Nathan Newman wrote:
>My guess is that such a Nader success will probably kill any potential
union
>support for the Greens or other third party efforts in a lot of areas.
-So is this why you're voting for McReynolds? Because a vote for Nader -might get noticed?
In a question about what I would do in a completely safe state like Connecticut, I noted that I would prefer to vote for McReynolds than Nader. I noted this was not a strategic vote but merely what I would do if I could self-indulgently vote for the best person without consequences.
I've said that voting "to get noticed" is a pretty sad approach to electoral politics. When I want to get noticed, there are far better ways, from writing to marching to getting arrested. Elections are the lowest form of performance art in politics, so I don't waste symbolic acts on it.
Since we are on unaswered questions, I've continually raised the issue of why leftists don't run serious candidates in Democratic primaries? If Nader had run in the primaries, he could have gotten serious progressive support and sent a far stronger message to the DLC.
-- Nathan Newman