In a message dated 10/27/00 7:34:08 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> That is the way it looks to me, too.
>
> However, there are many states where it is too close to call. Those
> states contain more than enough electoral college votes to put Gore over
> the top if he were to win most of them.
>
> I think that many of the Nader advocates who say there is no difference
> between Gore and Bush are not paying attention. If Nader were not in the
> race and so a group of voters were forced to actually look closely at
> Gore and Bush, they would see that Gore is far preferable to Bush. In
> that case, I suspect that the figures quoted above about Bush's lead
> would be reversed, and we would be saying that Gore has a 3-4% lead.
I never said Gore is the same as Bush, I have said he's just as bad as Bush
in the issues that I see as important. Worse yet, Al Gore seems to also be a
compulsive liar. At least I really know where G W Bush stands, it seems
impossible to tell with Al Gore (especially with his VP record contradicting
some of what he says now). With Al Gore, I can't tell if his campaign
promises are genuine, or if he's just saying what he thinks the public wants
to hear. Personally, if there were no 3rd party candidates, I wouldn't vote
in the presidential election, and I would express my disgust with the
candidates.
As for Voting for Nader, again, unless you live in one of the battle ground
states (of which there are only 8 at last check) a vote for Nader is a vote
for Nader, it won't affect the outcome. And in the battlegound states, a
vote for Nader sends an even stronger message to the democrats. Maybe if the
democrats lose an election because of Nader, they will start to take those
issues much more seriously, and then I can finally support a major party.
Either way the election turns out, in the long run, a vote for Nader will
make a big difference, both in gaining support for the Green Party and for
gaining support for those issues Nader stands for. People need to stop
looking at just the next 4 years and start looking at the real long run.
Michael Harney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
