Professor Bainbridge...on law, politics, religion, culture & food

Sure, some big D’s aren’t in favor of small d, just as much as some R’s couldn’t care less about small d either, as I’m sure we’re all well aware. So Armey’s quote is a whole lot of ta-do over nada in that regard.

As a big D myself, Nader’s running to me causes an eye roll and nothing more. I wouldn’t attempt to stop him from running. That’s his choice. I would speak against big Ds acting otherwise. Hell, let Huckabee turn independent and run as a big I. That would be interesting too.

In the end, anyway, Nader won’t siphon anything. Many of his supporters don’t take him seriously anymore, no where near as seriously as they saw him in 2000. His candidacy = zero impact this time.

Another example of anti-democratic ideas from the D-party is Nancy Pelosi’s pledge to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates--IF AND ONLY IF one candidate already had such a clear lead that doing so wouldn’t change the outcome.  Otherwise, the delegations would not be seated.

In other words, she wants voters to feel enfranchised even if they are actually disenfranchised.  Her open cynicism was shocking even to me, and I’ll believe Democrats will do anything.  No, Democrats do not believe in democracy.

Daryl, do you really think Republicans would be acting any differently if Roy Moore announced his candidacy?

Actually, given the Delay-esque track record of Republicans regarding democracy (see ref: Texas redistricting) one could build a strong case that Democrats are more committed to democracy.

I suspect Hui is right. There are only two scenarios in which I see Nader picking up any significant number of votes. First, a brokered Democratic convention that leaves some wing of the party furious with the nominee. E.g., Hillary narrowly wins by virtue of the superdelegates. Maybe Nader picks up some of those disgruntled votes. Second, the polls have the Democratic nominee so far ahead that far lefties think it’s okay to throw their vote away on Nader as a protest against corporatism. But I doubt it. Most of my liberal friends loathe Nader these days because of 2000.