<As Cantarell goes . . . The Oil Drum DrumBeat: July 25, 2006>

88 comments on Two quick political notes...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

wstephens on July 25, 2006 - 5:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
But politics runs on "packages"! I find this fascinating. Al Gore didn't have diddly squat of a message, so Nader stole the election from him.

My wife and I were trying to analyse this the other night, and we came to the conclusion (at least I did) that the democrats are made up of too diverse a group of interests to easily formulate a "package". Try it for yourself -- come up with a short message that appeals to all the Dem groups. It's hard. (And not just smearing the other side).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Prof. Goose on July 25, 2006 - 8:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The problem is that the Democratic coalition is easily fractured.  Keeping ideologues, unions, African Americans, and the poor on the same political page is very very difficult.  

It's not THAT much easier for the Rs, but it is easier.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wstephens on July 25, 2006 - 9:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Actually, I think that each existing party should be split in two new parties: the "Preservatives" and the "Catalysts".

The Preservatives would be for saving old houses, "back to the basics", anti-GM foods, pro-union, pro-gun, and things that our "founding fathers" believed -- i.e. all things agrarian or old-style industrial.

The Catalysts would be for more free trade, pro stem cell research, "privatizing" government, pro gay rights, eliminating quotas, pro-immigration/immigrants -- i.e. all things that promote change from the historical norms or status quo.

These parties would make more sense to me, and I think, reduce the conflicts that have built-up in both current parties.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Fargo on July 26, 2006 - 9:04am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Re: so Nader stole the election from him.

You really ought to read the first chapter of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. There's plenty of evidence to prove that the election was stolen by disenfranchizing thousands of black voters in largely Democratic districts in Florida by having Choicepoint incorrectly label them as felons. Perpetuating this "nader stole it from gore" crap just makes it easier for them to keep stealing elections.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wstephens on July 26, 2006 - 9:20am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The numbers seem to show that Gore lost by less than 1000 votes and Nader's Green party got over 97,000 votes (more than all the other third parties combined). You may disagree, and there may be other data, but it's not "crap".
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Fargo on July 26, 2006 - 9:40am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Illegaly disenfranchising voters seems more important to me. I could make the argument that Gore stole the election from Nader. It's just as ridiculous as saying Nader stole it from Gore. Votes aren't guaranteed to any candidate, the candidate has to actually earn them.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wstephens on July 26, 2006 - 10:28am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"I could make the argument that Gore stole the election from Nader"

ROFL -- and you called my post crap!? I guess I should have used the word "sabotaged" instead of "stole". Did *you* vote for Nader?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Fargo on July 26, 2006 - 10:37am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Since you completely missed my point I'll repeat it.

Votes aren't guaranteed to any candidate, the candidate has to actually earn them.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Fargo on July 26, 2006 - 10:51am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
In Addition, thousands of registered Democrats voted for GWB in 2000. Geez, if only GWB hadn't run he wouldn't have "stolen" all the votes from Gore.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wstephens on July 26, 2006 - 11:38am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"Votes...earn them."

OK, re-stated: There are various ways to sabotage your opponents in an election -- some ways being illegal and some sabotage is caused by "luck" (e.g. bufferfly ballots), etc, etc. Whatever.

More importantly, there are various way to sabotage your "cause" -- and Nader succeeded in this with distinction!

I'll assume you voted for him.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Fargo on July 26, 2006 - 11:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Yes, I voted for him in 2000. As my nickname suggests I'm in Fargo, ND a hardcore red-state which Bush took with ease. I figured if I'm going to "lose" either way I'll actually vote for the guy I agree with more.

So you got one assumption right but to assume that "my cause" was sabotaged by Nader is to assume that Gore's "cause" was my own which I wasn't convinced it was.

But back to my main point, saying Nader "stole" the election from Gore takes away from the REAL theft which was disenfranchisement of black voters which is a MUCH more important problem.

Of course the "spoiler" problem could easily be fixed by the Democratic leadership if they helped push something like instant-runoff voting through but I doubt they really want to do anything that helps third-parties and independents gain more votes.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Fargo on July 26, 2006 - 12:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I'd also recommend the following documentary to get more info on the disenfranchisement of black voters in 2000. You should be able to get it off netflix.

Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

88 comments on Two quick political notes...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.