Who is a spoiler? (Ralph Nader thread, with special guest Dennis Kucinich!)

[LoZoccolo]

Consider these two scenarios.

2000 Presidential election, state of Florida:

48.85% Bush
48.84% Gore
1.63% Nader

Hypothetical 2008 Democratic nomination for Presidential candidate:

48.85% Clinton
48.84% Obama
1.63% Kucinich

[LoZoccolo]

1. Oooops...I messed up the names (now fixed).

Clinton and Obama have been switched to where they were intended on edit; the problem has been fixed. They were only wrong for like less than a minute.

[Hydra]

2. If you are going to post the 2000 numbers

post the corrected version based on proven voter fraud.

Also, the repubs are threating to run their own 3rd party hack, so it may be ours to lose anyway.

[LoZoccolo]

3. There are no corrected numbers.

While I agree there was wrongful disenfranchisement, we know nothing exact about how the disenfranchised voters would have voted.

[Hydra]

5. we don't know the exacts

but we can go off of the 87,000 + the purged people to get a better percentage.

I just point that out because though Nader may feel he had some sort of victory, the day went to Tom Delay and Jeb Bush.

[LoZoccolo]

6. Who gets to decide where the 87,000 votes go? n/t

[Hydra]

13. The Nation covered various parts of this, but here's the kicker

Therefore, had Harris allowed the counting of these ballots, Al Gore would have racked up a plurality of about 87,000 votes in Florida--162 times Bush's official margin of victory.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040517/palast

[RaleighNCDUer]

45. Yeah.

63,000 disenfranchised registered Democrats COULD have voted for Bush.

:crazy:

[Mark E. Smith]

4. Hillary

She did something. I just know it.

[ulysses]

7. wait...Kucinich is a possible "spoiler" in the primary? but I thought

that was when we were *supposed* to vote our true belief and then suck it up and vote for The Dem That Wins in the general.

You guys are out of sync.

[LoZoccolo]

9. You "can" do anything.

Whether or not it gets you closer to what you want is another matter entirely. The consequences of your actions are what they are regardless of what they are "supposed" to do.

[ulysses]

19. don't avoid the question.

If Kucinich is a "spoiler" in the primary, then how aren't any of the rest of them?

[LoZoccolo]

26. Because they aren't in my hypothetical scenario.

I know the percentages don't add up to 100%, but lets say that the rest are people who wrote in "Weed Man" or "Mary Carey" or "Howard Dean" or "Ba Ba Booey" or one of two thousand other candidates without any one of them gaining more than .01% of the vote.

[ulysses]

28. right. so why not create the hypothetical with, say, Richardson?

The nightmares you much have about the American left...

[LoZoccolo]

30. Kucinich was the last to drop out against Kerry in 2004. n/t

[ulysses]

32. that's part of why I like him. and?

[LoZoccolo]

33. And that is why he is in my hypothetical scenario. n/t

[ulysses]

35. because I like him?

As I said about the nightmares you much have...

[LoZoccolo]

36. I think I know, I mean - ah yes - but it's all wrong.

That is I think I disagree.

[ulysses]

39. ah, LoZo. you're still fun.

:D

[RebelSansCause]

8. neither

neither nader nor kucinich is a spoiler. both are persons who run to try and get elected in a democracy. they are not doing it to make someone lose, rather they are fighting for their morals and principles, something that some of us can respect. something that makes them good candidates. i am not afraid of voting my principles, especially not in the primary. i am not pulled in by the MSM into voting for "holy triumvirate" of candidates. i support both of the two "spoiler" candidacies because they show DEMOCRACY not autocracy, something that this country should stand for. they are good people first and politicians second, not the other way around.

[LoZoccolo]

10. What do you care if you are "sans cause"?

Why don't you just let me tell you who to vote for?

[5X]

14. Why don't you let me tell you to fuck off?

[LoZoccolo]

18. Fine, you have my permission to tell me to fuck off.

You'll have to get the moderators' permission as well, though. Let me go ask them.

[RebelSansCause]

23. thanks for the support bud

:toast: :hi: :yourock:

[RebelSansCause]

17. i am only sans cause because....

it seems that everything i believe in goes against the mainstream in this country. and i am willing to fight for my position to the last. principles triumph over "pragmatism", even though a special exception MAY be made if hillary wins the nomination. thus that could never happen. (of course i am not really sure if you are being facetious, because i do so adore sarcasm and would love to leave off the emoticon myself but i have seen what has happened to people who do not, they just get flamed)

[lvx35]

20. That's a good point...The truth is that Clinton went too far right, lost some of his base to Nader.

Mostly in his second term. It was youthful optimism though...I remember talking to the Nader folks, and the sense that republicans were just these old fuddy-duddies who we needn't be too worried about.

[5X]

11. Are you trying to say Kucinich shouldn't be allowed to run?

Are you trying to deny all of us our chance at democracy?

[LoZoccolo]

12. Are you talking to the person behind me? n/t

[5X]

16. No, I am talking to you, the idiot trying to deny democracy. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

21. And I would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you sneaky kids!

[mike_c]

15. why do you hate democracy...?

Sheesh.

[RebelSansCause]

25. exactly

exactly what i was thinking, we should obviously be slaves to the MSM and the self-annointed and media-annointed "front runner candidates" i mean, obviously :sarcasm:

[Alexander]

22. The candidates are chosen by delegates - NOT popular vote.

In your ranting and raving, you didn't think of that?

Plus, Dennis is a loyal Democrat. He has been for at least 20 years longer than you have, because I do remember your post where you admitted to voting for Peter Fitzgerald for the US Senate.

You really have a severe problem with liberals, don't you?

[LoZoccolo]

37. That is true, I did not register as a Democrat until 1999.

I have voted straight ticket since 2000, though.

You really have a severe problem with liberals, don't you?

No. I have bigger problems with people who disregard math and game theory, or get mad when I point out that some numbers are larger than other numbers.

[Alexander]

42. You have problems with people who disregard math? Ironic.

Since you ignore the fact that popular vote does not select the nominee. It is delegates who do this, and they can switch their support whenever they wish.

But then, I never expected you to understand primary politics.

[LoZoccolo]

43. I am not disregarding math, though, just common sense. n/t

[Alexander]

46. And logic. And facts.

If you didn't disregard all these things, you'd realize your math doesn't even apply, because we don't pick nominees that way.

How's DLC fantasyland working out for you?

[wyldwolf]

58. LOL! Alexander talks "logic and facts." News at 11!

[rucky]

48. Your poll must be this "new math" the kids are talking about.

I had no idea it involved pulling numbers out of your butt.

[Alexander]

49. LoZoccolo apparently has never heard of "delegates" before.

Odd, since he admitted to political work for the past 15 years.

[LoZoccolo]

50. You do not know that.

What if the delegates had the same percentages?

[Alexander]

53. Delegates can change their minds and their votes - and often do.

Otherwise there would never have been a deadlocked convention, ever.

Apples and oranges.

[lastliberalintexas]

51. Political work for 15 years, but a Dem for only 8?

Ah, that explains so much.

[LoZoccolo]

52. Lame.

Read the rest of the thread if you want to know what you are talking about. I had a job with a survey firm that was hired by Oliver North and Jeb Bush and someone else for a month or two (before that I was doing surveys for Pizza Hut and Federal Express), and did no political work at all from then until 2003.

[Alexander]

54. Out of curiosity, did you vote while employed with this survey firm?

[LoZoccolo]

59. No.

I did not vote until 1998.

[TwilightZone]

24. Intent could be a determining factor.

Nader ran hard in Florida with the intent of being a spoiler. That certainly doesn't seem to be Dennis's intent.

[TwilightZone]

27. What's with the "you're denying Democracy" comments?

Talk about a leap of logic. Questioning whether a candidate is a spoiler is now denying Democracy?

Welcome to bizarro world.

[CK_John]

29. Sometimes I believe you are Nader and other times a Nader stalker? n/t

[LoZoccolo]

31. Sometimes you feel like a nut. Sometimes you don't. n/t

[Alexander]

34. Sometimes you feel like voting for Peter Fitzgerald...

And other times you feel like trashing loyal Democrats like Dennis Kucinich.

I wonder where your loyalties lie.

[LoZoccolo]

40. Here is another one: I was a push-poller for Republicans in 1994.

:wow:

I hated it, but I didn't have time to look for another job when the survey firm I worked for started giving us that work, and it was $6.50 an hour, plus I could work 3pm-9pm. It was a summer job when I was 19.

So any time you want to sidestep the actual subject in one of my threads, you can just bring this one up.

Actually, I remember one of the candidates we were working against was Zell Miller, and one of the Republicans (might have been that same race) was a liberal, so maybe this dirt isn't as good as it could be. But hey, you can have it for free.

[Alexander]

44. Actually you sidestepped the subject of your own thread...

And my response to it.

Namely, Kucinich could never do this, because the nominee is selected by delegates, not popular votes.

See, the phrase "never murder a man who is committing suicide" applies here - you are showing your own ignorance of electoral politics to the point where I really don't have to dig up dirt on you.

It's pretty funny, watching you self-destruct like this. :rofl:

[LWolf]

38. Neither are spoilers.

Neither are they comparable, either.

Nader did not run in the Democratic primaries in 2000.

Dennis Kucinich is a Democratic candidate in the Democratic primary race.

Nader's effect on the general election in 2000 is debatable; election fraud played a larger part in the outcome than Nader did.

It really doesn't matter, though. In a free and fair election, there is still no "spoiler." Voters are free to vote for whom they choose, and it is the candidates' job to earn those votes. Citizens do not "owe" votes to any particular candidate.

The idea of a "spoiler" in a primary, as if any one candidate, or top tier of candidates, has more right to votes than other contenders, is ludicrous.

Primary voters do not "owe" their votes to any particular candidate, or group of candidates, any more than general election voters do.

[noamnety]

41. other

clinton and obama are spoilers.

[mike_c]

47. ding ding ding...

Best reply in this thread, IMO. :toast:

[Tejanocrat]

55. If you raise your challenge in the primary, you're a fellow candidate and not a spoiler. Now if

Kucinich pulled a "Lieberman" and ran as a third party candidate after losing in the primary (WHICH HE WOULD NEVER DO IN A MILLION YEARS), that's what a spoiler would do.

Besides, who do you think Kucinich is a spoiler for? If Nader had dropped out, very few of his voters would have shown up at the polls to pull the lever for Bush.

If Kucinich were to drop out, I suspect that Edwards would get most votes from ex-Kucinich supporters (unless Gore jumped in as Kucinich jumped out).

[NoPasaran]

56. Is this a primary, or the percentage of delegates at the convention?

If it's a primary, Kucinch ends up with nothing, since he's way below the 15% threshold.

[riqster]

57. Kucinich is a loyal Dem

Look at his vote on the SCHIP override for an example.

DK can help us push the platform Left in the primary, and will be leading the charge for our nominee in November ought-eight.

Nader, on the other hand, can burn in hell. No comparison between the two.