Daily Kos

How not to win over disaffected Progressives.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:19:49 PM PDT

You know, I had a blog entry all set up for today about Paul Krugman's column and accompanying blog entry from yesterday.  But apparently it has become fashionable to blog about Professor Krugman a lot.  Like here, and here.  (The second one actually proves the economist's point rather well, by the way.)  In short, y'all beat me to the punch, so why retread?  So instead, I'm going to give you some tips on how not to try and win over Progressives.

1.) Bash Ralph Nader.

Uh-huh, yep, this'll do it.  Actually, no it won't.  Grow up, people.  He didn't hand George W. Bush the 2000 election.  The blame for that rests with the following assholes: Katherine Harris; ChoicePoint DBT; Jeb Bush; John Ellis -- a cousin of the shrub -- and his buddies over at Fox Noise Channel; Karl Rove; and the five, worthless little shits who violated the Constitution in making their ruling to stop the recount of Florida votes (which most newspapers grudgingly acknowledged later would have gone in Al Gore's favor).  There were other, smaller peons involved, to be sure.  But they're small potatoes next to the filth I just mentioned.

The reason continually bashing Nader is pointless is twofold.  First, as I pointed out above he didn't take votes away from Al Gore.  Had Nader not been on the ballot, chances are the vast majority of his supporters would have stayed home or left the space reserved for presidential candidates blank.  Democrats do not own Progressive votes.  I know it's almost impossible, if not completely impossible, for you to accept.  But it's true.  You act like you're entitled to our votes, but you do little or nothing to actually earn them.

Second, when you continually harp on Ralph Nader instead of moving on and learning from your mistakes, it shows Progressives that you can't accept responsibility for your own roles in turning us away.  Reasonable people, upon losing an important contest, take the time until the next one to reflect upon what mistakes they might have made, learn from them, and take care to avoid repeating those errors.  But not, apparently, far too many Democrats.  In short, the more time and energy you waste bitching and complaining and lying about Ralph Nader, the more you waste trying to keep him off the ballot, the less you have for doing other things -- like trying to actually sell your candidate.

So enough already.  Nader stopped being relevant years ago.  He got even fewer votes in 2004 than he did in 2000.  He didn't even get his party's nomination that year.  Leave the man alone.

2.) Act like you're entitled to our votes.

Yes, please, shit on us after losing every election, and then come around the next cycle demanding our votes...NOT!  This is what really gets me.  You think you own our votes, never once considering that you might need to actually earn them.  Why?  Do you really think we'll buy that crap, "who else are you going to vote for, a Republican?"  Trying to sell your candidates as the not-quite-as-bad politician isn't exactly the way to win over Progressives.  Because, silly us, we want a candidate who's actually good, not one who's simply less of an asshole than his Republican opponent.  We bought that line in '04, and look where it got us.  Another four years of war; more poverty;  an attack on Social Security that failed only because it's the one and only thing Democrats in Congress will fight for as a unified political party; a weakling who stood there like a coward and not only let his opponent tear his military record to pieces but a few years later stood by and did nothing as a college student was assaulted, tortured, falsely arrested, and made to sign a bogus confession and apology -- all for the "crime" of asking said wimp a couple of paranoid questions.  And what has that candidate done for us since 2004?

No no no, you want us to vote for your candidate?  You'd better give us more than, "he's not a Republican."  We've heard that before, and we've seen it doesn't mean anything.  We want a Democrat we can get behind, someone who will actually stand up and fight for us, who will represent us and tell the truths the corporate whores and wimps are afraid to utter for fear of being labeled liberals (as though to be a liberal, a progressive, is somehow a bad thing).  We want someone with a proven record of fighting for us.  Not some Johnny-come-lately, not some faker who makes a pretty speech but spends far too much time cozying up to the very assholes who've destroyed this country, and certainly not some DLCer with a proven record of selling us and our beloved country down the river.

THAT'S who we want.  And if you're going to insist on shoving your candidates down our throats, you'd better be able to sell them on their own merits.

3.) Talk about "pragmatism".

Oh, this one's my favorite.  I've read them before.  Comments by people who claim to be progressive, but when push comes to shove they're the first ones to sell out their principles by voting for candidates they normally wouldn't give two tugs of a dead dog's cock about.  Look, if you genuinely believe in the candidate you're voting for, great.  You've got our respect for voting your beliefs.  But don't you think -- ever -- that by proclaiming your supposed progressive values and then turning around and telling us to cast our ballots for candidates who repel us, you're being ridiculously inconsistent?  No, of course you don't.  That would entail facing some unpleasant truths you're absolutely terrified of so much as acknowledging.

When you engage in such contradictory logic and hypocritical behavior, what that tells Progressives is that you really don't have our interests at heart.  You're just so desperate for a win -- any win -- that you can't see where you're going wrong.  You want us to vote for candidates you don't even really believe in.  Let that sink in for a moment.  Oh, sure, you tell yourself that your rock star candidate is awesome -- a real inspiring kind of person.  That he or she is the one who'll take the GOP to town and come out on top this time.  Just like the last candidate we put up.  Oh, wait a minute, the last guy we put up lost, without even putting up a real fight.  But this time it'll be different!

Uh-huh, yeah, right.  But can you actually  answer questions about policy?  

"Policy," you ask?  "What do you mean?"

"I mean, what does your candidate expect to accomplish on health care?"

"Well," you reply, unsure of yourself now.  "He'll bring us universal health care!"

"How?"

You stare at us, blankly.  "Well, if you go to his web site..."

"We don't have Internet.  And besides, we want to hear it from you.  How does your candidate expect to get us universal health care?"

You start backing away now, slowly, inching your way to safety, but still more or less in one place.  You're ready to bolt, but you've got a candidate to sell.  You're conflicted, and we're standing in the doorway, waiting for an answer.  You search frantically within your memory for some snippet of memory, some bit you heard in one of your candidate's fine speeches.

"Well," you finally manage to sputter out, "he'll get everyone to the table, and..."

"Everyone?  Who's everyone?  Does that include us?"

"Why yes, of course!"

"And what about the health care industry?  They get a seat at this table of yours, too?"

"Yes..."

"Why?"

"Why not?  They're going to be affected by health care reform, too."

"So were we.  Badly.  And we never got a seat at any table.  Our cousin sliced up his arm pretty bad last week.  He couldn't afford to go to the emergency room, so he had to sew up his own arm, throw some disinfectant on it, and hope he doesn't get gangrene.  Why should the same assholes who make it too expensive for our cousin to get medical care get a seat at this table of yours, when we weren't allowed?"

Your flight-or-fight response is starting to win out.  You don't know how to answer.  But you try one last time, stammering out, "well, they'll be affected too..."

"You said that already."

"I know, but..."

"Look, our dinner's getting cold, and so are we.  Give us one good reason why we should vote for your candidate.  Just one.  And none of that table crap."

"Well, he's not Republican.  You want the Republican to get in?

"No," we tell you, "and your candidate not being a registered Republican doesn't mean shit.  Bill Clinton wasn't a Republican either, but he sure shipped our jobs overseas like one.  Look, we've already made up our minds who to vote for.  It ain't your guy.  Why don't you go brush up on him before you hit the next house?  That way you don't look like a deer in the headlights when they ask you questions."

And we shut the door in your faces.  You walk away, cursing us, but why?  Not because you couldn't sell your candidate, because you don't even really know what he's about.  But because we didn't nod our heads and say, "yes, of course we'll vote for your guy!  Anybody but Bush!"  Except that didn't work out last time around, and it sure as hell isn't going to work this year.

Because you don't know your candidate, and because you don't believe in him.  If you can't even be bothered to know your candidate, if you can't muster up enough enthusiasm for him (or her), then what the fuck are you doing going door to door for the schmuck?  Find someone you actually believe in.  If that means Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel -- even though you don't think he stands a chance, then campaign for Kucinich or Gravel.  If Edwards is your man, pimp yourself out for him (apologies to David Shuster...well, not really).  Yeah, people will tell you they don't have a chance.  According to whom?  The same sorry excuses for "experts" who are scared shitless of real Progressives, to the point where they actively exclude them from their media narrative -- just so voters never get a chance to know they're in the race.  "Electability" only counts at the polling booth.  The guy who wins is the "electable" candidate.  Not the asshole the media says is "electable".  John Kerry was called that, but he wasn't elected, was he?

Do you want to know a secret, something you'll never hear from the corporate-owned media?  Something Tony Benn in the clip below so eloquently pointed out in Michael Moore's SiCKO?

Did you watch the clip in its entirety?  Did you hear the secret?  Did you listen?  Did you learn?  The secret, as you may have heard, is this: if the Democratic Party were to actually ignore the media narratives, and vote for the candidates we really and truly know represent our values, don't you think we'd have the candidates we want, the candidates who can actually win against Republicans?  Why would you throw your vote away on someone you don't believe in?  How can you ask us with a straight face to do likewise?  Are you really so frightened of losing the scraps we're tossed that you'll vote how the powerful tell you to vote?

Fuck them, and fuck you for continuing to believe their bullshit.  Why would you listen to that anyway?  The powerful are scared of you.  They're afraid that some day you'll reach the breaking point and rise up in a wave of electoral anger such as they haven't seen in nearly eighty years.  They got a taste of that anger in '06, and they're hellbent on making sure it doesn't happen.  So they saddled us with Clinton and Obama, two corporate shills who don't represent us.  Are you or are you not tired of being played for saps?

But you'll go ahead and tell us to vote against our beliefs and interests, all for the sake of false pragmatism.  And you wonder why we doubt your sincerity.

4.) Call us "purists" and shit all over us.

Yeah, that's the ticket.  Call us "purists" and accuse us of costing you elections, when your demands to back your weakling candidates fall on deaf ears.  That'll do it.  That'll get you our votes.

No, actually, it won't.  What it will do is drive us to vote for a write-in Democrat, or a Democrat who was in but dropped out, or vote third party, or just not bother voting at all.  You call us "purists" as though it is somehow a bad thing to stay true to one's principles, to never sell out.  You hate us because we're everything you're not.  You look down on us and complain that no matter how progressive you say you are, we're always better, more principled, more right than you are.  We've got news for you.  We are more principled.  We are better.  We are more progressive.  You merely pretend to be.

And that's what really burns you.  The truth that eats away at you and causes you to shun those you know deep down are vital for winning elections.  We never sold out, never compromised, never gave up fighting for what we believe in, and you did.  We remained true to ourselves, and you can't face the fact that no matter how much you may protest, in the end you always give in to the "pragmatists" who tell you that being true is bad and doesn't win elections.

You go apeshit over Ralph Nader because he points out a truth you can't accept: that given the choice between Coke Classic and New Coke, people will choose Coke Classic every time.  Not because they genuinely believe that Coke Classic is better for them, but because Classic doesn't pretend to be something it's not.  Likewise, voters know what they're getting when they are saddled with Republicans.  Assholes, yeah, but assholes who aren't ashamed of what they stand for and will fight tooth and nail to get what they want.  Whatever you may think of Ralph Nader, or Greens, or Progressive Democrats, we stand for something more than you do.

Voting for the same corporate-approved candidates time and again, voting for the DLC and its clones in the Obama camp, haven't gotten you the electoral victories you're so desperate to achieve.  And they never shall.  If you're as progressive as you claim to be, then stand with us.  Stop dumping all over us and for the love of God, stop whining and blaming us for your losses when we turn away.  If you'd be true to that progressive label you flaunt at us as though it's supposed to mean something -- if you'd put your time, money and energy where your mouths are and stand with us, you'll find yourselves pleasantly surprised with the results.  The White House is already lost to us no matter who wins in November, but it's not too late to take back Congress from the Republicans and capitulating Democrats who've betrayed us over and over and over.

Remember, you shit on us, we'll walk away and leave you to rot where you belong.  We don't need you; you need us.  And we all know it.  You work with us, you embrace your stated beliefs and fight on our side, we'll be the greatest allies -- and friends -- you'll ever have.  It's up to you if you want to be relevant.


P.S.


You may troll-rate this entry, but it's written and you've read it (at least in part), and if you've made it this far you've more guts than I gave you credit for.  You may not be someone to whom the above rant applies.  If you're not, great.  Recommend this and help spread the message.  Put it in your own words, if you think this too harsh.  Or not.  Sometimes people need to be spoken to like this, if it wakes them up.  For those of you to whom the above most certainly applies -- and if you're good and pissed by this, you sure as hell are and you deserve every word of it -- take a good, long hard look within yourself and start with the self-reflection.  I am throwing down the gauntlet.  Have you got the stones to pick it up?  You can bitch about real Progressives all you want, call me a troll and every other conceivable name in the book, but ask yourself if maybe the anger you feel isn't a sign that I've struck a nerve that has no business being so sensitive.  Do some serious thinking, if you've read this far, and make your choice.

Tags: How not to win over Progressives, Purity, Ralph Nader, 2008, Election, 2008 Election, liar, hypocrite (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 187 comments

  •  How not to add to the conversation (11+ / 0-)

    Whine and complain and act like everyone needs to cater to your own sense of entitlement.  

    Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

    by johnny rotten on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:21:01 PM PDT

  •  I honestly don't understand point #1 (8+ / 0-)

    I don't blame Nader for Bush's victory in 2000 (it's not his job to worry about every possible unlikely scenario, and if Gore had won his own damn state this never would have happened), but as a simple mathematical observation it does seem clear than had Nader not run, Gore would have won Florida and therefore the presidency.

    -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

    by Rich in PA on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:23:16 PM PDT

    •  Excellent Point (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      MadRuth, Alice in Florida

      Nader loaded the gun & the Supreme Court fired it.

    •  yah but in a race that close (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      kate mckinnon

      there a thousand whatif's that coulda swung it.  like what if clinton didn't raid elian gonzalez's house w/ automatic weapons and bullet proof vests?

      •  What if... (6+ / 0-)

        ...the 1 million Florida Democrats who didn't vote in 2000 had bothered to show up at the polls?  The Nader voters at least showed up, which is more than you can say about nearly half of the Democrats.

        •  Absolutely, that's the bottom line (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          corvo

          I don't blame Harris, Scalia, Nader, or even Gore (although of those four I blame him the most).  Voters are responsible for outcomes, period.

          -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

          by Rich in PA on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:44:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That includes "Progressive" voters (0+ / 0-)

            who think their vote is like some precious thing that they can save and keep in a virginal state until the perfect candidate comes along...trouble is, if things aren't pushed in the right direction, perfection will never come along. Actually, perfection doesn't exist in this life..all we can do is try to make things better. Sometimes that means, yes, voting for the "lesser of evils." There's nothing wrong with doing that, so long as you know what you're doing. It really is better than abstaining and letting the greater evils take over.

            "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

            by Alice in Florida on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:51:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And both of those voters..... (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              corvo, Archangel M

              ...could potentially be a problem in an amazingly unrealistic race.

              The 'purist' strawman doesn't work so well when you look at what progressives are actually saying.  We aren't 'holding our vote for perfection.'  We're 'refusing to support someone who quite frankly sucks.'

              We're well aware that we're not going to get perfect.  We're not going to get someone that we completely agree with on every topic.  Some of us would be happy with half of our major issues being addressed.  Hell, a lot of us would be happy with someone who was at least neutral on our major issues and wasn't going to stab us in the back on everything else.

            •  The purists voted for Nader. (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Corwin Weber, Rich in PA

              The purists are nothing if not motivated voters. They do not stay home.  It was the average Dem, not sufficiently inspired by Gore to get themselves to the polls, who stayed home.

            •  every time i hear someone start talking about (4+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              ben masel, corvo, Corwin Weber, bobisbob

              purity and perfection and blah de blah, i have to ask myself, what the FUCK makes this person thinks i demand either?

              the dems have not mominated one candidate in all my lifetime whose policy positions even approximated mine.

              the real purity freaks, as far as i can tell, are the ones who demand partisan purity, regardless of all else.

              I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

              by UntimelyRippd on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:38:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  A lot of those no shows had been purged by Jeb!!! (0+ / 0-)

          Personal Freedoms: Born 1215. Wounded 2001. Died 2006. Resurrected: 2009

          by OHdog on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:27:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, I agreed with that move. (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        corvo

        We had no legal claim to the kid.  Clinton did what he was supposed to, which was to get him back to his father.  I remember when that shit went down.  The mother lost the custody battle, so she kidnapped Elian and took him on a leaky, overcrowded boat -- placing him in danger of death.  Which explains why she was found unfit to retain custody.  Anyway, as I said we had no legal claim to the child.  What was Clinton supposed to do?  Keep Elian here and spark an international incident, condemnation from the U.N. at a time when the vice president was running to succeed him?  And notice how Gore, lied to by his handlers, called for keeping young Mr. Gonzales here against the will of the boy's father and legal guardian.  You speak of 'what ifs', and it got me thinking, what if Gore had stood with Clinton on that?  Instead of caving in to pressure to distance himself?

        •  escaping castro's hellhole (0+ / 0-)

          is a pretty emotional thing for cuban americans.  about 35% of cubans had voted for clinton, WAY more than normally vote democratic(about 18% normally).  this was of course until elian, which made the cuban americans incredibly mad and they took it out on gore in a not so subtle way.

          and I personally don't care about UN condemnation.  it is has realpolitik ramifications I'm sure, but otherwise, no.

          •  Sorry, I'm not buying it. (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            corvo

            For one thing, we have a nasty habit of joining other nations throughout history in demonizing our opponents.  I'm not denying that Cuba is the pits; it probably is.  Nor do I think Castro's necessarily a good guy.  But the fact remains that we had no legal claim on a Cuban citizen brought here against his will by a selfish mother who put her son's life in danger and inadvertently ended her own in the process.

            •  whatever (0+ / 0-)

              I get queezy when people start implying they might begin to defend cuba.  its a horrible country, the minimum wage is 15$ a month, there is no political freedom, economic freedom or social freedom.  people are beatan and tortured for what is sometimes called "social dangerousness."  everything is controlled rigorously, and now because they no longer have the soviet union they have began to engage in what is being called "tourist apartheid" where cubans are prohibited from using the facilities(hospitals, hotels, restaurants, even money) that tourists have access to.  

              and I think its incredibly brave to risk a passage to america on a rickety raft in search of a better life.  

          •  Obviously you don't care about (0+ / 0-)

            family values (without scare quotes) or the rule of law either.

    •  Nader hurt Gore.. (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      kate mckinnon, Fawkes

      he didn't just draw off votes.  He also claimed Bush and Gore were the same.  I'm sure he DID help drive down Gore's turnout.

      •  And why did the argument stick? (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        corvo

        ....if there were radical differences between the two..... erm..... shouldn't they have been, well, like, um, obvious?

        Or did Nader perfect some mind control ray that he turned on a bunch of American voters?  That's the much more likely option, right?

      •  unprovable speculation. (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        corvo

        did he drive down Gore's turnout, by depressing democrats? or did he spur Gore's turnout, by frightening democrats?

        there is no way to know.

        period.

        I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

        by UntimelyRippd on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:36:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  this is politics, not mathematical theorems. (0+ / 0-)

          Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! Here's why!

          by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:54:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  which is why your mathematical demonstrations are (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            corvo

            without validity.

            i mean really: your comment comes very close to making my own point.

            I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

            by UntimelyRippd on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:21:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is fucking nonsense. (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Mia Dolan

              I am not trying to give mathematical proofs. I am showing plausible evidence of Nader's adverse impact on the 2000 race.

              Fact of the matter is, Nader fucked Gore over and in turn progressive causes. He tried to repeat the same thing in 2004 again:

               NPR 2000 coverage

                Campaign Protests (14.4 | 28.8)
                Morning Edition, August 31, 2000
                NPR's Anthony Brooks reports from Seattle on the campaign trail, where protests and counterprotests by supporters of Democrat Al Gore and Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader are overshadowing Gore's efforts to emphasize his health care policy.

                All Things Considered, October 23, 2000
                Vice President Al Gore began his kitchen table tour today, having breakfast with a small business owner and her 14-month-old son in Portland, Oregon. Gore is in the Pacific Northwest to stress his stand on the environment and consumer issues. He's hoping to head off defections to the Green Party campaign of Ralph Nader. Polls show both Oregon and Washington close enough for Nader's vote to make Republican nominee George W. Bush the winner. Linda Wertheimer talks to NPR's Andy Bowers.

                All Things Considered, October 27, 2000
                NPR's Robert Siegel reports from Madison, Wisconsin on efforts by Al Gore and Ralph Nader to woo the same left-wing voters. Wisconsin has been solidly Democratic in the last three presidential races. But there, as in a handful of other states, the three-to-five-percent of the vote that polls show Nader may win could be enough to give George Bush a victory. Siegel talks to people in both the Gore and Nader camps, as well as Democratic voters who turned out to hear Al Gore yesterday and Nader supporters who turned out to protest Gore's appearance.

              -------

                THE 2000 CAMPAIGN: THE GREEN PARTY; Republican Ads Use Nader's Comments in Bid to Hurt Gore

                October 28, 2000, Saturday
                By MICHAEL COOPER WITH RICHARD PEREZ-PENA (NYT); National Desk
                Late Edition - Final, Section A, Page 13, Column 3, 826 words

                DISPLAYING FIRST 50 OF 826 WORDS -Hoping to siphon votes from Vice President Al Gore, Republicans in three closely contested states prepared to broadcast a television commercial featuring Ralph Nader, as the candidate himself campaigned here tonight and continued to aim his sharpest barbs at the Democratic ticket. Speaking to a capacity crowd at Iowa...

              -------

              By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff, 10/24/2000

              Green Party nominee Ralph Nader is hurting the vice president in some key states. Gore is spending increasing time and money in a defensive posture, campaigning in states he had hoped to sew up long ago. And, Gore has written off much of the South.

              Yesterday, in what may be partly an effort to unnerve Gore, the Bush campaign for the first time began spending heavily on television ads in Tennessee, Gore's home state, and in Minnesota, usually a reliably Democratic bastion. Gore, meanwhile, spent yesterday campaigning in Oregon and Washington, where Nader is taking votes away in a traditionally Democratic region.

              -------

              2004

              But it is well documented that some Republican-leaning groups have worked for Nader, and that a few wealthy Republican donors have given money to the Nader campaign.
              link

              Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! Here's why!

              by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:35:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Don't count on it. (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      corvo, Corwin Weber

      You keep thinking that if Nader hadn't run, his supporters would have cast their ballots for Gore.  There simply is no evidence to suggest they would have.  None.

      •  Funny how many (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Mia Dolan

        of Nader's previous supporters were calling for Gore to run this time.

        •  its the environmental thing (0+ / 0-)

          /captain obvious flies away

          •  He didn't change his mind (0+ / 0-)

            about the issue from what he thought in 2000--when he was "exactly the same as Bush." I guess they weren't the same after all.

            •  hrrrm (0+ / 0-)

              I am not sure he "changed his mind" per se.  but the tone was vastly different, he is much more messianic now about environmentalism.  I think not having to run for election has unleashed his...ummm....true self?  as it were.  recently he came out pretty loudly for gay marriage too, and I don't remember him screaming bad things about DOMA during his presidential run.

              •  He is more vocal now (0+ / 0-)

                but that isn't the same as "feels differently."

                I agree it is much easier to see the "real" Gore now and his freedom to focus on one issue has given him an energy that wasn't as visible, but he cared about the environment in 2000--so my saying "he never was the same as Bush" still holds true. He wasn't.

        •  That's Because (0+ / 0-)

          for the last 8 years, Gore has been a leading the fight for environmental causes and Nader has been...ummm....

          Oh Yeah, he ran for President again in 2004 plus he.....crickets.....crickets...

          Which one was Gore again Ralph? Was he Tweedledee or Tweedledum?!

          Ya know, since Gore and Bush are sooooo much alike, I just can't tell the difference.

          I REMEMBER....Gore was the one who won the Nobel...and Bush was the one who_____________ (fill in the blank with 10,000 shitty things Bush has done).

          Also, I've often wondered what Ralph does in-between running for president....is he in a stasis chamber or something?

          I consider myself a Democratic Progressive. I PROUDLY voted for Gore in 2000. Ralph Nader is a piece of shit and a curse not just on our country, but on the planet as a whole.

      •  asdf (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        kate mckinnon, Fawkes

        "You keep thinking that if Nader hadn't run, his supporters would have cast their ballots for Gore.  There simply is no evidence to suggest they would have.  None."

        There is. Pls see above. Gore would've had a 26% advantage among Nader voters according to the exit polls.

        Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! Here's why!

        by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:10:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  first order analysis is for toddlers and (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          corvo

          republicans.

          I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

          by UntimelyRippd on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:33:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  0th order analysis is for fundamentalist (0+ / 0-)

            faith-based believers.

            Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! Here's why!

            by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:46:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  fair enough, i guess. not sure what it has to do (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              corvo, Corwin Weber

              with me, or with your link though.

              you don't know how Nader affected the final vote. you can't know. it's an historical counterfactual that assumes an "all else being equal" condition that does not hold.

              so instead of rushing for that link time after time, put it aside, put it to rest, and stop alienating your potential allies with your essentially pointless blamestorming.

              few who voted for Nader are stupid enough to be unable to see who the real perps are in the last 7 years of horror. having folks like y'all try to pin the blame on us only makes it that much more difficult for us to come in from the cold. cause you know what? we don't accept the blame. and we aren't ever going to. not because we're purists, and not because we're children, but because we're smarter than you realize, and we see things that, in your anger, you refuse to see.

              it's sad, really. do you have a link showing how Nader is to blame for the Democrats' dismal performances in 2002 and 2004?

              I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

              by UntimelyRippd on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:54:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nader voters were sampled in exit polls (0+ / 0-)

                and they said that had Nader no been on the ballot, they would have broken as follows:

                47% to Gore
                21% to Bush
                30% would not have voted. This is according to exit polls reported by WaPo the day after the election.

                I am not interested in "blamestorming", but I am interested in making best possible assessment of Nader's impact on the 2000 race.

                I am not interested in yet another long-winded discussion about Nader and Nader voters.

                IMO, Nader should have either run as a Democrat or stayed away from close swing states. Nader voters, if you ask me, should have voted for Gore in any state where Gore and Bush were within single digits of each other. That to me makes logical sense, and I am sticking to it.

                Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! Here's why!

                by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:02:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  this is definitively a first-order analysis. (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  corvo

                  it is too bad that you don't understand why it is meaningless, but clearly you aren't about to have an epiphany on the matter. so let it go. because i flatout disagree, and i always will, not because i'm stubborn and arrogant, but because i understand something that is opaque to you.

                  I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

                  by UntimelyRippd on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:13:41 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Nader was one of the three major factors (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    bobisbob

                    that cost Gore the election:

                    1. Clinton scandals
                    1. media smears
                    1. Nader's spoiler run

                    Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! Here's why!

                    by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:25:27 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  you just don't frickin get it. (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      corvo

                      you are stating as fact something that cannot be known. since it cannot be known, and especially since the mere stating of it drives a wedge between yourself and people whose support you really should be soliciting (if you want victories, i mean), you should stop stating it. i mean, unless you think you have something to gain from stating it. in which case, i would be very interested to know what that improbable benefit might be.

                      meanwhile, what is the one really, really big thing missing from your analysis? you just can't bring yourself to hold Gore himself responsible, in any fashion. faced with a potential threat from the left, how did he respond? by choosing (or allowing to have chosen for him) a right-wing warmongering stick-up-the-ass sanctimonious toad for the VP slot. i've seen you have this debate before, and never have you accepted that this single decision by Gore might just as easily be identified as the major factor that cost him the election.

                      I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

                      by UntimelyRippd on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:35:12 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Nonsense. (1+ / 0-)

                        Recommended by:
                        Mia Dolan

                        Nader wanted Bush to win. Set out to play a fucking spoiler, and he did play a fucking spoiler. That's the truth.

                        Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! Here's why!

                        by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:37:23 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  so what? (1+ / 0-)

                          Recommended by:
                          corvo

                          you're demonstrating nothing, and to no good purpose.

                          you're grinding an axe, and the sharper you grind it, the more certain that you're going to cut off one of your own fingers with it: indeed, it is your objective to cut off one of your own fingers with it.

                          I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

                          by UntimelyRippd on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:39:41 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Perot was the spoiler for Bush Sr and helped (0+ / 0-)

                        Clinton win, and Nader was the spoiler for Gore and helped Bush Jr steal the election.

                        It goes beyond the poll numbers. The very situation of having to fight on two fronts in a closely divided country makes your job significantly harder. Common sense.

                        Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! Here's why!

                        by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:40:23 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  your claim that perot helped clinton is (0+ / 0-)

                          contradicted by the identical sorts of exit poll analyses that you use to support your claim that nader helped bush.

                          you know that, right?

                          I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

                          by UntimelyRippd on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:54:00 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                            I do know that Perot voter split (in exit polls) was even, but Perot made Bush Sr vulnerable and helped create the image that Bush was "out of touch" which gave Clinton the opening to rise above Bush with his economic message.

                            Gore took care of Bush Sr's serious edge over Clinton on foreign policy matters by taking him to task on various Reagan-Bush policies.

                            Perot and Gore were important keys that helped Clinton by making Bush weak.

                            My point is that fighting two people at the same time in a closely divided match makes your task much harder. Bush/Clinton/Perot, 1992, and Gore/Bush/Nader, 2000 are prime examples of that phenomenon.

                            ps: have not checked your responses to my other comments since I last responded. Will do so later if and as time permits.

                            Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! Here's why!

                            by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 03:05:11 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

              •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

                I'd like to mention my diary: When Nader met Gore, where I said:

                As I wrote above, in the bigger picture, I hope to see a new era of politics emerge, where consensus, sense, common sense, reasonable dialogue, debate and discourse prevail over political stunts, gamesmanship, rancor and bitter divisiveness.

                That's my message (you can see from it why I supported Gore for President and now support Obama).

                Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! Here's why!

                by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:11:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  if that's your message, you should stop rolling (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  corvo

                  out the non-proof about Nader costing Gore the election.

                  because until you do, you are working at odds with your stated objective.

                  I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

                  by UntimelyRippd on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:14:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Dude, as I said, this is politics, (0+ / 0-)

                    not mathematics to be demanding absolute "proofs" of things that have not been measured to the absolute precision. In the strictest sense, some of these things aren't even measurable.

                    Even in a serious science such as climate science, there isn't a fucking mathematical "proof" that global warming is real, which is the main naysaying "logic" of AGW denialists (including your likely friend Cockburn). If we take thei route, we'll get to the point of no return on global warming before too long.

                    "Nader costing Gore the election."

                    Gore needed 538 votes in FL to technically put it away. Nader got 97K+ votes in FL. Had Gore got even a 1% edge (rel. to Bush) among Nader voters in FL, he would've got 970 votes plus. We don't have reliable exit poll numbers from FL. Nationwide numbers we do  have show that Gore would have pulled in the range of 25% edge over Bush among Nader voters. That's good enough for me to conclude that had Nader not on the ballot in FL, he would have easily wrapped up a win (beyond dispute, by at least over 10K votes) there and would've won the election. That approximate analysis is good enough for me.

                    Nader was a LOT LOT more detrimental to Gore than the FL analysis above. Because Nader hounded Gore all over the place. Gore was already struggling from the impact of Clinton scandals and media smears. Nader was the monkey on Gore's back and pulled him off winnable states like MO and TN in order to defend states like WA, OR, etc.

                    Nader wanted Bush to win. He said so. IOW, it was Nader's very intent to be a spoiler. He delivered what he set out to do. Except, the country and the planet are paying a price for him dumbheadness. A million people are dead in Iraq from the same. Enough if enough. People/progressives should make smarter choices in election if they want positive progress on the ground instead of the rubbish of the last 8 years we have witnessed vividly.

                    Just say NO to BAYH (for VP)! Here's why!

                    by NeuvoLiberal on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:31:15 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  sigh (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      corvo

                      and on and on it goes.

                      "dude, this is politics". well, pragmatic politicians don't get what they want by persistently trying to grind their natural allies' faces into the pavement. it's a stupid thing to do if you're right, and it's a stupid thing to do if you're wrong, because in either case, it gains you nothing, and costs you something.

                      pragmatists, my ass.

                      I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

                      by UntimelyRippd on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:37:48 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

      •  No evidence? (0+ / 0-)

        Nader himself, both in his book Crashing the Party, and on his website, states: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."[24] Assuming these poll numbers are correct, the 13% plurality would have given Gore a victory in Florida and the presidency.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...

        So when you say:

        There simply is no evidence to suggest they would have.  None.

        Are you lying?  Or are you just ignorant?

        I'll let you pick.

        •  He's wrong. (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          corvo

          Many would have gone with some other "protest" candidate.

          Running against Herb "WIRETAP" Kohl in 2012. $1/year. Cash preferred.
          Masel4Senate 1214 E. Mifflin, Madison, WI 53703

          by ben masel on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:47:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do you have evidence of that? (0+ / 0-)

            These are exit polls.  You can argue that they wouldn't have translated into actual votes, but they certainly are evidence, and pretty strong evidence at that.

            •  Me. (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              corvo

              The cannabis vote, easily 1/3 of the Nader votes, would have gone Libertarian after being betrayed by Bill.

              Google "Jacki Rickert "Bill Clinton"

              Running against Herb "WIRETAP" Kohl in 2012. $1/year. Cash preferred.
              Masel4Senate 1214 E. Mifflin, Madison, WI 53703

              by ben masel on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:01:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  here's a question i'd like to see answered (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                corvo

                (not that it could be answered, since people will have selectively altered their memories.)

                shortly after 9/11, Bush's approval rating soared to 92%.

                what fraction of Nader voters do you suppose were in the remaining 8%? what fraction were in the 92%?

                extrapolating from my own unscientific sample (which is to say, anyone whose opinion of whom i am certain in this regard), the answer would be 100% versus 0%.

                but remember: we're the foolish idealists, and they're the wise pragmatists.

                I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

                by UntimelyRippd on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:07:53 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Ben (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Progressive Witness

                I think you seriously overestimate the strength of the cannibis vote.  

                •  Doesn't always turn out (0+ / 0-)

                  when thgere's not a campasign, but consider the Grassroots Party, a single-issue effort, was taking 5% in Minnesota pre-Jesse.

                  Not all ofd my 51,000 votes for sewnate in '06 were motivated on that issue, but easily 1/3. Enough tro be a significant part of a winning coalition.

                  Why do you think youth turnout dropped so much between '92 and '96? Was Bill's sellout on the issue not a factor?

                  Running against Herb "WIRETAP" Kohl in 2012. $1/year. Cash preferred.
                  Masel4Senate 1214 E. Mifflin, Madison, WI 53703

                  by ben masel on Wed Feb 13, 2008 at 06:36:11 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  it's not even worth debating, ben. (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            corvo

            the analysis of Nader's electoral effect is necessarily based on an assumption that, had Nader not run at all, all the same folks would have showed up at the polls, thinking exactly all the same things they were thinking, except that Nader's name wasn't on the ballot, so they chose their next choice.

            but the world isn't like that. Nader being in the campaign changed the way everyone was thinking. it changed the way Bush campaigned, and the way Gore campaigned. it changed the perceptions of those following the campaign. it changed the way the press covered the campaigns. were some Dem voters extra motivated to get off the couch, because it looked like Nader might "spoil" the election? how many? there is no way to know. there isn't even an reasonable way to estimate.

            political campaigns are as susceptible to chaos theory as is the weather, which makes this sort of ahistorical counterfactual analysis wholly moot. (consider "the scream" -- a one-second moment that, after manipulation by the media, eliminated Dean from the race.)

            I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

            by UntimelyRippd on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 08:02:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  So Purists hate Realists? nt (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    MadRuth

    "You can't negotiate with reality" - James Kunstler

    by Bob Love on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:28:14 PM PDT

  •  This diary is a twofer (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Alice in Florida, quaoar, Mia Dolan

    22197095

    X_05_June

    The NeoCOM (Corporate Owned Media) is Neocon.

    by Brahman Colorado on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:28:45 PM PDT

  •  the nader vote is marginalized (0+ / 0-)

    fewer of them will vote for nader, and fewer of them will stay home just because of how bad bush was.  no real need to pander to them.

    •  Keep telling yourself that. (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      corvo, planetclaire4

      Enjoy the results.

      As I see it that hasn't exactly been working out so well for you over the past few decades.

      •  huh? (0+ / 0-)

        moving towards the nader voters will disaffect more liberals than it will pickup naderites, thus costing more elections.  I assume that someone should takeup the mantle of trying to light a fire under their ass to get them to vote democrat, but I guess that person isn't me.  

        and democrats generally are the more successful party, just not in the presidency(we did have congress for like 40 years).

  •  How not to treat Kossacks (5+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    YatPundit, quaoar, dougymi, FireCrow, karpaty

    patronizingly and with complete contempt. But you will, in your oh so clever manner, disregard my post by stating that you apparently struck a nerve and I am far too sensitive. So I shall self reflect and get far away from you. Good night.

  •  You leave the country to rot, actually (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    MadRuth

    ..and yourselves along with it. Hope you're enjoying the economy and the war. You're right, if "Tweedledum" Gore had gotten your votes and made it to the White House, we'd surely be in pretty much the same shape.

    Morons. Save yourself the trouble and vote for McCain.

    How we know Daffy Duck is Republican: "It's mine, understand? Mine, all mine! Get back down there! Down down down! Go go go! Mine mine mine! Mwahahaha!" --BiPM

    by rhetoricus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:41:05 PM PDT

    •  And, it's called a primary (3+ / 0-)

      ..and Kucinich lost. I liked him too. But he lost. Kucinich threw his support to Obama. Weird how he would do that, with Obama not being a perfect progressive and all. Why on earth do you think he did that?

      As for Nader, he took a whole lot of GOP money. Nuff said about purity.

      How we know Daffy Duck is Republican: "It's mine, understand? Mine, all mine! Get back down there! Down down down! Go go go! Mine mine mine! Mwahahaha!" --BiPM

      by rhetoricus on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 06:46:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You don't speak for progressives