Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile Metphistopheles Previous Previous Next Next
Forget "The Rent." It's the stakes that are too damn high. - Blather. Rants. Repeat.
A Møøse once bit my sister ...
Forget "The Rent." It's the stakes that are too damn high.
Our major political parties are entering their final pre-convention machinations, with the putative Republican loser naming an even losinger running mate last week, while the putative Democratic loser continues to soldier on, positing various mathematical theorems which say he can still overcome a huge deficit among even pledged delegates.

I'm more worried about Bernie, and his supporters, and those who may run on (or beg him to run on) a minor party line come November when the inevitable happens.  We've had any number of those come to the back of the forefront in elections this century- from the bombastic Jimmy McMillan's runs for NYC mayor and NYS Guv between 2005 and 2010 on the "Rent Is Too Damn High" party line; to assorted wackadoodles on the far right; to, in this state at least, major party candidates who petition separately for vanity lines in addition to their R or D, which our "fusion" system of counting votes encourages.

Scariest of all, though, are the Greens.  To their credit, as a rule they only nominate members of their own party and do not get involved in the backroom deals to trade their endorsement for patronage or prestige. Yet they are still politicians, which means there are exceptions to those rules; and word has been spreading in recent days that the national party would Make Room for Bernie (supplanting its 2012 candidate Jill Stein, who's back on the ballot for this go-round) if he loses to Hillary before or at the convention and still wants to have a shot.

In Presidential terms, "shot" is a term better reserved for reporting on assassinations, and him, or anyone, mounting a serious 2016 third-party run would be about as tragic.  In fact, it would be the Ralph Nadir of presidential politics.

There, I said it.  The patron saint of consumer activism remains dead to me, lo these sixteen years later, after what he did to wreck this country in 2000. He told the country that there was no difference between Bush and Gore, and all it took was fewer than 600 Florida voters to believe him and the fate of the world was changed.

Bernie supporters are hearing none of it.  And since they, too, are politicians- which means they parrot party-line talking points- I've now encountered the TP on this argument at least three times in the past day. The exact words vary, but this is the point:

Nader didn't cost Gore the election.  Gore lost because he couldn't carry his own home state.


First of all, George W. Bush didn't carry his home state in 2000, either; Connecticut's eight electoral votes went to the Dems. (Forget that BS about him being from Texas; the dude is bluer-blood than QE2, and that carpetbagging move of his was all hat and no cattle.)  Second: since when is a candidate responsible for the statewide politics of the electorate where he or she hangs a hat? It's far more to his credit that Gore got elected to the U.S. Senate twice in a state as red as Tennessee, the first time in a year when Reagan carried the state on the Presidential level.  It's far more significant that Nader was a distraction in battleground states in 2000; he diverted almost 100,000 Florida votes from the Democratic ticket, where less than one percent of that would have turned the tide.

But Gore would' ve won if the Supreme Court hadn't stopped the recount!, the Nader apologists cry.

True. And if my aunt had testicles, she'd have been my uncle.  There was no way that court, five of nine of whose votes were coming from appointees of either Dubya's daddy or his former boss, was going to let that continue.  It's revisionist history to suggest otherwise, and it's Sanatyana who reminded us about being doomed to repeat history if we don't learn from it.

This is the fire we are playing with. Nader cost this country trillions of debt, at least one unnecessary war, and two Supreme Court appointees who have given us Citizens United, the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act and an eradication of the first clause of the Second Amendment.  This year's victor is likely to get to name three appointees in his (if it turns out to be a he) first term, and who knows how many in a ::shudder:: second.

If you're in a red state and want to cast a protest vote for Bernie Sanders, or JimmyMcMillan, or Mickey Mouse for all I care, go right ahead.  But if you do it where it might actually affect the outcome? You will have a lot more on your hands than any extra ink on the ballot.
7 comments or Leave a comment
yesididit2 From: yesididit2 Date: May 1st, 2016 10:24 pm (UTC) (Link)
dude! thats kinda insulting. i'm a bernie supporter and i've never mentioned anything about gore, much less parroted anything gore/nader.

bernie wouldnt run on the green party if he loses the democratic nomination to hilary. he's not an idiot. he wants to better this country, not get elected at any cost. he wouldnt cut hilary off at the knees and risk letting trump win. he's NOT an idiot. if he wanted to get elected at any cost, he would have accepted large campaign donations like every other candidate ever and made this whole thing easier on himself. but thats not who he is.

and nearly every bernie supporter i've spoken to has said that while yes they'd totally rather have bernie, if hilary wins it, they'll vote for her.

captainsblog From: captainsblog Date: May 1st, 2016 10:27 pm (UTC) (Link)
I meant no offense. Bernie himself is saying he'll support the Dem nominee- but he has a lot of supporters tossing off this #bernieorbust sentiment that scares me to death.

yesididit2 From: yesididit2 Date: May 2nd, 2016 12:06 am (UTC) (Link)
well those idiots can wish in one hand and spit in the other, but they wont get bernies support in that run.
angledge From: angledge Date: May 2nd, 2016 02:20 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'm the same as you - I was a Bernie delegate to the Denver County Democratic Convention, but I will be supporting Hillary whole-heartedly in the general election. But there are TONS of very loud Bernie hardcore supporters who are to be found under hashtags like #NeverHillary who are not going to be part of a unified party.

I don't know that ANYTHING can sway them, but as fellow Bernie supporters, I think we have a role to play in at least trying to talk to them.

Edited at 2016-05-02 02:21 pm (UTC)
yesididit2 From: yesididit2 Date: May 2nd, 2016 03:07 pm (UTC) (Link)
that sounds like some people still need to learn that lesson 'you cant always get what you want'.

i think it would be neat if hilary took bernie on as her vice president...
angledge From: angledge Date: May 2nd, 2016 03:18 pm (UTC) (Link)
I think it's a symptom of a larger problem: many Americans no longer recognize that compromise is an inherent part of our democratic system. They consider "compromise" to be synonymous with "capitulation".

This is a pretty good Washington Post article on the topic.
angledge From: angledge Date: May 2nd, 2016 02:18 pm (UTC) (Link)
Maybe someone will set up a vote swap page. I remember in 2000 that lots of people wanted to vote for Nader to protest the main two parties, but they didn't want to help Bush if they were in a swing state. So there was a web site where you could "swap votes" with a Gore supporter in a non-competitive state - they would promise to vote for Nader if you promised to vote for Gore. It's all completely symbolic & non-binding but it might've swayed a few people. If only it had swayed 600 more in Florida...
7 comments or Leave a comment