So, I was wondering Ben, can she count on your vote in november?? ;)


hxxp://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/12/mckinney.green.party/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

I kinda feel bad for the Green Party.

I'm really resisting a LOL here, but this just isn't that funny. I'd say especially not if you're a greenie.

On the downside, the lunatic fringe will definitely not be splitting off a sizable portion of Democrat votes for the Green candidate.

She could get fewer votes than Buchannon. I wonder if they keep stats on that?

We're obviously a really far way from having parliamentary-style elections and coalition governments -- but if there's any political movement out there that seems like it *could* make a difference on this front, it would be the environmental movement. Honestly, it doesn't seem ridiculous to me to see committed enviros basically saying "neither major party can really be trusted here, I'll vote for the party that really commits to this issue in a way I like."

I think the trick for someone like the green party is to adopt a platform that essentially focuses on their key issue(s), and leaves it at that. I really don't want to hear details about what the green party thinks about nuclear proliferation or about Tibet or about education incentives. Just lay out what you really believe in on *your* issues, and if I want to send a message with my vote, I won't be confused by the (likely) nonsense that you have to say on other fronts. Just adopt a platform of environmental issues, and be done with it, keep it simple.

*alas*


(By the way, this isn't really a coalition or platform I personally support, it's more my general frustration with the two party system that's bubbling up here)

|
|
|
|
\/

Well, I feel the same way about the libertarian party, really.

They nominate a candidate, of course, but then it essentially turns into a parade of ideas from soup to nuts on what that particular person represents. I heard Bob Barr on a radio interview last week (I think) and while there's much of the lp platform that I do like, there was quite a lot coming from him as the candidate that I really did not.

So, my advice to a third party like the lp is basically the same. I don't want you to get into details about what you think is essential in border security or dealing with Iran -- nothing you say is going to make me want to vote for your no-hope candidacy anyhow. Focus on what you are really in this for -- whether it's primarily reduced government and lowered taxes, or whether it's invididual liberties and freedom from an overintrusive state. (I have a similar lecture in the chamber for Ron Paul, though the setting is different) Stick to that message, and maybe you can convince me that my vote would be well placed to essentially say "I'd rather throw my vote away to support these important issues, than just go with whichever of the two main parties is incrementally closer to me on this stuff."

You're not going to win this election, whether you're the green or the libs. The best you can hope for is get some people talking about the limited scope of things that you really care about. Don't dilute it with all the other junk.

QS, I wholeheartedly concur. When Barr was announced, I mentioned here that the person will turn off people from the ideas. It was my hope that a person like Ron Paul will get voters - within the two parties (esp. those in Congress) - to think about cutting back on federal powers and expenditures instead of continuing to go in the opposite direction. There are, I believe, a lot of people against wastefullness (domestic and foreign), against expanded powers in the name of safety, against the complex tax codes and the games that are played, and against a "nanny" state that is perceived to do more harm than good (esp. in their mandates on the states and locales). Libertarianism is a way of thinking, not a political platform, which is why I have never been a member of the LP.

Wonder how this affects the Obama wins Geogia theory. I think that was pretty heavily contingent on Bob Barr pulling some sort of meaningful vote from his old Atlanta constituency. Now you have a former congresswoman on the other side of things with a political machine of her own in Georgia. While she certainly took a nose dive, losing in the Democratic primary previously, I'm wondering if she still has enough ground troops to even out any advantage Obama would have had from the Barr voters.

Libertarian party is pretty awesome if you are already more selfish than the average citizen.

I think her local power was a bit overstated. There were two times she faced a tough primary challenge and she lost both times. Also, I think the difference between her and Barr is that Barr speaks to a segment of the Republican party that might not be comfortable with McCain, whereas I doubt there are many former McKinney supporters who are uncomfortable with Obama. Gore was seen as a stiff moderate and Nader was able to get some traction out of that. I just don't see McKinney being able to do the same thing, even in Georgia.

I think it's a fair point that her local power may be overstated, and I tried to imply that a bit in my post, but probably didn't express it well enough. However, I think there is still some part of DeKalb County where Cynthia is still very popular. And to win Georgia, I think Obama needs Barr to do well and can't afford any sort of leakage to McKinney in areas where he would be expected to carry in excess of 80-90% of the vote.

I definitely see what you're saying, but I don't think Obama is going to win Georgia anyways. The big thing that comes out of this is that McCain will have to defend Georgia, a problem the GOP hasn't had to worry about the past two elections. I still expect most of the south to go for McCain, and Obama will probably focus on Virginia as his best pickup opportunity. The Barr/McKinney factor will definitely be an interesting thing to look at in GA, though.

Methinks your "this" is different from my "this" here.

I didn't really explain that well. My this is that the polls in GA are close and people are talking about Obama having a shot to win. That means McCain will have to defend it. I think he will successfully defend it, but the fact that he has to defend GA at all is definitely a problem.

I don't, and I'm a liberal lefty environmentalist.

The U.S. Green Party leadership has it all wrong. You can't build a sustainable political movement by putting some nutcase out there for a quixotic run at the Presidency and hope for the best.

The U.S. Green Party needs to look at the European Greens for an example of how to get some traction. The Greens there built an organization by campaigning locally from the start. The very first thing you need to do, as a new party, is convince people that you're not a wacko. So, run some reasonable people for town councils and show the populace that you can be in government and not totally screw things up. Build from there.

Anyway, any 3rd party in the States has an uphill battle, to be sure, but this is totally not the way to go about building a viable 3rd party.

One thing to remember with McKinney is that she will most likely not be on the ballot. Georgia has some very restrictive ballot access laws. Nader wasn't on the ballot in 2000, for example, but Harry Browne was. I doubt many people will go out of their way to support her, at least not enough to offset whatever impact Barr will have.

Agreed. The Reform Party ultimately failed for this reason. Their approach was to aim for high offices. They even got lucky with Jesse Ventura. But they didn't use their isolated moments to do any party-building on the local level. So when the national names fizzled, they had nothing left.

*bump*

Now the Green Party candidate for President, Ms. McKinney is back in the headlines and, you guessed it, for all the right reasons!

hxxp://is.gd/3rsv

"Wow! What a conspiracy theory," one professor exclaimed before declining comment and hanging up the phone."

That made me laugh for some reason.

There was a video of her saying this in the big election thread. Amazing. She has completely flipped her lid.

I don't think she actually believes that story, I think she is spinning it with some purpose in mind. My unsophisticated read on her is that she's a manipulator, not a mark.

I didn't check that thread because it's way, way too long to begin with. I thought this thread might be more appropriate. ;)

Since long threads take patience:

lol.

:rolleyes:

Am I wrong? Do they not?

His intent was probably to roll his eyes at the video.