i live in a competitive state, but i vote in canada, where votes are tallied by riding (political districts containing about 100,000 people on average). my sense is that the thornhill riding is competitive, although they’re not aggressively polled like US states are. i voted for the NDP, which is unlikely to win in my riding or nationally, but neither is impossible.

The thing is Uri that many of Nader’s positions do enjoy wide support, Nader himself does not. That would be worth exploring.

One wonders, are you in a competitive state? Will that effect how you vote, and how you invite people to vote?

your sarcasm is way off target. as is your punctuation.

actually, nader has a base in the US public. his positions are much more popular than mcbama’s. his politics are indeed rejected by the ruling elite, but there are power centers outside the elite. as i’m sure you recognize, popular support is a source of power in a democratic country.

you are not politically limited to two choices. you can vote for nader, vote for mckinney, vote for brian moore, eat your ballot (http://edibleballot.tao.ca/), or choose one of any number of alternatives.

you can *choose* to limit yourself to mcbama, but that’s not a rational, humanistic choice, it is submission to a slavish ideology peculiar to american electors.

your argument assumes that the only function of a vote is to add one to the column of a candidate who is likely to win an election. the assumption is wrong. a vote also has the function of demonstrating support for a candidate who is not likely to win the current election, which makes the candidate or party more likely to win future elections.

even granting the assumption that the only function of the vote is to add to the total of a candidate with a realistic shot of winning the present election, it makes no sense for you to vote for obama over nader, if you think nader would make a better president. first, the possibility that your vote will be the decisive one is infinitessimal, even if you’re in a competitive state.

second, you’re not in a competitive state. obama is a shoo-in to win massachusetts. in the extremely unlikely event that he loses massachusetts, there is no chance that he would win 269 electoral college votes. it’s a less likely scenario than nader getting 270 electoral college votes.
therefore it is more likely that you voting for nader would be the decisive vote for nader, than that your vote for obama will be decisive for obama.

They have some similarities on vital issues to be sure. But on other issues they couldn’t be further apart. As Daisy and Jeff point out, on reproductive rights they stand opposed. Health Care, the makeup of our courts, adherence to the constitution and respect for our civil rights are all at stake in this election.

Additionally, on foreign policy as much as they strike the same tune, they diverge on questions of diplomacy and casus belli. McCain is more violent than Bush. Obama, while surely not a dove, is not suggesting we continue the Bush strategy of reshaping the middle east with our bombs.

The point is who wins in the election, while far from ideal, will impact peoples lives. We need to be taking steps forward while we learn how to jump, not running backwards.

Secondly, Nader has no base of support, no institutional support, and is rejected by major spheres of influence in the U.S., so that means *he will not be elected as the next president of the U.S.*. This leaves us (though unfortunately) with two choices.

Third, given the choice of Obama and McCain (which is the choice facing us, whether we like it or not), the key question is: Is there a significant difference between the two? If there is, then you should vote for the one who most represents your views, and if the disparity between the two is significant enough, then you might even want to actively support one over the other.

In my mind, the differences between Obama and McCain on (1) unions and the Employee Free Choice Act, (2) Roe v. Wade and reproductive freedom, (3) judicial appointments, to the Supreme Court and below are so absolutely oppositional that a rational citizen should choose to vote for, if not campaign for, Obama (in a swing state, at least).

I absolutely agree that neither is a true progressive, and it’s not that I love Obama so much — but from where I’m standing, McCain seems bad enough to make Obama a necessary choice. The foreign policy distinctions my be “a matter of style,” but there positions on reproductive rights, among others, are definitely not.