Arrogance
Bob Herbert writes:
A huge ego and a few billion dollars can cause an awful lot of mischief.
Michael Bloomberg is weighing a possible run for the White House. This is frightening for a couple of reasons. First, consider the prospect of a half-billion-dollars worth of 30-second Bloomberg-for-president ads running all day and all night on television screens in every part of the country.
Americans of every persuasion will have images of the mayor of New York all but burned into their retinas.
For Democrats, the other reason is much more frightening. If Mr. Bloomberg actually decides to run, he risks becoming the Ralph Nader of 2008, drawing votes away from the Democratic nominee and helping to install yet another Republican in the White House.
It is the same old media narrative. Third parties, third candidates are – by the media – not considered to be an asset to elections (so voters have more choices), no, they are considered to be spoilers (per definition). You think I am exaggerating what Herbert wrote? I most surely am not:
(Mr. Nader is also making noises about running next year, but it’s generally agreed that Mr. Bloomberg has a much more credible shot at being a spoiler.)
What an unbelievable arrogance from Democrats. They seem to believe that they are “entitled” to certain votes and that independent candidates “steal” their votes and – by doing so – “spoil” the election. I cannot understand how people like Herbert and the Democratic establishment can get away with this. Americans vote for whomever it is they want to vote for. Third party candidates can, per definition, not “spoil” the elections, they can only enrich them by offering voters an alternative. Look at this:
So whatever political banner he may be waving at any given time (he’s now calling himself an independent), Mr. Bloomberg is a Democrat. If he runs for president, he is far more likely to take votes from the Democratic nominee than the Republican one.
To take votes from the Democratic nominee? Excuse me? Take votes away? Who promised those votes to the Democrats in the first place? If Bloomberg runs these people might actually vote for something (Bloomberg) instead of against something (Republicans).
What an arrogance. It is amazing that they can get away with it.
Cross posted at my own blog.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
37 Responses to “Arrogance”
Well, Democrats are known for their pie in the sky ideas.
I wonder if they worry that a left leaning candidate would cost a Democrat the electoral votes of a battle state, thus ensuring the election (over the popular vote) of the worst president in at least 50 years, who will then go on to start a war of choice, costing thousands of American lives and billions of dollars.
I mean, that would really spoil an election, wouldn’t it?
Obviously this is just theoretical navel gazing that will never happen, but I wonder if that is what the Democrats might be pondering.
Oh, you are so right, lamontacranston, because it would have been ridiculous to think that the Democratic party candidate should have presented his ideas in such a way that he would have won enough votes from his own party’s voters in a battleground state to have won that state’s electoral votes. Kerry lost far more Democratic votes to Bush than he did to Nader.
This didn’t happen because of Nader, this happened because of Gore and later Kerry. Gore and Kerry caused their own defeat. They ran horrible campaigns. They should have convinced more people that they should have voted for them. They didn’t, thus they did not deserve to win.
Democrats should stop playing the victim here. They lost because of themselves.
And no, those elections were not ‘spoiled’, they were won by the person who coninved more people than the others that he was the best to lead the nation.
Christine: you don’t understnad. Bush and Nader spoiled the elections for Kerry.
Damn, in fact, there should be only ONE candidate, the democratic (wink wink) one.
Michael, I don’t think that the treatment of third party candidates as “spoilers” is as ill-intentioned as you might think. Maybe some of the elitist democrats believe they are “entitled” to those votes, but I think that the vast majority of people who call Nader or Bloomberg “spoilers” view it differently.
Here’s the deal. Let’s just take the given that the third party candidate is liberal (though he/she could certainly be conservative, it’s just not the case now). Usually the third party candidate, knowing that they really can’t win, is allowed to speak more plainly and in a more inflammatory manner. Take Ron Paul, for instance. Were he to run as an independent, he could be the republicans Nader. This candidates will gain the votes of people who usually have the most ideologically “pure” views. The very liberal will vote for Nader. These are people who will NEVER vote republican but who just might vote democrat if given no third choice. In a very close election, the result might be a republican president. In this case, the people who voted Nader will be WORSE off, since even if the democrat wasn’t all they wanted, at least they’d be better (in their view) than the republican.
The idea is the assumption that you MUST vote for the lesser of two evils, that dividing the left (or right) votes amongst many candidates makes the whole weaker and the other side by default stronger. That’s why the people collecting signatures for Nader in many states were REPUBLICANS. Divided they fall.
I understand the philosophy behind third party candidates, and I think it’s healthy. I also understand the objections. My personal view is that as long as the “other side’s” candidate isn’t downright dangerous, you commit no irresponsibility by risking their win in the name of democratic ideals. For ’4, it was a bad idea, for ’08, I see no problem with it, none of the likely winners strike me as off the deep end or dangerously stupid.
[...] Arrogance So whatever political banner he may be waving at any given time (he?s now calling himself an independent), Mr. Bloomberg is a Democrat. If he runs for president, he is far more likely to take votes from the Democratic nominee than the … [...]
Oops, I did mean to say “Gore” in comment #2, in place of “Kerry”. Thanks for pointing out my mistake, Michael.
“And no, those elections were not ’spoiled’, they were won by the person who coninved more people than the others that he was the best to lead the nation.”
Really? My memory must be playing tricks on me. 2000 was a long time ago.
All of the polling results have shown that Bloomberg will pull more votes from Republicans than from Democrats. Bloomdberg will tip Ohio, Colorado, and Iowa to the Democrats.
I still want to see Obama/Bloomberg on an independent ticket.
Really isnt this just a bit over the top? There is no arrogance in analyzing how a third party candidate might impact the election and from who the votes might come. And I am sorry but any analysis of the 2000 election cannot conclude that it was “won by the person who coninved (sic) more people than the others that he was the best to lead the nation” or that Nader did not have an impact. And no analysis of the 1992 election can conclude that Perot did not have an impact. So parties worry how third party candidates might impact their votes. Arrogance? I dont think so.
Forget about the talk of conservative or liberal spoilers, the elections are setup for two parties because of the electoral college. The winner MUST win a true majority(>50%) of electoral college votes. If a simple majority or second election runoff were possible then what would be wrong with 10 parties. Also, the US public turnout is a joke, maybe we should match candidates with American Idolatry singers and let the Fox TV network decide.
I agree with jammer- its over the top- there’s no malice or arrogance in analyzing the race this way, and both sides see Bloomberg as a potential spoiler for their side. He could peel off dissatisfied moderates from both parties- and get the independent/libertarian vote as well. There’s a lot worse that goes on in politics than calling a third party a spoiler who takes votes from the two main parties. Ross Perot was seen in the same light by Bush 41 supporters in ’92.
Kim and Jammer,
There’s a difference in attitude between discussing how a third party or independent candidate affects a campaign and saying that he’s “taking” votes. The latter implies that those votes should be in a certain party’s column by default, and that’s the arrogance we are talking about.
In the case of Perot, Bush41 should have seen the effect that Perot was having and acted accordingly, and same goes for Gore/Nader, Kerry/Nader, Bush43/Buchanan, etc. The fact that those candidates draw some percentage of the electorate is an indication that neither of the two parties is addressing a particular concern, and the parties should pay attention to that rather than dissing the third party candidates and their supporters.
They are not ‘discussing’ it, they are telling people not to run because if they do so, they will be ‘blamed,’ because they ‘took the votes that belonged to the Democrats.
And no, it’s not overr the top, they are arrogant.
And the funny thing is: the Democratic leaders do not for one second really think like that. They know better. They just try to convince people to believe that, because if they do, they won’t vote for third parties. In essence it’s a strategy and you all are falling for it.
It would be hilarious if it wouldn’t be so sad.
Exactly: the good news for Republicans – as long as Democratsd keep on denying that, they won’t win.
But there will always be unaddressed concerns by the two major parties because when the candidates run they promise everything to everybody, and almost invariably can’t deliver.
And as far as telling third candidates not to run-so what? They know they can’t legally prevent them from running, and imo, it doesn’t hurt to remind Nader that his 2000 and 2004 runs resulted in 8 years of Bush 43, which can’t have been his goal.
First of all, exit polling showed that Perot drew fairly evenly from the GOP and the Dems, but mostly from independants.
Secondly, I won’t point out the hilarity of this.
I know, it’s already been pointed out (and ignored) but.. just saying. Hilarious.
His goal was to create a movement, to have an impact. His goal isn’t, and should not be, to make Gore win.
Can’t deliver? I agree. The problem now is that the system isn’t going to change while there are quite some problems, no?
A third party can break it all open, which is why America should have third parties breaking in every now and then at least. They don’t have to win, they just need to send a signal.
And believe it or not, Gore did not ‘deserve’ to win – he did not convince enough people to vote for him, thus he deserved to lose.
Lastly, some people should look at the data of the elections. I can see the majority of you haven’t done so.
mvdg- Gore won the popular vote, and many believe the election was stolen- think about all of the irregularities reported with minority voter suppression and SCOTUS stepping in to stop the recount. Was that not the move of an activist judicial system? The lower courts had already ruled to allow it. And the breakdown was strictly partisan 5-4.
kritter,
I think that 5 to 4 vote is the one Mvdg is referring to.
At least I hope so. So obviously Gore’s problem was that he didn’t campaign hard enough at the Supreme Court.
Could you two make up your minds? Whose fault was it? Nader’s or the SC? You blame everyone now suddenly? What is it?
Hard to believe we’re still arguing about the SCOTUS decision, which upheld the election laws as they were written. Changing the rules after the votes had been cast would have been activist, not upholding the predetermined procedure.
And that’s why a real leader has to not “promise everything to everyone” but to convince people that he’s sufficiently thought through the issues to come through with policy that will address concerns of various constituencies. That’s leading; unfortunately what most politicians do is follow the voters (and decieve them) rather than lead them.
I can uncderstand the glee in this article With so little good news for the Repubs, it must be a relief to attack others whenever possible.
Underneath the tortuous rhetoric (since when is analyzing effects arrogance?) could have been an an interesting analysis of how third party candidates actually do affect elections. That’s not the case here. It’s just one of many negative campaign articles we will be reading in the coming months.
Bloomberg might very well pull more votes from Republicans than Democrats. He was a Republican lately, remember, and a big friend of Big Business. . Many of his development schemes in NY have struck a raw nerve among Democrats here. Some people were so arrogant as to regret their working class neighborhoods being razed. Gentrification can be just another way of showing a lot or people they are not welcome in NY.
It would really be interesting to see an Independent affect the Repubs, if only to read the subsequent analyses in the aftermath.
Many like I only feel like Democrats after reading articles like this. More writing like this could end by doing a big favor to the Democratic Party.
I think you are making a mistake by combining elections and the democratic process. Third party candidates enrich the democratic process by offering ideas and alternatives. But elections are about picking leaders, not debating ideas.
It’s not that a particular candidate is “entitled” to a particular vote. But if 60% of the electorate prefer candidate A to B, then B shouldn’t beat A in an election. There’s a problem with the system if B wins because C gets 15% of the vote.
I can’t understand why you think it’s improper for potential third party candidates, or their supports, to take into account the practical effect of running. A first past the post election system is designed around two major candidates. Voters and candidates can’t be expected to ignore this.
If 60% prefer A to B, but 15% of that 60% prefer C to A:
A- 45%
B- 40%
C- 15%
A still wins.
That minor point aside. 51 prefer A to B, but 10% C to A, the result:
A- 41%
B- 49%
C- 10%
In that case… wait, here it comes: B deserves to win. See it’s easy: the person who gets the most voted (not the majority but the most) wins. He who is able to convince more voters than the otehrs do that they should vote for him / her wins and deserves to win.
It’s really very simple.
And about Kerry – even with a majority of Nader’s votes, he wouldn’t have won. Also – did any one of you actually check the stats about whether Nader voters would have voted if he hadn’t run and if so, for whom?
Well?
And what about Christine’s charge, that Gore wasn’t able to convince 10% of Democrats to vote for him?
And what about the fact that the Democrats failed to truly mobilize their base in 00?
And what about the fact that the Democrats tried to make Gore look like a liberal populist kind of person, instead of a more centrist, third way Democrat like Clinton was?
And what about the fact that Gore didn’t allow Clinton to lobby a lot for him, while he would have won if Clinton would have done so?
Man-o-man – it’s fascinating. Those who lost the elections blame anyone but Gore and Kerry, while those who did not vote for the Democrats say that Nader did not have anything to do with it, it was the Democrats’ own fault.
So the person who “deserves” to win an election isn’t the person most of the voters want to win? Right.
It’s so weird that Gore didn’t think of that. It would have totally taken the sting out of Bush’s “restoring integrity to the White House” shtick.
Michael,
Why do you constantly ignore the fact that Gore won the popular vote? You’re losing more credibility with every post you make that ignores that. Bush won that election because of the Electoral College system as much as anything else.
In addition I think you fail to appreciate how different things are nowadays in the American system. Third parties are extremely limited in how much they can shake things up if by that you mean make for a real substantive change in the nation’s attitudes.
Oh, boy, how arguments do fly off course.
The FACT that Gore’s campaign miscalulated says nothing about the FACT that Nader did have an impact.
Two facts can live nicely together, for those who are interested in the topic of how third parties affect election results.
Those who just want to do advocacy/advertisement
pick and choose among facts at the risk of their credibility.
According to your system…
Yeah.
meanwhile, did any one of you look at the actual stats already?
michael- Clinton could have hurt Gore more than helping him because of the taint of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. It seems ridiculous now, but at the time it would have been risky to have him campaign for him. Clinton has rehabilitated his image- by the work he’s done with his foundation.
Gore probably did err in letting image consultants have too much influence over the campaign- but almost all candidates use them.
I don’t think anyone is exactly blaming Nader- just stating as a fact that since Gore lost Fla by a little over 500 votes, Nader’s would have put him over the top.
It doesn’t change the fact that most people believe that having Jeb Bush as Fla governor and that kook Katherine Harris Sec of State (she was also head of the state RNC) certainly tilted events in Bush’s favor. He also pandered to Fla voters with the Medicare D promise-which he should have known would hurt the health of other programs meant to help our seniors.
1) It’s a VERY GOOD thing that so few Americans vote, since those who do vote show so little wisdom in nominating BAD candidates. I was born in ’65. Since then, not a single Prez, nor the losing rival, showed even glimmers of greatness. They do NOT deserve votes.
2) We need to scrap the primary system, go back to the backroom Buddhas, and have a 2 or 3 month election cycle with the handpicked candidates of the parties. Let’s see, that yielded us Lincoln, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, Truman, Ike, and JFK. It also gave us viable options like Adlai Stevenson and Tom Dewey. Compare the level of quality to Nixon, Reagan, Carter, and the Bushes! If that were in place now we’d have Giuliani vs. Richardson.
3) The R’s were as arrogant as the D’s now, back in ’92 with the Evil Dwarf.
4) Nader got exactly what he wanted, an R presidency so bad that a new Prez will have an opportunity to finally enact change on healthcare, Global Warming and other issues. Most voters are so goddammned dumb they just vote like Zombies. Gore lost because, in ’00 he was Gore (R-Lite, Tennessee). At least a few D’s have grown some gonads now.
5) Even though I loathe both Gore and W., Gore WUZ Robbed. 1000s of, let’s use the terminology Dick Cheney would, ‘Nigras’, were politely detained by Florida’s finest when they tried to vote, and it only took a 1000 or so detentions to tip the vote.
CS- stop changing history. Gore won the popular vote, and he really won the silly electoral, had W’s brother not criminally detained registered voters, and the Supreme Hucksters abjured their Constitutional Duty.
But, in the long run, that may be a good thing, because we’ll get healthcare and get off the oil addiction due to the Moslem crazies.
Had another milquetoast Dem (R-Lite) been elected, we’d still be narcotized.
And the reams of evidence of voters being criminally detained is found where? Allegations of voter intimidation are not the same as actual voter intimidation. And since the Clinton era US Attorneys were still around then, I highly doubt they would have ignored cases that could have been prosecuted.
As to the SCOTUS decision, it was the FL Supreme Court that was obstructing justice by ordering selective hand counts and ignoring the predetermined election laws. The race outcome was well within the range of a statistical tie, so the only way to call it was to stick to the rules that were set before the votes were cast, not make up rules as they went along (which would necessarily have favored a particular candidate- and I’m sure it was purely coincidental that all of the FL justices were D’s)
Meanwhile, have any of you looked at the stats of the electoins?
CS- it’s called the mainstream news- there were 1000s of folk detained illegally. Read books on the election, read the articles from 2000. C’mon, knock it off. 2000 was stolen. Again, it prevented Gore & will likely result in healthcare by 2009, and all it took was a little war. In the long scheme of things, not a bad reward for condoning thuggery in the electoral process.
Why yes, I have. Al Gore won the actual popular vote. What is your point, Michael? I’m still right, you still haven’t acknowledged that basic fact.