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

    Is There a Presidential Drag On Gubernatorial Elections?

    Only five of the 20 presidents to serve since 1900 have seen their party win a majority of gubernatorial elections during their administrations, and only one since JFK.

    Political Crumbs

    Strike Three for Miller-Meeks

    Iowa Republicans had a banner day on November 4th, picking up both a U.S. Senate seat and one U.S. House seat, but Mariannette Miller-Meeks' defeat in her third attempt to oust Democrat Dave Loebsack in the 2nd CD means the GOP will not have a monopoly on the state's congressional delegation in the 114th Congress. The loss by Miller-Meeks (following up her defeats in 2008 and 2010) means major party nominees who lost their first two Iowa U.S. House races are now 0 for 10 the third time around in Iowa history. Miller-Meeks joins Democrat William Leffingwell (1858, 1868, 1870), Democrat Anthony Van Wagenen (1894, 1912 (special), 1912), Democrat James Murtagh (1906, 1914, 1916), Democrat Clair Williams (1944, 1946, 1952), Democrat Steven Carter (1948, 1950, 1956), Republican Don Mahon (1966, 1968, 1970), Republican Tom Riley (1968, 1974, 1976), Democrat Eric Tabor (1986, 1988, 1990), and Democrat Bill Gluba (1982, 1988, 2004) on the Hawkeye State's Three Strikes list.


    Larry Pressler Wins the Silver

    Larry Pressler may have fallen short in his long-shot, underfunded, and understaffed bid to return to the nation's upper legislative chamber, but he did end up notching the best showing for a non-major party South Dakota U.S. Senate candidate in more than 90 years. Pressler won 17.1 percent of the vote which is the best showing for an independent or third party U.S. Senate candidate in the state since 1920 when non-partisan candidate Tom Ayres won 24.1 percent in a race won by Republican Peter Norbeck. Overall, Pressler's 17.1 percent is good for the second best mark for a non-major party candidate across the 35 U.S. Senate contests in South Dakota history. Independent and third party candidates have appeared on the South Dakota U.S. Senate ballot just 25 times over the last century and only three have reached double digits: Pressler in 2014 and Ayres in 1920 and 1924 (12.1 percent). Pressler's defeat means he won't become the oldest candidate elected to the chamber in South Dakota history nor notch the record for the longest gap in service in the direct election era.


    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