Dictionary.com defines a nadir as “the lowest point.” Trigonometrically speaking, it has the charm of being a place that you can only go to once.
Not so with Nader. He’s back.
Like an unhinged and jealous mistress from a bad sex thriller (”If I can’t have you, NO ONE CAN!”), Ralph has returned to boil a couple more of our bunnies. It’s logically indisputable that he siphoned off enough liberal votes back in ‘00 to prevent a clear Gore victory and unleash the Bush administration upon the Earth.
Ralph doesn’t see it that way, but his psychology isn’t too hard to parse: If you awoke one morning, stepped out your door, and promptly stepped on your family’s treasured puppy, you’d have two choices. You could retreat inside and never venture out again, branding yourself “the puppy squasher,” someone who couldn’t be trusted not to destroy all that is beautiful in the world with your monstrous feet. Or you could get right back out there again, figuring that accidents happen, nobody could’ve predicted the future, there were all kinds of other factors involved, and etc. The latter is the common rationale for survival; it explains how people who run over other people with their cars can still be out on the roads, how teachers who preside over cacophonous and failing classes can return each September carrying last year’s lesson plan, how surgeons who inadvertently slice major arteries can pick up their scalpels the next day, and how Red Sox owner John Henry can still be out there trying to assemble a winner. Some things are too horrifying to take responsibility for.
So if Ralph Nader wasn’t going to gaze back upon the last four years of depredations wrought upon our foreign policy, our fiscal present and future, our skies and waters, and his treasured average American consumer - if he wasn’t going to take that in and promptly grab a hairshirt and a whip and parade himself through every town square in the nation uttering piteous and abject cries of remorse - then, psychologically speaking, the man has no choice but to get right back out there and squash that puppy.
[By the way, if any professors from any universities’ Advanced Psych departments would like to employ my “Puppy Squashing Model” in their curriculums, please give me a call. I have some colorful (but tasteful) charts and graphs that may be of use.]
Even I wouldn’t wish the hairshirt scenario on Nader, especially since the only hairshirts you can purchase nowadays are sold at Walmart and made in China. And all the Hairshirt Support Lines connect you directly to Bombay. That’d be too much for him to endure.
But all that said, and with all the rage that’s going to be directed towards him, it’s not really a cause for too much concern. These are not the carefree, peaceful days of the autumn of 2000, when independent-minded citizens thought that they could cast their votes to make a statement rather than elect a candidate. The “we need to break the two party system” issue has slipped a bit behind some pragmatic concerns we didn’t have back then (the “we need to earn back the world’s trust” issue, the “Jesus, look at that gigantic deficit” issue, and the “It’d be nice if people stopped trying to fly planes into our buildings” issue, to name a few). Today’s voter knows that we need to get a steady hand back on the tiller, whether it be a Kerry or an Edwards (or, for that matter, a Gore or a McCain or a Dole) - anyone, really, who would stop ramming our ship onto the rocks and calling it an unavoidable, cyclical change.
At least, let’s hope so. At this point, I suspect that there are a lot of Republicans in Congress who’d be much happier working with a Kerry administration, though none yet have found the cojones to say so. I’ve spoken to enough lifelong GOP boosters lately to know that unless Bush causes it to rain loaves, fishes, candy canes and Lexuses upon the land, he’s in serious trouble come November. And 2000’s Naderites aren’t likely to flock back to him in any significant numbers, not when everything the candidate himself believes in would be utterly destroyed by another four years of Bush. I mean, what are his possible slogans? Maybe “Ralph Nader - Because This Time Bush Really Doesn’t Have a Chance.” Or “Vote Nader - Your Children Will Understand Someday.” Or maybe just “Fuck The Real World, I’m Voting Nader.”
Not that I’m letting Ralph totally off the hook. Given the math and the state of the things he’s worked so hard for all his life, he really shouldn’t run. I’m not saying he shouldn’t ever step outside again, but maybe he should reconsider the whole jogging-in-dark-glasses-and-cleats thing. Just for the sake of the puppies.





63 comments
Rook
February 22, 2004 at 1:42 pm
1I don’t think he’s going to syphon off any liberal votes. Well, at least not as many as in 2000. However, I suspect he will syphon off a lot of Bush’s votes this time. Consider them revolt votes. I don’t think we need to worry. Oh, and if Buhs puts money into this campaign, good, it’s lost money.
Miel
February 22, 2004 at 1:54 pm
2We shouldn’t just blame Nader–there is lots of blame to go around. We have to admit that Gore’s campaign sucked. More than Nader, I blame the people who voted for Nader. I was apoplectic back then, admittedly, in my annoyance at Nader and the Greens for how deceptive and naive their claims were. But what drove me crazier was that people believed it. Also, I blame the fact that every high school history course stops before WWII for some reason–and so people have no idea what’s gone on in the last 70 years. I guess those people could read a history book if they really wanted to, though.
There are still people chanting the manra about there being ‘no difference’ between the two parties. Still! For that I blame parental negligence, heavy drug use and the faltering public school system.
Finally, I blame the Democratic party for failing to make it clear to people how they were different from the Republicans; the State of Florida and many public officials there; the Supreme Court; the media and that witchdoctor I paid to do some magic ju ju to make sure Bush would lose.
I’m not sure I accept the ‘puppy’ metaphor as stated. After all, one must go on even after the accidental puppy squash. A better metaphor would be someone who–for ideological reasons–turns their puppy into a vegetarian. When the first puppy dies, they proceed to adopt another puppy and put it through the same gruesome experiment.
Bryan
February 22, 2004 at 1:59 pm
3He’s still trying to sell the “there’s no difference between the parties” meme.
Nader received over 70,000 votes in Florida in 2000. Given what has happened since, I wouldn’t advise him to return to the “Sunshine State”, his reception wouldn’t be friendly.
Having a “Don’t blame me, I voted for Nader” sticker on your car invalidates your comprehensive insurance.
Linkmeister
February 22, 2004 at 2:21 pm
4Bryan, I assume it does the same for no-fault?
Murray
February 22, 2004 at 7:32 pm
5The perfect is the enemy of the good.
Or in this case what is thought to be the best is the friend (enabler) of the worst conceivable evil to descend upon the darkness of humanity since the beginning of time…. No wait, it’s worse than that. No.. No.. it’s FAR worse than that….I can’t go on, even the thought of it is more than I can bear.
I would guess that Nader gets fewer votes than Harold Stasson.
Spoon
February 22, 2004 at 8:45 pm
6Sorry to be the grammar Nazi, but …
Bush “[is] in seriously trouble come November” doesn’t work. He’s either seriously in trouble or in serious trouble. Or, he’s in trouble. Seriously!
Okay, whining over.
Bob
February 22, 2004 at 9:40 pm
7Perhaps we can save some money by making a bumper sticker that both pro- and anti-Nader folks could use:
“Vote for Nader? I think I’m gonna, Ralph!”
I plan to remove the comma on mine.
BettieWheelie
February 22, 2004 at 10:55 pm
8What of Al Sharpton, Dennis Kucinich, Gary Coleman? (Oh, strike that last one.) I think Nader will siphon votes just like the rest of ‘em, and it won’t amount to much. Not even a small mound of beans, really. It is , after all, all about ‘electability’ and the voter seems to be driving home that theme, based on exit polls.
Who should I vote for in the Dem Pres Primary in Utah (!) Tuesday?
Kerry
February 22, 2004 at 11:24 pm
9I heard Ralph on the radio tonight saying that he would get Republican protest votes. Right. And the economy will grow us out of national debt.
Kerry
February 22, 2004 at 11:28 pm
10Bettie, vote for Howard Dean if he’s still on the ballot. After all, he’s the one who dictated the discourse this campaign season.
Anonymous
February 23, 2004 at 12:21 am
11Spoon’s right, and please forgive both me and my editor (a black-and-white cat).
It shall be fixed.
G-Man
February 23, 2004 at 1:51 am
12Friday last an AP report stated that Nader’s exploratory team sent out a questionnaire to subscribers of Ralph’s newsletter asking, “Should Ralph run for president?” The report stated that Nader would use that input to help him make his decision to run.
Isn’t that like asking your pusher if you have a drug problem?
You know, until the ‘Fiaso in Florida’, I don’t recall a whole lot of concern that “Ralph’s going to give the election to Bush”. True, many expected the race to be close but…really, that close!? I agree that Bush has proven himself incapable as president and many voters now recognize that. But how many? Is that enough?
Also true that recent polls look good for both Edwards V Bush and Kerry V Bush. But the GOP hasn’t even begin to run a full set of ‘offensive’ downs. Things change. They always do.
Add in a couple half-decent economic reports (could happen), an autumn force draw down in Iraq (might just happen), highly publicized failures of the intelligence investigations to pin any dirt on the president (seems destined to happen)- and we’re talking about another photo finish.
I will remain as strongly optimistic about removing Shrub as I am sorely disappointed with Nader’s selfish decision to increase the risk - if even a tiny amount - that Bush stays in power. We can’t afford even a minuscule risk Ralph. The stakes are just too high.
And no, Ralph, you don’t have a drug problem, its us. We have a reality problem - and you apparently don’t.
Jerry
February 23, 2004 at 3:32 am
13“At this point, I suspect that there are a lot of Republicans in Congress who’d be much happier working with a Kerry administration, though none yet have found the cojones to say so.”
I don’t know how anxious they might be to work with him (or any Democratic administration)but there are a whole lot that want a Democratic win. If Bush wins, he will drag the GOP down with him as he flounders through his next four years and his wealthy patrons prosper ever more obviously at the public trough. But with a Democrat in the White House, they can argue for retaining their seats (literally and figuratively) to “maintain a reasonable balance between the Executive and Legislative branches.
As for Nader, I think the metaphor is: when you squash one killer Pinto, you think that you have a moral imperative to do whatever seems right to you from then on; it will be laudable no matter what the clearly foreseeable consequences are. And to those who voted for him, “What the hell were you thinking in a race that close?!?!”
PS You will kill a cat by making it a vegetarian, but dogs can live as one. Cats cannot synthesize taurine and other essential nutrients from a veggie diet. They HAVE to have meat. It is not just satisfying an atavistic desire that a human may chose to overcome, nor are they morally or ethically compromised by being true carnivores.
Steve G.
February 23, 2004 at 6:41 am
14I’m still voting Dean, too. Not only did he get the rest of the candidates and the Democratic party to actually start opposing Bush (when they saw how popular it made Dean), he also demonstrated a completely new, and far superior, method of raising money. Not because I care about the money, but because I think a president who’s indebted to hundreds of thousands of individual Americans who gave $73.41 will have far less incentive for corruption than one who’s indebted to a few hundred corporations and special interests donating hundreds of thousands, or millions at a time in bundled $2,000 contributions. Which do you want your president giving paybacks to?
I seriously hope next cycle every candidate of every party follows the Dean fundraising method.
And, yes, people did believe the 2000 election would be that close. Remember the online vote-swapping systems set up so that Gore voters from non-swing states could vote for Nader on behalf of Nader voters from swing states who would in turn vote for Gore? People really were concerned Nader would swing enough close states Bush’s way that Gore would be “defeated.”
Chris Knutsen
February 23, 2004 at 8:03 am
15The puppy squashing analogy is very good (and I’d love to get my hands on those color charts), but I think it’s just the first of many layers that make Nader’s onion stink. Let me remind you of one of the worst charges leveled against our current president: he’s a bubble boy. He doesn’t read the newspaper. He doesn’t take uppity questions from pesky reporters (like Helen Thomas, whom he kicked to the curb for her insolence, using a pack of right wing journalists to help him get the job done). He doesn’t listen to anyone outside of his cabinet (including the leadership of our international allies). Nader’s decision to re-enter the fray is so blind, so egomaniacal, ill-considered, and self-absorbed, the electorate should ask itself a question: is there any significant difference between George W. Bush and Ralp Nader?
As far as Nader trying to start the engine of his campaign, given everything we’ve been through in the last three years, as far as his making any effort to discredit Kerry, I’ve got three words: Bring It On.
Dugrless
February 23, 2004 at 11:32 am
16To extend your analogy way, way past its breaking point:
The Nader who stepped on the puppy, you must remember, was known up to that time as the Guy Who Rescues Puppies. People (like me) who didn’t know that much about him, voted for him because he was a symbol of Puppy Wellness. Because he devoted his life to helping puppies in the face, sometimes, of seemingly insurmountable odds. I respected that, and that’s why I voted for him (well, that, and I lived in a no-possible-chance-for-Gore red state).
So there was another choice for a guy with that much Puppy Cred built up: He could’ve gone back to what he did/does so well, ie advocating against Big Puppy-Squashing Business. He could’ve spent the past three years pointing out that we currently have someone in the White House who straps on cleats and takes his buddies out on Puppy Hunts every Sunday. He wouldn’t have had to admit he was himself in part responsible for this in order to work to change it. And that’s why my respect is slipping and he won’t be getting my vote again, no matter how bright red my state is.
Bob
February 23, 2004 at 11:52 am
17It looks like Bush’s WMD finally surfaced.
Larry
February 23, 2004 at 1:25 pm
18Ralph was pretty coy on Meet the Press about whether he’d urge his disgruntled minions to vote for a “real” candidate when the time came. Of course, we thought that’s what he was going to do LAST time, remember?
You also may find the “Unhinged at Any Speed” entry on antfarmersalmanac.blogspot.com, of some interest. Or maybe not.
Kerry
February 23, 2004 at 2:36 pm
19Steve G. Many people - pundits, journalists and laymen like ourselves have all commented on how Dean has shown us a new and better way to raise campaign funds and how this will transform campaigns in the future. But they are ignoring one crucial element of the Dean campaign that made his fund raising method effective. Early on Dean had a message that struck a cord and set him apart from all of the other candidates. He then delivered that message effectively and with conviction thus energizing his supporters. I can’t see John Kerry doing the same.
Daniel Wiener
February 23, 2004 at 2:49 pm
20That’s a very well written puppy-squashing analogy. Still, I think the odds are low that Nader will affect the outcome of the election a second time. 2000 was a statistical outlier; it’s quite unusual for a nationwide Presidential election to be so close that less than 600 votes in one state will determine the winner. Nader will get fewer votes in 2004, and the contest probably won’t be as close, making him and his supporters irrelevant.
The reality is that Bush will probably win re-election by a comfortable margin, especially if Kerry is indeed the Democratic nominee. Look at all the major variables, and Bush is almost universally in a better position than in 2000: (1) He’s the incumbent instead of the challenger; (2) His party is more unified behind him than it was when McCain threatened him. (3) He has more money, and no primary contests to spend it on this year. (4) He’s President in a time of war, and has successfully demolished two dictatorships and scared the crap out of others (e.g., Khaddafi and Assad). Outside of the anti-war Democrats who automatically detest Bush, this burnishes his foreign policy credentials with a lot of moderates and independents. (5) Bush has cut a lot of voters’ taxes, and the economy is recovering rapidly as the election approaches.
Democrats who think Bush is in serious trouble, because of a few mediocre polls in the midst of a heavy Democratic primary battle, are letting their hopes and wishes override their logic. On November 2nd Bush should be comfortably ahead by between 5 and 8 percentage points. There is a smaller chance he could win by a landslide (10 to 12 percentage points) and on the other end there is a smaller chance that he could be in another squeaker (ahead by 1 or 2 percentage points).
It’s only in the latter case that Nader might again alter the outcome. If there are two to four states where Nader’s vote total is substantially larger (by a factor of at least four) than Bush’s margin over the Democrat, then Democrats can again make Ralph their scapegoat.
Mike_in_Mexico
February 23, 2004 at 3:00 pm
21I think a good question would be: Does America need a 3rd party? Probably so. Given a choice between a centrist bunch of guys, right wingers, and a group of open liberals- people would largely vote for the center party (which is better than the wing-nuts by a far cry). We’d also have, in congress for instance, unabashed proponants of the harder left and right. This would be better, no? Room for actual progressive ideas, instead of treading water trying not to offend.
As for there not being a difference between democrats and republicans, well, that’s not true. The problem is that there isn’t ENOUGH of a difference. One is clearly better than the other, but if democrat cantidates don’t actually strongly back issues that are important to their constituents, then why on earth should they feel that they have the peoples’ unflappable support?
Nader took votes away from Gore in 2000. No question. Gore, though, should have been at the front of an absolute blow-out. I see no one to blame (Kathy Harris aside) for his loss other than him. 100,000,000+ votes is great, but that he allowed an illiterate with virtually no experience to even get close is unforgivable.
I’d far rather have an ineffective democrat running the world than Bush. Ideally, though, I’d really like to see someone I genuinely believed in doing it.
Pat Curley
February 23, 2004 at 3:28 pm
22I am amused at all the folks who worked hard and voted for Ralph in 2000, when he arguably cost Gore the election, are now fervently against Ralph when there is no evidence he will have any effect. IMHO, the Democrats are ignoring history with Kerry; he’s a senator, which does not bode well for his candidacy (only two sitting senators have been elected president), he’s a Northerner (Northern Democrats 0-4 since JFK), and he’s got a higher lifetime rating from Americans for Democratic Action than Ted Kennedy.
Don’t worry, Dems, Ralph won’t cost you the election; Kerry will.
Chris B.
February 23, 2004 at 3:56 pm
23Nader is a crank! The less time and energy expended on him the better.
Noah D.
February 23, 2004 at 4:21 pm
24While I have to disagree with Nader’s decision to run this year, I don’t buy into any of the blame placed on him for 2000. It’s the Gore Campaign’s/Democratic Party’s own fault that it felt entitled to the liberal vote, leaving the left almost entirely in its ill-planned grab for the middle. They failed to energize a lot of people…those thousands of votes for Nader cannot be assumed for the Democratic Party had he been absence. Instead, I find it far more likely that those votes would simply not have been cast. Why blame Nader when voter apathy is the far more serious culprit?
For this election, however, the energizing has already been (pretty darn well) handled by Dean. And while I normally relish the opportunity to vote for the best candidate, rather than the lesser-of-two-evils, I fear the possibility of a Nader-Dean ticket. Should this happen, it’s still somewhat the fault of the Democratic Party for continuing to take its liberal base for granted (it is only barely beginning to recognize the importance of Dean’s reach to the young and disenfranchised, now that he’s no longer a threat to the status-quo…not yet, anyway), but as Adam said, there are far more pressing, strategic needs this year.
adam
February 23, 2004 at 4:21 pm
25Kerry’s liberal bonafides and his Northeast locale won’t hurt him nearly as much as people predict, I’m guessing.
The fact that he’s a senator IS a bit of a problem, I fear - there is no legislator in the country whose voting record cannot be made to look like anything the opposition WANTS to make it look like. Wishy washy? Liberal? Hypocritical? Conservative? Warmongering? Peacemongering? No problem - bills are complex, unwieldy things, and statistics are facile, simple items. Kerry has and will be accused of all of those things.
That, I suspect, has much more to do with the lack of Senators in the White House in the age of the sound bite, rather than the executive-versus-legislator mindset that people usually point to.
That said, I can’t agree with many of Daniel’s bullet points: The idea that the Republicans are more unified this year than in 2000 is patently false - McCain was a springtime blip, and by November the party’s base was energized and enthusiastic, turning out the highest percentage of their faithful in history. That enthusiasm is lacking today, and many longtime supporters (just take a tour of the conservative columnists and the blogosphere) have been expressing severe second thoughts. Fiscal conservatives, Republican internationalists, and now the Buchananites have all been edging towards the door.
But mainly, Bush has that special thing that is the hallmark of one-term Presidents: A country that is in worse shape than when he took it over. The economy, the environment, jobs, terrorism - all these inspire more fear and uncertainty than they did in 2000. You may think it’s not his fault (and some of it, obviously, isn’t), but whether or not he’s to blame, that sort of fact played a large part in evicting Bush Sr., Carter, Hoover, & etc. Bush’s hopes lie in convincing the nation that we really are in an actual, active WAR, and not a slow, Cold War-like conflict.
fubar
February 23, 2004 at 4:40 pm
26Steve G. — I sure hope you mean you’ll vote for Dean in the Primary but for whoever the candidate is in the general. I’m a Dean fan too (I even went to Iowa to volunteer for him). I’m still voting for Dean in the CA primary (since he’s didn’t withdraw and is still on the ballot). I’d love to see the Dean delegates in Boston hold the nominee’s feet to the fire.
But in the general election, there’s no way I’d vote for Dean (or Nader). That would be like giving half a vote to Bush.
There’s the old saying: Vote your heart in the primary. Vote your head in the general.
Pat Curley
February 23, 2004 at 5:51 pm
27“Fiscal conservatives, Republican internationalists, and now the Buchananites have all been edging towards the door.”
Simple question–whom are they going to vote for? If there was so much disenchantment with Bush, why was there no primary challenge?
Bush does not have to worry about his right flank. He is doing the things necessary to attract votes in the middle, which may turn off the paleos like Buchanan. But they have no place to go.
Daniel Wiener
February 23, 2004 at 5:52 pm
28I’ll agree with you, Adam, that the Republican base is less energized this year (which could change if Bush throws conservatives some red meat on cultural issues), but not less unified. It’s a subtle but legitimate distinction. There were a lot of pissed-off McCainites in 2000 and some real concern that McCain would jump into the race as an Independent to torpedo Bush’s chances. This year there’s no Republican opposition to Bush, and even the fiscal conservatives know that they can carp all they want but they will vote for him in the end.
Enthusiasm is always hard to measure. In 2000, Republicans were mainly enthusiastic about getting rid of the Clinton White House. Republicans were not all that enthusiastic about a “compassionate conservative” (with good reason, as it turns out). And Democrats did a better job of turning out their base (especially the incredibly high percentage of black voters) than Republicans managed.
Fiscal conservative criticism of Bush is the main reason I downplay the likelihood of a landslide. Bush’s compassionate conservative initiatives (massive education spending and farm subsidies and prescription drug entitlements) were intended to occupy the middle ground and appeal to swing voters so he could realign the political balance in this country, but I think any gains there are compensated by losses in his base’s enthusiasm.
I disagree that the country is in worse shape (or at least is perceived by swing/undecided voters as being in worse shape) than four years ago. We’ve gone through a mild recession, which people are willing to attribute at least partly to the shock of 9/11, and are now pulling out. The direction of the economy matters more to voters than the status quo. My guess is that there’ll be a lot of good economic news in the next few months, including significant job growth (which is always a lagging indicator). Bush will claim credit for the good news due to his tax cuts, and a lot of the voters will find that credible. They’ll anticipate future economic growth, and give Bush a thumbs up in that area.
A dull, dour, inconsistent Kerry will not stack up well against Bush, and will not be seen as a strong and reliable war leader. Kerry’s constant references to Vietnam are quickly entering the parody stage; they won’t protect him or carry him through the remainder of the campaign. If Vice-President Gore couldn’t succeed against a relatively-inexperienced Governor Bush, what makes anyone think Senator Kerry can do better against war-time President Bush?
tess
February 23, 2004 at 6:31 pm
29aw crap, i feel the need to get into the fray again. pardon me while i rant:
you’re kidding me, daniel. you honestly think that bush is really appealing to the middle class by starting an education and medicare initiative which has become among the biggest jokes in this administration’s history? and a mild recession? we’re talking about 2.6×10^6 jobs lost since bush came into office, and even by his daddy’s mild recession, those are pretty big numbers. so how exactly is bush appealing to the middle-of-the-extreme-right?
i’m guessing the only real hold he over the public is fear, and then sounding an alarm almost randomly throughout a given year or holiday season, telling us to be on the “lookout” without even giving us anything to look for — a blind panic. and now a lot of us are tired of hearing about the puce alerts saying we should be on the lookout for suspicous actvities. anyone who’s used to using window’s operating system can tell you that too many insignificant warnings’ll make you much more likely to ignore the real ones.
as for toppling regimes, well, he toppled one (iraq), but looks like the taliban and those warlords we supported in afghanistan are starting impose sharia law again! women kabul are being stoned to death and subjected to random medical examinations to insure that they’re still “virgins” because we focused all our attention on iraq. now tell me, how has the taliban been “toppled” in afghanistan? or for that matter, how has our apparently lack of legitimacy helped us to bring peace and change to iraq? those iraqis don’t seem to really think all that highly of us, except those we put in power like chalabi, and we kinda bombed the shit out of their infrastructures during the war, now didnt’ we?
as for the cult of kerry’s “dour” personality, i’d rather have someone who had to cajones to enlist and stay his entire tour despite being injured over some frat boy who was only good at getting free drinks at the national guard, who throws hissy fits whenever someone from the press asks his substantive questions, and whose “consistenties” include downgrading the iraqi threat from “we KNOW he has WMDs” to “we KNOW he has WMD programs” to “we KNOW he has WMD-related program activities.” so how inconsistent has kerry been compared to bush?
now i won’t even go into what he’s done to politicize and blatantly twist scientific research to further his own political views.
Jack K.
February 23, 2004 at 6:42 pm
30…He is doing the things necessary to attract votes in the middle…
…by all means, keep thinking along these lines. I wouldn’t want to type anything that might disabuse you of this notion. If fact, you should write your president encouraging him to do more of these things that are causing those of us in the middle to flock in throngs of biblical proportions to Gee Dub’s side. Trust me, it’s a winning strategy…
…really…
Daniel Wiener
February 23, 2004 at 7:18 pm
31Tess, you’re letting your political views get in the way of an objective analysis. You, and most Democrats, have a visceral dislike (some even admit to “hatred”) of Bush and his policies. But your attitudes are not shared by the undecided 20% of swing voters, and they are not going to buy into that dislike/hatred. They see Bush as a decent man who has done his best to rally the country against terrorism following the evil attack of 9/11.
The question for these swing voters is whether Bush is up to the job. Have his successes outweighed his failures? Will things get better or worse if he is re-elected? Will the economy improve? Will Kerry do better or worse at protecting our country from future terror attacks?
Bush’s ability to reverse historic trends in 2002 by adding to the Republican House majority and taking back the Senate strongly suggests that the swing voters accept him as a credible and effective President. When you look at all the advantages he has this year as an incumbent — the money, the media access, the ability to control events (can you say “October Surprise”? I knew you could) — his position is far superior to when he was a challenger in 2000. So why should you expect the outcome to be any different?
tess
February 23, 2004 at 7:40 pm
32how is it that my “visceral dislike” of bush clouding my views? how have what i’ve pointed out almost obvious failures by this regime constitute an opinion?
you wanna know one really obvious reason why bush won’t have challengers in the primaries? because the man is a collasal fundraising machine, that’s why. even if his methods and machinations are some of the seediest in the world, i wouldn’t put it above anyone running for re-election to want some of that cash, especially in this day and age of the sound bite when you need television and newspaper ads to send your message across to those arm-chair junkies at home.
so no, i don’t agree with bush’s policies, but don’t think that it’s a personal dislike of the man that prompts my rage — everything that he’s done has flown in the face of internation convention (which can be arguable), but the very fact that the flouts solid scientific research to promote heavily flawed studies to promote his own agenda is almost beyond comprehension.
and let’s not forget that you were the one who brought up how kerry was “dour” and decided to make his personality an issue. i may not necessarily think that this “dour” man is someone i’d like to spend my afternoons with, but i’d take him over this arrogant, entitled, drunken frat boy in office any day.
Daniel Wiener
February 23, 2004 at 8:57 pm
33Quoting Tess:
“how is it that my “visceral dislike” of bush clouding my views?”
“don’t think that it’s a personal dislike of the man that prompts my rage”
“this arrogant, entitled, drunken frat boy”
tess
February 23, 2004 at 9:21 pm
34i’m angry BECAUSE he runs around like an arrogant, entitled, drunken frat boy to the rest of the world. how can you not see that he runs around like an arrogant, entitled, drunken frat boy? he sends our troops to war on every-shifting premises? sounds like a frat boy trying to find an excuse to have a party for his friends (halliburton, lockheed, bechtel). he weakens environmental laws so that way power plants and factories can spout more CO2 and cut down the last arboreal rain forest in the world. also sounds like a frat boy trying to take a piss in the yard. let’s not forget passing the 2 tax cuts he’s managed to have passed so far — the number one contributor to the deficit. it’s not the war like he wants us to think, and it isn’t the economy because the deficit, and it’s not like he’s actually CUTTING his own discretionary spending. again, he sounds like an irresponsible frat boy getting mommy and daddy to pay the bill, except it’s the middle-class americans who’re going to wake up one day in april 2005 to find out that they suddenly qualify for the stealth tax and will pay more than before the cuts.
see the difference?
Jim Osborn
February 23, 2004 at 9:36 pm
35What a breath of fresh air. Nadar talks intelligently about issues - as if he’s read about them and thought about them. Kerry doesn’t talk intelligently about issues, he blows hot air in every direction and trys to sound regal with meaningless phrases. Edwards should sell luxury cars to the poor - there are too many ice boxes in the frozen north. Dean would make a good ring master in a circus tent. Trouble is after an hour or two you’ve had enough and want to go home. And Bush ain’t no Ronald Regan. Nader thoughtfully answers questions. What a breath of fresh air amid the stale rehetoric.
Daniel Wiener
February 23, 2004 at 9:57 pm
36Well Tess, I hope it helped you to vent a bit like that.
Since your angry attitude towards Bush is shared mostly by Democrats, but not by swing voters, and certainly not by Republicans, what makes you think it will prevent Bush from being re-elected?
Swing voters, the ones who decide elections, do not consider Bush to be an “arrogant, entitled, drunken frat boy.” You may wish they did, and you may think they ought to, but your wishes and beliefs are not going to change reality.
The reality is that Bush is better positioned to win as an incumbent in 2004 than he was as a challenger in 2000. Therefore, the most likely scenario is that this November’s election will not be another photo-finish, and that (regardless of Nader’s entry into the race) Bush will probably win by a comfortable margin. That’s the middle of the probabilistic bell curve; on one end of the bell curve there’s a (lower) chance that Bush may win in a landslide, while on the other end there’s a (lower) chance that Bush will barely squeak through. Then there’s an even lower chance that Bush may actually lose the election, although with Nader in the race I rate that possibility quite small.
Jerry
February 23, 2004 at 10:00 pm
37I voted for Ralph last time and will again this time around. There’ll be millions of us.
Ken, Just Ken...
February 23, 2004 at 10:18 pm
38One of my main problems with Mr. Nader is that he insists on running for President. Ignoring all opportunities to run for any other office.
He may think that being an “outsider” helps him politically, but I’d trust him much more if he’d held ANY elected position, had a track record that we could look at, or any positions we could point to as his.
It seems to me that he feels that the Oval Office is the only office big enough for him.
Where was he when California was looking for a Governor, why hasn’t he run for City Counsel, the Senate, the House of Representatives, heck, even Dog Catcher?
I mean Michael Moore has more experience in government than Mr. Nader does. He at least was an elected member of a school board.
adam
February 24, 2004 at 2:22 am
39Tess and Daniel - good argument, there. The lack of personal insults almost made me forget this was the internet.
Jerry - I hope you (and other Nader voters) will reconsider. I considered voting for Ralph in 2000, but wouldn’t dream of it now. Not just because he can’t win/might help Bush win. But also because I don’t see him being a very good post 9/11 President. There’s that whole commander-in-chief thing: I don’t think Nader would necessarily have had the resolve to go into Afghanistan (which I believe we needed to do), nor would he have had the judgment to show a little more prudence in going the international route with Iraq (which Bush SHOULD have done). Maybe it’s because I’m a New Yorker and was here on 9/11, but I don’t think a man who’s interest and knowledge is so far out of that arena would be able to make strong, informed decisions, and this is very important to me. It’s one of the reasons why we need Bush out, and an even more powerful reason why Nader, even as a hypothetical President, shouldn’t be considered.
Finally, Daniel - two things: As I said, I’ve talked to many staunch Republicans of late (most recently a conservative columnist whom I know reads this blog [Hi!]) who have told me that they won’t be voting for Bush this time around. Several will be voting Democratic no matter who the nominee is. So I can’t see that your statements about a secure base are all that well-founded. Pragmatic conservatives aren’t worried overmuch about huge tax increases or savaged values while the Republicans control both houses of Congress; they just want a balanced budget and a steadier hand on the international tiller. Secondly, the conventional wisdom that a tiny percentage of swing voters determine the election is a little stale because the war, the deficit, and several other issues (like the Bush cuts to veteran’s benefits) have changed who the swing voters actually ARE, and how many of ‘em there might be on Election Day. They’re less easy to identify and less stable than you’d think these days, so saying that they’ll be the difference in the election is both undoubtedly true yet almost completely uninformative. But talking about ‘em as a bloc keeps the paychecks rolling in for political analysts, so I suppose the concept still serves SOME purpose…
Terry
February 24, 2004 at 7:02 am
40This is an Australian view point, all the way from Melbourne.
Ralph Nader’s entrance into the 2004 presidential race will make the Democrats jittery. Lets not forget what happened in 2000. Today AL Gore would have been President instead of Mr Bush. At the end of the day I think that Bob Kerry will be the next President of the USA.
Murray
February 24, 2004 at 10:34 am
41Tess,
I agree with everything you say, But…
You assume that Americans actually think about issues. That they know the difference between the deficit and the debt. The average American wouldn’t know the difference if the debt was 7 trillion, or 7 quadrillion dollars. Or what that even means. Hell, most won’t even know who the running mates are. A tragically large number get most of their political information from Leno.
On each issue there is a bumper sticker, 8 word, emotional answer, and a long, nuanced, intellectual answer. Despite one being honest and complete it doesn’t stand a chance against the one that is easily understood.
The Republicans know that and are not afraid to use it.
If you assume, as I do, that half of America is of average intelligence, a quarter below and a quarter above average. Then 3/4 of Americans are average or below. Of the 1/4 above average half of those benefit from the current administration. That leaves only 1/8 that are smart enough to see through the lies and misleading.
Any campaign that only goes after these people will fail.
David,
There is a great deal of validity to what you say. But…
Bush is close to loosing credibility with the people. Lying about WMD, Shirking guard duty, helping Halliburton despite one scandal after another, perception that his environmental record is at odds with his words, and much more.
The economy is not nearly as sure as you give it credit. Job outsourcing, and job losses are leading to an anxiety that is FELT by Americans where as statistics of greater production, mean little. The growth of the economy is almost all at the top, while the median income is dropping. Bush is starting to sound like his father who refused to acknowledge the recession the country was suffering. He says thing are great but Americans don’t feel great. As long as they don’t feel great, the economy will not take off.
The war in Iraq is not exactly a slam dunk. While most Americans have forgiven the president for lying to get us in, they think it was still worth it. If Iraq has a civil war, if Americans continue to die at a rate of 2 a day, or say a bombing that kills dozens or hundreds of soldiers, the mood will change.
Guaranteeing that Bush will win is a pretty shaky bet.
There are so many variables that no one can say.
Murray
February 24, 2004 at 10:36 am
42Opps, Daniel, not David. Sorry
Daniel Wiener
February 24, 2004 at 11:35 am
43Murray, I didn’t mean to “guarantee” that Bush will win; I just think the probability is quite high (and in the rare circumstances under which Ralph Nader could have any impact, he pushes it slightly higher).
The situation could change. For example, we could suffer another major terrorist attack, with Bush being blamed for failing to prevent it (but more likely the populace would line up in support of Bush as he retaliated). The stock market could crash and the economy suddenly tank (although it appears to have a lot of momentum in the other direction). A major new scandal could break out.
Things could go the other way, too. Bin Laden could be captured/killed with DNA evidence to back it up. A real, major terrorist attack could be foiled, with a dozen or so terrorists captured along with their nuclear device. The economy could roar ahead with a couple of million new jobs created this year. The budget deficit could drop sharply as tax revenues from the booming economy flooded in. The Iranian mullahs could be overthrown. The North Korean government could melt down. The result of such positive developments would be a Bush landslide victory.
Personally, I’m a libertarian. I didn’t vote for Bush in 2000 and I won’t be voting for him in 2004. I’m appalled at his bloated federal budgets and deficits. I’m disturbed by his encroachments on civil liberties (e.g., the Patriot Act). But I don’t demonize him, and neither do the large majority of American voters. Those Democrats who see Bush as either an “arrogant, entitled, drunken frat boy” or the reincarnation of Hitler have a severe disconnect from reality, and a severe disconnect from the swing voters who will decide this election.
Nick
February 24, 2004 at 11:35 am
44I propose the “squashed Corvair” principle of unintended consequences. Forty years ago, RN tried to make a name for himself by fighting the biggest corporation he could find. He ended up killing off compact cars in Detroit, leading to more clunky gas guzzlers and the near annihilation of American heavy industry. Four years ago, he once again tried to fix what wasnt broken, with predictable results.
Kerry
February 24, 2004 at 1:11 pm
45I think Daniel’s analysis on the various forces at play in the upcoming election is mostly right. Bush haters, of which I’m one, tend to congregate. We forget that it’s a big country out there and not everyone feels the same way.
One factor that has not been discussed, however, is voter turnout. The last election had one of the lowest voter turnout totals ever, barely %51 of eligible voters voted. A higher total of registered voters, %67 voted. Because of the polorized nature of this election, I expect to see higher totals in both categories. I would also say that most of those who sat out the last election, if inspired to vote in this one, will probably vote Democrat. I base this opinion on how galvanized the anti-Bush movement is for this election.
Don’t forget that Bush lost the popular election by a few hundred thousand votes when voter antipathy was high. Voter antipathy is virtually nonexistent this time around. There is no doubt that Bush has solidified his base. The big question is “How many voters has Bush converted?”
Murray
February 24, 2004 at 1:19 pm
46Daniel
You are completely right. There are too many variables to make any kind of prediction.
Is Bush in a better position now than 2000?
Yes and no.
In 2000 the nation was fat and happy. Peace, and prosperity, let the people worry about trivial nonsense. Now we have a loss of 2 1/2 million jobs, 2 soldiers are dieing a day, and the debt hit 7,000,000,000,000 and is going up by more than half a trillion a year.
If the question is, are you better than 4 years ago? Most people would have to say no.
If the question is, are we safer now than 4 years ago? The answer is mixed.
Much of how the election goes will depend on (presumably) Kerry’s ability to hit back. Gore ignored the issue of character because he, like Dukakis, thought it was stupid. Instead, when attacked, Gore should have said “Yes character does matter, Let’s compare records, starting with our arrest records.” Kerry will need to respond immediately and hard when he is inevitably attacked. He should also not be afraid to attack on his own.
A second term election is always a referendum on the president. His record is all bad or all good depending on what side you are on.
It will be the wishy-washy people in the middle who will choose, and there are too many things that could sway them one way or the other
tess
February 24, 2004 at 1:39 pm
47daniel and murry:
thanks for pointing out that our average citizen is probably sitting around watching o’reilly. i forget that our average public school stop teaching civics beyond “our government is separated into 3 branches.” now excuse me while i go and drink myself into a stupor at the thought of bush getting another 4 years.
Daniel Wiener
February 24, 2004 at 2:56 pm
48My work here is done.
Sorry, I’m just joking. Don’t get too depressed, Tess. Even if Bush wins this year, there’s a good probability that Hillary will lead the Democrats back into the White House in 2008. By then the public will be tiring of Republican domination of the federal government, and bad memories from the Clinton years will have faded and morphed into a tinge of nostalgia.
Also, try to look at things from a wider perspective. If Bush wins re-election comfortably, as I predict above, it means that we will have avoided any great disaster between now and November. There will have been no major terrorist attack on our soil; no economic collapse; no horrible new scandal; etc. That’s good for our country.
Similarly, if Bush wins in a landslide, it means that a lot of things will have gone very right between now and November. The economy will be booming; foreign dictatorships will be dropping like flies; terrorists will be on the ropes; etc. That’s also good for our country.
And if Hillary or some other Democrat fails to win in 2008, it will mean that things will have gone so well over the next four years that the voters aren’t ready to “throw the bums out”. The party out of power always needs to find sufficiently credible fault with the party in power to justify a political change.
As cynical as I am, as suspicious of politicians as I am, and as angry at government insanities as I get, I’ve still learned over the years that this country will somehow manage to survive whatever Administration happens to be in office. And that sooner or later the political tides will shift again.
tess
February 24, 2004 at 3:52 pm
49i’m less worried about how well the economy’s doing since there’re theories and arguments about that, but i’m more worried about the sort of laws that might be passed under bush’s guidance — okay, more like karl rove’s. like the issue of passing a constitutional amendment decreeing that a marriage is only between a man and a woman, or the ban on new genetic lines for stem cell research, the refusal to acknowledge about 30+ years in climate research saying that the planet is warming and humans are causing it, or abstinance-only sex-ed which has been shown time and time again that it doesn’t reduce pregnancies or STDs compared to promoting profilactics — it doesn’t add up. that’s not even including the reduction in the number of pell grants for college students, cuts in “no child left behind,” cutting $6×10^8 from the EPA, the broken promise of AIDS funding in africa all while promoting $1.5×10^9 in spending to promote poor people to get married or stay married. it’s like he’s going after quick-fixes, but instead of fixing problems by throwing money at it, he’s trying to solve it all by undercutting established programs.
bush may get re-elected, but i’m not counting on things being any rosier for america because of it. and for all the scandals that clinton was synonymous for, i don’t recall that it was this tinged with the extreme right.
Murray
February 24, 2004 at 5:39 pm
50Daniel-
After the 12 years of Regan and Bush 1, I would have agreed with you. The office changes the man and there is a limit to the damage that they can do.
But not now.
W has done so much damage that it will take a lot of effort, time, and money to fix. These 4 years are already way too much. How much debt does the country need before foreign investors get scared off? When that happens where do you think the interest rates will go? We are also making more enemies daily overseas. 4 more years to cement in our problems, appoint judges, destroy our environment, and hand everything not nailed down to the richest contributors, IS enough to make one crack open another bottle of Jack.
James
February 24, 2004 at 5:46 pm
51Al Gore has no one to blame but himself for losing the 2000 election (and Jeb, Katherine Harris and those five conservative supreme court justices). I don’t know why so-called “liberals” put so much faith in the democrap party who in the end do nothing but pass legislation that benefits corporations while consistently screwing their supposed constituents. Or do they? Don’t be fooled, the republicans’ and democrats’ real constituents are the leaders of big business and they decide the outcome of elections while the average american is pacified by a phony election process, wasting energy and time in meaningless debates and campaigning instead of demanding real change that benefits real people instead of corporations and holding politicians accountable like calling for reform of the election process. (How about abolishing the electoral college?, Why not have a one day national primary election? How about giving the residents of the District of Columbia the right to vote?) The democrats and republicans are not saying anything new, they are playing the same old game as we delude ourselves into thinking that our votes really count and that the democrats have our best interests in mind. Enjoy the show!
johne
February 24, 2004 at 6:38 pm
52Gwynne Dyer points out that the Al Quaeda has members sophisticated enough to help Bush, their best foil and recruiting tool, get re-elected, by providing a helpful October surprise in an essay reprinted at
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0122-10.htm
(The best line in the piece may be “…U.S. Homeland Security Department [Heimatsicherheitsabteilung, in the original German]…”).
val
February 24, 2004 at 7:13 pm
53daniel, are you one of what-crappy economy-things-look-great-from-where-i’m-sitting bushites who is so wealthy you don’t need a job? i mean, my god, boy! what do you do that you have enough time in your day to write all that blither?
Chris
February 25, 2004 at 1:14 am
54tess wrote: “thanks for pointing out that our average citizen is probably sitting around watching o’reilly. i forget that our average public school stop teaching civics beyond “our government is separated into 3 branches . . .”
So true. I’ve heard so many people saying things like, “I think Nader would make a good president - I’ll vote for him.” Nonononononononono…that’s not how it works, people. I think my cousin Frederick would make an excellent president, but in a winner-take-all system you have to vote for someone who can win.
Also, people don’t realize that our lack of party choice is balanced by political stability. In countries with multiple parties (France, Italy, Germany….you know, almost every country but us) things are much more unstable. The small parties bully around the big parties because the big parties need the small parties to get a majority. If the small party doesn’t get what they want, they leave the coalition, and without a majority the big party’s leader is voted out (leading to the 10-different-Prime Ministers-in-6-months phenomenon).
Sorry to take up so much space with that, but there are reasons we have only two real parties. I can’t stand when people say things like: “I want more choices! We should have a third party! I’m going to vote Nader!” I’m fine with people spouting off their opinions, as long as they take at least a little time to educate themselves about our political system.
Mr Ripley
February 25, 2004 at 1:36 am
55Anti-Ashcroft, libertarian Daniel makes a mistake in failing to consider what the Supreme Court will look like with two or more Bush appointees on it.
Daniel Wiener
February 25, 2004 at 3:01 am
56Sorry I couldn’t reply to you earlier, Val, but I had to work today (just not the usual 9-to-5 schedule). I wish I was wealthy, but sadly no. However, I’m trying to get this new dot-com company off the ground…
Chris, you’re correct that multiple parties can lead to political instability, especially in systems which rely on proportional representation. However, there’s a simple reform which can go a long way towards resolving the matter: Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). With IRV the voters rank their choices for an office, and the votes for the candidate with the lowest total are redistributed to the voters’ next choice until someone receives a majority. This minimizes gamesmanship in voting. People can indicate their true preferences, yet their votes will still count towards a second-choice (or third-choice) major party candidate who is most likely to win.
I don’t share a lot of Ralph Nader’s views, but Instant Runoff Voting is one which I fully agree with him on.
tess
February 25, 2004 at 1:27 pm
57if you think that bush can’t do any more damage, just remember that he could still appoint judges on the supreme court, and that scalia and thomas both opposed a decision that sided with washington state saying that the state does not have to grant scholarships for those entering a religious order. and scalia goes duck-hunting with cheney while cheney is supposed to be investigated. now call me crazy, but doesn’t that seem a bit odd? and who else is bush going to try to nominate during a senate off-season?
Anonymous
February 25, 2004 at 3:36 pm
58god bless us all…i think your prob. right. Ralph can’t do that much damage…it seems to me that we’re so doomed no matter who’s sitting in the whitehouse…
( none are true leaders….) that we’ve basically got about 4 to 10 years to enjoy mother nature and our friends and families before the end of our world as we know it…get out there and have some fun.
peace
mgingram
KatherineW
February 25, 2004 at 4:54 pm
59I’m sorry, I couldn’t get through this post because all I could hear was Mark Hamill and the Swine Trek crew shouting, “Oh no! Derth Nader!” and I had to go find a picture: http://mrskitty12.tripod.com//sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/d erthnader2.gif
Chris
February 25, 2004 at 6:44 pm
60Daniel,
I’ve actually never heard of Instant Runoff Voting before. It’s sounds complicated (I mean, who actually sits around a redistributes votes. And who makes sure they’re doing it fairly? Or is it all done on computers? Do the states make their own programs? Or is it all just an impractical fantasy at the moment?). Has IRV been used successfully anywhere else in the world?
I’m not saying it wouldn’t be a good electoral system. But it does kind of strike me as taking our simple SMDP system, tossing in a bunch of weird PR regulations, baking for 30 minutes, and expecting to find a simple, fair, and delicious election cake.
Daniel Wiener
February 25, 2004 at 8:20 pm
61Chris,
Instant Runoff Voting has indeed been used in a number of places. It’s not complicated (voters just rank their choices, and computers do the grunge work) and it is becoming increasingly popular. For additional information, here are just a few sites (there are lots more):
http://www.instantrunoff.com
http://www.fairvote.org/irv
http://www.chrisgates.net/irv
http://www.calirv.org
http://snipurl.com/4qai
http://irvoting.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
Murray
February 25, 2004 at 11:11 pm
62I like the idea of instant runoff. It gives third parties a chance while preventing them from being spoilers.
I have even heard of a good idea to fund elections.
Any one gets to donate as much money as he wants to any candidate. But he has to give it to an independent organization, like the league of Women Voters, who every week or so gives the money to the candidate. The organization does not give the names of the contributors. All money has to go through the organization.
This means that the candidate gets the money, he just has no way of knowing who gave it to him. Any one can say that they gave all kinds of money. A hundred people will claim each dollar given. Who can tell?
The donor is giving money to help the candidate that he wants, but gets no influence in return. The money is finally honest.
This has a much chance of passing as the Gay Bashing Amendment.
Luke
February 27, 2004 at 10:23 am
63Though it has no chance whatsoever, there are systems even more stable than IRV, such as a True Majority Vote, in which voters rank candidates (much like in IRV) and then each pair of candidates is considered — who beats the other?
Usually, one candidate beats all the others.
The other case where it comes out as one or more a rock-paper-scissors cycles is very rare, and no voting system does well in that case because there is no agreement to work from.
But, you might say, IRV is good enough… well, not necessarily. Consider the recent French election in which there were three principal candidates - roughly, left, middle, and right. In a one-on-one race, middle would have beaten either left or right: nearly everyone who didn’t put him first put him second. However, he got the fewest top-rank votes and would have been the first knocked off in an IRV.