Thanks to blogger Ronald Hardy at www.greenpartywatch.org, as well as http://www.greensforgreens.org, the results of the roll call at the Green Party national convention in Chicago are:
Cynthia McKinney 323
Ralph Nader 78.5
Kat Swift 38.5
Kent Mesplay 35
Jesse Johnson 32.5
Elaine Brown 9
Jared Ball 8
Howie Hawkins 8
uncommitted or undecided 9.5
total votes cast: 542
Rosa Clemente was chosen vice-presidential nominee by a show of hands. She is the first person of Puerto Rican background to run for president or vice-president in a general election.
No votes were cast from these 13 states: Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, or Wyoming. At the 2004 Green national convention, seven states did not participate: Alaska, Kentucky, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Thank You for prompt results.
Lame that the left wing Green Party national leadership has excluded Green Party conservatives from 12 states.
Final vote:
McKinney 313 of 541
Nader 78.5
Swift 38.5
Mesplay 35
Johnson 32.5
Brown 9
Hawkins 8
Eddie Anthony…what are you talking about? Which delegates from which states?
Congratulations to Cynthia and the Greens!
OK…another update from GPW..should be final results:
Black Caucus – 2 votes – 2 CM;
California – 86 votes – Nader 52; McKinney 23; Elaine Brown 4; Kat Swift 3; Mesplay 2; Johnson 1; Jared Ball 1;
Colorado – 12 votes – 2 KS; 2 KM; 3 CM; 5 Elaine Brown;
Connecticut – 11 votes – 1 Nader; 10 McKinney;
Delaware – 6 votes – all 6 for McKinney;
DC – 16 votes – 1 Ball; 1 Swift; 1 Nader; 13 McKinney
Florida – 16 votes – 11 McKinney, 2 Swift; 2 Nader; 1 Mesplay
Georgia – 8 votes – 1 Swift; 7 McKinney;
Hawaii – 8 votes – 4 Nader; 4 McKinney;
Illinois – 44 votes – 5 Ball; Hawkins 8; Mesplay 6; McKinney 25;
Indiana – 8 votes – 1.5 Mesplay; 6.5 McKinney
Iowa – 8 votes – 1 undecided; 1 Mesplay; 1 Johnson; 2 swift; 3 McKinney
Lavender Caucus – 4 votes – all 4 for McKinney
Louisiana – 6 votes – 5 McKinney; 1 Nader;
Maine – 18 votes – 0.5 Mesplay; 1 Swift; 1.5 Johnson, 15 McKinney
Maryland – 16 votes – 3 Mesplay; 3 Swift; 4 Johnson; 6 McKinney;
Massachusetts – 21 votes – 1 Johnson; 3 Mesplay; 1 swift; 3 Nader; 13 McKinney
Michigan – 24 votes – 1 Johnson; 1 swift; 1 Mesplay; 4 Nader; 17 McKinney;
Minnesota – 12 votes – 1 NOTA; 11 McKinney;
Mississippi – 8 votes – 2 Mesplay; 2 swift; 4 McKinney;
Missouri – 8 votes – 2 Johnson; 1 swift; 5 McKinney
Montana – 2 votes – 1 Mesplay, 1 McKinney
Nebraska – 8 votes – all 8 for McKinney
New Jersey – 10 votes – 1 Nader; 1 NOTA; 1 Johnson; 1 Mesplay; 6 McKinney;
New York – 36 votes – 3 Johnson; 2 Mesplay; 2.5 Nader; 28.5 McKinney;
North Carolina – 8 votes – 2 Johnson; 1 Mesplay; 5 McKinney;
Ohio – 6 votes – 1 Nader; 1 NOTA; 1 Johnson; 3 McKinney;
Oklahoma – missing delegate ???
Oregon – 10 votes – 1 Johnson, 9 McKinney;
Pennsylvania – 18 votes – 2 Nader, 2.5 NOTA; 0.5 swift; 1 Mesplay; 2 Johnson; 10 McKinney
Rhode Island – 6 votes – 1 Johnson, 5 McKinney
South Carolina – 2 votes – 1 swift; 1 McKinney
Tennessee – 8 votes – 1 Johnson; 1 Mesplay, 1 swift; 5 McKinney
Texas – 12 votes – 1 Johnson; 1 McKinney; 10 swift;
Utah – 2 votes – both for McKinney;
Virginia – 8 votes – 2 McKinney, 1 Johnson, 1 swift; 1 NOTA; 3 Nader
Washington – 12 votes – 10 McKinney; 1 Mesplay; 1 swift;
West Virginia – 8 votes – 2 McKinney; 6 Johnson;
Wisconsin – 24 votes – 2 Mesplay, 1 uncommitted; 1 Nader; 1 swift, 19 McKinney;
Women’s caucus – 4 votes – 2 McKinney; 2 swift;
too bad Ralph Nader was not drafted. It would have put the Greens back on the map, back in the limelight, their registration would have gone up and it would have helped grow and solidfy Nader’s average of 6% in the vote. Not to mention the Greens gettting matching funds with 5% of the electoral vote. Very dumb. That’s the problem with third parties they shoot themselves in the foot. Democrats must be relieved yo hear the results. I guess the Greens are happy with David Cobb numbers of 100,000 votes for a general election
Actually Jonathan, many Greens, including me, asked Nader to run AS A GREEN in both 2004 and this year. result: He was not interested in being our nominee…so just wtf would you have us do? Beg the man? Excuse me, but if you think that is going to happen, you really don’t understand Greens, the Green Party or the green philosophy at all.
The Green Party must really be confused and desperate. After watching Cynthia McKinney’s behavior, hitting the Capitol Hill police officer, in 2006, I couldn’t imagine her running for dog catcher. Why would anybody in their right mind elect McKinney to anything … let alone the Presidency of the United States?
You guys have got it all wrong.
Hurray for Ralph Nader! Hurray for Matt Gonzalez! Hurray for Cynthia McKinney! Hurray for Rosa Clemente!
More democracy, not less!
The arrogance of BO has ensured that this is the year that the duopoly is unseated… and depantsed!
I am personally happy that the Green Party chose Cynthia McKinney. Just imagine if the Green Party had chosen her in 2004 (admittedly, this would have been impossible, since she was busy running and winning for Congress, but just set that aside). With two “big-name” people perceived as being left of Kerry, it wouldn’t have made much sense for the Democrats to go on their massive campaign to keep Nader off ballots, because in most of those states, McKinney would have been on. And it wouldn’t have been so easy for the Democratic Party to have a massive effort to get both Nader AND McKinney off ballots.
It may very well be that the Democratic Party isn’t trying to keep Nader off ballots this year (so far, anyway), because they and others have been anticipating that the Greens would nominate Cynthia McKinney anyway. It’s almost a safety net to have two tickets instead of one to the left of the Democrats.
Gina, far from being confused and desperate, we Greens are, by and large, unified, enthusiastic about our candidate, and ready to start rocking and rolling. We Greens understand how one of VERY few Black female members of Congress would be surprised to have her arm grabbed by an armed guard unexpectedly. Personally I don’t think she did anything wrong, but if you disagree, why is her apology not good enough for you? Tell the truth…you don’t support the Greens anyway, so why should we care what you think?
Do the Black, Lavender, and Women’s caucuses havevotes independent of the respective states?
Who or What is the Lavender Caucus??
If Nader would have won the nomination he would have accepted.
BY THE WAY in 2004 he wanted the nomination but did not get it.
No, Nader also said in 2004 that he would not accept the nomination. When he began to struggle with ballot access, he then came back and indicated he would accept the GP “endorsement,” namely, GP ballot lines but distance from the GP itself.
You are right Jim. that’s how it happened except the last part of him distancing himself from the GP. To this day he wished the GP the best of lucj and speaks volumes of praise .
Richard Says:
July 12th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
I am personally happy that the Green Party chose Cynthia McKinney. Just imagine if the Green Party had chosen her in 2004 (admittedly, this would have been impossible, since she was busy running and winning for Congress, but just set that aside). With two “big-name†people perceived as being left of Kerry, it wouldn’t have made much sense for the Democrats to go on their massive campaign to keep Nader off ballots, because in most of those states, McKinney would have been on. And it wouldn’t have been so easy for the Democratic Party to have a massive effort to get both Nader AND McKinney off ballots.
It may very well be that the Democratic Party isn’t trying to keep Nader off ballots this year (so far, anyway), because they and others have been anticipating that the Greens would nominate Cynthia McKinney anyway. It’s almost a safety net to have two tickets instead of one to the left of the Democrats.
Phil Sawyer adds: Richard Winger is correct and very profound in his comments above!
I’m registered Green. I’ll vote for McKinney if she makes the New York State Ballot, probably. But it’s going to hurt. I find Ralph to be a whole lot more likeable. When’t the Party going to nominate an Environmental Studies Research Scientist? Maybe scientists are beyond politics.
Predictions: Barr, 2,000,000 votes
Nader, 500,000
McKinney, 250,000
Baldwin, 100,000
To Jonathan
Getting 5% of the vote should be the last thing on the Greens’ minds right now. After what happened in 2004 and what will happen in 2008 the Greens will be hard pressed to maintain ballot status in the few states where they have it. In 1988 Alaska became the first state to give the Greens Ballot Status when Jim Sykes ran for Lieutenant Govenor. 6 Election Cycles later they flounder on the dge of existance. California became the Power House of the party when they registered 87,000 people in 1992. The party grew through it’s early years but after the debacle in 2004 most of the activist core called it quits. And it came alarmingly close to falling of the ballot in 2006 after the California Secretary of State purged the voter rolls.
Regarding Gregg Jocoy’s stement: “so just wtf would you have us do? Beg the man?”
Anyone who knows anything about Electoral Politics knows that Nader could have been endorsed by the party and placed on it’s ballot without his approval. As a matter of fact Peter Camejo, Ralph Nader’s runningmate, ran as a place holder in California and received 72 percent of the vote. What resulted ? In a brazen display of contempt for grassroots democracy a small clique of Democrat Infiltrators rigged the Party’s rules, capriciously stripped California of most of its delegates and installed David Cobb as it’s nominee in a sham proceeding. Cobb had no history in the California Green Party and never registered another member. Cobb moved in with his girlfriend to establish residency in the state only months before the convention. Cobb is the classic definition of a carpetbagger.
Getting back to you Jonathan. The Greens first gained ballot status 20 years ago. At the beginning their growth could charitably described as lethargic. They hit a high water mark in 2000 and have been in steady decline since. The party flounders because it’s anarchal nature represses individuals who could give it a sense of direction and set goals. It violates its own value of Inclusive by embracing devisive issue that alienate potential members. Ralph Nader recognised this early on in 1996 when he made the statement “I’m not going to engage in Gonad Politics” in response to a question on gay rights and received criticism for it. Those were encouraging words for those of us that saw a direct challenge to corporate power being continually undermined by the Identity Politics that has come to dominate Left Political Discourse over the last 30 years. In 2000 the Greens extracted a couple of concessions from Nader in exchange for their ballot line. Along with Gay Rights Nader also spent a great deal of time talking about Industrial Hemp which is code langauge for Pot. Nader had a decent run but saw the continous infighting was systemic to the party. With that Nader vowed he was finished with the Greens and their fringe tendencies. He remains close friends with many Greens and has tap two as his VP Running mates. In 2004 Camejo ran with him and in 2008 he chose Matt Gonzalez. Gonzalez like Nader recognised the Greens as disfunctional and reregistered decline-to-state before joining Nader on the 2008 Ticket.
What will come out of the McKinney Campaign ? Well that’s anybody’s guess but with a Black Candidate running for the Democrats the smart money says not much. And it is very likely the Green Party of California fractionalize and explode. One faction will establish a Greens-for-Nader group. Another is promoting the idea of a Down Ballot training party for the Democrats. I can’t see the Greens lasting very long in that mode. 2010 could be the last year for the Greens in California. And without the muscle that California’s numbers provided the National Party is destined to head in the same direction.
It’s not true that the Green Party came perilously close to going off the California ballot. The Green Party only needed to poll 2% for any statewide race in 2006, and it got over 2% for 7 of the 8 statewide races. Its best showing was 3.25% for Insurance Commissioner.
Only parties that fail the 2% vote test need to worry about keeping their registration above 1% of the last gubernatorial vote.
Gregg Jocoy: As I was not there, I have to rely on corporate news analysis. And I know personally that they get it wrong all the time, either with what they report or what they leave out.
Many different accounts have Congress member McKinney being hailed as a possible intruder. Many different accounts indicate that she changes her appearance constantly. And I have observed her being very over bearing! [She acts like a diva on a regular basis!]
I have been falsely arrested on a strickly political basis. I sympathize for the truly innocent. Could it be that Cynthia was ‘asking for it’ ? Could it be that Ms McKinney was just not thinking, nor had position of her official ID!
Reminds me of the judge getting pulled over for speeding —-because he was behind schedule! That is his problem, not ours. He is the perpatrator, not the victim!
The count forwarded by Gregg Jocoy at 1:39pm is missing two states at the front of the list:
Arizona (8)
Johnson 1.0
McKinney 6.0
Mesplay 1.0
Arkansas (8)
McKinney 4.0
Mesplay 1.0
Swift 1.0
Ball 1.0
uncommitted 1.0
The rest of the states look okay to me on first glance. But somehow the computer tally at the convention had a typo in the tens’ place or something — they counted 532 total accredited delegate votes, 313 for McKinney; I was following along on my PC, and I got 542 and 323. (And if that’s the biggest vote-counting problem we have this year, I will be quite happy — if I don’t drop dead from shock.)
BTW, the Lavender Caucus is for GLBT issues. Actually, the list is longer — I’m not sure I can recite it all: GLBTIQ Two-Spirits Mahu (& maybe more yet). And yes, these three accredited caucuses get some delegate votes separate from the states.
And BTOW, some states would *not* allow a state party to nominate to its state’s ballot a candidate who was only endorsed, not nominated, by the national party convention. And in many states, parties need to have someone at the top of the ticket to maintain the party’s place on the ballot without having to re-qualify from scratch. Which makes it a bit disingenuous when a bigger minority party calls on a smaller one (all parties are minorities of the voting population, IMO) to hold off until next time, or to run only candidates lower down the ballot.
(I even asked once if we couldn’t run a statewide slate of candidates for the same position in many or all 83 counties — county clerk, say, or drain commissioner — and add them up. But no . . . we need one statewide candidate to cross the threshold. And Michigan law was amended a few years back to say that the candidate who keeps us on the ballot doesn’t have to be the one at the top of the ticket — that rule only applies to qualifying for Presidential primaries. So we’ve got it easy on maintaining ballot access compared to alternative parties in some other states.)
John Anthony La Pietra
Elections Co-ordinator
Green Party of Michigan
Richard
I never used the word perilous. But I did miss characterize the situation. Let me explain.
During the early years of the party registration was growing at a health clip. If my memory serves me the Greens were at 130,000 by early 1995. Registration was so strong the Greens did need to run candidates for statewide office which suited their philosophy. So the only people that ran for statewide office were those that wanted to do it. In the early years it was not uncommon to see as many as a dozen candidates running for Congressional seats with just as many running for State Legislature Seats. Now the party’s registration has sunk dramatically couple that with a strong turnout in the gubentorial race and registration numbers don’t fulfill the requirement. Then look at what has happened with the number of people registering Decline-to-state. Their numbers were microscopic in the 90s now it has grown tremendously. Couple that with the fact the Greens only run in a two or three Congressional Districts each election cycle and it’s pretty clear they are hanging on by a thread. So instead of registering people into the party the Greens now have to atom bomb the top of the ticket with candidates for statewide office and hope enough Decline-to-state vote for them in the General Election that one of them busts 2%. Yes they received 3.25% for Insurance Commissioner last time out but how long will those numbers stay at that level when their candidates are viewed as not having a prayer and the party is going nowhere ?
Bob Marston writes:
“In a brazen display of contempt for grassroots democracy a small clique of Democrat Infiltrators rigged the Party’s rules, capriciously stripped California of most of its delegates and installed David Cobb as it’s nominee in a sham proceeding.”
This sounds awfully like conspiracy theory. Just who were these “Democrat Infiltrators?” Name names.
What I saw in 2004 was that after Nader (for whom I collected 500 signatures in 2004 after collecting 1000 in 2000) wrote the GP that he was not interested in the GP nomination, David Cobb stepped up for the nomination basically because no one else would.
If there were Greens opposed to Nader in 2004, it was because many felt that Nader committed serious errors in 2000, and wasn’t the best standard bearer for the ideals of the party.
Most significant, to me at least, were his racial blinders. Greens in Michigan tried to get Nader to respond to an interest expressed by the African-American owned progressive newspaper, the Michigan Citizen (which published pro-Nader editorials by the likes of Manning Marable) to hold a rally in inner-city Detroit, but Nader blew them off. He also refrained from an interview with the Detroit Free Press editorial board during a strike against the Free Press only after a near mutiny, and then he unfairly blamed the affair on staff.
I have also heard a story that in 2000 Greens in New York tried to get Nader to a rally in Harlem, but that he blew that off to attend a hemp rally instead.
Many Greens have many stories about Naders shortcomings as a Green Party candidate in 2000. That they might not have wanted him as the standard bearer in 2004 might have origins in something other than murky Democratic conspiracies.
Many Greens appreciate the McKinney candidacy precisely because she can reach out to constituencies with whom Greens wish to connect, and to whom Nader appeared uninterested in 2000 and 2004 — and appears equally uninterested today.
I am happy to have both Nader and McKinney in the race this year. Although they will appeal to many of the same people, there will also be many who are attracted to the one but not the other.
Here’s a question: now that Jesse Johnson did not get the GP nomination, who will Mike Gravel endorse? He didn’t endorse his own party’s candidate, Bob Barr. Will he endorse McKinney? Nader has now added the National Initiative for Democracy to his platform; will that get Gravel’s endorsement?
I’m guessing Gravel will endorse Ralph Nader.
Richard Winger, I was very surprised that thirteen states did not cast ballots. Were they not present? If so, why? I know there are many “paper state” state GP’s.
Its very surprising that NM & to a lesser extent NH are on the missing list; also Nader’s large majority of votes in Calif.
Its likely that many of the states casting votes won’t have ballot status, including Mckinneys home state of GA, generating only a handful of write in votes.
More 3rd party options are better than less, but i’m glad I left the GP
For some reason the Green Party has not been organized in New Hampshire (except in the 1980’s).
Trent,
To answer your question – yes, the Lavendar, Black and Women’s caucuses are all accredited by the Green Party, and therefore get representation based on their membership (think of them as Superdelegates on a much smaller scale).
As for the Lavendar caucus, that is the LGBT caucus of the Green Party.
Joell – all 50 states, plus the colony of DC, are allocated delegates to the convention, but several states do not have organized enough parties to A) come up with a selection process to pick their delegate, and B) finance travel for their delegates. Not delegates present at the convention means no votes.
I’m as mystified about the missing NM delegation as you are, I’m guessing it was an economic decition.
There’s plenty to admire about Nader, but it’s never been my goal to see all of 3rd Party politics encapsulated in one man or one woman. Individuals are fallible and mortal. Surely our long-term goal should be to have a party structure that will thrive as it gains national and local exposure. A candidate running only as himself/herself with no apparatus behind them cannot give us that.
Nader is a smart man and I’m glad to see him still out there speaking his mind, however I’ll be voting for McKinney. So long as she doesn’t choose the craven and confused tactics that Cobb brought to us in 2004.
First off, although I’ve never been a member of the
Green Party in California & view some of the positions
that they’ve campaigned on here unacceptable they
would also feel the same way about the AIP. However,
like the AIP they are not at risk at losing their
ballot position in California. Currently, the number
of members needed to stay ballot qualified is about
90,000 & their registration is still around 120,000.
It is the Libertarian Party that is at far more risk
of being disqualified in 2010. Their registration is
about 80,000 & the Peace & Freedom Party is even lower.
In addition, in California the Green Party strength is
in the SF Bay area where they have been electing people
to local office for many years. This provides them
with a continuing pool of people for State-wide office.
What will be more interesting is to see is if McKinney
is able to qualify for enough states to give the Green
Party more potential Electoral Votes than the 285(?)
that Cobb had in 2004. As for Nader, I view him as a
lost cause when somebody says they don’t want your
nomination just go looking for someone who will appre-
ciate the offer. Besides I think this is Nader’s last
run for President.
What would help to grow the Peace and Freedom Party of California the most would be for the Party to nominate Ralph Nader for president and Matt Gonzalez for vice president. Furthermore, I really hope that Matt Gonzalez is giving some serious thought to running for governor of California, in 2010, on the PFP ticket (if he is not elected Vice President of the United States, this year). It is almost certain that he would be elected in the PFP primary election – which, for every office expect president, is binding.
A delightful and illuminating discussion.
As a Green Party member for 25 years – yes, as it was founded…
I still am optimistic, and hopeful Greens will reach out, include, and grow.
Greens must be on the ballot.
JimN wrote: “If there were Greens opposed to Nader in 2004, it was because many felt that Nader committed serious errors in 2000, and wasn’t the best standard bearer for the ideals of the party.”
Yeah Nader committed some real serious errors. (sarcasm dripping) Which lead to nearly 3 million votes.
On the otherhand David Cobb’s campaign in 2004 garnered a staggering 100,000 votes.
The record shows who is competent to run a campaign.
JimN wrote: “Most significant, to me at least, were his racial blinders. Greens in Michigan tried to get Nader to respond to an interest expressed by the African-American owned progressive newspaper, the Michigan Citizen (which published pro-Nader editorials by the likes of Manning Marable) to hold a rally in inner-city Detroit, but Nader blew them off. He also refrained from an interview with the Detroit Free Press editorial board during a strike against the Free Press only after a near mutiny, and then he unfairly blamed the affair on staff.”
So Nader has racial blinders because he didn’t show up for your party ? That wreaks of sour grapes. The fact of the matter is a few weeks ago Mumia Abu Jamal praised Nader as a “sharp cookie” for his efforts tp protect consumers.
Regarding Manning Marable if you go to his website you will see that he is now involved with the Open Society Insitute. This foundation was set up by Billionaire George Soros. The same George Soros who set up Moveon.org. And Marable wasn’t the first Leftist bought off, or should I say muzzled by Soros.
Founding member of the California Green Party Walt Sheasby, may he Rest in Peace, did exstensive research the matter. What prompted him to focus his attention on the matter was several viscious attacks made against the Green Party by Michael Parenti in the run up to the last phase of the Iraq War in early 2003. Sheasby found out that Parenti’s son Christian had been hired to work at George soros’s Open Society Instirtute in new York. The article was published in a number journals and on websites. Here is the link to the original piece as it was transmitted to Owen Broadhurst of the Massachusetts Greens.
http://www.massgreens.org/pipermail/needtoknow/2003-November/001496.html
Now go to the Bio Page on Marable’s website and drop down to the paragraph on CCBH’s Journal Souls and read.
“CCBH produces Souls, a quarterly academic journal of African-American Studies, which is published and distributed internationally by Taylor and Francis Publishers.
With the support of the Open Society Institute (Soros Foundation),
CCBH’s Africana Criminal Justice Project has conducted a national survey of Black Studies departments to promote the development of new courses on race, crime and justice”
http://www.manningmarable.net/biography/biography.html
Walt didn’t know of Marable’s dealings with Soros at the time he wrote the Neocens Paper but it sure seems eery that Nader is baited into these situations in 2004 Marable clams up about electoral and rarely makes speaking engages and then announces his partnership with Soros in 2006.
It looks to me like somebody or some people were played for suckers.
Thank you for your persistence, Fred Behmer. It seems to me that all of the “progressive third parties” could merge into one larger party. Why not get together the Green Party of the U.S.; the Nader-Gonzalez forces (Independent, Populist, Peace and Freedom Parties, etc.); the Socialist Party USA; the Freedom Socialist Party; etc.? We could start cooperating right now and that would give us a greater start for 2010!
This is the first presidential election in my lifetime where the larger third party candidates SUCK WORSE than the major party candidates! McKinney for the Greens and Barr for the Libertarians? Geez. Is getting votes based on name recognition ALONE that important? Barr is a conniving closet neo-con and McKinney is a racially paranoid rage-o-holic. What is this, ex-hack-Congressperson run on a third party ticket year?? I know Nader didn’t actively seek the GP nomination and Libertarian Harry Browne is long dead, but c’mon. This is the best they could do?
The only thing that you prove, “Pete,” when you start calling names, is that you are losing the debates on the issues.
Response to #34: Nader’s serious errors led to “only” 3 million votes. This was only about 2.5% of the total vote. Had he not made serious errors, of which the lack of a good faith effort to reach out to the African American Community was but one, he would have had a higher vote total. I am not going to speculate as to whether he would have reached the 5% he and the GP desired for federal funding, but the vote total would have been significantly higher.
JimN writes:”Had he not made serious errors, of which the lack of a good faith effort to reach out to the African American Community was but one, he would have had a higher vote total. I am not going to speculate as to whether he would have reached the 5% he and the GP desired for federal funding, but the vote total would have been significantly higher.”
Really ?
I guess you forgot that Ralph Nader made the effort to address the delegation at the NAACP Conference in both 2000 and 2004. Barrack O’Bama on the otherhand blew off the NAACP’s Convention this year.
After Nader’s talk at the conference in 2000 a number of delegates were approached for interviews. In their response there was one constant. the statement “Ralph Nader would make a good President” with a sneering smile. And in this case it was the smile that said more than the words. The undercurrent message they sent was “Ralph Nader would make a good President, BUT I’M NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR HIM”.
I wonder if those delegates have reflected on that statement since Barack O’Bama lectured a Black Congregation on Father’s Day past about feeding their kids Popeyes for breakfast ?
was McKinney able to get on the ballot in Georgia?
Good luck to those entering. You can’t do any worse than TS herself. Can you sing flat?
i thought the episode was AMAZIN!!! she can act almost as good as she can sing!!!!!=]
Taylor is my fav singer!