Why aren't there any Green Party Congressmen(women) or

[Sperk]

Senators? I can see how it would be difficult to win nationally, but why are there at lest a few green Reps? :shrug: Am I wrong? Are there some that I'm not aware of?

[jiacinto]

1. No

They can barely even win City Council and state legislative races.

[fertilizeonarbusto]

2. Exactly

n/t

[CMT]

12. but they can make a difference

Yesterday we had a race for State Assembly in the Stevens Point, Wi area and it is a democratic district but our candidate barely won 43-41 percent. The Green candidate got 15% and had she gotten 16% we could have lost this race. Is it their fault? No, they have a right to run but we as Dems have to ask why is 15% voting Green? why are the democrats losing these voters?

[sangha]

3. Because they are LOSERS

They are experts at losing.

[KG]

4. considering the results of the '02 mid-terms

dems. don't need to go pointing fingers.

[sangha]

6. Democrats won seats in Congress in '02

How many did the Losers, er, I mean "Greens" win?

[FlashHarry]

5. Er, I'm no fan of what Nader did in '00, but that's just not nice.

Greens can't win national elections because there aren't enough voters who are that far left in this country.

[sangha]

9. Greens can't win, period!!

If it's a higher office than the PTA, the Greens can't win.

[Iverson]

10. incorrect again (on purpose)

I have alrady corrected you on this one and provided a link to a list of Green office holders. Please cease making deliberately false statements.

[sangha]

11. Your list

of PTA's did not impress me

[Iverson]

13. Please cease making deliberately false statements.

You must have thought I was asking you about how impressed you were. I was not. I was asking you not to misinform on purpose.

If this idea is unclear, ask another centrist Dem to explain it to you. I am sure that you will understand the identical text then.

[buddhamama]

14. there is a green in my state's house of Reps.

CA has a pretty decent number too.

[goobergunch]

16. I didn't see the list...

and the thread was destroyed in the GD hiccup. Could you please repost? I'm curious.

[Iverson]

17. Certainly.

Here you go:

http://www.feinstein.org/greenparty/electeds.html

[goobergunch]

81. thanks

I think the Greens need to get more seats in state legislatures before they move up...1 seat in ME and 1 seat in NJ aren't very impressive considering that there are 151 members of the ME State House and 80 members of the NJ State Assembly. Still, it's a start...

[sangha]

18. Please cease making demands

It's hard to catch my breath with all the laughing going on here.

[Forkboy]

21. another nice dodge

to try to cover up your mistake.

Your right about the laughing though,you are hilarious.

[Iverson]

25. asking for truth is too much, hm?

No, I don't think that I'll cease demanding accuracy. Anyone who has difficulty with that is due for a little soul-searching.

[Forkboy]

52. I'm also tempted to ask

why he only posts on Mon-Fri between the hours of 9-5.

[sangha]

70. If you have a problem with that

contact my boss. If you PM me, I'll give you her name and phone #.

[Forkboy]

101. Then I retract my implication that your posting here is your job

see how easy it is to admit that I'm wrong...you should give it a try sometime as well.

[Name removed]

105. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

108. How did I threaten you?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

55. Rhetorically, "PTAs" Is Pretty Close to the Truth

Yes, the Greens have quite a few local council members.

While "PTAs" may not be technically accurate, Sangha's point is well-taken, namely that Greens hold no offices of real significance in this country.

DTH

[Terwilliger]

62. Democrats hold most seats

that must be why there are so many problems

[DoveTurnedHawk]

117. Hmm, Silly Me. Here I Was Thinking the Problem Is Bush and His Thugs.

Democrats have lots of national seats, but in case you were unaware, we (which is to say me and the other Democrats here, as IIRC you are not a Democrat) are in the minority now.

Things were going pretty damn well under Clinton. Then you get a Thug Senate and President to go along with the Thug House, and look what happens. Jeffords' brave stand stemmed the tide for a while, until the disastrous 2002 elections.

You should of course feel free to posture all you want about the reasons behind the Democrats' failures in 2002; many people do, and with at least some basis.

But to say that our problems are because there are too many Democrats in national government seems a bit ludicrous, to me anyway.

I'm sorry the lack of Greens in offices of significance upsets you so much. Regardless, it is a reality. Best to come to grips with that.

DTH

[fishnfla]

48. Please give us a candidate

I'm tired of debating a myth

[Forkboy]

15. Being called a loser by you

is like being given free gold bars from Fort Knox.

[JanMichael]

20. Gawd all mighty that's nasty.

We have a two party system loaded toward those two parties.

And while the Greens have had a rough time of it recently that doesn't mean that the future will be the same.

Fact is if the Centrists keep watering down Democratic Values for political expediancy the odds are good that the Greens will emerge from the Dem rubble.

I know quite a few Greens and you little snotty insult isn't even remotely accurate.

Here in Sarasota there is one group that organised almost all of the Anti-Bush protests, the Greens. The major sponser of our Anti-Patriot Act Council Resolution is, you guessed it, the Greens.

Where the fuck are the Strong Dems?!

Well I know where one Dem (Me) is, he's hanging out with the Greens...

[sangha]

22. It's also true

Organizing a protest is not, IMO, a sure sign of political power. Organizing a protest is about the only thing the Greens are capable of doing.

Where the fuck are the Strong Dems?!

Filibustering right-wing judges. Where are the Greens in Congress?

[JanMichael]

23. Locally, locally, locally, locally, locally!

I live in the land of the Limosine Liberal.

[sangha]

71. Locally, locally, locally?

Well, here in NYC the local Dems are suing NY State to provide more money for educating poor students. So far they are winning.

They also recently won a fight to restore money to social programs that our Repuke mayor had proposed cutting.

If you need more info, le me know.

[the_sam]

59. Unlike the Democrats

...who win elections by becoming political Republicans in order to guarantee a steady flow of corporate cash. :-)

[liberalpragmatist]

7. B/c we're a winner-take-all system

There is never going to be a majority voting green, and there isn't much chance of there being a plurality in any state, let alone any district. Third-parties can win seats in congress, but that was generally when gerrymandering was less prevalent and there was easier access of third-parties to the ballot. Those that have succeeded have also usually been regional or state-based, not national.

The thing abt our plurality system is that in any given area, maybe 10 percent at most would vote green. when only one member of congress is elected from a district, that means that they aren't going to win that congressional seat. Only in a proportional system, with larger districts (maybe statewide) of 5 or 6,7,8,9, or 10 members can the greens really expect to elect members to the House. When it comes to the Senate, it's extremely unlikely -- proportional representation, if it is ever enacted in the country (I do hope) will probably only be enacted, for practical reasons and logistical reasons, in the House -- the Senate would likely still need plurality or majority votes to get elected, and it's unlikely the greens could do that in any state -- maybe vermont, but that's pretty much it.

[Brian Sweat]

19. Exactly,

until we start awarding congressional seats to losers, the Greens will never have a presence in congress.

[redeye]

92. Losers?

It's not that simple, Brian. Congress should represent all people, not only "winners"; the "losers" simply won't have enough power to enact their agenda. Besides, you can't call a party that has enoguh votes for 13 Representatives "losers," because with proportional representation they'd have seats in Congress.

[liberalpragmatist]

8. B/c we're a winner-take-all system

There is never going to be a majority voting green, and there isn't much chance of there being a plurality in any state, let alone any district. Third-parties can win seats in congress, but that was generally when gerrymandering was less prevalent and there was easier access of third-parties to the ballot. Those that have succeeded have also usually been regional or state-based, not national.

The thing abt our plurality system is that in any given area, maybe 10 percent at most would vote green. when only one member of congress is elected from a district, that means that they aren't going to win that congressional seat. Only in a proportional system, with larger districts (maybe statewide) of 5 or 6,7,8,9, or 10 members can the greens really expect to elect members to the House. When it comes to the Senate, it's extremely unlikely -- proportional representation, if it is ever enacted in the country (I do hope) will probably only be enacted, for practical reasons and logistical reasons, in the House -- the Senate would likely still need plurality or majority votes to get elected, and it's unlikely the greens could do that in any state -- maybe vermont, but that's pretty much it.

[msanger]

24. rove is laughing at you guys

he doens't have to even do anything to divide and conquer.

[Redleg]

89. Exactly.

That's why someone needs to put Rove in his place.

[ulysses]

26. ah, the bait and switch

Again. Some folks like to do with with Howard Dean, too.

Day 1: The Greens must run locally first and build a national following to have a prayer - and my respect.

Day 2: The Greens don't have anyone at the national level! What a bunch of losers!

Day 3: The Greens must run locally first and build a national following to have a prayer - and my respect.

Day 4: The Greens don't have anyone at the national level! What a bunch of losers!

Wash, rinse, repeat.

With Dean, alternate He's too liberal to get any centrist votes! with He's too centrist to have any appeal for you leftist whatevers! and you have the same strategy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. Greens Excel

At Defeating Democrats

They subscribe to the Marxist axiom that by destroying the center left party the right wing will triumph. And things will then get so bad the masses will turn to them. It's called maximizing the contradictions or "the worse it gets the better"

It's nuts....

[Brian Sweat]

29. I have always heard it refered to

heightening the contrast.

[Iverson]

31. a certain uninformed quality to that

In order to better know what you are talking about, here is a link to the Greens' 2000 platform.

http://www.gpus.org/platform/2000/2002summary.html

I am sure that a few Greens are Marxists. I am sure that a few Democrats are as well. Marxism is not the stance of the party, as any objective review will show.

[Brian Sweat]

33. Straw Man

He didn't say that the greens are marxists, just that they are using an old marxist tactic.


I'm saying that a greens are marxists. Well, maybe not all greens, but a lot. Most of the ones that I have talked to.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. Thank You

America is a two party country...


All the Greens can do is destroy the Democratic party and take it's place.

That is impossible.

I can see scenarios where the Greens runs against Dems and Reps and take away enough votes from the Dems to elect more Reps. It's simple math. If you divide the votes of the left it means the right has to get less votes.

But at least their pure....

[MadHound]

77. Beg to differ with you there DSB

The Democratic Party is destroying itself. By continuing it's constant move to the right, it guarantees that the progressive wing of the party is more and more alienated. Given that these people are generally the most active in grassroots campaigns, are the most active in GOV drives, then once they are lost, a valuable resource is lost. Consequently these alienated Dems go to the Green Party, thus providing them with large infusions of energetic people who will go out and bring in more votes.

If I were part of the Dem leadership, I would find this trend very disturbing, for with this cycle continuing for the next few years the Dems will be severly weakened, if not extinct. But apparently all the current Dem leadership cares about is money, and are willing to compromise their souls and the soul of the party for money. Hence they will continue their rightward drift(gotta please their corporate masters), while also continuing their slide down into oblivion.

It is not too late, but these matters need to be addressed now.

[Iverson]

36. can't agree

To "subscribe to a Marxist axiom" is easily construed as a description of Marxist. In any case, I did not unfairly restate his claim, which is how one constructs a straw man. At most it was a minor error along the lines of hair-splitting.

To you, then, I also recommend that link to the platform for the party position.

[Brian Sweat]

42. The party position doesn't mean squat.

The people I have talked to support marxist ideas. It is possible to support a party and have different political views from the Party. Many Republicans are pro-choice and support the seperation of church and state, but they still vote Republican.

I cannot say that all Greens are Marxists or that even most are, but the ones I talk to seem to be and the ones who are not outright Marxists are extremely anti-capitalists.

Also, you did restate his claim. Your argument was based on the idea that he said that greens were marxists. He did not say that greens are marxists. He said that they subscribe to a marxist axiom. Saying that Greens subscribe to a marxist axiom is not the same as saying that they are marxists and it is dishonest to imply otherwise. Your argument is a straw man.

[ulysses]

50. ok, so...

the offical party position means nothing, and your personal experience means everything?

Please.

[Iverson]

53. interesting

If our friend's personal experience is the most important consideration here, then maybe he will grant others the same courtesy before he goes slinging around accusations of dishonesty. For example, my teaching argumentation in college gives me a pretty good claim to a personal understanding of what is a straw man verus what is not.

Really, though, I suspect that we are witnessing the conflation of fairness and agreement with one's views.

[Brian Sweat]

67. Horse Hockey

The main point of DemocratSinceBirth's post was that Greens embrace the concept of "heightening the contrast" or as he put it "maximizing the contradiction." Instead, you parsed his words and created an argument he never made, that all Greens are Marxist. He never said this. I can see how someone might thing he said, but you had to want it. You wanted it.

[Iverson]

69. riiiiiight

Asking to be taken at my word is a bit much. Think what you will.

[Brian Sweat]

73. It's not a matter of you being taken at your word

It's a matter of what he said and how you replied. What he said was that Greens engage in heightening the contrast and you replied that Greens are not marxist. That is a straw man argument. If you cannot see this, then you need to give you students their money back.

[Iverson]

75. hm?

You have long ago gotten away from the substance of my reply, which was to direct the poster's attention to the Green Party platform as meaningful here.

You continue to insist that the difference between "subscribing to a Marxist axiom" and "Marxist" is so meaningful as to exclude any clarification that the actual party platform may offer. You continue to insist that your anecdotal personal evidence is meaningful to the exclusion of actual party stance.

Your further personal nasty crack about my professional position is cute and all, but it does not undo the definition of a straw man.

[Brian Sweat]

83. The "substand of your reply" was an

arguement that the Green party is not marxist. You posted the Green Pary platform to bolster your argument that the Green Party is not marxist.

The orginal poster did not say that the Green Party was marxists. The original poster said that the Greens use a marxists tactic called heightening the contrast.

You attacked an argument that the orginal poster did not make. That is the classic definition of a straw man argument.

[Brian Sweat]

65. When it comes to the question of whether or not many of the

Greens I have spoken to are marxists, yes, the official party position means nothing. The official party position in no way obviates the fact that some Greens are marxists.

[Trek234]

28. There are repub, dem, and independent

people in congress.

No greens.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. One Independent And He's A Socialist

Bernie Sanders (I) Vermont

[JanMichael]

96. He's also one of the best Representatives that we've got.

I'd back Bernie for President in a heartbeat over the current crop.

[redeye]

98. I guess you're right...

...and you know that I'm no socialist (ask Martin for details or read my views on outsourcing).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. We Have A Federal System That Discriminates Against Third Parties

The only way you could have a vibrant third party is to replace our federal system with a parliamentary system.

The Greens, the Libertarians, The Vegetarian Party will never be successful in our federal system. The only thing these parties can do is harm the party closest to it.

Voting for any of these parties is like having a tantrum. It makes you feel better but doesn't change anything.

It's quite basic....

[Brian Sweat]

34. No, we have an electorate that discriminates againsts

fringe ideology.

It's not the system that makes their ideology fail. It's their ideology that makes their ideology fail.

[noiretextatique]

57. like the radical rightists currently ruining the country?

fringe ideology...perhaps this only applies to the left.

[Brian Sweat]

64. About a third of the electorate warmly embrace

the conservative ideology espoused by the modern Republican party. I don't understand it and I find it sad, but while the ideology of the right wing of the Republican party is certainly radical, it is not a fringe ideology.

The anti-capitalist, anti-corporate ideology of the Green party is embraced by a very small percent of the electorate. It is a fringe ideology.

[buddhamama]

72. how so-

let's look at the mid-term elections.

now the repubs would like to claim a majority victory
and on the surface they could
but when you take into account 1)a majority of the electorate didn't vote 2)votes cast for dems,independents,greens,libertarians,etc,etc

they really only garnered 18% of the total number of votes cast.

[Brian Sweat]

74. Huh?

What you said was:

"they really only garnered 18% of the total number of votes cast."


This is clearly wrong, but I think you just phrased it wrong. This is what I think you meant.

"Only 18 percent of the people eligable to vote, voted for Republicans"

Even if this were true, it is not, that doesn't mean that the Greens are any less of a fringe party.

[buddhamama]

76. nope

what you are assuming is that 100% of the electorate votes.
(by electorate i'm talking eligible voters). they don't.
last presidental election 51% of eligible voters voted.

and even less(i'll go find the total number)voted during the mid-terms.

[Brian Sweat]

78. You said

"they really only garnered 18% of the total number of votes cast."


I am well aware that only about half of all people eligible to vote actually do so, but that doesn't change the fact that the Republican got about 50% of the votes that were actually cast.

In the 2000 election about 50% of people eligible to vote, did so. Of that 50%, Republican candidates for President, Setate and House received about 50%. That means that 25% of the people eligible to vote, voted for Republicans. The Republicans ideology, although extreme, has broad mainstream support.

The Green ideology does not.

[buddhamama]

79. i wasn't refering the greens

i was suggesting by voter turnout that no one ideology holds sway ove r the electorate. since no one party actually receives electoral majority support.

and this statement by me was in refernce to the mid-terms when roughly 33% of the electorate voted.

"they really only garnered 18% of the total number of votes cast."

[Brian Sweat]

85. Your suggesting that the GOP

is a fringe party and that is not the case.

[buddhamama]

87. what i am suggesting

is exactly what i stated in my previous post.
"i was suggesting by voter turnout that no one ideology holds sway over the electorate. since no one party actually receives electoral majority support."

can i get any clearer?

let's go back to the beginning, to this assertion that you made,which started this discussion

"About a third of the electorate warmly embrace"-meaning the GOP platform


how so- is the original question i asked

let's do this again

on average 50% of the electorate votes(the other 50% does not) so that right there
brings the GOP ideology endorsement by the electorate down to a half of a half
and even less if you consider that All third party votes haven't been taken into consideration in the original breakdown of that all important 50%.

[confusionisnext]

90. Why do you assume that non-voters are not swayed by ideology?

I'm sure that some ideological Reps and Dems didn't vote for myriad reasons. Maybe a lot of hard-line Republicans did not vote because they thought they would win. Who knows? And perhaps the assertion that "About a third of the electorate warmly embrace" is based on polling data, where you don't have to cast a ballot to express GOP ideology endorsement.

[confusionisnext]

91. Why do you assume that non-voters are not swayed by ideology?

I'm sure that some ideological Reps and Dems didn't vote for myriad reasons. Maybe a lot of hard-line Republicans did not vote because they thought they would win without their vote. Who knows? And perhaps the assertion that "About a third of the electorate warmly embrace" is based on polling data, where you don't have to cast a ballot to express GOP ideology endorsement.

[buddhamama]

111. not swayed enough to vote

stick polling if you want but that's not gonna win elections.

[Brian Sweat]

115. Regardless of how you spin it

About 25% of eligible voters vote for Republcans
Less than 1.5% vote for Greens.

Republican ideology is far more mainstream than Green Ideology.

[Brian Sweat]

97. Fine

no ideology holds sway over the electorate.

However, Nearly 50% of the people who actually vote, vote for Republican candidate. This is a clear indication that Republican ideology has broad based support.


The Reform party had broad based support at one time, but no one knows what they stand for anymore. When it first appeared, it's ideology was fairly main stream. They were deficit and imigration hawks. This appealed to a lot of voters and they got a lot of votes in 1992.


The reason that other parties have not done well is because they ideologies have limited support among the electorate.

[ulysses]

103. no

This is a clear indication that Republican ideology has broad based support.

Given that only half the people eligible to vote actually vote (and that's at best), the only thing that can really be said is that Republican ideology has the support of 25% of the people.

[buddhamama]

109. thank you,ulysses

i'll admit that 'math is hard' but i was beginning to think elementary math classes were in order.

[Brian Sweat]

113. 25% is a fairly broad base in my book

Especially when you compare it to the less that 1.4% the green party gets.

[ulysses]

120. nice try

but comparing Republican and Green numbers just doesn't make that GOP 25% seem any bigger to me. :shrug:

[buddhamama]

110. if nearly 50% of those who actually vote

voted republicans, would DEMs even exist?

[Brian Sweat]

116. Sure, why not?

[NewJerseyDem]

37. Not entirely

Even in the UK third parties find it hard to win because they have a system just like ours. The only reason the liberal democrats have started to do well is that Tony Blair has moved Labour so far to the center that some Britons have joined the liberal democrats.

However, Greens can't do well in our system. People don't want to vote for the Greens even if it is their favorite party because it will hurt their second favorite party, the Democrats. Only when there is proportial representation, which doesn't mean the same thing as a parliamentary system, can smaller parties survive like in the Netherlands. But, in the Netherlands they couldn't find a stable government for about a year because they have so many parties that each have so few seats in parliament.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. Back In The 80s weren't the Liberal Democrats

the party between Labour and the Conservative party.

And weren't they formed cuz folks believed Labour had moved too far to the left

[TheBigGuy]

44. The Liberals actually predate Labour.

There was a a split in Labour in the 1980s, where a Soclal Democratic party formed becuase Labour was too left. These Social Democrats merged with the old Liberals to become todays Liberal Democrats..or Lib-Dems.

the LIberal party was one of the two partys in the UK two party system in the 19th & early 20th century. Labour, tho, sort of passed them by in 1910s and 20s..to win outright after WWII.

[buddhamama]

68. no,not really

it's really quite simple.

the last presidental election only 51% of the electorate voted.
total votes for repub dem green libertarian reform right-to-life socialist,etc,etc.

if i were running and garnered the non-voters votes
what would my numbers be in comparision to the two standard parties?

[BeachBuckeye]

39. Nope! Never have been, never will be in ...

the forseeable future.

[DinahMoeHum]

40. Because they've tried to be big players too soon. . .

They forgot that new political parties must start at the bottom and get themselves elected to small town and village positions, school boards, etc. before they can consider state government offices, then national offices.

First you crawl, then you walk, then you run, then you fly.

:kick:

[Iverson]

41. (ahem!)

http://www.feinstein.org/greenparty/electeds.html

[Q]

43. The author of this thread might also ask...

...why there are less and less Democrats in congress. We're quickly approaching a one party system where you can't tell the difference between the left and the right.

[TheBigGuy]

46. One party systems dont last.

What would happen would be that the Republicans would factionalize...sort of like what happened to the old "Democratic-Republican Party" during the era of good feelings in the antebellum US.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

47. There Would Be Tension Between

the fundies and hedonistic corporate types who make up the Repugnicant party base.

[TheBigGuy]

51. There could be others as well...

....it would be hard to predict the exact things that would lead to splits and factionalization. The fundy-nonfundy one seems like the obvious one, but there could be others.

In some ways it would be a smart move of the Republicans to not totally destory the Democrats as they sort of need a credible Democratic electoral threat to keep their own party unified.

I would suspect that if the Democrats become totally marginalized we could see some real interesting GOP primary fights.

[TheBigGuy]

45. This is actually a serious question....

People have pointed out that Britain also has a first pas the post system, but it has a viable third party.

The same with Canada...which also has a first-past-the-post system. Canada has a suprisingly volatile political system. There are the Liberals, and PQ (a regional party in Quebec), and the NDP, which are the social-democratic party, and there to be the Conservatives (or "Progressive Conservatives"),...but they literally disappeared from the political scene.

The US, on the other hand, has a very stable two party system, and its pretty rare for a third party to make headway.

Its not impossible...the Populists of the late 19th century where fairly sucessfull in the statehouses, taking control of state governments in some states, and they also sent folks to both the House and Senate.

So its not an historical possibility. But the weakness of third partys is sort of unique to the USA, even accounting for the first past the post voting.

[Sirius_on]

49. The green party has 5 elected bathroom monitors

When asked about how they handle the urinal issue, they supposedly stay to the center. Waffing to the left or right causes spills.

[Aaron]

54. Lack of money, lack of IRV, lack of Proportional representation

I might consider voting for a Green if I thought they were the best person in the race. I think a lot of people here would consider voting for someone who was pushing a partial or full Green platform. But doing so might help elect my least favorite of the candidates. In a system with IRV, or proportional representation there would be no such threat. My guess is that if you look at money spent in Cong./Sen races by Greens/Dem's/Rep's you'd find the Greens get outspent hugely and that in any election the two top spenders win 99% or more of the time.

[Terwilliger]

56. Because Democrats don't have any possible challengers

as they can't stand any opposition to their own self-interested dogma

[DemocratSinceBirth]

63. You Should Test Your Thesis By

having Greens run against Democrats in every House and Senate race. You might knock off a few Democrats in hotly contested states by splitting the anti-Republican vote but you won't elect any Greens.....


But at least you will get it out of your system.

[Terwilliger]

84. from the mouth of the anti-Nader

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=3&kaid=86&subid=84&contentid=2919

The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne-
out by polling data. -- Al From

Now, will you take From as a credible enough source to prove to you that the whole myth of Nader's costing Gore the election is just that?

A MYTH!

[Brian Sweat]

86. No,

I don't consider Al From to be very credible.

But I must agree with his assertion as painful as it is to agree with anything that he says.

[Terwilliger]

93. Then I don't want to hear any of that crap from you or anyone else

Nader may have spoken against Dems (which was highly warranted) but he didn't have the power for you people to place blame on him for the Dem loss. Sorry :hi:

[Brian Sweat]

100. Learn how to read.

I said that I don't find Al From credible, but that I agree with his assertion. Is that too hard for you to understand.

[Terwilliger]

107. You like to pick nits...here's a nit...NADER DIDN'T COST GORE THE ELECTION

thank you for playing

[Brian Sweat]

114. That's exactly what I was saying

but I guess I was too subtle for you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

88. I'm Not An Al From Groupy

If he thinks Nader didn't cost Gore the election he's cranially challenged and nuts to boot.

I did this exercise before and I am sooooooooooooo tired of repeating it but I will repeat it once more.

Ralph Nader got 97,000 votes in Florida. All the survey data suggests that if Nader wasn't in the race, out of every four Nader voters, two would have voted for Gore, one would have voted for Chimpy and one would have stayed home. This would have certainly erased Chimpy's margin. Everything else is commentary.....

Commentary-

Gore ran a shitty race

Gore lost his home state

Joe Lieberman was a lousy choice


Another point all the survey data suggests that non voters hold pretty much the same views as voters. To me that indicates there is not an untapped pool of leftist voters for the Greens to tap into.

[Terwilliger]

95. I'm sorry...you're not credible

Al From should be a champion of someone like you who claims that the Democrats were never all that liberal anyway.

All the survey data suggests that if Nader wasn't in the race, out of every four Nader voters, two would have voted for Gore, one would have voted for Chimpy and one would have stayed home. This would have certainly erased Chimpy's margin. Everything else is commentary.....

and 12 times the number of Florida Democrats voted for Bush over Nader

But wait a second...you say "all the survey data" Well, I doubt Al From was speaking in such a Nader-favorable way without the backing of "all the survey data", so I'd like to see that.

PLUS

http://prorev.com/greenpages.htm#2004

This fits in well with the liberal myth that Gore lost the 2001 election because of Ralph Nader. In fact, Gore lost the election because he was a poor candidate, ran a bad campaign, and failed to separate himself morally from Clinton. Further, not only the Democratic Party, but the liberals within it, made it absolutely clear over eight years that they had no interest in, nor would respond to, the sort of politics espoused by Greens.

A study by the Review of national and Florida polls during the 2000 election indicates that Ralph Nader's influence on the final results was minimal to non-existent. The Review tested the widely held Democratic assumption that Nader caused Gore's loss by checking changes in poll results. Presumably, if Nader was actually responsible for Gore's troubles, his tallies would change inversely to those of Gore: if Gore did better, Nader would do worse and vice versa. In fact, the only time any correlation could be found was when the changes were so small - 1 or 2 percentage points - that they were statistically insignificant. On the other hand when, in September of 2000, Gore's average poll result went up 7.5 points over August, Nader's only declined by 1 point. Similarly, in November, Gore's average poll tally declined 5.7 points but Nader's only went up 0.8 points. In the close Florida race, there were similar results: statistically insignificant correlation when the Gore tally changed by only one or two points, but dramatic non-correlation when the change was bigger.

During almost all of 2000, Bush led Gore with the major exception of a month-long period following the Democratic convention. During this high point for Gore, Nader was pulling a running average of 2-4% in the polls. While it is true that during October, Nader began pulling a running average of 6% at a time when Gore was fading, Gore continued to lose ground even as Nader's support dropped to its final 3%. In other words, despite the help of defectors from Nader, Gore did worse.

Further, as Michael Eisencher reported in Z Magazine, 20% of all Democratic voters, 12% of all self-identified liberal voters, 39% of all women voters, 44% of all seniors, one-third of all voters earning under $20,000 per year and 42% of those earning $20-30,000 annually, and 31% of all voting union members cast their ballots for Bush. In other words, Bush did better among these traditional liberal constituencies than did Nader.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

104. That Is So Much Sophistry... And Statistical Mumbo Jumbo

Let's i-s-o-l-a-t-e Florida for the purpose of this exercise unless you want to argue that Chimpy was the Green's second choice not Gore.


Out of every four Nader voters, two would have voted for Gore, one would have voted for Chimpy, and one would have stayed home. Surely out of those 97,000 Nader voters in Florida , Gore could have closed Bush's alleged 537 vote margin.

So Gore lost 10% of the Democratic vote to Chimpy. There are folks who call themselves Democrat who the last Democrat they voted for was George Wallace.

By the way I'm an realist when it comes to politics. On some issues my views are quite left but when I look at the emeperical research I realize that my fellow Americans are not where I am at.
Therefore I try to get the most progressive candidate elected given the constraints imposed on me by the electorate.

If folks want to to join the CPUSA, the Greens, the Socialist Worker Party, the Liberterian Party, the Temperance Party, etcetera that is their right but I am not going to waste my vote on some half baked quioxitc mission while my country falls further into the grips of the reactionaries.

[Terwilliger]

106. lets look at your response

Let's i-s-o-l-a-t-e Florida for the purpose of this exercise unless you want to argue that Chimpy was the Green's second choice not Gore.

You start off with crap...you're simply not credible. 12 times the number of Democrats in Florida voted for Bush than voted for Nader. That WHOLLY wipes out any 537 vote argument.

Out of every four Nader voters, two would have voted for Gore, one would have voted for Chimpy, and one would have stayed home. Surely out of those 97,000 Nader voters in Florida , Gore could have closed Bush's alleged 537 vote margin.

So Gore lost 10% of the Democratic vote to Chimpy. There are folks who call themselves Democrat who the last Democrat they voted for was George Wallace.

By the way I'm an realist when it comes to politics. On some issues my views are quite left but when I look at the emeperical research I realize that my fellow Americans are not where I am at.
Therefore I try to get the most progressive candidate elected given the constraints imposed on me by the electorate.

You go for the best liar who advocates a "progressive" agenda.

If folks want to to join the CPUSA, the Greens, the Socialist Worker Party, the Liberterian Party, the Temperance Party, etcetera that is their right but I am not going to waste my vote on some half baked quioxitc mission while my country falls further into the grips of the reactionaries.

You are the reactionary.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

112. Every Time I Vote Democrat

I do my part to stop the reactionaries.

I don't care that 10% of Democrats voted for Chimpy. That's a red herring. Ralph Nader took more votes from Gore then Chimpy. Alot more votes.

Do you deny it?

America is never going to be a socialist country. Never. Never. Never.

Where do I get off on saying that?

Over two centuries of American history

[Terwilliger]

121. ok

two centuries of American history? WHAT THE FRELL DO YOU THINK AN FDR DEMOCRAT IS?!?!?! JEESH you people are morans.

Democrats are nothing but reactionaries. If the media calls them weak, they act weak. Then the Republicans tell them they are unpatriotic, and Dems go "oh, but, I'm a war hero! I fought in that war" and we see how far that goes. Then the question of the war comes up, and Democrats, too busy acting like the "patriotic" fools they are assent tpo a war without UN approval that would be conducted by someone who was a complete and total moron...I mean, Democrats should be considered incompetent for voting to empower such a twit as Bush. Then, sure as hell, "oh he didnt tell us that! he said he had the info! we trusted him!" Bull freaking hairy too fucking bad...I guess if Dems had done the job they should have done in the first place, this fucked up war would have only happened along party lines, and I could believe that there was some sort of organized opposition in this country.

Democrats react to everything and try to have a plan for every detail. They try to be everything to everyone then realize they don't actually have a plan. The folks who run the party are not doing a good job (to say the very least) and you bitch and moan about a few disgruntled leftists who you focus on as if that will be the solution to your problems.

Please...get a clue.

[Tanketra]

58. I considered joining the Greens in 2000 and didn't

And, reading this thread, it appears that means I missed out on the chance to be a hopelessly deluded loser and follower of a fringe ideology.

Instead, apparently, I get to be a hopelessly deluded loser and a smarmy jackass to boot.

Was this really trading up?

[redeye]

60. There aren't any...

...because while there are enough people who voted for Nader in 2000 to fill Congress with 12 Green Representatives and 3 Senators, their support is scattered among states an districts so winner-take-all ensures that they get zero seats.

[LiberalLibra]

61. In a way I am sorry the Greens don't win more elections because then.....

....they would have to step up to the plate and produce results that pleased everyone or take a beating in the media. Might be fun seeing Greens be the focus of repeated lies and distortions for a while.

[Loonman]

66. Because they want all the marbles

American Greens don't want to build a coalition like in Germany. They want all the marbles and they want them now.


Hey Saint Ralph, thanks for Bush!

[CBHagman]

80. I live in a very liberal area and we didn't even elect one

One ran for the county council, I believe, and I even ran across campaign workers for her on the way to the polls. She didn't win.

I can't speak for the rest of the country, but I don't notice that there's any trend of a growth in presence of elected Green officials, either locally, at the state level or nationally.

[Blue_Chill]

82. What are you talking about!?

The Green Ol Party currently holds majority in the House and Senate. :D

[chadm]

118. To be fair, there are greens in office

at least 178 of them:

http://www.feinstein.org/greenparty/electeds.html

[moondust]

94. Third parties don't stand a chance in the U.S.

The two-party system is deeply entrenched. Europe has lots of parties that win seats in gov't.--including the Greens.

[Brian Sweat]

102. The Reform Party was doing ok

Until Pat Buchcanan scuttled it.

[dragonquest8]

99. I dunno......because Green Party sucks?

[JackSwift]

119. You cannot take office without an effective campaign

And you cannot campaign without money. Expect $100,000 as a minimum congressional campaign that is contested.

No Green I know will part with money to save his or her own' mother's life because "if it was important a Democrat would find a way to fund it and it's bunk, but momma dying will enhance the contradictions".