WTF is it with this "close enough to steal" bullshit

[socialist_n_TN]

about elections? It's usually used to disparage candidates exercising their Constitutional right to stand for office (Nader or any potential challenger to Obama) or Dem voters who don't turnout. My question is WHY THE FUCK DO WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT? And if we DO have to worry about it, why the fuck aren't we more outraged about a rigged electoral system than about the INDIVIDUALS who make it "close enough to steal"? You've either got faith in the electoral system or you don't. If you do, it shouldn't matter about turnout or whose running. If you don't, why aren't you outraged that you don't?

There's one thing about being a revolutionary socialist, I don't have to worry about losing faith in elections in this dictatorship of capital because I've never had any faith in them anyway. And before you snark me about it, yes I ALWAYS vote for the lesser of the evils. I just hate that I still have to vote for evil. But for the rest of you, why blame the victim of electoral fraud rather than the perpetrator?

[EFerrari]

1. The idea is, without Nader, Jeb Bush would have run a clean election in 2000

just like Blackwell did in Ohio 2004.

[hfojvt]

2. nah, my idea is that without Nader

that Gore would have won New Hampshire and Florida would have been a moot point.

[socialist_n_TN]

8. New Hampshire I have no idea about, but

why do you think that Jeb Bush would have allowed Gore to win in Florida? That was what the poster said and it's a legitimate question.

[hfojvt]

66. No, it is an irrelevant question

because Gore did not need fucking Florida to win the Presidency. He only needed to add New Hampshire to the other states he won in order to win the electoral college as well as the popular vote. Just because the M$M talks like Florida was the only state that counted, does not mean that is the reality. Gore needed less that 1/3 of the Nader voters of New Hampshire to win New Hampshire. That's it. Just 1/3 of them could have decided "hey, maybe I should cast a vote that would keep George W. Bush out of the White House" and they would have made it so regardless of what Jeb does or doesn't do.

[EFerrari]

26. Nope. FL was set up to be the "battleground" in the media

just as Ohio was four years later. It wasn't going to work out any other way.

[hfojvt]

65. so the fact that Gore lost New Hampshire by 7,211 votes

while Nader took 22,198 had nothing to do with anything? And the fact that Gore would win the Presidency with New Hampshire's electoral votes EVEN IF HE LOST FLORIDA, doesn't mean anything? Because the media wanted to talk about Florida, somehow evrry other state was fixed too? No matter what Nader did? Or Gore did, or Bush did, or I did? (Did I mention that I won Iowa for Gore with my brilliant letter to the editor in the Mason City Globe Gazette - the newspaper of northern Iowa? (I am sure that is how it must have happened.) Gore won Iowa, after all, by a mere 4,144 votes (including Cerro Gordo by 54.98% to 42.4% and Floyd by 52.9% to 44.09% - right there in those two counties was a 3,425 vote margin for Gore - 83% of his statewide margin. And what happens in 2004, after I moved? Bush wins Iowa by 10,059 votes. Kerry still wins Cerro Gordo and Floyd, but only by 3,013 in spite of another 2,500 or so voters turning out there.)

I mention Iowa because Iowa, Oregon, Wisconsin and New Mexico were won by Gore by a grand total of 16,983 votes and Nader took 222,052 votes in those states. Had Gore lost those 4 states with their 30 electoral votes, then he could have won Florida and New Hampshire and still have lost.

[EFerrari]

69. What you're saying is very rational but it doesn't take into account

the profound corruption of our elections.

And as far as New Hampshire elections go, they've had their share of problems including in the last presidential primaries where the count was not good but the recount was tainted by an interrupted chain of ballot custody.

And if you recall, the same media that only wanted to talk about Florida decided that Gore WON Florida.

So, yes, the media narrative of the 2000 election mattered much more than the number of votes Nader got in our corrupt system.

[quaker bill]

21. No, he would have done all the same stuff

but it would not have been enough. I worked the Gore campaign in FL in 2000. JEB was expecting an early and easy evening, the republicans had already suppressed enough and stuffed enough that they were counting on a +3 to +5 percent victory. Our turn out numbers via union GOTV efforts upset their apple cart. If Nader had not been in the race, the margin would have been large enough that there would have been no recount and Al Gore would have been POTUS. What worked was not a fair race, but a GOTV plan that produced numbers the Bushies did not expect. If they had expected our turnout numbers, they would have stuffed and suppressed more. Why did the NAACP voter registration cards not get entered in time? Because all the election workers were busy addressing absentee ballots for republicans....

[EFerrari]

24. If you really did work the Gore campaign you should know

that the number are complete bs.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. BECAUSE until and unless you CHANGE the system, we have to AT LEAST keep the Repukes out of office

That's why.

Come up with a way to change the election system, and I'll join you. However, I will not join you in voting in assholes like Nader, who not only will never get voted in, but will SABOTAGE our elections further, and get evil asshole NAZIS like GW Bush in, to finish off our country's poor, helpless, needy, seniors, disabled, etc.

No way, don't ask me to vote in a way that will get an even MORE evil candidate in office.

[socialist_n_TN]

10. I've never voted for a Republican and I never will

And changing the system is EXACTLY what I believe. But if I'm going to be outraged about something NOW, it's going to be the stealing of an election, not some guy who made it "close enough to steal".

[Sarah Ibarruri]

25. Not me. This country cannot handle another Bushit. nt

[socialist_n_TN]

29. If the elections are rigged anyway.......

you probably won't have a choice. No matter WHO runs.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

40. It kinda does. What you're advising is to throw out the baby with the bathwater

I understand it's not what we want, but in that which we don't want, some things are horrendous and some things are just bad.

I prefer bad to horrendous.

At one time I didn't. Now I do.

I don't see why we can't work to fix this place, while at the same time avoiding destroying it completely.

[socialist_n_TN]

49. Well Sarah the FIRST thing would be for us to acknowledge

that it happens rather than blaming Nader or the Dems who don't turn out in massive numbers. At LEAST blame them equally. For every post that says, "That damn Nader caused the '00 election to be so close it could be stolen. DAMN him!" You should also add, "And damn the Republican crooks who stole the election too." At least that gets it out there. But I never hear that.

Hell I hear people blaming the Dem voters for not turning out in such numbers that the Republicans can't steal the elections. Talk about blaming the victim. And that one REALLY pisses me off. Nader (and anybody who primaries Obama) are grownup politicians. They should be used to catching all sorts of shit, fair or unfair. But to blame voters instead of the thieves? That's sick. ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN MENTION THE THIEVES. It's our fault.

What they don't think through, is that it doesn't matter anymore. That's obvious. If they want to steal an election, they'll steal it no matter how many of us turn out.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

50. I think intelligence is required and I expect that more out of libs, and never out of fascists

To throw the baby out with the bathwater because the baby is dirty or the baby is a pain in the ass, is just downright stupid.

That's what I'm seeing from the Naderites, Greenies, etc. They know full well that these people they vote for will NOT get elected, they know full well that they endanger the weakest and most helpless among us by sabotaging elections, since that ONLY ONLY ONLY helps the Repigs, and yet there they are, doing that very thing.

I expect a hell of a lot more out of libs. Surely libs can think of some more intelligent ways to change the system, than throwing our neediest under the bus because they're angry and going to set fire to our whole country out of anger.

[socialist_n_TN]

52. BTW the you in my post was generic

not the personal you.

I've never advocated NOT voting and I'm not now. And yes, I could be wrong, but from what I see they're not even pretending anymore, so our vote will be correctly counted less and less from now on no matter how many of us vote. Advocating for the neediest is something I've spent my whole life doing. I'm just not convinced that we're going to be ABLE to save them through the ballot box anymore.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

62. Oh ok. Thanks for pointing that out.

Well, my opinion is this: we need to keep our eye on the ball. The ball is how to keep the neediest and most helpless safe. If we do that, we will have the best goal in mind.

[Raksha]

67. A very good point. Nader is always the official fall guy in the official storyline,

but the thing to be outraged about is the fact that the fix was in. Gore was simply not going to be allowed to win. Blaming the Nader voters or any voters is just blaming the victim.

[Doctor_J]

35. But how can you do that if the elections are rigged?

The election for judge in WI was a fucking joke. Eric Holder should have stormed in there and given the office to the Dem who actually won the election, taken Nikolaus into custody, seized all of the "found" ballots, and then put Nikolaus on trial for a federal offense.

Good God, we were just informed what many of us already knew - that Kerry won the election in 2004 AND THERE ISN'T ANYTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. 10s of thousands of voters in WI, OH, NJ, and MI are having their right to vote taken away AND THERE ISN'T ANYTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. And next week Wisconites are going to trudge to the polls, and attempt to vote in an election where the results are a foregone conclusion - the ones who count the votes will win. Yet the right wing of the Dem party insists on blaming liberals for every election loss, instead of blaming the criminals. Go figure.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

48. By figuring out how to change this system, not by sacrificing the weakest at the Repugnican pyre nt

[socialist_n_TN]

51. I wish I could kick your post Doc

You said it exactly! All the elections nowdays are jokes. In fact the pretense has SO far gone that it wouldn't surprise me for a Republican to win no matter WHAT the turnout. I suppose local elections are probably still safe, unless it has some national implications. And even some state elections in some states. But national? Nah, I'm not sure that it matters at all.

That said, I'm still going to vote.

[cliffordu]

4. I find someone calling themselves a revolutionary socialist funny.

'Specially on the internets.

'Specially here in 'Murka.....

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. I find nothing wrong in that. Why do you take issue with that? Hm? nt

[cliffordu]

6. Because HERE that label is full of hubris and ego, signifying nothing.

Might as well call yourself a purple goat.

In this country you can claim to be anything you want and you don't risk a fucking thing. Like pretending to be a revolutionary hero.....

Do it in Colombia or Egypt where doing so can really cost you and I'd have a little respect.

Remember that woman shot to death in Iran - the one who bled out on the street and shown on Youtube worldwide?

SHE is a revolutionary hero. She probably didn't want to be and I'd bet my life she never claimed to be but she DID know that getting on that street that day could be deadly and she went anyway.

And the fact that she DID go anyway tells the truth as to what the acts of a true revolutionary, and a true hero, really are.

[socialist_n_TN]

7. I didn't claim to be a "revolutionary hero"

I claimed to be what I am, someone who doesn't believe anything will change until we overthrow the system of capitalism and institute a socialist system. As to what I'm doing about it, until the four conditions of a revolutionary situation become manifest in this country, I will continue to advocate for a change of system, here and everywhere else, along with advocating ANYTHING that will benefit the working class and poor and NOT the exploiters.

In my little burg I've been out in the streets at least 9 times this year along with 3 meetings with government representatives advocating for policies that benefit the working class and poor. At this time, that's what I can do, so I do it. If the time comes to do more, I expect to do more.

Now that the ASIDE is taken care of, why do you blame the victim and not the perpetrator of electoral fraud? After all, THAT was the question, NOT what I self describe as.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. "revolution" and "overthrow" imply violence

[Marr]

33. Really? I've been repeatedly told here that we have "revolutions" every four years in this country.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. Don't know about that particularly in the context of what I commented on

i.e. the distrust of the electoral system.

socialist_n_TN would have to address that. I hope he means these things metaphorically. War is never improved just because the objective is something we prefer.

[socialist_n_TN]

41. Self defense is not banned here.........

Not yet anyway.

You can have a peaceful revolution. That depends on the capitalists. Hell, for that matter the October Revolution in Russia in '17 was almost bloodless. Now the Red/White civil war was a VERY different story, but the revolution itself was, as I said, almost bloodless. In fact, I've said that a month long political general strike, along with a payment strike, would bring the capitalists to their knees. Of course, what the capitalists would do in day 15 of that general strike COULD be violent in regards to the strikers. What would you suggest then? Give up? Die without fighting back? Or maybe you would just like to preemptively give up now rather than facing the prospect of violence against you?

But I will say this about violence. I'm not a pacifist. When it gets to the point of somebody shooting at me because of what I believe, I WILL shoot back.

[socialist_n_TN]

47. And BTW, if you're done getting off the subject

of the original post and trying to play "Gotcha", maybe YOU can explain to me why people get all SORTS of outraged about the patsies and the Dem voters who don't turn out in massive enough droves to screw up the Republican thievery of elections, yet say NOTHING about the actual THEFT of an election itself. Care to take a crack at what the original post was trying to get to the bottom of.

[saras]

15. She's not a hero. She's DEAD.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

23. It doesn't bother me. Now, if someone had the label, GOP, or Nazi, I'd be pissed off!

But Socialist? Why should that bother anyone?

[cliffordu]

64. Not the socialist part....The Revolutionary part.

[socialist_n_TN]

79. So what's left if the electoral system is rigged?

nm

[Odin2005]

54. All "revolutionary" means is that we believe real reform only happens if...

The Elites are afraid they will be overthrown. You have to threaten to system in order to change it.

[saras]

9. "Close enough to steal" is statistically unlikely without help

Given how unrepresentative of the public will both parties are, given how much elections are affected by negative propaganda at the last instant, given how popularity can swings around by twenty percentage points before the election, isn't it rather amazing how often elections counting tens or hundreds of thousands of votes come in within a couple hundred or less votes?

A simple test of progressive vs. conservative (not Democrat vs. Republican) is whether someone thinks the spoiler effect is either A. a fatal flaw of election systems that prevents representative government and guarantees corporate hegemony, or B. a necessary and desirable part of election systems that keeps extremist fringe elements on either side from unduly affecting the mainstream.

[socialist_n_TN]

12. It IS unlikely, but it happens ALL THE TIME

nowdays in American elections doesn't it? But as I stated, the OUTRAGE is over Nader making it "close enough to steal", NOT the ACTUAL stealing of these elections.

[Romulox]

11. Due to his personal hypocrisy and corpatism , Al Gore is an exceptionally weak

politician.

He has spent over ten years now blaming others for his personal shortcomings. It's become pathetic many years ago.

[socialist_n_TN]

13. I don't disagree, but the outrage is over

personnel, NOT the systemic and ILLEGAL problems involved in electoral fraud.

[Uncle Joe]

19. Perhaps you can point to one single quote from Al Gore blaming others but I doubt it.

The primary reason that you can advocate for all the world to see your anti-NAFTA point of view which I disagree with or your pro-legalizing cannabis point of view which I do agree with is because of Gore's strong political leadership in opening up the Internet for the people to voice their views.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

43. I'm completely against all trade agreements, including NAFTA. I'm all for charging tariffs

I'm all for keeping jobs here.

I'm all against putting more money in the pockets of the already-mega-rich at the expense of my country and my people.

The mega-rich, I don't even consider part of a country, since they can move out any time they want, and they will definitely do that, once they destroy this one.

[Uncle Joe]

75. I believe the rest of world is evolving whether we wish to isolate ourselves or not.

The U.S. dominated for several decades after WWII because the rest of the industrialized world had been blown to the Stone Age and it took them time to rebuild, on top of that population powers ie: China and India were and are coming in to their own.

The U.S. was losing jobs regardless.

I don't give carte blanch approval to all free trade agreements but NAFTA seemed and seems like a logical move as Mexico is on our doorstep and we needed to expand our export base, and I believe bringing Mexico up to date to be a wise move.

Re: The mega rich, Ross Perot was making a killing with his private monopolized free trade zone prior to NAFTA, he thought it was good enough for him, just not the rest of the country.

I'm all for keeping jobs here as well, but the U.S. needed to adapt to a changing world and I view NAFTA as a means to that destination, not without risks for sure, but the same can be said for when you put your car in drive, much of it has to do with the driver.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA%27s_effect_on_United_States_employment

[Sarah Ibarruri]

42. Oh give me a frikkin' break. nt

[Romulox]

72. You're an expert at unloading the friendly fire! nt

[socialist_n_TN]

14. BTW, I didn't mean for this OP to be about

personnel. I meant it to be about the attitudes of folks who will be outraged at a person rather than the systemic illegalities of stealing elections.

[blindpig]

16. k&r

You masochist you.

[socialist_n_TN]

30. That's a big LOL.......

:rofl: The cognitive dissonance around here is amazing sometimes. Get pissed at everything, but what they SHOULD get pissed about.

[a simple pattern]

18. We can only have a Dem if it's one of their decoys.

Put them up against a real Dem and they will steal the election.

[johnaries]

20. If you are really in TN, then you should be VERY afraid. Here's why.

When the TN legislature was still under Dem control, they passed a law to move from newly purchased DRE's to verifiable paper ballots because of their proven hackability and lack of verification. Because of the cost involved, a compromise was reached to allow the DRE's to be used in "one more election". Guess who won that election and swept the TN Legislature? Yes, Repubs. Now the Repub controlled legislature is saying we can't afford to replace the DRE's.

So, it looks like TN is doomed to be controlled by Repubs indefinitely. If TN was overwhelmingly Dem, then they wwouldn't be allowed to get away with it - the fraud would be obvious.

As it is, I think the only way anything would be done is if, say, Mickey Mouse were to win a highly visible election - say, the Republican primary.

Not that I'm recommending anyone to hack into the DRE's. Although it would be relatively easy to do without getting caught. *wink*

[socialist_n_TN]

34. Yep I am in middle Tennessee

and I've been reading about this for a while now. And I think that your last "non" recommendation would be a GREAT idea. If Mickey Mouse won the Republican Primary then it WOULD shine a light on how easy it is to steal elections. Anonymous are you listening?

[socialist_n_TN]

61. Now that I've reflected on it...........

I think it would be a great idea for Anonymous to hack those machines in ALL states that use them so that Mickey wins the Republican nomination.

[Odin2005]

56. IMO if one's voting place uses electronic voting machines then voting is pointless.

Thank god in MN we have paper ballots.

[WillyT]

22. My Take TN... Is This Sows The Seeds For Blame... It's A Kind Of Insurance Policy...

If by some miracle, the upcoming election is in any way close, and especially if Obama were to lose...

There will great wailing, and gnashing of teeth, and fingers by the thousands will be looking to point in a direction, any direction, and scream, "This was YOUR fault!"

Won't be Obama's fault, won't be the Democrats fault... it will be our fault... somehow.

:shrug:

:hi:

[socialist_n_TN]

28. Oh yeah, that's obvious. It's already happening now

But like I said, IF I believed in elections, MY outrage would be focused on the people who STEAL the elections, NOT the patsies they use as an excuse. Yet this is ignored.

There are some people who are more than willing to blame Nader or any potential primary opponent of Obama's OR (and this one pisses me off the MOST) willing to blame the Democratic VOTER for not turning out in such huge droves that it screws up the GOP plans to STEAL THE ELECTION, yet they NEVER express ANY outrage about the actual THEFT of the election. It just strikes me as odd.

[WillyT]

31. Well The Ironic Thing Here, Is That Obama Is The One Narrowing His Own Margin...

From: "Fired Up, Ready To Go!"

To: The Enthusiasm Gap.

We've already been told a hundred different times, in a hundred different ways, that we don't matter.

Good luck with that, guys.

:shrug:

:hi:

[socialist_n_TN]

39. Well of course he is..........

Everything he's done since he's been elected leads me more and more to the conclusion that he's some sort of RW Manchurian candidate. If not that, then he REALLY does believe in the RW stuff so much that he's willing to risk his reelection for his ideology.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

46. Obama is doing that to himself, yes. Gore did not do that to himself. Nader did that to Gore. nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

44. What do you mean by "our fault?" Our whose? nt

[socialist_n_TN]

59. I took it that Willy was meaning the "left"

We're being set up for the blame if Obama loses the next election. Even though IF he loses, it'll be because his POLICIES go against the wishes of the people.

And yes, I know that the Republicans go against the wishes of the people even MORE than Obama (slightly anyway), but a low information voter (most of the electorate apparently) just votes for change when things are bad.

That's ANOTHER thing that's wrong with the system. The propaganda has developed the meme that everything will be all right if we just "throw the bums out". That actually ties into and is a corollary to the OP. People demonize and disparage PERSONNEL rather than the system of electoral fraud and theft. Or the system of capitalism itself. It's not the system, it's the bad actors. Bullshit. It's the system.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

63. Why should you be blamed? All I say is, vote for the least damaging person with a CHANCE to WIN

If the person has not a prayer of winning, what's the frikkin' point of sabotaging the next person? I realize the next person might not be great, and might not even be good, but is probably a little bit better than a Repig.

And meanwhile think of fresh, new ideas to change the system.

I'm tired of the same old ideas of throwing people out. That's what capitalist economists do. Capitalist economists have NO original ideas. The only ideas they have are how to cheat the worker and how to cheat the consumer, PERIOD.

I'm tired of the same old 'throw people away' ideas.

[SwampG8r]

60. im just going to ask them

"knowing i had such power why did you alienate me?"

[Raksha]

27. K & R

[Sirveri]

32. Can we fix the elections if nobody will listen to us?

We will listen to each other, and that's a start, but we don't have control over the instruments of state needed to actually affect change. I'm getting to the point where I want to vote Tea Party, not because I agree with anything they stand for, but just to burn the entire system down and foment rebellion when people wake up and realize that we really do need government.

[Doctor_J]

36. Hint:

it starts with g and rhymes with ee-o-teen.

[socialist_n_TN]

37. I would never vote for the Tbaggers or ANY

Republican. I suppose I'd vote for a Communist even of CPUSA, But they've endorsed Obama.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

45. At this point, I would too, IF THEY STOOD A CHANCE OF WINNING.

But if they don't, you bet I won't finish setting fire to my country. It's already suffering after 8 years of that pig, GW Bush.

[Sirveri]

68. I've voted third party. My blip doesn't register, need more people.

Even if third parties did organize you need to overcome two hurdles. 1) They can't win, so why should I toss my vote away. Which is paired with 2) If I don't vote for the stupid DINO I'll get a psychotic republican who will ban abortion/install school prayer/kill the GLBT/etc...

The issue isn't structural though, it's cultural. Nobody wants to talk to their neighbor, which makes it really easy to turn EVERYONE into everyone else's enemy. We all live in these huge castle like homes, with everything designed so we never have to leave that house, and then place the digital world between us and our neighbor so that we only know superfluous worthless details about their life. Then you get the repubs up on screen where they are screaming 24/7 about how someone else is trying to take your tax dollars and screw you over. Insert target group (Latinos, gays, muslims, blacks, po' folk, drug users, environmentalists, etc...) and repeat until infinity and cause everyone to retreat to their suburbia bunker where they buy a giant tank to protect themselves whenever they leave the house. Make sure to trash the schools too (it's too dangerous, or they just suck at teaching), that way everyone has to home school, and they get even less human contact.

I'm supposed to convince these people to actually trust other people, to see them as allies rather than potential threats. Good luck with that. This is why we need more pain in American society. More suffering before anything can get better. Until the masses are threatened with death lest they work as a cohesive society, they will not behave as one. Because in the end, we are not a society, we're nothing more than a collection of individuals all looking out for us and ours.

[Odin2005]

53. K&R by a fellow Socialist!

:hi:

[socialist_n_TN]

57. Thanks Odin......

nm

[Starry Messenger]

55. k&r

[socialist_n_TN]

58. Thanks Starry

nm

[Jim Lane]

70. Because some of us are capable of recognizing complexity.

An event can have more than one cause. Gore would have become President IF Katherine Harris had not illegally disenfranchised 50,000 people or IF Nader had chosen not to run in the general election or IF the Supreme Court had decided fairly, etc. The Supreme Court's wrongful decision doesn't retroactively exonerate Harris's criminality, and it doesn't retroactively exonerate Nader's stupidity.

It's not at all inconsistent to condemn multiple actors in the 2000 result.

[socialist_n_TN]

71. And that's fine Jim. I DO understand nuance

and complexity, BUT I personally think that the CRIMINAL electoral fraud is more of a problem than personnel. And yet, I see all sorts of posts condemning Nader, any potential primary opponent of Obama, even Dem VOTERS for not turning out in droves, and yes, even Katherine Harris. BUT I RARELY IF EVER SEE POSTS BY THESE PEOPLE CONDEMNING THE CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF THE ELECTORAL THEFT. THAT'S what sets me off. That lack of outrage against the MAIN problem.

I guess it just too easy to make a "what if" against Nader (I personally voted for Gore BTW) about the 2000 election. Well here's a "what if" for you. What IF the election in FL was won by Bush EVEN IF NADER HADN'T RUN? That makes as much sense as a "what if" as the one about Nader does.

Edited to add a thought.

[Jim Lane]

73. I don't see how DU posts about electoral fraud accomplish all that much.

It seems you'd feel better if there were more posts here denouncing electoral fraud, purging of voter lists, butterfly ballots, Supreme Court politicos, etc. I have to ask: What would be the point? People reading on DU are largely in agreement with those positions already.

It is, however, useful for us to address issues such as whether our shared goals would be advanced by a primary challenge to Obama. It would highlight progressive views and perhaps help Obama in November by making him seem like the sensible middle. On the other hand, it would sow tension between Democrats and cause Obama to spend some money he might otherwise use in the general. I see more value in weighing such factors than in joining in a group hate of the Brooks Brothers rioters.

We probably do spend too much time rehashing Nader's decision in 2000. Nader is now irrelevant. The one thing he accomplished was to demonstrate, for the benefit of quite a few people who hadn't previously understood it, that an established two-party system makes minor-party candidacies ineffective and often counterproductive. Thus, the overwhelming majority of Nader's voters in the 2000 election saw the (as I see it) error of their ways and abandoned him. (Nader received about 2.9 million votes in 2000 but only about 1.2 million combined in 2004 and 2008.) Much of the posting on the topic relates less to trying to learn from history and more to venting anger that, more than a decade later, is still strong.

I'm one of those very angry at Nader. One reason is that, unlike the other factors on your list, Nader's decision was arguably a self-inflicted wound. Katherine Harris and five right-wingers on the Supreme Court don't pretend to be on our side. Long before Nader was even born, it was known that those perceived as traitors were hated more fiercely than the open enemies.

[inna]

74. Nader, a "traitor". Do you even hear yourself? In case you don't, it is.... not pretty.

[Jim Lane]

80. Quoting me out of context isn't pretty, either

I spoke of the general psychological reaction to those "perceived as traitors". My point was simply that, regardless of how angry people get at their long-term enemies, they often get even more angry at people they consider friends and allies, who then act in ways that appear to benefit the enemy.

I talked only about perceptions. Personally, I wouldn't call Nader a traitor because, to my mind, the term implies intentionality. It's unclear what Nader intended. There's some evidence that he did indeed intend to hurt Gore, and that at times -- maybe much or even most of the time during his campaign -- he hoped to siphon off enough progressive votes so that Bush would become President. At other times, however, he seemed simply dismissive of the major-party race, having given up on the 2000 election as hopeless in terms of who won and instead focusing only on using the campaign to lay the groundwork for electing a good candidate some time down the road.

Then, of course, there's the point of view that he wasn't a traitor, but merely an egotist. I've often seen him described that way on DU.

Anyway, my post was a response to a legitimate question from socialist_n_TN, namely why the animosity toward Nader is so strong. It certainly isn't pretty that someone who did so much to advance progressive causes is now so widely reviled on this board -- but, for many of us, it's even less pretty that he launched a campaign that was one of the factors (not the only factor, but one of the factors) in putting Bush in the White House.

[inna]

81. thanks for taking time to explain; I appreciate that nt

[socialist_n_TN]

77. As to the assertion that everybody agrees with

those positions on electoral fraud, I'm not so sure. The ones who continiously bash Nader or a potential primary opponent or the Dem voters themselves, never mention it in their posts. So I don't know if they agree with it or not. It strikes me as blaming the victim (ESPECIALLY as it relates to turnout) rather than the victimizer. I guess my point is that Nader or no, things wouldn't have changed. Or at least the "what if" could be argued either way and argued EFFECTIVELY.

As to Obama spending money against a primary challenger, I've read where he's expected to have something like $750 MILLION (almost a BILLION) to spend. IF he needs to spend a little of it on a primary challenger, it's not like he won't have it.

Intellectually, I've never been a big believer in this system's "electoral" choices. Capitalist candidate A or capitalist candidate B, so you elect a capitalist candidate. That's ALWAYS been the "choices". What's happening now is that there's less and less differentation between the capitalist candidates. It's coming close (I said close, not there) to a choice between the proto fascist and the conservative. At that choice, I personally don't HAVE a choice. And even THOSE choices get stolen away too often for even MY cynical self. I'll vote, but I have NO expectations that it will do anything to change what needs changing.

But what I would like to see, is more people blaming the reality rather than the patsy.

[StarsInHerHair]

76. anything to avoid effective action

[socialist_n_TN]

78. I really think that's it Stars..............

Either they actually believe in the system or they're so scared of NOT believing in it that they've got to find a patsy. Because if the electoral system is rigged there's only ONE effective action left.