Event Calendar
February 2012
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 * * *
<< (add event) >>


User Blox 4
- Put stuff here

Barack Obama
"Lincoln Sells Out Slaves"
by: Rob Kailey - Sep 13
1 Comments
If You Haven't Seen This
by: Rob Kailey - Apr 28
5 Comments
Impeach the President?
by: Rob Kailey - Mar 16
15 Comments
It's the system, stupid!
by: Jay Stevens - Oct 25
7 Comments

Search




Advanced Search


Rob Kailey is a working schmuck with no ties or affiliations to any governmental or political organizations, save those of sympathy.

The last Nader post this election cycle -- I promise!

by: Jay Stevens

Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 22:37:07 PM MST


Steve Benen:

By his own admission, Nader doesn't expect to win, he doesn't expect to change the Democratic Party's agenda, he doesn't expect to appear in the debates, and he doesn't even expect to make the ballot in every state. So, what exactly is the point here?

Asked about this a few months ago, Nader said, "What third parties can do is bring young people in, set standards on how to run a presidential election and keep the progressive agenda in front of the people. And maybe tweak a candidate here and there in the major parties."

Is it me, or is this wildly unpersuasive? Major parties can and do bring young people into the process; in fact, Barack Obama seems to be pretty good at it. For that matter, Nader's multiple efforts have never affected election standards, and his campaigns have generally done a poor job of promoting progressive ideas, instead focusing on his personal disdain for the two major parties.

Yes, I suppose Nader could certainly "tweak a candidate here and there in the major parties," but isn't that a pretty shallow reason to launch four consecutive presidential bids?

Also John Edwards already -- effectively -- pushed the two remaining Democratic contenders to the left on a number of issues, notably health care and trade.

I'm not sure if I agree with Benen in his conclusion that people aren't hungering for a "third" party, but, really, what does that mean?

IMHO, that means folks want a party that more closely represents their own personal political beliefs; but there's never enough consensus within a third of the electorate on what that party would be. The Greens have demonstrated there's not enough interest in their ideas; ditto with Libertarians. And Mayor Bloomberg and the Unity Party -- by advocating the same platform of the Democratic nominees -- is showing that there's not enough "centrist" ground to mount a serious campaign.

Frankly, without a parliamentary system of government, it looks like we're stuck with a two-party system.

So, here we go again. IMHO, Nader'll be lucky to match his 0.38% from last election .

Jay Stevens :: The last Nader post this election cycle -- I promise!
Tags: , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I think that Nader (0.00 / 0)
is just trying to see if he is still relevant, somehow. It's unfortunate he has to resort to seeing vote tallies to do so.

My sense is that his numbers will seriously decline, and this may be the last we see of him. People who have voted for him in the past may see Obama as a better choice this time around (and I'm a bit embarrassed to say that I fall in this category). Third party protest votes are sooo yesterday.


folks want a party that more closely represents their own personal political beliefs... (0.00 / 0)
"folks want a party that more closely represents their own personal political beliefs; but there's never enough consensus within a third of the electorate on what that party would be."

Or maybe some Dems really do feel represented by the Green party, but are scared that not enough other dems will move over and they'll be "throwing away" their vote.  


definitely (0.00 / 0)
But, then, they are throwing their votes away.

Figure that, if everybody who liked the Greens' platform voted for 'em, they'd get...what? Ten? Twenty percent of the vote? (Remember, we're talking about a party that couldn't elect a mayor in San Franciso in 2004.) That number gets subtracted mostly from the Democratic candidates.

So yeah, it's a throwaway vote...or worse. It's a vote for the GOP. We've seen how that goes.

IMHO, it's better just to put forth and support better democratic candidates than it is to try and create a third party.


[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Bookmark and Share

Poll
Voting. Useful or not?
Yes!
No!
Maybe, but only if you vote my way.
There are theories that ...
Meh ...

Results

Blog Roll
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Intermountain Energy
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Cowgirl
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Prairie Mary
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!

  • Powered by: SoapBlox