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.
Hello? I heard a few Republican strategists on cable worrying that a Bloomberg run would take votes away from their candidate and throw the race to the Democrats. Because that is what third party candidates do- elect a minority candidate to rule the majority. Neither side likes a third party- though I’m sure conservatives loved the fact that Nader threw the race to Bush, cheating Al Gore of his rightful victory. Anyone wanna argue that he would have done a worse job than Chim—er W???
That is completely irrelevant and if Republicans will say this, I will accuse them of being arrogant as well.
Again, it’s irrelevant. Gore should have convinced those people to vote for him, not for Nader. Gore failed in doing that and, thus, deserved to lose.
That’s how it works.
To be very frank: people like you even anger me and I am not even American! What an arrogance, what a victimization, what a strange logic.
It’s unbelievable. This entire debate is convincing me of one thing: if I were American I would not vote Demoratic. What a bunch of whiners.
And Kim proves Michael’s point.
In case you are wondering, Kim, I didn’t think that Perot cheated Bush41 out of his ‘rightful victory’. Perot’s presence in the race was a factor, to be sure; but 41 should have run his campaign accordingly to convince voters that he was a better choice than Clinton AND Perot. He didn’t do so, and he lost, end of story.
Christine, it’s sad isn’t it? They don’t even see it themselves.
Incredible.
Why is that irrelevant? Our system is not set up for multiple candidates. I wish that it were, because it would be great to have the choice of three VIABLE candidates.
CS– in yesterday’s discussion you said that I didn’t get it, because conservatives are HOPING that Nader comes in as a spoiler. So, don’t pretend today that a third party candidates don’t act as a spoiler, no matter what their intent. In practical terms, they do.
No they don’t. They offer more choice and keep the two main parties at their guard.
Keep blamign third parties for the Democrats’ failure to win though, I am sure that will help the Dems a lot in the future.
Ahem.
If I was a Republican, btw, I would every now and then encourage Demos to think like that - that way, they will never truly change themselves and keep on losing.
No, Kim, if that’s how you interpreted my comment in that other thread then perhaps I didn’t explain it well enough. I wasn’t saying that conservatives hope that a spoiler comes in to divide the Democratic vote. I was saying that Michael and I (can’t remember if anyone else in that discussion had the same POV as he and I expressed) see ’spoilers’ as a positive force because they make the mainstream candidates rethink their positions and stop taking voters for granted. If I were strictly looking at the situation as a partisan, then I’d have the same view as you but from the other side: I’d think that independents and third party candidates might “take” votes from the GOP, or I’d hope that someone would “take” votes from the Dems. But personally I don’t see it that way and I do find that attitude not only arrogant, but destructive.
It doesn’t seem that some people need any encouraging though. In a way I think things end up balancing out; the Democratic party tends to have ideas that are easier to sell to the public (despite some people who claim the contrary, that candidates like Kerry just didn’t come across well because his ideas were complex for soundbites- I completely disagree because most Democratic proposals consist of telling people what they most like to hear, telling them that that party cares more about them, etc). So they have that inherent advantage, but then there are characteristics of the party and of their natural consistency which don’t lend well to good organization, and some characteristics which tend toward elitism and hubris, so those aspects tend to work against them. I think generally those are the factors that keep the pendulum swinging to one party or the other, so that neither will actually self destruct but neither will be able to remain on top for long either.
In my first paragraph of comment 8, by the way, I should have acknowledged that there certainly ARE some conservatives who view it the way you described, Kim. It’s just that those are pure partisans, and I don’t count myself in that group. I am conservative, and I want conservative ideas to win out- but that doesn’t mean that I always think that the GOP should win.
And in my last paragraph, I could just as easily have described the faults and the advantages of the GOP, so I didn’t mean that to sound as though the flaws are one sided.
Yup, spot on.
I for one welcomed Perot, and I’ve seen strategists also mentioning Bloomberg possibility could remove votes from Dem’s as well
And in the end - good, I don’t consider it taking any votes as my vote is never a given - it’s earned.