lefty comments? A Green "safe states" strategy

[Iverson]

As an alternative to the elevated denunciation of Greens around here (which invariably includes some foaming about their intransigence and which construes fielding a candidate as an attack), I offer this link and excerpt. I am interested in comments from other lefties. Do you think that this is a good strategy for progressives in 2004?

Conservatives and others who cannot abide progressive politics are kindly advised to harangue us elsewhere.

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2003-07/01glick.cfm

(excerpt begins)

Everyone knows that a Green Party Presidential candidate will not win in 2004. But a Presidential campaign can help to build the party, give it visibility, attract new members, keep or attain ballot status in a number of states. And if it pulled out 5% or more of the popular vote it would mean millions of dollars for party-building leading into 2008.

The best way to do all of these things is to explicitly focus the campaign** only in those "safe states" where past voting histories and
current polling indicates that either Bush or the Democrat is very likely to win. Let's remember that our Presidential election is in some
respects not a "national" election; it's 50 separate state elections to
choose representatives to the electoral college. If it truly was a national election Al Gore would have been elected President in 2000, even with Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris' criminal activity of throwing legal voters off the Florida voting roles.

By running this kind of campaign in the 25-35 or so almost-certain
"safe states,"*** the Greens cannot be accused, at least accused in
good faith, of just being spoilers out to deny the Democrats the
Presidency. Indeed, by running such a campaign, the Greens and their
Presidential candidate are saying in no uncertain terms that although
both the Republicans and Democrats are problematic, the Bushites
represent such a particular danger right now that we have modified our
campaign accordingly.

(excerpt ends)

[KG]

1. let's start at the heart of the matter.

the loyalists can do all the denunciations they care to, post all their stupid assertions, repeat all their tired lies, and scream their fool heads off all they want, but clintons dalliance w/ monica cost al gore a walk-off, slam dunk victory. no blow-job, no chimp.

the uproar that incident caused lost alot of the vote the DLC was looking for in the squishy center. and even with all that, the dems still out-polled the repooks. so, the votes are there, apparently.

the clinton years did very little to advance progressive causes, and in fact retreated on many fronts. and the DLC has pretty much sneered at the liberal/progressive movement - the 'left' - as 'activist elites'. so why is there any wonder that a true 'left' movement is picking up so much support.

the green party campaign was powered by grassroots activism, rallies, and many small donations. until the DP returns to its populist roots, returns to promting progessive causes, and stops sucking a the same corporate teats as the repook for money, and start acting as a opposition party to the repooks, they face the threat of losing some votes to people who truly believe in progessive/liberal causes to alternative candidates.

why are the loyalists worried about the greens anyway? the DLC thinks they can ignore blacks, hispanics, and immigrants, the traditional roots of the party, and win. they have decided they can pick-up all the votes they need by just getting conservative football watching white guys to vote (D). (snicker) :)

[LiberalLibra]

6. KG: You make some valid points but conveniently forget some.....

....issues as well. As Clinton himself said (not his exact words by any means), the repubs were simply doing what they were supposed to do, using everything they had to defeat Dems. The problem was all the liberals/progressives who went along with the repubs believing that lies about something that wasn't anyone else's business to begin with. Even worse were those same liberals/progressives who had their heads where the sun don't shine and couldn't see beyond their own noses and realize just how hellish things could really get. Now, thanks to alot of patting each other on the backs for getting that sex lieing Clinton out of office we have a jerk who can only get his jollies from lieing about WMD and sending people off to die based on those lies.

Might be worth EVERYONE's time to look beyond the end of their own nose in the future. I am like Rommell during WWII who said in absolute disbelief, "You mean to tell me the Americans would sacrifice one of their best Commaders because he slapped a soldier?" Well, I am still in absolute disbelief that Americans would sacrifice one of our better duly ELECTED Presidents because he lied about having sex. I'm in even more shock though that so many "liberals/progressives" bought into it all.

[Iverson]

9. KG and LiberalLibra

What do you think about the merits of the proposal put forth in the linked article?

[KG]

13. Iverson - the point i was trying to make was-

i think the greens will have less of an impact on the '04 campaign than the the loyalist whiners would have us believe.

in 2k, the only real green votes that counted were ones cast in FL. and we all know the massive electoral fraud was committed that handed the presidency to the chimp. and even there, with margin officially being about 560 votes, it is conveniently for gotten that 35,000 floridians vote for someone other than nader, gore, or the chimp.

[LiberalLibra]

17. Iverson: To the point?? I hope but not totally convinced that....

....anyone and everyone left of the middle, who voted for Nader or the boy king, sees the error of their ways and suggests to Nader that he take a looooong vacation in 2004 - with the goal being to get rid of the boy king.

Oh, and btw, what's wrong with a little side discussion or are we taking lessons from the boy king these days on a successful dictatorship?

[KG]

21. nice little slap, and totally ucalled for.

'Oh, and btw, what's wrong with a little side discussion or are we taking lessons from the boy king these days on a successful dictatorship?'

Iverson tries to have a reasoned discussion, and maybe keep it on topic. i didn't have a problem with it.

well, since you are fond of quoting nazis to justify your reasonings, a successful dictatorship shouldn't be too offensive to you.

[Iverson]

23. shame on you

"Oh, and btw, what's wrong with a little side discussion or are we taking lessons from the boy king these days on a successful dictatorship?"

You know damned well the difference between maintaining a relevant focus and a dictatorship. That you willingly refuse to make that distinction on the personal basis of my being to your left is intellectually dishonest and more reminiscent of right wing tactics than is my plea for staying on topic.

Try to imagine being treated that way that you treat others!

[KG]

10. i haven't conveniently forgot anything.

clinton knew the whole world was watching him, but he still thought he could get away with extra marital sex? talk about your ego-maniacs!
it's not anybodys fault but clintons for what transpired afterwards.

it was the 'squishy center', those only vaguely aware of what going on, that made the judgement and voted for someone that appeared to them to be more moral in 2k.

patton got a rebuke for what he did coz there were principles involved. but please, feel free to quote nazis to justify your reasoning. they were totally lacking in principles, too

[LiberalLibra]

14. KG: Seems to me what you are saying in a....

.....round about way is that "principles", your word, applied to Patton (slapping a solier) and to Clinton (lieing about sex) but helping the neo cons in any way (Nader splitting the left in 2000) get rid of our last ELECTED President, which heralded in the boy king, involved no "principles"?? Good, I feel better now knowing that "principles" apply to Dems but obviously no one else.

As for your comment of "but please, feel free to quote nazis to justify your reasoning.", hey anyone can make a mistake and be right occasionally. Although I am still waiting for Nader to open his mouth and properly call for unity of the left in their quest of getting rid of the boy dictator.

[Terwilliger]

15. Nader did not "split" the left

He had no impact on Al Gore's loss

Since you'll come back and say "yes he did! yes he did" I'll give you a quote from the most anti-Nader people on the planet.

The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. -- Al From

[KG]

22. i don't expect much in the way of principles in the political sphere

but when it comes to the blame game, the dem. party need look no futher than thier own policies and practices for the last 20 years to figure out how they got to where they are today.

[Le Taz Hot]

2. But isn't that what Michael Moore suggested?

If I recall correctly, the Nader camp wouldn't go for it in 2000. Feel free to correct me if I err here. Do you think the Green Party will reconsider that position this time around?

[NYT]

3. ...but don't forget...

...that you need to work on the local level also. Getting people elected in small races, i.e., mayors, county commissioners, and school boards, gives more credibility to the larger elections.

[Le Taz Hot]

4. But wouldn't the same question apply

to local elections? Personally, and I say this NOT as a Green basher, I think it would do a lot to heal over some of the bad feelings between some within both groups. I thought Michael Moore's position was a reasonable one but my understanding was that, in 2000, the Nader caampaign was very much against it. Do you think they'll change their position this time?

[Iverson]

7. reply

From what I can tell, there is active discussion among the Greens about what to do in 2004. The solid majority seem to be in favor of fielding a candidate. However, unlike the scolds that I receive here from Democratic centrists, it is not at all certain that Nader has a lock on the nomination.

In the meantime, the possibilities are open for discussion and debate. The article to which I referred seemed to be a good-faith effort to resolve the conundrum that progressives face today.

[Terwilliger]

11. Has anyone heard about...

Cynthia McKinney? Isn't she considering running as a Green?

[ulysses]

20. actually, I've only ever heard that suggested

on DU. The poetic justice of it aside, I'd like to see her take back her congressional seat. After six months of Majette, I have to say that she seems like a nice enough lady, but she's still a far cry from the strength we used to have in that seat.

[Iverson]

24. heard about that

I don't have it confirmed yet, though.

[ShaneGR]

5. Safe states? There are no safe states!!!!

This strategy was already done by the Greens in 2000. It cost us 3 states, including Florida.

[Iverson]

8. correction

That strategy was not tried in 2000. Did you read the article?

[Terwilliger]

12. Ralph Nader did NOT cost Al Gore the election -- DLC

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=3&kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=2919

The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. -- Al From

[charlie]

16. Pshaw, you know better than that

My spit-in-the-ocean absentee ballot for Gore went to Texas. The Lone Star state can soak up every Green vote in the country without jeopardizing the Democratic electoral vote. I should've arranged a vote swap with a Green in another state -- I plan on doing that next time around.

[govegan]

18. Some comments

Thanks for posting the interesting article :-)

I have liked the Green Party for some time, despite the bogus arguments of them being the cause for the chimp's selection in 2000. I did vote for Al Gore, although in my heart I felt the Ralph Nader and the Greens had a better platform. I have read one of their newsletters, and they print some powerful attacks on the neo-cons, and corporate fascism.

I should add that I didn't dislike Mr. Gore, so voting for him wasn't painful. I felt, and still do feel, that Mr. Gore would have been a better president and leader than Mr. Clinton.

Now, this article brings up another point:

"What about Sharpton or Kucinich, or (in another category) Moseley-Braun? Well, if one of them got the Democratic nomination, it would be a political development that the Green Party would need to seriously consider. Such a development would be the political miracle of U.S. history. And because it is so unlikely, the Democratic Party and the corporate media being what they are, it's really not something the Greens have to worry about at this point in time."

I don't buy that "it is so unlikely" at this time. I think that Kucincich has a message and a platform with broad appeal, when it is truly heard and considered. Time and opportunity are there for the grassroots efforts of Kucinich supporters to make a broad enough impact to be successful. Obviously, this is not a sure thing, but now is not the time to be dismayed of our chances. Mr. Glick indicates that Kucinich, Sharpton or Moseley-Braun would possibly deserve consideration of serious support by the Green Party. What a great development that could be for a truly progressive candidate.

And another point:

"Finally, what about 'dark horse' Howard Dean? A Dean candidacy would mean a more-progressive approach on the part of the Democrats, but let's not forget the usual dynamic of a liberal primary campaign turning into a centrist general election campaign. Given Dean's need for that corporate and fat cat money if nominated, it's a certainty that there would still be a big political space to his left, one the Greens could once again fill."

I am personally uncertain at this point what a Dean candidacy will mean. This is mainly because I have not seen or heard his position articulated on some major issues, and I have checked out his website. I may attend one of his "meetups" if I have the time, for the main reason of questioning his supporters about his positions. I think a lot of Dean supporters would naturally support Kucinich, if they could get around this "unelectable" nonsense.

An interesting point was raised about the electoral college garbage. I just feel that is what the electoral college is. It has nothing to do with democracy. That article was added to the constitution as a compromise to appease those afraid of true democracy and the unadulterated will of the people, in my opinion. I know that of all the articles in the constitution, none has been challenged more often than the electoral college. It is a very sad situation that this nonsensical piece of garbage allowed the scandal of 2000 to take place.

Even if one grants some logic for the electoral college at the drafting of the constitution, by the Louisiana Purchase of Thomas Jefferson's adiministration, the electoral college surely lost all relevance. Now, with nearly instantaneous global communications, TV, radio, cell phones, satellite phones, broadband and dialup internet, jet travel, etc., etc. How can the electoral college possibly have relevance? It is an anachronism and a useless relic.

Of course, we still must deal with it. But it really should go. It benefits no one, can more easily be manipulated than the popular vote, and it can result in the most ridiculous mathematical absurdities. Man, what a sorry piece of rubbish.

Sorry for the rant. The bottom line is that I think the author makes a good point for the Green Party. If the Democratic Party is steered away from addressing progressive issues, then the Green Party will be absolutely correct to bring their case forward.

[Terwilliger]

19. A great article

this person seems to have a good grasp of what's going on

All of those Democrats, all seen as the leading contenders at this point in the game, supported the war on Iraq and voted in October, along with candidate Bob Graham, to give Bush authorization to decide on his own about going to war. All of them, to a greater or a lesser degree, have gone along with the Bush regime's quest for empire conducted under the guise of a "war on terrorism." None of them can be expected to seriously challenge the dangerous direction of U.S. foreign policy. In certain respects, a couple of them are even more aggressive than Bush.

<snip>

This will gain us the respect of some of our allies in the Democratic Party who are pretty much with us on the issues but, in part because of the winner-take-all nature of our electoral system, are unprepared to move outside it right now. It could well mean more votes from these allies for local Green candidates in states where such candidates are running.

It should increase the popular vote for the Greens toward 5% as the argument can be made in the "safe states" that voters should not waste their vote by voting for the Democrat or Republican but should instead vote for the candidate they know is closest to their own views.

Sure, the strategy could work very well.

[Iverson]

25. still interested in progressive reactions

therefore: kick.

[jpgray]

26. Some will always accuse Greens

But most of their hate has coalesced around Nader, who isn't the best guy personally or professionally, in my view.

However, the issues he represents have many, many friends in the Democratic party. I love Kucinich, he is my guy 100% as far as issues are concerned, so that should tell you something. Nader's campaigning in swing states was frustrating and incomprehensible to many Democrats, and right or wrong, the impression is out there that he cost Gore the election.

I don't blame Nader for 2000, and if he did the exact same thing, saying "the Dem and Republican candidates are the same" in 2004, I wouldn't blame him or the Greens either. But this time around, I wouldn't forgive him for it. Same goes for heavy campaigning in swing states--do it if you want, I won't bash anybody, but don't expect me to forgive Nader for it.

So that's it. I won't blame Nader for a Democrat loss in any election. But I don't like exaggerated criticism of a Democrat or the party itself. When he says a "few" Democrats weren't fooled by Bush, that makes my blood boil. On the war resolution alone, 123 Representatives and 23 Senators were not fooled. I won't bash Nader for things he hasn't done, but untrue criticisms and smears I will not stand for.

[Iverson]

27. fine, but ...

Do you have a response to the thesis of the article?

[jpgray]

28. Again, if the purpose is to avoid being accused by Dems

I don't think that will necessarily happen no matter what the Greens do during their campaign if they have one. That shouldn't be the central concern of a Green presidential campaign in the first place.

If it comes off, a plan to campaign mostly in the safe states is a good idea. As for the likelihood of that happening or being feasible, beats me. I'm not sure that's the best way to get 5% either, and that's coming from a Dem who wasn't happy at all with Green campaigning in the swing states. Not to mention running a Senate candidate against Wellstone, my Senator.

Objectively, I would say if Greens want to run a a candidate, they should do it the way they want to, and not be overly concerned about what Democrats think. I would ask for fewer exaggerated Dem criticisms during that campaign, but hey, I know that's probably not going to happen either.

[inthecorneroverhere]

29. Go ahead....run in Republican states!

Greens are welcome to run aggressive campaigns in almost-certain Republican states! Just stay away from Dem and tossup states!!!

:dem:

[redeye]

30. Why stay away from Democratic states?

Massachusetts, for example, was Gore's fourth best state in 2000 and Bush's third worst. Gore won it by a margin of 27.3%. Why should a citizen of MA vote for the Democrat when his true preference is Nader and when more than a quarter of the state's voters need to ditch the Dem for Nader in order for Bush to surpass the Dem (and even so, MA gave Bush less than 1/3 of the vote so even in the unlikely scenario of mass desertion, the worst that could happen for the Dems is a Green victory in MA)?