Uhm, no, that isn’t why we got a Bush presidency. Good try though.
I don’t “have to” do anything. It is my vote and Clinton doesn’t get it. No Clinton or Bush ever will again.
4 Likes
Not even Chelsea in 2024? She’ll be great!
2 Likes
Or maybe they actually believed in Nader’s political views more than Gore. The Dems are not entitled to our support, if we don’t agree with them. It’s upon them to convince us of the rightness of our cause.
And once again, there was a fair number of people who were disenfranchised illegally.
http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html
But yeah, it must be the people who are casting their vote for who they want to, not chicanery in the system itself.
8 Likes
…because the people buying and sellng the US government have deliberately and actively fucked up campaign finance law over the last several decades.
Resulting in the current situation of open, legal, near-universal bribery. And the widespread use of money launderer’s tricks to evade what minimal regulation remains.
3 Likes
Noting the source of the article, it is nice to see that this keen reporter for the Daily Planet is still keeping her hand in.
I don’t deny for a minute that if it wasn’t for the disenfranchisements that Gore would have won.
Or if Gore had avoided a couple campaign gaffes.
Or if they didn’t have a really confusing ballot in one district.
Or if Bush had made a couple more gaffes himself.
etc, etc.
The fact is a few hundred Floridians had the ability to stop the disaster of a Bush presidency by voting for Gore, instead they voted for Nader. Don’t make the same mistake with Clinton vs Trump/Cruz.
No argument there. But is someone in a better position to do something about it, if they are in power, or out of power?
In a plan intended to upend a “political system hijacked by billionaires and special interests,” Hillary Rodham Clinton presented a set of proposals on Tuesday to curb anonymous political donations and bolster the influence of small donors through a federal matching program.
“Our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee,” Mrs. Clinton said in a statement, reiterating her call to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling.
[quote=“art_carnage, post:87, topic:76017, full:true”]No argument there. But is someone in a better position to do something about it, if they are in power, or out of power?
[/quote]
In-power or out-of-power is irrelevant when the person in question has no intention of fixing the problem.
Citizen’s United has been hugely profitable for the Clintons, and they are in no hurry to change that. They aren’t opponents of pay-to-play politics; they are its embodiment.
5 Likes
Along with hundreds of thousands of other people who didn’t vote for Gore, including 200,000 registered Dems who voted for Bush. Why single out the Nader voters?
12 Likes
[quote=“daneel, post:89, topic:76017, full:true”]Along with hundreds of thousands of other people who didn’t vote for Gore, including 200,000 registered Dems who voted for Bush. Why single out the Nader voters?
[/quote]
Not to forget the five votes that actually delivered the Presidency to Shrub. Nader voters are at fault because they caused Gore to win the election by a margin narrow enough to be stolen?
4 Likes
Then Hillary should give people a good reason not to (Not “Trump/Cruz will win if you don’t vote for me!”). She isn’t even trying at the moment.
5 Likes
the superdelegates typically vote at the convention for the candidate with the most delegates. in 08, superdelegate bill clinton cast his vote at the convention for obama, not hillary. the superdelegates were originally put in place to provide an establishment counterbalance against an insurgent candidate taking over the primary process, like mcgovern in 72, but over time it has become a rubber stamp for whoever has the most delegates by the time of the convention.
1 Like
you do realize that actions which enable a republican victory have consequences for real people? reproductive freedom for women, healthcare for people who can’t afford it, the right to have a union represent you against the corporations, any possibility of civil rights enforcement, plus the decades long legacy of getting to replace ginsburg, kennedy, and presumably scalia on the supreme court.
i’d be delighted to elect sanders as president but i’ll vote for hillary if she’s the democratic nominee because the stakes are too high not to.
1 Like
What’s wrong with heightening the contradictions? Once President Trump is elected, a real progressive majority can emerge from the ashes.
You realise that actions which help Hillary win the nomination have real consequences for real people?
Entrenchment of plutocratic corruption, suicidal inaction on climate change, abandonment of the working class, endless war…
7 Likes
when heightening the contradictions involves real pain for millions of real people i lose my taste for it.
1 Like
and you think electing a republican is going make any of that better? i’d be delighted to hear how.
1 Like
There’s no need to elect a Republican; Bernie would clean the clocks of any of the current GOP field.
The only risk of a Republican president is if the Dems are stupid enough to nominate Clinton.
8 Likes
See the funny thing is Trump is unnecessary to this whole equation. It doesn’t matter who the Republican front-runner is, people would still act like this was an emergency. There is a certain cry-wolf element to this. How many times are we going to be offered up the lesser of two evils before we’re allowed to get tired of it?
I find the charge of selfishness the most baffling. Are you getting paid not to vote for Hillary? Is there candy? I don’t know what I’m supposed to get out of it. Am I supposed to feel good about not having a candidate that represents my interests? Is that what I’m getting out of it?
I have an agenda and an ideology that differs from others. That’s not selfishness, that called having a different strategy and believing that other action is either more moral, more effective, or some combination thereof. See, I fundamentally understand why people would vote for Clinton even if they don’t believe in her. I don’t agree with it, but I understand it. I would like to persuade them that there is a better course of action, but I don’t have this bizarre sense of… entitlement (for lack of a better, less loaded word) that people seem to have going the other way.
“Oh, you don’t believe in this course of action?! Then you’re selfish for not taking it!”
How does that make any sense? At least with Hillary supporters I’m willing to admit that they think they’re doing what’s best for the country as a whole. It would be nice to be extended the same courtesy. Unless the assumption is that… I don’t really know. We’re taking our toys and leaving? Because I have every intention of being very there, very loud, and having my toys with me (which sounds weird, but that’s the analogy and I’m sticking to it!) This is participation, whether you like it or not.
ETA: Reading the WaPo article linked by @jerwin and many of the comments here, I find the sudden level of comfort and the normalization of the current trends in campaign finance, in order to defend Hillary, by itself to be sufficient reason not to vote for her. It is extremely alarming to me how quick Dems have become to defend the status quo on campaign finance when it’s Dems doing it.
10 Likes
I HAD NO IDEA?!?!
Sure, so maybe the Democrats should field a candidate that independents like myself want to vote for if they want my vote.
5 Likes
