Because SCOTUS decided that it was perfectly fair and valid to have the final vote on who got to he president come down to one of the peoples’ brother and there was absolutely nothing wrong about that
Recounts only matter if you’re counting all the ballots instead of just the ballots you want you count because your brother happens to be one of the candidates. They invalidated a bunch of ballots that were hole-punched because the paper that was punched out didn’t completely tear away (see: “hanging chad”).
Also, many progressives stayed home or voted for the Green Party. Not that it is more the fault of progressives than SCOTUS, but blame aside, it’s a cautionary tale.
That argument goes both ways. “Nader would have won if progressives hadn’t handed the election to the Republicans by throwing their votes away on Gore.” Same is true for 2016 with Bernie and Clinton.
It really doesn’t go both ways. The winning presidential candidate needs to get the most votes, and most US voters are not progressive. They’re moderate, or indifferent.
I don’t know how you could say that about HRC and Sanders. That’s not even a hypothetical: they literally had a head to head match where, to my huge disappointment, HRC won. Protesting HRC helped elect Trump, and obviously that hasn’t been good for progressive interests or democracy.
You acknowledge progressives won’t vote for moderates. But what makes you think moderates won’t vote for progressives if they don’t have a choice?
Do you really believe the people who voted for Clinton wouldn’t have voted for Sanders in the general? If so, then shouldn’t the blame be on them too? If not, then can you admit you’re wrong?
I’ve read your comment a few times but I’m having a genuinely hard time parsing your point.
The person I’m responding to was saying that Nader could have won if progressives voted for him instead of Gore. I pointed out that presidential candidates need a broad coalition of voters to get enough votes, not just far left progressives.
You seem to be making a totally different argument. You claim that if Nader was the only choice, then Democratic leaning moderates would have voted for him.
I don’t mean to be rude, but what is the point of this thought experiment? Nader wasn’t the only choice. Moreover, US politics in 2000 was significantly less polarized: MANY Gore voters would have definitely voted for Bush, who campaigned under “compassionate conservatism” and was seen as a moderate, over the farthest left candidate, Nader.
If Sanders had won the nomination, I think he would have kicked ass against Trump, but Sanders sadly lost. I’m trying to understand your last line: are you asking if I would blame HRC supporters for refusing to vote for Sanders in the general and allowing a fascist corrupt dictator in? Uh, yes. Obviously I would blame them. That precisely aligns with everything I’ve said.
Nah, they reiterated my point pretty well. You can’t claim that “candidate ‘A’ is the correct choice because of their broad appeal” when they wind up losing the election. Obviously, they didn’t have the most appeal. The attitude that “I picked the right person and it’s everyone else’s fault they didn’t win” is absurd. Anybody can make that argument about any candidate and be just as equally ‘correct.’
That’s not what you said in the comment I responded to. You claimed that Nader could have won if progressives had voted for him instead of Gore, but there aren’t enough progressive votes.
Voting in a FPTP two party system is a coordination game, one where it is mathematically impossible for third parties to win. Pretending otherwise is sadly delusional.
It’s like you’re trying to decide which building to buy as a group to start co-op housing. Almost everyone prefers building A, but you prefer building B. If you all don’t compromise, then there is not enough money and you’re all homeless. In a democracy, it is obviously more fair if you compromise than everyone else compromises. You either don’t believe in democracy, or you’re happy with things never getting better.
I said “that argument goes both ways” meaning “my candidate would have won if X, Y, and Z happened” is always valid regardless of the candidate.
You can’t rewrite the past, so you’re inventing a hypothetical/fictional scenario based on your opinion. In a fictional scenario, anything is possible. Your argument was “if more people voted for Gore, he would have won” and I countered with “if more people voted for Nader, he would have won.” You can’t claim Gore was the best choice because the best choice is the one who wins the election.
In a democracy, it is obviously more fair if you compromise than everyone else compromises. You either don’t believe in democracy, or you’re happy with things never getting better.
What a joke. The “you” here is the entire American public while “everyone else” is a small handful of wealthy, powerful individuals.
Can you explain how continuing to elect corporate Democrats makes things better? Are we better now than 10 years ago? Are we better than we were 20 years ago? There’s obviously a quality of life trend here, and it hasn’t trended up in quite a long time. You’ll predictably place the blame solely on Republicans even though Democrats make up 50% of that equation. Republicans sure don’t seem to have the same issue passing their legislation. Why do you think that is?
Yes, progressives who stay at home for the general election do not understand US democracy. The US has a 2 party FPTP system, not proportional representation. Unlike multi-party parliamentary systems, we usually have to vote for a compromise, not our top choice. If you don’t vote, you don’t “send a message”, you simply forfeit your political power. If Republicans win, and keep winning, then that’s a signal for Democrats to shift right, to try to win back the median voter.
I hate the argumentative strategy of criticizing candidates for being political “losers”. Rightwingers do that all the time. By that logic, progressives also had “loser candidates”, since many fail in the primaries. I personally don’t think Sanders, for example, was a “loser”, even if he lost in the primary.
Yes, progressives who stay at home for the general election do not understand US democracy.
Or we do? “We lose regardless. Let’s stay home.”
I’m getting really sick of this inversion of responsibility. Moderates dominate the primaries and elect someone who doesn’t resonate with the leftists and progressives but aren’t responsible for how that candidate does in the general? They control the outcome in the primaries but aren’t responsible for what happens in the general? That makes no sense.
As the majority moderates must take the lions share of the responsibility. Where is that happening?
We might as well skip all the pomp and circumstance and just assign the votes automatically based on party registration. That’s how it’s done currently with the added facade of having a “choice.”
The Overton window continues to shift to the right regardless of who wins elections because there are power people benefiting from it and it’s incredibly easy to spread propaganda to the masses with tv/radio/internet.
What are you even talking about with your first paragraph? The result of elections aren’t predictable. In fact, they’re less predictable than ever. And what’s with “choice” in quotes: are you an election truther? That’s more of a right wing conspiracy.
That’s a pathetic cowardly take on the Overton window. What even is your point? “Let’s give up because nothing matters”? Fuck that. I’m fighting.
It’s also empirically untrue: I don’t know how you haven’t noticed that the US is going through the biggest labor movement in a generation. In the last 3 years, Dems have passed one of the most progressive agendas in a generation.
I’m talking about the fact that we keep getting Clinton’s and Bidens as our nominees because that’s what the party leadership wants. They choose who gets the backing, who gets the funding, who gets the airtime, and who gets to debate. The primaries are little more than a sham to give us the illusion of choice because this private organization already picked their winner. You claim elections are less predictable than ever, yet there’s a 100% chance it’s going to be one of two people, either the D or R, who’s going to win, both backed by the same wealthy donors to do their bidding. That’s the illusion of choice.
Your fighting, eh? Well, how’s the fight coming? At what point do you consider the fight won? Do you envision some point in the future where Republicans no longer hold office and the country is some utopia of pure Democratic leadership? Good luck accomplishing that when, as I stated above, there are only two choice on the ballot and one of them is Republican. That kind of solidifies their place in government as they’re the only alternative for people to vote for. That ensures we’ll keep having people like Trump waiting in the wings and taking office every time a Clinton-like candidate runs against them. This also ensures that Democratic candidates don’t actually have to do jack shit for the country as they’re going to get your vote anyway. This is why I stated that elections might as well be automatic based on party registration and why it’s an illusion of choice. You’re not fighting by voting D or R. You’re just perpetuating the status quo.
We could have had Al Gore instead of Bush if the Supreme Court didn’t toss Bush the crown because… reasons
Because SCOTUS decided that it was perfectly fair and valid to have the final vote on who got to he president come down to one of the peoples’ brother and there was absolutely nothing wrong about that
If only we had AI Gore in the early 00s.
We should have! Republicans illegally stole that from us as well
Because reasons that cannot be used in future jurisprudence due to the extraordinary nature of the, ahem, decision
im confused on this, didnt they do like three recounts??
Recounts only matter if you’re counting all the ballots instead of just the ballots you want you count because your brother happens to be one of the candidates. They invalidated a bunch of ballots that were hole-punched because the paper that was punched out didn’t completely tear away (see: “hanging chad”).
i dont understand? did bush have a governor brother in florida?
Yes Jeb Bush is his brother and was governor at the time.
Also, many progressives stayed home or voted for the Green Party. Not that it is more the fault of progressives than SCOTUS, but blame aside, it’s a cautionary tale.
How DARE they vote for the candidate they wanted! They should be maligned!
That argument goes both ways. “Nader would have won if progressives hadn’t handed the election to the Republicans by throwing their votes away on Gore.” Same is true for 2016 with Bernie and Clinton.
It really doesn’t go both ways. The winning presidential candidate needs to get the most votes, and most US voters are not progressive. They’re moderate, or indifferent.
I don’t know how you could say that about HRC and Sanders. That’s not even a hypothetical: they literally had a head to head match where, to my huge disappointment, HRC won. Protesting HRC helped elect Trump, and obviously that hasn’t been good for progressive interests or democracy.
Your argument makes no sense.
You acknowledge progressives won’t vote for moderates. But what makes you think moderates won’t vote for progressives if they don’t have a choice?
Do you really believe the people who voted for Clinton wouldn’t have voted for Sanders in the general? If so, then shouldn’t the blame be on them too? If not, then can you admit you’re wrong?
I’ve read your comment a few times but I’m having a genuinely hard time parsing your point.
The person I’m responding to was saying that Nader could have won if progressives voted for him instead of Gore. I pointed out that presidential candidates need a broad coalition of voters to get enough votes, not just far left progressives.
You seem to be making a totally different argument. You claim that if Nader was the only choice, then Democratic leaning moderates would have voted for him.
I don’t mean to be rude, but what is the point of this thought experiment? Nader wasn’t the only choice. Moreover, US politics in 2000 was significantly less polarized: MANY Gore voters would have definitely voted for Bush, who campaigned under “compassionate conservatism” and was seen as a moderate, over the farthest left candidate, Nader.
If Sanders had won the nomination, I think he would have kicked ass against Trump, but Sanders sadly lost. I’m trying to understand your last line: are you asking if I would blame HRC supporters for refusing to vote for Sanders in the general and allowing a fascist corrupt dictator in? Uh, yes. Obviously I would blame them. That precisely aligns with everything I’ve said.
Nah, they reiterated my point pretty well. You can’t claim that “candidate ‘A’ is the correct choice because of their broad appeal” when they wind up losing the election. Obviously, they didn’t have the most appeal. The attitude that “I picked the right person and it’s everyone else’s fault they didn’t win” is absurd. Anybody can make that argument about any candidate and be just as equally ‘correct.’
That’s not what you said in the comment I responded to. You claimed that Nader could have won if progressives had voted for him instead of Gore, but there aren’t enough progressive votes.
Voting in a FPTP two party system is a coordination game, one where it is mathematically impossible for third parties to win. Pretending otherwise is sadly delusional.
It’s like you’re trying to decide which building to buy as a group to start co-op housing. Almost everyone prefers building A, but you prefer building B. If you all don’t compromise, then there is not enough money and you’re all homeless. In a democracy, it is obviously more fair if you compromise than everyone else compromises. You either don’t believe in democracy, or you’re happy with things never getting better.
I said “that argument goes both ways” meaning “my candidate would have won if X, Y, and Z happened” is always valid regardless of the candidate.
You can’t rewrite the past, so you’re inventing a hypothetical/fictional scenario based on your opinion. In a fictional scenario, anything is possible. Your argument was “if more people voted for Gore, he would have won” and I countered with “if more people voted for Nader, he would have won.” You can’t claim Gore was the best choice because the best choice is the one who wins the election.
What a joke. The “you” here is the entire American public while “everyone else” is a small handful of wealthy, powerful individuals.
Can you explain how continuing to elect corporate Democrats makes things better? Are we better now than 10 years ago? Are we better than we were 20 years ago? There’s obviously a quality of life trend here, and it hasn’t trended up in quite a long time. You’ll predictably place the blame solely on Republicans even though Democrats make up 50% of that equation. Republicans sure don’t seem to have the same issue passing their legislation. Why do you think that is?
I’m missing the part where people are responsible for voting for a bad candidate in the DNC primaries.
I’m not sure what you mean.
You’re shaming progressives for staying home, but you aren’t casting judgement at the people who voted for a loser candidate in the primaries.
Yes, progressives who stay at home for the general election do not understand US democracy. The US has a 2 party FPTP system, not proportional representation. Unlike multi-party parliamentary systems, we usually have to vote for a compromise, not our top choice. If you don’t vote, you don’t “send a message”, you simply forfeit your political power. If Republicans win, and keep winning, then that’s a signal for Democrats to shift right, to try to win back the median voter.
I hate the argumentative strategy of criticizing candidates for being political “losers”. Rightwingers do that all the time. By that logic, progressives also had “loser candidates”, since many fail in the primaries. I personally don’t think Sanders, for example, was a “loser”, even if he lost in the primary.
Or we do? “We lose regardless. Let’s stay home.”
I’m getting really sick of this inversion of responsibility. Moderates dominate the primaries and elect someone who doesn’t resonate with the leftists and progressives but aren’t responsible for how that candidate does in the general? They control the outcome in the primaries but aren’t responsible for what happens in the general? That makes no sense.
As the majority moderates must take the lions share of the responsibility. Where is that happening?
right
We might as well skip all the pomp and circumstance and just assign the votes automatically based on party registration. That’s how it’s done currently with the added facade of having a “choice.”
The Overton window continues to shift to the right regardless of who wins elections because there are power people benefiting from it and it’s incredibly easy to spread propaganda to the masses with tv/radio/internet.
What are you even talking about with your first paragraph? The result of elections aren’t predictable. In fact, they’re less predictable than ever. And what’s with “choice” in quotes: are you an election truther? That’s more of a right wing conspiracy.
That’s a pathetic cowardly take on the Overton window. What even is your point? “Let’s give up because nothing matters”? Fuck that. I’m fighting.
It’s also empirically untrue: I don’t know how you haven’t noticed that the US is going through the biggest labor movement in a generation. In the last 3 years, Dems have passed one of the most progressive agendas in a generation.
I’m talking about the fact that we keep getting Clinton’s and Bidens as our nominees because that’s what the party leadership wants. They choose who gets the backing, who gets the funding, who gets the airtime, and who gets to debate. The primaries are little more than a sham to give us the illusion of choice because this private organization already picked their winner. You claim elections are less predictable than ever, yet there’s a 100% chance it’s going to be one of two people, either the D or R, who’s going to win, both backed by the same wealthy donors to do their bidding. That’s the illusion of choice.
Your fighting, eh? Well, how’s the fight coming? At what point do you consider the fight won? Do you envision some point in the future where Republicans no longer hold office and the country is some utopia of pure Democratic leadership? Good luck accomplishing that when, as I stated above, there are only two choice on the ballot and one of them is Republican. That kind of solidifies their place in government as they’re the only alternative for people to vote for. That ensures we’ll keep having people like Trump waiting in the wings and taking office every time a Clinton-like candidate runs against them. This also ensures that Democratic candidates don’t actually have to do jack shit for the country as they’re going to get your vote anyway. This is why I stated that elections might as well be automatic based on party registration and why it’s an illusion of choice. You’re not fighting by voting D or R. You’re just perpetuating the status quo.
I wonder how the Nader voters feel.