Hillary v. McCain: Don't be shy, take the poll

[motivez]

Originally Posted by lew

No, Nader did not cost Gore the election. Gore cost Gore the election.

No, Nader cost Gore the election by leeching votes from people who would have otherwise voted for him in Florida

That and the Supreme Court, but like I said, that's a topic for another thread.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Scrum

I voted Hilary, but she just barely wins over 3rd party/write in.

If it weren't for the SC positions that could come up, I would rather vote Nader.

Yeah, there's just too much at stake to risk having a Republican in office who'll continue Bush's policies..

I don't like Hillary for reasons listed here and elsewhere, I'd much rather vote for Obama if given the chance, but he'll have to get substantive on issues for me to feel like he's ready.. hopefully as we move forward he will.

[DosEquis]

depends on the vice president at that point. McCain = Hillary.

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

No, Nader cost Gore the election by leeching votes from people who would have otherwise voted for him in Florida

That and the Supreme Court, but like I said, that's a topic for another thread.

Simply not true. That's like saying Bush cost Gore the election because if Bush hadn't been running, Gore would have won.


The whole concept of a candidate being a "spoiler" is something elites talk about to condemn any candidate that actually speaks the truth or goes against the MSM grain.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by lew

Simply not true. That's like saying Bush cost Gore the election because if Bush hadn't been running, Gore would have won.

The whole concept of a candidate being a "spoiler" is something elites talk about to condemn any candidate that actually speaks the truth or goes against the MSM grain.

So you disagree with the concept of a spoiler existing, okay, that's fine, but that's not the reality of American politics.

Lets not get into a whole Ron Paul "zomg he's telling the truth! and he's the only one!" (except about who wrote his racist newsletters of course) MSM blackout stuff, because that's not really the point I'm trying to make

The votes that went to Nader would have tipped Gore into the winners column

I don't begrudge Nader the opportunity to run, that's his right.. but by getting in the race, he's helping elect people who are much, much further away from him on the issues he cares about because he has NO shot.

I also don't begrudge people the opportunity to vote for someone like Nader, sure, go for it.. but since he has absolutely 0% chance of wining, it's not a practical approach if you want to see the country on a different course than it's on now..

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by lew

Simply not true. That's like saying Bush cost Gore the election because if Bush hadn't been running, Gore would have won.


The whole concept of a candidate being a "spoiler" is something elites talk about to condemn any candidate that actually speaks the truth or goes against the MSM grain.

They certainly are spoilers.

Why do you think Nader got so much support from right-wing groups? They knew he could take votes away from Gore.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by motivez

Voting for someone who has 0 chance of winning when you have two candidates that do and want to take the country in very different directions (and you're closer politically to one of them) isn't pragmatic, it's idealistic. Maybe you're an idealist instead of a pragmatist.

On the one hand, you have a Democratic candidate that wants to take the country in a direction far more similar to that of the green party than the Republican candidate.. and on the other, you have someone like Nader who'll essentially be leeching votes from the candidate closest to his agenda, potentially assuring someone who'll take the country further away from his ideals will be elected.

It's not a practical solution to the ills of the country to vote for someone with no chance of winning this cycle.

I don't give the Democrats a free pass, but anyone who'd vote for the Green Party would have to believe the Democrats are a better choice than the Republicans, because they're far closer to them on the issues.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm taking the long view here. I agree it isn't pragmatic to vote for a third party if you're looking to get what you want immediately by the next president. However, if we back up a bit and look at the timeline running from the past to the present and into the future, we see these same decisions extending into the past and if we don't change them now they will be extending infinitely into the future.

I'm making an investment now in order to change the future. I'm not going to be put into a corral labeled "safe voters" while the candidates run out trying to wrangle more moderate voters. If the Democrats want to change, that's great. I'm even taking a part in that by caucusing, participating in platform committee meetings, going to the conventions, etc. If they keep throwing out candidates that I don't agree with or that look like they will work against my agenda, I'll give my vote to another candidate.

Maybe that's idealistic in the short term, but it's very pragmatic in the long term.

[motivez]

Like I said, the next 4 years are too important for me to potentially help a Bush-like Republican get elected.. and that's exactly what I'd be doing by voting for someone like Nader

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

The votes that went to Nader would have tipped Gore into the winners column

You can say the same thing for Bush.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by motivez

Like I said, the next 4 years are too important for me to potentially help a Bush-like Republican get elected.. and that's exactly what I'd be doing by voting for someone like Nader

The problem is that the "next 4 years" is always the most important thing to bear in mind. 4 years from now the following 4 years will be too important. It turns into a cycle of mediocrity and results in nobody save for a wealthy yet slim minority getting what they want.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Scrum

They certainly are spoilers.

Why do you think Nader got so much support from right-wing groups? They knew he could take votes away from Gore.

He didn't take votes away from Gore. If Paul ran third party, my vote would go to him. He would not be "stealing" my vote from the Two Major candidates running, since I would not have voted for either one regardless. The same can be said for the majority of the voters that voted for Nader. Those votes would not have gone to Gore. They would have gone to Nader or to no one.

[lew]

Originally Posted by bheld

The problem is that the "next 4 years" is always the most important thing to bear in mind. 4 years from now the following 4 years will be too important. It turns into a cycle of mediocrity and results in nobody save for a wealthy yet slim minority getting what they want.

.


I literally hear that same shit every 4 yours. "No, this 4 years is TOO IMPORTANT!"

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by lew

He didn't take votes away from Gore. If Paul ran third party, my vote would go to him. He would not be "stealing" my vote from the Two Major candidates running, since I would not have voted for either one regardless. The same can be said for the majority of the voters that voted for Nader. Those votes would not have gone to Gore. They would have gone to Nader or to no one.

Then why did he get so much support from groups that wanted a Republican elected?


Follow the money. Why would these groups give money to him unless they had some evidence that it would help their candidate? It's not like they wanted Nader to win.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Then why did he get so much support from groups that wanted a Republican elected?


Follow the money. Why would these groups give money to him unless they had some evidence that it would help their candidate? It's not like they wanted Nader to win.

Because they bought into the same exact fallacy that most people buy into, that he was a "spoiler."

I mean, I've already heard Republicans on blogs say that Left Wing groups have donated to Paul to help him run a third party ticket to "spoil" the Republican race. Sorry, but those people are wrong. The majority of people that would vote for Paul would not vote for Hillary or McCain / Romney.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by motivez

No, Nader cost Gore the election by leeching votes from people who would have otherwise voted for him in Florida

That and the Supreme Court, but like I said, that's a topic for another thread.

Or maybe we can stop being children about and accept that if people voted for Nader they wanted Nader to be president over Gore. If they wanted Gore they would have voted for him. I am sick of people playing chess with MY vote.

[Ironduke]

McCain. I wanted him to be president in 2000.

[Grouch]

Originally Posted by lew

Because they bought into the same exact fallacy that most people buy into, that he was a "spoiler."

Except every instance in American history were there has been a major 3rd party, they spoiled it. Go figure.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by bheld

The problem is that the "next 4 years" is always the most important thing to bear in mind. 4 years from now the following 4 years will be too important. It turns into a cycle of mediocrity and results in nobody save for a wealthy yet slim minority getting what they want.

I really feel like this is a unique situation.. once Bush is gone and his policies can be reversed, it'll be different

[motivez]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Or maybe we can stop being children about and accept that if people voted for Nader they wanted Nader to be president over Gore. If they wanted Gore they would have voted for him. I am sick of people playing chess with MY vote.

Like I said in my post, that's their right, that doesn't mean anything that I said is untrue though.

If you really want Nader to be President, and he has no shot, and either someone somewhat close to him in his positions, and another person who is very far from his positions do have a shot... by voting for Nader, you're helping elect someone who's going to do more damage to the things you care about.

That's just reality.

I'd like to see the R and D stranglehold on American politics ended, but like I said, I don't think this is the election to worry about that.