Marijuana.com

**SpiralArchitect** · 12-20-2007, 10:06 PM

Ron Paul made it onto MSN's 11 most influential people of the year. Looks like heads are really starting to turn.

Ron Paul on MSN's 11 most influential people of 2007

I feel like a dolt, the other day there was a Ron Paul meeting downtown but for some reason I totally spaced it until it was like an hour too late, luckily there will be another one in town in a few weeks, a campaigning officer will be in town and I'm hoping to get a few interested friends to come along.

Viper420 · 12-21-2007, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lit_Match

Ron Paul has my vote regardless whether or not he get the nomination. I register independent for the sole reason that I can vote for who I believe has this country's best interests in heart, doesn't matter to me what political party that belong to.

If he doesn't get the nomination I'll be writing him in, so will the majority of Ron Paul supporters. I won't help make this country worse than it is by voting for the lesser of two evils.

Would the country have been better off with Al Gore instead of GW? Those people who voted for Ralph Nader thought like you when they voted for the Green Party candidate in Florida in 2000. Did they get a president that cared about Green Party issues?

***Plainsman1963*** · 12-21-2007, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viper420

Would the country have been better off with Al Gore instead of GW? Those people who voted for Ralph Nader thought like you when they voted for the Green Party candidate in Florida in 2000. Did they get a president that cared about Green Party issues?

Are you trotting out that same old tired chestnut of "Nader cost Gore the election"?

Quote:

A STUDY by the Progressive Review of national and Florida polls during the 2000 election indicates that Ralph Nader's influence on the final results was minimal to non-existent.

The Review tested the widely held Democratic assumption that Nader caused Gore's loss by checking changes in poll results. Presumably, if Nader was actually responsible for Gore's troubles, his tallies would change inversely to those of Gore: if Gore did better, Nader would do worse and vice versa.

In fact, the only time any correlation could be found was when the changes were so small - 1 or 2 percentage points - that they were statistically insignificant. On the other hand when, in September of 2000, Gore's average poll result went up 7.5 points over August, Nader's only declined by 1 point. Similarly, in November, Gore's average poll tally declined 5.7 points but Nader's only went up 0.8 points.

In the close Florida race, there were similar results: statistically insignificant correlation when the Gore tally changed by only one or two points, but dramatic non-correlation when the change was bigger. For example, in nine successive surveys in which Nader pulled only 2 or 3 points, Gore's total varied by 7 points. As late as two weeks before the election, Gore was ahead by as much as 7-10 points.

Nationally, the Review's five poll moving average showed Gore steadily hacking away at Bush's 15 point lead until he was ahead by as much six points in September. But this lead rapidly disappeared until Bush was back in a narrow lead by early October. While Gore eventually won the popular vote, the election was so close that most polls projections were still within the standard margin of error.

During almost all of 2000, Bush led Gore with the major acception of a month-long period following the Democratic convention. During this high point for Gore, Nader was pulling a running average of 2-4% in the polls. While it is true that during October, Nader began pulling a running average of 6% at a time when Gore was fading, Gore continued to lose ground even as Nader's support dropped to its final 3%. In other words, despite the help of defectors from Nader, Gore did worse.

Further, as Michael Eisencher reported in Z Magazine, 20% of all Democratic voters, 12% of all self- identified liberal voters, 39% of all women voters, 44% of all seniors, one-third of all voters earning under $20,000 per year and 42% of those earning $20-30,000 annually, and 31% of all voting union members cast their ballots for Bush.

(Interestingly, the same critics who blame Nader for Gore's loss fail to give him credit for narrow Democratic victories in the Senate, such as the one in Washington state.)

Since the mythology of the 2000 election shows no signs of fading, a few other points are worth noting:

- According to exit polling, those who voted for Nader were disproportionately under 30, independent, first time voters, formerly Perot voters, and of no organized religion. In other words, many of his voters did not naturally belong to the Democratic party. In fact, half as many Republicans as Democrats voted for Nader. Six percent of independents and 7% of Perot voters supported Nader while only 2% of Democrats did.

- The public had a cynical view of both major candidates with 41% believing that both would say anything to win votes. Barely half considered either major candidate honest and trustworthy. And an astounding 51% had reservations about their own vote.

- Gore even lost his home state of Tennessee. This is like flunking a political breathalizer test.

- Perhaps the most important, but seldom mentioned, factor in the outcome was the impact of the Clinton scandals. 68% of voters thought Clinton would go down in history more for his scandals than for his leadership. 44% said that the scandals were somewhat to very important and 57% thought the country to be on the wrong moral track.

- In short, the individual who did the most harm to Gore (aside from himself) was Bill Clinton. If Gore had distanced himself from the Clinton moral miasma he would probably be president today.

- Clinton hurt in other ways, most notably in the damage his administration did to other Democratic officeholders, again something Democrats don't want to face. During the Clinton administration, Democrats lost over 1,200 state legislative seats. Further, the Democrats lost control of 9 legislatures and for the first time since 1954 the GOP controlled more state legislatures than the Democrats. In addition, the GOP won almost more than 40 seats in the House, 8 in the Senate, 11 governorships and 439 Democratic officeholders switched to the Democratic Party. Only three Republicans went the other way. In short, the Clinton administration was a disaster for the Democrats.

But even if Nader only took one percentage point away from Gore - the most that can possibly be claimed - some will say that the Greens should have known better than to take that risk. In a way, it comes down to a debate between Democratic situationists - I am what the polls tell me I ought to be - and Green existentialists - I am what I am regardless of the polls. The danger with the Green existentialist approach is that you may end up with a Bush (or a Clinton, for that matter) in the White House. The danger with the Democratic situationist approach is that you definitely will. In one case, you give up on democracy in favor of a 800-pound-gorillacracy; in the other case you still retain some hope that things can get better.

Ironically, if Nader had done much better - say 10 or 15 points - we would all be in better shape since politics tends to follow third party uprisings when they are powerful enough. In the most recent case, for example, both the GOP and Democratic parties still remain in the shadow of the Perot paradigm. But because Nader didn't do all that well, the Democrats can muddle along pretending that it wasn't their fault after all but some guy they wouldn't even let into the debate.

Democrats tend to think of Greens as wayward members of their party, which is why they try to browbeat them rather than convincing them. In fact, the Greens have less and less in common with the Democratic Party - especially since the latter refuses to stand up against the Bush war, greedy globalization, and the disintegration of constitutional government.

There are fortunately exceptions - Cynthia McKinney, Barbara Lee, and Chellie Pingree (who is running for the Senate in Maine) among them. If Paul Wellstone, for example, had followed the sensible model of these women he'd be more comfortable today.

But too many Democrats presume they can either ignore the Greens or hector them back into their pointless, spiritless, and morally dead confines. It won't work for the simple reason that, unlike the Democratic Party, Greens actually believe in something. And when you believe in something, you are willing to take a few risks along the way. - SAM SMITH

WHY NADER WASN'T TO BLAME IN 2000

KEVIN ZEESE, LETTER TO WASH POST - George Will repeats the liberal myth that Ralph Nader -- rather than George W. Bush -- cost Al Gore the 2000 election. The facts show otherwise:

o Sixty-two percent of Nader's voters were Republicans, independents, third-party voters and nonvoters.

o Had Nader not run, Bush would have won by more in Florida. CNN's exit poll showed Bush at 49 percent and Gore at 47 percent, with 2 percent not voting in a hypothetical Nader-less Florida race.

o Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, Bill Clinton's Arkansas and traditionally Democratic West Virginia; with any one of these, Gore would have won.

o Nine million Democrats voted for Bush, and less than half of the 3 million Nader voters were Democrats.

o Ninety thousand African Americans were illegally and intentionally stricken from the voter rolls in Florida under the guise of felon disenfranchisement.

o The 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision stopped the vote counting that favored a Gore victory.

The Democrats lost the 2002 congressional elections, the California and New York governorships, and many state legislatures throughout the country. Surely Nader is not to blame for those defeats.

POLL ANALYSIS: NADER NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR GORE'S LOSS by Sam Smith

Viper420 · 12-21-2007, 03:10 PM

The numbers went down this way....98000 people voted for Nader in Florida in 2000. Nader was an extreme left wing candidate so, odds are that he didn't pull any votes away from GW. So lets say only a third of those votes went to Gore and all the others stayed home. Gore wins. Third party candidates are nothing more than spoilers that help those major party candidates that are opposite the views expressed by the spoiler. We live in a 2 party system. Don't be naive and think a third party will ever have a chance to win. Just look at the Reform Party. It imploded when Jesse Ventura walked out and formed his own "Reform" party.

***Plainsman1963*** · 12-21-2007, 05:44 PM

Yep, the 9 million democrats (3 times the amount that voted for Nader) that voted for Bush had nothing to do with it.

Quote:

Nader was an extreme left wing candidate so, odds are that he didn't pull any votes away from GW.

Sixty-two percent of Nader's voters were Republicans, independents, third-party voters and nonvoters.

Viper420 · 12-21-2007, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Plainsman1963

Yep, the 9 million democrats (3 times the amount that voted for Nader) that voted for Bush had nothing to do with it.

Sixty-two percent of Nader's voters were Republicans, independents, third-party voters and nonvoters.

I don't, for a minute, believe that any of the people who voted for Nader was a "true" Republican. The Green Party was left of left. The closest thing to a socialist party we got.
You still are avoiding my original questions...

Quote:

Would the country have been better off with Al Gore instead of GW? Those people who voted for Ralph Nader thought like you when they voted for the Green Party candidate in Florida in 2000. Did they get a president that cared about Green Party issues?

***Plainsman1963*** · 12-21-2007, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viper420

I don't, for a minute, believe that any of the people who voted for Nader was a "true" Republican.

Yep, just ignore the facts...Oh, and now we are getting into the "purity" of party members?

Quote:

You still are avoiding my original questions...

You mean the hypothetical questions that can't be answered? Sorry, here I go:

Quote:

Would the country have been better off with Al Gore instead of GW?

Since the only way to know that would be to time travel and change the past to allow Gore the presidency and then wait 4 (or 8) years to find out...When I build my time travel transportation device, I will let you know.

Quote:

Did they get a president that cared about Green Party issues?

Umm, no? But then again, they didn't vote for him. They voted for who they thought was the best candidate, something everybody should do. There are two groups and only two groups in my mind responsible for a candidate gaining office. Those would be the people that voted for the candidate and the people that didn't vote at all.

I learned a long time ago that if I vote for "the lesser of two evils", that means I'm voting for somebody evil. I won't do that.

Better?

**Lit_Match** · 12-21-2007, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viper420

Would the country have been better off with Al Gore instead of GW? Those people who voted for Ralph Nader thought like you when they voted for the Green Party candidate in Florida in 2000. Did they get a president that cared about Green Party issues?

I'm not exactly sure how they "thought like me", the only reason I believe Ron Paul will get the job done is based on his voting history. He's proven himself imo, that's why he's earned my vote.

Viper420 · 12-22-2007, 05:25 AM

Don't get me wrong......I LIKE and ADMIRE Ron Paul. I like what he says (except for getting rid of the Federal Reserve) and I just wish I was wrong...I really do. And I respect everyones opinions about Ron Paul but you got to see the writing on the wall. The mainstream media along with the GOP frontrunners aren't even giving Ron the time of day. Oh, he'll pop up in the news from time to time, like a ground hog looking for his shadow, but just like the groundhog, no one considers the groundhog reliable.
Just out of curiosity, Plainsman1963....why is there no thread for Huckabee? I feel he will do well in the South.

***Plainsman1963*** · 12-22-2007, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viper420

Just out of curiosity, Plainsman1963....why is there no thread for Huckabee? I feel he will do well in the South.

I must have missed him. If you want, go ahead and write up a post similar to the others stuck to the top and I'll stick that one too.

I think I missed Keyes, too. Hell, I might have missed a bunch.

Is Brownback even in the race anymore????

12-20-2007, 10:06 PM	#21
SpiralArchitect The Cosmic Chronic Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 6,221 Grams: 44,600.22 Groans: 94 Groaned at 24 Times in 21 Posts Thanks: 4,340 Thanked 3,085 Times in 1,710 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: -1.000%	Ron Paul made it onto MSN's 11 most influential people of the year. Looks like heads are really starting to turn. Ron Paul on MSN's 11 most influential people of 2007 I feel like a dolt, the other day there was a Ron Paul meeting downtown but for some reason I totally spaced it until it was like an hour too late, luckily there will be another one in town in a few weeks, a campaigning officer will be in town and I'm hoping to get a few interested friends to come along. __________________ We exist in what we create.... . Posting Guidelines ~ The Art of Searching ~ Drug Testing ~ Drug War Headlines ~ The Garden's Cure ~ Marijuana Chat Last edited by SpiralArchitect : 12-20-2007 at 10:15 PM.

12-21-2007, 03:10 PM	#24
Viper420 Banned Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 843 Grams: 4,934.50 Groans: 6 Groaned at 65 Times in 41 Posts Thanks: 44 Thanked 131 Times in 115 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	The numbers went down this way....98000 people voted for Nader in Florida in 2000. Nader was an extreme left wing candidate so, odds are that he didn't pull any votes away from GW. So lets say only a third of those votes went to Gore and all the others stayed home. Gore wins. Third party candidates are nothing more than spoilers that help those major party candidates that are opposite the views expressed by the spoiler. We live in a 2 party system. Don't be naive and think a third party will ever have a chance to win. Just look at the Reform Party. It imploded when Jesse Ventura walked out and formed his own "Reform" party. Last edited by Viper420 : 12-21-2007 at 03:19 PM.

12-22-2007, 05:25 AM	#29
Viper420 Banned Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 843 Grams: 4,934.50 Groans: 6 Groaned at 65 Times in 41 Posts Thanks: 44 Thanked 131 Times in 115 Posts Stock Portfolio Total Value: 0.000 Gain/Loss: 0.000%	Don't get me wrong......I LIKE and ADMIRE Ron Paul. I like what he says (except for getting rid of the Federal Reserve) and I just wish I was wrong...I really do. And I respect everyones opinions about Ron Paul but you got to see the writing on the wall. The mainstream media along with the GOP frontrunners aren't even giving Ron the time of day. Oh, he'll pop up in the news from time to time, like a ground hog looking for his shadow, but just like the groundhog, no one considers the groundhog reliable. Just out of curiosity, Plainsman1963....why is there no thread for Huckabee? I feel he will do well in the South. Last edited by Viper420 : 12-22-2007 at 05:31 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate View Forum Leaders Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read

Remove Advertisements Marijuana.com Sponsor
Marijuana.com Advertisement	<a rel='nofollow' href='http://adserver.marijuana.com/www/delivery/ck.php?n=a78e9dba&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE' target='_blank'><img src='http://adserver.marijuana.com/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=6&cb=INSERT_RANDOM_NUMBER_HERE&n=a78e9dba' border='0' alt='' /></a>

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Marijuana.com

Hot Products: