"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."
"But there is no excuse for the fact that they are not taking personal responsibility for the outcome of their actions..."
It might be fair to say that voters who voted for a "nader" or a "perot" were indeed taking personal responsibility by voting against the major-party candidate whom they believed to be the "Greater-of-Two-Evils." Perhaps in their way of thinking, even bush in the WH would be better than clinton. It would be a mistake to generalize everyone who leans toward the left as a complete liberal, this is not the case. The same holds true for those who lean toward the right but cannot be labeled conservative. In the "Greater of two evils" decision making process it stands to reason that a significant percentage (20%?) of the voting public might prefer any administration to a bush administration
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.
Correct, the impact was not the "fault" of anyone. However the impact of the third party/no party voters was certainly felt and the "credit" belongs to those voters who rejected the major parties.
I'm still puzzled by the folks refuse to name any names in a Hillary or Obama administration.
Just to be fair, It is purely speculation as to who might be appointed by any of the candidates at this point. It is also fair to say that that the people who are willing to serve a hillary administration may not be the same people who would be put forth by a barak administration. Likewise for any of the 10 or so gop candidates. I agree that the character of an administration is heavily influenced by the politicians selected to serve at the pleasure of the president, however, often the positions go to those friendly to the candidate rather than to the best person for the job. (from a politically cynical perspective, we might consider that some or all of the appointees are selected based on their "controllability")
"I have suggested that it would be helpful to evaluate your *conclusion* by reviewing the types of individuals each of the parties would produce to serve in the respective administrations. "
Types? political opportunists, every one, selected to carry water for the administration.
"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. "
Are there any statistics to support this assertion? Or is this just your opinion? I know a number of folks who fall into this category who honestly thought perot was the best candidate. You are also discounting the "independent voters" who probably would have voted for republicans but chose perot instead.
IMHO, both bush and dole were uninspiring leaders as elected officials and as presidential candidates. Both were big government elitists who answered not to WE THE PEOPLE but to their own agenda, and yes, both were poor candidates.
As for hedonic adaptation........ I don't believe in this theory.
There is one thing I DO believe.........if bush is successful in pushing through his amnesty agenda (which will be easier with a democrat controlled congress), it won't matter who the republicans run for president, the gop candidate will be soundly defeated, we're talking 20 points. Check out the last Ohio election results if you find it difficult to believe.
"That dog doesn't hunt." - who do you think you are, John Cooper?
>>>Are there any statistics to support this assertion? Or is this just your opinion? I know a number of folks who fall into this category who honestly thought perot was the best candidate. You are also discounting the "independent voters" who probably would have voted for republicans but chose perot instead.
Isn't this too cute by half?
Yes, the people who voted for Perot no doubt thought he was the best candidate. Why?
Oh, because of taxes, NAFTA, and so on . . . because Perot was pitching a line that was more conservative on those issues.
Meaning that George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole were viewed as not offering positions that were as attuned to conservatives' as Perot. I guess another way to say that is that they weren't "conservative enough"?
Same with Nader and Gore on the liberal scale.
The fact remains that voting third party is nothing but a spoiler mission set upon by those who are somehow disgruntled with the candidate of the major political party they usually otherwise align with (Independents or whatever).
Surely very few Perot or Nader voters could have thought they actually had a chance of winning. No, they thought they would "send a message," "teach a lesson," "make them pay"---which, although quite sincere and seemingly thoughtful at the time, turns out to sound awfully like a high school clique war.
Does it matter to the result visited upon the nation WHY people voted for Perot or Nader? Do you dispute that a failure to vote for the Republican candidate directly facilitates the election of the Rat candidate, and vice versa?