Nathan Newman wrote:
>Who said "own". What silly rhetoric, but then rhetoric is the left's
>substitute for strategy. And it's bad strategy to piss on voters you want
>to have vote for your candidate. I stated the fact that Nader's strategy
of
>campaigning in swing states failed to gain substantial votes in those
>states, while alienating voters in safe states. It was bad strategy. It
>has nothing to do with anyone "owning" anyone.
-Well, if not "own," then what -- owed? You talk of bad strategy and of -pissing on votes, but I'm not sure what Nader should have done to reassure -nervous Gore voters. Lie about Gore's record? Not run in "swing states"? -Why? You say my "rhetoric" is "silly," but your "logic" keeps boiling down -to Nader helping Gore win the election. Again, why is that his concern?
Why is not helping Bush beat Gore a concern of Nader? Because it is a concern of so many potential Nader voters. Here you get the core of the what is wrong with the Green strategy. They violate the basic rule of representative democracy, which is you only can win when you take seriously the concerns of your constituency. But instead, Nader and the Greens went out of their way to alienate large chunks of their potential constituency and, like you, continually dismiss those concerns.
Given the fact that Nader chose to focus only on the views and concerns of one tiny slice of his potential supporters - ie. those who didn't care if Bush won - it is hardly surprising that his vote collapsed largely down to just that constituency, while losing those who did care.
For all people talk about Gore alienating his base, Nader alienated large parts of his base even more decisively.
As I said, it was bad strategy. You may take comfort in all the progressive attacks on Nader, but taking comfort in alienating existing or potential supporters of your candidate shows a complete lack of seriousness in political strategy.
-- Nathan Newman