I’ve read your comment a few times but I’m having a genuinely hard time parsing your point.
The person I’m responding to was saying that Nader could have won if progressives voted for him instead of Gore. I pointed out that presidential candidates need a broad coalition of voters to get enough votes, not just far left progressives.
You seem to be making a totally different argument. You claim that if Nader was the only choice, then Democratic leaning moderates would have voted for him.
I don’t mean to be rude, but what is the point of this thought experiment? Nader wasn’t the only choice. Moreover, US politics in 2000 was significantly less polarized: MANY Gore voters would have definitely voted for Bush, who campaigned under “compassionate conservatism” and was seen as a moderate, over the farthest left candidate, Nader.
If Sanders had won the nomination, I think he would have kicked ass against Trump, but Sanders sadly lost. I’m trying to understand your last line: are you asking if I would blame HRC supporters for refusing to vote for Sanders in the general and allowing a fascist corrupt dictator in? Uh, yes. Obviously I would blame them. That precisely aligns with everything I’ve said.
Nah, they reiterated my point pretty well. You can’t claim that “candidate ‘A’ is the correct choice because of their broad appeal” when they wind up losing the election. Obviously, they didn’t have the most appeal. The attitude that “I picked the right person and it’s everyone else’s fault they didn’t win” is absurd. Anybody can make that argument about any candidate and be just as equally ‘correct.’
That’s not what you said in the comment I responded to. You claimed that Nader could have won if progressives had voted for him instead of Gore, but there aren’t enough progressive votes.
Voting in a FPTP two party system is a coordination game, one where it is mathematically impossible for third parties to win. Pretending otherwise is sadly delusional.
It’s like you’re trying to decide which building to buy as a group to start co-op housing. Almost everyone prefers building A, but you prefer building B. If you all don’t compromise, then there is not enough money and you’re all homeless. In a democracy, it is obviously more fair if you compromise than everyone else compromises. You either don’t believe in democracy, or you’re happy with things never getting better.
I said “that argument goes both ways” meaning “my candidate would have won if X, Y, and Z happened” is always valid regardless of the candidate.
You can’t rewrite the past, so you’re inventing a hypothetical/fictional scenario based on your opinion. In a fictional scenario, anything is possible. Your argument was “if more people voted for Gore, he would have won” and I countered with “if more people voted for Nader, he would have won.” You can’t claim Gore was the best choice because the best choice is the one who wins the election.
In a democracy, it is obviously more fair if you compromise than everyone else compromises. You either don’t believe in democracy, or you’re happy with things never getting better.
What a joke. The “you” here is the entire American public while “everyone else” is a small handful of wealthy, powerful individuals.
Can you explain how continuing to elect corporate Democrats makes things better? Are we better now than 10 years ago? Are we better than we were 20 years ago? There’s obviously a quality of life trend here, and it hasn’t trended up in quite a long time. You’ll predictably place the blame solely on Republicans even though Democrats make up 50% of that equation. Republicans sure don’t seem to have the same issue passing their legislation. Why do you think that is?
