--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
>
>I would love for that to be the truth, but after what happened with
> >Clinton in office, I am not going to believe what Al Gore claims he
> >will do for the environment. I wish I could believe him. If I did
> >believe him, I would vote for him, but I don't, and won't.
Well, neither he, nor Clinton can do everything they want. Anything
proposed has to get through Congress. But, he supports the Kyoto treaty, and
has probably lost a couple of states for it. I'll repeat what I said
before, his environmental stand puts him on the edge of being electable.
His stand is not popular with many Americans.
>See what happens when you cut someones words mid sentence... I give >up. I
> NEVER SAID THAT A VOTE FOR NADER WOULD NOT AFFECT THE >OUTCOME. I SAID
>"As for Voting for Nader, again, *****UNLESS***** >you live in one of the
>battle ground states ... a vote for Nader is >a vote for Nader, it won't
>affect the outcome."
>
>Will people please STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH (OR TAKING THEM >OUT AS
>THE CASE MAY BE).
I have followed the elections for a month now, and I never ever saw that low
of an estimate for battleground states. Could you please provide the source
for your numbers, as I have provided mine? And no malice is intened in my
cutting of your words...its considered bad manners to keep everything in a
previous post. Could you please refrain from shouting?
>
>
> Well, the Democrats lost that election in a landslide. The Democrats >
>learned a hard lesson in nominating a standard bearer for the true
>believers > as their candidate. They ended up setting back liberalism
>instead of > promoting it.
> >
>
>Let me relate what happened in '92 Ross Perot gained a strong amount >of
>support, and since then BOTH the Democratic and Republican >parties shifted
>to the Right, not the Left as your model predicts.
Ross Perot was sorta orthogonal to both parties. He was not a Pat Bucannan
type or a libertarian. He had a mix of some of the stuff of the left and
some of the stuff on the right.
The move of the Democratic party to the right was in response to losing four
out of five elections by fairly big margines, and two to an
ultra-conservative. And you are suggesting moving to the left in response?
>Political parties go where the votes are, period.
And there are very few votes on the far left. Independants are about 25%,
and the upper limit for the Greens in the most Green states is about 10%. It
makes much more sense to go after the 25% than the 10%. Either way, the
Democrats will be stuck and the Republicans should get most of the Congress
and Senate and elect most of the Presidents if the Greens become a long term
player.
>If the democrats were stupid enough to move all the way right to
>try to get votes from the Republicans, then that would only result >in
>strenghtening the Green party, because support on the left for >Democrats
>would all but disappear in short measure,
OK. So the Greens go all the way up to 10%. That's about the top that I
figure. The real died in the wool leftists are small minority of the people.
You can see the dynamics in the tracking polls. As Gore promotes his
leftest credientials to counter Nader, Bush soars.
>and the only other option they would have is the Green Party.
Well, I'm left of center in the democratic party. I'm just about as far
left as anyone in my town. And I won't vote Green. I'd vote for Bush before
Nader.
>If Democrats want to hang themselves politically and destroy their >party,
>then I say let them, it will allow Greens to become the new >Left party in
>the bipartisan system, and with both the demos and >reps on the right,
>spliting that vote, the greens would have a chance at true victory.
>
>You see, I always have a perspective in the long term, the short >term
>means little. It may take 20 years (or more, or less), like >the hole in
>the ozone, but if the Democrats do that, mark my words, >it will happen,
>they will fall.
>
One of the advantages of being older is that you have personal memories of
this type of arguement. My socialist worker friends said almost the same
things about 25 years ago. They said, if the Democratic party does not go
to the left, then it will be replaced by a real leftist party. They expected
that the Socialist Worker Party, or some other leftist party would be the
majority party by 2000.
You certainly have the right and duty to vote as you see fit. I am just
arguing that the most probable short and long term result of a significant
percentage vote for the Green party is having a more rightest government.
Dan'm Traeki Ring of Crystallized Knowledge.
Known for calculating, but not known for shutting up
Dan'm Traeki Ring of Crystallized Knowledge.
Known for calculating, but not known for shutting up
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
