An Appeal to Third Party Voters, Make the Difference for Obama

Progressive voters leaning towards Ralph Nader or other third party candidates could make the difference between Barack Obama winning or losing the presidency.

Being marginal myself, I am very aware of how decisive third-party voters can be. I won the Democratic nomination to the California senate by less than one-percent in 1992. In the final two weeks, I mailed out an appeal to Green Party voters in my district, urging them to switch parties in order to vote for me. The mailer included cards to re-register from Green to Democrat for the primary, and another card to register again as a Green once the primary was over. Those hundreds of votes made the difference.

Late in 2000, I found myself enmeshed in torrid conversations between the Gore and Nader campaigns. The process wasn't good. The Democrats were trying to push Nader off the ballot anywhere they could, thus refusing to recognize his core interest in establishing a new party. The Nader people refused to acknowledge that there was any difference between Gore and Bush, and denied that their votes could affect the outcome. My "Gore-Nader" proposal -- that Nader endorse Gore in Florida and other close states, and become our most important progressive advocate in Washington after a Gore victory -- went nowhere because Nader would have none of it.

So much was at stake in 2000 that, to this day, the wounds then inflicted have not healed. One side [in the tens of millions] believes that Iraq and the Alito Court would have been avoided and the first environmental presidency would have been launched. The other side [a few thousand] denies that the Nader vote caused Gore to lose Florida.

Rather than scrape those scabs one more time, my proposal is that progressives thinking of voting third party this time consider the historic chance to elect Barack Obama president. Such an open gesture would be enormously important to the people who most fervently favor Obama -- young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and labor for example -- and go a long way to heal and unify the progressive movement this time around.

Many of those Obama supporters share the criticisms of Obama made by the third party advocates -- that he needs more pressure on Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, domestic spying, trade. But there is no sympathy, no comprehension, only something between irritation and rage, towards the third-party view that it doesn't matter if John McCain wins and Barack Obama loses.

It is hard for many to grasp that an infinitesimal fraction of voters could deny progressive hope and revive the failing fortunes of the neo-conservatives and the right-wing evangelicals. It is possible that Obama, fueled by the Wall Street economic scandal, will pull away, in which case everyone can vote their first preference.

But with 29 days left before the election, it is crystal clear that racism and other forms of submerged resistance are blocking an Obama runaway victory.

If this race is like 2004, here are some reminders of how close it will be. Democrats lost Iowa by 10,059 votes, or .67%. Democrats won Wisconsin by 11,384 votes, or .38%, and New Hampshire with 9, 274 votes, just 1.37%.

Now look at today's electoral map, as detailed by RealClearPolitics.com. Obama leads by six percent, 49.3-43.3 in a national average, by four percent in the ABC-Washington Post calculations, and only three percent in the Democracy Corps poll. When you include Nader and Bob Barr in the count, Obama's six-point lead is cut by nearly one-third, to 4.2 % [47.5% over McCain's 43.3, with Nader at 2.5% and Barr at 1.5%.] Cynthia McKinney and others are not included.

These projections cannot estimate the numbers of new voters or the turnout of African-Americans who will offset Obama's losses among some conservative Democrats. But neither can they fathom whether six percent of white voters who say they are voting for Obama will wind up secretly voting for the white man, which is the historic pattern.

That means that the national numbers, for now, are dead even. If that pattern holds, the third-party left can make a big difference in ensuring a majority vote for Obama by increasing their support in safe states like California and New York.

When we get down into the key electoral college states, it doesn't matter if solid red state voters drift from McCain to Nader or others. Where it matters decisively is in states like Florida, Ohio, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and North Carolina, where there are crucial progressive pockets.

At this point, the map shows these states too close to call:

- Ohio, Obama by 3%.
- Wisconsin, Obama by 5%.
- Virginia, Obama by 4.9%
- Florida, Obama by 3%.
- Colorado, Obama by 3%.
- Nevada, Obama by 1.8%
- Indiana, McCain by 2.2%
- North Carolina, Obama by 0.5%

Perhaps these states will turn decisively to Obama. We may know in ten days. But at this moment, the Obama movement needs all the votes at the margin.

Third party voters should watch the polls very carefully, and think long and hard about the choice presenting itself.

In the face of McCain-Palin, is it possible to argue that there is no difference between the candidates this time? Is it really credible to argue that voting for Nader individually doesn't matter because it doesn't matter to the outcome, which seems to be Nader's argument for the 2000 Florida result?

In addition to voting for Obama, third party activists can make a huge local difference in fighting to see that every vote counts in states with unreliable registrars, histories of stolen elections, and long cold lines on election nights. This will be a street battle for democracy that citizens of every persuasion should engage in.

In the end, the only question in November is the basic question of which side you are on, a question that goes back decades and centuries and which this generation has the historic opportunity to answer.

Comments

[dylanfreak]

Tom,

For a very long time, I have admired your work for civil rights and for peace. Therefore, I feel that you have the right to know why I cannot and will not vote for Barack Obama.
It is simply not true that George W. Bush won the 2000 election, or that all but a few “thousand” people believe this. The evidence proves that, if all the votes cast in Florida that year had been counted, Gore would have won. The Greens were scapegoated by a Democratic Party that supported most of the Bush agenda.
Though Obama allegedly opposes the Iraq War, he will leave troops to defend our “national interest” -- oil -- and will *expand* the war in Afghanistan. To vote for Obama, a war candidate masquerading as a peace candidate, would betray my most cherished beliefs.
In the very near future, if political trends continue, the human race will either become extinct, or will exist in such wretchedness that extinction would be preferable. The Green Party advocates new ways of dealing with these crises. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are ideologically exhausted.
If Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party gets just five percent of the vote on November 4th, the Greens will gain ballot access and funding and become a powerful force for progressive values. Therefore, I challenge you, Tom Hayden, to be true to the convictions of your youth, and pull the lever for Cynthia McKinney on Election Day for *real* change.

[jautumn]

Will it be easier for progressives to make gains under a McCain or an Obama administration? Neither. We'll be on the defensive either way, and with Obama we'll be worse off, having to face an historic icon, the first black President, as he quietly snuffs out every last progressive glimmer from government, whereas McCain would target conservative agendas for his wide-smiled betrayal.

Clinton did what no Republican could - gutted welfare, institutionalized military homophobia, normalized "regime change" in Iraq by lying about WMD, murdered half a million Iraqi children via bombs and economic blockade (act of war by definition) without Congressional authorization, surrendered U.S. sovereignty to secret foreign tribunals via NAFTA/GATT/WTO, repealed Glass-Steagall thus causing today's financial mess, etc.

And McCain is far better than Obama on election reform - he accepted the Google/YouTube debate Obama turned down, accepted public financing when Obama didn't, offered ten debates that Obama declined. Obama has destroyed the public financing of presidential elections by being the first candidate ever to opt out.

There is every advantage and no net downside risk in voting Nader against McBama, to send them this message: We will knock you out in the primaries next time like Hillary, Mitt and Rudy if you dare attack the liberties and well-being of the common folk we represent, and until you adopt a truly progressive agenda and push it into reality, you will never get our general election vote, never.

[MalleusMaleficarum]

For a third party candidate, Tom Hayden makes some very valuable points. Many of the replies have been disingenuous and rhetorical. At this late date -- October 7th, 2008 -- anybody who cannot discern the difference between John McCain who is promising another century of war and Barack Obama who is willing to withdraw from Iraq, negotiate with Iran and send a relatively small contingent to Afghanistan to apprehend Bin Laden -- well, they deserve respect for the opinion they hold -- but I must demur. This election is far too important to cast a vote for a hopeless campaign. The stakes are far too high. Not only is the US economy at stake, the world economy and much more importantly -- the people of the Middle East who would become cannon fodder for the mindless Armageddonite military campaigns of John McCain. Yes, McCain is infinitely worse than Obama. Let's vote for an intelligent president for a change and insist that he listen to rational argumentation when he obtains power. With McCain, there will be no recourse to war, economic ruination, the revocation of rights, the perversion of the constitution and a non-stop concatenation of policies defined by absurd platitudes flowing from the mouths of theocratic maniacs in the Bible Belt.

[jautumn]

"Obama who is willing to withdraw from Iraq, negotiate with Iran and send a relatively small contingent to Afghanistan to apprehend Bin Laden" Lies! Here are Obama's real positions:

"As president, I would pursue a new strategy and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligen­ce-gatheri­ng and more non-military assistance to accomplish our mission there."
July 14, 2008, NY Times, "My Plan for Iraq"

Note the words "begin with" and "at least" two new brigades = 10,000 troops more than the 36,000 already there.

Iraq: Obama NEVER mentions withdrawing ANY of 190,000 military "contractors", including 30,000 mercenary combat troops plus support personnel.
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=156

He'd leave a gigantic "residual force" of U.S. troops:
"He did not specify how big the residual force would be - one of his advisers has speculated it could be as big as 60,000-80,000 troops"
He'd increase the overall size of the military by 92,000 troops. Why, if he's withdrawing 100,000 from Iraq, unless to send 192,000 to Afghanstan, Pakistan and Africa?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/14/barackobama.uselections20082

Iran: Obama said no military option is off the table, so that includes tactical nuclear strikes, and he said he'd first try SANCTIONS, NOT NEGOTIATIONS, code for economic blockade, a brutal act of war like Clinton used which killed half a million Iraqi children.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,417563,00.html

[jautumn]

The bailout bill Obama just rammed through Congress also makes IRS undercover operations and intelligen­ce-sharing with other agencies for non-tax-related purposes a permanent mission of the IRS. it also grants the Treasury Dept the power to purchase securities it fixes the price of by fixing government insurance premiums for them, and transforms theFDIC from a fee-based self-supporting insurance fund into an uncapped credit line that our children and grandchildren's will have to pay for forever.

The Wall Street speculators and crooks that the bailout is helping cash out before their pyramid schemes finish collapsing will now stash all their stolen and extorted loot into FDIC-backed bank accounts, making sure to choose small banks they can gain majority control of deposits on. They then run on those banks to tank them, and the FDIC depletes their reserves paying out those deposits. This will continue until the crooks and speculators have finished laundering their money in this way.

Then President Obama or McCain will declare an FDIC emergency because it has run up trillions in debt, and place a moratorium on payouts. So prudent borrowers who put their money in strong banks that are least susceptible to runs by a few large depositors will lose out in the end, because when those banks start to go under, the FDIC will have exhausted its capacity to borrow and pay by paying the crooks and speculators who got their hands in the FDIC cookie jar first.

[jautumn]

It gets worse: FDIC will now insure ALL deposits, no cap, so the swindlers who created this mess can drain the FDIC reserves with crazy straws!

Read 3rd paragraph below (then read the first two and ask yourself whether Obama can be trusted as President after leading the interference and damage control spin operation that blunted the populist outrage that at first had stalled Bush/Paulson's dictatorial power grab):

"Many of the steps already taken involved authority that existed but was seldom used. Some, such as the Treasury’s ability to take direct equity stakes in banks, involve new powers.

Other steps require explicit findings of an impending financial emergency. The Fed’s ability to provide capital to some corporations or partnerships may rest on a vote by its board that “unusual and exigent circumstances” exist in the credit system, according to the Federal Reserve Act.

A plan to allow the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to insure all bank deposits – beyond the limit of $250,000 per depositor written into the economic stabilization bill earlier in October – would require a multi-agency finding that “systemic risk” threatens the economy. But experts believe it would go far in shoring up confidence in the banking system, as well as giving banks more comfort about lending to each other. In any event, obtaining the necessary findings from the Treasury, Fed and FDIC may not be much of an obstacle given the urgent atmosphere."
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/nationworld/story/505532.html

[antiapathy]

The democrats always try to push this idea that if Al Gore had become president in 2000 he would have behaved like the progressive he is now. Total BS. If Al Gore had campaigned as passionately for the environment in the 2000 campaign as he does these days, he would have been elected by a landslide. But instead, he triangulated toward the center.
If democrats want the progressive vote, all they have to do is show some progressive values. And if democrats think they have better policy positions, why not let the progressive candidates in the debates? I'm just a little sick of the democrats pissing all over us and then blaming progressive when their crentrist campaigns implode.

[LesserOf2Evils]

Well said, antiapathy.

[rmhenige]

Unbelievable. Obama teams up with McCain and Bush to hand out the largest Wall Street giveaway in American history and you expect true progressives to hop on board? Well, I'm one progressive who's sticking to his guns and voting for the only ticket left with any integrity. You've got to ask youself one question, why isn't Obama STEAMROLLING McCain? Here's your answer, because he can't attack him on any of his positions because he's attached to the same corporate interests. Democrats need to get over themselves and take ownership of losing the 2000 and 2004 elections. Weak candidates without solid platforms get what they deserve. I've got a suggestion for all you spineless Democrats, help us work to get Ralph Nader into the debates and once he embarrasses both corporate candidates you can join the rest of us true progressives.

NADER/GONZALEZ 2008

[JayceBird]

Obama and Democrats can earn their votes, but the least worst option is just ballot box tyranny. Obama and McCain have shown their outrageous disdain for the American People as they pushed through a Bail Out bill that steals money from us and our children, to hand over to Wall Street cronies. They are both corrupt, Corporate Operatives. The best option now is to try to begin to destroy the two party system, joining forces with other like minded people from all over the political spectrum in supporting the third party candidates of our choice. Enough is enough. I really find it really unbelievable that you treat third party supporters as they are naive or unaware of their own self interests. How pompous and paternalistic! It shows you have very little understanding of Third Parties, their platforms or their history. Third party supporters are especially aware of their personal, political, strategic and historical rationale for supporting their candidates. I think most of us are pretty fed up with the way the Two Party system is destroying the country.

[rumsblogger]

Thanks to Tom Hayden for his work as a progressive advocate.
Third parties play an important role in democracy. The Greens and others helped bring the Democrats back from the abyss of centrist flip flopping embodied by the Gore and Kerry campaigns. Gore personally has found his voice again, while his alter-ego in 2000, Lieberman, now represents the reason why many people voted for Nader. It was Jekyll and Hyde, and all the scare tactics invoking Bush's policies don't change that. Remember the WTO? Sure, it's since been neutered by activists, readers of Naomi Klein's books and supporters of minor parties. Clinton et al loved the WTO.
I'd like to see Obama push for electoral reform, instant runoff voting, proportional representation, and to make minor parties included, not excluded from American politics. Then I won't have to read and respond to these spoiler type articles because you just vote 1, 2, 3.
This time, I actually, for the first time in 30 years, have hope that Obama will question the system, and will consider such change. I wouldn't cross party lines from Green to Dem to vote for HIllary or Biden, but I think I may for Obama. He was a community organizer, and he's a systems thinker. Let's hope he doesn't let us down. If he does, the votes for the Greens and Peace and Freedom and others will grow again, and the impassioned "this election is different" pleas will be easier to ignore.

[JayceBird]

When has Obama even proposed any sort of electoral reform, IRV or propotional representation? He is involved in the CPD Debates, that effectively squash competition and third party voices. He would not even accept to talk to Nader on the telephone. He turned down the YouTube Google New Orleans debates that McCain accepted. He turned down public funds And this Bail Out shows where his true allegiance is, and it's on Wall Street. It is absolutley deulsional to hope that Obama is willing to offer any sort of electoral reform change, after all this. You are also voting for BIDEN, which you say you wouldn't do, as VP. Doesn't that make you have wonder where Obama is coming from? Hope he doesn't let us down? He's already let all of us down.

[SpoxLogic]

Do any of these 3rd party folks remember what voting for a party that had no shot of winning got us?

If they don't remember, it was GEORGE W. BUSH.

It's one thing to vote to send a message - quite another when that vote causes more of the pain you are so vehemently against. Sort of doesn't make sense.

To the people thinking of voting for a third party: Hey, it's your vote and you can use it anyway you like. You did it in 2000, so you really shouldn't be complaining about how things are going now.

[kkvh4026]

Rubbish. Democrats like to scapegoat NAder and the Green Party to distract from their own failings of losing to the worst President in US history TWICE.

1 The only people responsible for electing Bush are those that voted for him, and more Democrats voted for Bush than Nader.

2 Gore lost his own home state of Tennesse that would've won the election

4Gore lost Clinton's state of Arkansas in 2000 that would've won the election

5 Nader actually got more voteas from Reoublicans than Democrat voters in 2000 as he's ironically more conservative than Bush & McCain (ask Ron Paul who endorsed Nader)

6 Gore actuall did win the 2000 election and votes in FL weren't counted as the Republicans cheated, and the Supreme Court ruling was biassed. Blame the thieves for Bush

7 Nader was excluded from the debates in 2000 and threatned to be arrested by the Commission of Presidential Debaates for just having a valid invatation to be in the audience. Democrats helped marginalise him and now blame him.

8 Gore chose Iraq war cheerleader Lieberman to be his VP.

9 Bush continued not started the lies of the clinton/ gore administration that placed sanction on Iraq and bombed Iraq for "WMD" and "terroist ties" before the Bush administration.

Democrats are blindly voting to mandate increased war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, increased military spending already >50% when US is in debt, corporate bailouts at tax payers expense, maintained occupation in Iraq,.
That will be YOUR fault.

[JayceBird]

Bush voters, nonvoters, democrats voting republican, Clinton's debacle, Gore's bad campaigining skills, purged voting lists and the Supreme courts got you Bush. Gore had every opportunity to earn votes by taking up some of Nader's issues. Gore lost that election for you. Grow up. Your lazy analysis and scapegoating show your refusal to accept responsiblity for supporting your own corrupt, corporate Party that has now sold us out with this Bail Out, by refusing impeachment, by funding the war and being corrupt cowards. There is no excuse to defend the Democratic Party anymore.

[Pdubya]

this blindness infuriates me!

neither will change:

to a non-intervention foreign policy
repeal FISA, Patriot, Military Commission Act
return to sound money
cut federal spending via the Fed

All the rest hinge on the above, so "two parties" is a mute argument. you may be blue and i may be red, but those on the Hill (with few exceptions) are just in it for the green.

I've seen the records, followed the money. They are both for the New World Order.

[BCubedReg]

The word is "moot" not "mute".

And if you think there are no differences between the two candidates then I feel sorry for you.

You have been down trodded into cynicism by a political landscape that has never served your interests and so you throw your vote away on a candidate (Nader) that has neither the political capital or acumen to effect a real change in society.

I ask you to reconsider your vote. If you don't think Obama can effect a change in America, go out and talk to one of his supporters or people donating money. Go talk to a young person that is walking the street to register voters hoping for a better future. Take a good hard look at the hope they carry in their eyes and then come back to me and tell me "neither will change".

[JohnDewey]

I understand where you're coming from, but you're talking past the person you're trying to convince w/o truly listening to their perspective.

I don't completely agree with Pdubya's comment, but nowhere in it does s/he state that, "...there are no differences between the two candidates." This is a straw man argument that neither Pdubya nor many of us on the left are making. Rather, Pdubya stated quite clearly that neither candidate differs on a list of issues that Pdubya believes are fundamental. My list of areas where I won't compromise my values differs markedly with Pdubya's, but I get that Pdubya's guiding principals are as important to her/him as mine are to me and yours are to you.

There are many of us for whom a candidate's stance on certain issues is a deciding factor. This doesn't negate all the other areas in which one may agree with a given candidate, but it does mean that each of us values some things more than others and will compromise, or not, based on those values. We're not saying there are no differences, we're saying that the differences are inadequate, not substantive enough and/or not in areas of greatest importance.

Lastly, my reading of Pdubya's comment suggests that s/he is opposed to the two corporate candidates based on libertarian principles & likely to vote for Ron Paul/Bob Barr/Lyndon LaRouche, NOT Ralph Nader.

[sociocanuck]

It's a shame that the American political system has that winner-takes-all element that means third parties can at most serve as spoiler. But it's not like the system can just spontaneously change, so doing everything possible to get potential third party voters on board seems like a wise strategy.

[FearlessFreep]

Of course the system can't spontaneously change. Only we can change it, by thinking outside the box and not putting all our eggs in the Obama basket.