Greens Consider Standing Behind Democrats in '04

Washington Post ^ | 05/27/03 | Brian Faler

[Im Your Huckleberry]

Just tells you how bad it is on their side, and how greedy they are to get back into power.

[Teacher317]

Yeah, THIS is what they need for mainstream America to see them as moderate.

Losing strategy #1457238 for the Dems' 2004 election season.

[Imal]

Greens Consider Standing Behind Reds in '04

Considering the Marxist fetor that has been viscously oozing from the Democrat leadership over the past several years, I am surprised that the Greens are actually considering joining forces with a party more extremist than they are.

[longtermmemmory]

I thought the Greens were running to qualify for federal matching monies. Nader with his showing qualified and now the greens get federal matching money. If they do not field a candidate they will loose the money. not smart.

[weegee]

Not just the Greens in Florida, there were all of those other socialists on the ballot there too. An indication why the Rats are trying to court the communist vote:

[weegee]

The real question is: Will the Greens be bullied by Democrat interlopers into not running a Presidential candidate?

The REAL real question is what will it take for the Rats to be able to buy off the Green Party leadership? In 2000 there were some who tried to offer a vote swap, get Greens to vote Rat in states in contention while Rats would volunteer to vote Green in safe Rat states (to help in giving the Greens the votes they needed to tty for matching funds next time).

There were some who alledged that Buchanan took a bullet for the GOP by running as the Reform Party candidate ("denying" them a "real" candidate).

[Common Tator]

Name three things the Republican party did for libertarians between elections

According to you there are none. I am glad to take your word for that fact. The Republican party does nothing for Libertarians because Libertarians and Republicans share no common ground. Certainly George Dubya Bush is not stupid enough to go after handful of the votes cast by Libertarians. (fewer than 400 thousand in 2000) when Republicans and Libertarians have nothing (not even three things) in common. It would cost tens of millions of other votes to get less than half a million Libertarians. No party that garners 50 plus million votes would adopt positions held by less than half a million voters.

You make my point which is Libertarian party membership is held by people who see no common ground with the Republican party. You obviously believe that Republicans have taken fewer than three positions which libertarians could support. You defy me to name 3. You obviously take the position that Republicans pass no legislation that Libertarians can support. You make my point. There is no way a Libertarian will ever vote for a Republican. You and most libertarians feel there are not even 3 things on which Republicans and you agree. That is why the Republican party should and does ignore the Libertarians. It is obvious that you and all Libertarians believe the Republicans and you hold no values in common.

That is what makes libertarians irrelevant. My point is Libertarians constantly claim they can effect the outcome of elections. They do not effect outcomes in any way. Libertarians will vote for the Libertarian candidate. If there is no Libertarian candidate they will not vote. or they will will split there votes. Some libertarians that do vote will use the no difference argument. They will spit their votes. Those few that do acknowlege a differnce will split their votes out of spite. In all three situations Libertarians have no effect on the outcome of elections.

That is why they have zero effect and are totally ignored. Libertarians have zero power. Nearly everyone in both major parties and the media are quite aware of that fact. You make that point very well.

[Common Tator]

That is not true. Ross Perot did not effect the outcome of either election in which he ran. A lot of research was done by both the Democratic party and the Republican party on the effect of Ross Perot. The research showed that if Perot had not run in 1992 or in 1996 the people that voted for him would have split their votes between Bush and Clinton. Clinton would still have won.

The proof is in the house seats. The house seats had been Gerrymanderd in the Repubicans favor after the 1990 election as all elections since 1994 prove. Yet a majority of the people who voted for Perot Voted for Democratic house members. You argue that these people would have voted for Bush for president in 1992 and at the same time voted for Democrats in the house. Anyone who thinks Dole had a chance against Clinton in 1996 believes Clinton was convicted and removed from office. It is just a pipe dream.

You state things as fact that are demonstratably untrue.

The same is true of 1912. Taft was an unpoplular president... even more unpopular than Bush Sr was in 1992. The Republican's had been in power for sixteen years. The public was ready for a change and Taft was not a likeable person. He was not an admired figure. There is zero evidence that Teddy Roosevelt cost Taft the election. William Howard Taft cost William Howard Taft the election.

Teddy Roosevelt was a very liberal politition. He had founded the first quasi judicial department of goverment. A Quasi Judicial department is one that can accuse judge and punish citiziens. It was the first leftist implementation of a federal government dictatorship where one could be accused, tried and punished by the same persons in a governemnt agency.

Teddy had garnered support because he was far more liberal than Taft. Had Teddy not run on the Bull Moose ticket his leftist supporters would have voted for Wilson. Wilson would have won. Teddy's Bull Moose attack on Taft was that Taft was way too conservative. Wilson made the same points. Teddy ran because he was certain the conservative Taft would be defeated by the liberal Wilson. He would have been... and in fact was.

You distort history to make a point that can not be justified by the facts or the issues in the campaigns.

[Defender2]

Socialists/Communists/Terrorists Enemy Supporters(Greens) supporting Socialists/Communists/Terrorists Enemy Supporters(DimmocommiecRATS), I'm shocked!!!!

[Ben Ficklin]

The Secretary and an Undersecretary at the Interior Dept are libertarians. The two top positions at INS were libertarians.

[trebb]

Like my Momma always said, "You can tell a person by the company he keeps."

[mabelkitty]

Not unless Dean runs Green....

snicker snicker

[Katya]

Obviously there is a core group of Libertarians who vote the party line....albeit a very small group. Commonly this happens because the state they are voting in is overwhelmingly favored by one party or another.
Your premise is weak, as most of us know many Libertarians who regularly vote for Republicans. You must be able to see how different the numbers are between people who call themselves Libertarians and actually vote the party line. The small percentage who actually cast a vote in a national election for the Libertarians is also dependant on whether other third party candidates are listed on the ballots. It's rather simplistic to make grand generalizations on why people vote for third party candidates. Look into your own party....particularly those who voted for Ross Perot in 92.

[=Intervention=]

Stop lying. Perot enabled Clinton to get elected. That decided outcomes. Also third parties have played spoiler roles throughout history. Yet you declare that third parties never have and never will made a difference. Again, stop lying.

[Common Tator]

You offer no proof. You only accuse me of lying. You use the typical Libertarian strategy... accuse.. but offer no proof or even supporting logic for your accusation.

I gave a few reasons that Perot did not elect Clinton. I will offer you one more.

It can not be refuted that 19 million people in 1992 were so disappointed with the performance of Bush Sr. that they voted for Perot. You then argue that if Perot had not been in the race they would NOT have been unhappy enough with Bush Sr.'s policies to either stay at home on election day or vote for Clinton. You are arguing that people who felt Bush had really screwed up the economy, would have voted for him to continue to screw it up for 4 more years. You are arguing that Clinton would not have gotten the votes of even 1/3 of the Perot supporters. The fact is exit polls showed Clinton would have gotten about half of the Perot vote.

Your belief is unreal. But it is a quite typical example of third party logic. Third party members just can't believe that they are irrelevant. They think they are spoilers ... but they are not.

[finnman69]

The DUmmies will never vote for Lieberman....they will vote for just about any other of the DNC wackos.

to them the DLC and the DNC is as bad as the RNC.

[only1percent]

The Greens will absolutely fall into line IF the Democrats actually give them something of value, like a seat or two in the House of Representatives. They would do this by selecting Districts with an overwhelming left-liberal majority, and by NOT nominating a Democratic candidate in those districts.

This is routinely done in Europe in places where there are three or more significant parties but a first-past-the-post or modified f-p-p electoral system, rather than proportional representation. In the UK, Labour has made these kind of arrangements with great success in the past two general elections, principally with the Liberal Democrats, but also (I believe) with Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party.

It would be a lot harder in the U.S., because, unlike in the U.K., the Democrats couldn't simply move the incumbent Democrat to another district (in the U.K., MPs don't have to live in their constituencies, and in many cases do not), and, also, the law in many states simply doesn't give the party the authority to leave its line blank -- any candidate who chooses to run in the primary is allowed to do so.

[AdamSelene235]

The research showed that if Perot had not run in 1992 or in 1996 the people that voted for him would have split their votes between Bush and Clinton.

I find it hard to believe Leftists would vote for a rabid Capitialist (sic)like Perot over Clinton.

Links to the studies?

[Common Tator]

for a rabid Capitialist (sic)like Perot

What capitalist is that? Perot made his fortune processing medicare claims for the government in contracts he, as a paid govenrment consultant, gave to his own company.

What part of Perot making billions off suckling at the govenment breast don't you understand? He and the Clinton's made their money the same way. They took it from the taxpayers.

[AdamSelene235]

What capitalist is that? Perot made his fortune processing medicare claims for the government in contracts he, as a paid govenrment consultant, gave to his own company. What part of Perot making billions off suckling at the govenment breast don't you understand? He and the Clinton's made their money the same way. They took it from the taxpayers.

That's why I wrote (sic). Free market capitalism doesn't really exist in America anymore. Housing,health care, energy, scientific research, agriculture, etc. are all essentially goverment controlled.