Why I still support Nader
Quick effort I tossed up on dKos . Not sure it's all that applicable to this crowd.
There's been a lot of calls lately for Nader to drop out. Well, he's not going to, and good for him. There's also been a lot of calls for his supporters to vote for Gore. Let this supporter tell you, it's ain't happening, no how no way. And let me tell you why.
You see, Gore is actually pretty terrible when it comes to the issues I care about. Oh sure, he talks a good game about social security, and he was VP for the last 8 years of economic growth, and he's a consistent defender of the environment. But Nader! I mean, just listen to how much he cares about the little guy. He's gonna really sock it to those corporate bastards, you just watch. He's a real fighter, he'll make the Republicans run away crying. Nader all the way for me.
Do those Gore supporters really think that Gore would give me everything that Nader would? Please! Ok, ok, a few of them are trying to make the nuanced and complicated argument that Gore would be better than Bush, even if not as good (from my perspective) as Nader... but whatever, Nader just said yesterday that he's in the race to stay, and by God he's got my vote.
Plus, Gore is so shallow. I mean c'mon, this is the best we've got? We're supposed to unite behind a strawman, a cliche-machine? If I hear lockbox one more time I'm gonna puke!
So to all you Gore-bots, take a hike. Nader is going to bring real change to Washington, and he's gonna fight for my rights. Nader for President 2000!
Did I mention I live in Florida?
================================================ My first comment also posted below
On getting things done
The idea that Obama would be unable to get things done with Republicans because he's too soft and wouldn't fight hard enough is, thousand pardons, inane. He already has a strong track record in the Senate of working with Republicans to pass mutually agreeable legislation.
He also has a record as a fighter -- just ask Fox News. Not an angry fighter, maybe, but an effective one.
I think Edwards would have made a fine candidate. I personally don't feel the same about Clinton. I recognize that Obama doesn't offer everything to Edwards supporters, and that Clinton is more attractive to some. So, make your voices heard in a meaningful way by putting pressure on the viable candidates to earn your support.
But if you don't want Clinton to get the nomination, you're ok with Obama, and yet you still stick with Edwards... then you didn't learn jack from 2000.
Comments :
God
So now there's several diaries on the rec list about how Edwards supporters need to stick to their guns, about how the comparison to Nader are insulting, about how Edwards' support for issues, about how this is a primary and we're all on the same side.
Apparently almost everyone is able to ignore the rather important points that:
* Edwards will not win and thus continued support for him is, sorry, wasted.
* There are substantial and important political distinctions between Clinton and Obama. If Edwards loses (see above), his platform isn't enacted and so you must pick between HRC and Obama.
* Except, if Edwards loses too late to help Obama against Clinton, you don't get to pick, you get Clinton.
* Attitude != accomplishments or effectiveness. Apparently because Edwards is angry, or something, he's going to bring the GOP to heel. Why didn't he do so as a Senator, then? Obama actually has a record of being able to get things done with the GOP, and of simultaneously standing up when necessary.
* Liberal bloggers are insanely out of touch with the electorate. Edward's support on dKos is so disproportionate to his actual national influence (and ditto for Clinton in the other direction) that there's a sort of alternate-universe bubble-think that clouds the judgment of a lot of folks. In my ever-so-humble opinion.
* Edwards' supporters do prefer Obama -- this is just a fact based on polling, and not really surprising given that Edwards has led the attacks on Clinton. Yet a lot of people feel the need to pretend that it's unclear what would happen if Edwards dropped out and endorsed Obama. Probably because they want to justify Edwards staying in the race, and justify their continued support for a candidate reduced to spoiler.
Sorry, I actually like Edwards fine, I wish he had beat Kerry, but his supporters need to step back and take a clear look at the race. If he finishes a distant third in South Carolina and doesn't withdraw before Super Tuesday, I better not hear s--t from his supporters about how they wish Obama had beaten Clinton. And if Obama beats Clinton anyway, we'll all know just how much those die-hard Edwards supporters really matter, won't we?
/bitter and angry rant...
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Tactical voting
Oh how I love a two party system. Especially when you can't even vote your conscience in the primary.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Yah well
A 3+ party system would be nice, or else ranked balloting, but given what we actually have sometimes it's necessary to vote for the better of two viable options.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
The lesser of two evils is still evil
I'd be more than happy to have Bush for 4, 8, 12, 16, or even 20 more years if we could get something approximating a voting system that doesn't so easily lend itself to tactical voting.
For the record, instant runoff voting isn't much better. I would rather have approval voting myself.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Proportional Delegates
How does voting for Edwards hurt Obama? If Edwards truly supported Obama then he can release his committed delegates to support Obama (all of them, not just the ones that would have gone to Obama if he had dropped out earlier)
I think a brokered convention would be a disaster
and probably to Hillary's benefit
. But whoever "won" would be weakened for the general.
In addition, the perception that Obama was consistently losing to Hillary, even if by less than the net support he would get from Edwards' voters, would fuel a bandwagon effect that would strengthen her. She'd also likely get more superdelegates if she was winning three-way races rather than losing two-way races.
Finally, it's not strictly proportional -- there is a 15% threshold for receiving delegates (by district for district and statewide for at large).
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I agree
Get on the winning side from the start.
Could Edwards be vying for a position in the Clinton Whitehouse by doing Hillary the favor of staying in the race.
It is the economy, stupid.
I wouldn't have thought so
but who knows. FWIW I would like a Clinton administration a bit better with Edwards involved somehow -- they'd balance each other out in some ways.
Probably from Edwards' perspective he will either have a stunning comeback as Obama and Clinton shred each other, or else he'll have more influence later. I think this is wrong, I think after Feb 5th he'll have little influence since it will mostly be decided one way or the other, but it's hard to predict and maybe it will come down to the convention.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Ha!
I don't get it either...... Brendan.
Your bullet points are spot on.
It is the economy, stupid.