(no subject)

[lederhosen]

I will give Nader credit for getting one thing right: if the Democrats can't win in November, it will be their own fault and not Nader's.

That said, if neither of the possible parties deserve to win, I'd really rather it went to the less awful of the two.

Comments

[culfinriel.livejournal.com]

Boy does this sum up a lot of how I feel about things.

[nefaria.livejournal.com]

Third parties can indeed decide the winner when the election's very close, but if the election's very close, the two big parties are to blame for that.

I'm still not sure about Obama. Will he govern from the middle, the way he's campaigning, or pull a surprise once he makes it to the White House and turn into Hugo Chavez? We can't handle a radical socialist president during a recession when we're deep in debt.

He is going to win though. He has solid appeal to liberals, moderates, and even some conservatives. McCain has no appeal to liberals, slight appeal to moderates, and tepid approval from conservatives.

[mothwentbad.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. I think Nader might not fare as well as a Barack alternative. I think a lot of folks really think Obama is the better of the two choices, and that they can wait 4 years to make their point about the two-party system.

[mothwentbad.livejournal.com]

Er, I'm getting ahead of myself. Uh, I was describing a hypothetical Obama vs McCain contest. Ok.

[culfinriel.livejournal.com]

Somebody was pointing out, though, that white men, young people and independents tend to be very fickle about whom they vote for and/or bothering to vote. These groups have been going for Obama rather than Hillary within the Democratic primaries, but will they go for Obama rather than McCain in a national election?

[nefaria.livejournal.com]

Another angle to look at: the states that McCain won in the Republican primaries are the states that the Republicans won't win in the national election. He's got a lot of support in the states he won't get and less support in the winnable, conservative-leaning states. Maybe he'll pick up the conservative base and a decent slice of the moderates to make it competitive, but I think it's far more likely that there will be a low conservative Republican turnout this election cycle, which means guaranteed victory for Obama.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Third parties can indeed decide the winner when the election's very close

One reason why I'd really like to see the USA adopting preferential voting or something of that ilk. Unfortunately, it's not likely to happen any time soon, since neither of the two majors are likely to benefit from it.


We can't handle a radical socialist president during a recession when we're deep in debt.

Maybe not, but a tax-cutting conservative is just as capable of steering us into recession and debt...

[nefaria.livejournal.com]

Yeah, really hard to change the electoral system unless those currently in power think they'll benefit from it. I'd settle for a solid third party, but even that's looking highly unlikely.

> a tax-cutting conservative is just as capable of steering us into
> recession and debt...
The tax cuts weren't the problem, we've had record tax revenues under Bush. The problem is that spending has increased far faster than the tax revenue; Bush and Congress are spending like drunken sailors. I think Medicare alone (our health care plan for those 65+ years old) is costing us $32,000 per senior citizen per year, there's no way we can keep that up indefinitely. The Iraq war was another big budget item we didn't need to buy, as are the ever-growing list of pork project those in power bribe their constituents with to insure re-election.