Amazon.com Widgets

« Obama The Socialist | Main | Bill Clinton Campaigns with Barack Obama »

Election 2008 Utah Edition

A couple of interesting tidbits from Utah one week out. The early voting is going gangbusters, over 147,000 as of yesterday.

A friend went to vote last night and had to wait in line for 1 1/2 hours, unbelievable. I don't know what it means, and there have been no recent polls in Utah measuring the presidential race, the last back in September had McCain up by 30 percent, not a surprise. ( Ah a new poll on the 25th of October MCain 56.4 Obama 32.4 Nader 1.6 Undecided 12.3) I think the final result will be much closer. I'll go out on a limb here and predict that the margin will be 10 percent or less.

There is a fellow at a nearby service station/convenience store who listens to right-wing radio non-stop. It's usually Sean Hannity when I stop by. Today my son asked him who he was voting for, expecting to hear John McCain, but instead listened to this right-winger say that he didn't like either of the two candidates and had already voted early for Ralph Nader.

Update

Major reasons he isn't voting for Obama:

  • Inexperience
  • The Reverend Wright
Major reasons he isn't voting for McCain:
  • Campaign framed in terms of why Obama is bad, not why John McCain is good. Doesn't like McCain's negative ads
  • Sarah Palin
  • Didn't like the way he treated Romney in the primary

I guess a vote for Nader is sometimes a vote for Obama.


 

Comments

Go Nader! Wouldn't it be nice to win somewhere?

Behind us voting in utah last tuesday was an old woman, lifelong republican who said the same thing. "I don't want either of 'em". That's the best answer you can hear in utah as a democrat.

I would like to think he mostly voted for Nader because he agrees with what Nader stands for more than what the other candidates are running on. I kind of loathe the idea that he voted for Nader because he didn't know there were other options (and I'm a Nader supporter - but others are running on other platforms that might suit his 'tastes' - Libertarians, even though I don't agree with most of their ideology, can be pretty effective in arguing their cause without sounding idiotic).

Sorry, too simple minded in the backwoods of [censored for security reasons] to find why Obama can't take one of Nader's platforms to run on - it would more than likely win my vote.

Clinton was no saint - I just didn't clutter his charisma to what his administration did. Bush just made it more obvious and easier to hate.

I was actually a Ron Paul supporter, and believe it or not, there are still quite a few of us. He came out and told everyone to vote 3rd party instead of McCain. The "spoiler" candidate stuff is just nonsense. 2 parties simply is not enough. I'm voting Nadar this year.

Oh irony of ironies; Ron Paul is going to cost John McCain this election.

viva le r3VOLution!

My wife, another Ron Paulian, is also hell-bent on Nader.

Speak of the devil:

"An Unreasonable Man"

Pt1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7584143836275846674

Pt2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2406939892013164876&hl=en

Thanks for the link on Nader, I still just do not get it. Sure I am impressed with Ralph Nader, but his approach at making change is not working. I think Dean and Obama's approach is more likely to make meaningful change, maybe not enough to eliminate the money and power issues that I have the most concern about, but at least we might get somewhere. I have always hoped that this campaign ( ie mccain/obama) might have made some difference on campaign finance, and eliminate the 527's get rid of any lobbyist entirely. Unfortunately this has not occurred like I hoped.

I still think Nader is running cause he is personally insulted by the democrats. His approach of running for president has not resulted in change of any kind, so could he not try something else? He may have something to say, but running as a third party candidate has not worked, not at all.

"I still think Nader is running cause he is personally insulted by the democrats"

At this point, I think you are right. Back in 2000? Gore was a lousy candidate. Kerry was a lousy candidate. The (D) Congress, to this very minute (IMO) has been an absolute embarrassment.

In many ways, Obama proves Nader is 100% right. Now that he's a lock, you'd better believe he's going to vote pro-FISA and pro-bailout. The 1% of us who care about these issues are irrelevant now- outnumbered 3:1 by people who have no idea that FISA courts even exist. Obama will go down as another Clinton; moderate, not progressive, especially in the 1st term (and yes, this dude is a 2-termer).

But let us save these points for Wednesday. I feel bad enough for supporting Obama as-is, I'll have plenty of time to cry and moan as he proves me right over the next 4 years. All I ask is for a few blissful days of self-delusion; to feel this "hope" everyone keeps telling me about.

Trust me: it will be a very short honeymoon.

The "spoiler" candidate stuff is just nonsense. 2 parties simply is not enough. I'm voting Nader this year.

No its not, if you want a third party do something to create one. Nader doesn't even get the Green party's endorsement anymore. Our best bet for a three party system is to divide the republicans in half.

K, is right about Nader, he is just pissed democrats don't invite him over for tea anymore.

Nader runs for president because it gives him a platform he wouldn't otherwise have to present issues he believes in passionately.

Nader runs for president because he believes it is the only way that gives him a platform he wouldn't otherwise have to present issues he believes in passionately.

There, fixed it for you.

I think despite his best efforts to be heard, Nader has no platform. And I'm tired of giving him points merely for trying and failing time and time again. Given the rigged electoral system and party dynamics, there is rarely a time when he would actually have an effective platform. I dislike this circumstance, but to believe that Nader has any sway, any platform, any impact is naive. The real question for Nader (and us as well) is what can we do to change that?

If Nader thinks outside the box, he may be able to increase his profile and be an effective spokesman outside of running doomed presidential candidacies with no media play. Think Gore after 2000. This is a more near-term strategy.

For the long term, we obviously have to find a way to relax the requirement that membership in one of the two major parties is effectively a prerequisite for public office.

Personally, I'd like to see some minor reforms that would have major impacts in loosening the stranglehold the dominant parties have. I think something along the lines of instant runoff voting would be a step in the right direction. Minor party support in the 1st choice category would surge, giving them more of a national platform, and people wouldn't feel like they were wasting their vote if they could pick the major part as their #2 option.

I'm a fan of Approval Voting but almost anything would be better than what we have, IRV is not a bad choice.

Approval voting is intriguing. But I'm not fully aware of its implications. I gather that it picks the person with the broadest appeal. When it differs from other types, what does it do? It would pick less polarizing people in a field with 2 partisans and one moderate? (moderate in the sense of temperament, not ideology)

Didn't like the way he treated Romney in the primary

The hell planet hath no fury like a Mormon service station owner scorned.

Just think ... if Barack had chosen Ralph Nader as his running mate ... they would collectively be called The Obama-Nader. Obaminator. Get it? Okay, I'm going to bed now.

We were also deprived of Obama-Strama

The trials and tribulations we suffer.

Mccain then would have then picked on last name too, Picking a different celebrity than Palin, and would have been the McCain-Pitt campaign. You would have endless headlines this week, "Another Republican climbs out of the McCain Pitt." The blogosphere would go crazy photoshopping the cover of "The Money Pit" with McCain's face.

Re voting, is IRV the same as STV? There is some movement for STV in British Columbia elections. My only issue with multi party systems is do they actually work best as effective government. I am pretty sure that STV or IRV gives the electorate more chance to choose folks they really support, but do these coalition governments work best?

Canada has multiparty parliament right now, and I am not convinced it is "best for the country". In fact it gives the most special interest party (the bloc quebecois, the separatist party) a huge power play. Also in Israel they seem to be always selling their souls to the far right religious parties to make a government. Is that what you really want? I really don't want proportional voting, STV might be OK, with proportional voting we could get a bunch of crazies.

Nader should do his own block buster movie, start a movement, stop running for pres.

Re voting, is IRV the same as STV? There is some movement for STV in British Columbia elections. My only issue with multi party systems is do they actually work best as effective government. I am pretty sure that STV or IRV gives the electorate more chance to choose folks they really support, but do these coalition governments work best?

Canada has multiparty parliament right now, and I am not convinced it is "best for the country". In fact it gives the most special interest party (the bloc quebecois, the separatist party) a huge power play. Also in Israel they seem to be always selling their souls to the far right religious parties to make a government. Is that what you really want? I really don't want proportional voting, STV might be OK, with proportional voting we could get a bunch of crazies.

Nader should do his own block buster movie, start a movement, stop running for pres.

Maybe Utah needs something like they're doing in Peru -- watch this.

I like k's riff. Consider Israel, Kadima only holds 29/120 seats, but is the ruling party. Shas (12) arguably has the most leverage both in terms of seats and ideology over Labor (19) and Kadima. Can we risk government shutdowns like 1995 if a minor coalition partner wants to switch sides? Howard Zinn had it right in his advice to Nader: stop running for president, lead a movement. The hard ideological work that needs to create change in government must occur in the population.

The two-party system is one of the reasons our government is so stable, and it's a good thing.

Best way to enact change is to work within one of the two parties to get your view(s) on the platform.

But I think there is also evidence that the Republican party has been strongly influenced by a voting block that draws heavily from the culturally conservative, the racists southerners, and the evangelicals. Were there more than two parties, I seriously doubt that the influence of those demographics would have been as robust as they continue to be. In fact, rather than acting as a conservative (little-c conservative) influence in slowing change, the two party system has actually served as a engine powering a rightist movement that may have well died out by now, but for its propagation into each successive generation on the back of the Republican party. Of course, the same may be said of the liberal movement initiated by FDR. If the liberals were concentrated into one of a number minority parties, I guess we would have seen the Dem monopoly of the legislature end well before 1994.

Another issue is: what significant, new, interest would be represented by a third party that isn't represented today? I can't see any (except bad movements like a Southern or a Christian Right party). That's why I think calls for a third-party movement are either authoritarian centrist movements we should be afraid of (remember how Ross Perot said he was going to go to Congress and "hold their hands" in order to get them to get along?), or they're ideological movements that seem larger than they really are because they're concentrated among very educated elite-types.

I'm talking about Greens/ far left and libertarians. These ideologies have no natural social base, are already repsented in the major parties, and they have very small support among the public. And yet we frequently hear suggestions that our democracy is broken because a strong Green or libertarian party does not exist alongside the other parties.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives