tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1066416590684942204.post3459678611902528265..comments2024-01-04T02:12:32.856-08:00Comments on Local Bias: Wake Up The ProgressivesDrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06929227437919506906noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1066416590684942204.post-37963849717370438572010-10-17T08:33:43.916-07:002010-10-17T08:33:43.916-07:00As a New Yorker who voted for Nader in '96, &#...As a New Yorker who voted for Nader in '96, '00, '04, and '08, I absolutely insist that MY vote in NY never affected the final results of those elections: I voted for the best person in the race with a clean conscience. <br /><br />You get no merit badge for voting for the winner, particularly in a state where the winner is a foregone conclusion! What point was it to vote for Bush in NY, or Gore in Wyoming? Or vice-versa? To vote for the guaranteed winner OR loser in blowout states is a "wasted vote"! The winner doesn't need your vote, and the loser is destined to lose. So one might as well vote for who you WANT in any case, since gaming the system is not possible. <br /> <br />Third, regarding Florida. Parry's opinion that anything is "obvious" ignores actual logic and evidence. To say "IF most of Nader's votes had gone to Gore..." is the logical equivalent of "If pigs could fly, I would be king!" Actually, MOST of Nader's votes DID go to Gore! The week before the election, Nader was polling 7% in FL; on election day, it went down to 3%! It would seem that MOST Nader supporters in FL held their nose at the last minute and DID succumb to the constant Dem fear-mongering drumbeat and voted for Gore. As for the 97K who voted their conscience and stuck by Nader, stats show that maybe a third MIGHT have voted for Gore, but a quarter MIGHT have voted for Bush, and MOST would have stayed home or voted for another third party candidate. Other polls show that, had Nader NOT been in the race, Bush would have won outright by a full percentage point, as Al From of the DLC, and Al Gore, himself, concede. <br /> <br />Yet this is moot, because GORE actually WON the election! Yep, the media consortium review of ALL the contested ballots showed that in any LEGAL method used to count, Gore actually won FL and hence the whole enchilada! <br /> <br />Want to finger the culprits behind Bush's theft? Blame the SCotUS. Blame the Republican operatives who intimidated the vote counters. Then blame the team of Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush for illegally eliminating between 50,000 and 100,000 mostly-black voters from the rolls. Blame nearly 300,000 DEMOCRATS in FL who voted for Bush! Either one of those far outweighs the small margin of difference between Bush and Gore in FL. (10 MILLION Dems voted for Bush nationwide.) Or blame 50 million NON-voters; had Gore convinced a small percentage in EACH state to get off their asses and vote, he could have won EVERY state! But, no, the whiny Dems who can't face their own shortcomings (or Gore losing his own home state -- when has THAT ever happened? -- or that of Clinton) have to blame a guy who simply exercised his right to run on principles, and those who chose to vote for him!<br /><br />And speaking of lies, Parry is perpetuating the big one... that Nader or his campaign EVER said there was NO difference between Bush and Gore, or not a "dime's worth of difference," (George Wallace's line). I challenge him to cite an actual quote of Nader saying this, because he never did. What he DID say was that there were more similarities THAN differences, and that was true.<br /><br />Oh, and finally, there's no way to predict what corporatist Gore (who had far more similarities to Bush than differences) would have done IF he had actually fought to protect HIS WIN. Hell, we might have gone into WWIII with China over the shot-down plane. We'll never know, because, like the universe in which Nader didn't run, THAT universe didn't happen either.Steve Krulickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08637784203722495662noreply@blogger.com