one less thing to hector me about: my voter registration info showed up in the mail over the weekend, and i may now participate in electing a wealthy white man to the highest office our country has. but with Kerry a shoo-in to win New York, do i swap my vote to a Nader supporter in another state in exchange for them voting for Kerry? i think i just might.
Posted by jamie at September 28, 2004 12:13 PMNO! According to the news last week, the Bush/Kerry split was down to single digits in NY!
It'a an interesting theory, but as we learned from FL, nothing is guaranteed (even after the votes are counted). And who says that the person you swap with will vote Kerry when the time comes anyway?
Posted by: michelle at September 28, 2004 01:58 PMi see your point, but if Kerry loses New York, he is going to get annihilated rendering my vote useless anyway.
Posted by: jamie at September 28, 2004 02:02 PMStop dicking around and vote for JFK already!
Posted by: jake at September 28, 2004 02:13 PMIf someone is naive enough or stupid enough or willfully destructive enough to support Nader at this point, I wouldn't trust them to vote for Kerry in any such exchange. I have lost all respect for Nader, and anyone who's going to vote for him in any state is an idiot by my standards.
Posted by: Jim at September 28, 2004 03:03 PMi'm not gonna get into a whole Nader debate here. i will probably vote for Kerry because i do like Edwards a lot. speaking of which, where the hell has he been? have the Democrats forgotten how well he does in front of the camera and the way that his popularity surged during the primaries? he's a total trump card that they just aren't playing for some reason. i'd have him on the news every night if possible.
Posted by: jamie at September 28, 2004 03:53 PMMonkey,
You disappoint me. Every vote counts. (Or at least it is supposed to.) You are such a history buff, you need to start brushing up on your modern history.
And insert Jim's post [here]. Amen, brotha.
Good point on Edwards. I almost forgot he was still involved. Can't say that Kerry's running a very smart campaign, but maybe he knows what he's doing, trailing in the polls this late.
Posted by: jake at September 28, 2004 04:26 PMi agree with jim and the others. don't wait your first chance to vote by giving it away to someone who may just be lying. if your little swop friend decides to vote for bush in some kind of devious ploy, you'd end up with egg on your face. and what if everyone thought this way, "kerry will take new york so my vote can go somewhere else." it would be a massacre. the point is not to vote for who you think will win, or who you think deserves 5% for some odd reason or another, or who looks best in a speedo, the point is to bote for who you want to be president. and if that's jfk, then write him in.
Posted by: crispin at September 28, 2004 04:32 PM"the point is to [v]ote for who you want to be president" - that might be the sweetest thing i've ever heard. if everyone did that, there would be about 150 million write in votes to count. the vast majority of people will vote for someone on the ballot, and the vast majority of them will vote for a major party candidate. this is virtually a fact, therefore i can safely think about voting for notKerry even if I want Bush to lose and Kerry is only viable option to beat him. because everyone isn't going to think like that.
"you need to start brushing up on your modern history" - like all the people whose votes didn't count in Florida in 2000? if just 1 million people voted, the chances of my vote "counting" (i.e. deciding the outcome) is about 1 in a million. with more votes, those chances go predictably down. i believe in democracy, but the process is too big and likely corrupt for my vote to count. and to those who say "what if everyone thought this way?" i say we already have a situation where fewer than 50% of eligible voters vote in most elections, so the majority of people are thinking this way. theoretically that means the system doesn't work, but here we are.
Posted by: jamie at September 28, 2004 05:02 PMi can't believe i'm agreeing with jamie again! how is voting for nader in new york any less idiotic now than in 2000? i proudly voted for nader in 2000.
jim, i'd like to hear why you think anyone who votes for nader is an idiot. i guess i'm not fully aware of how crazy he's become since 2000. i liked him then because he seemed to be the only candidate that actually made any sense.
yes kerry is better than bush. of course he is. but that doesn't change the fact that he will not make fundamental changes in our country. if elected, i believe that nader would. obviously, this is never going to happen. if we voted for who we really wanted to be president, i would not vote for kerry. if i lived in a swing state, i would definitely vote for kerry. since i live in new york, i might just well vote for nader or maybe someone else. kerry will not lose to bush in new york. if he does, i will become a yankees fan.
the real problem is the idiotic electoral college. we should go to a popular vote. if that had been in the case in 2000, we wouldn't be in this mess.
jamie, as the pundits rip me apart, make a break for it!
Posted by: dan at September 28, 2004 05:46 PMSure, the two party system is corrupt. This election is going to suck with these new voting machines that can easily be rigged...However, honestly, a vote for Nader is essentially taking a vote away from Kerry. And a vote from Kerry is basically a vote for Bush. It's disheartening to have to play to the system, but so much is riding on this election. Granted, the differences are slim between Bush & Kerry - but in the world arena, there is a huge gulf (and not just the Persian) - and if Bush wins it will look as though Americans support Bush and everything we have done as a country of late and I will never be able to look my in-laws in the eye...If they even let me through the door. So I'm being selfish. Vote for Kerry for me so I won't be ostracized by the Frenchies.
Posted by: Michelle at September 28, 2004 07:06 PMi'm probably going to vote for kerry, but i really don't think his victory is in doubt in new york. if our country went to a popular vote system, there would be no question that i would vote for kerry.
Posted by: dan at September 28, 2004 07:48 PMDonna swapped a vote w/ Christian Slater on a "West Wing" episode.
Posted by: Claire at September 28, 2004 10:08 PMDan, "Kerry will win in NY no matter what" may be a reasonable expectation, but given what happened in FL in 2000 I don't think any assumption like that should be considered safe. If enough people made that assumption and decided to not vote at all, or voted for Nader, you never know what might happen. Of course it's more than likely that Kerry will beat Bush in NY regardless of your individual action or those of any Naderite. But in FL in 2000, tens of thousands of people voted for Nader, and Bush allegedly won by 537 votes. Yes, NY is traditionally more Democratic-leaning than FL, but voter turnout this time is going to be key and it's hard to say who has the advantage there. These Christian fanatics are so hopped up on anti-gay-marriage fumes that they are all rarin' to get to the polls all over the country. Then again, maybe there are more vehemently anti-Bush liberals who are just as eager to vote. I guess we'll find out in November.
By the way, Jamie, I forgot to say, congratulations on finally being registered.
Back to the Nader-bashing: I voted for him in 2000 as well. But this time I have to ask, where the hell have you been for the last 4 years, Nader? How hard have you been trying to effect change in our country/our system, and in what ways? Because I didn't hear dick from you until it was time to announce that you're running for president again. And conveniently, he's got two new books out on the market this year. Are his books a PR move for his candidacy, or is it the other way around?
Let's be realistic, because the world we live in is in fact a real one (or at least I like to believe it is): fundamental changes are not likely to be made in our country at this point, and maybe not ever. Unless global warming melts the polar ice caps and compromises our geography in a huge way. Or the rest of the world gangs up on us and wages nuclear war on us. Or some other unlikely scenario happens. (Or maybe those aren't as unlikely as I think/hope...we'll see I guess.)
In the current climate, Nader couldn't achieve fundamental change any more than you or I can. There's a little thing called the legislative branch that is run exclusively by the two major parties, neither of which Nader has any traction with. And more importantly, there is no way in hell that Nader, or anyone else pushing radical change, is going to get elected this year or probably any year in our lifetimes. Look at the real choices: Bush or Kerry.
What is with people saying "there isn't much difference between Bush and Kerry." That is a load of bullshit. When it comes to worker's rights; environmental policy; women's issues; respect for science vs. Christian fundamentalist ideology; gay rights (even though they're not far apart on marriage, that is just one issue of many); tax fairness; and respect for the idea that government can do good for people vs. only benefiting corporations, there is a HUGE CHASM of difference. If you really think Bush and Kerry are similar, you need to do some serious reading about some of the things the Bush administration has done in the past 3.5 years and study Kerry's voting record and pronouncements on the issues.
Yes I'd prefer someone even more liberal than Kerry. I would love to see a peaceful revolution in this country, with all the dumb hicks suddenly becoming enlightened and realizing that: 1. religion is all a crock 2. rich people are getting richer at the expense of all of us, and that is not a good thing 3. you can't keep shoving capitalism's ugly aspects down the rest of the world's throat without stirring up a hornet's nest of trouble 4. natural resources are in fact precious and should be treated with care 5. the war on drugs is a big waste of money and time etc. etc. etc.
But the fact is, the jar of peanut butter in my cupboard is just as likely to be elected president as Nader is. In this very important election year he is only a vanity candidate, an annoyance, and a possible spoiler who could again help to perpetuate the decline of U.S. civilization as we know it.
He got a lot of votes in 2000, but did this make the Democratic Party any more liberal/progressive since then? I'd say no. So is it going to work this time? Of course not. Why would it? So I ask you then, what in the hell is the point of voting for him?
Getting on the ballot in every state possible is such an ego-driven crusade for Nader that he has accepted the help of Republican groups in his attempts to do so, when obviously their only motivation is to use him as a wedge to divert votes from Kerry.
Fuck Nader!!!!
Posted by: jim at September 29, 2004 12:11 AMi forgot to say it too: congratulations on registering Jamie, even though you're still badmouthing the process and believing in the complete futility of [v]oting.
again, i'm going to have to side with jim here. and by the way, what kind of peanut butter is in your cupboard? i want to get the spelling right when i write it in on my ballot.
Posted by: crispin at September 29, 2004 09:04 AMSkippy, man. I'm a Skippy man all the way.
Posted by: Jim at September 29, 2004 09:36 AMThat's Super Chunk, by the way. NOT creamy.
Posted by: Jim at September 29, 2004 09:37 AMThank you, Jim. Skippy S. Chunk for President!
Posted by: crispin at September 29, 2004 11:51 AMFor the disenfranchised, such as jamie appears to be, and many others who would/may consider voting for Nader or another third-party canidate - Bush & Kerry are rather similar: they are both rich, white men who have lived privliged lives, are disconnected from the people who live and work "normal" jobs in America, and can't/don't care enough about things that really matter. Sure, they differ on many viewpoints & we obviously have to get Bush out of office for his...but you'd be remiss to argue that there are not similarities between the two parties/candidates...
Posted by: Michelle at September 29, 2004 12:40 PMas far as this election is concerned, i have not and will not say that there is little difference between the candidates. the differences are large and obvious (gay rights, health care, taxes, etc.), and on almost all of them i choose Kerry. i am disenfranchised in that there is no one who more closely resembles my ideals that i can vote for. Nader does to some degree, but i agree with much of what Jim wrote above, and besides i do want my vote to "count" for something. in this case, i want my vote to help defeat George Bush, which is the most important outcome for me given the circumstances. i would trade my vote only if i knew it would not jeopardize Kerry's winning New York.
by the way, Skippy is no good - it and most other major brands are full of hydrogenated oils that are terrible for you. go for an all natural peanut butter (Smucker's makes a good one). and i prefer creamy but i can't make an arguemnt for that, though i would love to.
Posted by: jamie at September 29, 2004 12:49 PMMmmm...hydrogenated oil.
Kerry and Bush are both rich white men, I'll give you that. I think it would be great to get more diversity into American politics. It's pretty sad that a majority Muslim nation like Pakistan has already had a female leader and we haven't even come close. Carol Moseley Braun was my favorite candidate in the Democratic primary debates as far as articulating bold positions that made sense, but she did some really stupid things while she was a senator, so I voted for Kucinich in the primary. He comes off a bit petulant, but I like his stands on the issues. Also a white man, of course. Obama in 2012!
>Dan, "Kerry will win in NY no matter what" may be a reasonable expectation, but given what happened in FL in 2000 I don't think any assumption like that should be considered safe.
This is not Florida. Bush is not going to win New York. We all knew Florida was a swing state before the election and so it wasn't surprising that it was close.
>These Christian fanatics are so hopped up on anti-gay-marriage fumes that they are all rarin' to get to the polls all over the country.
Yes, but this isn't a popular vote. Only the electoral votes matter. Bush will lose in New York.
>Back to the Nader-bashing: I voted for him in 2000 as well. But this time I have to ask, where the hell have you been for the last 4 years, Nader? How hard have you been trying to effect change in our country/our system, and in what ways?
I don't know the answer to that. Are you sure that he was just sitting around doing nothing? Or was it that what he was doing wasn't covered in the press?
>Let's be realistic, because the world we live in is in fact a real one (or at least I like to believe it is): fundamental changes are not likely to be made in our country at this point, and maybe not ever.
Not arguing this point, but if we're talking about who the candidate is that I most agree with on most issues, it would be Nader, not Kerry.
>In the current climate, Nader couldn't achieve fundamental change any more than you or I can.
Okay. By the way Jim, I know that Nader isn't going to win.
>There's a little thing called the legislative branch that is run exclusively by the two major parties, neither of which Nader has any traction with.
Oh yeah? I think I remember hearing about that on an episode of Schoolhouse Rock.
>And more importantly, there is no way in hell that Nader, or anyone else pushing radical change, is going to get elected this year or probably any year in our lifetimes. Look at the real choices: Bush or Kerry.
Agreed, but a vote for Nader is a vote for change. Just because I know it is futile right now doesn't mean that my opinion and vote doesn't count. Our country has had a number of times in its history where real change was possible. However, it has never really happened. But there have been gradual changes for the better. Now it seems that the politicians are completely in the hip pockets of big corporations and to me a vote for Nader is a vote against that status quo.
>What is with people saying "there isn't much difference between Bush and Kerry."
I have not said that, have I? Again, I come back to the point that if this was a popular vote election, I would definitely vote for Kerry.
>But the fact is, the jar of peanut butter in my cupboard is just as likely to be elected president as Nader is. In this very important election year he is only a vanity candidate, an annoyance, and a possible spoiler who could again help to perpetuate the decline of U.S. civilization as we know it.
Or perhaps he is out there trying to get his voice heard above the corporate bullshit. What a crock of shit that he couldn't even get into the conventions back in 2000. Nader is not going to be president but his candidacy keeps the issues that he raises somewhat in the news. This country is ready for a third party. What percentage of the vote did Perot get in '92?
>He got a lot of votes in 2000, but did this make the Democratic Party any more liberal/progressive since then? I'd say no. So is it going to work this time? Of course not. Why would it?
So just because people are still idiots, Nader should stop fighting for what he believes in?
>So I ask you then, what in the hell is the point of voting for him?
I'll tell you again, New York is not a swing state! A vote for him or a vote for any third party is a vote against the status quo. The real issue here is the electoral college and how dumb it is.
>Getting on the ballot in every state possible is such an ego-driven crusade for Nader that he has accepted the help of Republican groups in his attempts to do so, when obviously their only motivation is to use him as a wedge to divert votes from Kerry.
Or a drive by a principled man fighting for his beliefs who doesn't mind taking help from the Republicans because he's been saying for years now that the two parties are both in bed with the big corporations so what's the difference? While I don't necessarily entirely agree with that and, of course, there are major differences between the two candiates, Nader is staying true to his ideals.
Fuck Nader!!!!
> I hope that enough people who voted for him in 2000 who live in states that actually matter in this election will agree with you and vote for Kerry. I live in New York. I can do whatever the fuck I want.
And the bottom line about this whole website is that Nader supporters in swing states seem to realize that Nader can't win this election (shocker!) and want to vote for Kerry in exchange for a vote for Nader in non-swing states.
Dan, you made the point about three times there that "Bush will lose" or "Kerry will win" in NY. I already acknowledged that that was more or less close to guaranteed. My arguments about something happeneing to the contrary were based on the hypothetical possibility of everyone in your position--favoring Nader but preferring Kerry to Bush--saying "I can do whatever I want with my vote so I'm voting for Nader." If that happened (as I think Jeremy said before me), there is a possibility, however small, that Bush could in fact win in NY. It's probably not going to happen, (okay, it's just about definitely not going to happen), but you saying it's impossible doesn't make it impossible. My point there was not so much about what will happen, but the danger of making that kind of assumption from a philosophical perspective. I guess I didn't make that clear. Yes Florida was a swing state and up for grabs, but even there I'm betting there were more than a few Nader voters who similarly thought "my one vote doesn't matter because it's just one vote, I'll vote for Nader as a protest."
Maybe you're right about the press not covering Nader. Maybe it's not his fault that I haven't seen him out there doing stuff. But if the way he's been trying to effect change--running for president again and again and again--still hasn't worked, isn't it time for him to try something else? Dennis Kucinich is a good example of someone who works within the system, the Democratic Party in fact, to promote progressive ideals and make people aware of better possibilities. He is more liberal than Kerry and he ran a feisty campaign against him, but when it came time to endorse someone who could actually win, he chose Kerry instead of going out there on his own and running a kamikaze campaign like Ralph. And Kucinich has sought out a legitimate platform, the Congress, to try and advance his progressive agenda.
If the reason you want to vote for Nader is that you think he'd make the best president of the three men running, then vote for him. As far as protesting the system though, the vast majority of Americans are conservative or moderate, and too clueless for any radical-left protest vote to make any impact on their worldview at all. Voting for Nader is not going to change that reality. Maybe you can think of some other initiatives that will. I will gladly be on your side in that endeavor.
Nader can go on fighting all he wants, but I'm free to think of anyone who votes for him as an idiot. The idiocy is not only based on the fact that not only is there no chance of him winning, but there is a serious chance that in some states Nader votes may help re-elect Bush, and therefore do WAY more damage to the causes Nader allegedly believes in than Kerry would do. (And by "protest voting" for him in a non-swing state, you're in fact endorsing his spoiler candidacy and encouraging him to do it again and potentially help elect a Republican again the next time. What's he going to do, run for president every 4 years until he's dead, taking 2/3% of the vote away from the Democrat every damn time? Is that the legacy he wants to leave?)
I'm totally with you on the electoral college. That seems like something that could actually end up being changed if enough people make noise about it. I nominate you to get out there and start protesting.
>>Or a drive by a principled man fighting for his beliefs who doesn't mind taking help from the Republicans because he's been saying for years now that the two parties are both in bed with the big corporations so what's the difference?>>
A "principled man" would not accept help from either party if he's genuinely disgusted by how in bed they are with corporate interests. His actions in that regard are opportunism at its worst.
I still agree with Ralph Nader on many issues like you do. I guess I'm just more cynical than you. And I'm willing to say that I think Kerry would make a better president anyway. My understanding of Nader is that he's secretive, overly defensive, and hasn't necessarily lived up to the ideals he espouses in the way he's treated people who've worked for him. He's a good thinker but I'm not sure he'd make a great executive.
Posted by: Jim at September 29, 2004 06:14 PM>Dan, you made the point about three times there that "Bush will lose" or "Kerry will win" in NY.
You are correct sir. I keep saying the same thing because you keep referring to anyone who thinks of voting for Nader as an idiot. Anyone who votes for him in Ohio is misguided. Anyone voting for him here will not change the outcome.
>the hypothetical possibility of everyone in your position--favoring Nader but preferring Kerry to Bush--saying "I can do whatever I want with my vote so I'm voting for Nader." If that happened (as I think Jeremy said before me), there is a possibility, however small, that Bush could in fact win in NY. Yes Florida was a swing state and up for grabs, but even there I'm betting there were more than a few Nader voters who similarly thought "my one vote doesn't matter because it's just one vote, I'll vote for Nader as a protest."
Because NY will not be close, we can vote our conscience rather than our strategy.
> But if the way he's been trying to effect change--running for president again and again and again--still hasn't worked, isn't it time for him to try something else?
Man, you must go to bed every night cursing the ghost of William Jennings Bryan!
>And Kucinich has sought out a legitimate platform, the Congress, to try and advance his progressive agenda.
And running for president isn't legitimate? Who are you to make that assumption? Lobbying for car safety and succeeding isn't legitimate? Writing books that espouse your beliefs and having them published isn't legitimate? Why don't you do a little research about what Nader has been doing over the past four years before you completely write the guy off?
> As far as protesting the system though, the vast majority of Americans are conservative or moderate, and too clueless for any radical-left protest vote to make any impact on their worldview at all. Voting for Nader is not going to change that reality.
I'm not saying that it is. But if my two choices suck, why should I go with that just because I'm told that if I don't I'm an idiot? I've got to vote a certain way because the rest of the country is simple-minded? Again, this isn't a popular vote.
> (And by "protest voting" for him in a non-swing state, you're in fact endorsing his spoiler candidacy and encouraging him to do it again and potentially help elect a Republican again the next time.
I'm endorsing other voices. I'm endorsing a need for a third party.
>A "principled man" would not accept help from either party if he's genuinely disgusted by how in bed they are with corporate interests. His actions in that regard are opportunism at its worst.
And the Democrats going out of their way to smear his name and to keep him off the ballot is clean politics? Is he actively going out there asking Republicans to help him?
>I still agree with Ralph Nader on many issues like you do. I guess I'm just more cynical than you.
Or less cynical. You actually seem to think that real change can be enacted through the government as filtered through the corporate tit.
> And I'm willing to say that I think Kerry would make a better president anyway.
I agree. I think Nader would be pummeled in that office if he actually won.
>My understanding of Nader is that he's secretive, overly defensive, and hasn't necessarily lived up to the ideals he espouses in the way he's treated people who've worked for him.
So now we're taking potshots at the guy? Michael Moore is supposed to be the biggest asshole of them all but he's Liberal Hero Number One these days.
>He's a good thinker but I'm not sure he'd make a great executive.
But the Democrats don't want to hear anything he has to say. So he chooses other avenues to get his voice heard.
The funny thing is that I don't think I'm even going to vote for Nader anyway.
Wow, you fight tough Raphael. I am up against the ropes. And tired. Time to go to sleep. I'll be dreaming of that living saint Ralph Nader. In my dreams he will make all the corporations disappear, bring happiness to all the little children and wealth to all the homeless people.
Posted by: jim at September 30, 2004 12:11 AMthe republicans' offering a kind hand to get Nader on the ballots is as disingenuous as their claim that they wanted to fight the Taliban because of their crimes against women. what a horrible bunch of opportunistic creeps and soulless liars.
Posted by: crispin at September 30, 2004 09:23 AMLyndon LaRouche in '04! He runs more than Nader, and talk about blowing up the system!
Posted by: jake at September 30, 2004 10:16 AM>
Maybe, but he is not my hero. I have a lot of problems with him. And if he were running for president like Nader, I would be just as opposed to it.
>
No, in fact, I don't think much real change can be enacted or ever will be. It's hard to imagine that the influence corporations have has a chance of being lessened. What I think is that you need to make a judgement call between "horrible outcome" and "not ideal but MUCH better outcome" and make the right choice. It sucks that we're locked into a two-party system, it sucks that the Democrats are tainted by so much corporate money, it sucks that such a huge percentage of Americans are undereducated bigots, but Nader's presidential candidacy isn't going to change any of that.
Swing state or non-swing state, the votes he got in 2000 didn't function as a wake-up call to the American public or the Democratic establishment, so I doubt they're going to this time either. I agree with you that a 3rd party might be good for democracy, and that people should be speaking out against corporate cronyism, but let's find a better way to do that than a destined-for-failure presidential campaign.
Posted by: Jim at September 30, 2004 10:21 AMone thing to remember as far as 3rd parties go: Perot got many, many more millions of votes than Nader did and that still didn't lead to the creation of a 3rd party (thanks to Jake for pointing this out to me months ago).
Posted by: jamie at September 30, 2004 10:45 AMSorry, Jamie, that doesn't sound like something I'd say.
Apparently you are not alone, apes.
http://www.kerryhatersforkerry.com/
Posted by: jake at September 30, 2004 11:30 AMAnd just PS: How can you be honestly sure that it's not just a republican in Nader clothing making this promise and they aren't actually going to run out and vote for Bush? Those Reppies are being devious this election; I wouldn't put it past them.
Posted by: Michelle at September 30, 2004 11:38 AMi know perot got more votes than nader but if a third party candidate can consistently get a good percentage of votes, maybe a third party will actually rise.
and michelle, i don't know that the nader thing isn't just a ploy to get us to vote for nader here while they vote for bush there, but how that would help bush in non-swing states where kerry is going to win anyway?
i don't think nader is the man to take down corporations but he at least is trying to keep the topic in the forefront.
and let us not forget, nader did not cost gore the election. jeb bush and his cronies helped. gore not even winning his home state helped that. gore being so non-inspring helped that.
Posted by: dan at September 30, 2004 12:59 PMIs this the all-time record for most comments ever on a Coffee Flats blog?
Posted by: jim at September 30, 2004 08:21 PM