Because SCOTUS decided that it was perfectly fair and valid to have the final vote on who got to he president come down to one of the peoplesā brother and there was absolutely nothing wrong about that
Also, many progressives stayed home or voted for the Green Party. Not that it is more the fault of progressives than SCOTUS, but blame aside, itās a cautionary tale.
That argument goes both ways. āNader would have won if progressives hadnāt handed the election to the Republicans by throwing their votes away on Gore.ā Same is true for 2016 with Bernie and Clinton.
It really doesnāt go both ways. The winning presidential candidate needs to get the most votes, and most US voters are not progressive. Theyāre moderate, or indifferent.
I donāt know how you could say that about HRC and Sanders. Thatās not even a hypothetical: they literally had a head to head match where, to my huge disappointment, HRC won. Protesting HRC helped elect Trump, and obviously that hasnāt been good for progressive interests or democracy.
You acknowledge progressives wonāt vote for moderates. But what makes you think moderates wonāt vote for progressives if they donāt have a choice?
Do you really believe the people who voted for Clinton wouldnāt have voted for Sanders in the general? If so, then shouldnāt the blame be on them too? If not, then can you admit youāre wrong?
Iāve read your comment a few times but Iām having a genuinely hard time parsing your point.
The person Iām responding to was saying that Nader could have won if progressives voted for him instead of Gore. I pointed out that presidential candidates need a broad coalition of voters to get enough votes, not just far left progressives.
You seem to be making a totally different argument. You claim that if Nader was the only choice, then Democratic leaning moderates would have voted for him.
I donāt mean to be rude, but what is the point of this thought experiment? Nader wasnāt the only choice. Moreover, US politics in 2000 was significantly less polarized: MANY Gore voters would have definitely voted for Bush, who campaigned under ācompassionate conservatismā and was seen as a moderate, over the farthest left candidate, Nader.
If Sanders had won the nomination, I think he would have kicked ass against Trump, but Sanders sadly lost. Iām trying to understand your last line: are you asking if I would blame HRC supporters for refusing to vote for Sanders in the general and allowing a fascist corrupt dictator in? Uh, yes. Obviously I would blame them. That precisely aligns with everything Iāve said.
Nah, they reiterated my point pretty well. You canāt claim that ācandidate āAā is the correct choice because of their broad appealā when they wind up losing the election. Obviously, they didnāt have the most appeal. The attitude that āI picked the right person and itās everyone elseās fault they didnāt winā is absurd. Anybody can make that argument about any candidate and be just as equally ācorrect.ā
Thatās not what you said in the comment I responded to. You claimed that Nader could have won if progressives had voted for him instead of Gore, but there arenāt enough progressive votes.
Voting in a FPTP two party system is a coordination game, one where it is mathematically impossible for third parties to win. Pretending otherwise is sadly delusional.
Itās like youāre trying to decide which building to buy as a group to start co-op housing. Almost everyone prefers building A, but you prefer building B. If you all donāt compromise, then there is not enough money and youāre all homeless. In a democracy, it is obviously more fair if you compromise than everyone else compromises. You either donāt believe in democracy, or youāre happy with things never getting better.
I said āthat argument goes both waysā meaning āmy candidate would have won if X, Y, and Z happenedā is always valid regardless of the candidate.
You canāt rewrite the past, so youāre inventing a hypothetical/fictional scenario based on your opinion. In a fictional scenario, anything is possible. Your argument was āif more people voted for Gore, he would have wonā and I countered with āif more people voted for Nader, he would have won.ā You canāt claim Gore was the best choice because the best choice is the one who wins the election.
In a democracy, it is obviously more fair if you compromise than everyone else compromises. You either donāt believe in democracy, or youāre happy with things never getting better.
What a joke. The āyouā here is the entire American public while āeveryone elseā is a small handful of wealthy, powerful individuals.
Can you explain how continuing to elect corporate Democrats makes things better? Are we better now than 10 years ago? Are we better than we were 20 years ago? Thereās obviously a quality of life trend here, and it hasnāt trended up in quite a long time. Youāll predictably place the blame solely on Republicans even though Democrats make up 50% of that equation. Republicans sure donāt seem to have the same issue passing their legislation. Why do you think that is?
Yes, progressives who stay at home for the general election do not understand US democracy. The US has a 2 party FPTP system, not proportional representation. Unlike multi-party parliamentary systems, we usually have to vote for a compromise, not our top choice. If you donāt vote, you donāt āsend a messageā, you simply forfeit your political power. If Republicans win, and keep winning, then thatās a signal for Democrats to shift right, to try to win back the median voter.
I hate the argumentative strategy of criticizing candidates for being political ālosersā. Rightwingers do that all the time. By that logic, progressives also had āloser candidatesā, since many fail in the primaries. I personally donāt think Sanders, for example, was a āloserā, even if he lost in the primary.
Yes, progressives who stay at home for the general election do not understand US democracy.
Or we do? āWe lose regardless. Letās stay home.ā
Iām getting really sick of this inversion of responsibility. Moderates dominate the primaries and elect someone who doesnāt resonate with the leftists and progressives but arenāt responsible for how that candidate does in the general? They control the outcome in the primaries but arenāt responsible for what happens in the general? That makes no sense.
As the majority moderates must take the lions share of the responsibility. Where is that happening?
We might as well skip all the pomp and circumstance and just assign the votes automatically based on party registration. Thatās how itās done currently with the added facade of having a āchoice.ā
The Overton window continues to shift to the right regardless of who wins elections because there are power people benefiting from it and itās incredibly easy to spread propaganda to the masses with tv/radio/internet.
What are you even talking about with your first paragraph? The result of elections arenāt predictable. In fact, theyāre less predictable than ever. And whatās with āchoiceā in quotes: are you an election truther? Thatās more of a right wing conspiracy.
Thatās a pathetic cowardly take on the Overton window. What even is your point? āLetās give up because nothing mattersā? Fuck that. Iām fighting.
Itās also empirically untrue: I donāt know how you havenāt noticed that the US is going through the biggest labor movement in a generation. In the last 3 years, Dems have passed one of the most progressive agendas in a generation.
Iām talking about the fact that we keep getting Clintonās and Bidens as our nominees because thatās what the party leadership wants. They choose who gets the backing, who gets the funding, who gets the airtime, and who gets to debate. The primaries are little more than a sham to give us the illusion of choice because this private organization already picked their winner. You claim elections are less predictable than ever, yet thereās a 100% chance itās going to be one of two people, either the D or R, whoās going to win, both backed by the same wealthy donors to do their bidding. Thatās the illusion of choice.
Your fighting, eh? Well, howās the fight coming? At what point do you consider the fight won? Do you envision some point in the future where Republicans no longer hold office and the country is some utopia of pure Democratic leadership? Good luck accomplishing that when, as I stated above, there are only two choice on the ballot and one of them is Republican. That kind of solidifies their place in government as theyāre the only alternative for people to vote for. That ensures weāll keep having people like Trump waiting in the wings and taking office every time a Clinton-like candidate runs against them. This also ensures that Democratic candidates donāt actually have to do jack shit for the country as theyāre going to get your vote anyway. This is why I stated that elections might as well be automatic based on party registration and why itās an illusion of choice. Youāre not fighting by voting D or R. Youāre just perpetuating the status quo.
Recounts only matter if youāre counting all the ballots instead of just the ballots you want you count because your brother happens to be one of the candidates. They invalidated a bunch of ballots that were hole-punched because the paper that was punched out didnāt completely tear away (see: āhanging chadā).
We could have had Al Gore instead of Bush if the Supreme Court didnāt toss Bush the crown becauseā¦ reasons
Because SCOTUS decided that it was perfectly fair and valid to have the final vote on who got to he president come down to one of the peoplesā brother and there was absolutely nothing wrong about that
If only we had AI Gore in the early 00s.
We should have! Republicans illegally stole that from us as well
Also, many progressives stayed home or voted for the Green Party. Not that it is more the fault of progressives than SCOTUS, but blame aside, itās a cautionary tale.
I wonder how the Nader voters feel.
That argument goes both ways. āNader would have won if progressives hadnāt handed the election to the Republicans by throwing their votes away on Gore.ā Same is true for 2016 with Bernie and Clinton.
It really doesnāt go both ways. The winning presidential candidate needs to get the most votes, and most US voters are not progressive. Theyāre moderate, or indifferent.
I donāt know how you could say that about HRC and Sanders. Thatās not even a hypothetical: they literally had a head to head match where, to my huge disappointment, HRC won. Protesting HRC helped elect Trump, and obviously that hasnāt been good for progressive interests or democracy.
Your argument makes no sense.
You acknowledge progressives wonāt vote for moderates. But what makes you think moderates wonāt vote for progressives if they donāt have a choice?
Do you really believe the people who voted for Clinton wouldnāt have voted for Sanders in the general? If so, then shouldnāt the blame be on them too? If not, then can you admit youāre wrong?
Iāve read your comment a few times but Iām having a genuinely hard time parsing your point.
The person Iām responding to was saying that Nader could have won if progressives voted for him instead of Gore. I pointed out that presidential candidates need a broad coalition of voters to get enough votes, not just far left progressives.
You seem to be making a totally different argument. You claim that if Nader was the only choice, then Democratic leaning moderates would have voted for him.
I donāt mean to be rude, but what is the point of this thought experiment? Nader wasnāt the only choice. Moreover, US politics in 2000 was significantly less polarized: MANY Gore voters would have definitely voted for Bush, who campaigned under ācompassionate conservatismā and was seen as a moderate, over the farthest left candidate, Nader.
If Sanders had won the nomination, I think he would have kicked ass against Trump, but Sanders sadly lost. Iām trying to understand your last line: are you asking if I would blame HRC supporters for refusing to vote for Sanders in the general and allowing a fascist corrupt dictator in? Uh, yes. Obviously I would blame them. That precisely aligns with everything Iāve said.
Nah, they reiterated my point pretty well. You canāt claim that ācandidate āAā is the correct choice because of their broad appealā when they wind up losing the election. Obviously, they didnāt have the most appeal. The attitude that āI picked the right person and itās everyone elseās fault they didnāt winā is absurd. Anybody can make that argument about any candidate and be just as equally ācorrect.ā
Thatās not what you said in the comment I responded to. You claimed that Nader could have won if progressives had voted for him instead of Gore, but there arenāt enough progressive votes.
Voting in a FPTP two party system is a coordination game, one where it is mathematically impossible for third parties to win. Pretending otherwise is sadly delusional.
Itās like youāre trying to decide which building to buy as a group to start co-op housing. Almost everyone prefers building A, but you prefer building B. If you all donāt compromise, then there is not enough money and youāre all homeless. In a democracy, it is obviously more fair if you compromise than everyone else compromises. You either donāt believe in democracy, or youāre happy with things never getting better.
I said āthat argument goes both waysā meaning āmy candidate would have won if X, Y, and Z happenedā is always valid regardless of the candidate.
You canāt rewrite the past, so youāre inventing a hypothetical/fictional scenario based on your opinion. In a fictional scenario, anything is possible. Your argument was āif more people voted for Gore, he would have wonā and I countered with āif more people voted for Nader, he would have won.ā You canāt claim Gore was the best choice because the best choice is the one who wins the election.
What a joke. The āyouā here is the entire American public while āeveryone elseā is a small handful of wealthy, powerful individuals.
Can you explain how continuing to elect corporate Democrats makes things better? Are we better now than 10 years ago? Are we better than we were 20 years ago? Thereās obviously a quality of life trend here, and it hasnāt trended up in quite a long time. Youāll predictably place the blame solely on Republicans even though Democrats make up 50% of that equation. Republicans sure donāt seem to have the same issue passing their legislation. Why do you think that is?
Iām missing the part where people are responsible for voting for a bad candidate in the DNC primaries.
Iām not sure what you mean.
Youāre shaming progressives for staying home, but you arenāt casting judgement at the people who voted for a loser candidate in the primaries.
Yes, progressives who stay at home for the general election do not understand US democracy. The US has a 2 party FPTP system, not proportional representation. Unlike multi-party parliamentary systems, we usually have to vote for a compromise, not our top choice. If you donāt vote, you donāt āsend a messageā, you simply forfeit your political power. If Republicans win, and keep winning, then thatās a signal for Democrats to shift right, to try to win back the median voter.
I hate the argumentative strategy of criticizing candidates for being political ālosersā. Rightwingers do that all the time. By that logic, progressives also had āloser candidatesā, since many fail in the primaries. I personally donāt think Sanders, for example, was a āloserā, even if he lost in the primary.
Or we do? āWe lose regardless. Letās stay home.ā
Iām getting really sick of this inversion of responsibility. Moderates dominate the primaries and elect someone who doesnāt resonate with the leftists and progressives but arenāt responsible for how that candidate does in the general? They control the outcome in the primaries but arenāt responsible for what happens in the general? That makes no sense.
As the majority moderates must take the lions share of the responsibility. Where is that happening?
right
We might as well skip all the pomp and circumstance and just assign the votes automatically based on party registration. Thatās how itās done currently with the added facade of having a āchoice.ā
The Overton window continues to shift to the right regardless of who wins elections because there are power people benefiting from it and itās incredibly easy to spread propaganda to the masses with tv/radio/internet.
What are you even talking about with your first paragraph? The result of elections arenāt predictable. In fact, theyāre less predictable than ever. And whatās with āchoiceā in quotes: are you an election truther? Thatās more of a right wing conspiracy.
Thatās a pathetic cowardly take on the Overton window. What even is your point? āLetās give up because nothing mattersā? Fuck that. Iām fighting.
Itās also empirically untrue: I donāt know how you havenāt noticed that the US is going through the biggest labor movement in a generation. In the last 3 years, Dems have passed one of the most progressive agendas in a generation.
Iām talking about the fact that we keep getting Clintonās and Bidens as our nominees because thatās what the party leadership wants. They choose who gets the backing, who gets the funding, who gets the airtime, and who gets to debate. The primaries are little more than a sham to give us the illusion of choice because this private organization already picked their winner. You claim elections are less predictable than ever, yet thereās a 100% chance itās going to be one of two people, either the D or R, whoās going to win, both backed by the same wealthy donors to do their bidding. Thatās the illusion of choice.
Your fighting, eh? Well, howās the fight coming? At what point do you consider the fight won? Do you envision some point in the future where Republicans no longer hold office and the country is some utopia of pure Democratic leadership? Good luck accomplishing that when, as I stated above, there are only two choice on the ballot and one of them is Republican. That kind of solidifies their place in government as theyāre the only alternative for people to vote for. That ensures weāll keep having people like Trump waiting in the wings and taking office every time a Clinton-like candidate runs against them. This also ensures that Democratic candidates donāt actually have to do jack shit for the country as theyāre going to get your vote anyway. This is why I stated that elections might as well be automatic based on party registration and why itās an illusion of choice. Youāre not fighting by voting D or R. Youāre just perpetuating the status quo.
im confused on this, didnt they do like three recounts??
Recounts only matter if youāre counting all the ballots instead of just the ballots you want you count because your brother happens to be one of the candidates. They invalidated a bunch of ballots that were hole-punched because the paper that was punched out didnāt completely tear away (see: āhanging chadā).
i dont understand? did bush have a governor brother in florida?
Yes Jeb Bush is his brother and was governor at the time.