those dirty 3rd parties stealing votes...

El_Kabong

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

Pacomc79

El_Kabong wrote:

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

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.

mammasan

Instead of being the people's watchdog the media has basically become the government's PR firm.

farfromglorified

El_Kabong wrote:

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

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.

Danny Boy

Nadert's presence on the ballot in 2000 sure served the people well. Other fashions to convey a message exist other than running for president. I'm not saying the media should be allowed to dictate who can and can't run, but until Perot had misgivings about running, he was a legitimate contender. I'd have no qualms supporting a non-party candidate as I am declared independent, but I wouldn't vote for somebody I knew was going to lose. Consider the circumstances our country faces right now. If a lefty, third party candidate causes a repeat of 2000 (which isn't going to happen) and McCain somehow won, you could thank him/her for 4 more years of Iraq, failed healthcare, a deepening chasm between classes, corporate pandering and this list goes on.... and on... and on....

farfromglorified

Danny Boy wrote:

Nadert's presence on the ballot in 2000 sure served the people well. Other fashions to convey a message exist other than running for president. I'm not saying the media should be allowed to dictate who can and can't run, but until Perot had misgivings about running, he was a legitimate contender. I'd have no qualms supporting a non-party candidate as I am declared independent, but I wouldn't vote for somebody I knew was going to lose. Consider the circumstances our country faces right now. If a lefty, third party candidate causes a repeat of 2000 (which isn't going to happen) and McCain somehow won, you could thank him/her for 4 more years of Iraq, failed healthcare, a deepening chasm between classes, corporate pandering and this list goes on.... and on... and on....

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?

norm

Danny Boy wrote:

If a lefty, third party candidate causes a repeat of 2000 (which isn't going to happen) and McCain somehow won, you could thank him/her for 4 more years of Iraq, failed healthcare, a deepening chasm between classes, corporate pandering and this list goes on.... and on... and on....

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

Danny Boy

farfromglorified wrote:

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?

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.

Danny Boy

cutback wrote:

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

Feel free to tell me how Obama isn't going to change anything.

Nevermind

Danny Boy wrote:

Feel free to tell me how Obama isn't going to change anything.

He's not going to be president. So nothing is going to change.

Danny Boy

Nevermind wrote:

He's not going to be president. So nothing is going to change.

Please allow the rest of us to know who will be our next president.

Nevermind

Danny Boy wrote:

Please allow the rest of us to know who will be our next president.

Hillary or John McCain. Or if were lucky Bush will stick around. Any other questions?

Rhinocerous Surprise

Danny Boy wrote:

Please allow the rest of us to know who will be our next president.

MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!:D

Spread the Crabs '08.

Danny Boy

Nevermind wrote:

Hillary or John McCain. Or if were lucky Bush will stick around. Any other questions?

Care to make a wage?

Nevermind

Danny Boy wrote:

Care to make a wage?

You want money? Is that what you really need?

farfromglorified

Danny Boy wrote:

So this justifies Nader's run in 2000? Laughable.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

norm

Danny Boy wrote:

Feel free to tell me how Obama isn't going to change anything.

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....

Danny Boy

cutback wrote:

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.

Collin

Danny Boy wrote:

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.

What exactly justified Bush's run or Gore's?

I agree with ffg, no one needs to justify running for office.

Pacomc79

Maybe we should just work on ways to devalue the power of the president.

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.

farfromglorified

Pacomc79 wrote:

why is everyone treating the presidential race as if its running for King?

Question of the century. Well done, Pacomc79.