Green writes: "To understand why Hillary is particularly dangerous to the Republican Party, recall where the Democratic Party stood on the eve of Bill's 1992 run for the White House, poised for what would have been their sixth loss in seven presidential elections."
Will Hillary run in 2016? (photo: Mandel Ngan/AFP)
Hillary Clinton in 2016: Be Afraid, Republicans
05 February 13
Hillary Clinton's polling ahead of GOP challengers in Texas and Kentucky. And then there's the youth vote, minorities, women, and the white working class. She's the one to beat in 2016, writes Lloyd Green, former opposition research counsel to the George H.W. Bush campaign.
essage to the Republican Party: be afraid, be very afraid.
Hillary Clinton stands atop of the Democratic 2016 scrum, set to resume where Bill left off. A second Clinton candidacy would likely put the white vote in play and jeopardize the GOP's dominance in the Old Confederacy. Recent polls put Hillary ahead of possible Republican challengers in vote-rich Texas and in Kentucky, home of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Tea Party favorite Rand Paul.
Unlike her husband, Hillary is personally disciplined. Unlike Barack Obama, she has demonstrated an ability to connect with beer-track voters across the country.
To understand why Hillary is particularly dangerous to the Republican Party, recall where the Democratic Party stood on the eve of Bill's 1992 run for the White House, poised for what would have been their sixth loss in seven presidential elections.
The 1960s marked the exodus of blue-collar ethnics and Southerners from the Democratic Party. What was once the base of the FDR's New Deal coalition headed for the exits in the aftermath of inner-city rioting, violent protests, and rancorous demonstrations. White flight marked Richard Nixon's 1972 landslide victory over George McGovern. Nixon won 61 percent of the popular vote and two thirds of ballots casts by white voters. Not even Ronald Reagan equaled that margin. And in the South, the Democratic vote crumbled, as McGovern gleaned less than three in 10 voters there.
Roe v. Wade came next. The Supreme Court's 1973 decision recognized abortion as a constitutionally protected right and was a milestone for the women's movement. But in politics as in physics, actions generate reactions, and it also helped to forge an alliance between devout Catholics and evangelical Protestants. By the end of 1988, white Catholics had voted Republican in three consecutive presidential elections. The Democratic Party was no longer their natural home. For its part, the GOP was no longer the exclusive enclave of Thurston Howell III, the descendants of Union soldiers, or Northern rural Protestants. Instead, the Republican Party had morphed into a winning, albeit monochromatic, coalition.
Enter Bill Clinton. His candidacy and presidency reversed the Democrats' fortunes by playing to voters who had become dissatisfied with the Republican Party's overt piety and Southern-fried politics, but who were wary of the Democrats' sympathy for identity and grievance politics, foreign policy by McGovern-Carter, and disdain for market-based economics. Both Ice Storm suburbanites and Reagan Democrats were receptive to Bill's message.
Bill's attack on Sister Souljah and embrace of free trade signaled that he was breaking from Democratic orthodoxies. The numbers told the story.
In 1992 Bill Clinton came within 1 point of winning a plurality of white voters. He came within 3 points in 1996. No Democratic candidate has since come that close. Indeed, Barack Obama garnered less than two in five white votes against a hapless Mitt Romney. To top it off, Clinton also tied the Republicans in the South in 1996. There was stirring in Dixie.
At the electoral high end, the Ivy Leaguers of the 1960s had grown up and traded their beards, tattered jeans, and placards for Wall Street, Ralph Lauren suits, business cards, and a home in Larchmont. And so Clinton won an outright majority of voters with graduate degrees and kept the GOP to less than 60 percent among affluent voters. In fact, since 1992 grad-degree voters have gone Democratic in each subsequent presidential election.
Bill's successes served as the electoral predicate for Obama's victories and position Hillary to pick up where Obama ultimately leaves off. Obama won reelection by forging a New Deal 2.0 coalition in the industrial Midwest, while cementing a high-end low-end coalition in the South of college-educated whites and minorities.
Although Obama lost among non-college-graduate whites by 19 points nationwide, his deficit among that same demographic in the Great Lakes was only in the single digits. Significantly, Ohio and Pennsylvania held for Obama in 2012, two of the states which Obama lost to Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries.
And that is where the GOP's problem begins. In addition to benefiting from Obama's ascendant coalition of younger voters, minorities, and women, Hillary connects with the white working class and would likely improve upon Obama's showing among this bloc. Instead of the forced optics of Obama sitting down to a beer with the prof and the cop, voters would likely be treated to moments of a relaxed Hillary knocking back a boilermaker in Youngstown or Dearborn.
Clinton could make a serious play in the South and build upon existing margins in the Midwest. North Carolina, Georgia, Kentucky, and Texas would be in play. Indeed, Hillary could reclaim the newest bloc of swing voters: America's wealthy.
In 2008 voters with incomes north of $200,000 went Democratic, as did college graduates. Historically, that was huge. It marked the fact that the wealthy were no longer reflexively Republican. In 2012 wealthier Americans went Republican, but by a smaller margin than in 2004. In other words, high-end America is up for grabs, and Hillary appears better suited to take advantage of that fact than Obama was.
Four years is a long time. The economy is a slog, and the world remains a dangerous place. But at this early juncture, with the Republican Party in disarray and disfavor, Hillary looks like the one to beat.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
 23 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
|
23 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
 23 May 2013
|
 21 May 2013
|
 22 May 2013
|
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Propoganda -- early and often. If it weren't so sad, pitiful and pathetic, it would be comical.
To all those who choked down pride and bile and voted for Obama's re-election, this is the time to start -- early and often.
These brain-staining pushers of beltway babble and corporitist, Democratic-Part y hacks as solutions for anything, must be cahllanged.
Any real progressive must stand up, sooner than later, against these strategically retarded followers of everything Democratic-Part y, and publically disgrace and ridicule them verbally and in writing -- or whatever it takes to keep them from arrogantly and pompously regurgitating and/or selling the con of best or only choices.
To all the this-is-the-las t-time voters for Obama's re-election:
Stand up now and often, against the sophistic excuses and rationales for pursuing and accepting the lesser, even before lesser is the "only" option -- even when it's not really; stand early, often, and finally-truly against the certain onslaught of false choices. Or accept full and total responsibility for whatever failures lie ahead; for the inexorable slide toward more bad policies, unaccountable elites, and unrepresentativ e government -- with so-called Democrats/progr essives as the cause ... not the bad ol' Republicans.
Remember: Fool me once ... Fool me twice ... How does it go when it's every time?
Like Romney?
Is it intentional? Or do you lack the capacity to understand?
Try googling.
As to a Hillary Clinton candidacy, I backed her against Obama in 2008 and would certainly do so in 2016 against Andrew Cuomo.
By about 11pm to midnight, my -- anti-Hillary (for President) --comment had slowly worked up to 12 thumbs up. While the "I would vote for Hilary" comment was at much lower.
Yet, low and behold, in the wee hours of the morning, mine was down to +7 and the other up to +9. Go figure.
I guess it's true what is said: no rest for the wicked.
Here is why Hillary can't (and shouldn't) win - and why I'm no longer a Democrat, voting Green (Mpuntain Party in WV) until I die:
Trans Canada.
The Corporatism -Fascism- has to end, radically and soon.
Yeah, so maybe you should take a break.
The last few decades have proven that there is little difference between Democrats and Republicans on the issues of war and peace. On the primary issues of wars for empire, on "American Interests", on global interventionism , on the network of American bases worldwide, on the use of private contractors and mercenaries, on the maintenance of the largest military budgets in history, and even in the characterizatio n of military policy, the Democrats and Republicans have been nearly indistinguishab le from each other. If we put aside purely cosmetic issues such as who is the more "competent" in the prosecution of war or who treats veterans more fairly, the only real differences between the two parties appears as a preference for more war in Iraq versus more war in Afghanistan.
It's very simple: if you support Obama, Hilary and the Democrats -- even if reluctantly, even if you're just being all sophisticatedly super-savvy and blogosphericall y strategic about it, playing the "long game" or eleven-dimensio nal chess or what have you -- you are supporting the outright murder of innocent people who have never done anything against you or yours- just as it is for those who support Republicans.
You have walked into a house, battered down the bedroom door, put the barrel of a gun against the temple of a sleeping child, and pulled the trigger. That is what you are supporting, that is what you are complicit in, that is what you yourself are doing.
bmilusky - they call it reflection - how much were you paid to post this attack?
Haven't you learned that you will catch more flies with honey than you will with vinegar !
Insulting people is not the way to encourage them to see your point of view .
If a third party wants to be taken seriously they have to do the leg work that will make them viable candidates. They have to start at the local level and get a lot of face time so people will know all about them when they do run for president. The Greens haven't done that ,they always throw out a candidate late in the election year who most people have never heard about outside their state .
If you really think its wise for us to risk our votes on these unknown candidates then your simply not being realistic . Get your candidates elected locally ,then to the Senate and Congress then get them out there early on the campaign trail,"like right after an election," then you will see more people shifting to a third party. Your not going to do it with a candidate who has not paid their dues locally and in Congress or the Senate because they are not viable candidates ,they need to be in office so they have a record to stand on that the public can see ! Do that and you will see a shift !
It's you who needs to FIND AND VOTE for candidates that best reflects your views. Not just vote for the whom the Party insists is ELECTABLE. You know that third-Party candidates are there, and more or less what they represent. Google them and find their candidate. It's not rocket science.
Also, think about this, as you refer to (the myth of) wasting votes: Romney, Kerry, Gore, Dole, GHW Bush '92, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter '80, Ford, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace, Barry Goldwater, Nixon '60, Adlai Stevenson '56, Adlai Stevenson '52, Thomas Dewey '48 and Strom Thurmond, T. Dewey '44, Wendell Wilkie, Alf Landon, Hoover '32, Al Smith, John Davis and Robert La Follette, James Cox, Charles Hughes, Teddy Roosevelt '12, W.J. Bryan '08, Alton Parker, W.J. Bryan '00, etc.
Furthering your logic: THESE ARE ALL WASTED VOTES -- just as much as a Green or any other losing-Party vote is.
Add to that, that GW Bush is a twice sitting, never elected President, and still Gore and Kerry votes were wasted.
The end effect of actualizing the twisted, illogical, and failed scheme of voting for the lesser-of-two-e vils is a dual-corporatis t (fascist), faux-Democratic system. Yet, you who doesn't get it, are expressing and furthering ridiculous views, which in some cases "have logic to them," yet lack the completeness that true logic requires.
The phrase "'have logic to them' yet lack the completeness that true logic requires" is a superb example of highly advanced gibberish.
When you say, "casting a vote for a third-party candidate... is NOT the same as casting a vote for a Republican or Democratic candidate, one of whom WILL win the election. The former vote is wasted; the latter decides the election--one way or another."
You may not understand that you make no logical sense. But that makes no sense.
Let me explain it to you. But remember, while I can explain it TO you, I cannot understand it FOR you.
Elections are not decided one way or the other. They are decided one way. It is not the same as lottery balls falling randomly, with too many variables to calculate with any degree of certainty.
People make specific, decided choices; and while there are variables, such as turnout, and marketing -- electronic balloting without paper ballot as the official determiner -- etc., they are still decided choices by people who have complete control over their actions.
NOT RANDOM. Understand. People have the power to decide for themselves.
Also, while you may not understand something, it doesn't make it gibberish.
On the fabricated scheme and fraud against Democracy of voting for the lesser-of-two-e vils and not wasting votes. The verdict it in: Guilty of destroying representative government, undermining equal justice under the law, recreating a class system.
You need to lose the pompous arrogance and recognize the consequences of not voting for the candidate that best represents your views, regardless.
But you no longer have to worry about that, he's gone.
You are free at last.
Vote your conscience.
... I hope this helped.
And instead of voting "for whoever will possibly do the best job."
Try voting for someone who "will" do the job.
Also, you act like I was writing to you, rather that about you.
You are the strategically retarded follower of everything Democratic-Part y that needs to be publicly disgraced and ridiculed, verbally and in writing -- or whatever it takes to keep you from arrogantly and pompously regurgitating and/or selling the con of best or only choices.
And you seem to have missed the demonstrably responsive comments to what I wrote, which reveals the folly of one of your inane statements.
And when people make comments that I disagree with, I am not shushing them. I simply want the ridiculousness of that logic acknowledged and wiser courses pursued.
You have a lot of nerve, but little else.
Can anyone come up with any legislation originated by a right winger that stood with the bottom 90% against the top 10%?
As of today -- should you insist upon staying firmly within the Democratic Party -- Elizabeth Warren would make a much better choice.
I voted for Jill Stein (Green Party) in 2012. You may not have heard of her -- or it (the Green Party). But they both have been around for some time. You should look into her political views. You might find that she, and the Green Party, represent your political ideals. However, you'll really have to do that yourself; neither traditional media, nor progressive sites like this one will do it for you.
It makes one wonder about what the terms progressive, liberal, and Democrat really mean.
I mean, Democratic politicians who have spent years running from the term liberal, now embrace it -- at least now that Republican politicians are more blatently clownish.
But now they support wars, expanding military spending, secrecy, and the Patriot Act; the NDAA, diminished civil liberties, and persecution of whistle blowers; immunity for telecom-company crimes, immunity for banks and bankers; more oil drilling, fracking, and coal mining, which either devestate the environment or put it further at risk.
But I do digress, or did I.
Well... vote you go ahead and vote your conscience, or don't. It is certainly your right. And, it doesn't really matter, does it? Wow, a woman.
The part about Jill Stein "wonder[ing] why no one on either 'side of the aisle' genuflects in her presence," ridiculous.
And I do not have a problem with the (sometimes) slow and deliberative wheels of government. Sometimes -- as with the Patriot Act, bank bailouts, etc., it's best to get it right, than to just be quick about it.
I am against false deadlines and last minute secret legislation, as well.
Also, I wish that there was more honest deliberation and representation in Congress and the Presidency, which Jill Stein, and many others, would contribute, but who you'd dismiss right off.
If I were Green, I wouldn't sweat Hillary's appeal to white voters. I'd be far more worried that she doesn't need 'em! Nor does any other Democrat. I'd be worried that Obama won reelection in the face of poor economic conditions and vehement political opposition without drawing white votes away from the Republicans. I'd be worried that he won 264 electoral votes by margins of 5% and more, leaving the Republicans with zero breathing room in '16.
Hillary isn't nearly the problem to Republicans that they are to themselves. At least they can campaign against her.
Barry Obama is noted more for his ambition--and well-heeled financial community & media backing--than for any pretense of political principle.
And his sponsors have rendered him a powerless figurehead--a drone president.
Say it aint so Barry. Say it aint so.
While it's true that statements need be supported by facts -- when they exist, and are many times obvious, and are easily found yourself -- why is others' responsibility to clue in the willfully blind?
You are not seeking honest perspective, nor enlightenment. You are ignorant (of the obvious) and a perverse sophist who addresses no substance, yet engage in silly sarcasm while inanely asking for what is clear, as if it is not.
"Why do people keep picking on GW bush? His native language is Gibberish not English. Someday he will learn English but this is not the time.
Comment by Kal Palnicki - October 11, 2006 at 4:11 pm"
FO hypocrite.
"Why do people keep picking on GW bush? His native language is Gibberish not English. Someday he will learn English but this is not the time.
Comment by Kal Palnicki - October 11, 2006 at 4:11 pm"
Hypocrite.
Forgive my familiarity. I do business in DC, nowadays.
And I will forgive your naivete.
The President has much to fear from his friends in the intelligence community--espe cially those hyping the recent Boston amateur incident of 'terrorism.'
Gov. Patrick has done a solid job as Governor. He would be well-advised to stay put.
And you know this because????
Because of her actions, words, and affiliations.
You should really pay attention more. Why do you keep asking inane questions and expect others to fill in your obvious gaps?
It's not like the information isn't out there. Google it.
Clueing in the willfully blind and the ridiculously rigid or naive, while in the end may be important to ending the slide toward fascism, it's really not others' responsibility.
Do it your damn self.
...
Sometimes it's just words to the wise. And some are just not.
Yeah, except that when the Clintons were in the White House they were IN BED with the Republicans. Who Passed NAFTA? Who passed CAFTA ? Both of which sucked jobs out of this country like a hole in a fuselage at 33,000 ft ?
Who set up the financial collapse by REPEALING the Glass-Steagal act ?
And, what First Lady was seen attending fund raisers in the '90s on the arm of Republican notables such as then Speaker of The House Newt Gingrich ? You know.... the AUTHOR of the VERY REAL "vast right wing conspiracy" ?
Hillary is just as willing as was Bill to "suck up" to whomever has the power, ready to go wherever a favorable political wind would take them. It's just that Hillary was NEVER the political genius that her husband is, and therefore has more trouble "reading the winds".
The only real appeal to Hillary as a candidate, is that most people think they would have "two-for-one" Clinton leadership with Bill as "First Fellah". In which case Hillary would NOT be the first female president, she would be merely a member of the first "couples" Presidency.
And yet....and yet.......durin g Clinton's administration, the Unemployment Rate Was 4.2 Percent in 1999 -- the Lowest Since 1969....AND.... 20.4 Million New Jobs Created Under the Clinton-Gore Administration.
You are so correct, AND the Clinton Administration left the country with a BUDGET SURPLUS when they handed over the "Keys" ! YES.
Everything that you mention above is true, and was accomplished with not just a LITTLE help from the Dot Com Bubble that drove the economy at the time.
To point out the faults of a situation is NOT to pretend that the situation had no benefits. But we devolve into a simple cult of personality if we are unwilling to look at BOTH the good and the bad.
So many people today fall into that trap in re: Barack Obama.
Ignoring the facts on the ground just because "he's OUR Man" is nothing more than a vote on American Idol. Adolescent.
And voting for ANYONE based upon what they have between their legs rather than what they have between their ears is just as immature.
But for both of the Clintons we have a LONG "track record" to which we can refer, and it is not always flattering !
Like almost everyone else on the planet, I LOVE Bill Clinton. But I don't pretend that the man walks on water. They don't call him "Slick Willie" for nothing ! :)
Who would want more of that?
Since you've been asking so many questions of others, I'll ask you a couple in relation to your comment here. And take your time because it's for posterity.
On which issues do you disagree with the Green Party?
Where, ideologically, is Hillary better?
And please keep your answers in context to the questions. Don't get into "electability" or how she will work better with congress, etc.
Go ahead and feel free to show off a bit.
Crickets, crickets.
How will he answer to the Bible Belt for his (quite proper) defense of a Muslim appointee to the NJ bench? What will he say about climate change when the Jersey shore is barely cleaned up from Sandy, but the Koch brothers are listening to his every word? Will he stand mute in the days before the SC primary when Rand Paul pees on Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? No … and he won't do himself much good with primary voters.
I can't see Christie running a Romneyesque campaign of unalloyed lying and shameless etch-a-sketchin g, in which he disavows his own prior statements and beliefs 10 times a day in 5 different locations. But that's what it'll take, and all of Christie's likely opponents can do it with aplomb: Bush, Rubio, Ryan, Jindal and a bunch of Republican governors. Christie knew he couldn't beat Romney this year. He'll figure out that his chances are no better in '16.
So true !
With regard to throwing your vote away, how is it not throwing your vote away to vote for someone who will govern in a way frequently at odds to your values and vision and will not challenge the powers that threaten to impoverish this country and its citizens and that systematically destroys our civil liberties and mocks the Constitution?
We as voters have only one responsibility -- to vote for the candidate who most closely represents our values and vision.
Handicapping is best left to those who race horses. They don't know which will win, either. It is just this willingness to fall in line with the established authorities that perpetuates the dysfunctional duopoly that today represents BIG MONEY instead of We the people.
We need to prepare the candidates of the future by encouraging good people to run for local office. We need to quit being gulled into believing that elections are all about personalities. We need to make them about issues and hold the candidates we elect accountable for supporting those issues once they get into office.
We need to change "the system". We need to put in place policies that will realize the predictions of 40+ years ago; the increased productivity that we have seen should have produced a 20 hr work week and a median income of about $95K. But our employers stole that from us. We need to reinstate the "Great Compression" that gave us 25 years of increasing income equality. We need to revitalize the middle class and make it much larger while living much smarter and shrinking our environmental footprint.
We have very serious issues confronting us. It's about time we confronted them. Elections are important, all of them from city or town to county and state house. If we just get interested in the federal elections, we lose. If we just think about this election, local or otherwise, we lose.
If you don't get behind Jill Stein (or her equivalent), you're a fascist party operative - not a progressive or a liberal. Either that, or you are a coward, and you doom humanity. Stand up for what you love for the world's sake! As Roosevelt said "All we have to fear is fear itself." Sticking with the Democrats expresses your fear - if you're not a fascist.
That being said, I should have limited the statement to those that are promoting fascist enabler candidates. I goofed - probably because I was really ticked off by the article.
Unless Barry Obama drastically changes his pro-Wall Street profile the Democratic nomination will be the kiss of death in 2016.
The Democratic Party has a Wall Street problem.
I can see why Secy Clinton might want to decline the honor of the President's endorsement--th e President's insincerity aside.
Hillary's politics are really bad. She's even worse than Obama.
We don't know where the republicans will be. If they put up a team like Romney and Ryan, maybe anyone could beat them. But Hillary will fade into nothing over the next 4 years.
So, what if Bernie Sanders ran? Even if he did not win, would it change the discussion?
Who else?
NOW is the time to make sure that only true Progressives with an agenda of economic equality, a morality based military and foreign policy, a strong endorsement of the 4th amendment, and an end to corporate personhood; are on every ballot. If that happens Hillary (and Bill) will be even more anachronistic than they are already.
In the 4 years between then and now they will do no organizing for anything radical or 'progressive', but just organizing for 'getting the vote out' for basically all the wrong people once again. They will do their damned best to try to sell us that they are really all the greatest and utterly different than their Republican cohorts in the Big Business organized crowd. And once again they will be wrong.
Until we get tired enough of this false 'choice' and begin to oppose it, this country is spiraling downward good and fast. Your puerile votes for conforming centrists ARE the problem, as much even as the Republicans you think that you are opposing.
Will Clinton be up to running? and why are we talking this way less than a month after the current guy (who has a torturous four years ahead) was sworn in again?
I remember her performance regarding Libya, and it makes me feel more discouraged with the "new" Democrats, who are neoliberals more than anything else. That's no better than the neocons, although the latter are more "hungry" to try and provoke imperial wars
Neoliberals have gone along more and more with policies neocons support: Willing to cut social programs, fast-tracking NAFTA into existence, signing of the National Defense Authorization Act, a willing, borderline resemblance to the neocon's arm-chair warrior mentality.
Obama publicably supported progressive-lik e policies during his two electoral campaigns at first, but, after elected, took a reverse course on pehaps the most important issues where progressivism was needed. He almost continually buckled under to the party of no.
I get the feeling that with Repubs in power, things could get worse quickly; with the Dems in power, things could get worse more gradually. But, either way...
Dems willing to cut the very programs from New Deal policies-create d by Dems- is quite an irony. I wonder how far this is going to go. Will the Dems continue to give in to further cuts, e.g., in Social Security? The GOP would go along with that since their goal is to weaken/eliminat e social programs.
I did vote for Obama in 2012 to keep Romney out. But I'm seeing a continuing pattern where only a few Dems are worth supporting.
Also, many of my thumbs up or thumbs down have been registering the opposite. For example, on the very first post, nicetoblucky, my thumbs up changed it from a -9 to a -11. Several others did likewise although most were accurate. I was very careful to pay attention that I was hitting the right symbol.
It's you who needs to FIND AND VOTE for candidates that best reflects your views. Not just vote for the whom the Party insists is ELECTABLE. You know that third-Party candidates are there, and more or less what they represent. Google them and find their candidate. It's not rocket science.
Also, think about this, as you refer to (the myth of) wasting votes: Romney, Kerry, Gore, Dole, GHW Bush '92, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter '80, Ford, George McGovern, Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace, Barry Goldwater, Nixon '60, Adlai Stevenson '56, Adlai Stevenson '52, Thomas Dewey '48 and Strom Thurmond, T. Dewey '44, Wendell Wilkie, Alf Landon, Hoover '32, Al Smith, John Davis and Robert La Follette, James Cox, Charles Hughes, Teddy Roosevelt '12, W.J. Bryan '08, Alton Parker, W.J. Bryan '00, etc.
Furthering your logic: THESE ARE ALL WASTED VOTES -- just as much as a Green or any other losing-Party vote is.
Add to that, that GW Bush is a twice sitting, never elected President, and still Gore and Kerry votes were wasted.
The end effect of actualizing the twisted, illogical, and failed scheme of voting for the lesser-of-two-e vils is a dual-corporatis t (fascist), faux-Democratic system. Yet, you who doesn't get it, are expressing and furthering ridiculous views, which in some cases "have logic to them," yet lack the completeness that true logic requires.
RSS feed for comments to this post