No Need To Vote In Fear: Vote For What You Want

| Educate!

Voter manipulation to get people to vote agaisnt their interests is a central part of big business control of government. The managed democracy is not only controlled by a primary process that assures oligarchic candidates, but voters are also managed by fear. As a result the US has very low voter turnout and most of those that do vote hold their nose and vote for someone they do not like.

There are two big myths that the Democrats are using to manipulate your vote. The big one this year is the trumped up Trump Fear — a myth because Trump cannot win in this electoral college.  The electoral college map is impossible for Trump. The New York Times did a good job showing how hard it will be for Trump to win by showing Trump needs to win Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida, all three in order to defeat Clinton. Obama won all three in the last two elections and Pennsylvania has gone to the Dems for three decades. Polls today show Clinton winning all three, whe only needs one. It is hard to see Clinton losing either Pennsylvania or Florida, the only real swing state will be Ohio, but it will not be as relevant because Clinton can win without Ohio. But, if Clinton just wins one of these, Trump will be a loser. Politico looked at the electoral college map and found with just the solid blue states and Florida, Clinton wins the 270 electoral college votes to win. And, that there were 40 other electoral college votes in states leaning blue. This election is shaping up to be an easy win for the Democrats thanks to the electoral college, demographics of the voting population, funding of the campaigns where major Republican donors will not support Trump but are supporting Clinton, and Donald Trump’s racist, anti-female campaign making all these trends worse.


The second is the greatest political myth of the 21st — the Nader Myth — that voting third party elects the greater evil. Below is an explanation of what happened in 2000 which shows the falsity of the Nader Myth, hopefully it provides you a tool to respond to people who believe it and try to spread the myth. It is important for voters to know, they do not have to vote in fear but can vote for what they believe in. That would be a good habit for US voters to develop.

If you want to vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump because they share your political views, do so. If you want to vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, you can do so, without voting in fear. You are free to vote for whoever you want without being manipulated by fear. The result is already evident, Hillary Clinton will be our next president, the task of the movement is to be prepared for that reality. There should be a #NoHoneymoon campaign that begins in early 2017 followed by a presidency of protest where the people demand their agenda becomes the agenda for the nation.


Don’t Fall For It: The Nader Myth and Your 2016 Vote

Nader campaigning in 2000

Once again, fear is being ramped up to manipulate progressive voters into voting for what they do not want, Hillary Clinton, instead of someone who represents their values. The fear of Trump is the card being played this year and to justify it people are being told that Gore lost to Bush in 2000 because of third party candidates. One of the most effective pieces of political propaganda in this century has been the Nader Myth, which says that Al Gore lost in 2000 because Ralph Nader ran for president.

This myth is repeated by many Democratic Party operatives and people in the media, who are essentially serving as Democratic Party spokespersons. Since the Democratic Party’s method of convincing people to vote for Hillary Clinton is fear of Trump, people should be prepared with the facts around the 2000 election so they can dispel the Nader Myth.

Ben Jealous Calls for the Facts, Then Ignores Them

One recent example was Ben Jealous, the former Sanders’ supporter who has endorsed Hillary Clinton and, as a result, got a spot on the stage at the Democratic National Convention. He debated Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential candidate, on Democracy Now and brought up the Nader Myth, saying:

“We can’t deny the facts of the past. George W. Bush got into the White House because Al Gore lost by about 900 votes in Florida. Ralph Nader got 90,000. The reports, the studies that went back and looked at those voters said 60 percent of them would have gone for Gore if Nader wasn’t on the ballot there.”

Since Jealous couched his claims in “facts,” here are some additional facts that turn Jealous’ claims on their head and show the real truth – Gore lost to Bush on election day with a little help from Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Thomas who stopped the recount in Florida.

The key state to focus on is Florida, but it is important to remember that Gore lost his home state, Tennessee, and lost Clinton’s home state of Arkansas. If he had won either of those, he would have been president.

In Florida, Bush won the votes of 308,000 Democrats, that is 12 times more Democrats than Nader’s mere 24,000. Gore also lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader. In addition, half of all registered Democrats did not even bother voting. For about one million Florida Democrats it was: Vote Bush or don’t vote.If one percent of any of those categories had voted for Gore he would have easily won Florida.

CNN’s exit polling showed Nader received the same amount of votes from both Republicans and Democrats: 1 percent. Nader also took 4 percent of the independent vote. Had Nader not run, Bush would have won by more in Florida. CNN’s exit poll showed Bush at 49 percent and Gore at 47 percent, with 2 percent not voting in a hypothetical Nader-less Florida race. (See articles at end of article for more details.)

A media review one year after the election found that a full recount would have resulted in a narrow Gore win and that the biggest problems were unclear ballots (remember the Palm Springs Butterfly Ballot) and voting errors by Democrats, which cost Gore 15,000 to 25,000 votes, which would have been an easy win for Gore.

Can’t Vote Green because it Could Lead to War

In the interview, Jealous went on to play the war card. He claimed the cause of the Iraq War was voting for Nader, a third party peace candidate:

“And the reality is that we cannot afford to end up with having an Iraq War because we narrowly lose the White House to somebody who should not be in there, as we did with Bush.”

Jealous’ forgets Clinton voted for the Iraq War by stumping on behalf of Hillary Clinton he negates his concerns about war. Clinton has never met a war she didn’t support and she is responsible for coups in Honduras and the Ukraine and the devastation of Libya.

He may not know that before the 2003 invasion, in February 2002, Al Gore gave a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations where he gave all-out support to President Bush’s war policy. Among the things he said:

“President Bush deserves tremendous credit for the way he has led the nation in a highly successful opening counter-attack in the war against terror.”

“Since the State of the Union, there has been much discussion of whether Iraq, Iran and North Korea truly constitute an ‘Axis of Evil.’ As far as I’m concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one’s cards on the table. There is value in calling evil by its name.”

“. . . there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms.”

“In 1991, I crossed party lines and supported the use of force against Saddam Hussein, but he was allowed to survive his defeat as the result of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing decade. And we still do.”

“The question remains – what next? Is Iran under the hard-liners less of a proliferation threat than Iraq? Or less involved with terrorism? If anything, Iran is at this moment a much more dangerous challenge in each area than Iraq.”

From his own words, it is evident that Gore supported George W. Bush post 9/11 war on terror of, including an attack on Iraq, and may have gone further and attacked Iran. So, no Mr. Jealous, it was not the election of President Bush that caused the war, it is the ideology of two political parties that favor militarism as a response to international issues.

If Not Nader, Why Did Gore Lose to Bush?

The reality is that Gore lost hundreds of thousands of votes to Bush in Florida that he should have won. The Democrats needed to make Nader into a scapegoat because they did not want to admit the real reasons that Gore lost to Bush.

The real reasons would have challenged Democratic Party orthodoxy of Wall Street and war that still dominates the party today. Al Gore was one of the founders of the corporate Democratic Leadership Council. He, along with Bill Clinton and other corporate Democrats, believed that taking funding from big business interests and doing their bidding was the path to defeating the Republicans.

The Democrats, unlike the Republicans, couch their corporate policies in language that sounds Populist. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did this for healthcare reform. Their plans protected the insurance, pharmaceutical and for profit hospitals from a single payer, improved Medicare for all system that would have put people, not profits, first. They claimed their plans were best for the people, when they were really best for their corporate donors.

Al Gore also had a long record as a supporter of a large military budget and US wars. He even joined the Vietnam War voluntarily to show his support for that war. The military industrial complex is a major donor to the Democratic Party and selling weapons has been a good business for Democratic presidents to pursue. The Obama Administration has sold more weapons than any president since World War II.

Gore compounded his corporate-militarist image by selecting Sen. Joe Lieberman as his vice president. Lieberman was about the most hawkish Democrat in the US Senate and an avid supporter of Israel. He was also essentially the Senator representing the insurance industry.

If the Democrats admitted that their selection of a corporate-militarist ticket is what cost them the election, it would turn their big business funding base against them. Rather than move away from selecting those kinds of candidates, the Democrats blamed Nader for Gore’s defeat and continue to this day to nominate similar candidates.

The Real Reason for Gore’s Defeat is Why this Election is Not a Landslide

The Democrats should be land sliding the incredibly weak Republican ticket but they are neck and neck in national polls because Clinton has a similar big business, pro-war record as does her vice president, Tim Kaine.

Clinton-Kaine are still likely to win but they need to instill Trump fear to drive voter turnout. Trump fear is a fraud. The electoral college map, the demographic shifts in the country and Trump’s hateful campaign, turning off major groups of voters, ensure that Hillary Clinton will be the next president.

There is no reason to vote in fear. Don’t fall for the Nader Myth, now you have the facts.


Tim Wise, Why Nader is Not to Blame, AlterNet, November 7, 2000

Irene Dieter, Dispelling the Myth of the 2000 Election, California Greens, May 2003

gjohnsit,The Ralph Nader Myth, Daily Kos, December 6, 2013


Kevin Zeese co-directs Popular Resistance and served as Ralph Nader’s spokesperson and press secretary in 2004.


    Agreed that this election should not be close; Hillary should be beating Trump by a country mile. Agreed that the reason for that is basically the regrettable similarities between the two parties. Agreed that in previous elections where the number of votes that went to third party candidates was larger than the margin of victory, very much larger numbers of votes were “lost” to other factors which could be said to be much more responsible for the loss than third party votes. So it makes perfect sense to argue that we should not worry about the “spoiler” effect; that we should vote for whoever we think is best, and concentrate on dealing with other things that in the past have been and continue to be the major factors in what from our point of view are lost elections.

    BUT. Those other factors persist. We have all sorts of things that are skewing our elections and we are not dealing with them; when we look back on this election we will find that they were just as important as ever. The point is that each of these factors (including the “spoiler” effect) that can be shown to have taken more votes than the margin of victory could, equally rationally, be said to have been responsible for the loss. Why should we single out one of them for condemnation, rather than any or all of the rest, particularly when in doing so we are striking at the very heart of the democratic process? Lest we forget; the way a democracy works is very simple (and very effective if actually practiced). 1) A number of candidates run for a given office. 2) Each citizen votes for whichever candidate they think is best. 3) The votes are counted and whoever gets the most votes wins. Period. End of case. The citizenry gets what it deserves; if as a whole they vote for a Lincoln they get one. Or a Trump.

    It could be argued that the only factor that we can control individually is the spoiler effect; that the other factors are effectively beyond our control, and that therefore we have the responsibility to vote “realistically”. If Trump wins and does so by a margin of, say, a hundred thousand votes, and if a hundred and one thousand of us had voted for Jill, it could reasonably be said that at least a thousand and one of us should have voted for Hillary instead of Jill. OK; which of us should that have been? Should none of us have voted for Jill (or anyone else besides Hillary and Donald) because we were being “realistic”? What are we really doing when we accept a system that forces us to conclude that we should not follow the basic precepts of a democratic system and simply vote for the person we consider to be the best candidate?

    We face a particularly acute dilemma in this election because one party’s candidate is a sick man who would be indescribably dangerous if elected. And the other party’s candidate, while much better, is still nowhere near what we now desperately need. She, while doing some good things, will continue to exacerbate the literally life threatening crises that we now face (the top three, which have been mentioned only in passing by either major candidate [Jill is on the case, though], are climate change, the takeover of our democracy by a corporate oligarchy, and the empire-building and sustaining of the U.S. and Europe over the last several hundred years [think colonialism, slavery, “regime change”, or oil]). These crises are real, they are immediate, and unless we face them squarely and deal with them realistically, any one of them could literally threaten life as we know it on this planet. Our situation really is that serious, whether or not we can admit it.

    And the fact remains; if Trump were to beat Hillary by a margin smaller than the number of votes cast for Jill, then it could be rationally argued that I “should have” voted for Hillary. TRUMP MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO WIN. So there are two horns on this dilemma and they seem to me to be of about equal size (how I wish the proponents of each position could recognize the validity of the other’s view instead of attacking each other). I plan to deal with it all by voting for Jill (because I think the need to practice democracy properly is primary) unless the election shapes up to be close in my state (if it isn’t, my vote won’t matter to Hillary), in which case I’ll grit my teeth, vote for Hillary, and continue to work toward a better day.

    Verily, we were born into interesting times.

  • chetdude



    Even though gwbush and Obama have abused the power of the office the USAmerican pResidency given the Congress, Supreme Court, slightly subservient military and a critical mass of the public paying attention, it’s still not the same as a dictatorship…

    So in reality, what would be the essential difference between the neoliberal, war monger Hillary or the neoliberal war monger Trump in the office?

    I’ve been watching USAmerican pResidential (s)elections since Ike’s 2nd nomination and I’ve never seen one that contained two such weak, intensely disliked and mistrusted candidates with both propaganda machines screaming at us “vote for OUR candidate or we’ll kill this puppy!”

  • DHFabian

    From a different perspective: The Reagan Democrats of the 1980s merged with the Clinton wing of the 1990s. They have successfully owned and controlled the party ever since. The Dem voting base had long consisted of the “ordinary masses” — poor and middle class, workers and the jobless, for the common good. The Clinton wing split that base wide apart, pitting us against each other. The past eight years confirmed that this split is permanent. So no, we won’t have another President Clinton.

    We have a poverty crisis today. Not everyone can work (health, etc.) and there aren’t jobs for all. The US shut down/shipped out a huge number of jobs since the 1980s, ended actual welfare aid in the 1990s, with some appalling consequences. The last I heard, there are 7 jobs for every 10 jobless people who still have the means to pursue one (home address, phone, etc.). Socially, we’re deeply divided and subdivided. “Middle class” is now a temporary position. The rich are now doing to the middle class what the middle class already did to the poor. The US has made itself unsustainable, so collapse in the foreseeable future is inevitable.

  • DHFabian

    The Clinton wing (and liberals) deeply alienated much of the former Dem voting base. Obama was seen as the last chance to legitimately address our poverty crisis. It was worth a try, but didn’t happen. Democrats picked the most anti-poor, anti-New Deal pol they could dig up. Democrats can’t win any elections with only the votes of a portion of middle class Democrats.

    In the end, we’ll get whatever the middle class chooses.

  • DHFabian

    Trump and Clinton have essentially the same ideology. We fear Trump because we don’t know what to expect, and we fear Clinton because we do. Either way, we’ve made ourselves powerless, divided and subdivided by class and race.

    That said, of course I’m voting for Jill Stein. The US hasn’t had a president who wasn’t a D or R for over 100 years, and because the two parties have merged, a change is necessary. So much has changed in the US over the past 20 years, that Stein actually does have a chance.

  • Pingback: Newsletter: #NoHoneymoon, A Presidency Of Protest | PopularResistance.Org()

  • Pingback: No Honeymoon for Hillary: Create a Presidency of Protest - Popular Resistance - The Raucous Rooster()