OT The right man for a perilous moment

rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
The problem is that when the "real deal" comes along, if ever, he or she
will say what no one is comfortable hearing and ask that people to do
difficult things that involve self-sacrifice by every level of
socio-economic status, and while it won't sound pleasant, it'll sound
exactly like what it is: honest, sensible, correct and proper. The only
question is, "will enough people actually listen?"

And the answer is, "Of course not." If a person like that were
electable Adlai Stevenson would have been President. And Al Gore.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you supported Nader against Gore
in 2000.

You're slightly wrong. Gore had Illinois sewn up so I *voted*
for the Green Party candidate hoping that the Greens could meet
the 5% threshold for inclusion on future ballots without petitions.
That didn't happen but Gore did take Illinois easily.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

wrote:

The problem is that when the "real deal" comes along, if ever, he or
she
will say what no one is comfortable hearing and ask that people to do
difficult things that involve self-sacrifice by every level of
socio-economic status, and while it won't sound pleasant, it'll sound
exactly like what it is: honest, sensible, correct and proper. The
only
question is, "will enough people actually listen?"


And the answer is, "Of course not." If a person like that were
electable Adlai Stevenson would have been President. And Al Gore.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you supported Nader against
Gore in 2000.


You're slightly wrong. Gore had Illinois sewn up so I *voted*
for the Green Party candidate hoping that the Greens could meet
the 5% threshold for inclusion on future ballots without petitions.
That didn't happen but Gore did take Illinois easily.

So you're claiming that you didn't really support Nader even though you
voted for him?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you supported Nader against
Gore in 2000.

You're slightly wrong. Gore had Illinois sewn up so I *voted*
for the Green Party candidate hoping that the Greens could meet
the 5% threshold for inclusion on future ballots without petitions.
That didn't happen but Gore did take Illinois easily.

So you're claiming that you didn't really support Nader even though you
voted for him?

I'm claiming that I voted for the Green Party candidate. Not
only did I not expect Nader to win, I would have been appalled
had he done so. So yeah, I voted for his party but I didn't
support him.

This is all about ballot access and electoral math, feel free
to use a calculator if you're having trouble understanding the
concept.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 09:52:30 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you supported Nader against
Gore in 2000.

You're slightly wrong. Gore had Illinois sewn up so I *voted*
for the Green Party candidate hoping that the Greens could meet
the 5% threshold for inclusion on future ballots without petitions.
That didn't happen but Gore did take Illinois easily.

So you're claiming that you didn't really support Nader even though you
voted for him?

I'm claiming that I voted for the Green Party candidate. Not
only did I not expect Nader to win, I would have been appalled
had he done so. So yeah, I voted for his party but I didn't
support him.

Oh, now, go easy on him...I mean, Krugman wasn't far off...he's not only
like Nixon, he's like Rush Limpdick, too...he should be pitied, not
scorned...

This is all about ballot access and electoral math, feel free
to use a calculator if you're having trouble understanding the
concept.

Hmmm...I see what you're saying - it's about a fair system with free but
honest access, free of corruption and other things that would not only
cause objective damage but cause participants to lose faith in it...?

Glad I could help,
R

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

rw wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you supported Nader against
Gore in 2000.


You're slightly wrong. Gore had Illinois sewn up so I *voted*
for the Green Party candidate hoping that the Greens could meet
the 5% threshold for inclusion on future ballots without petitions.
That didn't happen but Gore did take Illinois easily.


So you're claiming that you didn't really support Nader even though
you voted for him?


I'm claiming that I voted for the Green Party candidate.

That would have been Ralph Nader; who, by the way, cost Gore the
election (with some help from Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris).

Nader is running this year, too. Are you voting for him again?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you supported Nader against
Gore in 2000.

You're slightly wrong. Gore had Illinois sewn up so I *voted*
for the Green Party candidate hoping that the Greens could meet
the 5% threshold for inclusion on future ballots without petitions.
That didn't happen but Gore did take Illinois easily.

So you're claiming that you didn't really support Nader even though
you voted for him?

I'm claiming that I voted for the Green Party candidate.

That would have been Ralph Nader; who, by the way, cost Gore the
election (with some help from Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris).

You didn't use the calculator, did you ?

Illinois had 22 electoral votes in 2000. Follow along now
and pay attention. Gore won 55%, Bush won 43% and Nader
took 2%. With me so far ? So how many of Illinois' electoral
votes did Al Gore get ?

All 22 !! That's right. You're doing good Steve.

OK, I'll tell you ahead of time, this is a trick question
so concentrate. Let's suppose that Nader took 5% of the
vote and all of his votes came from Gore. Are you following ?
OK, here we go. That would mean Gore won 50% and Bush won 43%.
So how many of Illinois' 22 electoral votes would have gone
to Al Gore ?

Take your time, this electoral math stuff can get complicated.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
rw wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

rw wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

rw wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you supported Nader against
Gore in 2000.


You're slightly wrong. Gore had Illinois sewn up so I *voted*
for the Green Party candidate hoping that the Greens could meet
the 5% threshold for inclusion on future ballots without petitions.
That didn't happen but Gore did take Illinois easily.


So you're claiming that you didn't really support Nader even though
you voted for him?


I'm claiming that I voted for the Green Party candidate.


That would have been Ralph Nader; who, by the way, cost Gore the
election (with some help from Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris).


You didn't use the calculator, did you ?

Illinois had 22 electoral votes in 2000. Follow along now
and pay attention. Gore won 55%, Bush won 43% and Nader
took 2%. With me so far ? So how many of Illinois' electoral
votes did Al Gore get ?

All 22 !! That's right. You're doing good Steve.

OK, I'll tell you ahead of time, this is a trick question
so concentrate. Let's suppose that Nader took 5% of the
vote and all of his votes came from Gore. Are you following ?
OK, here we go. That would mean Gore won 50% and Bush won 43%.
So how many of Illinois' 22 electoral votes would have gone
to Al Gore ?

Take your time, this electoral math stuff can get complicated.


If you voted for "the Green Party candidate" (Ralph Nader) there must
have been something that you liked about Ralph Nader as opposed to Al
Gore. I assume that you wouldn't have voted for "the Green Party
candidate" if it had been, say, David Duke or Pat Robertson.

I vote in Idaho, which is one of the reddest states and will undoubtedly
go for McCain/Palin. According to your logic I could in good conscience
vote for McCain/Palin because my vote will have no material effect on
the outcome. But I won't. According to your logic everyone could simply
not vote at all because no single vote will make a difference.

Voting has a symbolic significance beyond mere electoral politics. I'm
glad that lots of people voted for Gore in 2000 to at least give him the
popular-vote majority and cast a pall on the legitimacy of Bush's "win".

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

rw wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
So how many of Illinois' 22 electoral votes would have gone
to Al Gore ?

Take your time, this electoral math stuff can get complicated.

If you voted for "the Green Party candidate" (Ralph Nader) there must
have been something that you liked about Ralph Nader as opposed to Al
Gore.

Like I said, I voted for the Green Party in the hope that
they could garner 5% of the vote which is the threshold
in Illinois for ballot access without petitions.

I find the whole petition process distasteful, not only
because it makes the Greens use time and money better spent
discussing issues but it also brings out the ugly side of
the Dems. It's the Dems around here who battle to contest
every signature on every petition and do their damnedest to
keep the Greens off the ballot. I'd just as soon put that
whole mess to rest and let them have a spot on the damn
ballot already.

I vote in Idaho, which is one of the reddest states and will undoubtedly
go for McCain/Palin. According to your logic I could in good conscience
vote for McCain/Palin because my vote will have no material effect on
the outcome.

No, according to my logic you should vote for Obama. If Obama
was a cold lock cinch to take Idaho then by my logic you could
in good conscience vote Green if you had a valid reason for
doing so.

--
Ken Fortenberry

rw wrote in
m:

cost Gore the
election


Gore cost Gore the election.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 17 Oct 2008 15:39:55 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

rw wrote in
om:

cost Gore the
election


Gore cost Gore the election.

Well, that's just mean...absolutely true, but mean...

HTH,
R