Ping -

Feb. 25th, 2004

11:09 am

OK. I've had enough. I really like Simon Phipps, and this has nothing to do with him specifically, but reading his reiteration of the "Nader split the liberal vote" or "Nader gave us Bush" argument just pushed me over the line.

Bush became president. Whatever happened, he is in office now. Lets all just deal with that. Focusing on the mess that was the election will just let another unfit person slip in.

But what about the campaign?

The election was Gore's to lose. Only by running a remarkably inept campaign did he squander: 1) an unbelievably popular president's support; 2) a strong economy; 3) a relatively peaceful world; 4) the weakest Republican presidential candidate running in years. Gore didn't even win his home state. How fucking hard could that have been? All he had to do was pay Tennessee a little attention, and he would be president.

That is right: had Gore's own constituents voted for him, he would be in the White House right now. If Gore had the backbone to say, "I don't care if he got a blow job, and neither should you," he would be in the white house. Had someone in the Gore campaign looked at the mess Bush made of Texas and made an issue of it, Gore probably would have been elected.

And here is the kicker: if 60 percent of registered democrats had bothered to get out and vote, Gore would be president right now. So if you want to know why Bush was elected look at the two Democrats nearest you, and point your finger (that is, of course, assuming you actually voted).

We have George Bush as a our leader because we are lazy, ill-educated, and easily distracted by insipid discussion of oral sex in the White House. We have exactly the president we deserve. And the whole world is suffering for it.

Making Nader a scapegoat won't do any good. You really can't complain one week that the election represents an "evil of the two lessers" situation, while at the same time imploring Nader to drop out because, even though you really like what he says, Gore isn't "quite as bad as" Bush, and we really don't want Bush to win. Yea. That seems like the best way to elect someone to run the whole country. This twisted kind of appeasement rarely works.

If the system is broken, fix it. Don't blame a person for doing what is his right: running for president.

So, my Democrat friends, focus on winning, not on whether or not Nader runs. Because if you focus on Nader, rather than Bush, you will lose again.

(Leave a comment)

Comments:

From:	nephthys510
Date:	February 25th, 2004 11:13 am (UTC)

(Link)

Amen, brother.

I can still call Nader a selfish fucknozzle tho, right?

(Reply) (Thread)

From:	bitpuddle
Date:	February 25th, 2004 11:19 am (UTC)

(Link)

He is entirely an arrogant egoist fucknozzle. That is true. I just don't see him losing the election for Gore.

Is it weird that the term "fucknozzle" excites me?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:	nephthys510
Date:	February 25th, 2004 11:25 am (UTC)

(Link)

What DOESN'T excite you?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:	bitpuddle
Date:	February 25th, 2004 11:48 am (UTC)

(Link)

Nancy Reagan. Body odor.

Little else, though.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:	cdk
Date:	February 25th, 2004 12:14 pm (UTC)

(Link)

In Bush's first win in Texas, Ann Richards, who was popular enough to have won against a real candidate, ran on a platform of "WTF? Why the HELL would you vote for this guy? We're not even sure he can SPELL, let alone run a state, but we know for damn sure he can't run a business." I don't know if they just totally underestimated him, or what, but they managed to go through the whole campaign season without once mentioning Richard's accomplishments as governor - which, whatever anyone thought of her politics, she got stuff done. Bush's wildly successful platform, on the other hand, boiled down to "My opponent is a big nasty bully. Also, concealed carry." It seemed to work; I have to imagine people bought his "don't be hatin'!" spiel. I don't know what it is about Bush that inspires bad campaigns in his opponents, but it sure seems to have worked so far.

(Reply) (Thread)

From:	bitpuddle
Date:	February 25th, 2004 01:16 pm (UTC)

(Link)

I don't remember much of Richards' campaign, but I seem to recall that it had a tone something like, "I'm so good; of course you should vote for me." I also remember not being surprised when she lost.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

From:	thefeline
Date:	February 25th, 2004 12:19 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Yeah...but I voted...and I didn't vote for Bush.

(Reply) (Thread)

From:	wisn
Date:	February 26th, 2004 07:09 am (UTC)

(Link)

All of these arguments are statistical gaming:
1) If Nader hadn't run, Gore would've gotten the progressive vote.
2) If Democrats had participated fully, Gore would've won more than a plurality.
3) If Gore had worked for the pro-Clinton voters, he would've won.
4) If we had ham, we could've had ham and eggs, if we had eggs.

The problem is that any of those are true. So, in that sense, Nader did lead to Bush's reelection. But so are any of the others - with greater or lesser plausibility and effect. Excepting 4. I'm hungry.

(Reply) (Thread)

From:	bitpuddle
Date:	February 27th, 2004 06:50 pm (UTC)

(Link)

Yes, they are all statistical gaming, and they are all true. I just hear more people blaming Nader for the loss than a poor campaign. It seems easier to blame someone else than to look within.

If every election only had one candidate, then "our guy" would always win. I don't buy the idea that there should only be one democrat and one republican running. Plenty of countries manage to have more than two viable parties. I'm sure we can, too.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)