Correct. Individuals have almost no impact in this system…and only a tiny number of those who happen to be in ‘swing’ categories.
For most of us, our vote has always meant essentially nothing. That’s a fact that ideology and hope can’t overcome.
7 Likes
That’s only a factor for the teensey weensey number of people who live in swing states that are so amazingly close that their vote is statistically meaningful.
1 Like
And I can help in the next election. In this I am necessarily complicit, because that’s how our government works.
The parties aren’t fully democratic. They Dems choose which candidate they will and have the last say through superdelegates.
And how is joining a political party not doing that? I’m not doing it as a protest, I have been open about how I felt that Bernie and Jeremy Corbyn were the last chance I was giving the establishment.
The “any vote not for Hillary is a vote for Trump” rhetoric is just the thing that pushed me into accepting that the political system is set up to maintain the status quo. I refuse to play a part of that anymore. I have been sold out too many times.
9 Likes
The sad fact is - not a lot is going to change no matter who gets into office.
Remember Obama? He was supposed to destroy America - or make it awesome again. They even gave him a PEACE PRIZE just based on his promise. Meh - pretty much more of the same shit.
As much as I dislike the main two, I guess I have heard the “It’s ruined! I’m moving to Canada!” hysteria too much. They can’t do anything TOO crazy because of the legislative branch. Worst they can do is stagnate shit. Even Supreme Court nominees can’t be too bat shit crazy, because they have to have Senate approval as well.
4 Likes
Did you read any of the linked articles? Or did you just dismiss me out of hand because you don’t actually care that our democracy is beholden to two political parties with little interest in the rest of us?
4 Likes
Did you actually read any of the linked articles?
Dude, I love you and all your adorable critters, but… Gore lost that election all on his own.
5 Likes
Have you read Jefferson Cowie’s book on the demographic shift in the Democratic party and the end of the new deal coalition… He makes a strong argument as to why this is so:
I disagree. Those are central and important, but not the only issues. Race, the “culture wars,” and the economy are front and center too. If you feel your life is in danger daily because of the color of your skin, that you can’t have access to reproductive care as a guranteed right, or can’t feed your family, then I think these latter issues are going to take precedent over climate change or the any decisions the court might hand down. When you’re a step away from disaster on a daily basis, your calculus changes quickly to focus on those more mundane, personal struggles.
7 Likes
Heeey - wait a second. Hillary hasn’t chosen a running mate yet. Why doesn’t she pick Sanders?
Because why would she?
Nowhere for lefties to go, she’s been flirting with Warren but watch her go safe and centrist and pick Kaine.
Since Trump is going to pick Gingrich or worse anyway, she can pretty much do whatever she wants.
2 Likes
Except it seems, if you believe the articles I linked too, far more registered dems voted for Bush rather than either Gore or Nader…
Again, do you have citations for his intentions? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the Dems had assumed that part of their coalition was solid, when it hadn’t been for years, since economically, they moved to the right.
The fact of his criticism (Nader’s I mean) remains strong and accurate, a two party duoploy has a strangle hold on the political system in this country - both parties take their voters for granted and do nothing unless pushed. Both are going to do precisely what corporations want them to do, with the Dems being more socially liberally, even as they open up our economy for the picking.
Do I agree that Nader ran a protest campaign? Sure, I do. But what you and others are suggesting is that we have no real choice, and we should shut up and get in line, because that’s the way things are and we have no means by which to change them. But hiding the problems in our electoral and social systems will not make them go away. It will only continue to empower those who have rigged the system so effectively.
I’m not going to be told that the electoral system is the best we’re getting so I should just accept it. I think in the past few decades some important things have changed that no one expected, except those fighting for it. Do you honestly think that 20 years ago, gay marriage would be a thing? Do you think that just happened or that people fought and struggled for it?
We’re not going to get positive change if we don’t work for it, is my point. Instead of looking at what Nader might have done with that election, how about we actually look at what he was arguing for and maybe push for positive changes.
And, FYI, you didn’t have to delete your comment. You were absolutely fair… unlike others who are just dismissive! I don’t take anything personally, in the least! 
9 Likes
Al Gore was a smart, competent, well-considered man with a tragic lack of charisma and style. He had an almost embarrassing lack of grace. Like John Kerry, he ran a dull, mediocre campaign while GWB’s team did a fantastic job of making their witless turd of a nominee look like a charming doof you’d like to have a beer with.
8 Likes
Your attitude is the reason why we are stuck in this rut. You cheerfully admit that the system isn’t working for us, yet you keep voting for it. I’m not compromising my beliefs. I’m supporting a good choice for President, and I will all the way to the end. I will not support a BAD choice because I fear a worse one.
6 Likes
The fact that he chose to do what in the conditions that he did them in are separate from his intent. I wasn’t griping about his intent in the former comment, just griping about the behaviors.
True, and thanks to the loss in 2000, that stranglehold was reinforced all the more by a conservative SCOTUS empowering all the worst in it.
I’ve never really liked Nader. He’s always been a bit of a BS artist since the 60s (full disclosure: I always liked Corvairs for various reasons, and was personally annoyed about him lying about them), and he lied through this teeth through 2000, so I’m heavily biased. I won’t say he was incorrect about a number of the things he said in 2000, he was right about a lot of thing in terms of what he said even if he was staggeringly wrong about some very important things. But he went well past criticism.
When he went into the election he wasn’t just saying things, he was doing things in a domain that had real-world practical consequences he knew about and gave a mix of remarkably weak excuses about. He was still wrong to act in the say he did with the likely practical outcomes being what they were, regardless of intent. His actions didn’t help anything, were clear from the start as being likely to be deeply damaging, and ultimately strengthened the system he was opposing. It’s deeply, deeply fucked up that a theoretical left-wing critic of a broken oligarchic duopoly behaved in a way that helped ensure Citizens United.
The system sucks, it’s a dumb, broken, corrupt mess, I don’t know what will fix it, but throwing an election that hands an Executive and Judicial branch from the moderate centrist plutocrats to the zealous theocratic fundamentalist plutocrats isn’t an effective way to fix anything.
I tried to hit edit to fix a typo and somehow deleted it and was annoyed, then was relieved since I figured this was really a fruitless venture, then was sad since I deleted it too late, then I went and replied here to carry on in the fruitless venture for reasons I don’t really know.
9 Likes
I did read it. I said the problem was with the voters who voted for Nader instead of Gore. I never it was with all Nader voters as of course some of them would have voted for Bush or not voted at all. I blamed a very specific subset of them.
And also all Bush voters of course.
I’ll add that this attitude is why we have Clinton vs. Trump instead of genuinely awesome candidates (and isn’t that the theoretically point, that we’re voting FOR somebody because they’re good for the country?)
The DNC (who is really the problem here)… the only of the two parties that’s even vaguely progressive… has made it pretty clear that they’re not interested in genuinely progressive policies unless their feet are held to the fire (and even then apparently they’ll fight kicking and screaming). They NEED to be scared, because right now they’re just holding onto their power and making sure we all stay in the same trap that’s been serving them so well.
Are they bringing us back to pre-Reagan tax policies? Fighting to actually end not just ‘official war’ but any military foreign entaglements? What about using that massive military budget to NOT make things designed to ruin other things? A guaranteed dignified living for all humans in our country (we can afford it).
Nope, they’re part of the problem. Why should we support a problem?
5 Likes
I don’t remember the 2000 election feeling so critical. I think in retrospect it seems critical, because of everything that happened since then. But we have no idea how having a democrat in office would have changed the reaction to 9/11. It’s possibly we still would have gone into Afghanistan. Even if a war in Iraq was off the table, I suspect that drone bombing in various places like Somalia and Yemen would have continued as would have radicalization in the Mid East.
Bush didn’t run as a theocrat, though, he ran as a center right, compassionate conservative.
At least you can admit that!
Such as? Specifics? With regards to the corvair, do you really think it’s bad that car manufacturers actually include a host of safety features on today’s cars?
How does that follow? Because Bush put two people on the court rather than Gore? I think that, Citizens United or no, corporate money already dominated the election and would continue to do so. Citizens United merely codifed what already existed, if you ask me.
I don’t think it’s fruitless if we can better understand each other, even if we disagree, yeah?
Why should people have voted for Gore if they didn’t agree with him? Why does Gore “deserve” their votes, if he doesn’t represent their political views or talk to their issues?
2 Likes
