It’s the last week of classes, and you’re diligently studying for finals in a library, coffee shop or “Pokegym” of preference. At least, that’s what you tell your people back home. Of course, like any college student in 2016, you’re in awe at the debacle that is our presidential election, dying for a conclusion to the endless media cycles of the “what-he-said-versus-what-she-said” between the two main candidates.
So, why on the flying-spaghetti-monster’s green Earth is the Alligator talking about the election this time when it’s literally everywhere? There’s a bold claim circling about unchallenged: “A vote for a third-party candidate is a vote for Donald Trump.”
With the Democratic National Convention behind us, and many Bernie supporters sticking to their guns and refusing to hop on board the Hill-train, this bold claim is growing in popularity. Some tout this claim to pressure those blasted, no good third-party sympathizers, while others genuinely feel like we’ve run out of options against a “Trumptatorship.”
We at the Alligator aren’t going to tell you who to vote for; that’s not what we do. If you’ve supported Clinton this whole election and feel ecstatic at the prospect of voting for her, do your thing. If you’ve supported Trump this whole election… come by the office sometime and find our opinions editor, David — a good healthy debate of ideas and facts is in order.
And if you supported Bernie the whole election, and now you’re jonesing for the Johnson, “Steining” your ground with the Greens or “Hillblazing” with the Clintons, have at it. Vote the way you will. Just make sure you vote on your own terms rather than fear. Don’t listen to those who would scream the words “Ralph Nader!” at you until they’re (Democrat) blue in the face.
In the 2000 election, Nader won 2.7 percent of the popular vote. Just to give some context as to how small of a vote total that is, “Deez Nuts” back in August 2015 polled at 9 percent compared to Clinton and Trump. Even at the beginning of July, the left-leaning Public Policy Polling found “a giant meteor hitting Earth” polled at 13 percent against Clinton and Trump.
If Al Gore really did lose against George Bush because of Nader’s 2.7 percent steal, then maybe the issue wasn’t Nader: Maybe the issue was Gore. If your party’s candidate can’t beat Bush, or Trump for that matter, with Nader or “Deez Nuts” in the race, maybe your party’s candidate is just a really weak candidate. Maybe the issue isn’t the voters but rather the party establishments gambling the country with weak, unfavorable candidates.
We have the emails and patterns to show how the Democratic National Committee invested all of its will into Clinton, despite her consistent struggles against Trump in the polls. Meanwhile, we had another candidate who polled significantly better than Trump the entire primary.
If the DNC’s priority was beating Trump, we’d be breathing far more easily, because Bernie would be the nominee, and he’d be polling amazingly against Trump — not the 3.9 polling average Clinton has against Trump right now; even after a post-convention boost.
The parties, alongside the horse-race journalism of major media, crafted and passed down this disaster to the voters, and if it all falls apart, it’ll be their fault for gambling the future of the country for a favored candidate and boosted ratings — not third-party voters.
Let’s just hope “Deez Nuts” doesn’t miraculously make it on to the ballot and give us a real Nader effect.
