Should Gore run again in 2004?

That should be both Bush's obituary and Gore's campaign slogan:

'More vote Gore'.

More vote Gore.

I know who I'd rather have running the free world.

Clearly my vote for Nader was a Bush vote. This explains why Gore won California.

Needless to say, I am smiling. And I will buy up every Momus CD I can get my hands on.

That said, Adlai Stevenson was also extremely well-qualified to be President, and better qualified than his opponent -- against whom he lost twice.

Ned in meglomanical 'i am the electorate' psychosis shocker.

Gore was on my dick today. What prize do I deserve?

I may not like Chirac, but I'm bloody glad all those liberals voted for him in the French presidential this year, because their pragmatism kept out Le Pen.

Has the US ever had a porky prez?

Tad: you're OTM again.

I'll give ya one -- my dad. Admittedly he's actually more liberal than some with GOP leanings (pro-choice, very pro-environment), but generally speaking votes to the right, and voted for Perot in 1992. But he voted for Nader in 2000 -- his rationale was, "I listened to Bush, I listened to Gore. Both had some interesting things to say, but neither of them struck as the best for the job. Nader did." If both Tad and Momus would like to say my dad was some sort of tool that helped usher in BushCo, then from the bottom of my heart, get stuffed.

And the commitment, the necessary force behind supporting Nader, is necessarily that you don't mind splitting the liberal vote -- that you don't mind years and years and years of growing Republican electoral advantage for the sake of nurturing a far left.

Maybe you can claim that you just want to send a message to the Democratic party, something to draw them further left, and that you'll return to them as soon as this is done. (But the last campaigns tactics certainly didn't seem designed to do this, and result-wise it had the opposite effect: the Democratic party learned that it can, so far, at least carry the popular vote without the support of Green voters.)

So no, what you're really committing to is the building of a Green party. And the slow, growing success of one would necessarily imply a growing split of the left, and a growing dominance of the right. For many, many years.

Maybe some liberals are disappointed enough with the Democratic party to think of that as a worthwhile investment. I'm not. And even if I were, here's the problem: I don't think this country is going to be liberal enough for that anytime in the forseeable future, which makes the whole thing an exercise in delusional oligarchy.

While I can see why you read my post that way, that was not in fact my argument. I voted for Nader regardless of California being a safe state or not. I'm just a little ticked at the overall 'vote Nader = vote Bush' argument, which implies among other things that the president is voted directly through popular elections -- which is obviously not the case and never has been. Dan's take on it makes much more sense.

I have never been registered for a particular party. I never will. I do not think there is any particular party out there that encompasses my own particular mishmash of beliefs, so I somewhat resent the assumption I will 'return' to the Democrats when things improve. I also think the assumption that there is a monolithic right vs. a fractured left is a false one in that I do not think there is a monolithic right. I mentioned my dad's own particular slant on things for a reason (if this helps any in clearing the picture, he still thinks Nixon was a good president on balance if not a perfect human being).

I think that the political impulses of individual voters rely on broader and more involved considerations than all these various reductions are bringing into play, and even Momus' take on things with reference to what happened in France is overly simplistic (and, I should note, is also reflective of a different electoral process in general).

Colin's note on this is much more sound -- and more to the point, political processes change and evolve, and parties need not stand where they for what they are on a permanent basis. As Robin would be happy to point out, there is a dynamic in the UK around the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems that may yet mean a shift in what the two major parties turn out to be (and please note I say 'may,' not 'must'). Might not something happen in America again? The Federalist and Whig parties are long dead, and who knows what new options may appear?

I love ya, Nabisco, but people will choose to vote their conscience as they see fit. You and Tad and Momus may all disapprove, but surely you're not telling people how to vote, yes? I voted Nader and I have heard all the screams and cries of outrage since then, and I will NOT be moved -- no matter how aggreived the charges being slung around, this is NOT Germany 1933, for fuck's sake. We would do better to stop pretending it is and start considering what the problems really are -- and they are there and I don't like the current administration at all. That's precisely why I DIDN'T VOTE FOR THEM, and y'all can stop pretending I did otherwise, thank you very much.

As for Ralph Nader's scheme for building the Green Party, I think it's quite simplistic given that viable third parties are borne out of major crises which at the time we weren't even close to one.

This I do agree with. If the Democrats had convinced enough people that their platform was sound (again I bring up Arkansas and Tennessee), the Nader-drain wouldn't have mattered and the shadiness of the Florida vote wouldn't have mattered. Concentrate on preparing for the next battle rather than complaining about the outcome of the last one.

Yes, party positions change, and yes, the actual contending-parties change, which is how I was analyzing support for the Greens: in order to do it one has to assume that either (a) the Green party will in fact eventually eclipse the Democratic party as the contending player on what we conceive of as "the left," or at least (b) the Green party will demonstrate enough of a following that the traditional left-party -- the Democratic party -- will be forced to acknowledge and compete for that following that their stances will shift further in that direction.

My point was that either one of these outcomes require an eventual split of left-leaning voters, which in the meantime will give the Republican party an electoral advantage. (This is perfectly fine if you think it's worth it!) You've noted that the right is fractured in precisely the same way, and you're right: but you'll also note that with the exception of the Perot vote (which itself spread farther along the left-right continuum than Nader's), the right has been terrific about knowing how to manage that -- the unspoken agreement is that if the Christian Right keeps its mouth shut during elections and hands over its votes and its outreach power to the Republican candidate, they'll be rewarded afterward in judicial/cabinet appointments and sneak presidential orders (see: John Ashcroft; Bush II's first presidential order to symbolically de-fund overseas family planning efforts).

My point is not that people shouldn't have voted for Nader is they felt like it. I just ask that people think past the initial impulse -- "oooo, I agree with this guy, I should vote for him" -- and think about what it means in the long term. If people "voted their conscience" they would write their own names on every ballot that came along; on some level we have to balance that with some sort of realistic plan about the actual outcome. And I have yet to hear from a Nader supporter a realistic long-term explanation of what support for Nader is going to accomplish.

(Similarly what if a big chunk of the American left said "we are going to forfeit our votes and use the time we would have spent lever-pulling to grow a giant tree that will sprout food for everyone," and every year more and more people did it and the government got more and more right-wing and the tree grew for a while but -- well, Jesus, you better hope the tree really will grow up and sprout food for everyone in the end, or else a whole lot of misery has just been wasted on it.)

It meant I voted for the candidate whose policies I approved of the most. That may seem obvious and pedantic, but you're acting surprised that people might actually vote that way -- AND that they might not consider the potential consequences. I don't like your tree analogy because it equates voting with Nader with not voting at all, but more perhaps because it says there is no connection between 'hope' and realism. Indeed?

As an American citizen, I went to the voting booth, I stood in line, I was given my ballot, I entered the booth and there, in privacy, I voted. Apocalyptic voices on the left and right and from anywhere threatened all the consequences of making the wrong choice and obsessively dwelled upon those issues and ground those axes once again, just like they did almost a year later after 9/11. And yet I voted. In two years time I will do the same thing again. My preferred candidate, whoever it is, may win or may lose. We shall see, shan't we?

The fact of the matter is that there will always be problems, crises, wars, terrorism, etc. that will interfere with and prevent the sort of situation that would allow us to vote with completely clear consciences. Sept. 11 occured after the election, so blaming Naderites even slightly for the fact that we have a little boy as president is ludicrous and unfair. Why don't we bitch about those who actually voted for Bush? The fact that Bush was even seen as a plausible candidate is enough to make me vomit. To me, in this case, the specific policies of one candidate versus the other are not even as important as the fact that, with Bush (and before him Reagan), we are giving up on what I think is what the ideal should be, which is an accountable, Democratic version of the philosopher-king (me and the constitution are both against the idea of a king, but the president has become a figurehead, so lets have a smart one!), or at least someone who actually understands what is going on around him (and someday her... if Bush can be voted into office, anything is possible ;-)).

Gore campaigned badly, and he still won the popular vote. If we want to complain about something, lets discuss the Supreme Court, that supposed bastion of apoliticism and thoughtful consideration.

How do you think Gore have an edge over Bush in the popular vote? Gore knowing fully well he lacked charisma focused on his platform.

From the election 2000 we learned that just promoting a party's platform is insufficient when voters are mysteriously taken off the voter roll or voting machines are inoperable. These problems need to be taken into account when looking election 2000, which again reappear in the Democratic election.

This is not to say that the Democrats do not need to employ better campaign tactics it's just that statement above struck me as naive.

The hardcore party faithful (repubs and demos) act as if they're rooting for their hometown sports team. It seems no matter what policy their elected favorites choose it's always the right one. Bush has gotten his way on trade (erecting trade barriers) agriculture (increasing subsidies) and the budget (now in a deficit) that were the complete opposite of what the party supposedly stands for.

As the aforementioned poster mentioned, Gore was hawkish on Iraq but now that the opposing team has the ball he's playing defense. God only knows what Gore would've done if he'd been elected.

I've stopped voting altogether.

(In fact here in Illinois I'm considering voting for a Republican candidate in one race -- simply because I'm less worried about his policies than I am worried about having a Democrat with this one's connections in the position.)

Lawrence: Gore has not changed his position on Iraq in any substantial manner.

Nabisco, PLEASE. Are you looking at voting strictly in terms of power politics or do you think there is not even a slight smidgen of some sort of pride at being able to vote for who you want to -- or being able to vote at all? Is that fetishistic or is that looking over the horrible waste and destruction of thousands of years of human society and thinking, "My god...fucked as the world is right now, I'm far luckier than most"? Personally I pick the latter.

I'm asking the question: "what is the point, if not that?"
You're answering: "you don't get it, it's not that."

I'm saddened by the fact that I don't see that forthcoming. I see a lot of bitching about other candidates, and I see a lot of talk about how it's more satisfying to have voted that way, but I don't see any actual plan for what that vote was meant to accomplish.

If someone offered me a plan I might even agree with it! But does anyone have one? Did Nader, even? It didn't much seem like it.

seachanges happen: we're on the threshold of one now (not i suspect i pro-nader one) (or a pro-gore one, come to that)

Sigh. I think the reason why you don't see an explanation is because it's too obvious to explain. Nader/Green party supporters are voting for Nader/Green party, because they wanted to increase the chances of seeing Nader/Green party as president. Simple.

Nabisco, this is not a board game, where the show stops once the winner is decided, and one chunk of people can gloat, while the others sob.

Chances are (unless you happen to be hyper-paranoid about an imminent apocalypse) that this country will continue to survive longer than you. Shifting strategies and votes works if you're playing Settlers Of Catan or Magic: The Gathering, but they don't work well for you in reality.

If you look back in history, it wasn't always Democrats and Republicans. And it won't necessarily stay that way.. although if you're happy with the status quo, you're more than welcome to continue supporting it. But telling people to vote for the status quo instead of their convictions, because it might help the slightly more evil half of the status quo is fucking ridiculous.

I'm just as frustrated what your proposal is trying to accomplish as much you're frustrated with us.

Now, does anyone here opt for the first of the two options -- that they believe the Green party could over the long term grow to replace the Democratic party on the left, and that they support an effort to do so?

(And Mark, I am perfectly willing to accept the idea of a sea-change, even though I think it was more than apparent in 2000 that it wasn't brewing: but the question remains, what then? So long as the U.S. still has a two-party system without run-off voting, one still has to chose between the Greens influencing the major left party or replacing them.) (And either agenda has to be thought out and coordinated for it to work very well!)

(bah mark kind of beat me to the punch but there you go anyway)

Too much flak flying around in this discussion, between people who are really sympathetic to each other. At one level, I think both sides are right. Probably we all do: we all think 'voting with your conscience' is good, we all think 'pragmatism' is good. The voting question is which one of those wins out.

Or, whether the way to do the first turns out to be the second. In a way the 'pragmatic' vote *is* the principled one. I take that to be (part of) the logic of what nabisco is saying. Though I wouldn't be as vehement as him in attacking the alternative, I think he is basically on the dollar.

In general, I think that the reality of GWB has exceeded expectations - even those of a political pessimist like me. I knew we were in for something awful (and would have voted Gore), but the scale of the awfulness has been genuinely, repeatedly surprising. In that very changed (since 2000) environment, I am surprised that anyone on the left is *not* taking the pragmatic line. ie: I am one of those (doubtless there are many, and doubtless some in the US are tired of them already) who would imagine that the reality of GWB would have 'concentrated minds'. I know that some will reject this view [NB: I am inserting all these disclaimers because of the unhappy and divisive tone of much ilx political debate lately], but I'm glad to find nabisco on my side.

PS also / The Nipper and I argued Gore vs Nader in November 2000 and I'm still not sure he's changed his mind!! Blimey.

is there no possiblity of a third party edging the Democrats to a (maybe more suitably titled) centrist position without replacing them, or is the two-party system effectively written in stone? (this is a real question - nobody answered Colin upthread re: "is the two party system okay and why?" but maybe he and i are the only ones in the dark on this)

third parties which were pretty big but didn't, off top of same bodypart: the socialist party under debs, the progressive party w.roosevelt, the technocrats in the 30s, wallace in 1968

(haha the technocrats thought the world shd be run by engineers: they dressed all in grey and drove grey cars!!)

Ess Kay i beat you to your stupid question, also asked from a "don't mind me i only understand parliamentary elections" perspective. i promise i'm more stupid though.

i have sort of kooky and irrational reasons for voting for nader. they revolve mainly about creating maximum chaos. so electing someone who would very likely be killed off quickly is ace! i also believe that there is enough bureaucracy in place to keep a loose cannon president from wrecking things too badly - again, i am in favor of wrecking things to a certain extent. anti-big-business attitude is also very important to me. yes, economic depression of the US is o.k. with me! not that i'd buy that as a necessary result, but admit it's likely.

i get very frustrated with my opinions, i try not to think about them too often.

Kerry- How is being concerned about abortion and affirmative action are middle class issues. Many blacks regardless of class are concerned about the latter issue. What mobilize blacks in Florida during the year 2000 was the fact that Jeb Bush had ended affirmative action in college admissions. Many had figured that defeating G.W. Bush was one way getting back at Jeb since they couldn't vote him out that year.

Besides, the majority of the white working class had voted for Bush.

The arguement made by Naderites "low voter turnout resulted from the lack of choice" against Dems and Reps can also apply to the Greens especially the fact Nader's candidacy didn't put a dent in voter turnout.

Interesting thing to note for all of this: while it was assumed for a long time that non-voters were an underpriviledged underclass who would likely lean toward Democrats, polls keep indicating that non-voters have basically the same political beliefs as voters -- they just don't bother voting.

Mark: the one issue the Greens can try and turn into The Big Issue is, generally speaking, an economic justice thing, particularly internationally. The problem with this is that as of right now the bulk of American voters really don't care too much about that. Half of the reason the Green party bid bugged me is that I do care about it, and I think people who care about it should be trying to convince other people that it's important, not jumping straight to the presidential-campaign phase and demonstrating to the public at large that it's a fringe issue less than 5% of the country even feels strongly about.

I don't think that's true, at least it doesn't fit the statistical patterns outlined by Barbara Ehrenreich in Fear of Falling (it was a myth that an angry working class put Reagan in office - they supported Carter in large numbers.) Union members are pretty solidly Democrat in their affiliations. Where I come from, for example, the population is overwhelmingly employed in the steel industry and it's the only liberal region in the state of Indiana. Downstate Indiana is overwhelmingly Republican. And the working class is not just white people - I don't know why people automatically come up with this image of a white Joe Sixpack (probably in wife-beater and driving a truck with POW/MIA sticker) when they think "working-class".

I think the division is more urban / suburban / rural than working-class / middle-class or black / white. Urbanites are overwhelmingly Democrat - that would include people who work in industry, your blue-collar worker, while rural leans Republican (with surprising Democrat pockets) and the suburbanites tend to be Republicans, too. Unless abortion is at stake - then you see the centrist middle-class women coming out to vote Democrat. Apart from that issue, I get the impression that they couldn't care less.

OTM OTM OTM OTM OTM!

is so chris klein represents a certain type of democrat, unfit to govern, effortlessly popular, ineffective but posessing an almost childlike idealism; the lesbian is obv indepedent yes, meaningless 'revolution!!' rhetoric, inability to seriously maintain political responsibility, and ultimately, self disqualifying

If the 1996 presidential election marked the year of the soccer mom, then the 2000 campaign ought to usher in the year of Joe Sixpack, according to Ruy Teixeira and Joel Rogers. Or, at least an early-21st-century version of the white working stiff who was widely viewed as the key to success in American politics between the New Deal and 1980s. "It's next to impossible to cement a dominant electoral coalition without capturing the support of a good share of the forgotten majority"--i.e., the roughly 55 percent of the voting population that is white, earns a moderate income, has a low-rung white collar job or labors in the service industry, and lives in the suburbs. As Teixeira and Rogers admit, this is an incredibly diverse group of people. Yet, the authors claim, they also share common interests--mainly economic--that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans address. America's Forgotten Majority suggests that these folks played a central, if unappreciated, role in the elections of the 1990s, and it proposes some ways both parties might change their approaches to tap this hidden reservoir of votes.
Here the authors' own political biases become clear. "We need a new era of strong government--one in which government doesn't sit on the sidelines but makes a serious effort to solve the great national problems that divide Americans from one another," write Teixeira and Rogers. That sounds like the talk of Democrats disaffected by their party's Clinton-era moderations and, indeed, the authors essentially urge Democrats to revive their party's working-class roots.

I'm really, really sick of this notion that working-class people are reactionary. The decline of the unions has eliminated a key organizing base for the Democrats. Union membership is at 13.5% when at one time it was at something like 40%.

• The Dems should just nominate Martin Lawrence and call it a day