Re: [Marxism] Nader at 6%?

[Eli Stephens <elishastephens@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

ML: "Nader doesn't show 5-6% on most of them because they don't ask about him."

It is of course true that most polls don't, but the link I sent referred only 
to 
polls that DO, and which show Nader at 3-4% in most of them. Again, I'm not 
saying that as "proof" we shouldn't support Nader because he's "only" got 3-4% 
and not 6%. I was just trying to inject a note of realism.

The REAL reason Nader is only polling at whatever he's polling at is because, 
as 
we all know, #1) the media basically ignore him and all third party candidates 
unless they're billionaires like Perot, and present the election day after day 
as a two-candidate race, and #2) the lack of instant runoff voting puts 
TREMENDOUS pressure on people to adopt a lesser of two evils stance, even long 
before the actual voting (and even more so when it comes to voting, as the 
actual vote for Nader in previous elections, much less than he was polling, 
demonstrates).

RCoate: "What each of them does have is a chance of "talking about" socialism,
oppression, injustice, poverty, corruption, etc. etc., using the
(slight) elevation that a candidate's platform provides.

I don't see why having several left candidates running, will prevent
that talking from taking place.

As I said, "the more the merrier" is the operating principle here."

Ohmigod. Stop the presses. Toothless Critic and I are in complete agreement. I 
may have to rethink things. :-)

Seriously, the point made is essential. Last night I happen to know that Gloria 
La Riva was speaking in Fresno. Meanwhile maybe Nader was speaking in Duluth, 
and Brian Moore in Atlanta, and Cynthia McKinney in New Orleans. The plain fact 
is that the left is so small, that all these efforts can only be seen as adding 
together in the effect, however small, they have on the public. There isn't the 
slightest conflict between them. Now if one of those efforts were to achieve 
some kind of "critical mass," it would be a different question entirely. I 
don't 
see that happening, in this election, anyway. Obama's attractiveness as a 
candidate is going to mean that few outside the "real left" are going to see 
this election as a "lesser of two evils" election anyway. They're going to be 
voting FOR Obama, as opposed to voting AGAINST Bush in the last two elections.


_________________________________________________________________
Making the world a better place one message at a time.
http://www.imtalkathon.com/?source=EML_WLH_Talkathon_BetterPlace
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu