On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, Seth Ackerman wrote:
> I have one. As election day draws nearer, I foresee a sharp increase
> in frantic, unprincipled party hackery and spinmaking by surrogates and
> coat-holders for each of our two political parties. I also predict that Al
> Gore will will the election. Nathan, would you like to bet?
> Nathan, what do you say? Would you put your money where your mouth
> is? Or maybe a case of Elephant Lager?
How about something with easy shipping, say the book or CD of the winners choice ordered through Amazon or any other more politically correct outlet (total value up to $25)?
Although you only get points for Gore winning. THe political hackery is a given.
> Since the above post contains some kind of subliminal message
> against voting for Nader, I'd like to highlight a point made by Dean Baker
> in a letter in this week's Nation. Dean reasons that Nader's chances of
> hurting Gore in any serious way are slim.
As I noted in my other post, Nader's vote totals won't hurt Gore (most likely). It is the campaign and the advocacy that their is no important difference between the two parties that will help W. To the extent that their issue differences are rhetorically diminished in peoples' minds, W will win since he is seen as more likeable. Gore's only chance to win is to polarize the issue differences between the parties, which Nader helps undermine by his campaign.
For those who support Nader to promote the idea that there is no real difference between the parties, that will be proof of the success of his campaign.
However, I saw a report today that makes it look like even Jimmy Hoffa Jr. is not buying that argument, since he has explicitly said he won't be endorsing Nader and it looks like he will be lining up with Gore. Unfortunately, most people on this list seem to have more respect for the opinions of unelected columnists from THE NATION than for the elected leaders of working class organizations on whether there are important class differences between the parties.
-- Nathan Newman