October 15, 2004, In the "you can fool some of the people all of the time" department...
Maverick pollster John Zogby tells us that in a Zogby/Reuters three day tracking poll, with John Kerry having safely creamed the President in three out of three debates, the President has opened up a four point national lead on Senator Kerry. In particular, more undecideds are breaking towards the President-- which is, of course, good news for him (and bad news for everyone else). This latest tracking poll puts third-party spoiler Ralph Nader at a comfortable 1.1%, more than enough to swing the balance in any number of neck and neck states, especially Florida redux (though honestly, anyone who doesn't realize that after 2000, a vote for Nader is TWO VOTES FOR BUSH, really should consider seeking medical help... while it's certainly one's right to vote for whomever they want, please don't get all high and mighty about not thinking one would not be personally responsible for Bush winning, o.k.? I mean, just go ahead and vote for Bush for God's sake. But I digress...)
Anyway, with (1) oil at $55/bbl., (2) American forces so unable to get a grip in Iraq that we are arresting negotiators(while we pound Falluja anyway), (3) the almost certain loss of our entire computer programming industry to cheaper foreign competition, a reflection of a troubling overall jobs picture, frankly, and (4) twenty-eight American service personnel are charged in connection with the deaths of prisoners in custody at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan (even as Karzai seems to be ahead in the vote counting there-- surprise, surprise), all part of the Gestapo-like behavior that the current President has signed off on "to fight terror", because, heavens, a few Arabs with knives who might get lucky once in a while are an infinitely graver threat than (1) Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, (2) the Civil War, (3) Soviet ICBMs , or anything else I can think of.
The good news remains: our electoral college system is probably rigged in a strange enough way so that Kerry will win anyway (even if I suspect that Zogby is right about the popular vote). And once a Republican is hoist on the petard of the American version of the rotten borough system, that asinine system will promptly be done away with.
Comments
Dream on!!!!
Posted by ImperialistRunningDog at October 15, 2004 11:37 AM
Look for me in Team America out today. Very funny. Ha Ha Ha!!
Posted by Kim Jong-Illin at October 15, 2004 2:03 PM
TD, while I'm not one who's voting for Nader, I'm not sure it's fair to tell Nader voters that they might as well vote for Bush. It's true that the foreseeable effect of such votes, assuming that they could otherwise vote for Kerry, might be to get Bush re-elected.
But if you think of it from a long-term perspective, people disenchanted with the two-party system who nevertheless see the Dems as a little less bad than the Repubs might be willing to accept some short-term pain in order to hope for long-term gains.
I'm not a Green, so I'm not suggesting that I understand their point of view, but it seems plausible to me that a Green might think, "You'd think the Democratic Party would have gotten the message after 2000 that it needs to pay attention to us, but I guess not. It's more of the same, another entrenched Party member, beholden to business, etc. I guess they need another lesson."
Again, that's not how I'm voting. But I think you do yourself and the Democratic Party a disservice not to try to understand why it is that some people would rather vote for Nader than Kerry, despite an apparent preference for Kerry over Bush. Understanding their concerns might make it possible to win some of their votes through an argument other than "you're just getting Bush re-elected."
Posted by Tung Yin at October 15, 2004 4:27 PM
You can vote for any third-party you like-- socialist workers, flat earthers, whatever. Even the Non-Nader Greens. I don't really care.
But if you're voting for Ralph Nader, whose campaign has been bought and paid for by various state GOPs, then you may as well vote for Bush, and no, you are not entitled to expiate youir guilt about not voting for the Democrat.
Ralph Nader is no longer a legitimate protest vote. Sorry if you feel differently-- but there are many ways to express yourself. Voting for Nader is voting for Bush-- in fact, its BETTER than voting for Bush-- because you THINK you're voting for Bush with a clear conscience-- but you don't deserve to, and in my book, no exoneration is forthcoming. EVER.
If Kerry wins, fine. If Bush wins, fine. But Nader voters don't get to play innocent about either outcome. Maybe in 2000. But in '04, if you don't know better by now, you never will.
Posted by the talking dog at October 15, 2004 4:56 PM
Voting for Nader is voting for Bush-- in fact, its BETTER than voting for Bush
But this is true only if the voter would otherwise have voted for Kerry -- and therefore is depriving Kerry of a vote. Based on your concession of voting for any third party candidate other than Nader, a person who votes for Nader but would vote for another protest candidate if not Nader would still not be voting for Kerry. So I'm afraid I don't see it as a direct vote for Bush.
True, the GOP is supporting Nader, but that's because it's politically rationale for the GOP to do so. If Pat Buchanan were to run and have trouble qualifying, I have a hard time believing that the Democrats wouldn't try to help him, for the same reasons.
As I say, I'm not voting for Nader, and I'm not defending Nader's decision to run -- which I think should be the real focus of your attacks -- but I cut the Nader voters some slack.
Posted by Tung Yin at October 15, 2004 5:29 PM
It's a free country; if Nader wants to run-- and can even MAKE MONEY DOING IT (since the GOP is, frankly, paying him and paying him quite handsomely to do it), then GOOD FOR HIM.
My problem is actually with people sanctimonious enough to think they can get away with bitching about a second Bush term while still having not voted for Kerry. Unacceptable: if Bush is a problem for you, then you HAVE TO vote for Kerry-- no excuses.
If Bush ISN'T a problem for you, then vote for whomever you like-- be it Nader, the libertarian, the communist, or the Martian-- or, hell, go ahead and vote for Bush for all I care.
That's all I'm saying.
Posted by the talking dog at October 15, 2004 5:59 PM
My problem is actually with people sanctimonious enough to think they can get away with bitching about a second Bush term while still having not voted for Kerry. Unacceptable: if Bush is a problem for you, then you HAVE TO vote for Kerry-- no excuses.
Well, I suppose I'm in this group, and I'm going to vote for Kerry very reluctantly. And I'll be happy if he wins. However, on Jan. 20, 2005, I'll probably be quite displeased with whatever Kerry decides to do.
Since I'm neither a D nor an R, I'm not sure it's fair to say that I must vote for Kerry or forfeit any right to complain about Bush. It's true that I had some say in the Democratic primary (and I caucused for Edwards, whom I'd be thrilled to vote for), but the Dems nominated a candidate that I find quite lame, for lack of a better word. Now I'm able to see that with Congress in the hands of the Rs, I'd rather see Kerry in the White House than Bush. But that's just me. I'm not sure why someone who finds Kerry and Bush equally bad -- and hence is bothered by four more years of Bush -- is estopped from complaining if that person doesn't vote for Kerry.
Posted by Tung Yin at October 15, 2004 6:26 PM
Tung, Nader is not running as a Green IIRC, and a presidential run is about the stupidest way possible of building viable third (or fourth etc) parties.
As far as I'm concerned, Nader is on the GOP payroll. If he thinks he isn't, then he's just more demented than I thought.
There are time and places for protest votes and the presidential votes of 2000 or 2004 are not the time or place.
Posted by Michael Farris at October 16, 2004 3:57 AM