When only one party in a two party system is even willing to represent your interests, that party can reasonably expect little backlash when they don’t follow through on campaign promises.
And that is why our Democracy is in the hands of the 1% now. "Lesser of two evils".
I have to disagree. Liberals in '00 and '16 who "voted their conscience" for Nader and Stein gave us GWB and Trump. It was idealism, not pragmatism, that gave us those GOP Presidents.
If you can't tell the difference between the GOP and the Democratic Party when it comes to policies driving inequality, that's a different tissue.
No, the liberals that voted for change didn't give us GOP Presidents. It's the cowardly partisan democrats that voted for more of the same corruption and lies that did that. Keep passing the buck though of it makes you feel better.
If you can't tell the difference between the GOP and the Democratic Party when it comes to policies driving inequality, that's a different tissue.
I know the difference between Presidents that drop bombs on innocent people and Presidents that don't. Do you?
Nader's votes in FL exceeded the margin by which GWB beat Gore. Stein's margins in the rust-belt states that flipped to Trump exceeded Trump's margins. The narrative that one shouldn't support the "establishment candidate" but instead "vote for change" pushed the election to the GOP candidate. Which is why I say that it was idealism, not pragmatism, than gave us those GOP presidents.
Before both elections I heard people saying "I have to vote my conscience... I just can't bring myself to vote for..." and then they were horrified at the outcome. In both cases, they took the outcome for granted, so didn't think they had to sully themselves by supporting the "establishment" candidate. Hence, GWB and Trump.
But hey, if someone thinks Stein was a better option, great. Vote for whoever moves you. But if those liberals who opted out had been a little less idealistic, we might not have Trump as President. For those who never were Democrats in the first place, that's a separate issue.
For the obvious retort that Clinton was a "horrible candidate," fine, take Trump and be happy that we dodged the bullet on HRC. Because if Clinton didn't win, Trump was going to, since no one else had a shot. At the end of the night, it was going to be Clinton or Trump. Idealists couldn't stomach Clinton, so I guess the other option was better in their eyes.
308,000 registered Democrats voted for Bush in Florida. About 24,000 voted for Nader.
Of the total votes Nader received in Florida, he drew equally from registered Democrats and Republicans. Aside from that, if you want to push the narrative that Nader cost Gore (the numbers show that he didn’t), it’s disingenous to ignore other third-party candidates that drew strongly from voters who would have otherwise voted for Bush.
The numbers show that your narrative is wrong. Your guesses and anecdotal evidence don’t fit. So stop it.
19
u/Manungal Dec 13 '17
When only one party in a two party system is even willing to represent your interests, that party can reasonably expect little backlash when they don’t follow through on campaign promises.