Skip to main content

View Diary: McAuliffe channels Tancredo, while Hillary doesn't regret war vote (286 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  fallacies (0+ / 0-)

    This is false

    Everyone needs to come into the middle on this election if this country is to heal at all.

    and this

    If the activists didnt jump ship, Gore would be in office now.

    American Public opinion is not in "the middle."  The only political course to healing is dramatic change.  Change is not in "the middle."
     

    As someone who campaigned for Gore, I can reassure you that the vast majority of "activists" worked for Gore.  Nader's support, staffing or electoral, was miniscule compared to Gore's, by any measurement.  

    It's not false to suggest that Nader voters helped turn particular states for Bush, but smearing "the activists" as having mobilized for Nader is wildly incorrect.

    And this is holy hogwash:

    Activists can take comfort knowing she will be smart enough to bring Edwards, Gore, Clark and many more into the adminsitration, to let them do what they do best.

    Don't worry, your lesser candidate will be assimilated.

    •  Sorry to disagree. (0+ / 0-)

      Who voted for Nader? It wasnt the middle of the road vote for sure. It was the purists who who were bargaining Gore votes for Nader votes.
      No. American public opinion is not in the middle right now, because the system is thrown out of balance. A pendulum will always work its way to center when its out of wack one way or the other.
      Its not a smear against activists, its a fact. The ones that voted for a 3rd party candiate that had no chance of winning tipped the scales in W's favor, and we are reaping the benenfit of people trying to make a 3 party system out of a design that was meant for a 2 party system. Perotistas did the same thing, in Clinton's favor. The protest vote for Nader didnt work. So call it hogwash all you want. Bush won because Nader siphoned off the votes Gore needed. It has nothing to do with "lesser" candidates". So, if Hillary is the candiate, are you voting for her?

      •  I'll let you know in a year (0+ / 0-)

        Since we are nowhere near to having a nominee, there is no urgency to pledge loyalties-- in fact it only skews the debate.  Hillary's inevitability, even hypothetically, is not a valid issue at this stage in the process.  It's a distraction from real issues, in lieu of horse race celebrity politics.  By all rights, every candidate should spend the next year earning the votes of Democrats, not banking that Democratic voters will have nowhere else to go.

        And to clarify my point: while Nader's activists played a key role in handing crucial electoral votes to Bush, it is extremely inaccurate and disingenuous to suggest that "the activists jumped ship" for Nader in '00.  
        The actual numerical comparison of progressive voters and progressive volunteers for Gore versus Nader isn't even close.  Gore had the loyalty and services of Democratic and progressive activists by a landslide.  Contrary to your suggestion, Nader was not the "activist" candidate.  He was the Green candidate, and his support was statistically tiny and marginal-- but they did lots of damage.

        To use Nader as a cudgel against "the activists" is to validate a myth that is wrong and false, and, frankly, a slur against the vast majority of activists, who worked for Gore.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site