For the record
Feb. 22nd, 2004 09:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vaznettiIf you disappointed Howard Dean supporters vote for Nader and we're all stuck with another four years of our current President, I will be furious. Furious in that "I respect your right to vote your conscience and hope you can understand my never speaking to you again" way.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-22 09:58 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-22 10:03 am (UTC)What I really need is an icon with a yellow dog on it, and the text reading "Democrat," because basically that's what I am at this stage.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-22 10:08 am (UTC)Yellow dogs...
Date: 2004-02-22 10:49 am (UTC)Re: Yellow dogs...
Date: 2004-02-22 11:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-22 10:23 am (UTC)Most of the left's anger against Nader stems from the historically close 2000 election. There were, as defensive Nader supporters like to point out, a number of reasons that Gore lost to Bush, including his own flawed campaign, the Florida voting debacle and the intervention of five Supreme Court justices, but it is incontestable that if Nader had not run, Al Gore would be president today. Insisting there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between Bush and Gore and campaigning in crucial swing states, Nader cost Democrats the White House. In Florida, for instance, where the vote recount was halted by the Supreme Court, Bush edged Gore by just 537 votes. Nader, running as the Green Party candidate, garnered nearly 100,000 votes in the Sunshine State.
*sigh*
Re:
Date: 2004-02-22 10:50 am (UTC)That's so distressing that I don't even know where to begin.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-22 11:40 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-22 11:45 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-22 11:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-02-22 12:37 pm (UTC)I mean, are you fucking kidding me?
Please say this is a joke, because I'm deeply insulted right now. Vote for Nader. Right. Because Dean Person = Idealistic Moron.
::glares at you::
Re:
Date: 2004-02-22 12:47 pm (UTC)Dean was the best candidate. Period. Nader is a shit, and I'll hold my nose and vote for Kerry in November. In the meantime, since I don't trust him to be able to rally the masses in any way but the grimly determined "anybody but Bush" way, I'll be sending money to every Democratic candidate for Senate that I can find.
I am seriously so pissed right now I don't know what to say. Can you start asking Kucinich voters this first, at least? Can you do us the service of pretending that we're not all idealistic nuts like the Kucinich voters? Sheesh.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-22 04:09 pm (UTC)I'm glad to hear that.
I've overheard (on friends pages, friendsfriends, in casual conversation) a lot of Dean supporters who seem very strongly anti-Kerry. Pardon me for worrying that some of them might decide to give their vote to someone other than Kerry, should he take the nomination.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-23 07:47 am (UTC)I'm still hurt. I spent an entire year trying to explain to the world that Dean people are not crazy lunatic radicals, and you've made me realize that this has fallen completely on deaf ears. I have made utterly no difference in this election; thank you so much for bringing that realization crashing down on me.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-22 01:56 pm (UTC)Wouldn't it be nice to some day go vote for someone you believed in, rather than whoever you hope might beat the guy you really don't want to see win?
Excuse the rant, please, but I'm with you on the Nader issue. Idealism is lovely, but doesn't appear to have much place in our country's politics.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-22 05:16 pm (UTC)I suspect so. Perhaps I'm being over-paranoid, but really, Bush has been such a disaster as a president that I think four more years of the same would be a catastrophe.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-22 09:49 pm (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-23 10:04 am (UTC)In my creepy oligarchic world, smart people would get more votes, and smart people who agree with me would get the most votes of all. That darned democracy thing!
no subject
Date: 2004-02-22 11:01 pm (UTC)Hee! Love your way of putting things, as always.
I agree with
I am just so pissed off with Nader, though. I admired and respected the man, until today. The words that leap to mind are vanity, stupidity, egomania...
Re:
Date: 2004-02-23 08:50 am (UTC)Re:
Date: 2004-02-23 01:03 pm (UTC)Exit polls in Wisconsin showed 25% of the voters were strong Dean supporters with many others who liked him, but far fewer than that actually voted for him becuase they didn't believe he could win. Kerry had little strong support and people voted for him simply because they'd heard he could win. The media DID play a huge role in the way the campaign went by selling the American public on that message.
That said, of the hundreds and hundreds of Dean voters on our list here in Illinois, and the one I monitor in Michigan, I haven't seen a single one suggesting we vote for Nader. They are all mostly annoyed with him or laughing at the egoism. Dean's supporters tend to be more centrist than liberal and Nader is far from a centrist. If he takes people from somewhere it will start with Kucinich.
We might loathe and despise Kerry for his dirty dealing with our boy, but he's still worlds better than the alternative, and there are very few who don't realize that.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-23 07:18 pm (UTC)"Those who truly want America's leaders to stand up to the corporate special interests and build a better country for working people should recognize that, in 2004, a vote for Ralph Nader is, plain and simple, a vote to re-elect George W. Bush. I hope that Ralph Nader will withdraw his candidacy in the best interests of the country we hope to become."
---Howard Dean (http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/003814.html)
- but I hope you're not surprised.
Re:
Date: 2004-02-23 10:01 pm (UTC)your creepy oligarchic world
Date: 2004-02-23 08:35 pm (UTC)Re: your creepy oligarchic world
Date: 2004-02-23 10:22 pm (UTC)