Go to HHH home page.
Smart Politics
 


Ralph Nader and The Matrix Trilogy

Bookmark and Share

When I was on Sirius Satellite Radio’s “The Blog Bunker? yesterday I was asked how the Democratic-led U.S. Senate approval of the latest FISA legislation would have on the presidential election – and whether the left wing of the party would feel betrayed (by Barack Obama’s support of the bill).

I explained to the host that the Democrats that supported the measure (including Obama) realized that they would risk losing the center of the country (political independents) by voting against a high-profile piece of legislation with ‘national security’ ramifications. The vote was smart politics.

And what will happen to the potentially disaffected far left who are seemingly bashing Obama all over the blogosphere? I told the host that Obama has little to worry about in the end, as the risk of these liberals flocking to Ralph Nader is very slim.

And that is when I explained how Ralph Nader’s presidential candidacies have mirrored The Matrix Trilogy:

The first Matrix film received very good notices, but did not hit the box office with a big bang – it was a grower. “The Matrix? debuted with just 37 million in North America – solid and respectable, but not stopping the country in its tracks. Critics and fans who did take note of the film raved.

Likewise, Nader’s first presidential campaign, in 1996, did not have much of an impact, although the consumer advocate’s favorable reputation remained intact. Nader garnered just 0.7 percent of the vote on the Green ticket that year. As “The Matrix? was seen as perhaps the best sci-fil film of its time, Nader was still largely viewed by those who were aware of him as a tireless fighter for the environment and consumers.

The second Matrix film (“The Matrix Reloaded?) received a lot of press build-up, and made a big impression at the box office – grossing 134 million in North America in its first weekend – bringing in moviegoers who had not seen the first installment at the theaters, but had learned about it through media buzz and on DVD. However, fans were not as pleased with how the plot unfolded in this second installment. After all the hype, the film was a letdown.

Likewise, Nader’s second run at the White House, in 2000, generated enormous media buzz, and voters flocked in much greater numbers to his campaign at the ballot box. Nader won 2.7 percent of the nation-wide vote (nearly four times more than in 1996). In the end, however, many voters (i.e. Democrats) who supported his campaign were disgruntled with the outcome – the plot of this story unfolded with a George W. Bush presidency.

The third Matrix film (“The Matrix Revolutions?) saw a huge dropoff of nearly 40 percent in its opening weekend from its predecessor (83 million) and went on to make less than half of “Reloaded? and 40 million less than the original. There was much less hype for “Revolutions? and critics and fans alike were unmoved by the film. The trilogy ended with a whimper.

Similarly, Nader’s third run at the White House, in 2004, went barely noticed by the press, and the reformist also won the lowest number of votes of his three campaigns – just 0.4 percent. The campaign was considered a disaster.

Ralph Nader may not know this yet, but there was no 4th Matrix. If it had been made it would likely have performed the poorest of series; a 4th Nader candidacy, competing against Obama and his nearly unblemished liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate, would undoubtedly fair just the same.

Previous post: Smart Politics On "The Blog Bunker" Today
Next post: Obama Maintains Double-Digit Lead in Wisconsin

4 Comments


  • that was the most unintelligent thing i have read in a while.

    but i'll give you this.... most americans really are not living in reality but instead brain-washed and forced-fed twisted information.

  • Or what seemed to me like an obvious attempt at comedy. As the tagline reads, 'Free Your Mind.'

  • What a joke of a blog.

    Smart politics? Smart politics, to what end? Is it, as you suggest, just to get the independent votes, so that these politicians (like Obama) can secure the election and then swing in with truly-liberal agendas and save the day? If that were the goal, the "smart politics" that the democrat party has been playing at for years would have already gotten us a president and a party that did its job right. Instead, we've got one of the most cowardly (or corrupt) major political parties in the modern world.

    It's time to grow up. Obama does not have a "nearly unblemished liberal voting record"; his stances don't hold a candle to Ralph Nader. Putting your faith in Barack Obama necessarily puts your faith in the democrat party. That same party doesn't earn our votes, anymore: it expects them. It's time to stop standing up for these politicians who don't stand up for you. "Smart politics" is a myth, nowadays. There's a politics with hidden agendas and politics with corporate agendas (like Obama's). What need, now, is some courageous politics. Thankfully, we still have Ralph Nader.

  • What a poor comparison. If Obama wins it has nothing to do with what he has or can do for this country. It's unfortunate but many will vote by what is popular and what they think is different, not on the issues.

    Ralph Nader is the breathe of fresh air this country needs, because the stench that has been coming out of Washington has been killing us.

  • Leave a comment


    Remains of the Data

    Kevin McCarthy Becomes Least Tenured Floor Leader in US House History

    At less than four terms, McCarthy has served 423 fewer days in the chamber than any floor leader in U.S. House history and almost 10 years less than the average leader.

    Political Crumbs

    The Second Time Around

    Former Republican Congressman Bob Beauprez became the seventh major party or second place gubernatorial candidate in Colorado to get a second chance at the office when he narrowly won his party's nomination last month. Two of the previous six candidates were successful. Democrat Alva Adams lost his first gubernatorial bid to Benjamin Eaton in 1884, but was victorious two years later against William Meyer. Democrat Charles Johnson placed third in 1894 behind Republican Albert McIntyre and Populist incumbent Governor David Waite but returned as the Fusion (Democrat/Populist) nominee in 1898 and defeated GOPer Henry Wolcott. Gubernatorial candidates who received a second chance but lost both general elections include Democrat Thomas Patterson (1888, 1914), Progressive Edward Costigan (1912, 1914), Republican Donald Brotzman (1954, 1956), and Republican David Strickland (1978, 1986).


    How Are the Plurality Winners Doing?

    Nearly 40 percent of plurality winners of U.S. Senate elections lose their seat in the next election cycle. Will that happen to any of the three such incumbents on the ballot in 2014? Recent polling suggests Democrats Al Franken of Minnesota, Mark Begich of Alaska, and Jeff Merkley of Oregon all currently have an advantage over their nominated/frontrunning GOP opponents, but each is flirting with plurality support once again. Franken led endorsed GOPer Mike McFadden 48 to 42 percent in a new SurveyUSA poll while the polling group showed Merkley with a 50 to 32 percent advantage over Monica Wehby. Begich led each of the three major GOP candidates in last month's PPP survey: 42 to 37 percent over Daniel Sullivan, 41 to 33 percent over Mead Treadwell, and 43 to 27 percent over Joe Miller.


    more POLITICAL CRUMBS

    Humphrey School Sites
    CSPG
    Humphrey New Media Hub

    Issues />

<div id=
    Abortion
    Afghanistan
    Budget and taxes
    Campaign finances
    Crime and punishment
    Economy and jobs
    Education
    Energy
    Environment
    Foreign affairs
    Gender
    Health
    Housing
    Ideology
    Immigration
    Iraq
    Media
    Military
    Partisanship
    Race and ethnicity
    Reapportionment
    Redistricting
    Religion
    Sexuality
    Sports
    Terrorism
    Third parties
    Transportation
    Voting