What about third parties?

From Buzz Flash:

Blogger Ann Davidow clearly doesn’t think much of voting for third party candidates, and she goes out of her way to discredit just about every reason given for supporting them. Davidow portrays third party candidates and voters as outsiders who simply don’t want to decide between two major parties with significant differences.

Davidow says:

The third tier never has to worry about losing an election for being too controversial because they rarely receive enough support to become viable contenders. The best that can be said for most of them is that they may at times be able to open up debate
about matters of national concern that would otherwise be left unaddressed.

About Ralph Nader, Davidow writes:

It’s just that there’s a kind of political naiveté and an egotistical stubbornness that prevents him from playing well with others. There were many factors at work during the 2000 election debacle, but those 90,000 votes garnered by Nader in Florida helped hand the White House to Bush. And make no mistake; the Gore-Bush differences were profound.

About Bob Barr, Davidow writes:

He could almost be called idealistic if he didn’t take such consistently self-promoting, ultra-conservative positions. While his association with Judicial Watch may have seemed at times to offer a non-partisan appraisal of questionable political behavior it tended to focus on the misdeeds of liberal office holders. Although he has affiliated since his days in Congress with the American Civil Liberties Union, he is probably best remembered as a virulent Clinton hater and a relentless member of the impeachment team.

Click here for the entire article.

5 Responses to “What about third parties?”

  1. redfish Says:

    Speaking of the subject, Gallup is trying to discredit third party candidates with , what even they admit, is a very bogus polling method.

    Support for Third-Party Candidates Appears Limited Thus Far
    Just 2% say they will vote for a third-party candidate this fall

    The question, part of an Aug. 7-10 Gallup Poll, allowed respondents to name any candidate or political party, without prompting of specific names from Gallup interviewers. This is a different approach than Gallup takes in its Daily tracking polling and USA Today/Gallup polls, in which voters are asked whether they would vote for Barack Obama or John McCain for president if the election were held today.

    With the unaided question used in the new poll, 83% of registered voters named either Obama (45%) or McCain (38%) as their preferred candidate.
    That leaves only about 2% who say they plan to vote for a third-party candidate in November—not much different from the 1% in Gallup Poll Daily tracking who typically volunteer that they will vote for someone other than Obama or McCain.


    I wouldn’t worry about a hack like Davidow who really doesnt know what she’s talking about

  2. steve conn Says:

    And if the Mayor of Miami hadn’t fled to Spain during the 2000 election, and if Gore had mentioned Global Warming or pushed for protection of the Everglades against expansion of the Miami airport as Nader did and if the Dems had demanded a statewide recount and if Clinton hadn’t fooled around in the oval office, and if the ballots had been readable for older people or punchable, and if Carville and his gang hadn’t spent years blaming Nader for their own incompetence and spent more time figuring out how to defeat Bush in 2004 than driving Progressive issues off the ballot and so on and so on and so on. Lies about Ralph Nader don’t win elections. They lose elections for
    corporate Democrats. But maybe they don’t care so long as they get paid.

  3. Ferenc Says:

    Just a reminder. Vote Constitution and Libertarian party members in to the congress and senate.

    God Bless

  4. MPM Says:

    “simply don’t want to decide between two major parties with significant differences.”

    Let’s say you’re in some sinister South American torture chamber. If you had the choice of getting raped, the choice of getting murdered, and the choice of trying to escape with a 10% chance of success, freedom, and not being harmed, wouldn’t it be wise to throw your chances behind the last choice, or would you rather chose to be raped as the lesser of two evils?

  5. langa Says:

    I didn’t read the rest of the article, but it seems like more sour grapes from a disgruntled Democrat still bitter about losing 8 years ago. It would be laughable if it weren’t so annoying.

Leave a Reply