> And having run an incompetent campaign that failed on its most basic goals
> of getting matching funds AND screwing up pragmatic success of the Dem
> candidate, those progressive orgs should see a failed campaign as an
> "opportunity"?
Matching funds was never a basic goal; building a Green party was. The Greens don't have the infrastructure yet to handle those matching funds, frankly. And Nader didn't steal the election from Gore, who handily won the popular vote. No, Nathan, our lovely electoral college system, created by a bloodthirsty pack of white male slavers and land-robbers more than 200 years ago, achieved that particular miracle.
> And blaming everyone other than the folks running the Nader campaign is not
> going to cut it. At least Micah Sifry had some good analysis of some things
> that might have been done differently - a better use of matching funds
> through a later convention, more paid media in the last week or so, possibly
> avoiding swing states. His analysis may be wrong but at least he is trying.
It all depends on what they're being blamed for. Ralph isn't perfect, and didn't run a perfect campaign. But the reality is that no Presidential run, no matter how well engineered, can replace a third party. In parts of the country where the Greens have local organization, they pulled 4-5% of the vote, enough to win parliamentary representation in civilized countries, like those in the EU. I say hell yeah, let's build on that and start muscling our way into local and state elections. But you're still waiting for Kennedy's clone to step out of the shadows and save this pathologically violent, brutal, and thoroughly detestable 18th century banana republic from itself. Better pull up a chair, because it's going to be a loooooong wait.
-- Dennis