Nader at 5% in MN!
From http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/headlines/:
A new poll by the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute shows President Bush leading Democrat John Kerry in Minnesota 47 to 44 percent. The poll also has Independent candidate Ralph Nader polling at five percent. The poll, which was conducted Oct. 21 through Oct. 26, has a margin of error of plus or minus four percent.
posted by Tom Cleland @ 10/28/2004 05:13:00 PM
18 comments
18 Comments:
Before you go calling me a spoiler, check out how I’ll be voting in local races:
In the primary for 4th District Court 18 I voted for Kathleen Mottl but she didn't make it to the runoff. In the general looks like I'll have to vote for DFL party insider Susan Burke. Her opponent, Stephen Baker, has signs up at all the neocon houses, according to a GP colleague of mine. See? I'm not a spoiler in that race, because there's a runoff.
I'll be voting for the GP's Jay Pond for Congress. You could call this a "safe" vote because Sabo always wins by a big margin.
There are still a few states where Democrats control the governor’s office and both houses of the legislature. If they’re serious about solving the spoiler problem, they’ll pass Instant Runoff Voting, letting voters rank the candidates 1-2-3 in those states.
If I could rank the top six presidential candidates, it would be Nader, Cobb, Kerry, Badnarik, Peroutka, and Bush, in that order.
It’s true, Nader might not work as effectively with Congressmen like Democrat Martin Sabo, which is why I’m voting for Pond. A comprehensive solution is needed.
I’m not interested in second-guessing how other people are voting. I want other people to second-guess how I’m voting!
Walt Brown (on CSPAN today) sounds pretty good. I think I would rank him between Cobb and Kerry.
I might also rank the Libertarian before Kerry, but I think the Constitution Party candidate is the hyper-conservative religious one.
That’s all been tried before. Jesse Jackson, Jerry Brown, Bill Bradley, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean. The Democratic primary process is where progressive politics goes to die (to borrow a phrase from the GP’s David Cobb).
Some people like to be told what to think, and others like to think for themselves. Some people take comfort in bland conformity, and others take comfort in knowing the truth, no matter how uncomfortable the truth may be.
“You can enter God's Kingdom only through the narrow gate. The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the many who choose the easy way. But the gateway to life is small, and the road is narrow, and only a few ever find it.” (Matt 7:13-14)
Republican voters march in lockstep because they think they are obeying God’s will, but really they have strayed from the Golden Rule which is at the heart of their religion:
“Do for others what you would like them to do for you. This is a summary of all that is taught in the law and the prophets.” (Matt 7:12)
God’s grace may save them, but He wants more than just faith, as stated in this portion of the Lord’s Prayer:
“May your Kingdom come soon. May your will be done here on earth, just as it is in heaven.” (Matt 6:10)
I feel that Democrats are more likely to think for themselves. I was a Republican, and then I started thinking for myself and became a Democrat. Then I thought a little more and became a Green. Then I thought a little more and became a Nader 2004 supporter.
So you spend the whole campaign saying we’re insignificant and that we can’t win, and then three days before the election you realize that you might not win without us. Well, la-dih-frickin-dah! Maybe you should spend less time bashing us and more time finding out what we’re so concerned about.
You really want to vote with the crowd. Since you’re so good at second-guessing how other people are going to vote, second-guess this: There’s a core of us who won’t budge. Sway some undecideds, sway some Republicans, nominate a better candidate next time, pass IRV, join us, or lose.
Wow, 5%! I think Bush and Kerry should just give their concession speeches now. What a remarkable accomplishment.
I'm going to laugh like hell if Texas goes Kerry and Minnesota goes Bush.
5% is an amazing showing for a third party candidate to the left of the Dems, who is constantly demonized in the corporate press as a "spoiler" and who is without the big money of the corporate parties. What it shows is that there is a considerable base of progressives in Minnesota who won't be convinced that Kerry has anything for them. I'm voting Nader in Minnesota because both Kerry and Bush mean more war, more NAFTA and environmentally-destructive and worker-destructive trade bills, inadequate measures to deal with the health care crisis, more foreign policy blunders (Kerry wants to topple democratically-elected Hugo Chavez of Venezuela), and on and on. The only big difference between the two is that Kerry is a neo-liberal, imperalist hawk with a friendly face.
You know, Nader supporters come in 3 types:
1) the kind who are too stupid to know what they are they are doing (can't tell tell them anything, because they don't understand you
2) the kind who know what they are doing, but are completely insane (kind of like Nader himself.) On the other hand, Nader probably has the money to survive the destruction of the world economy, and he doesn't live in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, North Korea, etc, so why should he care if those people die or have their lives destroyed for his vanity, and
3) the kind who have so much of their self identity involved in supporting Nader that they will cling to anything (no matter how ridiculous) to negate Kerry and raise Nader as some sort of holy man, representing purity and beauty.
I know I am being mean by stating the truth, but folks this is the last stop. You can prevent more people from dying in more needless wars. You can prevent the erosion of our civil liberties. You can prevent the insane appointments of people who write off torture and death as "collateral damage." Who institute the Patriot Act to spy on people. Who ignore the balance of powers that our country is founded on. You have the choice to stop it or not stop it.
If you choose Nader, you are choosing not to stop it, and if you make that choice, then it's just like that Molier quote:
"It is not only what we do, but also what we do not do for which we are accountable." Don't ever whine about Bush if you refused to help stop him when we could because he is a madman. And men men should be stopped before they cause the damage. 5 people could have stopped him in 2000, but a country can unite and stop him November 2nd.
Stopping needless dying and the erosion of our civil liberties, among other evils, will certainly not come from voting for one of the two corporate parties! The most important activities involve building the social movements to fight against such injustices. Both parties support the war and neither will bring about the changes necessary for our country and the world (Sheryl, you must know Kerry's position on the war, that he voted for it and pledges to carry it out, right? How do you possibly claim that he will end needless wars?)
Most Nader supporters, including myself, are heavily involved in protesting the war and infringements upon our civil liberties. Speaking only for myself, I committed civil disobedience and was arrested in 2003, in the first weeks of the war, to protest Bush's actions. How many Democrats urging us to vote for the pro-war Kerry were involved in anti-war demonstration and getting arrested when it really mattered?
Sheryl, your characterization of Nader voters does not accord with reality. Many of us are committed to building the social movements and the Greens as a party of the people. My support for Nader is due to the fact that he has remained independent of the Democrats while this year the Green Party candidate has not. I also support the Labor Party, as well as the Greens. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and view the Democratic Party with almost as much distaste as the Republican Party.
Thanks, Corey, I wish I had the same foresight regarding the war. “Crossing the Rubicon” by Mike Ruppert has a section on Venezuela’s democratically elected Hugo Chavez. Sounds like he’s one of the good guys. Venezuela is our fourth-largest supplier of oil, and he threatened to cut us off if we continued to interfere there.
Today’s StarTribune poll shows better numbers for Kerry. I’m just glad Nader’s on the ballot and I have someone to vote for!
Hi Ted,
I really can't imagine why Bin Laden would leave out the most important candidate running. Well, actually Nader's the second most important--don't forget that Chris P. Carrot is running as well, and Chris P. probably has a better chance of winning. Or at least the same chance.
Oh, I forgot. This isn't about winning. It's about securing the republican stranglehold on power, so that we have even fewer electable parties than before. We can go from a two party system to a one party system. Yea!!!!. We can also dispose of this inconvenient "balance of powers" nonsense that those founding fathers came up with. It's not nearly as efficient as having a dictatorship. Isn't that why God gave Bush the executive order? At least that is what God told him in their last conversation.
Anyway, inspite of Chris P. Carrot's stature, Nader's former running mate Winona LaDuke is endorsing John Kerry:
http://www.nativenationsnet.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1180And somewhere in Tom's blog I included a webpage page from another former Nader colleague who set up an anti-Nader page.
Oh, I forgot to mention--going from a two party state to a one party state is very "anti-establishment." I've been told that's a good thing.
Sheryl, Corey has a good question, how can you possibly claim Kerry will end needless wars? Corey is debating the issues, while you just seem to be fixated on the popularity contest.
Earlier I mentioned the Golden Rule. Just in case any Republicans are reading, I just wanted to say a word about abortion before the election. It can be argued that abortion is a violation of the Golden Rule, since most of us wouldn’t want to be aborted. We end up coming back to the question of when human life begins. Since the Bible was written long before the abortion procedure was introduced, I see this question as open to interpretation. The closest verse I could find is this:
“If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely, or she has a miscarriage,
but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.” (Exod 21:22)
In this example, of course, the woman is a victim, rather than someone who has made a conscious choice. However, from this verse, we can gather that the action, while not condoned, is not a capital offense either. Therefore, I think it’s safe to say that abortion is not murder.
It’s impossible for me to know how serious abortion is at its earliest stages. If in doubt, I would want to error on the side of caution. I can’t say for certain, though. And I’m certainly not a woman. I don’t feel I can make that call for others.
Who do you think created the propaganda machine? The Democrats and Republicans!
Good luck changing the Democratic Party from within, I’ve been there. Peak Oil is just around the corner. If we don’t adjust soon, adjustments will be made for us.
On the issue of abortion, discussed above, rather than counterattacking, the common response, I thought I’d try defending, for a change. One expert on NOW said that a lot of middle and lower income Republicans vote against their best economic interests because of the religious issues. If we could somehow find common ground, they would be a powerful voting block, and we could begin to turn the corner on the other issues you described.
Unfortunately, right now, I see the Republican Party as an unholy alliance between the rich and the anti-abortionists, with a little bit of overlap. What you’re proposing on the Democratic side, Ted, is another type of unholy alliance. Count me out.
Corey has a great post, "Why We Need Our Own Party" on his "Left Blank Blogger" site. I have a link to it on the right side of the page.
My complete ballot, contested races:
President – Nader/Camejo
U.S. Rep – Pond
State Rep - Latz
Supreme Court 6 – Page
Appeals 3 – Minge
Appeals 14 – Randall
District Court 1 – O’Neil
4th Dist 18 – Burke
4th Dist 24 - Lange
Hi Ted, this is a response to your post a little while back...
I understand that many progressive think of taking over the Democratic Party, reforming it from within, but I just don't believe such a project is possible like it was for the religious right to "take over" the Republican Party.
First, the religious right is fine with the fact that Republican Party is a corporate party, as they should be. They would have no interest in bolting from this party, since it does serve its interests in the here and now. On the other hand, the corporate Democratic Party serves working people very, very poorly. If it weren't for the trap of the two-party system, working people (through their organizations, unions) would have every reason to leave the party and form or support one of their own. That they don't do so is due only to the two-party stranglehold.
Secondly, if working people people were to take over the Democratic Party, the party would lose its corporate funding and would remain a shell of its old self. The building of a party would have to start from scratch, which is where we are right now.
Third, as the experienced showed, even a somewhat conservative "progressive" like Dean is going to be attacked by the massive DLC machine with the Democratic Party. We can't underestimate that central power with the party. Likewise, the presence of people like Kucinich, Dean, and other progressives in the Democratic Party seems to function as a means to ensure that real progressive will never leave to start something real, but will hang around hoping for the "take over" that history has shown will not occur.
Regardless of whether you believe in the third party or "working within the Democratic Party" approach, the fact is that we need electoral reform in this country. Principles of democracy require that we have IRV and proportional representation, ensuring that people have real choices and power can be shared between different constituencies. Trying to take over the Democratic Party by electing candidates of its left wing has very little likelihood of securing the kind of electoral reform for democracy to be meaningful in this country.
Post a Comment
<< Home