I find it surprising that you would argue that Nadar "flipped" Florida in 2000 when there are so many sinister types who had motivation. Katherine Harris, for example, both purged 58,000 "felons" from the voter rolls (in all probability a pro-Democatic group of voters) and later called a halt to the recount. Behind, Harris, there was Governor Bush who shares responsibility. We could blame the person who designed the butterfly-ballot for negligence. Then, of course, there are the 5 justices of the Supreme Court who declared Bush the winner, prior to the completion of the recall, which, according to surveys by the Washington Post and the Palm Beach, projected Gore as the winner had the Supreme Court not intervened.
And if we are to explore how "seemingly minor changes can trigger major consequences," we could then castigate Democrats in the Senate who voted en masse for the confirmation of Scalia (98-0), O'Connor (99-0), and Justice Kennedy (97-0), all of whom voted to call a halt to the recount. And who can forget, Senator Biden's role in the confirmation of Justice Thomas: as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee he failed to call Angela Wright (the second woman to step forward after Anita Hill alleging sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas) and thus Thomas, though tainted, was narrowly confirmed, 52-48.
Seems to me that all that Nader did was fight for a progressive cause, as he has done his entire life. Or perhaps you are suggesting that he should have, like Bernie, run as a Democrat. I think he should have. It is a two party system, afterall. But blaming Nader for Florida is a canard, in my opinion.
Professor Wolff, This is a total fiction. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth Nader did not cost Gore the election.
One common error in this reasoning is that people just assume we independents are basically Democrats who would vote Democrat otherwise. This is false for two reasons. 1. Some of us - like myself - just don't vote democrat regardless. 2. Many independents lean more towards republican candidates when a good independent isn't running.
Nader did not cost Gore the election. This myth needs to die.
Having spent much of my life voting for losing candidates, at some point I determined to simply vote my conscience. I don't think you can fault the Green Party for providing a conscience when the Democrats long ago had theirs surgically removed.
While the election of a president is no small thing, let's be honest about the power s/he can actually wield and about the locus of REAL power in the United States.
Ultimately, elections between candidates not that far apart on foreign policy or support for Wall Street are much like class monitor elections. Watch this and tell me we're not all witnessing something similar:
Jerry, As a matter of fact, Republican's have just as strong to an argument to make as Democrats. That is, if Nader had not won, Bush's victory would have been MORE DECISIVE, and not so tenuous.
Democrats just default Nader onto their side, and empirically that's a dubious thing to do. :)
I find it surprising that you would argue that Nadar "flipped" Florida in 2000 when there are so many sinister types who had motivation. Katherine Harris, for example, both purged 58,000 "felons" from the voter rolls (in all probability a pro-Democatic group of voters) and later called a halt to the recount. Behind, Harris, there was Governor Bush who shares responsibility. We could blame the person who designed the butterfly-ballot for negligence. Then, of course, there are the 5 justices of the Supreme Court who declared Bush the winner, prior to the completion of the recall, which, according to surveys by the Washington Post and the Palm Beach, projected Gore as the winner had the Supreme Court not intervened.
ReplyDeleteAnd if we are to explore how "seemingly minor changes can trigger major consequences," we could then castigate Democrats in the Senate who voted en masse for the confirmation of Scalia (98-0), O'Connor (99-0), and Justice Kennedy (97-0), all of whom voted to call a halt to the recount. And who can forget, Senator Biden's role in the confirmation of Justice Thomas: as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee he failed to call Angela Wright (the second woman to step forward after Anita Hill alleging sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas) and thus Thomas, though tainted, was narrowly confirmed, 52-48.
Seems to me that all that Nader did was fight for a progressive cause, as he has done his entire life. Or perhaps you are suggesting that he should have, like Bernie, run as a Democrat. I think he should have. It is a two party system, afterall. But blaming Nader for Florida is a canard, in my opinion.
Professor Wolff,
ReplyDeleteThis is a total fiction.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth
Nader did not cost Gore the election.
One common error in this reasoning is that people just assume we independents are basically Democrats who would vote Democrat otherwise. This is false for two reasons. 1. Some of us - like myself - just don't vote democrat regardless. 2. Many independents lean more towards republican candidates when a good independent isn't running.
Nader did not cost Gore the election. This myth needs to die.
Thanks Chris. This is the best argument I've seen on the subject.
ReplyDeleteHaving spent much of my life voting for losing candidates, at some point I determined to simply vote my conscience. I don't think you can fault the Green Party for providing a conscience when the Democrats long ago had theirs surgically removed.
ReplyDeleteWhile the election of a president is no small thing, let's be honest about the power s/he can actually wield and about the locus of REAL power in the United States.
Ultimately, elections between candidates not that far apart on foreign policy or support for Wall Street are much like class monitor elections. Watch this and tell me we're not all witnessing something similar:
https://aeon.co/videos/see-real-democracy-in-action-how-chinese-third-graders-elect-a-class-monitor
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteAs a matter of fact, Republican's have just as strong to an argument to make as Democrats. That is, if Nader had not won, Bush's victory would have been MORE DECISIVE, and not so tenuous.
Democrats just default Nader onto their side, and empirically that's a dubious thing to do.
:)