Shadow debate #1

[dougo]

I just watched last week's debate between Howard Dean and Ralph Nader from C-SPAN's website. (You may need to configure your browser to understand the "rtsp:" protocol, which is RealPlayer's streaming format; in Opera, it's under "Programs and Paths" in the Preferences dialog.) It was lively yet civil, intelligent, informative, inspirational, and clearly showed the important differences between two very similar opinions—in other words, all the things the "real" debates will never come close to being. There was some amount of scripted rhetoric, but overall it really felt like two rational human beings actually engaging in the issues, giving candid and substantive answers to questions from the moderator and the audience, and responding to each other's challenges in a sensible way.

It was great to hear foreceful support for electoral reform from both of them, and apparently everyone else in the room, including good old John Anderson. Dean said it was more likely to happen in a Kerry administration than another Bush administration; I would be ecstatic if Dean can actually get the Kerry/Edwards campaign to add this to their platform (or even mention it once!) but I'm not holding my breath.

It was also refreshing to hear Dean refuse to blame Nader for the 2000 election, and generally praise third parties and the freedom for anyone to run for office. He did, though, make one amusing point on the question of letting more candidates into the official debates: he agreed that the current threshold (15% in the polls) might be too high, but pointed out that there did need to be some sensible threshold, because the 9-way debates in the Democrat primaries were "incredibly dull". (Nader and Anderson want the threshold to be a simple majority in a poll asking "do you want to see this candidate in the debate", which seems sensible to me; another idea would be to apply the 15% threshold to "who would you vote for with Instant Runoff Voting" rather than assuming the current winner-take-all system.)

Nader made this interesting point: it seems clear that many liberals who voted for him in 2000 are going back to the Democrats this year due to their (in my view misplaced) outrage over Nader's candidacy and the potential spoiler effect. Yet Nader's overall polling numbers are higher than they were in 2000; these new votes have to be coming from somewhere, and Nader think they're conservatives who are increasingly disgruntled by the current Republican agenda (bigger government, fewer civil liberties, etc). It does seem like there's as much (or more) dissension in Republican ranks as there has been in the Democrat party in the last few years, though in public people like McCain are still as loyal as Dean is to "the team". It will be interesting to see if Nader can really sway an appreciable number of Republicans, especially without the stigma of the "ultra-liberal" Green Party.

Comments

here's my knee-jerk Salon liberal follow-up:

[ahkond.livejournal.com]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/06/10/nader/index.html

see also
http://dir.salon.com/topics/ralph_nader/
and especially
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/07/14/naderphonecall/index.html

[dougo.livejournal.com]

I have to say, that phone call transcript makes Talbot look even more like an egotistical jerk than Nader. Can he possibly believe that Salon is the only one scrutinizing Nader? I also don't understand the "anti-gay groups are supporting you" thing (which Dean also hammered on in the debate), or condemning the Reform Party endorsement.

As for your first link, besides it being just anecdotal evidence, why is he looking for Republicans in New England?

[ahkond.livejournal.com]

Beats me.

polls

[temvald.livejournal.com]

Nader made this interesting point: it seems clear that many liberals who voted for him in 2000 are going back to the Democrats this year due to their (in my view misplaced) outrage over Nader's candidacy and the potential spoiler effect. Yet Nader's overall polling numbers are higher than they were in 2000; these new votes have to be coming from somewhere

Nader is polling better than his performance in 2000, but not really better than his polls in 2000. If you look at, hurm, Zogby in July 2000, for instance, you'll find that Nader was polling 6% and Buchanan 2.6%. Nader ended up getting 2.7% of the vote, Buchanan 0.4%.

Zogby's latest national poll shows Nader at 2%.

So a) Nader is not polling better than he did four years ago, b) much of his appeal in the polls could be attributed to people's increased wilingness to poll for a third party than vote for one, and c) he has probably picked up more Buchanan voters than Bush voters. Though Buchanan voters are a powerful force in politics, as people in Palm Beach County can tell you...

[dougo.livejournal.com]

That's a good point about polls vs. votes (and still more reason to support IRV, where people would be more likely to vote their true opinion). As for the Zogby poll, that's "likely voters", but I'm guessing Nader was referring to the Gallup poll of registered voters that put him at 6% as of June 21-23 (although he's dropped to 4% in the latest poll, which hadn't been released at the time of the debate—I'm guessing that's part of the "Edwards bounce").

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

Nader's 6% collapsed to <3%, which really disappointed me. I was a (somewhat misguided) Nader voter in 2000. I would be surprised if his 4% even becomes 1% in the end: he just isn't going to be on the ballets. It was also kind of sad seeing Nader be all defensive (I only heard the audio of it, though). He seemed like such a shell of the man I saw in the Boston Garden. But in the end he did speak of the things I care about, like the Palestinians and how Zionism is a third rail that no one main stream cares to address.

[dougo.livejournal.com]

Are you talking about the debate with Dean? He didn't seem defensive to me, and was quite feisty and relatively upbeat. I don't remember any comments about Zionism, either. He does seem to rely on stock phrases and generalities more than he used to, which bugs me, but I guess he figures that's the only way to get his message(s) across via the short-attention-span media. Or else he's just had to repeat himself so many times that he's sometimes on auto-pilot.

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

Well, he talked about Israel/Palestine, and how "it" was a third rail issue. But Israel/Palestine itself isn't the issue, people talk about that all the time.

He seemed defensive when he said "oh, no, not at all." Even compared to Dean, Nader also seemed way out of his league.

I think he gave a really lame answer for "why didn't you participate in the Democratic primaries?" his answer was a non answer: "freedom." Huh? Kucinich seemed to do a fine campaign, and actually Kucinich makes a Nader campaign seem redundant. Kucinich already talked about these issues in the debates, and even the Democrats weren't interested. I can't really regret my MA vote for Nader, but had I been in Florida, I probably would have.

Yeah, about the stock phrases: I want my President to pass the Turing test. Bush seems to fail that himself (link not handy, but I'm sure you saw his interview with a hard-hitting Irish reporter from a couple of weeks ago).

[dougo.livejournal.com]

Kucinich makes a Nader campaign seem redundant.

Well, Nader has said that one reason he prefers to run as an Independent is that his candidacy wouldn't end after the primaries. Of course a much bigger reason is his hatred of the current Democratic party, and he feels it's impossible to change it from within (which I tend to agree with, though we'll see if Dean can do anything at the convention—is he even a scheduled speaker?).

I did see that Irish reporter interview, and didn't see what the big deal was. She didn't seem all that hard hitting or insistent, just somewhat impatient, but it was amusing to see how petulant he got about being allowed to finish.

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

I think the Dems are already changing. Kerry is better than Gore, and we did get to hear from Kucinich, afterall. I thought Kucinich was a great bone to throw at the far left. And I still don't get why people liked Dean but snubbed Kucinich. (And then why those same people seem reluctant to like Kerry, or even try to get to study him.)

[dougo.livejournal.com]

Personality, probably (for both of your questions). Also, Kerry has done a particularly poor job of communicating his platform, but I do expect that to change during and after the convention.

I'm virtually a single-issue voter, though, and if Kerry doesn't start talking about electoral reform, my vote's still with Nader.

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

Would your vote go to Nader if you lived in an "uncalled" state? What would you like to see of electoral reform?

IRV and Condorse voting seem cool, but neither are a slam dunk due to May's theorem (if I'm getting my math right; ie. there are situations where clearly the voters demanded one candidate, but the system gives the winner to someone else). Proportional representation seems cool, but that would require a massive change to our government, and it has its own problems with fringe groups controlling the more moderate parties.

I guess for myself one of the biggest issues I care about [that can practically be done (I think the vegetarian cause is important, but in no way can there be major politcal work done on that; so what I mean by "big" here is through the prism of realism)] is energy. Bush has a crappy energy policy, and Kerry has a damn good one. He uses rhetoric about being energy independent so as to loosen our middle-eastern ties: but that's just rhetoric. The reality is that there will be an energy recession that will become and energy depression without: (1) politicians working with the industry and creating the right incentives while energy is cheap enough to execute them; or (2) an energy miracle, like controlled fusion (eight limbed man/machines not withstanding).

Also important to me is health care. If you've been following my blog, you've probably read the Krugman article that has sound ideas for lowering premiums, all part of Kerry's plans.

I agree with you that these haven't been very well communicated. Hopefully these great ideas can be put out appropriately, as like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. That ought to boost the polls even higher.

Anyway, I think Dean is right in that Bush is particularly a terrible president and I think most everyone sees that: the democratic party has never before been so united. Even Nader chooses to attack Dean instead of his friend Kerry.

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I was a little disappointed with Kerry's plans for social security. They aren't bad, but it's more keeping the status quo than privitizing it. Barack Obama has a great retirement plan, which would help even graduate students like myself save big time. I look forward to seeing him in the senate.

Kerry vs. Bush: Social Security

[coll-een-iquee.livejournal.com]

Well, I can't say that I'm completely pleased with Kerry's plans for social security, but they're better than Bush's. I had to do a paper on the positives on Kerry's social security plans, and while I was looking for research, I read that by the year 2006, Medicare will consume about 37% of social security checks. This may not seem to really affect us teens at the moment, but by the year 2078, when we most likely WILL need social security, Medicare will consume about 97% of social security benefits. Bush also doesn't approve of reimportation. Reimportation is when the US purchases drugs (prescription drugs) from other countries. We buy them for a fraction of the price versus getting them from the US. I understand that after 9/11, we are put on high alert for terrorism and at the time, we mostly likely don't want to buy prescriptions from Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East...that's kind of a scary thought actually. But do you honestly trust some of the people in the US to get your prescriptions right. There is just as much of a chance that someone can mess up your prescription or send you something illegal or lethal in the mail in the US, as in other countries. Maybe this is just coming from the mouth of a kid...I'm probably missing the point anyways. X_x I know that a presidential candidate can just say things and then, not act on his words. But since we've had Bush as a President, he's lied to us about tax cuts and the prices of gas has risen to an UNREAL cost. He has done some good, though. For instance, even though I don't completely agree on barging into Iraq, I do like how we've put a madman out of power and, even though we haven't found weapons of mass destruction yet, my voice teacher assured me that they are real, but probably out in the Indian Sea. All-in-all, I like how Bush deals with stress and how he has handled this whole issue. But I definitely don't like his views on social security.

The Presidential Debates are coming up this Thursday. I'm definitely new on politics, but I'm still going ot watch them. Never know what you can learn. Besides, I heard that whoever wins these 3 debates will be our next President. It's that close...and they're both great debaters. Fun!