Re: [sixties-l] Sixties-1 Re: Hitchens on Nader

From: Ronald M. Jacobs (rjacobs@zoo.uvm.edu)
Date: 11/22/00

  • Next message: monkerud: "Re: [sixties-l] Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 20:40:29 -0500"

    I too would not have voted for gore  no matter what.  And still wouldn't.
    ron jacobs
    
    On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, William M Mandel wrote:
    
    > Here's one on which I agree with Blankfort.      William Mandel
    > 
    > Jeffrey Blankfort wrote:
    > 
    > > The problem with the analysis by Friedman and others of the same mind is
    > > that they assume that those who voted for Nader would have voted for
    > > Gore if the former had not been running. Speaking for myself and others
    > > I know who voted for Nader, none of us would have voted for Gore under
    > > any circumstances. Half the electorate who stayed away from the ballot
    > > box apparently made the same decision.
    > >
    > > Jeff Blankfort
    > >
    > > Neil Friedman wrote:
    > >
    > > > I distrust the use of a complicated anaysis to disprove the obvious. What
    > > > the Nader candidacy did was take over 78,000 votes in Florida. If Nader had
    > > > not been on the ballot, Gore would be president. Now, one may argue about
    > > > whether that would be good or bad for the country. But it would be true. For
    > > > Nader and/or Hitchins to dispute this is beyond my comprehension. I am
    > > > trying to make a point about thinking and analysis - how they can be used so
    > > > cleverly to evade the obvious.
    > > > - -- Many Blessings
    > 
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 11/24/00 EST