The Democratic Party brief against third-party candidates like Ralph Nader and Jill Stein tends to boil down to the same tired group of clichéd criticisms: they’re egotistical. They only care about themselves. This election is too important.
Generic Brief Against 3rd Party Candidates
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
15 Comments. Leave new
I see that 2017 photo of Stein at the dinner where Vladimir Putin was at the table getting some use on Twitter when she is mentioned. To my mind you need to have a photo with Stein and Putin talking together to make a case that she is some sort of Russian puppet.
That’s one of those lies the Democratic Party tells. Putin sat at her table for a couple of minutes while being introduced before addressing the gathering, which was a celebration of RT’s 10th anniversary. Journalists and politicians from all over the planet were there. Dr. Stein was invited because she was a frequent guest on RT America. This is back in the days when Thom Hartman had a show on RT, before the Democrats totally demonized Russia. As for Dr. Stein’s “dinner with Putin,” as I said, he just sat there for a couple of minutes. Since she doesn’t speak Russian and he doesn’t speak English, they didn’t say a word to each other.
If 3rd party candidates are as ineffectual as they keep saying…
… why are they doing everything in their power to keep them off the ballot?
… why do they constantly exaggerate their role as a spoiler (Ralph Nader)?
… and why are they getting so *angry*? (seriously, in Europe even self-declared comedic parties at most invite ridicule, not anger)
The Democrats are the oldest still-working political party in the English speaking world (they were the Democratic Republicans when the Federalist Party was still operating). So they are running scared. The Clintons really pushed for the Party to become a home for left-of-center professional people (doctors, lawyers, etc.) in the 1990s, and that has stuck. Thus you have the humorlessness, the anger, the willingness to pull dirty tricks. None of it is a winning combination in the long run.
Each of the remaining candidates; Harris, Trump, Stein, West, De la Cruz, and Oliver; argues that we should vote for them rather than any of the others, duh! Each of the candidates will give many reasons for this. Does the “don’t vote for a third-party” reason stand out from the rest in some important way?
Candidates arguing “that we should vote for them rather than any of the others” is fine.
The parties of those candidates spending lots of money continuously bringing legal challenges to the participation of “third,” based on the law the iron grip of the two party system has written, leads to a one party system. Perhaps more accurately … “has saddled us with essentially a one party system.” That stands out in an important way.
Of course that’s …. legal challenges to the participation of “third” parties, …
Third parties are as welcomed by the US electoral establishment as second parties would have been by the USSR electoral establishment.
“Third parties as spoilers” is another Democratic Party lie. What “spoiled” the 2000 election for Gore was that 50% of voters stayed home. What “spoiled” the 2016 election for Clinton was that 40% of the voters stayed home. But the Democrats can’t accept responsibility for being so uninspiring, so they blame us Greens.
What spoiled the 2000 election for Gore was that the Florida democratic party didn’t review the ballot to ensure it was easily understood by elderly voters with poor vision. Buchanan got so many votes even HE conceded it was in error.
The democrats ALWAYS are the reason the democrats don’t succeed. “We were too busy processing everyone’s feelings about opening up a committee to decide whether to offer a non-vegan option at the meeting to discuss whether someone should review the ballot design to actually get around to checking the ballot design.”
Iirc they actually won the election by the skin of their teeth even given all these problems – from the failure to mobilize their base to a host of technical issues and also the presence of the Green Party.
They were just too timid to actually contest the vote count while the other party pulled out all the dirty tricks.
What part of “50% of voters stayed home” don’t you understand? Greens are anti-imperialist socialists, not “left Democrats.” We don’t support capitalist, imperialist parties like the Democrats. When Dems keep us off the ballot, we don’t kiss ass and vote for them–we stay home.
If you want to catch THE DMZ podcast that says it all about Ted Rall and his lackey, Scott Stantis, try the latest release. They guest speak Canadian cartoonist, Michael deAdder, who exposes Knucklehead 1 and Knucklehead 2 for the misogynists they are and for how much an echo chamber they operate in.
However much they inflate the number of votes “lost” to Ralph Nader, my point was that it is quite bizarre to argue that they lost the election because of those votes – when they actually won the election in spite of their self-inflicted depressed turnout and the hanging chads, and Ralph Nader being on the ballot.
Apparently it is understood that they fight with two hands behind their backs: poor people’s turnout is depressed already due to voting on a workday and fewer and shittier voting machines in poor districts; the electoral college “system” gives them an additional ~2% disadvantage; all this is as God intended. It’s those pesky Greens who need to be excommunicated.
Yes, definitely–it’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you place the blame! 🙂