Hillary Clinton's Inevitability Is Bad News for Progressive Causes


There's a reason she didn't get the nomination in 2008. So it looks like we put off the inevitable. Welcome the Goldwater Girl!!
And of course Fox News is going to call her a socialist.
So Paul,
If you think Clinton won't have to make any promises, yet you wouldn't believe her promises if she had to make them anyway... why the fuck do you care?
I'd vote for Bernie Sanders in a heartbeat. In the Democratic primary.

I don't care how wonderful he is. This is a two-party system. No Ross Perot or Ralph Nader is ever going to win running as a third-party candidate as long as the Dems and Rs have anyone on the ballot.

Bernie should run, but he should run as a Dem. While I might happily vote for a Socialist if we had a Parliamentary multi-party system, I'll be damned to hell if I'm going to help a Republican walk away with a victory in our Duopolistic form of government because non-Republicans split their vote.
This is some really incredible bullshit. Pandering to the base does not necessarily make for a stronger general election candidate. Particularly for Democrats, given the structure of the Electoral College. Getting 80 percent of the blue state vote instead of 70 percent won't help a candidate who goes from 55 percent to 45 percent in the purple states. You sound like a Weekly Standard or National Review columnist: "America is hungry for a True Conservative [Liberal], not a RINO [DINO]." Is that so.
Nothing would be more 'bad for democracy' than if a Republican won and was able to stock the courts with more Scalia and Alito clones.

Any progressive vaguely in touch with reality should be in fear of the chance that she does not run. Our bench is pretty much non-existent. And if you are going to tell me with a straight face that Bernie Sanders would have a chance in hell against just about any of the current slate of Republican hopefuls (except maybe Mr. Frothy Mix) I am going to suggest that you go and get checked for a brain tumor.
Hillary was a college Republican, until Bill gave her the D.
@ 1 That is because Obama was a once in a generation politician, there is no Obama this time.

And she would say center to center-left Paul to answer your question.

Democrats don't become centrists the ones that wins usually already are, and yes that includes Obama. I saw two differences between Obama and Clinton in 2008: race and gender. The left say him being anti Iraq and assumed he was a liberal, they forget he talked about going after Bin Ladin in Pakistan with or without Pakistan's permission. And to be fair its not like the Obama campaign ever corrected this assumption.

I also think the Clintons are not the same Clintons who left the WH, they both regret repealing Glass-Steagall or example.

But if Sanders wants to run he should, this is not a coronation after all. But I am ready for Hillary.
@ 7 FTW
Also I believe Clinton is for a higher minimum wage, don't know any Democrats who aren't.
And by the way, as for your snotty comment about not believing Obama can deliver health care or a stimulus: fuck off. Do you think what he did was easy? Tens of millions have health care thanks to his dogged persistence. Tens of millions avoided privation due to his efforts to keep unemployment benefits, food stamps, the automobile industry and economic stimulus going. Between left-wing shitheads and self-aggrandizing idiots like Leon Panetta, it's a wonder the man even goes to work anymore. But go ahead and vote for Sanders. The Koch Brothers will be thrilled to have another eight years of war, economic collapse and environmental rape--just like they had in 2000.

If Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz drop dead on November 1, 2016, and Bernie Sanders is elected president, do you think his ineffable charm is somehow going to get his legislative program through a Republcan Congress and Supreme Court?
The "direct quote" part refers to WHEN she'll announce ("as late as possible"), not WHETHER she's going to run. Everyone except Constant understood that, which is why it's getting "surprisingly little coverage."
Bernie Sanders could promise every family a goose that shits golden eggs and it wouldn't matter. It's EASY for him to say progressive things, because he knows he's never going to be called on to deliver those things, because he hasn't got a prayer of ever being the president. Not of these United States.

How many Electors does Vermont have? Three? That's all he would ever get, and he'd have to be lucky to get those.

The reason centrists and compromisers get elected is BECAUSE they are centrists and compromisers. We live in a divided country that leans pretty conservative most of the time. The sooner people stop with the idiotic Naderism and focus on what's actually possible the better.

@6 has it. Protecting the Supreme Court is Job One. Ginsburg is 81. Kennedy is 78, Breyer is 76. These people are not going to live forever. If Ginsburg gets replaced with a Republican, you can kiss everything decent about this country goodbye for another hundred years.
I will vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders or another Third Party. Never again will I vote for the Dems in a Federal Election. They Stink! Voting for the lesser of two evils, as they say, is still evil. The two-party system sometime ago started looking like monarchy to me run by oligarchs.
For the presidency, voting Democratic is the only way to go. If Clinton is the inevitable choice then that's who everyone wanting to stanch the Republican bloodletting will vote.

These aren't ordinary times, but Paul's analysis about what's good for democracy are suited for them - that is, a time when one of the major parties is firmly in radical hands and pushing for a radical rollback of every progressive measure enacted since FDR was first elected. That's no exaggeration.

I love Bernie Sanders, but @4 is correct. He should run as a Democrat. The hard right were correct to seize the GOP rather than split. The Left is weak because it won't seize the Democratic Party the same way. Splitting the vote for POTUS will accomplish nothing. Uniting will do a lot more, or at the very least keep holding the line.
Edit @15: "These aren't ordinary times, but Paul's analysis about what's good for democracy are suited for them - that is, a time when one of the major parties isn't firmly in radical hands ..."
You haven't been around for long, but the American political landscape is littered with pols who were the "inevitable" candidate/victor, and their downfall didn't start until the first primary election. Hillary may prevail this time, as neither party is top-heavy with talent -- but she was the odd-on fave in 2008, too. Bernie's OK, but to make a serious run for that job you have to be willing to bite off the ear of your former best friend. Hills would do that, and ask for seconds with a smile.
Totally insane.

We don't need six Republican Presidents in a row - Reagan Bush Clinton Bush Obama Clinton.

Try Elizabeth Warren. She's a centrist.
And either Biden or Sanders as VP.
Of course Sanders is going to run as a Democrat. He's going to use the opportunity to help steer the national conversation for the benefit of the progressives that will get shafted with a defacto HRC nomination with no real challenger. I hope the old guy can stay in there long enough and make it work.
Tell us how that third-part candidate thing worked out for progressives in 2000, please. You don't think most of those 100,000 Nader voters in Florida would have voted for Gore, and we would have been spared eight years of George W. Bush?

We get it, you want everyone to know what a flaming progressive you are. But in the real world Hillary is our best (and perhaps only) shot at keeping Romney, Paul, Rubio, Cruz et al from making things so much worse.
And those Sanders "promises" are anything but. Single-payer health care? Overturning Citizens United? Not happening.

And tell us how a paltry $1 billion is going to create 13 million jobs and rebuild transportation infrastructure. That's absurd.

She's got Wall Street in her pocket, or the other way around, who can tell anymore? Is there an R that can even run with a chance of beating her? They're even floating rewarming Mittens which sounds desperate.
@ 23, I think their best hope is a) a left wing third party candidate for POTUS splitting the vote, followed by b) someone younger than Mitt to contrast with Clinton. Ageism is something that could work in their favor, even if her election won't break Saint Ronald's record for oldest president elected.
I will never vote for Hillary . . . the mainstream must be abandoned.
Seattle elects one socialist to the 9 member Seattle city council.

Amazed their revolution hasn't spread.
Sanders can't run as a Democrat in the actual election but campaigning for the nomination as a D could maybe move whoever-the-candidate-is more to the left and illuminate the differences between the Rs and the Ds for those stubborn types who think a third-party vote is somehow the intelligent, moral, ethical thing to do even though third-party candidates spell disaster for a close race in our TWO PARTY system. (Yes, I'm looking at you, up-thread.) No third party is ever going to take over the weaker of the two at national level until it's made significant inroads at local and state levels, and people like Nader - who never held an elective position at all - don't help with their "principled" candidacies. You want a hard-right Supreme Court, go ahead and vote third-party but don't be surprised if the intelligent people you know stop speaking to you.
Hahaha! Forcing them to make promises? You must be joking! Sadly I know the media well enough to know you're not. Hell, you're even dumbfounded the rest of the media isn't lapping up the quotes to generate your non-news. A politician's promises genuinely mean nothing. This isn't cynicism, it's observation. Why bother promising jack shit when congress will shaft you?

As for you 'non-mainstream' voters, you can help first and foremost by not being so sanctimonious. You're essentially loud non-voters, you never get a politician in office to even pretend to change anything.
I'll vote for anyone, literally anyone expect Andrew Cuomo, who runs against Hillary in the primary. Even a brick of cheese (provided it's blue cheese.) Please, somebody, run!
When Obama and Clinton were both in the Senate, Obama was far more liberal. In fact, he was ranked the most liberal in the Senate. More liberal than your Saint Bernard Sanders. In fact, Sanders ain't ranked very liberal today (37th). So don't get your hopes up.
@28: I've seen enough Enatai to know where this is going.
@21, you do realize that the only vote that mattered in florida in 2000 was the SCOTUS 5-4...... right???

because when the votes were actually counted gore had more.

anyway, i blame gore for blowing the election for progressives and stealing the election from nader. so fuck al gore!
Hillary in 2016. That's all I have to say.
I guess as long as we are imagining a fantasy world were Bernie Sanders could get elected president, we might as well imagine a fantasy congress that would enact his policies as well. And as long as we are at it, imagine a fantasy supreme court too.

And a pony.
I agree with the sentiment that any promise she would make would be meaningless except for this one: Preventing the far-right's domination of legislature and courts.

Thst would be no small accomplishment, and will require a very strong politician with ooodles of clout and backroom favors to call upon, like a Clinton.
@ 32, Nader siphoning off Gore votes in Florida made Bush v. Gore possible. That's why, in a nutshell, Nader is majorly (but not entirely) to blame.
Judging by the comments here, we can look forward to 4 more years of the status quo. (War, Neo-liberalism, and a continuation sucking up to our fossil fuel overlords.) Back in the early 2000's it was fun talking about moving to Canada, but they've got Harper up there now.

After the Hillary years are over, I guess we'll have to prepare ourselves for the another Bush in the White house. At least the stock market is up .God Bless America!
@ 37, status quo > regression.
@37 If we were just dealing with regression from a Republican government, it wouldn't be so bad. But, that's not the threat we face. Today's GOP is a full, blackshirted fascist party. They don't want to regress, certainly not to anything in American history. They're looking forward to some kind of authoritarian, sectarian, macho conservative hell. Christian Wahabists of the kind that haven't ruled anything since the Spanish Inquisition or 17th C. Puritan Boston, in cahoots with classic nationalistic fascists like Mussolini's or Franco's.

Just listen to right-wing radio for an hour if you doubt this.
Since I am no longer voting for the Party of my youth, as they have become filthy regressive Fascists, Hilary is the best person to ever lose.

She has shown a remarkable talent for losing, and this should be a shoe-in for a loss.
@8- Hilary isn't center or center left. She's slightly to the left of where ever the GOP is plus pro-choice.

She's never shown any signs of actually holding any ideals.
@38 + @40 We wouldn't have the looming blackshirt threat if there weren't a core group of the Democratic establishment enabling them.

And while you're correct saying "status quo > regression" where does this lead us in the long term? Will the regressive forces just simply fade away - or will they continue to strengthen with another "stand for nothing" wishy washy centrist in power.?

I don't have any easy answers, but a continuation of the status quo leads us on road to American black shirts.
@ 42, I have no easy answers either. I have a wish, though - that progressives rejoin the Democratic Party and work at the precinct level to turn the party firmly left. I think progressive apathy/disenchantment bears much (not all, but a good sized share) of the blame for the Dems becoming much more of a centrist party. I think the current state of the GOP is the direct result of hard right teabaggers taking over at that level, which is why so many loon who would have been laughed out of the meetings 25 years ago are their leading lights today. The tail is wagging that dog, and it could happen with the Dems if progressives get practical, understand that the two party system isn't going anywhere, and that influencing things means playing the game and joining.

So I disagree to a point. The status quo will lead to the American black shirts if we don't take the most effective action to fight it. Trying out third parties or sitting out elections is the least effective course of action.

When progressives turn out to vote in huge numbers for a presidential candidate who runs and wins on a explicitly progressive platform and then the party and president take a hard turn to the right as soon as they're in office, it is the Party's fault they can't hold progressives.

You say you don't have any answers. That's because you're unwilling to accept the answer that is right in your face: The Democratic Party is a corpse that should be abandoned. Progressives should be filling their state houses and federal House representatives with independent liberals who can make common cause with what few moderates exist in Democratic party.
@43 Agreed. I think getting to work at the local level is a key.
Nationally, we're in trouble. Just a reminder - the progressives did come out in force to get Obama elected "Change we can believe in" "Hope" etc... However, all the broken promises don't keep people motivated. "Fool me once...": And what's been happening of late is very troubling. It used to be that corruption was something done in the dark, behind closed doors. Now it is done out in the open and in your face. The current state of affairs, coupled with a core group of politicians that are content to keep it going , makes this a challenging time for us all.
I'm no expert, but Hillary "was inevitable" in 2008 too; that was in January of that year. 25 months out, she's not even close to inevitable.
@ 44, when did that happen? Not in 2008. Obama's actual stated policies, the ones he campaigned on, weren't progressive ones. They might have seemed that way, especially when delivered as Hope and Change and in contrast to the nightmare of the Bush years, but I recall no specific policy proposals that were progressive. Remember, he was still against marriage equality at the time.

I challange you to show me the progressive platform Obama ran on.

Regarding the Democrats, you're wrong. This country's only successful third parties, the ones that became one of two major parties, were created by centrists in reaction to schisms created by hardliners within the former party. It's how the Democrats emerged from the Democratic Republicans, the Whigs from the Federalists, and most recently and importantly, the Republicans from the Whigs. There has never been a successful left or right wing third party. Ever. The Dems at their deadest are still 100 times as vital as any third party active today.
@ 46, Clinton was never "inevitable." She always had a strong contender to face, namely Obama. What contender challenges her today? Elizabeth Warren?
@44 You see the thing is progressives never turned out to vote in 'huge numbers' because there simply is not huge numbers of progressives in this country. Really you should put on your space suit and wander outside your left coast bubble one in a while. The fringe left is a tiny sliver of the electorate. This is a right-wing country. Damage control is the only sensible voting strategy, except perhaps on the local level.
@47- Universal healthcare, closing Guantanamo, ending the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in quick order, etc...

Whitewash it all you like, the Democratic betrayal of their base (which is like the American people is much more leftist than you'd like to admit) is why they lost the next midterm, why Gore couldn't bring out enough voters to beat Bush, and why this country is getting run by a conservative minority. And quisling liars like you aren't helping.
@ 50, that's a pretty fatuous charge considering that he DID deliver healthcare reform, he did pull out of Iraq, and had done what he can in Afghanistan. I'll concede Guantanamo but that's it.


See, politics is about what's possible. The HCA we have is what's possible. Universal healthcare/single payer is not. Sucks, but there's this thing called Democracy and a fuck ton of Americans don't buy it. Deal with it, and deal with the fact that boting third party ensures Republican victory.

Can I call you a liar? I have a much better case for it than you do against me.
@Matt: It's hopeless. The left-wing loons are just as crazy as the right-wing loons. You can read the mirror image of these insane comments on any right-wing web site. The fact that tens of millions have health care is of no consequence to privileged, sniveling know-nothings who have no idea what it's like to go months without seeing a doctor for a lump because you have to use what little money you have to pay rent and feed your kids. There is no understanding whatsoever among these idiots of the massive resources of the rich to continue to suck every last drop of blood out of our economy.
@36 do you realize how asinine your comment is about nader "siphoning off votes"???

who's votes are they anyway?!?

@ 53, are you going to tell me that all those people would have stayed away from the polls and NOT vote for Gore? Or find some other third party bimbo instead?

Not by a long shot. Most Nader voters were people who usually vote Democratic. We can state with certainty that enough of Florida's 90,000 Nader votes would have been Gore votes to safely win that state and the White House with it.

Try disputing that, and see who is asinine.
the votes belong to the fucking voters and they can vote for whoever the fuck they want.

but that's not what the hyocritical democrats think as they wage war on nader's, the green's, and socialist candidates' ballot access while touting their support for voting rights.... sure as long the only choice is a D or R..... fuckers

al gore won in florida and lost in the SCOTUS

anyway, he probably would have bombed iraq too... just like obama and clinton
None of that disputes, let alone disproves what I said.
@55 - You can keep telling yourself that, but it doesn't make it true.

@56 I'm not trying to dispute or disprove shit. Just expressing my disgust with the attitude that dems are entitled to progressive votes. You may not like my choice but it is mine to make.

@57 wtf are you talking about? Go back to fighting my preferred candidate from getting access to the ballot and leave me alone
It's a fucked up bullshit attitude of arrogance and entitlement that says Nader spoiled an election because it disregards the choices that voters are free to make in a democracy. If Nader didn't run he'd be spoiling the election of those who would prefer to vote for him. Maybe if al gore and the dems are so concerned about uniting the left vote they would endorse runoff voting or just not run and spoil another election by splitting the left
And @57 every word I said @55 is pure truth. Prove me wrong if you take issue
@60 - saying something is true doesn't make it true either.

You look for a black or white "pure truth" in a world filled with varying shades of grey.
I never expressed the attitude that the Dems are "entitled to votes." Of course they aren't. Saying the truthful statement that Nader siphoned off Gore votes doesn't express that attitude. It expressed the fact that most people who voted for Nader typically voted Democratic and were misguidedly attempting to "send a message." Only a small portion were people like you.
Anyway, YOU prove your assertions @ 55 - that's the way it works. A person who makes a claim gets to prove, not make the skeptical party disprove it. That's intellectual dishonesty.
What specifically am I bring disputed on???

That votes don't belong to voters? That would be very democratic of you

That dems didn't work to block nader's access to the ballot?

That Clinton and Obama have not bombed Iraq??

That gore actually received the most votes in Florida?

Or that the scotus did not in fact decide the 2000 election?

These are the factual claims I made in my post @55. I happy to provide citations if you doubt one.

Everything else I said (not much) is conjecture and opinion which is all that we are really arguing about. I do not dispute that many of nader's voters would have maybe voted for gore if that was their only choice. What I am incredulous about though is the notion that it is bad to allow voters to have that choice and that somehow voters exercising that choice is the fault of a candidate rather than the natural consequence of democratic reality that dems should learn to deal with and be more supportive of if they are honest with their rhetoric

Your dishonesty is revealing. You SPECIFICALLY stated that GORE would have "bombed Iraq." PROVE IT.

But since you now claim the Dems tried to block Nader's access to the ballot, prove that, too.
Here's the thing that needs to be kept in mind regarding the vote in Florida in 2000. It was extremely close. The first count showed Bush leading by 1,784 votes over Gore. Further, there is no agreed-upon standard for counting the votes given that 3% of the ballots contained errors (undervotes and overvotes, among others). So it cannot be stated factually that the votes cast should have legally resulted in a Gore victory.

So we have to look at Nader's role in this. He received 97,488 votes in the final certified results (the ones which gave Bush a 537 vote margin of victory). We can ask how these 97,488 voters might have cast their ballots if Nader wasn't on the ballot. Interestingly, Nader himself has an answer. "Nader, both in his book Crashing the Party and on his website, states: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."[18] (which would net a 13%, 12,665 votes, advantage for Gore over Bush.)"

That same link quotes a number of people within Nader's campaign who admit that "punishing the Democrats" was a primary goal of the Greens that year, which is supported by the fact that Nader worked swing states the hardest in the closing weeks of the campaign.

These may be wikipedia entries, but they have links to the studies and articles supporting these claims. So don't just dismiss them on those grounds.
Correction: Only one person is quoted as stating that Nader wanted to punish the Dems, not "a number." Well, it IS a number, but that number is one. My apologies for inferring that it was more than that.
articles addressing dems attempt to block nader's ballot access:




also, of much more significant note than the nader, green and socialist vote preence if you want to complain about the dems lack of success in securing a stong vote turnout:

http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2012G.h…. Less than 60% of the US voting eligible population voted in the 2012 general election

And in the 2010 general election it was barely 40% of the voting eligible population that even bothered to cast a ballot: http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.h

but i'm still very curious about what exactly pridge wessa thinks i was wrong about....
and it may be true that dems only tried to block nader in 04. but i think they actually kept him off the ballot all together in ohio - i'll need to look deeper. but if that's true whats the dems excuse that year?!?
2004, 2008, and 2012 aren't 2000. Only 2000, and Nader's role in the election of George W. Bush, is. Those other things of course are pertinent to 2016, but that wasn't specifically what you were challenging. So please focus.
Oh, and please show me your reasons for stating that Gore would have bombed Iraq. THAT was MY specific dispute, and probably Pridge Wessa's as well.
From your WaPo link.

"The suit, filed in superior court in Maricopa County in Phoenix, charges that, of the 21,512 signatures on Nader's petitions, only 6,045 are valid. State law requires Nader to submit 14,694 valid signatures to qualify for the ballot."

How was this resolved? Specifically, how many of the signatures were found to be valid and how many invalid? Did it keep Nader off Arizona's ballot? (These questions would be much better asked of the swing states where Nader was kept off, not a deep red state like AZ.)
Gore bombing Iraq was hyperbole obviously. But why wouldn't he? Clinton and Obama both have now. And democrats could have stopped the bush authorization of force vote if they wanted or sat on their hands to stop funding once the war had spiraled out of control if they really did give a shit beyond their doublespeak rhetoric.

The issue of blocking Nader from the ballot is and was not limited to Arizona. I don't know how that specific example played out. But the democracynow.org piece details how in a larger context there was a broad effort to harass and tie up the funds of Nader's support. I did not bring it up in reference to why gore lost, but rather how the dems are hypocritical when it comes to free elections.
"Hyperbole obviously." "And @57 every word I said @55 is pure truth." Those statements don't mix. I'll take this as a walk back from your earlier statement, but it's not as good as an admission that is isn't the pure truth.

But to answer why he wouldn't, well duh - Iraq was BUSH's mess. And you show nothing to support the idea that Gore would have deviated from the pursuit of al Quada* to go settle a Bush family grudge with Saddam Hussein.

The problem you face is that, because the issue is Nader and his role in electing Bush, speaking of what the Dems did under Bush isn't germane. Because none of that would have happened under a Gore presidency.

The whole point - the reason why you jumped in, and all your comments until 57 only address - is whether Nader took enough votes away from Gore to throw the election to Bush. I just showed that he did. I'd appreciate you to either concede the point or argue against it, and not go off on other tangents. It's not as if Nader's 2000 efforts to spoil the election (as I have demonstrated @ 66), while the Dems played fair, makes them victims anyway.
* There is a case to be made that Gore would have actively been going after al Quada before 9/11, which could well have prevented those attack and therefore everything that resulted. But for the sake of argument let's just pretend 9/11 would have happened exactly the same way if Gore had been sworn in.
@73: Gore would not have bombed Iraq, because it would not have been necessary, because he and his advisors would not have ignored numerous explicit warnings about Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Unlike the morons and war criminals that Gore's loss of Florida allowed into the White House.
Matt what I am arguing most is how you and the mainstream talk about votes being "taken" by Nader from dems... Rather than respecting the voters to decide for themselves and vote for their choice. And what I did argue as we'll is that gore did get more votes in a full count and that scotus decided the election. Sure I agree with your point that if Nader didn't run gore probably would have won. But why level all the blame on Nader when there are more nefarious problems in our nation like a corrupt scotus, a Florida election board that doesn't count votes, and a Democratic Party that has and may still be actively attempting to undermine candidates rightful democratic access to the ballot?
The attention on Nader has to do with his apparently conscious effort to spoil the election for Gore, not build the Green Party or raise awareness of progressive issues that had been neglected under Clinton and allegedly would have been ignored under Gore. Nader stated that he wanted to get 5% of the national popular vote, but then focused his campaign on swing states (where he stood to gain few votes for the purpose) instead of safe blue states which could have netted the Greens many more votes. He spent most of his time castigating the Dems as no different than the GOP instead of Green Party platform issues. He barnstormed Florida and got 97,000+ votes, and his own exit polling shows that without hus candidacy Gore likely would have won by a margin too great to steal.

See, the corrupt SCOTUS, Florida election board, etc coulf not have done anything without the opportunity that resulted from Nadet's campaign, and his decision to "punish the Dems" instead of promote progressive issues. It's not the only thing that cost Gore the election, but it was a key reason why he lost Florida.

I appreciate that the voters had their choice, and I applaud it. But it's demonstable that enough of these people would have voted for Gore to win Florida and thus the election, and I characterize it as "siphoning" because there was no chance in hell Nader would have won. Major third party campaigns are about pursuading reliable Dem or GOP voters to cast their ballots for them. In Nader's case, his intentions were not all that altruistic.

Bring this up to 2016. Nader 2000 still matters because the Bush years providec ample proof that the Dems and GOP are very different. We can be certain Gore would have handled al Quada differently, would not have invaded Iraq, would not have banned stem cell research, would not have slashed taxes, and perhaps most importantly, would not have put Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court, giving us bullshit like the Citizens United decision which may well be a death blow to real democracy for the people in this country. Gore's poor campaigning is to blame, but he still could have pulled out a win without Ralph Nader.

If some people are still pissed that Obama didn't live up to some imaginary ideal and want to punish the Dems, we risk a GOP sweep in 2016. I hate that we can't do better than Hillary Clinton - if you asked me to list the 50 people in politics today who I'd like as president, she's at the bottom of the list - but I lived through the alternative once and never want to do that again. I can't do much as an individual, but I can point out that this isn't the time for voting third party and dispelling the misconceptions some fellow progressives labor under.
I'm not so sure that there is proof that dems and GOP are so different. Again, Bush would have never been able to invade iraq without dems approval in congress. Or continue the war even after its immense unpopularity with the dems continued funding of the war - indeed, if dems are truly honest with their liberal rhetoric, then the GOP is more effective at governance with a minority than the dems are with a majority in congress. And as I pointed out already, Obama and Clinton have both bombed Iraq, so why wouldn't Gore? It's the American imperialist agenda (oil and military contracts) and maybe the dems play the role of good cop, but they're still on board with the program. And of course Clinton/Gore pushed through NAFTA, WTO, and the banking deregulation that led to the crash in '08. But, yes they are so different!!! Obama is the drone presidency. He has successfully gained American support for invasion of Syria and Libya - only a wet dream for W. His NSA and CIA actions with spying, wiretaps, drones, and especially whistleblower prosecution would never have been tolerated with Bush. And the exponential rise in deportations of immigrants? I digress.... back to the point, Nader. I have also read, Crashing The Party. and honestly i have never heard anything from nader or his associates about him punishing the dems or teaching them lessons. but what is relevant is that if you don't provide an honest electoral threat, you're campaign and the issues that give you traction will be ignored. i learned this first hand through 3 years of democratic party activism at the LD and county level. unless they think you might not vote for them, they take you for granted. this was nader's strategy and though I've forgotten most of the details in his book, i believe he is very articulate about this. Also he repeatedly called for Gore - and later Kerry - to steal his platform. it's not like he was hell bent on being the only person to win - he just wanted the issues to prevail. provide an electoral threat on certain issues and push the dems to adopt to avoid failure. the ball was put in gore's court and he fumbled it out of bounds. and don't give me the bs line that gore cant take nader's issues because they're too left, because that is not true. i recall him pointing out after the tea party sweep in '10 how the tea party originally was a grass roots libertarian movement that was opposed to wars, illegal spying, and bank abuses. (yes the koch bros eventually co-opted that movement into a right wing pro war campaign) but the dems failed to reach out to those elements of the electorate and thus failed (again)

conclusion: i'll keep voting green or socialist. and it's not my job to get with the program, its the dems job to appeal to me if they want MY vote
You're talking in circles and continuing on a flawed and discredited premise.


That said, I'm not a registered Democrat, let alone employed to campaign for them. Nearly everything you address at me aren't addressing anything I've actually said.

Anyway, only two parties have any shot at power, and one is batshit insane. Voting Green or Socialist - aren't you principled enough to believe in either one as something other than a protest vote? - results in GOP victories and the opposite of what you believe in. It's selfish of you to do that for a clean conscious. There is more at stake.
Posting in all caps doesn't make it true. Your assertion is just as much conjecture as mine. And I'm not the only one who thinks so:



You're right that there is a lot at stake in US elections. That is why I choose to cast votes for people who would make positive changes. They are only unlikely to win so long as people like yourself and countless others, who I read on blogs like this - who often appear to prefer green politics over centrist corporate war mongering dems - continue to believe it is impossible and throw away their votes on dems who keep giving us more of the same
@81 - Fine. Show me you can win elections and hold power at all levels of office and I'll consider voting for your preferred party.
@ 81, I must say that I'm impressed with those links. They're much more rigorous and reasonable than the ones you posted above, and are quite thought provoking. So thank you for that.

Vote as you wish, but please accept responsibilty for the consequences if your party draws enough votes to hand the White House to the GOP.
i've enjoyed the exchange, thanks
She voted for war.