--------------------------------
Ralph Nader announced today that he is indeed running for president again. Many Democrats are now on edge: will he cause an unfortunate side-effect as he did in 2000? Does the party have to fear its coalition splitting, essentially handing the presidency to the Republicans for four more years? In my opinion, the answers to both questions are "no." Barack Obama is the viable anti-establishment candidate, so I expect most voters on the left to continue to side with him. Any effects Nader will have will be negligible.
Oh. But that's all assuming Obama gets the nomination. If Hillary gets it, the Democrats may have something to fear then. Don't forget that general elections are decided by mere percentage points, and for Ralphie to pull a repeat in Florida could cost Ms. Clinton dearly. More reason for her to drop out, perhaps :-P.
Folks, the fact of the matter is that in a first-past-the-post system like ours, you need to maximize the size of your coalition in order to have a shot at winning the presidency. The result of this is that every small interest group merges until there are only two equally-sized parties left. If anyone is to attempt to create a third party and succeeds at ripping away some of the members of another, the third party and the reduced one are bound to lose. Yes, in an ideal democracy with proportional representation, everyone who wants to run for an office should do so. But we live in a republic under a winner-take-all system; failure to recognize the subtle differences between the two is what causes things like eight years of GWB.
And, since we're on the subject, a few points I brought up on nyyfans regarding the Nader effects in the 2000 election:
Oh. But that's all assuming Obama gets the nomination. If Hillary gets it, the Democrats may have something to fear then. Don't forget that general elections are decided by mere percentage points, and for Ralphie to pull a repeat in Florida could cost Ms. Clinton dearly. More reason for her to drop out, perhaps :-P.
Folks, the fact of the matter is that in a first-past-the-post system like ours, you need to maximize the size of your coalition in order to have a shot at winning the presidency. The result of this is that every small interest group merges until there are only two equally-sized parties left. If anyone is to attempt to create a third party and succeeds at ripping away some of the members of another, the third party and the reduced one are bound to lose. Yes, in an ideal democracy with proportional representation, everyone who wants to run for an office should do so. But we live in a republic under a winner-take-all system; failure to recognize the subtle differences between the two is what causes things like eight years of GWB.
And, since we're on the subject, a few points I brought up on nyyfans regarding the Nader effects in the 2000 election:
- Al Gore won the national popular vote. But this is irrelevant, being that our general election system couldn't care less about individual votes. Thus, by the rules of the game, he did lose. However...
- It all came down to counting individual votes in Florida. Had Nader not been on the ballot, Gore would have garnered enough to win the state (I think it's safe to assume that those who voted for Nader were more Democratic in ideology than Republican). So although it's an overstatement to say flat out that 2000 was Nader's fault, you can say that his presence led to the recount fiasco and subsequent decision by the Supreme Court.
South of the United States, Raul Castro was named new president of Cuba, keeping communist rule alive in the island nation. Imagine that. What's more, Jose Ramon Machado, a 77-year-old revolutionary leader, was given the runner-up position. This essentially means that Castro's old regime will stay in place for a little longer. And people actually thought that Castro stepping down would bring massive change?
Let's change topics completely and go into some Spring Training notes from around the majors:
Let's change topics completely and go into some Spring Training notes from around the majors:
- Brad Lidge hurt his knee during batting practice yesterday, and now he needs arthroscopic surgery to repair a torn meniscus. Expected recovery time? 3 - 6 weeks. Lidge could miss Opening Day with the Philies due to this premature injury. Talk about unlucky...
- Santana's already making an impact at the Mets' camp. Yes, he's a stellar pitcher who's impressing his new team with his stuff, but he's also literally leaving marks: he beamed Carlos Beltran in the arm. If this sort of thing becomes common, the Amazins' could be in for another unlucky season (so sorry if it happens, Johan).
- Speaking of the Mets, legend Sandy Koufax stopped by the other day to give Billy Wagner some pointers. Of course, the entire team wanted advice and autographs. What a treat that would have been for fans who just happened to show up.
