« The Empirical Nader Effect | Main | Speaking Engagement »
Friday, June 11, 2004
Swing State Roundup
Posted by DavidNYCTAP's Purple People Watch update is out this week. They have some more details on the efforts to keep Nader off the ballot in AZ, and some info on Kerry's attempts to woo the Latino vote, both in Florida and New Mexico.
Sadly (to me, at least), it seems that Bill Richardson won't be our VP nominee. I've heard that he has problems of a... hmm, shall we say, Clintonian variety in his past. Not that that ever stopped the Big Dog, but I can more than understand why Kerry would be reluctant to have someone with "issues" like this on his ticket. Hopefully, though, we'll see many more years of great service out of Richardson.
Posted at 05:17 PM in General | Technorati
Comments
Richardson's star has fallen in the past few weeks. NM Dems have had a lot of scandals that have prevented them from capitalizing on what has become bloodsport within the Republican Party. The new establishment consolidated itself in the primary. I think the closer Richardson came to putting himself out there as a Veep candidate, the less New Mexicans liked him backing out on his promise to fulfill his term. I think Kerry also fears a Black backlash.
Posted by: Ralph at June 14, 2004 11:34 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
Sorry for the language, but it's chickenshit for the democrats to curb the democratic process rather than debating Nader on the issues. If you can't win an election on the merits of your positions, then you shouldn't run.
Why doesn't 50% of the country vote? Because 100% of the major candidates suck!
Posted by: Tucker at June 14, 2004 09:51 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
My position is this: There are rules regulating ballot access for a reason. Sometimes, people feel that certain violations of these rules are merely "technical" rather than material. Yet who is to decide whether violations are minor or meaningful?
Should a county clerk or a Secretary of State look at a batch of petitions and decide for him or herself, "Well, these are really just tiny violations, so we should let Candidate X qualify for the ballot"? If you are willing to give such wide discretion to elected or appointed officials - officials who may well be hostile to your own side at some point in time - you run the risk of giving away too much power.
By having clearly defined rules which regulate ballot access, everyone is on notice as to how they must proceed - and, most importantly, if you follow the rules properly, you can't be thwarted because some government official would prefer to exercise his or her "discretion." In short, the rules provide certainty and safety.
Posted by: DavidNYC at June 14, 2004 11:28 PM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment
First of all, the major parties break more rules than Nader ever will, and second of all, the two major parties make the rules to squelch voices like Nader and Buchanan.
Have you checked the ballot access laws in Texas?...it's a mockery of democracy.
Posted by: Tucker at June 15, 2004 10:23 AM | Permalink | Edit Comment | Delete Comment