, none of them. Only Kerry or Bush has a chance of winning, and neither is likely to change the status quo on these issues enough to notice. Certainly Clinton didn't get anywhere after 8 years (with a Democrat-controlled Senate)."

Two years of a Democrat-controlled Congress, six years of a Republican-controlled House and Senate, elected because the Republicans managed to successfully spin his efforts on behalf of health care, gay rights, and gun control into a backlash. Just to set the record straight.

And as for the belief that neither Bush nor Kerry will change the status quo, consider the past four years. I can't conceive of any way that every one of Nader's political goals hasn't been set farther back by the Bush White House.

Four years of Bush has given us too much evidence to buy into Nader's both-parties-are-the-same hogwash. And while I understand that not everybody prefers one of the major parties, I agree with Kevin that voting for the candidate most likely to oust Bush is the best way to support any agenda other than that of pro-war, pro-corporate, anti-regulation, anti-civil liberty, and anti-choice religious extremists.

Marc