The end is near!

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Actually I've heard it stated here that a vote for Nader = a vote for McCain, I'd wager the majority here would have no problem with a groundswell of support for a third party candidate (like Perot) who would take votes from McCain.

 

And for the record I couldn

[sweetheart-mine]

Actually I've heard it stated here that a vote for Nader = a vote for McCain, I'd wager the majority here would have no problem with a groundswell of support for a third party candidate (like Perot) who would take votes from McCain.

 

well of course not. today, no third-party candidate is going to get elected. so the wisdom of such a vote, in principle, is questionable. if people do it anyway and it benefits the candidate i want, so be it, good. don't think i'm going to lie about it.

[Moe_Syzlak]

I wonder how some of you felt about third party voting when Ross Perot took quite a few votes from an incumbent George Bush possibly swinging the election in Clintons favor.

 

I know quite a few of you blame a third party Nader candidacy for Gores defeat.

You're speaking of Duvenger's Law. I have stated before that I think third parties at the Presidential level are beneficial only for raising issues the two main parties would rather not during the campaign. And that is only when they rise to the level of spoiler as Perot did. Even Nader didn't really have an impact on national discourse and only acted as a spoiler due to an unusually close election. I believe that at the Federal level, the only way for us to truly have representative democracy with viable third party candidates is to move to an instant-runoff voting system. I believe that should be coupled with an elimination of the primary system.

[Sir Stewart]

Barack Obama to Appear on The Daily Show Wednesday

[bobbob1313]

You're speaking of Duvenger's Law. I have stated before that I think third parties at the Presidential level are beneficial only for raising issues the two main parties would rather not during the campaign. And that is only when they rise to the level of spoiler as Perot did. Even Nader didn't really have an impact on national discourse and only acted as a spoiler due to an unusually close election. I believe that at the Federal level, the only way for us to truly have representative democracy with viable third party candidates is to move to an instant-runoff voting system. I believe that should be coupled with an elimination of the primary system.

 

I would argue Nader is a big reason that the environment had become a pet issue for the democratic party.

[JUDE]

You're missing the point completely. The idea is that it's often counter-productive to your policy opinions vote for a third party in a presidential election. Perot actually proves that, as his positions (opposition to NAFTA, etc) were never adopted by the major parties and his movement sputtered out in a few years. I, for one, am glad that Clinton won and glad that many would-be Bush and Dole voters apparently voted for Perot en masse.

 

I am happy when third party voting favors results that I favor and not as happy when third party voting seems to have the opposite effect. Obviously.

 

No actually you are missing the point completely, those here who are most vocal against third party voting are only concerned as to how it has an effect on their current candidate, as you

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

those who are most vocal against third party voting are only concerned as to how it has an effect on their current candidate,

Ok...and? You seem to imply it's somehow hypocritical.

[MrRain422]

I would argue Nader is a big reason that the environment had become a pet issue for the democratic party.

 

Eh, I don't think that's really true. I think that Al Gore is a much bigger reason. He was an advocate for the environment long before he ran for President. He made a mistake in not making a bigger issue of it in the 2000 campaign, as he didn't see it as an issue with traction. Once he lost, he re-dedicated himself to an issue that had been his primary passion for 30 years.

[JUDE]

Ok...and?

 

Let me simplify this, do you think Louie would be at all upset and uttering Perots name in disgust, questioning the sanity of potential Perot voters (who wouldn't vote for his guy regardless) if he were a factor today, taking votes from McCain?

[bobbob1313]

Eh, I don't think that's really true. I think that Al Gore is a much bigger reason. He was an advocate for the environment long before he ran for President. He made a mistake in not making a bigger issue of it in the 2000 campaign, as he didn't see it as an issue with traction. Once he lost, he re-dedicated himself to an issue that had been his primary passion for 30 years.

 

 

Yes. If he wins that election, I don't see it becoming a big issue for democrats, that's my Point.

[Good Old Neon]

Andrew Sullivan:

 

I think it's now fair to say it's a war. My view is that after the McCain peeps had made that crazy decision and realized after the fact what they had on their hands, they put their best face on it. They knew that the normal rules for a veep - a press conference, full media accessibility, airing of all the biographical details - would have required the candidate to quit before November. So they tried to shield her from actual democracy - a dangerous decision for the rest of us, but a rational, cynical decision for a campaign running a delusional liar as the potential next president of the US. Palin of course, lives in her own little, somewhat nutty, world and now believes her manifest destiny has been thwarted.

 

It's a massive, unmissable clusterfuck and has been for two months. They just can't hide it any longer. And the pick is a devastating one - because it basically destroys John McCain's credibility as a presidential decision-maker. His first major decision as a future president is one of the worst in American political history. That alone should be enough to seal his fate next Tuesday. You need nothing else.

 

The article Sullivan is referring to - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/St...4663&page=1

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Let me simplify this, do you think Louie would be at all upset and uttering Perots name in disgust, questioning the sanity of potential Perot voters (who wouldn't vote for his guy regardless) if he were a factor today, taking votes from McCain?

Of course not. I would assume he doesn't have an ideological opposition to third party voting, rather he is irritated by folks with similar viewpoints to himself undermining those viewpoints by voting third party.

 

Edit: It's almost like you're saying "I see you had no problem when the other basketball team threw the ball into the wrong hoop, but you were mad as hell when your team did it! Gotcha!"

[LouieB]

You're speaking of Duvenger's Law. I have stated before that I think third parties at the Presidential level are beneficial only for raising issues the two main parties would rather not during the campaign. And that is only when they rise to the level of spoiler as Perot did. Even Nader didn't really have an impact on national discourse and only acted as a spoiler due to an unusually close election. I believe that at the Federal level, the only way for us to truly have representative democracy with viable third party candidates is to move to an instant-runoff voting system. I believe that should be coupled with an elimination of the primary system.

Bravo.....!!!!

 

The man of the day....

 

Incidently a three way race in the Democratic primary of 1983 helped Harold Washington get elected as the candidate of the party. Without a split of the vote between Jane Byrne and Richard M. Daley he may not have won this. By the time of the general election, the inherent racism of the Chicago electorate became clear when some white Democratic voters switched over to Bernie Epton, in an election what would have not had any interest at all had Harold not been the candidate. It is not my imagination that a third party candidate can skew election results in unintended ways, but just as with the 92 election with Clinton, the Harold Washington primary was A-Okay with me. But it is undeniable that had only Byrne or only Daley run, Washington would never have been the first black mayor of Chicago.

 

 

 

LouieB

[bobbob1313]

louie, you keep on bringing race up. I can honestly tell you that to most people of my age group, race doesn't matter. It makes me really sad that people try to use it as a case for as well as against obama.

[JUDE]

Of course not. I would assume he doesn't have an ideological opposition to third party voting, rather he is irritated by folks with similar viewpoints to himself undermining those viewpoints by voting third party.

 

So ideologically it makes it acceptable to vote for a third party platform that more closely mirrors you own belief system only if it couldn

[LouieB]

I would argue Nader is a big reason that the environment had become a pet issue for the democratic party.

Surely you jest.....you appear to know little or nothing about the Democratic party platform.

 

Luckily someone else besides me has pointed out that Gore was (is) a long time environmentalist and that Democrats supported environmental legislation without Nader....

 

With or without Nader, green jobs and alternative energy sources has been a centerpiece of Obama's campaign.

 

LouieB

[MrRain422]

Yes. If he wins that election, I don't see it becoming a big issue for democrats, that's my Point.

 

You think that having the government's biggest environmental advocate win the Presidency would make his party less likely to pursue the environment as a serious issue? I think it's far more likely that Gore would have used the office to advance environmental policy far more than the Dems have attempted to since. There's obviously no way to know, but I have a hard time believing that Gore wouldn't have used the opportunity to implement policies that he'd been pushing for his entire legislative career.

[bobbob1313]

and yet I'm the one who doesn't read your posts, louie... Good bit.

[Mrs. Peel]

Heh. Its always weird to see "flashbacks" like this that include posts I don't remember writing. Nothing on the internet ever dies, does it? This is at least a step up from Googling myself and coming up with results of Amazon.com reviews I wrote when I was staggeringly drunk in college.

 

 

Chronicle Vol. 2: Twenty Great CCR Classics

Price: $11.97

Availability: In Stock

 

 

8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

 

3.0 out of 5 stars Excellent, but unveven, May 17, 2002

A tremendous collection of songs here. The "hits" are primarialy compiled on the first Volume, but there is plenty of worthy music to be found here. "Born on the Bayou", for instance, is essential, as are many songs here like "Wrote a Song for Everyone". But there is also some lesser-quality work here, which makes for a more uneven listen. Throw Vols 1 & 2 in a changer together, hit random, and it's a hell of a listen!

[MrRain422]

louie, you keep on bringing race up. I can honestly tell you that to most people of my age group, race doesn't matter. It makes me really sad that people try to use it as a case for as well as against obama.

 

This is true. Younger voters in general don't care about race in the same way that older voters do. But there are a lot more older voters than younger voters. I agree that race isn't the be all and end all of why certain people don't support Obama -- there are obviously a whole slew of other legitimate and illegitimate reasons not to support him. But I also think it's naive to think that race is no longer a significant factor in politics.

 

Just before I moved to Chicago, I witnessed an absolutely mindblowing mayoral election in Detroit in which race played a major role, even though both candidates were black. Race is still a huge factor in the way that millions upon millions of Americans of all races see the world. In 30-50 years this may no longer be the case, but for now it's still a reality. Nowadays racism is no longer acceptable in the public discourse, but it's still an underlying factor in a lot of things that are said publicly, and in some areas is probably still a primary factor in the voting booth.

[LouieB]

louie, you keep on bringing race up. I can honestly tell you that to most people of my age group, race doesn't matter. It makes me really sad that people try to use it as a case for as well as against obama.

Oh really....then why did the ATF just break up a young skin-head group who was talking of assasinating of him? (And killing a bunch of blacks along with him.)

 

Okay fine. Race has nothing to do with anything in this country. Not sure how your age group is exempt from this, but that's fine. I am sure there are many young African Americans out there going to the polls right now to cast their vote for John McCain.

 

LouieB

[viatroy]

Barack Obama to Appear on The Daily Show Wednesday

 

 

YAY!!!!! and I hope he doesn't do SNL -- that'd be stupid.

[bobbob1313]

You think that having the government's biggest environmental advocate win the Presidency would make his party less likely to pursue the environment as a serious issue? I think it's far more likely that Gore would have used the office to advance environmental policy far more than the Dems have attempted to since. There's obviously no way to know, but I have a hard time believing that Gore wouldn't have used the opportunity to implement policies that he'd been pushing for his entire legislative career.

 

It's a chicken/egg question, really. I just don't remember it being a big thing for democrats until '04, and I think it's fair to say that losing a close elections with that as a factor probably influenced that.

 

This is true. Younger voters in general don't care about race in the same way that older voters do. But there are a lot more older voters than younger voters. I agree that race isn't the be all and end all of why certain people don't support Obama -- there are obviously a whole slew of other legitimate and illegitimate reasons not to support him. But I also think it's naive to think that race is no longer a significant factor in politics.

 

I'm not pretending racism doesn't exist, just that it doesn't really matter to most people of my generation, and that personally, I hate that it gets brought up as a reason to vote for him, as louis often does.

 

And louie, I personally do know some young black (and Latino, and Indian, etc) voting for McCain because race doesn't matter to them one way or the other.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

So ideologically it makes it acceptable to vote for a third party platform that more closely mirrors you own belief system only if it couldn

[Sir Stewart]

I just don't remember it being a big thing for democrats until '04

Right - before that it was a Republican thing. Bush 41 was The Environmental President, after all.