those dirty 3rd parties stealing votes...
El_Kabong
Posts: 4,141
i had to watch part of CNN's 'not just another cable news show' and the brief moments i saw were all about ross perot and showed a bunch of sound bytes to make him look crazy...at the end they said "but he still managed to steal enough votes from george bush allowing bill clinton to win"
how did he steal any votes?? how did they belong to bush in the first place??
if i choose to go to jack in the box instead of mcdonalds is jack in the box stealing money from mcdonalds? and if they happened to be closed it doesn't necessarily mean i would've gone to mcdonalds
it just seems like the media tries to discredit 3rd parties
how did he steal any votes?? how did they belong to bush in the first place??
if i choose to go to jack in the box instead of mcdonalds is jack in the box stealing money from mcdonalds? and if they happened to be closed it doesn't necessarily mean i would've gone to mcdonalds
it just seems like the media tries to discredit 3rd parties
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Indeed
It's hilarious to me EK that they do so many stories on the dumbest people in the whole process "undecided voters" Yeah, people who make up thier mind on the whim of the political process mainly due to who spends more money advertising during American Idol are valid, but people who vote NO or essentially against the two major parties and FOR something that actually pay attention and have an opinion... those are the votes that were "lost"
Um no. It's insane really... but most national "news" programs have become absolute garbage... virtually no reporting done is worthwhile. Most of the stuff you'd have to be absolutely vacant to not know about it already.
Excellent post. I often hear this "steal" language as well and, as an independent voter who typically votes for 3rd party candidates, it bugs me. I'll being voting 3rd party in the presidental election this year and there's absolutely no way my vote would have gone to one of the major party candidates in the absence of that third party candidate.
That said, there certainly are 3rd party voters who would vote for a major-party candidate if their 3rd option wasn't on the ballot. So the media is touching on a valid point. They simply take this valid point way too far and wrap it in incorrect language.
If you interview for a job against 2 other people in front of a committee of 7 people and 2 people on the committee like you, 2 people on the committee like another person similar to you, and 3 more like the last person, are you responsible if the last guy gets hired and does a terrible job? Should you just not have interviewed for the job?
i blame the people that are too lazy to find out if there is a better alternative to the status quo....if the electorate would start voting for people who share similar values instead who the media tells them who to vote for, we might actually see change in this country
So this justifies Nader's run in 2000? Laughable. You do realize, don't you, that if Nader isn't on the ballot in 2000 we don't suffer 8 years of Bush incompetency? We don't invade Iraq; the list is endless.
Sorry, guy, but we're talking about the presidency here. You can ask how I'd feel about being interviewed for a job and make the analogy all you want. For whatever failed reasons, we typically only have two realistic candidates running for president. If there's a VIABLE third party candidate, all the better to have choices and exposure to issues. The simple point I'm trying to make is that when we face dire circumstances as we do now, it might be better to, in the perspective of some, consider the lesser of two evils. As an Obama supporter, I'm happy with my choice.
And by the way, you know how I'd feel if another cat and I interviewed for the same job and he obviously was better known but I snagged a few of the hiring board's votes and somebody with a completely different ideology ended up winning because I caused a minor split then the guy who got hired embezzled millions, brought about the company's downfall, caused thousands of workers and their families to suffer loss of their pensions and loss of healthcare and general security? I wouldn't feel so good.
Feel free to tell me how Obama isn't going to change anything.
Please allow the rest of us to know who will be our next president.
MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!:D
Spread the Crabs '08.
Care to make a wage?
You're welcome for the laugh, but no one said that it "justified Nader's run". Nader (or anyone else for that matter), doesn't need to justify running for office. This is America, not Venezuela.
You do realize, don't you, that Nader simply being on the ballot is not the whole story. Al Gore still had to run a shitty campaign. People still had to vote for Nader. Lots of other factors had to play out. Blaming the whole thing on Nader is simply scapegoating. You might as well blame Barbara Bush for giving birth to Georgie-boy in the first place.
Wait a minute. Using your logic, Barack Obama is doing major damage to the democratic party right now and threatens to give us 4 years of John McCain. He never should have gotten in Hillary's way as she was the assumed winner when this whole thing started. He should have known better than to bring about this drawn-out fight.
If you're willing to claim that you're responsible in those circumstances, I'll commend you for being consistent, at least. I don't agree with your conclusion, however. There's nothing wrong with applying for a job and putting forth your case to those who would be hiring you. Those people bear the responsibility for their choices, not you.
this thread is about the media marginalizing political parties other than the democrats and republicans.....there are numerous threads here about obama...feel free to search them out....
Funny, I thought this thread was about third parties. Read my posts to get the perspective.
What exactly justified Bush's run or Gore's?
I agree with ffg, no one needs to justify running for office.
naděje umírá poslední
Perhaps we fixate too much on the head of the executive branch... The president is just one office in the federal government which has WAY more power currently than was ever intended.
If the government is of by and for the people..... why is everyone treating the presidential race as if its running for King?
The president..... Probably has too much power, probably because we the people have allowed them over the years too much leeway.
Local elections, Senators, Congress are supposed to be the ones with the bulk of the power. Not the President. The Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch have done a crappy job checking the office of the Executive in the last 50 years or so and really vise versa.
This race is basically completely constituted of empty promises, and that's been true the last 20 years.
Political races are more about to steal an idea from JFK... what government officials can do for specific groups of big money donors more than what anyone can do for the country.
Question of the century. Well done, Pacomc79.
Why don't you tell us all? Since you're the one telling us who should be allowed to run and who deserves our vote despite what we think about the matter.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
You and EK sound like goddamn Libertarians in this thread...I'm scared
This is absolutely the best thought I've read in a while. Good insight and I confess I'm just as guilty as the next of getting in way too deep with the concept of the presidency versus the congressional representation that actually legislates.
I'm not saying that thrid party candidates shouldn't seek the presidency, but when it becomes painfully evident that such a candidate is only going to win perhaps 1% of the vote, that 1% could be the difference between having somebody in office who is going to prolong war or end war, somebody who is going to seek affordable healthcare versus pandering to healthcare lobbysists.
Al Gore did run a shitty campaign in 2000 ~ I don't disagree with that fact. Do you think if Nader knew what Bush's presidency would deliver, had he known then what he knows now, that he still would have ran? Gore's campaign might have been poorly carried out, but he wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq and he wouldn't have leveraged Medicare at the expense of taxpayers, amongst a mountain of other policies the Bush administration has created at the expense of people like me, you and the majority of Americans who aren't homeless or wealthy.
Farfromglorified ~ I think Nader was fully aware when he ran that he had more in common with Gore than Bush in terms of policy and ideology. Hillary's campaign invoked negativity and many feel that she bears the bulk of responsibility for creating divisions in the woefully inept Democratic Party. John Edwards or Bill Richardson could be in Obama's position right now and I'd have the the same misgivings with the Clinton's.
I'm guessing you would have preferred Bush over Gore in 2000??? I'd offer who I think will win and why but it's painfully obvious you don't give a shit in lieu of your sarcastic questioning.
Do you see the problem with your logic here though? Certainly Clinton has been more negative, but the political realities dictate that she had to be because of Barack's challenge to her. The previous point I made holds -- had Barack (and all the other Democratic candidates) simply gotten out of her way, there'd be no division in the party. Based on your logic then, he shouldn't have run.
That's the problem with your thinking -- it's too in-the-moment. Much more harm has been done and will by done by the gradual merging of the two major parties as they push out other voices than has been done by those other voices "stealing" votes from each other.
The primary system amazes me in its flaws and this prolonged Democratic primary provides as much. We have two candidates from the SAME party who do differ somewhat on issues yet still share similar core ideologies.
When Obama was down 20 points at the commencement of his run, he didn't invoke any of the numerous scandals that Republicans will eagerly unleash on HRC should she garner the nomination. Only when Hillary started to lose did the negative campaigning begin. As I said earlier, if Edwards was in Barack's position, we'd see the same scenario unfolding in terms of the tit-for-tat campaigning that doesn't focus on altering the status quobut rather doing whatever's necessary to further ambition. Hillary's vote for Iraq and refusal to admit it was a mistake dictated that somebody would be in the race at least through Super Tuesday. You're twisting my logic, and feel free to continue to do so, but the only time we ever see uncontested primaries is when a sitting president seeks his second term. It's not Obama's fault that she voted to authorize war in Iraq or has been who she is and done what she's done during her tenure in public life.
When you say you see a gradual merging of the parties, I agree that in some circumstances that rings true with Senator Clinton and most other typical politicians. I just don't see how Obama's stances meld with Republican agenda.
I prefer Gore over Bush but Nader over Gore....is that okay with you?
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
Nader shouldn't have run? Why do we have elections then?
Ok. This isn't amazing, but that's fine.
First, none of this addresses the core point. I'm not twisting your logic -- you're saying that those on one side of the political spectrum should do the utmost to ensure that their side of the political spectrum wins an election and that those who might challenge those within their side of the spectrum are to blame whenever they lose.
Second, you don't think Obama's stances meld with the "Republican agenda"??? Ask around, I'm sure there are many here who are willing to tell you why Obama is as much an establishment candidate as Clinton or McCain. Tossing the word "change" around isn't a bona fide when it comes to bucking the establishment.
Yeah, Randi Roads, who told off and hung up on Nader in 2004, was talking about Perot last night and doing much of the same thing.
Could there be whispers of other strong well funded candidates entering the race?
Perot got 19% in 1992 and beat Clinton in Utah where Bush actually won.
27% 24% 43%
Perot got 8% in 1996 with not being in the debate, spending less money. . .and I think this was the one where he dropped out temporary.
Anyway, Randi was saying how he was "crazy" ..........."what were those pie charts all about. . .ha ha" ............and also said "Did he even get 4%"? ? ?
I know she's more knowledgeable than that. . .Same old shit from her.
I was proud to cast my first presidential vote for Ross Perot!