Cobb Breaks Safe State Promise

I'll admit it; up until a couple of days ago, I was seriously considering voting for Green Party candidate David Cobb. Why? Well, I have always liked the Green agenda, almost voted for Nader in '00, etc., but I was really heartened that Cobb was able to repel Nader this time and keep him off the ballot. Also, I live in a very "safe" Democratic state and my vote really won't decide much in this election. Since Cobb had pledged to run a "safe state" campaign, I didn't have to worry about him taking votes away from Kerry where it counts.

But then I heard a segment on NPR's "Living On Earth" with host Steve Curwood interviewing David Cobb.

LINK

Excerpts from the interview, proudly posted on Cobb's web site:

CURWOOD: Now, you've said that you're not concerned about hurting Democrats but as I understand it, you have a "safe state" strategy, and that you've indicated you won't campaign in certain battleground states, states that are expected to be close between Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry. Or that's not true?

COBB: No, it's not true. What I've said is I'm going to get on every ballot that I can possibly get on....

CURWOOD: ...But you yourself have said that the differences between Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry are such that progressive folks would find life a good deal more comfortable with Mr. Kerry in the White House. So campaigning actively in a place like Pennsylvania or Ohio where the vote might be very close might in fact serve, at this point in our electoral law and structure, to hand a victory to Mr. Bush.

COBB: Steve, it's up to John Kerry to campaign in those states, as it is up to John Kerry to campaign in every state to convince voters to vote for him. I'm going to try to ensure that there is a Green Party ballot line in every single state.

So it appears that the "safe state strategy" is just a myth. David Cobb is going to try to be this year's Nader, running in every state including battleground/swing states, and probably drawing 1-2% of the vote directly from Kerry's total wherever he appears. He may not be as vocal as Ralph, and he doesn't have the name recognition and won't get the free media play that Nader got last time, but he'll still be a spoiler in the race.

Knowing this, I can no longer vote for Cobb and the Green Party in good conscience. Frankly, I feel deceived. Perhaps the "safe state campaign"  was nothing more than a rumor, and it may be that Cobb never promised anything of the sort. And yet, this idea filtered out into the media somehow, and Cobb didn't say anything to discourage the notion. I saw references to it here at dKos and over at MyDD. In fact, I'll bet a significant portion of his support at the convention was based on this rumor.

Well, I'm not fooled. If the Green Party has to resort to such tricks in order to squeeze out a few more votes in this utterly important election, then I don't trust them anymore. I'll be casting my vote against the Green Party, withholding my support in this safest of safe states, and I'm not voting any Green candidates until the party starts holding itself to the higher standards of behavior that they espouse.

•  No, I think you misunderstand him

  he wants to get on the ballot in every state, but he won't campaign actively in swing states.

  I don't think the above contradicts it.

  As for voting for him, why in the world would you do that?

  Actually, I take that back, don't want to start a flame war.  ;->

  by KingGeorgetheLesser on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 06:56:37 AM PDT

  •  Confusing

    Then why did he disagree with the statement that he wouldn't camapaign in battleground states?

    [...]you've indicated you won't campaign in certain battleground states, states that are expected to be close between Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry. Or that's not true?

    COBB: No, it's not true. What I've said is I'm going to get on every ballot that I can possibly get on....

    by Michael D on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 07:07:22 AM PDT

    •  He just wants to get on the ballot

      There may be long term effects for the Green Party if it can get on each state's ballots.

      I'm just saying that Cobb is at worst ambiguous.

      Cobb was selected in part because of his strategy.  I can't believe he would back away from that.

      More than that, Cobb is a no-name, ike the other fringe candidates.  He is no Nader.

      Nothin' to see here, move on.

      by KingGeorgetheLesser on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 07:31:36 AM PDT

    •  Two points

      I believe Cobb has always said he wants to get the Greens on as many ballots as possible, and that he'll campaign for local candidates in every state.

      In context, Cobb's response to this question is less troubling. A little bit more:

      CURWOOD: Now, you?ve said that you?re not concerned about hurting Democrats but as I understand it, you have a ?safe state? strategy, and that you?ve indicated you won?t campaign in certain battleground states, states that are expected to be close between Mr. Bush and Mr. Kerry. Or that?s not true?

      COBB: No, it?s not true. What I?ve said is I?m going to get on every ballot that I can possibly get on. The reality is this: listeners in roughly 40 states, they?re called "safe states," but I call them neglected states. The corporate parties and the corporate candidates are not going to actively campaign there because they are, quote, ?safe.? In those states, I say, ?Progressives, don?t waste your vote. Invest your vote.? A vote for John Kerry in those states won?t help to un-elect Bush. All it will do is signal support for the Democratic Leadership Council and the corporate policies that it represents. In the other states, I?m acknowledging that there is a profound responsibility on the citizens, and they should weigh their options and decide how to spend their very precious vote.

      CURWOOD: You say that you?re in this race to energize a Green Party. What are the races across America that you are campaigning hard for and hope to win?

      COBB: Well, it?s important to put this into perspective, Steve. In 1996 there were approximately 40 Greens elected to office. In 2000, there were 87 Greens elected to office. Today, there are 205 Greens elected to office. We?re running more candidates, we?re getting more candidates elected, and when Greens get elected, we are proving that we can govern, that we can actually make lives better. What I?m going to be doing is working in partnership with Greens in various states, at various local chapters. I?m going to be going to Pennsylvania and Ohio to focus on ballot access issues immediately. I certainly hope you?ll agree with me that the Green Party has a right to participate in elections. And I certainly hope you?ll agree with me that we ought to have the right to be on the ballot.

      by gong on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 07:33:40 AM PDT

    •  Ballot Line

      In order to maintain national status, he has to be on every state's ballot line. On the off chance they actually got the 5% total threshhold in safe states, if they are off too many states ballots they still wouldn't qualify for Federal Matching Funds. Plus, they would have a much harder time getting on said state ballots in the future (in many states, parties that were on the ballot previously have a lower petition requirement...all part of the mutual crooked "Protect the Reps and Dems" trickery that goes on everywhere.)

      But there's a huge difference between active campaigning and just actively getting the petition signatures to be on ballot. So until he actually campaigns, I'm not gonna hassle him.

      by ElitistJohn on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 07:50:12 AM PDT

•  Votes from Nader

  It seems much more likely that in any states where both he and Nader are on the ballot, any votes he gets will be taken away from Nader rather than Kerry.

  I read an interview with him from around the time of the green party convention. What he basically said was that campaigning in swing states would be an innefficient use of his resources, because he would be unlikely to get many votes there anyway. Maybe it won't take much to get on the ballot in some states they were on in 2000. I would still expect him to spend almost all his time and money in non-swing states.

  by miasmo on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 07:21:21 AM PDT

•  Sigh

  Well, I'll keep watching what he does, since his words are a little ambiguous.  It would really be too bad if he went after potential Kerry voters in the swing states.  I was hoping that the Green Party could repair the damage done to its reputation by Nader, by cooperating with instead of hindering the effort to get Bush out of the White House.

  by dtj on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 07:25:17 AM PDT

•  Campaigning

  It seems pretty clear-cut to me. Curwood asks him "...you've indicated that you won't campaign in certain battleground states..." and Cobb responds "No, it's not true." That says to me he'll be campaigning in battleground states.

  I don't mind the Greens working for ballot access in all states, or Cobb appearing on ballots in all states. To be a serious party, they need that, as well as for certain benchmarks, federal funding, etc. But that's not what he said -- he said he's campaigning in battleground states. And if he somehow meant something else, he should have said something else. I thought it was to Curwood's credit that he pushed him to clarify on the question, mentioning "campaigning actively in a place like Pennsylvania or Ohio..." and Cobb stuck by his original statement. The "safe states campaign" is not true. In fact, cruising Cobb's web site, I could find no mention of such a strategy at all.

  I agree that he's no Nader. I'm in favor of efforts to keep Nader off of ballots, and I'm in favor of efforts to get the Green Party on. And there's no way that Cobb will have anywhere near the impact Nader did in 2000. Still, 1% could decide this election, and it's not something that the Greens should be prevaricating on. The Green Party isn't the party of dirty tricks or power politics, so it disappoints me that Cobb has pulled this apparent bait and switch. If he wasn't really planning on staying out of battleground states, he should have said so, clearly, before the convention.

  by Corax on Thu Jul 08, 2004 at 08:27:10 AM PDT