Yeah, I do.
They’re making excuses.
If they had a better candidate, that candidate would have won regardless.
FWIW
I hold the same position as it applies to the perot candidacy in ‘92 and ‘96.
In both cases the winner was pathetically weak yet stronger than his 2 opponents.
Of course I realize that this is just one way of looking at it. For the exact same reasons, the argument can be made that the presence of a third candidate produced a winner that otherwise would not have been.
If there is any common ground we can occupy, it might be that without regard for who the candidates are, the core loyal partisans represent between 35% and 40% on each side.
The 20% to 30% who do not vote based on party are the deciders.......................
If they had a better candidate, that candidate would have won regardless.
It seems to me that your focus in on who wins and loses the election.
I think we should be looking at the impact of the outcome of the election on the country.
If the Rats did not think Bush was best for the country, and they did not want to take the chance that a Republican administration would in fact respond to any act of war with a pro-national security response, they should have held their nose and voted for Al Gore.
Same with the Republicans who voted for Perot.
Yes, excuses are being made for the fact that some people would not vote for the viable candidate of the party that most represented their views.
But there is no excuse for the fact that they are not taking personal responsibility for the outcome of their actions---that those who voted for Nader directly helped the election of Bush, and everything they hated about Bush's party befell the nation, and those who voted for Perot directly helped the election of Clinton, and everything they hated about Clinton's party befell the nation.
So what do we disagree on? I guess you are willing to say the impact of the third-party vote was not the "fault" of the third party voters.
I am not so sanguine. I believe each person is responsible for the outcome of the election. No one puts a gun to one's head and makes them vote for a candidate who will throw the election to the other guy. That's a purely volitional act, regardless it may involve a Hobson's choice.
Please see post 156.
Please. Al Gore was (and to a large extent still is) the Rat dream candidate. Sure, we on the right thought he was holding too much Clinton baggage, and we found his wooden-ness hysterical, but those things didn't bother the Rats at all.
The Rats who voted for Nader, and thus helped to throw the election to Bush, did so for one reason: Al Gore was not liberal enough.
(Remember Al Gore had even gone so far as to kinda, sorta, in a round-about way say Bill had been, well, rather naughty.)
Sound familiar?
Yep. The Republicans who voted for Perot, or who refused to vote in 1992 and 1996, and thus helped to throw the election to the Sinkmeister, did so largely for one reason: George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole were not conservative enough.
In fact, you'll still find people around here yammering about what "bad" candidates George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole were---as if eight years of the Clintons was no context at all. Indeed, as if the Clintons never happened to the country.
I see this as nothing but a manifestation of the political version of hedonic adaptation.