| nettime's_retabulator on 14 Nov 2000 23:09:15 -0000 |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| <nettime> bader! nore! gush! digest [x10] |
RE: <nettime> Election Protests Start Saturday Jonathan Prince <jonathan@killyourtv.com> Jeffrey Fisher <jfisher@igc.org> Law <law@cs.orst.edu> Curt Hagenlocher <curth@motek.com> Jeffrey Fisher <jfisher@igc.org> Law <law@cs.orst.edu> Jeffrey Fisher <jfisher@igc.org> Jeffrey Fisher <jfisher@igc.org> aaron auslender <donteventhink@yahoo.com> Jeffrey Fisher <jfisher@igc.org> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 13:50:59 -0500 From: Jonathan Prince <jonathan@killyourtv.com> Subject: RE: <nettime> Election Protests Start Saturday It is not of my writing, I just passed the message onward - just want to make that clear. I agree, there is a process to be followed in this situation. But that process must be in the spirit of democracy and fairness. It would be a shame if GW Bush gets elected on a technicality. Anyone in the DC area that will be at the protest? Contact me, I'll be there. jonathan At 9:19 AM -0800 11/9/00, Eric Miller wrote: >hi all, >much as I agree with this in principle, and as a Gore supporter, one line >sticks out here-- <...> .. Jonathan Prince : The More Evil jonathan@killyourtv.com : Of Two Lessers... http://KillYourTV.com : http://www.GWBushSucks.com ........................................................ 'Political language...is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.' - George Orwell - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 14:57:18 -0600 From: Jeffrey Fisher <jfisher@igc.org> Subject: Re: <nettime> Energy, Elections, and the Internet first of all, if gore had managed to win his home state, all of this would be moot. perhaps before blaming nader, the gore campaign should remove the mote from its eye and wonder what it could have done differently or better and ways in which bush cut into the democatic coalition built by clinton. note that gore lost vast numbers of people who voted for clinton twice. the exit-poll stuff i was seeing tuesday evening was showing that the nader vote (nationally, mind you) appeared to come about 40% from gore, about 40% from non-voters (or, technically, people who wouldn't have voted for anyone else), and nearly 20% from people who would have voted for bush. i haven't seen that followwed up recently, but it's what the exit polls (that predicted gore winning in florida?? ;-) were showing tuesday eve. the following article, while it also addresses nader further down, elaborates on the failures of the gore campaign to deal with bush (which they might have spent their time doing in the last two weeks, rather than attacking nader), or rather, perhaps, the successes of the bush campaign in cutting directly into gore's support: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40555-2000Nov8.html finally, i might add that my experience in arguments with gore-voters, they were the ones resorting to ad hominem denigration of voters (e.g., nader voters "don't understand" the complexity of the electoral system, etc.) when arguments on the issues broke down. perhaps that's symptomatic of gore's failure in general to manage to appeal to nader-voters. Law wrote: > The Nader-ite denial rolls on. First, your characterization of gore > voters is demeaning and second, where is your support? In an election > this close, it's entirely reasonable that the votes for nader gave > shrub some edge and you can't show that they came from repubs. Nader > makes republicans gag! No, I can't show any votes came from dems, but > it makes a lot more sense just on ideology. <...> -- jeff fisher dilettant jfisher@igc.org O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O "I am the brand name. When all things began, the brand name already was. The brand name dwelt with God, and what God was, the brand name was. The brand name, then, was with God at the beginning, and through him all things came to be; no single thing was created without him." - Philip K. Dick O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:02:58 -0800 (PST) From: Law <law@cs.orst.edu> Subject: Re: <nettime> Energy, Elections, and the Internet I will argue that even if you don't like the present state of US politics or the two primary candidates, the prospect of a Bush presidency is still significantly worse than the prospect of a Gore presidency. And, given the small margin and Nader's lack of any prospect, matching funds or not, a vote for Nader did damage. Nader supporters need to face this. The argument that without a landslide Gore is a failure, baffles me. Jim On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Jeffrey Fisher wrote: > first of all, if gore had managed to win his home state, all of this would be > moot. perhaps before blaming nader, the gore campaign should remove the mote > from its eye and wonder what it could have done differently or better and ways > in which bush cut into the democatic coalition built by clinton. note that > gore lost vast numbers of people who voted for clinton twice. <...> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: Curt Hagenlocher <curth@motek.com> Subject: RE: <nettime> Energy, Elections, and the Internet Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 14:03:36 -0800 > From: Law [mailto:law@cs.orst.edu] > > The Nader-ite denial rolls on. First, your characterization of gore > voters is demeaning and second, where is your support? Anecdotal evidence is rarely worth much. Nevertheless... Almost everyone I know voted for Gore. Of these, nearly half expressed the idea that they would have liked to vote for Nader, but were too afraid of a Bush victory to do so. The majority of these people effectively became single-issue "Supreme Court" voters. I don't know *anybody* that was actually *excited* about the prospects of a Gore victory. The current electoral college stalemate is arguably the most interesting thing to happen in American politics in years. But then, I voted for neither Kang nor Kodos. To bring this conversation back to a more appropriate nettime topic, isn't it about time we reevaluated this system of representation based strictly on geography? In a networked world where I live in one location, telecommute to another, and make purchases all over the country, what reason is there to think that my interests are conjoined to those of only my physical neighbors? -- Curt Hagenlocher curth@motek.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 16:20:30 -0600 From: Jeffrey Fisher <jfisher@igc.org> Subject: Re: <nettime> Energy, Elections, and the Internet my argument is not that without a landslide gore is a failure. the argument is that gore lost a lot of constituencies he quite arguably should have won, and he lost them to bush. your only response to this is that the "significantly worse" prospect of a bush administration somehow leads to the conclusion that "nader supporters need to face" the fact that they did damage to gore. (1) surely, a vote for nader was not a vote for gore. but (a) neither was a vote for bush, and (b) i have yet to see any evidence that gore or his supporters are owning up to anything they could have done differently to win this election; rather, they carp at nader and nader voters for tossing the election. in this respect, a vote for nader could be said to have "done damage" regardless of his prospects for matching funds. that doesn't mean you can write off a bush win (if indeed he does win) to nader-voters. if that's the extent of democratic party analysis of the strategy of this campaign, then they are even less capable than i fear. (2) the small margin only means that gore would only have had to have kept a few clinton voters (or turned out a few more voters) to win in spite of the nader vote. jeff Law wrote: > I will argue that even if you don't like the present state of US > politics or the two primary candidates, the prospect of a Bush > presidency is still significantly worse than the prospect of a Gore > presidency. And, given the small margin and Nader's lack of any > prospect, matching funds or not, a vote for Nader did damage. Nader > supporters need to face this. <...> -- jeff fisher dilettant jfisher@igc.org O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O "I am the brand name. When all things began, the brand name already was. The brand name dwelt with God, and what God was, the brand name was. The brand name, then, was with God at the beginning, and through him all things came to be; no single thing was created without him." - Philip K. Dick O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 15:17:50 -0800 (PST) From: Law <law@cs.orst.edu> Subject: Re: <nettime> Energy, Elections, and the Internet Some number of people voted for Nader as a protest, who would have voted for Gore. So, Gore lost some votes to Nader. I think this is confirmed by interviews and polls. Would you like to continue to argue this is not true? Arguing that Gore *should* have done better against Bush is specious. It amounts to saying that Gore should have saved Nader voters from the consequences of their vote. Open your eyes to the fact that the US is so evenly divided between Gore and Bush. This gives Nader supporters unprecedented sway. And, they misused it. I agreed with much of Nader's platform, but I am bitterly disappointed that he is not interested in progress, only contention. Perhaps that was his attraction. Maybe I'm getting concerned about nothing, the election is not over. Jim On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Jeffrey Fisher wrote: > my argument is not that without a landslide gore is a failure. <...> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:32:36 -0600 From: Jeffrey Fisher <jfisher@igc.org> Subject: Re: <nettime> Energy, Elections, and the Internet yes, gore lost votes to nader. no question. i've argued about this so much that i can't recall now whether or not i've quoted the exit polls that suggest nader votes would have gone (nationally) 40% to gore, 40% to no one, and about 20% to bush. that's what i was seeing tuesday night. that doesn't speak to the results in specific states. but that's not my argument. sure if you just wipe nader out and tally the votes, that puts more votes in gore's column. my argument is that bush cut into gore's support as much as or more than nader. exit polls show that bush disrupted the clinton coalition rather the same way that clinton brought back the reagan democrats to beat bush. i'm suggesting that perhaps gore made some strategic errors, but those are all getting lost in the cries of nader nader nader. what i really object to is foisting moral (or strategic) responsibility for a bush victory onto nader and his supporters when the evidence makes it quite plain that there were other factors that were at least as important. the truth is that gore didn't lose just the 2 million votes that went to nader: he also lost every one of the 48million that went to bush. nader votes account for something like 4% of the votes gore didn't get nationally. are you telling me none of those other 48million were potential gore voters? that is patently false -- if someone voted for clinton twice, she is certainly a target for a gore vote, but he lost millions of those votes. jeff Law wrote: > Some number of people voted for Nader as a protest, who would have > voted for Gore. So, Gore lost some votes to Nader. I think this is > confirmed by interviews and polls. Would you like to continue to argue > this is not true? <...> -- jeff fisher dilettant jfisher@igc.org O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O "I am the brand name. When all things began, the brand name already was. The brand name dwelt with God, and what God was, the brand name was. The brand name, then, was with God at the beginning, and through him all things came to be; no single thing was created without him." - Philip K. Dick O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:39:41 -0600 From: Jeffrey Fisher <jfisher@igc.org> Subject: Re: <nettime> Energy, Elections, and the Internet btw -- i don't believe nader voters need (or believe they needs) anyone to save them from the consequences of their votes, as you put it. this is just the kind of condescending, patronizing tone to which i object. i'm quite capable of weighing the consequences of my vote, myself, thanks. i just might weigh them differently than you would. if you object to my criteria, fine, but your argument seems premised on the bad faith of nader voters. Law wrote: > Some number of people voted for Nader as a protest, who would have > voted for Gore. So, Gore lost some votes to Nader. I think this is > confirmed by interviews and polls. Would you like to continue to argue > this is not true? <...> -- jeff fisher dilettant jfisher@igc.org O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O "I am the brand name. When all things began, the brand name already was. The brand name dwelt with God, and what God was, the brand name was. The brand name, then, was with God at the beginning, and through him all things came to be; no single thing was created without him." - Philip K. Dick O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Thu, 9 Nov 2000 15:46:25 -0800 (PST) From: aaron auslender <donteventhink@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: <nettime> Energy, Elections, and the Internet > The Nader-ite denial rolls on. First, your > characterization of gore voters is demeaning i wasn't talking about GORE voters, dummy. > In an election > this close, it's entirely reasonable that the votes for > nader gave shrub some edge and you can't show that they > came from repubs. Nader > makes republicans gag! No, I can't show any votes came > from dems, but it makes a lot more sense just on ideology. why, you don't like republicans? > The denial is nothing more than an attempt to deflect > responsibility for childish behavior. who's being childish? (other than me) > In that, people who claim a vote for Nader > didn't matter are acting just like the religious-right, > saying in effect "we know what's right..." maybe they do know whats right if nader wasn't there, i wasn't gonna vote anyway. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place. http://shopping.yahoo.com/ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 17:54:14 -0600 From: Jeffrey Fisher <jfisher@igc.org> Subject: Re: <nettime> Energy, Elections, and the Internet i'm afraid we're beginning to have a private conversation that isn't going to get much further, so this will be my final post, unless someone else jumps in and makes this a conversation. my last point is this: another strategy for gore might have been to attempt to court the nader vote, rather than threatening it with a bush presidency and attempting to browbeat it into submission. the strategy may have actually worked in minnesota and washington. whether it paid off in the long run remains to be seen. beyond that, i think you focus too much on what was negative about the nader vote. most of us who voted for him were not trying to beat up al gore (although there might have been some satisfaction taken in that), but were rather trying to get matching funds and ballot lines for the greens. on the first count, we failed. on the second, there was some considerable success in a number of states (including texas, of all places). the nader vote was not a negative vote, but a positive vote. that's important when you start talking about "misuse" of voting power by, er, voters. regards, j Law wrote: > Some number of people voted for Nader as a protest, who would have > voted for Gore. So, Gore lost some votes to Nader. I think this is > confirmed by interviews and polls. Would you like to continue to argue > this is not true? <...> -- jeff fisher dilettant jfisher@igc.org O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O "I am the brand name. When all things began, the brand name already was. The brand name dwelt with God, and what God was, the brand name was. The brand name, then, was with God at the beginning, and through him all things came to be; no single thing was created without him." - Philip K. Dick O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O O=c=O - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net