With 50% eligible voters not voting, what's with the Greens fixation?

[lancemurdoch]

50% of eligible voters do not vote. More of these voters are left-leaning than right-leaning. Why do I see such obsession here about the Greens? Why are some people so concerned with the at maximum 4% of voters who will vote Green, instead of the 50% of voters not voting?

I think I know. The DLC figures they have a lock on the Democratic party, so that both parties will elect right-wing candidates, a far right one like Bush and a moderate right one like Lieberman. People will be told at the primaries "we have to elect a 'moderate' to win". Someone who represents business interests and will throw a bone to workers once in a while. The DLC people are upset because they figured along with their brethern in the Republican party that they had both parties locked up with no real choice. This would further alienate voters, so even less people would vote, which is what they want.

It's quite obvious to me to see the hysterics about the Greens. Hmm, reach out and try to reenfranchise half of America that does not vote, or try to quash the Green party, those at maximum 4% of voters who vote for a candidate who actually represents them!

And please don't talk about Kucinich...it's obvious he won't win, and if he did, the Democratic establishment would turn their back on him like they did with McGovern.

[quaker bill]

1. You got me...

Recrimination and retribution for 2000 is most of what I see there.

We just need to focus on turning out our voters, be they Dems, Greens, independents, Libertarians, Socialists, Anarchists, or whatever.

[Old and In the Way]

2. Because the Greens do vote, I guess.

Can't do much for people who are brain-dead to the political events happening around them. I suspect most of these people only watch TV and if they aren't motivated to get involved after all that's transpired in the past 3 years, how will they be reached?

We do know there are 3 groups of voters....
(1) Republicans
(2) Democrats
(3) Independents

Since (1) and (2) were reasonably close in terms of voter ID in 2000, the Independent votes are very imporatant. While I fully believe that there will be an erosion of (1) in the next election and an increase of (3) voting for (2), the rigging of elections may negate that advantage.....so we still end up where we started.

Who knows? Maybe the apoliticals will have an epiphany in the next 13 months and will make the supreme effort of doing their civic duty...we'll see.

[goddess40]

115. Exactly - why bother with people who won't vote

Greens got out and voted.
It is easier to appeal to those who take their duty to vote seriously than it is to try and drag a brain dead non-voter into the light. Not that we shouldn't try to appeal to them too, it just makes sense to talk to those who are already in the game.

[RandomKoolzip]

3. The only reason must be "getting back" at the Greens for "helping" Bush

win in 2000. As a Green who voted for Nader then (which I sincerely regret doing) who now pledges his effort to helping the Democratic candidate win in 2004, I kinda take offense at all the Green-bashing that goes on here. I can understand it, but the Greens are not the enemy...the Republicans are, fer crissakes! So lay off, we're in the same boat.

As for the 50% of the electorate, well, I can see that number going down to maybe 45% by 2004, just because so many people have become politically active again since BUsh started charting a course to Hell and dragging the rest of the USA with him.

[Ardee]

12. Please dont further that myth

Nader , and the Greens, make useful scapegoats and allow the democratic faithful to avoid the necesary self examination of their party. The vichy democrats use Nader to deflect criticism from the godawful state of their right wing led party........

[mermaid]

36. It's NOT A Myth!!

Goddamn it!!
If just 2,000 fucking Nader voters in Florida (there were 95,000) had voted for gore instead, we wouldn't be in the fucking nightmare we are now in!!
Just 2,000!!
You mean to tell me there is even ONE Nader voter that would have voted for Bush, knowingly?
Or that all 95,000 of them woulda stayed home if not for Nader??

Horseshit!!

But, by voting for Nader in Florida, that is EXACTLY what 95,00 dumb-assed Greens did...THEY VOTED FOR BUSH!!! :grr: :argh: :grr: :argh: :grr: :argh: :grr: :argh: :grr: :argh: :grr: :argh:

[DrGonzoLives]

50. How about all those registered Dems

in Florida, nay, all over the country, who voted for Bush?

Feel free to ignore that like all the Green-haters do around here.

[library_max]

52. That's been answered over and over.

People register by party because of local elections, not national ones. In many places in the south, the Democratic Party is the only party, and local races are decided in the Democratic primaries. Hence, conservatives who would never dream of voting Democratic in a statewide or national election will register as Democrats to have a say in local politics. This is an obsolescent phenomenon but by no means obsolete. Also, people register with one party or another for a variety of other reasons. The idea that registered Democrats voting for a Republican (some of them ALWAYS do) was somehow Gore's fault or the DLC's is a lie that has been thoroughly refuted before this.

[ulysses]

54. I'd like to see your research on this.

People register by party because of local elections, not national ones.

[library_max]

56. That's like demanding research to prove that water is wet.

Facts are facts. There's such a thing as general fund of knowledge. There is also such as a thing as demanding research and links when you have no counterargument.

[ulysses]

58. In other words, you have no basis

for your statement of fact. Thanks.

[library_max]

62. Okay, just for you

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/timeline/index_4.html">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/timeline/index_4.html

Here's a link, from PBS, stating that 25% of registered Democrats voted for Reagan in 1984. Reagan Democrats - ring a bell? They're still around, you know. Nowhere near 25% of registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush. So it's not Gore's fault or the DLC's, it's just politics as usual.

I hope you remember this the next time someone sticks out his jaw at you and demands that you prove (with links) something that is obvious, well-known, or simply common sense.

[ulysses]

63. this

Nowhere near 25% of registered Democrats in Florida voted for Bush. So it's not Gore's fault or the DLC's, it's just politics as usual.

isn't what I asked. I asked about the idea that most people register based on local politics, not national. If you mean that the Reagan Dems were still Dems because of local politics then fine, but I don't see how that necessarily follows.

[library_max]

64. A link and verified numbers aren't enough for you.

Color me astonished.

[ulysses]

74. unless you mean

what I said in the coda to my thread, you're still not answering my question.

[Terwilliger]

96. ahhhhahahahah

weak! :eyes:

[TKP]

123. Testimony

I can attest to that. I have a good friend who lives in a district in North Carolina that is overwhelmingly Republican. A lifelong Democrat, he registered Republican when he moved there simply so he would have a choice in the primary elections. The Democratic Party only had one candidate who would run unapposed, whereas the Republicans would run 2 or 3 candidates in the primarys, and he could at least go vote for someone. So what library_max said is very real.

[mermaid]

93. Exactly!!

When I lived in Kentucky, I was a registered Repuke! Why? simple...often, the Democrat was unchallenged in the Primaries in local elections. So I wanted to vote in the Repuke Primary, to vote for the guy I thought would be the most easily beat!!

I was engaged in what is better known as party-raiding.

[mermaid]

95. Oh, And By The Way...

Greens STILL Suck!!
I blame them TOTALLY for the fact that Whistleass is in the White House.
Greens are a bunch of whiney crybabies that demand EVERYTHING they want right now...and by so doing, end up doing more harm than good to their cause!

Instead of Gore...who would have slightly advanced the cause...y'all dumbass Greens...by voting Nader...enabled Whistleass to win...and set your precious environmental causes back 30 friggin' years!!

Look, I don't necessarily like the centrist Dems much, either. i'm transsexual...I want a candidate who will openly suport equal employment non-discrimination protection for transgender people! BUT I am realistic. Such a candidate is too far left, and would not win...not even against Whistleass.

So, if I gotta pick...I'll take the centrist Dem who can beat Bush. After all, at least the centrist Dem will not GO OUT OF HIS WAY TO HURT ME as the Repukes like Bush will!!

Keep it in perspective, Greens!!

I'm sorry, but you can't have everything you want RIGHT NOW.
Surely, even y'all see the importance of uniting behind whoever the Dem candidate is...right now, removing Bush is of PARAMOUNT importance!

Example...I do not like Gen. Clark. We are asked to believe he is suddenly on OUR SIDE...after a life of supporting Repukes!! But, damn, if he ends up te Dem candidate, I will hold my nose and vote for him, anyway...that is how essential I feel removing Bush is!!

[Ardee]

103. Oh, and by the way

you are in desperate need of a civics class, and a large dose of common sense. who in hell are you ,or are these neodemocrats to DEMAND that people vote for their candidate? The way it works, see, is that the candidate campaigns on h/her agenda and the voters decide whether of not to vote for h/her....see. If I or anyone decides to vote for a non democratic candidate then that is a failure of the democrat to get a message across to the voter. You would advance the concept, absurd as it is, that there is some sort of obligation on the part of the voter to support your party. That is childish nonsense!

You may take the illusion of Nader costing Gore the WH to your grave for all I care, after all , as Pushkin noted,"better the illusion that exhaults than a thousand truths."

[jiacinto]

132. The Nader apologists are it again

Again many of those "Democrats" haven't voted for the party's presidential candidate since 1976, many not even since 1964. The type of Democrat who would get their votes is someone like Zell Miller. Someone anti-gay, pro-gun, antiabortion, and truly DINOish. They know that too.

Some of the most Democratic counties in Florida by registration numbers turn in the strongest Republican numbers. But then again, the Nader apologists don't admit that because that would undermine their argument. Those folks may vote Democratic at the local, Congressional, and statewide office level. But nationally they vote Republican.

I am going to take a few minutes. Here is how some counties voted for president and their registration numbers in Florida.

The registration numbers are currest as of the 2002 election.

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/pdf/2002voterreg/2002primparty.pdf

Baker 1958 (R); 8943 (D); Bush 68.80%; Gore 29.33%;
Bay 38447 (R); 43,950(D); Bush 65.70%; Gore 32.06%;
Calhoun 858 (R); 6,312(D); Bush 55.52%; Gore 41.66%;
Desoto 4041 (R); 10,320(D); Bush 54.48%; Gore 42.51%;
Dixie 1150 (R); 7,566(D); Bush 57.79%; Gore 39.15%;

And you can do it by looking at a list of other Florida counties. I doubt that these voters didn't support Gore because he wasn't liberal enough. Their reasons for not supporting Gore differed completely from the Greens' reason. They didn't support Bush because Gore wasn't "liberal enough", but because (in their minds) he was too liberal!

And if you look at how these counties voted over the last few decades you will find that they have reliably supported Republicans more than Democrats.

[Iverson]

135. The Nader-obsessed are at it again.

Looking for excuses to let convervatives off the hook is a poor way to defend a party.

[jiacinto]

136. Typical Green Response

One that again takes the heat off them. I am not making excuses "to let conservatives off the hook". But then again, as a Green, nothing is ever your fault. And your candidate is completely innocent.

[Iverson]

140. typical intellectual dishonesty

A straw man argument reacts to the point one wishes was made rather than the one that was actually made.

This, too, has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

[library_max]

138. Well, Iverson

Mairead, Terwilliger, and others have been demanding facts, proof, and documentation on the tendency of southern voters to register as Democrats without the slightest intention of ever voting Democrat in a national election. Jiacinto has presented at least some hard evidence in that area. So I'm not sure it's appropriate to dismiss his efforts as "looking for excuses." Or is this just an automatic attack because it's Jiacinto?

[Iverson]

141. reply

It is more of an automatic defense because it was the same poster making an automatic attack, although I confess that the same deliberate misconstructions do tend to get under my skin with ongoing repetition, so I will not deny some personal irritation.

I think that you have come late to this mini-feud. Mairead, Terwilliger, et al are asking for nearly impossible documentation in response to an assertion equally difficult to support. That is: conservative southern Democrats, since roughly the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, are remaining in the party but refusing to vote for it.

Last I checked, there was a secret ballot in this country. Therefore, one must ask what purpose the argument serves. This specific one has been trotted out many times in order to excuse the estimated number of Florida Democrats who voted for Bush in 2000. The argument goes that since they were "lost" after the Civil Rights era, there's no pressure on them to vote for their own party; by contrast, the Greens were obligated to vote for Gore well beyond those registered Dems.

That's the background. You can see why I might find it unpersuasive, even if you do not hold the same opinon that I do.

[library_max]

143. It's nice to see that we agree on the facts.

But I'm not sure where you're getting your conclusions. Since you acknowledge that we are talking about voters who haven't voted Democratic since the Sixties, in what realistic sense is the Democratic Party "their own party"?

The reason for the frustration with the Greens is the assumption that they did not want Bush to win, and yet their voting for Nader (in Florida) had that perverse effect. There's no point in blaming people who wanted Bush for voting for Bush - the complaint is that Nader voters need to see that voting for Nader got them (and us) Bush. Anger and recriminations are pointless, but people who won't admit a mistake are highly likely to repeat it (paraphrasing Santayana).

[Iverson]

146. so far so good

The frustration is easy to understand, and surely you also understand that many Greens have a great deal of frustration over the Democratic Party.

We seem to be disagreeing in a couple of places. The most poignant one is in what I see as a facile cause-effect claim. I maintain that electoral fraud, not Green votes, got us Bush. I think that you will agree that there is plenty of evidence that points to electoral fraud.

The Santayana advice is timely, yet each of us will filter it through our preferences.

[library_max]

147. Electoral fraud? Sure.

But it wouldn't have mattered, wouldn't have carried the day, if even 5% of those who voted for Nader had voted for Gore instead.

[Iverson]

148. can't agree

Voter disenfranchisement always matters. It is basic.

However, let us proceed from your point. The vote difference you wish to see could have come likewise from the mysterious Jews for Buchanan, from Monica Moorhead (or other left candidates of small parties), or those who were registered Democrats.

Yes, that vote differential could have come from Greens too. However, I cannot accept it as the primary cause. Unfortunately, what I see in DU is venom and a fixation on people who voted Green for perfectly good reason, which fixation is accompanied by fatalistic rationalization of the real enemies of democracy in the 2000 vote.

This is maddening. To see that I care more about the Dems' candidate than the Democrats do feels really wacky.

But really, voter disenfranchisement always matters.

[library_max]

155. "Can't agree, cannot accept"

You know the facts. To whom do we complain about the voter disenfranchisement? What can we do about it? To whom do we complain about the butterfly ballot (which, as the spinmeisters endlessly pointed out, was designed and approved by a Democrat)? What can we do about it?

But we know who to complain to about the 97,000 votes for Nader, and we know what to do about it.

Why can't you just admit that it was a mistake? Okay, it wasn't the ONLY thing that happened in Florida to hand the election to Bush, but it was the only one that DUers and like-minded people could have prevented. And it did hand the election to Bush - if a fairly small percentage of Nader voters had voted Gore instead, it would be President Gore.

And by the way, what's the "perfectly good reason"? Did they think Nader was actually going to win? If not, what's a good reason for throwing away your vote and helping Bush into the White House? Surely we can agree that the "no real difference" line is nonsense, after everything we've been through with Bush.

[Terwilliger]

157. democracy is a mistake?

you candidate is weak so you blame the little guy, the little Green candidate that could? It speaks profoundly about the inherent weakness of those you're trying to defend.

To whom do we complain about the voter disenfranchisement? What can we do about it? To whom do we complain about the butterfly ballot (which, as the spinmeisters endlessly pointed out, was designed and approved by a Democrat)? What can we do about it?

Shouldn't your own party be the ones to look to? Oh, I forgot...they didn't stand up against it themselves. Your assertion that the butterfly-ballot designer was only partially accurate...turns out that woman was a friend of Jeb Bush and worked for Republicans some years before 2000.

[library_max]

158. Iverson.

Should I accept this load of spin as your answer? I'd rather hear from you yourself.

[Iverson]

159. good morning

Sometimes a few things slip by, or else I have to go to class or otherwise get busy with real life. No, you should assume that I speak for me, and Terwilliger speaks for himself. We certainly have broad areas of agreement, but we are hardly identical. Similarly, I assume that only you speak for you.

The "perfectly good reason" is that people get to vote for candidates who represent their interests and viewpoints. Whether or not they sublimate those interests to the criteria that you personally think are best is immaterial. That is how representative democracy becomes meaningful. Being forced to choose a candidate who does not represent one's interest or viewpoint makes a charade out of representative democracy.

"To whom do we complain about the voter disenfranchisement?..."

Oh, I'd say a lot of people. I'd start with the US Senate. The Congressional Black Caucus thought it was a good idea, and I agreed with them, but you know what happened there. That is a tragic, outrageous shame, and it should have been the catalyst for Democratic victories during the last three years. Basic civil rights and voter enfranchisement are not controversial, and in any case they are supposed to be defining issues of identity for the Democratic Party.

Let us suppose that victory is not guaranteed ahead of time. I would argue that it is (or was) still the right thing to do. This is not insistence upon a 100% Green platform; it is basic, basic Democratic stuff.

"Why can't you just admit that it (voting Green) was a mistake?"

I do not believe that it was a mistake. And in fact, your candidate won.

"And it did hand the election to Bush - if a fairly small percentage of Nader voters had voted Gore instead, it would be President Gore."

From my post #148: "The vote difference you wish to see could have come likewise from the mysterious Jews for Buchanan, from Monica Moorhead (or other left candidates of small parties), or those who were registered Democrats."

The major reasons that the coup succeeded are far more compelling attacks upon democracy. A third party candidate is not an attack upon democracy at all. I do not agree that Greens are appropriately the object of the pent up anger that should be directed at the real Constitutional criminals. The fact that Greens are reachable and the others are less so is a weak rationale.

[library_max]

160. It's not a question of anger.

It's a question of fixing the problem so it doesn't happen again next time. The fact that Greens are reachable (if they are) is not a "weak rationale," it is the difference between fixing what can be fixed and wasting time and energy on what can't be fixed.

If you expected a Republican Senate to side with the Congressional Black Caucus and declare Bush's appointment to the White House a fraud, well, I don't know how to respond.

"From my post #148: 'The vote difference you wish to see could have come likewise from the mysterious Jews for Buchanan, from Monica Moorhead (or other left candidates of small parties), or those who were registered Democrats.'"

And from my post #155 - you know, the one you were responding to - "Okay, it wasn't the ONLY thing that happened in Florida to hand the election to Bush, but it was the only one that DUers and like-minded people could have prevented."

I see our difference as a question of practicality, of finding ways to fix problems as compared to merely fixing the blame. The understanding you have of "representative democracy" seems to me a purely academic exercise, since it doesn't accomplish anything. It doesn't change or influence policy, it doesn't protect constituencies, it doesn't do anything to make the US a better place or move the spectrum to the left. And further, it is done with the full knowledge that it will accomplish nothing.

We progressives have real work to do in this country, but we're going to have to get our hands dirty. Heckling from the sidelines is cleaner, but not particularly useful.

[Iverson]

161. possibly an impasse

I certainly don't believe that I'm heckling from the sidelines. It's unfortunate if you see it that way. Also, you are starting to take some of my answers to your questions out of context.

"If you expected a Republican Senate to side with the Congressional Black Caucus..."
That, for example, is just goofy.

I am willing to bet that you would have welcomed my activism, had you known about it, during my long stay with the Dems before the party left me behind.

Yes indeed, we progressives have real work to do.

[library_max]

162. reply

"If you expected a Republican Senate to side with the Congressional Black Caucus..." That, for example, is just goofy."

I recall your earlier statement:

"'To whom do we complain about the voter disenfranchisement?...'
Oh, I'd say a lot of people. I'd start with the US Senate. The Congressional Black Caucus thought it was a good idea, and I agreed with them, but you know what happened there."

What did you mean, if you didn't mean that you expected the Senate to back up the CBC? To say they should have is beside the point. We are talking about things we can fix. It's absurd to expect our political opponents to fix our problems.

Yes, I definitely would have welcomed your activism in the Democratic Party. But don't kid yourself - "the party left me" is just an excuse for leaving the party. If you quit your job or move out of your house because you stop liking them, that doesn't mean your job or your house left you.

[Iverson]

163. answers

re: voter disenfranchisement and the Congressional Black Caucus

"What did you mean, if you didn't mean that you expected the Senate to back up the CBC? To say they should have is beside the point. We are talking about things we can fix. It's absurd to expect our political opponents to fix our problems."

Your rebuttal lies on a twisted interpretation. As you know, there are also Democrats in the Senate. As you know, not a single Democrat backed up the CBC. If I were interested in sneaking in rhetorical games under the wire, I would twist your words above into a suggestion that Senate Dems are our political enemies. Don't you twist my words, and I won't twist yours.

I argue that it is not beside the point to advocate for voting rights. An anticipation of failure in the effort is no reason not to do it. I pointed out elsewhere in our exchanges that voting rights is a basic, defining quality of Democrats. Had the civil rights movement internalized such pragmatism, it never would have existed.

This sets aside the point that "things we can fix" is not a scientific measure, but a subjective one, and not everyone measures it against the current election cycle. By contrast, caving on a problem cements in place without a fight.

The phrasing "the party left me" is metaphorical shorthand. It was not intended to offend. It refers to transgressing several breaking points. I know ahead of time that reasons for my wanting a more accurate representation of my political preferences will be taken as "excuses," so let's just agree to disagree on what I think best represents me.

[library_max]

165. Fair enough

Of course it's your right to select your own political path. I've only been trying to raise the issue of whether any good is to come of it, immediately or down the road. If you don't think of this election cycle as unusually important, okay I guess. Do you have some general idea of which election cycle it's going to be by the time your political strategies bear worthwhile fruit (worthwhile to you, not me, but as a practical matter)?

As for the CBC, every single Democratic Senator could have supported them and it wouldn't have made one whit of difference, except for cementing the public perception of Democrats as the Party of Crybabies. When one makes an empty gesture, it's worthwhile considering how it's probably going to be taken by the majority of the electorate.

Could you possibly stop accusing me of twisting your words every time we don't agree or every time I don't interpret a particular example or situation the same way you do?

[Iverson]

166. yo

Last things first:
"Could you possibly stop accusing me of twisting your words every time we don't agree or every time I don't interpret a particular example or situation the same way you do?"

You bet. Similarly, you know better than to pretend I'm asking for my political opponents to solve problems. That was an expression of your irritation rather than your best effort at an honest memorandum of my position. You will find that I play nice when others play nice.

"As for the CBC, every single Democratic Senator could have supported them and it wouldn't have made one whit of difference, except for cementing the public perception of Democrats as the Party of Crybabies...."

I continue to argue that electoral fraud always matters. Even if your premise is true (about which I am not at all convinced) that the general public will adopt essentially the Republican partisan reaction, some things are so basic that you insist upon them nevertheless. The integrity of the vote is one of those things. Thus, insistence upon it is never an empty gesture to me.

On the other hand, the public might not have adopted the Republican partisan interpretation. We'll never know, not having tried.

"I've only been trying to raise the issue of whether any good is to come of (your political path), immediately or down the road."

That depends upon which good you're looking for. If by that you mean a national majority agreeing with me, that is unlikely in my lifetime. If you mean the good that comes from working against the tide instead of with it, that is small and it is happening now at the individual and local level. Nobody gets any guarantees, though, not even the mainstream.

"If you don't think of this election cycle as unusually important, okay I guess."

Silly you. I certainly do think of it as unusually important. That is why it is crucial to make it meaningful. You appear to conflate Democratic partisanship with political awareness. They are not the same thing.

"Do you have some general idea of which election cycle it's going to be by the time your political strategies bear worthwhile fruit (worthwhile to you, not me, but as a practical matter)?"

No, not at the national level; I couldn't possibly make that prediction. However, I have to set a good example for my children and look myself in the mirror, so I guess I'll just have to do the right thing even without a close timetable. I know where those efforts are welcome, so there I am.

Cheers.

[jiacinto]

152. Let's think about this

A county like Baker in Florida has an overwhelmingly large Democratic registration advantage, yet it gives 68% of its votes to Bush. We can generallize realize that a large amount of those Democrats are voting Republican. Secret ballot or not, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that a large numbef of Democrats are voting Republican there.

Those Democrats vote for local party candidates but not the national party. But the other part that you don't seem to want to admit is that if the party would "win" them back it would mean running on a platform that is:

anti-gay
pro-gun
anti-abortion
anti-civil rights
fundamentalitst Christian
and so forth.

Truly a DINO platform. How do you proppose winning them back? Here is a hint: They aren't going to vote for a Green platform.

[ulysses]

153. let's think about this indeed.

But the other part that you don't seem to want to admit is that if the party would "win" them back it would mean running on a platform that is:

anti-gay
pro-gun
anti-abortion
anti-civil rights
fundamentalitst Christian
and so forth.

What's it worth to you, to us, to "win back" people who are anti-gay, anti-abortion, and anti-civil rights?

[library_max]

156. Then can we at least agree

that the Baker County DINOs and other Florida DINOs weren't the problem? They voted for Bush because they wanted Bush.

[ulysses]

167. they're the problem

because they're the ones that the DLC is trying to win back via their current "only less so" strategies.

But let's say that you're right. Why is it that Florida Dems voting for Bush aren't a problem because they're voting for the candidate they prefer while Florida Dems voting for Nader *are THE* problem because they're voting for the cadidate they prefer?

[library_max]

168. Because the result in both cases was Bush in the White House

Which the Florida Dems-if-you-say-so wanted and the Greens, presumably, did not. Hence the point that the Greens made a mistake.

By the way, if you really believe that a) the Florida DIYSS really cost Gore the election, and b) the DLC is trying to win them back, why is that a dumb idea?

[ulysses]

170. part one only barely makes sense

and is predicated, yet again, on the idea that Fla. Greens cost Gore the election, which would lead us right back to the question about why Dem Bush voters in Fla. *didn't* cost Gore the election.

As to part 2, I believe that Gore won the vote in Florida.

[library_max]

171. I hate belaboring the obvious.

I hate explaining the same thing over and over again to the same person. But on the theory that you are really interested in meaningful dialogue, just for you:

Yes, Gore won the Florida vote. The post-election counts have borne that out. But the margin was so small that it was possible for JebnKathy, DeLay's raiders, SCOTUS, et al to steal it from us. To recall an earlier analogy, if SCOTUS stole the election, Florida Nader-voters left the door unlocked and the keys in the ignition. If as few as 5% of them had voted for Gore, it would be President Gore. That's just a fact. All of the counts would have come out for Gore, recounts would have been unnecessary and would only have confirmed Gore's victory, and SCOTUS would not have had an opportunity for the steal.

As for the DIYSS votes for Bush, well in theory I guess you could blame every single person who voted for Bush nationwide for putting Bush in the White House. But that'd be beside the point, because they voted for Bush because they wanted Bush! In other words, they didn't make a mistake. But the Nader-voters, assuming that they did not want Bush in the White House, did make a mistake.

It's not about blame. It's about not making the same mistake twice. But there is no reason to hope that someone won't repeat a mistake when he won't even admit that it was a mistake, that it produced a result contrary to his expectations and wishes.

[Mairead]

164. What hard evidence has Carlos presented, and how do we know it's hard?

I'll be surprised if the 'evidence' turns out to be more than a pipedream, because (a) it's not Carlos's style to provide evidence and (b) if I understand what you're trying to say (I might not) then I don't believe any such evidence exists.

[library_max]

169. Great ad hominem attack.

Sure beats actually reading Jiacinto's post and thinking about it.

[jiacinto]

172. Vote totals aren't pipedreams

You can look up how Baker County has voted for president.

[LeahMira]

57. If just 2000...

...of the Florida voters who inadvertently voted for Pat Buchanan had voted for Gore as they intended, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.

There was SO much wrong with the Florida election, from the hanging chads to the election rolls that were swept of legitimate voters who were reported as felons, to the military ballots. It's ridiculous to blame Nader... really!

I honestly believe that if the Bushies hadn't been able to steal it one way they would have found another. Sad to say, not a whole lot has been done in the meantime to make sure that the voting machines and mechanisms in all the states are updated, checked, and double-checked... as we saw in California where some voters still were using punch-card ballots.

Is there anyone who thinks that the Bushies won't try the same thing again? Ha! You BET they will.

Now, let's get off Nader... who is a basically decent man.

[mdmc]

72. I'd rather have them vote for Nader

than not at all.
Nader was legally allowed to run.
Progressives were legally allowed to vote Green.
Gore ran as the anti Clinton, with a pro impeachment Dem.
The debates left out Nader, making Gore look awful (or was it Gore that made Gore look awful?).

95,000 minorities were "purged" by the Florida BofE. If Dems were fighting the way that Greens fight, we would have won 2000 (and not "win" the way Joe Leiberman say he "won" - WE DIDN'T WIN).

So work your but off or blame the Greens. Either way, if we loose 2004, it won't be your fault. :~)

:dem:

[jiacinto]

137. By the way

Lieberman voted against impeachment.

[jiacinto]

131. Mermaid, I wouldn't bother dealing with these extremists

Nader is above reproach to them. He can do no wrong. Even though he all but said he ran to defeat Gore, oh no, their hero "is not to blame at all". Even though Nader stalked Gore through the swing staets he is "not to blame at all".

What it comes down is that they simply don't want to admit the god awful truth that they, as Nader apologists, continue to deny:

Had they voted for Gore, Bush wouldn't be president today.

But they did want Bush to win. They wanted to "send their message". And boy did they really "send their message". The rest of us are paying the dear price for their "voting their conscience".

[Iverson]

133. deliberately false

Repetition does not make a false statement true.

"Nader is above reproach to them."
That is false, and it has been pointed out to you before.

"He can do no wrong."
That is false, and it has been pointed out to you before.

Tarring people (whose votes you claim) with the label of extremists is also a terrbily unpersuasive tactic. People generally will not be cowed or hectored into voting the way that the insulters demand.

"Even though Nader stalked Gore through the swing staets he is "not to blame at all"."

I think you're confusing that with the argument that people actually tend to make, which is that far more compelling reasons are at hand for the predicament that we share. Those have also been pointed out to you before. They include ...
- the installation of Bush by a partisan USCC
- the disenfranchisement of minority voters in Florida, in its multiple elements
- the conflict of interest in Katherine Harris' certifying the results of Florida's vote
- the inept legal arguments by the Gore team before the USSC, as documented by Vincent Buglosi
- various problems with the campaign

What a shame that you, a Democrat, write as though Gore did not win, yet I, a Green (and formerly a Democrat for probably longer than you've been alive), do believe that Gore won.

All you can identify as a problem is Greens.

I am the last one to want Bush to win. My policy preferences are in direct opposition to his administration's. I think it is a fairer statement to say that those who regularly give cover to this misadministration are far more supportive of it than Greens are.

Shame on anyone whose intellectual and political cowardice lets the fascists off the hook.

[jiacinto]

134. I am not letting Bush off the hook

But it's a fact that Nader ran to defeat Gore. The problems you mention would never have been an issue had Nader not been in the race. I don't hold him 100% responsible, but his candidacy did help Bush at crucial times.

Well "if you are (or were to make this sentence gramatically correct) the last one to want Bush to win" then why did you waste your vote on a candidate who was not going to win? Why did you vote for someone, knowing very well, that his totals could have been the difference between a Bush victory and loss?

Oh yeah, I forgot. You will now go on a rant about "your vote of conscience" and how "you couldn't compromise" and the standard Green BS that flows on this board daily.

[Iverson]

142. kid yourself not

Since you have such a penchant for posing questions and then putting the answers into my mouth in order that you might react to them, it is difficult to take your statements seriously.

The grammatical snipe was not only irrelevant, but also simply wrong. On these diversionary side issues, be sure that you know what you're talking about. You can register for some college courses and learn grammar from me, but your effort to score a point with a grammatical bon mot is fundamentally misguided. Give up on that one.

Since you offer at least lip service to "the problems that I mention," then I urge you to take the next step and understand that not all elements in a cause-effect relationship are equally important. I have been arguing that the various Consitutional crimes that installed Bush in office even after Gore won are more important factors than the Nader candidacy. By fixating on Nader to the point where your obsession has gained you fame on these boards, you do indeed adopt a strategy that lets Bush off the hook.

Rejoin when you are content to answer questions only for yourself, rather than project phony answers into other discussants in order to feed phony umbrage.

edited typo

[Cheswick2.0]

139. oh bullshit

when looking at what happened in 2000, many thing went wrong. One of those things was the bullshit behavior of Nader and the green party.

[library_max]

16. Hope you're right about 45%

But it's too early to be confident. 9/11 moved things to the right. You can criticize Bush without being attacked in public nowadays, but that doesn't mean that "My President Right Or Wrong" isn't still going to be a big seller in 2004. We may need every vote we can get, which means that a repeat of the Green mistake in Florida 2000 would be bad.

[KG]

4. it's called 'denial'

the partisans keep looking around for a scapegoat to pin the blame for the slide the dem. party has taken in the last 20 years, but deep down they know they will see the culprit when they reaquire the intellecual hoensty and intestinal fortitude to look in a mirror.

[Ardee]

104. Yes, yes ,yes....

Nader and the Green Party are exactly that, an excuse by vichy democrats to avoid the awful truth of the betrayal of the Democratic Party and the death of the two party system.It is so much easier for the sheeple here to be misled by these neodemocratic conservatives because to turn inward ,to actually see the betrayals of the DLC leadership, who are, in fact, closet republicans, who have, in fact, abetted the Bush agenda by a failure or a refusal to oppose it!

Nader is worth ten of these traitors to the democratic process. He has lived a life of service to the american people and these consciousless bastards dont give a damn about that service in their unscrupulous smear campaign.I never voted for Nader, in fact Ive only voted for one Green candidate heretofore,Peter Camejo, but I swear that ,if the democrats put up some freakin republican-lite candidate I will vote Green or simply not cast a ballot for president.........

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Iverson]

130. for shame

Look at that: actually inveighing against another poster here voting.

That's just incredible.

[sujan]

144. and proves Nader is still right

No difference between the two corporations.

[library_max]

145. Que???

One poster's intransigence and incivility (under some provocation) "proves" that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans???

Mermaid, I'll bet you had no idea how much power you wield! LOL!

[mermaid]

154. LOL

Wow...maybe I should run for Pres, huh??

[Ardee]

149. Prozac dear lady, and right away too!

enuff said to you....

[roughsatori]

5. You nailed a primary reason the Democratic party is barely viable anymore

I rarely read about getting out the vote, motivating Dems to get out to the polls--instead I hear complaining about people who actually do vote (Greens), but don't vote the way we would have them vote.

We seem to have a fair share of posters who would rather court moderate Republicans then leftist Dems. I think it will only lead to more loss of vitality to the party and DU.

The ABB mantra actually indicates that the Democratic party may have few ideas that we are passionate about(this indicates the hegemony of the corporatists in both parties).

To motivate non-poll going Dems to get out and vote will take a message beyond ABB--but this party and many DUers don't seem to have that in them.

[kayell]

6. Thanks, you put my objection to ABB into words

better than I have been able to. It is not enough to be AGAINST something. We need to give people something to be FOR.

[G_j]

82. a problem I have with ABB

without *, who is easily the worst, most dangerous pResident America has known, where is the incentive? We, and the whole planet were in deep doo doo before the 2000 election. Just take the environment as one example.

The ABB philosophy taken to the extreme means that someone could stand for nothing and be worthy of our votes, or worse yet be just slighty to the right of *. In that case we could be slightly better off, but still completely f@#@ed!

Yes, we need a strong progressive leaders with a message and real vision!

I pretty much agree with the original post, attacking progressives who DO vote is destructive and a distraction.

BTW, A good suggestion is to carry voter registration cards at all times, and pass them out freely.

[JohnKleeb]

7. rough youre right

We need a message, I kind of accept ABB but give em hope, give em something to believe in, I am sorry to say but better than Bush just wont cut it for me.

[KG]

9. you are wise beyond your years, JK

:)

[jiacinto]

11. You are a high school student in an affluent suburb of DC

You can afford to "vote your conscience". Millions of Americans can't.

Sorry if that offends you, but that's the brutal truth.

[Ardee]

13. well Carlos

you sorta gotta have a conscience in order to vote it....

[JohnKleeb]

19. I will vote democrat but we need a better message than ABB

Thats all I said, btw its my right to vote who I want to but as of today I have no plans to abandon the party, you misunderstood me, I said if we want people to vote democrat in the next election, we need some way to unite them and ABB wont cut it for many and it works for me almost.

[KG]

27. no need to respond to the guttural, knee-jerk accusations

of the paleo-dems and neo-libs, JK.

[JohnKleeb]

28. Thanks KG

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ulysses]

68. wow, the hits just keep rolling on!

Perhaps you haven't been here long enough to know that KG has been unemployed in this economy for some time. Of course, he must not have donated because he's really a right wing mole, right?

:eyes:

[library_max]

77. Oh come on!

KG and Ardee have been indulging in insults and personal attacks all up and down this board! Loyal's point was extremely mild by comparison.

[Ardee]

105. sorry you are so shallow, maxie

some consider attacks on their position to be personal, some deserve an insult as they seem unable or unwilling or unconcerned that they themselves attack people and their values with impunity. But then you neodemocratic vichy dems are much like the right wing republicans in that........

[library_max]

120. Gee! More name calling! What a surprise, coming from you!

:eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes::eyes:

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[library_max]

126. Name-calling is "speaking to the issues"???

My, that's a new concept. I thought name-calling was what eight-year-olds did on the playground.

Just for grins, you ought to try to write a few posts completely without name-calling, just to see if you have an actual argument when all the invective is stripped away.

[Iverson]

128. Ardee and library_max

I respectfully suggest that your exchange is going nowhere and you need to cool off. Maybe you two can jump all over me for scolding you, and at least remember that we're trying to pull in the same direction.

Cheers.

[Ardee]

150. Not at all the same direction,Iverson

Maxie attempts to refuse a persons right to vote for the candidate aof h/her choice. Maxie forgives his own and his allies insults and dismissals of that which is important to others while denigrating my choice of (admittedly) acerbic retort.

But worst of all Maxie promotes a strategy that denies truth, denies courage, denies wisdom and dooms the democratic party to even more crushing defeat.

[Iverson]

151. reply

It has seemed to me that when all of us sense that our best arguments aren't persuading our audience, we resort to plan B, which is winning the argument by issuing the wittiest or most biting retort. That has the redeeming feature of making us feel good and like winners in the short run. In the long run, I'm not so sure.

I happen to agree with you about the wisdom of the direction that the Democratic Party has been going, but I cannot agree that library_max has refused anyone's right to vote.

The most subversive, dangerous thing we can do is to set a good example. Since you know that you and library_max will not achieve a meeting of the minds anytime soon, then my challenge to you both is to set a good example.

I hope both of you will take it. Only time will tell.

[KG]

88. that's okay, uly.

:hi:

after 2.5 years, i've come to find these little exchages amusing.

coz i' long ago decide it's just BBS, and i come here to have fun, like a liberal 'cyber-Cheers', :beer: and there's no cover charge at the door! :toast:

:)

[KG]

86. in several e-mail exchanges with DU's administrators (owners)

on various subjects, in the nearly 3 years i've been posting here, they have never brought up my status as a contributing member. their opinion of my status as a member of DU means a whole lot more to me than yours.

BTW - my limited fundage goes to support WMNF-FM 88.5 Tampa a community radio station ( www.wmnf.org ), a cause i've been supporting long before DU existed. :)

[jiacinto]

43. Fair Enough

You have every right to vote for whomever you want. I never said you didn't.

But I do see the "voting my concsicnece/Green" excuse as being self-serving.

I do agree that people need to have positive reasons to vote Democratic.

[JohnKleeb]

45. All I said was we need a more clearer reason than ABB

I may be way left but I do still support the democratic party, its in my blood, heart, and soul. I am not planning to vote green at all.

[ulysses]

51. don't sweat it, John

Any questioning of the ABB mantra automatically makes you a "green" in many eyes in our age. Welcome to where reality doesn't much matter. :)

[Loyal]

49. John,

you can't vote. So support who you want in 04, but in 2008 vote Dem.

[JohnKleeb]

55. Youre right but thats what I mean

Hey as of today I have plans to register as a democrat. I may be far left but I havent forgotten the good history of the party.

[KG]

25. and you are a graduate of a major college that hasn't learned a thing.

[jiacinto]

42. Another personal attack from KG

Why doesn't it surprise me?

[MadHound]

32. Knock it off Carlos

Hell, it was in my youth that I started out voting the pragmatic "lesser of two evils" line, and regret every vote. It is only now that I'm older and wiser that I'm voting with conviction and my conscience. And I am neither rich or affluent, just another working slob.

By voting with his conscience now, JK is showing wisdom beyond his years, cutting through all the BS to the core of the matter. I wish we had more people like him, but alas, most seem content to be sheep.

[jiacinto]

41. You knock it off

I am stating the obvious. Sorry if it offends people, but it's the truth.

And you know it. Why else would you be responding to me in such a snide tone?

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ardee]

106. Damn Carlos, at least you are consistant

It is so very hard to respond to your pomposity and arrogance without insult. Some day you may realise that those ideals which we cherish most may betray us, that which we hold to be inviolable truth may deceive us,and the thoughts and actions of others may hold truth for them, despite your inability, inflexible nature and cast iron positions to the contrary. You are, in fact, one of the Green Party's best tools here at DU.....and one of the Democratic Party's worst friends.

[ulysses]

48. rude much?

JK has the gall to be an involved, liberal teen, so you get to smear him based not on what he says but on who he is? Nice.

[JohnKleeb]

53. wow thanks

Thanks guys really.

[library_max]

67. John, I hope and believe that you're smart enough

to understand that not everyone who pats you on the head is your friend, and that not everyone who criticizes you is your enemy.

[ulysses]

70. dear god

not everyone who pats you on the head

Could you possibly be more condescending?

Don't answer that.

[JohnKleeb]

71. I know that but I was misintepreted in my meaning

Look I like the idea of ABB but we need unity right? You cant just tell people vote for the democrat hes not Bush, you gotta convince. I dont mind ABB myself.

[library_max]

75. Right.

The question is, how far can we afford to go? Of course, whoever gets the nomination is going to have to talk about what he is for more than what he is against - a positive always beats a negative. I believe we need to pick our issues very carefully. A lot of people are becoming skeptical about Bush (whose approval rating was 82% after 9/11) and might be in a reachable mood. But if we throw a laundry-list of radical ideas at them and yell "Wake up! Helloooo!" at them, we'll drive them back to Bush.

Likewise, we have to be careful of our tone in criticizing the administration's performance. Every time we call Bush stupid, we give him another handful of the stupid vote, as undereducated people clasp him to their bosoms and resent us for "kickin' their dawg." I live in Texas and I know these people. Every time we call him a liar, we shock and affront people who believe that it's unpatriotic (or simply rude) to talk about the President that way.

So yes, you're right, people will have to have a positive reason to vote for a Democratic candidate, in the primaries and in the general election. But people will also be aware of the negatives. And in the primaries, strong reasons to doubt the electability of a candidate in the general election consistute a strong negative.

[Ardee]

108. go further, much,much further

That very laundry list of which you speak with such distain may very well be exactly the spark to energise those who feel disenfranchised and powerless, might just be the impetus for them to vote, and vote overwhelmingly democratic. But you would never consider such an idea, after all , by doing so would ensure the alienation of the corporate coffers, would actually make the democratic party viable and healthy again.

By all means lets not allow any passion into politics, lets not actually speak our conscience, let us not dare to work towards the betterment of the american public and the world at large, why how very outlandish. let the democrats continue to speak and act like republicans and continue to wonder why they lose elections....or better yet blame straw men for those losses.

[library_max]

121. Yeah, right

Let's call names and ignore reality and try again what has always failed us in the past. That's the way to win elections.

[Ardee]

124. Your rant is tiring

You cannot refute a post so you say it contains name calling...show me where in that post I called you a name, or held anyone outside of the democratic leadership and their supporters in a poor light!

Again and again you refuse to come to grips with the content of a post so you resort to being insulted and sulking....fine debate style you've got there, just like that of a couple of other folks , like Bill O'Reilly, Shaun Hannity and Rush Limbaugh...nice comapny you keep.

[library_max]

127. Oh yeah,

because O'Reilly, Hannity, and Limbaugh never resort to the high-minded and argument-validating practice of name-calling.

Look, you had a grand total of one argument in that post - that radicalism would win the election by energizing the base. And I replied to that argument, that that strategy has been tried over and over again and has never worked in a presidential election. And all you can do for a response is cry over my debating style.

[Loyal]

65. Carlos, good point

I like hearing what John has to say but he won't suffer like others will if he votes his conscience.

[JohnKleeb]

73. I do plan to support the democratic nominee but I need it more clear

then ABB. Thats all I ask for, nothing more nothing less.

[paulk]

26. you're assuming that the majority of people who don't vote

would vote Democratic if we could get them to the polls. I'm not sure this would happen. Look at the CA recall vote - 60% turnout, I believe was the percentage, with a heavy turnout among Democrats - who voted for Arnold. With such a fickle electorate, the Democratic party is almost forced to go after people they know will vote - moderate Republicans.

Not that I agree with this strategy, but I no longer know what the Democrats can do to get people energized.

[Mairead]

31. "With such a fickle electorate"

You're presuming that people should vote for anything with a Dem label on it. But that's why Davis got the sack: he had the label, but he had no goods in the parcel. If he represented anyone besides himself, it was the wealthy elites who are his social peers.

There are a lot fewer stupid people than some people think.

[paulk]

46. actually,I was presuming the opposite

and assuming that's what the starter of this thread was saying. Perhaps I misunderstood him. Perhaps you misunderstood me.

Is it stupid to vote into office a movie actor with no governmental experience to run the world's fifth largest economy?

[Mairead]

81. Misunderstanding? Could be!

And I apologise if so.

I think the point I was trying to make was that I see the election as an act of desperation on 2 different levels: both meaning and change. Schwarzenegger has one characteristic if no other: he's new to politics, but not an 'Arnold-what?' unknown, so he represents some kind of real-seeming change. On the other hand, maybe it doesn't really matter who the figurehead is (I'm imputing that as a motive, not necessarily subscribing completely to it). If all the real decisions are being taken elsewhere, why not elect a 'Governator'.

[library_max]

8. I've looked at all the fora

And all I can find about Greens are defensive threads started by Greens and Green supporters bashing centrists and saying that Greens are not responsible for 2000. Including your earlier thread ("Greens vs. Nonvoters") from today, which duplicates this one.

[Old and In the Way]

10. Pretty bizarre, eh, library_max?

The political geniuses in the netherlands who insist that we run a campaign on "ideas" when we are facing the political extinction of democracy.

Oh well, let these very smart people continue to bray about the self-importance of their viewpoints and the unelectable candidates they support. And come election day, they will vote for the Democratic candidate....because they really aren't that stupid or naive, right?

Lucky for us, there are enough committed people in the center who will do coalition politics in 2004 ->so we can debate policy minutae in 2008 and beyond.

[Ardee]

14. what IS bizarre

is that it is the cowardice and avarice of the democratic party that is allowing this political extinction of which you speak. It is the extinction of the opposition party that oeads us all down the road to this madness......

[library_max]

15. There you go, Old and In the Way.

That's what you get for hanging around with me. I'd have a doctor look at that leg, if I were you - some of those bites get infected.

Thanks for your support, anyway. :)

[Old and In the Way]

78. Projection Ardee

It's those of you that actively want to takedown the Democratic Party and help further the Republican agenda who are the problem.

I've voted staright Democratic ticket on the national level since 1972....have you?

Face it, you screwed up in 2000 and you want to blame someone else for your inability to understand the nature of politics on our landscape today.

So keep defending your indefensible positions....nothing like listening to a Nader apologist trying to sluff the blame onto those that told you to think about your vote in 2000.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Iverson]

18. oh yeah

People who don't agree with you "bray." How genteel of you to suffer a coalition with the hoi polloi. Surely they will flock to you for the example you set.

Thanks again for clarifying that other opinions are ... what was that again? ...
"stupid or naive"

Yeah, way to abandon that nasty self-importance and build them there coalitions!

Here's your port and cigars.

[library_max]

21. You know, OAITW, Iverson has a point here.

And a scrupulously fair and principled individual like Iverson surely wouldn't miss the fact that, in this very thread, KG referred to a lack of honesty and "intestinal fortitude" in those who disagree with him, and Ardee likened Democrats to Nazi collaborators, basically called you a coward, and accused jiacinto of having no conscience.

I'm sure we'll be seeing his posts criticizing their rhetorical excesses any minute now.

Yup.

Any.

Minute.

Now.

[Iverson]

22. sarcasm noted

And now a little reminder for you: an admittedly wrong statement cannot be used to discover the validity of another admittedly wrong statement.

Maybe the more constructive thing would be to go after the invalid rhetoric instead of undermining others who do merely because your political preferences are soothed. However, I understand that my rebuttal is, by definition, "braying."

Oh, most abject apologies sirs!

[library_max]

23. Ah, but I don't object to the "invalid rhetoric"

My skin's not that thin. I suspect that OAITW's skin is also not that thin.

My objection was to your highly selective approach to enforcing civility - applied only to those on the other side of the political fence. If someone had insulted you directly, of course you'd have every right to complain, even while ignoring other insults directed at other people. But you hadn't even posted yet, so OAITW's words could not possibly have been directed at you personally. You took it upon yourself to wag a finger at OAITW while ignoring similar and worse offenses on the part of those arguing your side of the issue.

So your implication of hypocrisy boomerangs right back on yourself, where it belongs.

[Iverson]

24. a little knowledge is a dangerous thing

Thank you for advising me of the parameters of when I may or may not complain. Sadly, I will have to disagree with you. When someone makes allegations about a class of people, it need not be directed at me personally in order for me to comment.

That you have been singularly unwilling to correct the substance of my note leaves you with a rather strained argument about me individually.
Well, thanks for calling me a hypocrite and all. That was almost as mature and appropriate as saying that everyone who disagrees with you "brays."

[library_max]

29. Your note had substance?

What was it?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

37. Thank you, Iverson

It's a joy to read your posts. You're obviously very learned (college professor, is that right?) and you construct one hell of a logical argument (or trap, from the perspective of the receiving end). You're a real credit to this place, and thanks again.

[Old and In the Way]

79. I'll take the cigar, but hold on the port.

Gee, did I miss the politically correct thesaurus of the Green Party?

Check out some of the beauts that you people use to describe Democrats.

If I promise to use nicer words, will you vote Democrat in 2004?

[Freddie Stubbs]

17. Do you have any sources to back that up?

Specifically when you say that more non-voters are left-leaning than right-leaning.

[Freddie Stubbs]

61. Can anyone back up those numbers?

[0rganism]

90. The hypothesis runs counter to what I saw in Oregon, actually

After the initiation of "vote by mail", the turnout for elections skyrocketed, with major increases in participation for minor as well as major elections. 75% participation is now the norm. However, the outcomes were still *very* even. The Democrats certainly didn't gain much support, if any, from the policy.

See, the 50% of nonvoters may be a very close mirror to the 50% who do vote. If one is looking for partisan gains by bringing nonvoters to the polls, then using regional demographics would be crucial. A rural voter outreach might very well help the GOP more than the Democrats.

There's also the problem of demagoguery, which we saw full force in California. A lot of the people who voted for ahnold did so purely on the basis of his image -- what else was there? So among those who don't usually vote, the ones who are easily convinced to vote may also respond to name recognition and image ads more than the regular "issue voters".

[JohnKleeb]

20. To clear things up

I do plan to vote or support the democratic nominee but I think we need to unite the voters with something other than ABB, hey it works for me but it will be hard for others. Thats all I said, and I dont like being told how I should vote, I will likely vote democrat trust me on that, I have no plans as of today to leave the party.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

30. Okay, suppose we do get a mushy moderate in the White House in 2004

It's a given that he won't be as bad as Bush. Any random Dem would be better than Bush.

The real crux comes in 2008. Suppose the mushy moderate is so cautious, so afraid of offending the Republicans, so worried about doing anything that the pundits could criticize, that he does little but minor damage control.

There are no new wars, but we stay bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, because we can't "cut and run," so American youth continue to die at the rate of several per week.

The tax cuts for millionaires are rescinded, but there are still plenty of loopholes, and nothing is done against corporate tax cheats, because that would endanger the supply of PAC money.

We get a feeble attempt at a healthcare system that still leaves millions out in the cold.

Unemployment goes down a whole percentage point, but jobs are still leaving the country.

We can't do too much for the environment or workers' rights because the corporations won't like it.

Social Security and Medicare are "saved" by raising the straight percentage of the FICA assessment on all lower income levels, not by raising the ceiling on assessments.

All current multi-billion dollar boondoggle weapons programs are continued, because the president is afraid to be "soft on defense," but of course, we can't afford to provide universal healthcare, affordable housing, or a modernized infrastructure.

I'm not just making up these projections. They are based on assertions that conservative DUers have made.

Okay, so we get the conservative Democrats' dream candidate. What's he going to campaign on in 2008? "Your young people aren't dying in as many countries as they would be if the Republicans were in office"? "Some of you now have healthcare"? "The jobless rate is 1% percentage point lower than it was in 2004"? "You may have no health coverage, you may be spending half your income on rent, and the local highways are killing your car's undercarriage, but we still have the best space-based weapons in the world"?

Unless the 2004 winner impresses the electorate with noticeable, positive changes, the independent voters are going to conclude that while there may be a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, there may not be a dollar's worth of difference, certainly not enough value there to bother voting for.

The Republicans will always be able to marshall their fundie warriors. The Democrats will lose the swing voters so beloved of the DLC, because they will simply get disgusted with politics as a whole and will stay home. The left half of the party will go Green. After 2008, the Democrats will join the Whigs as a historical curiosity.

The people who are unhappy with Bush are very unhappy. They want change, and if the Dems don't deliver it, that will be the end of them.

[library_max]

33. Yes, all this makes sense.

And the proof of it is that Clinton, a moderate mushy Democrat if there ever was one, was not re-elected in 1996.

Oh, wait . . .

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. I'm not talking about Clinton

but about the current crop of candidates, and not one of the the Establishment favorites has anywhere near the personal magnetism that Clinton has. Bill Clinton coasted on his charm--a LOT. Those of us who actually paid attention to his policies were not so happy, especially after welfare reform and his half-assed jerry-built health plan meant to soothe the injured feelings of the insurance companies, who then sabotaged it anyway by pointing out its ridiculousness.

You also have to remember that the country was not in as bad shape in 1992-1996 as it is now.

During the Vietnam War, it was often pointed out that the Washington elites got into that mess because they had overlearned the lessons of World War II. They cast Communist insurgencies in the role of the Nazis and tried to fight them accordingly.

Don't overlearn the lessons of 1996 when thinking about which candidate to support in 2004.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

38. Oh, and I'd like to add

that yes, Al Gore did win the popular vote in 2000, but with an obvious incompetent like Bushboy as his opponent, he should have been able to play LBJ to Chimpy's Goldwater (although I believe that the comparison is insulting to Goldwater) and crush the little twirp.

Instead he kept agreeing with Bushboy on practically everything.

Do you remember what the result was?

An amazing high number of voters were undecided in the couple of days before the election. The number of undecided voters even attracted the attention of comedians. I think it was Bill Maher (or someone equally prominent) who said, "Come on, you've only got two guys to choose from. What's so hard?"

In spite of playing Twiddledee-dee to Bushboy's Twiddleded-dum, Gore not only failed to carry that one more state that would have put him over the top, but he also failed to convince that 50% of Americans who stayed home that he was worth the trouble of voting for.

[library_max]

47. Wait a minute.

First you say that the great danger of electing a moderate Democrat in 2004 is that the worst excesses of Bushism will be curbed so that people won't be angry enough to vote for a Democrat.

Then you say that they reelected Clinton in 1996 because the country was not in as bad shape in 1992-1996 as it is now.

Well, which is it? If we can elect a moderate Democrat, the country won't be in as bad shape in 2004-2008 as it is now. And so he should be reelected. Right? If not, where's the flaw?

If I'm "overlearning" lessons from 1996, you're making up lessons from things that have never happened. An activists' choice winger from either party has never been elected president, and every time one has been nominated he has been utterly crushed in the electoral vote (the one that counts). So why is what has never worked before going to work this time?

[Polemonium]

35. After California's big voter turn out is it really such a mystery

What does reaching out to those folks get you. I agreed with you not too long ago, believing the non-voting public was simply distrustful of government. Now I worry about the non-voting public. But the reason democrats should be upset is that the greens represent alot of the energy of the left side of the party, and of coarse democrats can't afford to loose anyone (energized or not). What I don't understand is why democrats fail to recognize that reaching out to greens is the way to get them back. But hey maybey beating them over the head repeatedly will bring them around (WTF).

[library_max]

59. How would you go about reaching out to Greens?

I mean this seriously, not as a debate trap or anything.

We can't let them dictate the nominating process or the platform. We'd go down in flames. Every Green vote we'd add would cost us at least two from the middle, and those two would vote for Bush instead.

The danger of telling them that Florida 2000 wasn't their mistake is that they'll be encouraged to go and do the same thing again. And even if you can't convince people that they made a mistake, at least you can put a crimp in their proselytizing of a new and idealistic generation of DUers to go and do likewise, with the same result (President Bush).

So what can we afford to do to reach out to Greens?

[Iverson]

69. let's take you at your word

"I mean this seriously, not as a debate trap or anything."

There are few rather obvious things that come to mind.

- Engage ideas without insult.
- Listen.

Why do people need to be told these things?

[library_max]

76. Okay.

I've tried to follow your advice in #75 above, a reply to JohnKleeb titled Right.

But how do you suggest I and other mainstream Dems handle the general Green (exceptions noted) insistence on insult along the lines of "sellout," "coward," "soulless," "Repug-lite," "pink-tutu Dem" et al? It would seem that simply turning the other cheek and returning civility for insult would feed the impression that we are passive and fond of being walked all over.

[Old and In the Way]

84. Greens remind me of Republicans that way library_max

It's OK for them to flame incessantly in their rhetoric, but when we sharpen our words, we're VERY MEAN PEOPLE!

I guess they don't like us to disrupt their Democrat-bashing threads.

[Iverson]

98. suggestion

"...It would seem that simply turning the other cheek and returning
civility for insult would feed the impression that we are passive and fond of being walked all over."

You have that exactly right. If you look around carefully, you will also find Greens saying the same things about Democrats, as well as progressives and centrists saying the same things about each other.

The alternative is not quite as stark as a dominance/submission dichotomy. It is possible to be assertive in argument without being overtly hostile.

I would argue to you that the greatest danger to the right wing is our setting a good example. If we set that good example, each of us in our own way, then we argue forcefully, but without legitimizing the rhetorical tactics of a Limbaugh or a Coulter by embracing them as our own.

We may have little or no control over whether others see the sandbox model of political discourse as strong and anything else as weak, but we do ourselves no favors by reinforcing it.

Look around again: you see that in those threads where discussants are fixated on winning by wounding with words, nobody's mind gets changed.

I don't pretend that you and I, just as an example, will agree on everything, but it's a waste for us to invest any substantial irritation in each other when the country is sliding toward fascism.

[Old and In the Way]

80. OK, Iverson, no nasty words.

Please refute this statement-

If you vote for anyone but a Democrat in 2004, you will help elect George to the Presidency.

[Iverson]

99. questionable seriousness

I see that your commitment to civility lasted all the way until post #84. How seriously do you expect to be taken?

As to your immediate question, it is easy to refute.
It is the recipient of one's vote who one helps to elect.

[Polemonium]

89. Have candidates seek the green endorsement or

you know suggest that Democrats might support some of the green ideas.
Greens are a diverse lot, but an effort to engage in dialoge with the party would go along way to swing folks to the democratic ticket for the big races. I've heard many folks blame the greens for the election loss, but like it or not, many greens blame the Democrats. How exactly did Gore loose his home state - OH yeah Greens. Anyway, their are several issues that the greens stand for that are fairly mainstream. The Environment, fighting child poverty, better health care, are all things we have in common. Entering a civil dialogue with greens would not hurt the democratic platform, and it may just mold it enough to get that the 4% everyone keeps whining about back on board. But if nothing is done, in all likelyhood alot of greens will still jump ship, no matter how much people scream about it. It's just the way it is.

[LeahMira]

91. I wonder...

We can't let them dictate the nominating process or the platform. We'd go down in flames. Every Green vote we'd add would cost us at least two from the middle, and those two would vote for Bush instead.

... why you say that. I don't think the Greens intend to "dictate" to Democrats, but why do you think that Green ideas would bring you down in flames? And why do you think that Green ideas don't have appeal to the middle?

[library_max]

122. "Why do you think that Green ideas don't have appeal to the middle?"

Because they don't. Because the middle isn't the left. Because of every issue-specific and ideology-general poll. Because every time we run left in a presidential election we get slaughtered.

Look, I like those ideas myself, but I know I'm on the left. We liberals need to stop trying to pretend that "wherever I stand is Center."

[birdman]

39. The non-voters are a dry well

The idea that the party can win by appealing to the
millions who don't vote is a fallacy. The theory
is that they are voters who feel that the current
candidates are unacceptable and are just waiting for the right
candidate to come along and they will shake off their lethargy
and run to polls.

In reality most of these people are simply apolitical, don't know
the candidates or issues and probably don't read the news unless its
about Britney Spears. They are not sitting around waiting for Kucinich or Clark or Ross Perot. They will ignore them just as they ignored Clinton and Bush.

[Nederland]

40. Non-voters don't matter

More of these voters are left-leaning than right-leaning.

This is not true. Numerous studies have shown that if everbody voted there would be little change in which party wins.


What if Everyone Voted?

The conventional wisdom among journalists and politicians is that higher turnout would benefit Democrats, although extant scholarly research suggests otherwise. We adopt a new approach to assessing the partisan impact of higher turnout. We use state-level exit polls and Census data to estimate the partisan preferences of nonvoters in Senate elections and then simulate the outcome of these elections under universal turnout. While nonvoters are generally more Democratic than voters, the dearth of close races means that very few election outcomes would have changed had everyone voted.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1111/1540-5907.00006/abs/

[Cheswick2.0]

60. Who started the thread?

it looks like you are the obsessed one.

[AP]

83. Something I think that gets lost in the low turnout evaluation is...

This is a consequence, largely of the fact that we usually only have three candidates running and only 2 serious candidates running each year.

In the drive to have a government reflecting the interests of a majority of the citizens, both parties drive for the middle of the spectrum. For a lot of those people in the middle, there is little difference between the candidates. I think it's true that for a lot of upper middle class white people who don't think about much more than ESPN, fast food, and sex, it doesn't really matter who the president is.

To get participation up, we could have more candidates running each year, but, if you split the electorate three or more ways, and don't have a coalition executive branch (like you have in a parliamentarian system), then you could end up with someone at the extremes winning with 33.4% of the vote, who then takes TOTAL control of the executive, and turning the tone of the governtment in a direction that is antithetical to the interests of a majority of Americans.

So, you have to be careful of what your goal is. Is it voter participation, or is it having majority rule in a non-parliamentarian system?

There are lots of ways to get more participation, but, as in my example, they can resuolt in less representative governments.

In many ways, it our system of government that encourages low participation.

Having said that, I do think that low levels of educational attainment, and a media which tries to discourage participation amony likely democratic voters cause a great deal of voter apathy, and I think those things should be addressed.

[onebigbadwulf]

85. What will fix low voter turnout?

LIBERAL COALITION

How?! Because when repukes are banished from america, people will actually have a choice without fear of rigged elections or big business hijacking democracy.

[LeahMira]

92. I disagree...

I think people don't vote because they are basically content with whomever wins and they don't believe anything will be significantly different with one or the other. Even when people are having hard times, they don't connect those hard times with political policies. Most blame themselves in one way or another for not trying hard enough, or they figure that those are the breaks.

[AP]

97. I think there is a broad middle that doesn't feel much pain

or benefit in the short term based on who's in office. I think a lot of that has to to do with the fact that Republicans, when they're out of power, do everything they can to sabotage Democrats.

[dolstein]

87. "More of these voters are left-leaning than right-leaning. "

Excuse me, but do you have ANY evidence to back up this statement?

The only thing I've heard about non-voters is that they tend to be less engaged in the political process than voters are. I have seen no evidence to suggest that the non-voters of America are a potential treasure trove of votes just waiting to be tapped by a left-wing candidate.

[genius]

94. This changes now. The Greens are committing to vote for Kucinich

So are the people fromt he Natural Law Party

[Booberdawg]

101. Who doesn't stand a chance. So that's a moot point.

[Booberdawg]

100. Another hit and run poster that starts flame bait and doesn't come back.

:eyes: Gee, how original. And with assertions about the demographics of non-voters and the significance of those who vote Green made up out of whole cloth.

The Green Party is an opposition party. Elections are not won on the extremes - not even by Republicans. There are more votes to be gained in the middle - it would be foolish and a losing strategy to sacrifice the middle for far fewer votes on the left. Any movement to the left would not be enough for most Greens anyway - they want their entire list of demands met immediately for their vote. They aren't worth it.

[Iverson]

102. knowingly false

"... they want their entire list of demands met immediately for their vote."

Perpetuating sterotypes does what, again?

[Booberdawg]

107. I really don't care what they want, although I maintain that some of

them do have such an agenda. I'm not asking for anyone to change their vote. I'm saying - the Green Party is an opposition party - I don't CARE what they want. It has no bearing on what Nader is going to do or preach to his choir anyway.

Go spend your own money, run your own candidate, pay for your own advertisements, build your own support, and win some elections and quit using the Democratic Party as a piggyback for your agenda. Go stand on your own two feet if you have so much to offer.

In the meantime, I am more concerned about election 2004 and replacing bush* with a Democrat, and I simply cannot see my way to sympathizing with a position from an opposition party that will martyr unwilling others and guarantee the reelection of the most dangerous and sinister occupants ever to inhabit the White House.

Clear enough?

[Iverson]

113. on clarity

Your refusal to engage with my point about knowingly making a false statement was distressingly clear.

Not caring about that somewhat reduces the impact of your other obvious statements.

Clear enough?

[Booberdawg]

114. LOL! Yes, I am clear that you wish to engage.

I am also clear that I cannot be manipulated on the topic; my position is firm and it is clear. You would be wasting your time on me, so consider it a favor. My firm position and clear vision on this matter does not, as you suggest, reduce the impact of my statements. In fact, it serves to intensify them. You may disagree, or resort to denial if you wish, but that does not change the facts.

Iverson, I have nothing against you personally, and I do not wish to fight with you. You must do what you believe is right and so must I. I wouldn't ask you to compromise your convictions, self-respect or your conscience. We disagree. I wish you well.

[Iverson]

116. nothing personal about it

My point, from which you run repeatedly, is that you have made a knowingly false statement.

You go ahead and have whatever opinions you like. That's no skin off my nose. I also have nothing whatsoever against you personally. However, demonizing groups of people, especially when you know it to be wrong, is counterproductive and an offense against learning.

I am not fighting for fighting's sake; I consider us all on the left to have some obligation to accuracy. You would demonstrate this by withdrawing the statement that you know to be inaccurate.

[Booberdawg]

117. This is an impression I have been given in previous threads

on the Green vs Dem topic. Quite frankly I have not engaged in them again until recently. If you say the impression I have that many Greens would not be satisfied without their full list of demands met is not accurate, well, I do recall vividly having seen this position articulated. However, I will defer to your assessment that this is an inaccurate portrayal of Green members as a group. I will consider the statement a false generalization, and you may consider the statement withdrawn.

[Iverson]

118. Thank you, Booberdawg.

:donut: (image, but n/t)

[Booberdawg]

119. Thanks! Don't mind if I do!

:hi:

[KG]

109. 'they want their entire list of demands met immediately for their vote'

indulging in a little hyperbole or can you back up that statement with a cite?

[Booberdawg]

111. See #107 n/t

[KG]

112. ok, so it was hyperbole. thanks

:)

[Scott Lee]

173. Something more fundamental is at issue

I have not been on DU very long, but that being said I have observed one overpowering characteristic of debate here: The difference between "Old School Democrat" vs. "New School Left".

The Old Schoolers tend to be represented by Vietnam era sentiments: peace at all costs, mass demonstrations will change things, justice is American etc. All admirable views, albeit blunted somewhat by current realities.

New School lefties (like myself) see a core failure of some long held US policies - one of them being interference into the affairs of other nations when our own is not put at severe enough risk. We tend to see the situation requiring much more aggressive means of rectifying. This flies in the face of the more nonconfrontational means employed by the Old School.

Greens, and Howard Dean for that matter, present a gut wrenching challenge to the Old School. They do not fit nicely into the partisan boxes and well worn political norms of democrat vs. republican, which upsets Old School democrats greatly. When Al Gore ran in 2000, there was a huge amount of ire directed at the Greens for what the Old School perceived as "spoiling" the election. What in fact happened was that American society and political attitudes were changing around the Old Schoolers, represented through phenomena like the Greens and Howard Dean.

The USA is changing, ever slowly, from a strict two party monopoly to a multiparty, multiphilosophy culture that is, happily, beginning the painful redress of some basic ideas we've operated under for decades but now must face as harmful. The Greens are a convenient target for anger at having to face this change.