My Life in the Bush of Wombats

Too bad the poll doesn't say who the Nader voters' second choices are.

From:

That would be useful to know, but we can make some educated guesses.

The clearest piece of evidence is this, from Zogby this week (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=815):

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry holds a slight lead (47%-45%) over President George W. Bush with 45% among likely voters, according to a new Zogby International poll.

Massachusetts Senator John Kerry 47
President George W. Bush 45
Undecided 6
[Other answers, 2%]

When Independent candidate Ralph Nader is added, Kerry and Bush are statistically tied with 45.5% for Bush, 45.3% for Kerry, and Nader with 3%. [Undecided, 5%; other answers, 1-2%.]

It looks, in this poll, putting Nader on the ballot draws about 2% away from Kerry and 1% away from "Undecided", with no votes directly coming away from Bush.

From:

spacecrab.livejournal.com

I just posted some worried thoughts about Ralph on my own LJ. I hope he picks up on the clue that Randi Rhodes tried to toss him (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/4/1/19220/29611) on Air America about making a deal with Kerry at the convention and pledging his support. But, so far, he hasn't given any public indication of being that bright.

From:

You'd think the Democrats would be courting Nader's supporters, then, rather than alienating them even more by attacking Nader so vehemently. Instead Kerry is out quoting scripture, because apparently there are some Christians who are still undecided?

From:

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?

From:

redbird

One of the right wing's big lies is that most Christians agree with and support them. Many Christians have noticed that, whatever his rhetoric, Bush's policies do not agree with their beliefs. (For example, some Catholics feel strongly about their church's teachings on just war and on the death penalty.) Others are in the same "the economy sucks and I'm in trouble boat" as some of us non-Christians.

From:

Which brings us back to Nader's "Big Lie".
"Gore lost the election! It was his to lose."
But pointing out the cold hard facts of numbers of votes (especially in Florida) simply causes the Naderites to react like Neo Cons (or that character on "Mad TV"). They simply sit in a corner and hum until you go away.
By the way, I called Nader's Washington headquarters and asked them about Republican contributions to his campaign.
They responded:
"Ralph has lot's of friends and supporters who are Republicans."
Will someone please buy Ralph a Corvair.....and quick!

From:

spacecrab.livejournal.com

>I honestly don't understand what would make someone want to vote for
>Nader this year. Can you tell me?

The belief that this year isn't that much different than other years with
bad Republican candidates and "weak" Democratic candidates.

What is a "weak" Democratic candidate? One who isn't willing to announce his intention to dismantle the corporate power structure that controls the United States, *right now.*

Why are they willing to vote to keep the country in Hell rather than put it back into Heck? I think that's the question that needs to be worked on with them, if we want to rescue that 2% to 4% of the vote. Vote for Kucinich or someone like him in a year when the alternative isn't granting a license for selfish incompetents to dismantle the rest of the United States.

From:

What is a "weak" Democratic candidate? One who isn't willing to announce his intention to dismantle the corporate power structure that controls the United States, *right now.*

I recognize the rhetoric, but I don't even understand what it means. What specific policy initiative or initiatives should a Democrat espouse that would make him (or her) not a "weak" candidate?

From:

avram

I'd also like a candidate that'll cure all disease and repeal the lightspeed limit.

From:

I am highly skeptical of your "cold hard facts". There are so many hidden assumptions in the statement "Gore would have won if Nader hadn't run" that it becomes ludicrous. Playing the blame game like that is silly—why not blame Bush voters instead? They're the ones who elected a Republican Congress in 2002. Democrats have lost touch with people on both sides of them, and they have to figure out a better strategy to get them back than finger-pointing and guilt-tripping.

From:

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.

From:

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.

From:

and hum "Melancholy Baby"?

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/2000presge.htm#FL

Bush, George W. R 2,912,790
48.85

Gore, Al D 2,912,253
48.84

Nader, Ralph GPF 97,488
1.63

Gore losses by 537 votes

Ralph (Retch and Leave Puke Here) Nader gets 97,488

You got number to prove these wrong, I'm glad to hear them.
Just list links as well.
You're about as realistic as a Yahoo Neo Con

From:

Rule one: Be polite to other posters.

As to the numbers: Doug's point, which you completely missed, is that we might want to concentrate some of our animosity at the 2.9 million Bush voters in Florida or the 50 million Bush voters nationwide instead of concentrating our animosity on the 3 million Nader voters. On the other hand, I don't think anyone can accuse me of being gentle on Rutherford Bush.

From:

I responded to the following:

"I am highly skeptical of your "cold hard facts."

The reality is, that whatever else may have happened, Bush won by the numbers he did, and Gore lost. It is likely that, had Nader not run, or thrown his support to Gore things would have turned out differently in Florida (even with the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters).
So, I don't really think it matters what the poster's opinion is, based on the facts, he's wrong. He can criticize the Democratic party until the cows come home, but Nader STILL got the votes he did, and Gore lost by what he did.
Perhaps I overreacted to someone questioning information I knew to be facts, but that is less of an issue then his response being the sort of cookie-cutter reaction I have heard from every Naderite.

From:

The numbers are facts, yes. But they don't prove that Nader "cost" Gore the election. Now, in fact, I believe that Nader did do exactly that, but so did several other things, which latter point is Doug's point as well even as he disagrees with the first point.

From:

I believe the numbers, I wasn't arguing them. My point is that you cannot simply conclude from those numbers that Ralph Nader was the single (or even primary) cause of Bush's victory. If you remove him from the equation, you have to recalculate all the variables from the beginning: not just the people who voted for Nader, but everyone who voted for Gore, Bush, Buchanan, or someone else—not to mention the millions who didn't vote at all—and figure out what they would have done in this hypothetical other world where Nader had dropped out or never run at all. Ultimately this is a pointless exercise in historical fiction. And why not go the other way, and wonder what would have happened if Nader had been allowed to join the 2000 debates? Maybe he'd have convinced more people of Bush's stupidity or corruption. Clearly Gore did a terrible job of this, but he was the only one allowed to debate. We need more voices, more options, and more reasoned discussion of the issues, not more whining, name-calling, and misdirected anger.

From:

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.

From:

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?

From:

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.

From:

What spacecrab said.

From:

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.

From:

Nader's campaign was backed by (at least some) Republican money.
I believe it is unlikely that a Republican-based special interest group would have supported it for the good of the country.
Once again, Nader had taken money from the Republican party. He has learned little or nothing. He is being a useful tool of the Republican party, and therefore will hopefully be ignored.
If he wants to promote change from within I agree with Randi Rhodes, he should sit down with Kerry (as he didn't do with Gore) and work out some sort of king-maker arrangement (unfortunately for him however, he has lost mountains of credibility sine 2000).

From:

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?

From: (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

From: