Planetarium - politics/music/culture/smarts

whew, somebody's pissed!!!

I think you're right to point out that Nader's candidacy will be as meaningless as far as splitting the vote this time around as it was in 2000. Still, am I the only person that thinks that Nader's candidacy is part of a sneaky strategic gamble on his part to push the Dems further to the left? Having voted for Ralph in 1996 and 2000, I do not plan to vote for him this time around. Nonetheless, my hope is that he's throwing himself into the ring largely to get the assholes who are running to speak outside the immaterial populist rhetorical flourishes and get to some nitty-gritty reality. Maybe this is too much to assume or hope for, but in the evacuation of meaningful politics for celebrity and sound-bites, a Ralph candidacy might be the only way to get anything meaningful on the table.

Fair enough. Of course, while we'd like to hope for that being the case as well, PLanetarium doubts the Democrats are any smarter than they were in 2000. The message from that fiasco should've been, "ignore us at your peril." Instead, Gore et. al treated Nader and his supporters like something that was caught on the bottom of their collective shoe. It seems dubious that they would get that, by actually engaging with the more progressive ideas Nader pushes, there might actually be some real turkey talk. But nothing wrong with hoping against hope.

You're right that the Dems have ignored the Greens and Nader as part of a movement. That's not changing. My point, rather, is that by declaring his candidacy, Nader gets a certain access to media--if only by virtue of being billed as the inevitable spoiler--that gives him some power to shape the way debate is going to occur. In the long run, it probably won't matter, but it's an interesting gambit. Obviously I'm working a weird vein between conspiratorial and tactical, here, but I'm also convinced that this is the secret logic behind Bush's endorsement of the gay marriage ban ammendment; that is, in other words, a) that the ammendment will shape the debate and b) that the liberal-to-lefties will drain precious time, energy, and money fighting on that terrain, and ignoring the larger economic and political picture. Thoughts?

True, Adam, and the shitty thing is it's win-win for them, because if you don't take the bait by deciding to focus on the bigger picture, you end up with a new amendment. Which would actually be good in the long run after the long, nasty fight that ends up in a repeal. Prohibition-style. Nader's point this year is lost on me. Dems did listen to the left more than I thought they would. Not as much as Nader wants, maybe, but enough that not altering his Tweedle-Dum line makes him seem more than a little out of touch. There is a clear difference this year between Democrats and Republicans, though not strictly thanks to anything Democrats have done to establish this. If anything, Republicans have done more to define Democrats' oppositional positions than Democrats have. I'm voting for Martha Stewart.

Like you guys, im pretty wary of the debate on gay marriage and the mileage Bush will be able to get out of it. I hope an amendment never comes to pass; I don't share your optimism that it would be repealed, at least not in time for people my age to be married before age fifty.

Anyway, I really wanted to take issue with the notion that Nader had no effect on the outcome of the 2000 race. Simply ludicrous. You can point to the Dem's who voted Republican and you can say Gore should have had Clinton more involved on his behalf. Issues including disenfrachised voters, percentage of democratic voters who showed up at the poll, etc. Overall, the democratic party did a pretty shitty job forming and disseminating a message that made them any different from or more likeable than the Republicans. I definitely agree with you there, if that is what you are getting at.

But that's completely beside the point. You take the votes that went to Nader throughout the country, divy them out proportionally to the other candidates, and there is a very good chance Gore wins by an indusputable margin. It's much easier to counter the 'Nader caused the downfall of Gore' argument by saying the Greens wouldn't have voted for him anyway. Most Nader apologists don't say that, because it's pretty obvious that wouldn't have been the case. You only have to give Gore fifty-two percent of Nader's votes (98,000 in Florida) and he wins. No governor, no chads, no supreme court.

If you concentrate on Nader's contribution to the 2000 election - in terms of votes - then there isn't really any other conclusion to draw. Trot out your straw men, spew bile, deny me entrance to the taco fiesta - doesn't change a thing.

Well, Max, you make an interesting point, but Planetarium has to point out that you're making a rather logically flawed argument. You argue that by taking Nader's votes and proportionally dividing them- nay, even, as you try to charitably argue "just fifty-two percent" and give them to Gore, Gore would have won. Micahel Moore demonstrates this point rather succintly in his book Stupid White Men, but the point is that, if you actually count all the votes AS THEY ARE RIGHT NOW, Gore won. Republicans simply stole it and then declared that continuing a full re-count was a time waster America couldn't afford. And because they had one more Supreme Court on their side of the political spectrum than not, they walked away with the presidency. So give Gore 98,000 more votes- that would make him, lets see....the winner. Just like now.

And incidentally, wild horses couldn't have dragged Planetarium's hand to the ballot lever with Gore's name next to it. It's all well and good to reference an oblique group called "most greens", but it does not a solid argument make. Just saying, you know.

First, I agree with Max that Nader of course had an effect on the election. You can speculate about the Nader votes and how you might distribute them if theoretically he hadn't run, but to be truly logical on this is impossible. Had Nader not run in the first place(which is what "Nader-Haters" argue should have happened), the voting that did take place would be different(Heisenberg or some shit). Re-allocating the votes in any way theoretically is meaningless. So... the real arguement is whether Ralph Nader had or now has any obligation to the Democratic Party and its possible electorate or not. Nader is not a Democrat. He does not support the Democratic platform. He has no obligation to it. In the same way, Nader voters have no obligation to the Democratic Party. My reasoning in voting for Nader in 2000 was that he was the candidate that most represented my true views about America. This was true on the simplest level. I learned something from that election, which sucks, I don't like learning. The candidate that most represents my views is not necessarily the candidate who most agrees with my views. So, while Nader still is more in line with what I think is really going on than, say John Edwards, I would vote for the best *representative* of my views. I think most people I know closely who voted Nader came to the same conclusion. This year the Dems should ignore Nader.

Gay marriage is so immoral.

I can't believe you put a link to the Maker's Mark website, you whore. Plus, I've been drinking expensive Belgian beer all night. I'm royally fucked up.

Im not so sure about the 'most greens' thing. I still think Gore would have had many more of those votes than Bush, but I just don't know really. That's part of why the debate is fun.

B. talks about what I can only sort of articulate about this. It stinks that we can't have a wide range of viable national political ideas, candidates, parties; that's one of the strongest reasons to support Nader, to try and bring that concept along. The price we pay by having the biggest bozos in power in order to nurture the ideal is kind of difficult to swallow, though.

Thank you for the discussion and ideas, you masked people of planetarium.