Main | November 2004 »

October 31, 2004

2004: Year of the “Don’t Vote for Me” Campaign

Ralph Nader, the only progressive alternative in the 2004 election, is constantly forced to discuss the inane idea that he took votes away from Al Gore in 2000. Nader’s principled answer is often to state that candidates do not campaign in order to ensure votes for their political opponents. is mounting a serious Reverse Vote Swap campaign for Nader because we see that he represents the only progressive alternative to the Bush administration. This does not mean, however, that we necessarily agree with all of his analysis. Specifically, we call into question this idea that getting votes for oneself is the principle reason for candidates to campaign. In fact, the majority of political parties and campaigns in 2004 are in fact using their exposure in order to support others. This is why 2004 is the most bizarre and counter-intuitive in living political memory.

Whereas the Nader-Camejo ticket is logically encouraging votes on November 2nd for Nader-Camejo, this campaign is one of the very few actively encouraging voters to vote for itself. has assembled a report on various political parties and campaigns operating in the 2004 election so that our loyal supporters might better understand their aims and purposes. Our conclusions might surprise you! The truth is that thanks to the negative influence of the twin reactionary campaigns of Bush and Kerry, most political organizations are campaigning against themselves. Please examine our coverage of this bizarre phenomenon: 2004 and the “Don’t Vote for Me” campaign.


The right-wing fundamentalist Bush-Cheney campaign, despite never once telling the truth to American voters, is actually the most honest of the reactionary campaigns. When Bush and Cheney urge Americans to vote for their anti-worker, pro-war, pro-corporate campaign, they are actually doing so out of a desire to get votes. This puts them in contradistinction to the Kerry-Edwards camp.


The purpose of the Kerry-Edwards campaign is a nuanced one. However, within this nuance, at no point do Kerry and Edwards actually work toward the aim of getting themselves elected to the White House (see for ample proof). If they were working to convince people to vote for them, they would logically campaign around issues that are attractive to voters sick of Bush and Cheney. As an example, a good way for them to get votes might be to actually call for a different policy in Iraq, rather than to call for the continuation of Bush’s policies and declare that a “fresh start” for the US.

Therefore, since Kerry and Edwards have done nothing to encourage their progressive base to support them, can only assume that the primary aim of the Kerry-Edwards ticket is to create a false sense of a “choice” in order to dupe voters into not voting Nader-Camejo. The political aim of the Kerry campaign is thus to ensure plenty of votes for Bush, not to get Kerry elected president.


As previously discussed, the Nader-Camejo campaign is openly calling for progressives, radicals, left-wing Green Party members, and others who rightly understand the reactionary nature of the Bush and Kerry campaigns to vote Nader-Camejo on November 2nd. The “Vote for Us” tactic has been chosen exclusively by the Bush and Nader camps in 2004, proving conclusively that the only choice offered to voters this year is to vote for Bush or for Nader. We think it likely that any votes for Kerry will be officially tallied for Bush, although we cannot yet be certain. Kerry may instead drop out of the election on its eve, calling for his supporters to vote Bush to insure the defeat of the progressive Nader-Camejo campaign. Therefore Nader was mistaken to suggest that the primary goal of any political campaign is to get people to vote for it. Only the Bush and Nader camps are actively pursuing votes for themselves.


The Cobb-LaMarche campaign is explicitly calling for votes for the reactionary Kerry-Edwards ticket. Whereas Kerry and Edwards, while campaigning for a continuation of Bush’s policies, will ultimately likely check the box next to their own names on Election Day, Cobb and LaMarche will not even go that far and will instead likely vote Kerry-Edwards, which is what they tell their eight supporters to do as well.

The Reform Party

In the strangest move of the 2004 campaign, the arch-reactionary Reform Party is calling on its members to vote Nader-Camejo. It is indeed a strange thing to see the staunchly anti-immigrant Reform Party tell its members to vote for the Nader-Camejo ticket, which is composed of one child of immigrants and one immigrant. can only assume that the “Don’t Vote for Me” theme of the 2004 election, as advocated by Kerry-Edwards and Cobb-LaMarche, has confused both progressives and reactionaries alike. Therefore as a service to any of our right-wing readers, we suggest that rightist Buchananites do themselves a favor and choose between either Bush and Kerry. This will reduce electoral confusion, as it will insure that all reactionaries vote for either Bush or Kerry and that the entirety of the Nader-Camejo vote is from progressives working to smash the right-wing two party system. The “Don’t Vote for Me” campaigns are confusing enough as it is without confused right-wingers working against their own interests by supporting the progressive Nader-Camejo ticket.

Other Parties and Campaigns understands that on some ballots, other candidates might be listed besides those discussed here. These are simply electoral satire perpetrated by state election boards and are not to be seriously considered. We find it criminal that this satire is not labeled as such to prevent voter confusion on Election Day, but unfortunately is not yet large enough to exert complete control over the electoral process.

Posted by convener at 10:12 PM

Open Letter to Conservatives: Send Us Your Cash Money!

Dear conservatives, right-wing nut-jobs, neo-cons, neo-liberals, Buchanan-lovers, fundamentalists, and assorted wackos,

According to countless hysterical liberals and their assorted organizations, many amongst you have chosen to offer large amounts of cash, no questions asked, to progressive campaigns and groups during this election cycle. If this is indeed true, we would like to thank you. The best thing that rich conservatives like yourselves can do to insure the end of your existence is to donate lots of money to poor progressives. (Dying is not helpful, thanks to inheritance laws which simply move the funds of old reactionaries into the accounts of younger reactionaries.)

However, we do have one complaint. has seen none of your cash money, which we would accept gladly. Please rectify this situation immediately.

Many hysterical liberals have claimed that you have offered support to the progressive Nader-Camejo campaign in the hopes that this might undermine the reactionary Kerry-Edwards campaign. does not pretend to understand why you would wish to attack Kerry, as his economic policies so clearly favor wealthy people like yourselves. Furthermore, since you are donating quite a great deal to Kerry himself, it would be contradictory to also offer funds to Nader since the two candidates are fundamentally opposed to each other.

In short, we simply do not understand why you would consider offering monetary donations to individuals and organizations who hate you. But if by some chance this is indeed what you are doing, would like you to know that no organization can truthfully claim to hate you more than we do, and therefore by the backwards logic claimed by groups like The Nation and, we are more deserving of your money than anyone else. We also have no qualms about accepting your money, and would even consider posting anti-endorsements on our website in order to let our network of supporters know how much we hate you.

We urge you, then, to open up your large wallets and break us off some of that sweet, sweet cheddar. As we are not a registered PAC or campaign organization, feel free to send us as much as you would like, preferably in the form of ca$h money. Email us to arrange a drop-off. Note: if you fail to pony up, we will interpret that as evidence that rumors of your donations to progressives are merely the result of anti-Nader hysteria, which we largely assume already. We do hope we are mistaken, however, as we are quite interested in your CA$$$H MONEY.

Your class enemies at

Posted by convener at 10:01 PM

Love, Hysterical Style!

As a Hysterical Liberal, I of course agree with you one hundred percent. I just think we got off on the wrong foot a little bit with my first column. So for my next column, I’m going to go ahead and stay away from political questions and really focus on the issues that we agree about so that we can find some common ground and go back to making America the greatest country in the universe, as we all know it is. That’s why I’m sticking exclusively to non-political matters and taking your relationship questions. So sit back, relax, and Ask a Hysterical Liberal!

I’m having some real trouble in my marriage. I’m the proud father of two young children, but I just got notice that I’ll be shipping out to Iraq to “pacify” Falluja. I don’t want to go, my wife doesn’t want me to go, and it’s really making things stressful around the house. What should I do?
--Doug in Des Moines

Just go ahead and get out the vote for John Kerry, because hope is on the way! John Kerry will make sure that it’s not just Americans bombing Falluja, but people from other countries, too. That’s the kind of fresh start we need! So when you head out to Iraq, you can rest assured that as soon as John Kerry is elected, the war will stop being bad and start being good for America and the world. In the meantime, why not go door-knocking for Kerry-Edwards? That’s just the sort of activity sure to bring two people closer together! Take my advice: Don’t worry about Iraq. Remember how on the way hope is, and vote Kerry!

I’ve been in a relationship with someone since I was about 18. A lot of my friends don’t like this guy. Some even say he’s abusive, but I’m not sure. I mean, yeah, he is always hitting me up for money and never giving me anything in return. Yes, he does often prevent me from doing what I want to do, and he screams at me if I ever talk to anyone else. But he seems pretty confident that the problem isn’t with him, but with the other people I could potentially be dating instead. He says they’re much worse, and that after all, I have to be with someone. I’m not sure. What do you think?
--Melanie in Michigan

The only way to reform this relationship is from the inside, so you’d be foolish to leave it. I’m sure this guy means well. This is a pretty sexist country, and your boyfriend probably can't afford to alienate sexists by being too nice to you. In fact, I don’t want to be rude, but have you ever considered the idea that maybe you are entirely to blame? He’s likely just looking out for your own interests, and any poor behavior on his part is probably just in reaction to your unreasonable expectations. So stick with him! Also, have you thought about door knocking for Kerry? Maybe that would make him love you more. Try that! And remember that hope is on the way. This Bush administration has really encouraged bad relationships between people so make sure he doesn’t get re-elected!

I’m single working mother. I have to take two jobs just to make ends meet, and that leaves me little time to spend with my children. It makes me worry that I’m not being a good parent, but at the same time, things are really out of my control. I also have been having a hard time meeting anyone, between my two jobs and the kids. What can I do to make things better?
--Alice in Akron

Well, I can see your first problem right away. I notice you didn’t mention anything about getting out the vote for John Kerry. Not only is that a great way to meet people, it’s also your ticket to a better life starting in 2005. He’ll make sure that your job pays better and that your kids are well-behaved. I’ve heard from a lot of parents that their children have been acting up for the last four years due to the irresponsible tone set by Bush. It has a real trickle-down effect. So don’t worry; get out the vote for John and John!

I’m a man in my mid-twenties currently living at home. I can’t afford my own place on my Wal-Mart paycheck, but I’d really like to move out because living at home at my age is a real drag. This is particularly true with my parents always nagging me about getting a better job. I just can’t seem to get them to understand how much I want a better job, but can’t find one in this job market. What should I do?
--Paul in Portland

The exit strategy for your situation is completely clear. Vote for John Kerry. Thanks for your letter! Hope is on the way!

There. Wasn’t that nicer? I’m glad we can all go back to agreeing. I’m sick of this partisan bickering. I look forward to having one united America again, just like we had through all periods of history until the Bush administration. Hope is on the way!

Posted by convener at 12:40 PM

October 30, 2004

Frequently Asked Questions, Part 2

With Election Day just a few agonizing days away, would like to take this opportunity to provide additional information for Reverse Vote Swappers. This election is certain to be one of the most confusing and strange in history, and thus we believe it important to respond to some of the numerous questions we’ve received since our last FAQ. Whereas the typical electoral process in the US depends upon mass disinformation, Reverse Vote Swapping needs an informed electorate so that we might use our votes strategically, tactically, and pragmatically. Please take a moment to review the second part of our FAQ even if you are familiar with the ins and outs of Reverse Vote Swapping. The combined reactionary forces of the Republican and Democratic parties are sure to throw some unexpected curveballs!

Like most Americans, I work more than one job, and frequently work ten- and twelve-hour days. This doesn’t leave me much time to think about hassles like registering to vote. Now I’m worried because I’m not sure what to do. All summer long I ignored those get-out-the-vote college kids because they just wanted me to vote for that hack John Kerry. Now those kids are all in New Hampshire and Iowa and I don’t know how to register to vote. What do I do?

Nothing makes us as angry about the two-party reactionary monopoly as tales like this one. The single most important obstacle to Reverse Vote Swapping is the fact that the US government’s two ruling parties have assigned to themselves the authority to control elections. This is a little like the fox guarding the henhouse, or more specifically, bands of foxes alternately guarding and raiding henhouses based upon shifting rivalries. In any case, it means that the primary people responsible for handling voter registrations are on the Bush or Kerry payroll. Thus they are both incredibly hostile to Reverse Vote Swappers and truly obnoxious. Our astute supporter was right to avoid them at all costs.

However, it is now too late to register to vote. In some states, particularly of the spoiled variety, you can still vote for President if you simply locate your City Hall on Election Day. It is generally a gaudy building underneath a dark cloud and a circling swarm of vultures. Otherwise, consult a map, or ask a liberal coworker or classmate as a last resort. If you must ask a liberal, try not to make it obvious that you will be voting for progressive candidate Ralph Nader. This tends to send them into a blind rage, which may well prevent them from giving you useful directions. The careful use of phrases like “Most important election of our lifetime” and “clear differences of tone” will likely put you in the clear.

After everything that happened in Florida last election, I’m worried that my vote might not get counted. What should I do to be sure?

First, make sure that you don’t live in a spoiled state, where your vote doesn’t count. If you do live in a swing state, where the election is legally allowed to take place, you can follow a few simple rules to insure that you are well treated at your polling place. First, we suggest that you be white and wealthy. If not, act like you are. Wear your stiffest clothes. Come to your polling place with a cigar and a snifter of brandy and start every sentence with “I say.” Example: Instead of saying “Good morning” to pollworkers, say, “I say, good morning” or “I say, capital morning for an election, isn’t it old bean?” Other variations are acceptable as well.

If you are not on your precinct’s list of voters, you are legally guaranteed a provisional ballot. In 2000, Florida police set up road blocks to keep out people of color trying to vote. This year, contested voters will be given “provisional” ballots, which are much like regular ballots, except for the fact that they don’t count in vote tallies. They are immediately thrown away after they have served to make people feel like they got to vote. Exception: A limited number of provisional voters will assemble into two groups or “parties” and engage in a series of humiliating tasks. One eventual winner will get to cast an authentic ballot.

If you feel that your rights are being violated on Election Day, and that you are being illegally excluded from the political process, rest assured that you are certainly correct.

I hear talk about elections in Iraq next year. Considering what a disaster our political system is, how can our government expect to bring democracy anywhere else?

That’s a rhetorical question, right?


Just checking.

I haven’t yet been assigned my Reverse Vote Swap yet and I’m getting concerned. Election Day is coming quickly, and I don’t want to be left out of this dynamic new political trend!

First, please accept our apologies. As of now, some states have as few as one full-time staffer charged with organizing swaps. If, by some chance, you have not heard from us by Tuesday morning, just go ahead and vote Nader no matter where you are. You can do so resting assured that a bunch of other jackasses are voting for the two pro-war candidates, relieving you from any obligation to do so yourself.

How do I find out where to cast my vote?

Your city and state likely have confusing websites that may or may not provide this information. A better, quicker method is to think about where the closest hangout for conservative senior citizens is in relation to your home. Think about nearby churches and retirement homes. Polling places are mandated by federal law to be as inconvenient as possible for the largest possible number of people. You should also be on the lookout for depressed liberals, as they are in all likelihood on the way to or from voting for John Kerry and less than thrilled about it. Ask one of them where to go. They will mumble something and then point weakly with their thumb slightly extended. You can cheer such a person up by mentioning casually that you are voting for Nader. Be sure to immediately run away to keep from getting hit. Liberals on Election Day are likely to be crankier than usual, as they will have been up all night psyching themselves up to vote for Kerry by chanting platitudes like, “A fresh start for America.”

How can I support between now and Election Day?

Glad you asked! The most important thing, of course, is to direct your friends to our website, since word of mouth is our best method of advertisement. You can also pass the word on to strangers via the careful use of graffiti. Scrawling “ is not responsible for this vandalism!” on a wall is a great way to both advertise for us and to absolve us of most criminal charges. In addition, you can write our web address on paper money, magazine subscription cards at stores, and the foreheads of passed out friends at parties. The possibilities are endless!

We also suggest that you have an election night party with fellow Reverse Vote Swappers. This is a good way to make the election pass as pleasantly as possible by insuring that you are thoroughly inebriated. You may want to post some manner of warning at the door, however. You wouldn’t want an unfortunate liberal to accidentally stumble into a party that was openly hostile to both of the major right-wing candidates. Such an event has been known to cause immediate liberal hyperventilation, which can be a serious buzz kill, so consider yourself forewarned.

Also, be sure to take a moment at some point during your party to pour one out for your friends at We’ll be doing the same from our headquarters in Miami (we’re currently doing watchdog work to insure that election fraud is equally distributed between the Bush and Kerry camps for the sake of fairness). It’s the least we can do to thank you, our loyal customers, for your kind words and letters and Reverse Vote Swaps. Without you, we couldn’t show those motherf*ckers we're serious!

Posted by convener at 12:38 AM

October 29, 2004

New Feature: Ask a Hysterical Liberal!

Thanks to the unprecedented support has received this election cycle, we have been able to greatly expand our operations. In addition to adding several new full-time staffers dedicated to organizing Reverse Vote Swaps, our new additions will include a regular column feature, Ask a Hysterical Liberal! Every week (depending upon the schedule of recounts) you can ask political questions, factual questions—even relationship questions are fair game. Our resident Hysterical Liberal will answer them with the appropriate liberal hysteria. We provide this as part of an effort to be appropriately fair and balanced, so that you need not have your election news limited to facts; uninformed rants are clearly also an important part of an informational diet. So sit back, relax, and Ask a Hysterical Liberal!

HL: Hi there! I appreciate giving me the chance to share with you my personal innermost feelings about this election. Clearly, our nation is at a crossroads, and only John Kerry has the character and nuance necessary to protect the American dream. I agree with one hundred percent. I just feel like this election is not the right time for Reverse Vote Swapping. The stakes are just too high! But enough about me! Onto the questions!

I hate Bush because of the war in Iraq. I want to end the war, but it doesn’t really seem like Kerry is against it. I hear he voted for it himself. I’m really depressed about this election. Two of my friends are serving in Iraq and I’m really worried about them. What should I do?
---Nervous in Niantic

HL: First of all, relax. Have some chai. Then, get the facts straight. Of course Kerry is against the war! I shouldn’t have to tell you that all politicians lie. They do. After the election, Kerry will shed his moderate cocoon and bring the troops home with honor. Never fear. Remember, Americans are all right-wing and stupid. They have to be lied to because they don’t know what’s best for them. I know we’re both against the war, and almost everyone we know is against it. But everyone else in the country is for it. So buck up, and vote Kerry! No more questions about the war, please.

I voted for Al Gore in 2000 because I was worried about whom George Bush might appoint to the Supreme Court. But now, Kerry is saying he’s “personally opposed” to abortion, and that he would appoint anti-choice judges to lower courts. I feel like pro-choice voters are doing the wrong thing by giving our votes away to Kerry without any demands. What should I do?
---Pro-Choice in Peoria

HL: First of all, we’ve got to think both strategically and tactically. I think it was a famous person who said, “I disagree with you talking, but I’ll defend you’re right to talk.” Therefore, someone personally opposed to abortion is probably our best defender of Roe v. Wade. He’s unbiased, and will enforce the law. So vote Kerry, ok? He’s seriously pro-choice. No matter what he says, or what he’s voted against. No more questions about abortion, please--it's a wedge issue.

I’m a laid-off union machinist. I had a job during the Clinton years, although it infuriated me to no end how much my boss’s salary got raised while I got nothing but raised healthcare costs. Now I’m out of work, and Kerry’s plan is just to pay my boss more and hope he’ll hire me back. I don’t want to vote for this billionaire, but I’m sure not going to vote for Bush. What should I do?
---Job Free in Philly

HL: First of all, I agree with you one hundred percent. Things are certainly quite difficult for the middle class, of which you and I are certainly both a part. And sure, the rich are getting richer. That’s the way the economy works, and that’s where jobs come from. And, Kerry may be a billionaire, but he understands what you’re going through. He’s a man of the people, and if you were to talk to him, he would certainly listen to you. Don’t, though. He’s under a lot of stress and really can’t be bothered right now so don’t worry about what he’s saying about jobs. Just vote for him, ok? God. Why won’t anyone listen to me? It's so obvious!

Hysterical Liberal, what would you say are the major differences between Kerry and Bush?

HL: The differences are night and day. If Bush is night, Kerry is day. If Bush is yin, Kerry is yang. It’s a fresh start for America, and for Iraq, and for the world. Kerry just has the character, and the courage. I don’t really want to get into a political debate about the election. I just feel like the differences are really big and important. Ok? Now shut up and vote for him!

My cousin joined the NLF when American soldiers razed our village and forced my family to move from our ancestral homeland. Men like John Kerry killed him, and thousands more. I thought Kerry spoke against his country's war on my people, but now I see how he brags about doing murder against my countrymen. How do you suppose the man lives with this inner corruption?
--Long in Vietnam

HL: Finally, a decent question! As you mention, Kerry is a three-time Purple Heart winner. Although personally opposed to the Vietnam War (if only we'd had a Democrat in office!), when Kerry saw brave American soldiers getting killed, he went right into the thick of things. When America makes an enemy, you can bet John Kerry will report for duty to destroy them. Compare that to Bush, who not only didn't want to kill Vietnamese--he didn't even want to go to Vietnam. Thanks for the opportunity to talk about Kerry's military heroism, Long! Too bad there aren't still a lot of Americans in Vietnam to cast absentee ballots for John Kerry!

Posted by convener at 01:52 AM

October 28, 2004

Senior Democratic Sez: "John, Don't Run!"

The gang here at is admittedly without nuance in our hatred for all imperialists, be they of the Republican or Democratic variety. However, we did find the following statement interesting, as it more or less makes our point from the perspective of our irreconcilable enemy. May it bring you enlightenment.

Dear Senator Kerry,

As a long-time Democrat, I have been following your campaign with an increasing sense of dismay. In this very close race, even a tiny handful of kooks could throw the election to an extremely dangerous man, whose reckless disregard for this nation's policy traditions stands in contrast to everything Democrats have traditionally fought for: Ralph Nader.

Ralph Nader would end the drug war, destroying America's network of narco-state client regimes. He would slash military spending, crippling our ability to lash out opportunistically. He would help the Palestinians, who don't even exist. And, most catastrophically, he would end the occupation of Iraq, without giving a second thought to the fantastic Iraqi riches that he would be irresponsibility turning over to the Iraqis.

As a Democrat, I understand that there are key differences between how we run the Empire and how the Republicans do it. I know how important it is to say a few nice words to the all homos, bitches, darkies, and blue-collar bums; it shuts them up, at least for a while. But this year, with the threat of a Nader presidency on the horizon, I feel that all imperialists must form a united front to defeat the forces of Progress.

Let's be honest, Senator Kerry--if you were serious about becoming president, you would have run in the Republican primary. Serious imperialists understand that the Republican Party is the true reactionary vehicle for defeating Nader. The kind of moral gymnastics represented by your campaign may make sense as a private imperial advocate, but not as a presidential candidate.

Senator Kerry, please withdraw now--before it's too late!

Sincerely yours,
Richard Perle, Registered Democrat

Posted by convener at 11:59 PM

Official Electoral Predictions

Countless diligent Reverse Vote Swappers have asked for our election night predictions. Never the sort to contradict the will of the masses, we present our complete list of predictions for Election 2004. SPOILER ALERT! Election Day is not unlike a trip to the dentist. We at are torn between wanting to get it over with, and feeling as though we’d like to push it off as far into the future as possible to avoid experiencing it. Therefore, we understand if some of our satisfied customers may want to skip this post and instead wait until election night, after they’ve been drinking heavily, to see how this all turns out. Therefore, proceed with caution, loyal Reverse Vote Swappers!

Prediction 1: This will be the most ridiculous election in the history of politics.

We understand that this is a little vague, and so we put it first to build up the anticipation for the stunning climax where we predict accurately the next US president. Election 2000 proved on thing: our political system is hilariously backwards. Therefore, anything is possible, and no outcome, no matter how absurd, is possible.

And as depressingly hysterical as the 2000 election was, this is going to be one of the few cases in which the sequel surpasses the original. We predict that not only will the ultimate winner have to win at least thirty court cases--state, local, federal, and Supreme!--he will also not take office until at least 2006. This is to allow for the difficult process of recounting and shredding millions of votes, which will certainly be time consuming.

Prediction 2: Pre-election polls will prove highly inaccurate.

Certain hysterical liberals and hysterical liberal organizations have stated quite publicly that polls are inaccurate and biased toward right-wing candidates. Curiously, they assume John Kerry is hurt by this phenomenon, though he is certainly a right-wing candidate; in any event, we believe that the polls are greatly inflating the popularity of both Bush and Kerry. Most important, though, is the fact that time and time again, the polls have failed to accurately register the impact of Reverse Vote Swapping as a new and dynamic entrant into the US political landscape. We have yet to see a poll asking participants if they will be Reverse Vote Swapping. Such a poll would doubtless be quite helpful, but since we lack it, we will have to estimate based upon the millions of Reverse Vote Swaps we have arranged in the past few weeks.

Prediction 3: The Democrats will move to the right.

We apologize; this one is a little too easy. But, we thought it fair to include at least one sure thing. If Kerry wins, the Democrats will proceed with the standard bait-and-switch and move even more decisively in the direction of militarism and corporate give-aways. (See entire 20th century for more details.) And if they lose, McAuliffe and company will claim that this was first and foremost due to Ralph Nader. Then, they will allege that they lost votes to Nader by failing to move far enough to the right. They will then toy with running Rudy Giuliani or John McCain as the Democratic nominee in 2008, or else they will decide that the best plan is to contest the election only in states where they or the Republicans have a clear majority, thus playing it safe and opting not to risk taking away votes from the GOP in swing states.

Prediction 4: The people telling you that this is the most important election ever are never going to learn.

Never. Pretty sad, huh?

Prediction 5: David Cobb will not be seen on election night.

We have assembled a crack team of Reverse Vote Swappers to monitor the airwaves on November 2nd to test this prediction. We predict that the Democrat nominated as the Green Party candidate will not be mentioned on TV or radio. He certainly will not appear for any interviews, and his vote totals will not be discussed. They may in fact be immediately thrown away during recounts; we cannot rule this out. We are also undecided as to whether or not his results will be mentioned in any Green Party publications or websites. One possible exception: Democratic Party magazine The Nation, which hates the Green Party more than the Republican Party, may well devote an entire issue to lauding David Cobb’s non-effort.

Prediction 6: And the winner is...

Ralph Nader! Sort of.

Sorry for hedging our bets! But here’s why: Thanks to the diligent work of Reverse Vote Swappers, Nader will carry each swing state, while all of the spoiled Republican states will be taken by John Kerry’s reckless egomaniacal vanity campaign, and Bush will take all of the spoiled Democratic states. will therefore have contributed not just to the success of the Nader campaign, but also to general post-election hi-jinx that all Reverse Vote Swappers will doubtless support in principle.

However, even though Nader will emerge as the winner of the electoral college vote, he will not win a majority of the Electoral College, and therefore the vote for President will be taken in the House of Representatives. (Confused? Don’t be. The President is elected on a rotating basis. Last time it was the Supreme Court. This time it’s Congress. Next time it will be the executive branch, which is why many are calling this election so important. It basically counts as two.)

As you might imagine, Nader has few allies in the House. While it is called the House of Representatives, don’t let the name fool you. It is not actually a House, nor is it Representative. It is instead a large, bone-littered cave marked with crude stick figure drawings. In this cave, local warlords (or Representatives, as they insist upon being called) wage pitched battles with crude implements and divide the nation’s spoils and other war booty. This goes on at all times, excepting the summer recess, which lasts just over eight months. These warlords will take a break from eating enormous turkey legs and scratching themselves just long enough to receive gifts (or "bribes") from the potential Presidents. In this arena, unfortunately, Ralph Nader is quite uncompetitive. Therefore the winner of this “vote” (actually a sort of rules-free wrestling match, but generally called a vote for the sake of space) will certainly be Bush or Kerry.

Nader will receive no votes, proving for the second consecutive election the disgusting and undemocratic nature of the electoral college. One possible exception, however, is New York Democrat Charles Rangel. After sponsoring a draft bill to “prove” the risk of a draft if Bush is offered a second term as president, it would not be surprising if he cast a vote for Ralph Nader in order to prove decisively that Nader is taking away votes from John Kerry. would like to end this list of predictions by apologizing for the fact that we cannot reveal the exact identity of the right-wing war mongering Yale grad who will lead the attack on the world for the next four years. Election analysis is not a science, like chemistry or biology. It is more of a superstition, based not upon empirical data but instead upon guesswork and bizarre rules which exclude the use of common sense. We would like to state pre-emptively, though, that this entire situation could have been avoided, had John Kerry heeded our advice and said “No más” and climbed out of the ring. We are sympathetic to some of his arguments; Kerry believes that his stated goals of crushing Iraqis and helping out his rich friends can better be met by a presidential candidate than by a private billionaire. We do however reject these particular goals, and urge all of our loyal Reverse Vote Swappers to be unwavering in their criticism John Kerry’s Republican-funded ego campaign. We can only speculate as to how he looks himself in the mirror.

Just a few more days to show those motherf*ckers you're serious!

Posted by convener at 11:43 PM

October 26, 2004

John Kerry: Heir to the Throne of Camelot?

Many progressive voters have not only been comparing John Kerry to George Bush; they have also been comparing Kerry to Democratic presidents and candidates from years past. We at have received countless emails from concerned citizens who believe that John Kerry is not cut from the same cloth as Democrats from years past. Many lose sleep wondering how, in the great Hall of Presidents in the sky, John Kerry would get along with a Harry S Truman or a Franklin Delano Roosevelt or a John F. Kennedy. Our fair and balanced analysis? Kerry is indeed the true heir to Camelot!

In order to set the record straight, we have summarized our analysis in the form of a friendly dispatch to Terry McAuliffe, another exemplary example of the species democraticus wankerus, as full credit for John Kerry’s rise to the position of Democratic presidential candidate goes to Terry and seventeen Iowa Democrats.

Thanks for More of the Same: An Open Letter to DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe

Dearest Terry,

We have had our differences in the past. And in all likelihood, we will continue to disagree on every question of principle until you have retired to the sort of luxury estate whose decadence we can only imagine. However, there is one thing we can agree on: a war-mongering corporate cretin like John Kerry is exactly the right candidate for the war-mongering corporate party you run with an iron fist. Well done!

When you chose John Kerry to compete against George Bush, you knew one thing for certain. You knew that you were facing off not just with Karl Rove, but also with Democratic candidates throughout history. And indeed, the competition is stiff. How can a modern-day Democratic candidate compete with, say, a Harry Truman? After all, no other Democrat can be the first to drop an atomic bomb on a civilian population! But Democrats need not worry. John Kerry is just the man for the job.

Let us compare him to one of the most beloved Democrats—John F. Kennedy. Kennedy accomplished more in his shortened presidency than anyone of any party. Who launched the botched and ridiculous “Bay of Pigs” invasion, the funniest outtake on the DVD of history? Who pushed the US to kill three million in East Asia in the horrifying Vietnam War? And most importantly, who pushed the world the absolute closest to nuclear annihilation? Jack Kennedy, that’s who! Not even Reagan managed better, and we all know how hard he tried.

Clearly, matching this is a tall order. We are confident, though, that John Kerry, the second JFK, is just the man to keep the Democratic Party doing what it does best: defending America from defenseless countries and insuring that corporations get the biggest slice of the Pie. Well done, Terry! And thanks from everyone at You make our job easier by making sure that the lesser evil is as lesser and evil as possible.


Posted by convener at 09:23 PM

October 22, 2004

Withers the Nation

The Nation has caused a major political earthquake by announcing its endorsement of a Democrat for President. This comes as a surprise to everyone who has no idea what the Nation says about anything because they can't stand to read it. That certainly includes the crew at We were expecting the magazine to come out for a Kerry/Cheney Unity Ticket on the basis of Anybody-But-Nader.

Although it appears to have been changed for final publication, has obtained the first proofs of the Nation's endorsement issue cover.

The Nation endorses Kerry

Apparently many candidate covers were considered for this world-historic issue. Below is one elegant finalist.

Hell no, we won't go! Send some kids from Lesotho!

Although we're saddened that the Nation has fallen for John Kerry's sorry vanity campaign, we are glad that so many awful political writers have decided to concentrate themselves into a single magazine, which savvy politicos can easily avoid.

Posted by convener at 12:44 AM

October 20, 2004

Informed Liberals: Campaign Honestly! would like to make an appeal to the informed liberal. You are a very special, rare breed of liberal. You enjoy esoteric policy magazines like the New Republic. Your favorite book is Thomas Friedman's The Lexus and the Olive Tree. You know what John Kerry really stands for, and you actually like it. We beseech you, informed liberals: campaign honestly!

There's no question but that the smart, committed members of Ralph Nader's campaign will produce huge numbers of votes for the only serious progressive candidate running in 2004. However, the fact that Nader is not a serial corruptionist puts him at a distinct disadvantage: unlike Bush or Kerry, he has neither the money nor the inclination to engage in the promulgation of Big Lies. Tragically, millions will vote for Kerry with very wrong ideas about what the man is all about.

We know this angers you, the informed liberals. You are open imperialists, and wish to encourage US military adventures through deep feelings of White Man's Burden and noblesse oblige, not low-class hoodwinkery. Of course you wish to defeat Bush--he's sort of embarrassing--but not by resorting to crank methods. You want Kerry to win by being Kerry; that is, by being the kind of emperor who will do whatever the last emperor did, but with smooth liberal image-consciousness.

So, it's in our mutual interests for you to campaign with the same forthrightness for Kerry as we do for Nader. We understand, however, that you are not entirely comfortable doing campaign work among the hoi polloi, typically leaving such low tasks to the trade unionists and Negroes. As a service to you, presents the following statement-response guide to aid you in your tasks of expelling misconceptions. Best of luck, friends!

War on Iraq

Voter sez: "I'm voting for Kerry because he'll stop the war and bring the troops home!"

Response: "I see that you're an ignoramus, like most Americans. You have sentimental ideas about self-determination and other outmoded concepts. Fortunately John Kerry is the kind of leader with the vision to back everything Bush has done in Iraq, although he has shown enough nuance to express disagreements with some details, now that they've already screwed up. But we're talking about a geostrategic foothold here; you can't measure that kind of thing in mere lives. Really, you should just vote Nader if you're going to be so childish."

Civil Liberties

Voter sez: "The PATRIOT Act is an attack on our freedoms. I think John Kerry's going to put an end to all that!"

Response: "Look, the Framers didn't have to deal with the kind of threat that we face today--"

Voter: "Yeah they did. Didn't the British burn down Washington in 1812?"

Response: "Will you shut up? Will you let me finish my argument? Really, the scale of can you compare this epoch-making Clash of Civilizations to some Anglo-American misunderstanding no one can even remember? Have fun voting for Nader, you wacko."


Voter sez: "All this No Child Left Behind stuff is bunk. It's just a cover for making public schools into corporations. Kerry will stop that for sure!"

Response: "Come on, public education is a joke. Most Ivy League students come from private schools, which proves that private schools produce the best and brightest. Kerry knows that private enterprise is the most efficient. If you still believe in all this socialistic mess about public education, you ought to vote for a guy like Nader."

Health Care

Voter sez: "The health care situation in this country is just awful. Kerry's going to do something about it!"

Response: "Wow, you've got it all wrong. The health care system in America is the best anywhere. Why do you think international ultra-rich come here to get health care? In their own countries, they'd have to wait in line with all the yobbos. The real problem is that the HMOs are forced to deal with all the freeloaders who demand that the insurance companies pay whenever they get sick. Insurers can't make money if they have to pay claims--that's just common sense. Kerry's plan would retain the dynamism of the current system while pumping billions into insurance companies to help deal with patients who are careless enough to require health care. Honestly though, if you're so out in left field that you believe in universal health care, you're better off voting Nader and not tainting Kerry with your unserious ideas."

Posted by convener at 09:16 AM

October 19, 2004

Open Letter to John Kerry: Whom Amongst Us Are You Kidding?

Dear John Kerry,

We at request that you stop giving progressives the run-around and instead come forward with the truth. Since your 2004 campaign for President began in 1999, you have gained the support of progressives by promising one thing: a campaign that could help unseat George Bush. (Note: We are aware of your other campaign promises, such as tax cuts for corporations and a "tougher" policy towards Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, and Hunt's Ketchup, but these are not promises that many progressives pay attention to.)

However, your story, John, does not fit the facts.

If beating Bush is important to you, why then are you campaigning so heavily in "swing" states? If you were serious about beating Bush, you would stick to spoiled states, where your right-wing security rhetoric and pandering to the religious right, shooting-things enthusiasts, and business owners could conceivably steal some votes from Bush. The swing states are a different matter entirely. According to your own website, you have recently been campaigning heavily in Florida, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. By stumping so consistently in these swing-states, you risk taking votes away from Ralph Nader, the only progressive candidate in this election who can possibly beat Bush.

John, we do not begrudge you your right to run a reckless, ego-driven vanity campaign for President. In fact, we at find it quite inspiring; it is much like watching a droopy-faced pug puppy chase his tail endlessly. We must take issue, though, with your campaign's overwhelming lack of honesty. As it stands now, you are not helping progressives beat Bush; you are helping Bush by attacking Nader. Bush depends upon a lack of progressive alternatives to his right-wing schemes, and your campaign insures that progressive voices are silenced.

Therefore, if you are serious about beating Bush, prove it. Alter your campaign schedule, and make your way to some delightful little safe-state hamlets, where your campaign can do no harm. We suggest you take a look at San Francisco, Houston, Chicago, and New York City to start. Thanks to the electoral college, your campaign can do no damage in these cities. Although these townships lack the political influence of powerhouse cities like Sandusky, OH and Boone, IA, we believe you may find they still have a lot to offer. Their quaint charm may well just grow on you!

Thank you for your understanding and compliance in this matter,

Posted by convener at 08:06 PM

October 14, 2004

An Open Letter to Sinclair Broadcast Group, the nation's premier Reverse Vote Swapping service, would like to add its voice to the chorus of outrage at your decision to broadcast the "documentary" Stolen Honor on your member stations. This is a transparent and unethical attempt to influence the upcoming presidential election and disrupt the campaign of the only serious alternative to George W. Bush.

Stolen Honor drags out decades-old material to try and prove that John Kerry turned his back on patriotism and the military's iron discipline when he retuned home from Vietnam to campaign against the American war in that country. By bringing up these passè events, you are obviously trying to make Senator Kerry out to be some sort of principled anti-imperialist, when you must know that nothing could be further from the truth!

It is true that Senator Kerry committed a righteous and brave act by speaking out against that criminal war, but this was truly unavoidable. In the topsy-turvy political scene of the 1970s, even an arch-opportunist like Kerry could not have built a career without opposing the Vietnam adventure. Many viewers, especially younger ones, will not properly understand the context of Kerry's actions and will likely conclude that Kerry is the sort of person who will end the occupation of Iraq, which of course he is not. This misconception will surely pull votes away from Ralph Nader, the only genuine anti-war candidate.

This cynical attempt to inflate Kerry's anti-war credentials must be the newest low in the attack on Nader. For shame!


Posted by convener at 10:59 PM

October 12, 2004

More Satisfied Customers!

The mailbag is literally overflowing with correspondence from enthused Reverse Vote Swappers. We may have to get another mailbag. Here are a couple more choice selections from our readers' letters!

"I own a little pancake place upstate, and election season is big money for us. Those candidates come in with all their flunkies, tip like barons because all the media's watching, it's great! They drop a hell of a lot of pancakes whenever they try to serve them, but all in all, the current system does pretty well by me. Problem is, if one of these jerks actually starts winning, neither of them will come here anymore. So me and all my buddies are Reverse Vote Swapping this year--a Nader vote doesn't help Bush or Kerry, so those dummies will have to spend twice as much time in my place come 2008! Thanks!"
--WH from Minnesota

"Man, whenever an argument with some whiny Democrat starts to get good, he's like, 'Wait, where are you voting?' Then I tell him it's here, and he goes, 'Oh, then do whatever you want. Your vote doesn't matter.' But with, my vote does matter! Now when someone asks me where my Nader vote is going, I say, 'Ohio, bitch, Ohio! NOW what?!?!' That'll show those motherf*ckers I'm serious!™"
--PR from Connecticut

Time's running out! Request your Reverse Vote Swap right away!

Posted by convener at 10:37 AM

October 09, 2004

"We Wuz Tricked"

Once again, courageous defectors inside the Kerry campaign have leaked irrefutable evidence of the Democrats' nuance-related program activities to In this slick, expensive-sounding radio spot, their sinister plan to woo anti-war liberals is revealed.

Download "We Wuz Tricked" (MP3, 0:45).

WARNING: The background music is very convincing. Be alert!

Posted by convener at 06:58 PM

October 07, 2004

The Way of Nuance

The dominant stratactical trend in the 2004 election can be summarized in a single word: NUANCE. Indeed, this is the most nuanced campaign season to date, according to the extensive research performed by the think tank. Like many pieces of political jargon (think triangulate, NASCAR dad, shizzle, swing-state) nuance is a word that is more often used than it is understood.

As a service to all Reverse Vote Swappers, would like to share our analysis of the role of nuance in the current election cycle. Although its mystical power holds millions of liberals in thrall, nuance can be easily understood via the process of decoding John Kerry’s statements and policy positions by “reading” what Kerry actually says. However, out of any random sample of 100 Kerry voters, approximately zero (plus or minus a margin of error of three) will have actually read Kerry’s statements on key issues. Because reading Kerry’s statements is so politically useful and so rarely done, has concluded that this act may in fact be against the law. Our lawyers are currently investigating, so please continue to check back for updates. Therefore, at great personal risk, presents this groundbreaking report on nuance, Kerry-style.

First, some excerpts from the ancient Democratic strategy guide, the Book of Nuance.

These excerpts may not prove particularly helpful in their raw form, so rather than subject our supporters to hundreds of pages of Democratic doublespeak, we have condensed nuance to a handful of key points. By its very definition, however, nuance has multiple definitions and in fact new definitions are being concocted in underground DNC laboratories throughout the blue states as we speak. Here some of the most important definitions:
  1. The ability to put a complete sentence together successfully. Common liberal usage: “Did you watch the debates? I was so impressed with Kerry’s ability to speak English, his first language. What a nuanced performance!”
  2. The ability to use more than one meaningless platitude in a single sentence. Common usage: “John Kerry is for a stronger America at home and abroad. That's what I call nuance!”
  3. The ability to advocate liberal and reactionary positions at the same time, without upsetting liberals. Common usage: “Sure John Kerry is for the war. But he’s also for winning the peace. Bush could never be so nuanced!”
John Kerry has used the Third Way of nuance to his greatest advantage. Thanks to the clever use of nuance, Kerry has contradicted himself with a commendable persistence and consistency. That is truly an accomplishment. Kerry’s nuance is proving so successful that he might manage the unprecedented feat of not losing that badly to the least popular politician on the planet.

Let us examine some key campaign issues so that we may see Kerry’s nuance in action.

The Occupation of Iraq

Kerry initially made the mistake of approaching this question in an un-nuanced way, until a recent injection of evil viziers set him on the correct path. Kerry is now against starting the war; or more precisely, against the way it was started; or more precisely, against that it was started without bamboozling enough foreign help. By eventually condemning something already universally understood to be a fuck-up, Kerry has fired the imaginations of anti-war liberals, even though his plan for continuing the occupation is identical to Bush's, with the exception that Kerry is the Anybody But Bush. Nuance to the rescue!

Abortion Rights

Kerry’s position on abortion rights is truly a master stroke of nuance. Kerry is proud to have supported “any number of judges who are pro-life or pro-something else that I may not agree with.” Hence thanks to the careful use of nuance, John Kerry has successfully promised that he will do nothing to strengthen a woman’s right to choose. Furthermore, by stating that he opposes abortion “personally” and believes “life does begin at conception” John Kerry has successfully captured pro-choice voters while simultaneously using the sort of anti-choice rhetoric that has eroded abortion rights for decades. Superlative nuance!


The USA PATRIOT Act, which brought the US to new lows in civil rights and new highs in stupid acronyms, is a widely despised piece of legislation. Thanks to his nuanced position, John Kerry will receive millions of anti-PATRIOT Act votes. This makes perfect sense, as Kerry’s strong anti-PATRIOT Act position is that he wants to maintain “95 percent” of the act and “strengthen” the remainder, which apparently needs to hit the gym. Another victory for nuance!

Gay Rights

Thanks to nuance, John Kerry has secured himself a reputation as a supporter of gay rights, despite any willingness to actually do or say anything that might have a positive impact on the lives of gays and lesbians. For instance, despite his stated opposition to a federal ban, Kerry was all for banning same-sex marriage in Missouri, and even has gone so far as to say he would have voted for the ban himself. Hence by using nuance and a combination of anti-gay rhetoric and slightly less anti-gay rhetoric, John Kerry will be supported by many looking to vote for an LGBT-friendly candidate. Nuance marches on!

We at could go into further examples of nuance and the Kerry campaign, but we suspect our loyal customers get the idea. Nuance is just one more reason to Reverse Vote Swap and show those motherf*ckers you're serious!™ thereby minimizing the potential impact of voting for John Kerry’s egomaniacal ego campaign of vanity, ego, vanity, and nuance.

Posted by convener at 07:14 AM

October 06, 2004

Liberal Fantasy Interview with Nader

Ralph Nader's campaign for president is, of course, uncontroversial to the vast majority of America's citizens, who enjoy races with more than two candidates and are even well-disposed to more than one platform. Unfortunately, certain confused elements have bigoted prejudices against the democratic social order; they have grouped themselves around the (oddly-named) Democratic Party.

Whenever Mr. Nader speaks in a public forum, these sad souls berate him with the same questions. Do they knowingly repeat these pathetic queries, or are they under the impression that their brains were capable of generating them spontaneously? It hardly matters; the real tragedy is that these liberals are driving thousands away from civic life by making politics seems like the process by which a principled person is brayed at by idiots until they give up in disgust.

In order to improve the quality of our democracy, presents this LIBERAL FANTASY INTERVIEW with Ralph Nader. Liberals can enjoy this soothing fabrication, specially crafted to fit in with all their preconceived notions, while listening to their favorite multicultural music tapes. They will then not feel obligated to bother Mr. Nader while he tries to discuss serious matters. Enjoy!

"Mr. Nader, didn't you cost Gore the election in 2000?"

Yes it is true. Through the PIRGs I control five votes on the US Supreme Court. Furthermore, it was I who commanded all the Democratic Senators not to co-sign the protests of the Congressional Black Caucus over election irregularities. John Kerry begged me to let him fight for civil rights, but truly I am Master of the Senate. My hatred of Blacks knows no bounds!

"Mr. Nader, isn't a vote for you a vote for Bush?"

Yes it is true. Bush is afraid that Kerry's more verbose presentation of the same policies will impress enough people that it will take away GOP votes. Therefore he sent me, his minion Ralph Nader, to make Kerry seem like an unprincipled hack by forcing him to kick me off the ballot via repulsive tactics. It was a most devious plan, only the greatest genius in the history of liberalism could have discovered it!

"Mr. Nader, aren't you personally responsible for the deaths of 1,000 US soldiers?"

Yes it is true. I alone am to blame for the Iraq War. When Gore lost, thanks to me, Democrats became so unhappy that they supported and voted for the war out of depression. I must take full responsibility for their criminal acts!

"Mr. Nader, aren't you destroying your legacy?"

Yes it is true. If Bush wins, General Motors will reinstate production of the Corvair. Everyone whose life was saved by a seat belt over the last 40 years will be summarily put to death. Also, Gore will be retroactively installed as president because part of my legacy is causing Gore to lose. With Gore as president, Bush would have ended his political career in 2000 and thus could not win this election. This paradox would be unresolvable under prevailing physical law, causing the universe to evaporate!

"Mr. Nader, isn't this presidential campaign just about stroking your ego?"

Yes it is true. Americans are united in wanting to subordinate Iraq, subordinate themselves, and enrich the capitalist class. The masses desire to feel the iron hand that only Bush/Kerry can provide!

"Mr. Nader, wouldn't you agree that now is not the time for an independent progressive candidate?"

Yes it is true. When the house is on fire, you don't look for a new house; rather, you find someone who can explain to your neighbors why they should set their own houses ablaze and share the burden. We must not change horses midstream!

"Mr. Nader, isn't it a fact that Republicans are bankrolling your entire campaign?"

Yes it is true. Republicans are racists who don't believe in the ability of the backward cultures to be enlightened by humanitarian interventions and our superior methods of food production. That is why they back me, the only anti-occupation candidate. The Republicans do not succeed in keeping me on the ballot everywhere because your lawyers are the greatest geniuses in the history of liberalism!

Posted by convener at 02:28 AM

October 03, 2004

The Sayings of Chairman Terry

Our liberal friends often write to to remind us that the Democratic Party isn't solely made up of cynical, corporate-controlled politicians like John Kerry. That's true. It's also made up of cynical, corporate-controlled machine bureaucrats like Chairman Terry McAuliffe of the Democratic National Committee.

The Chairman assumed the leadership post in 2001, catapulting the Democrats to unprecedented levels of fundraising and losing elections. You can learn more about this important figure at the Chairman's Corner, which details the Chairman's heroic struggle to transform the Democratic Party from a pro-business party to a fanatically pro-business party. You can also enjoy a delightful photo of Bill Clinton ogling Natalie Portman's cleavage.

In order to better communicate key Democratic values, the Party is launching a new book, Quotations from Chairman Terry, which collects the Leader's most significant bits of wisdom for easy reference. has obtained the thrilling cover image, which we submit for your consideration.


We also cannot refrain from leaking some material from the manuscripts.

This fine manual of tactics will surely explain how Kerry won by moving to the Right; or, in the event that he loses, how he didn't move far enough to the Right.

Posted by convener at 05:12 PM

Tell John Kerry: Don’t Destroy Your Legacy! is leading a national campaign encouraging John Kerry to abandon his egomaniacal campaign for President. We urge our loyal Reverse Vote Swappers to write John and let him know that we won’t stand idly by and watch him throw away his legacy. Please either print our sample letter and mail it to Kerry-Edwards headquarters or write your own. Encourage your progressive friends to do the same. John Kerry’s vanity campaign must not be allowed to destroy all that progressives have worked to create!

Dear John Kerry,

As a concerned progressive voter and user, I must urge you to cease your run for President and throw your support to Nader-Camejo. You are risking splitting the progressive vote, which could result in the election of George W. Bush. And, as Bush was not legitimately elected in 2000, he is still eligible for two more terms. We understand that the idea of a second term for Bush likely does not bother you very much, since you support virtually his entire platform. However, progressive Americans cannot endure any more of the Bush/Kerry agenda. Please--we beg you! End your dangerous campaign now!

I must also point out that your campaign is not merely risking damage to America and the rest of the planet. You are also destroying your own legacy! Mr. Kerry, as a Massachusetts Senator, you have created a long legacy of screwing things up a fair bit. Protect that legacy! If you continue this vanity campaign, your new legacy will be one of screwing things up entirely. If I were you, I would pick being remembered as “not that great” over being remembered as one of the most damaging figures in our country’s history. The choice is yours: save your legacy of mediocrity, or trample it. Help get Bush elected, or tell your supporters to vote for the only progressive candidate who can possibly win: Ralph Nader.

Concerned User

Print several copies and pass them along to friends and coworkers!

Kerry-Edwards 2004, Inc.
P.O. Box 34640
Washington, DC 20043
202-712-3001 (fax)
202-336-6950 (TTY)

Posted by convener at 01:36 PM

October 02, 2004

An Open Letter to VotePair

As I am certain we agree, the 2004 election is a turning point in human history. Strategic voting is not merely a good idea. It is the only way to build progressive movements in this country.

Therefore, we must insist that you offer a simple disclaimer on your website to ensure that all of your visitors understand that your content is satirical, and that you are by no means encouraging progressives to vote for John Kerry in contested states. We at appreciate good satire as much as any, and are saddened by the fact that we must make this request. However, in this politically charged election season, we cannot afford to be too careful. We would hate, for instance, for young voters participating in their first election to fall under the false impression that John Kerry supports the progressive agenda. Surely we do not have to point out to you the damage that would assuredly be done to progressive movements if they were aligned with a pro-war, pro-corporate, anti-worker, anti-gay, anti-woman candidate.

Again, we wish to emphasize that we do indeed have a sense of humor, and appreciate your website. A simple disclaimer explaining the satire to all viewers and reminding them of the importance of voting for Ralph Nader would not detract from the overall impact of your website and would go far to prevent confusion. You might also include a link to for those who honestly wish to participate in strategic voting. Certainly we can agree that in this important election, the last thing we want to see is John Kerry's egomaniacal vanity campaign and its Republican supporters steal progressive votes.

Thank you for your prompt assistance in this matter,

Posted by convener at 05:59 PM


We at recently learned about the candidacy of one David Cobb. Just as "maverick" Howard Dean claimed that his campaign was about restoring the "democratic wing" of the Democratic Party, Cobb vows to restore the Democratic Party wing of the Green Party.

It is our intention to provide services equally to all those interested in voting against the Bush agenda, and so we would be remiss were we not to provide support for individuals wishing to ReverseVoteSwap their Cobb votes as well.

CobbSwapping, however, works slightly differently from standard ReverseVoteSwapping. ReverseVoteSwapping is of course the process of maximizing the impact of votes for Nader by swapping them to swing states. Our detailed analysis has proven conclusively that votes for Cobb are of equal power no matter where they are cast. For instance, voting Cobb/LaMarche for President has the same net impact in Ohio and Florida as it has in Texas or Idaho or Rhode Island. Incidentally, you can create a similar effect by voting Cobb for Mayor of New Haven, or for Alabama state senate, or to play AFC quarterback in the NFL Pro Bowl.

Thus since swapping Cobb votes from state to state is of no political value, we maintain a CobbSwap section to encourage Cobb voters to do one of two things. The more logical choice is first to exchange your Cobb vote for a Nader vote, and proceed with ReverseVoteSwapping in the standard fashion. Alternately, we maintain a database of Cobb voters in different states, allowing two Cobb voters to exchange votes with each other. This is primarily a social service, as the most frequent complaint we have heard from Cobb supporters is that their candiate is garnering essentially no support with his pro-Kerry platform, as most people find it easier to simply vote for Kerry. (Or Bush)

Here are some testimonials from satisfied CobbSwappers:

Charles Kautsky, Boston, MA:
"When I decided to vote for David Cobb in order to assuage my liberal guilt while still supporting John Kerry's pro-war platform, I started to feel like I was the only one voting for this guy. Even his running made said she might not vote for him. Thanks to the folks at I can now look forward to a time when I will meet someone else somewhere who's also voting for Cobb. Thank you,!"

More testimonials to follow as we hear from additional CobbSwappers.

Posted by convener at 03:46 PM

Get Out the Vote, Be-atch!

As a uniformly reactionary politician, John Kerry has been having a hard time bamboozling the usual Democratic base into voting for him. His problems with women voters have been the subject of rigorous analysis by psephological science; in any event, the ranting of certain hysterical liberals gives it away.

Of course, the troubles of John Kerry are of no concern to us as, as there are plenty of Bush voters in the swing states with whom to execute Reverse Vote Swaps. However, we have learned, by means of courageous defectors and exiles, that the Democrats are already in the process of launching a major campaign of browbeating. As a public service, we expose these underhanded tactics so that our customers are not caught unawares.

Mary Beth Cahill, nominal head of Kerry's ring of evil viziers, has often stated that women voters are "late deciders" (you know how women are). In the following photo, John Edwards tries to get these broads to hurry the hell up.

Edwards harangues innocent women

We here at think that the deterioration of the Democrats' strength among women has something to do with their abandonment of issues women care about. The Democrats have decided that they need to strike more macho poses to woo the "security mom." Internal poll data shows that the Democrats' traditional mascot, the jackass, causes voters, deep in their subconscious mind, to associate Democrats with a jackass. The following draft logo combines the Kerry campaign themes of hope and destruction of America's enemies in a nuanced way to convey a more positive, patriotic message.

Come see the harder side of Kerry

Finally, this proposed billboard advertisement will run in all cities with large progressive, union, Latino, or Black populations.

Democrats' message to progressives

Posted by convener at 11:04 AM

Satisfied Customers!

In only a matter of hours, has already executed thousands of Reverse Vote Swaps, receiving plaudits and eclat from our satisfied customers. Here's only a small sample!

"I sell debilitating crowd-control gases to the government for a living, so I'm pretty set whether Bush or Kerry wins. Goddamned if I don't hate those Ivy League sons-of-bitches, though. I was so happy to find; when I told Kerry I was voting for Nader, he nearly tossed up all over the waffles he was serving me! Ha ha, what a tool!"
--BB from Pennsylvania

"A lot of my friends are voting Nader, but that's only because we live in this dumbass machine state. Well, I'm not ashamed of my beliefs--just because I live in New England doesn't make me a thumb-sucking liberal wanksta like them! helped me show those motherf*ckers I'm serious!™"
--TN from Massachusetts

Don't delay--reverse swap your vote today!

Posted by convener at 10:10 AM

The Kerry Factor

With the death of the thousandth US soldier in Iraq, the decay of workers' living standards, and the attack on civil liberties, the electoral conditions for defeating Bush are clearly emerging. However, the overall strength of the anti-Bush united front is weakened by one factor: John Kerry.

With his "me too" politics, contempt for his base, and boring-ass self, Kerry threatens to derail Ralph Nader's campaign to oust Bush and dismantle the Bush agenda. With Republican money (nine of Kerry's top twenty contributors gave more to Bush), frightening connections to right-wing extremists (like Ariel Sharon's shadowy "Likud Party"), and an extensive campaign of legal harrassment, Kerry is trying to disrupt the campaign of the only serious anti-Bush candidate out there.

Progressives need to become aware of the dangers of this "Kerry Factor" in order to combat it. As a public service, presents the following objective electoral analysis. Based solely on empirical data that no reasonable person could deny, we make the following obvious assumptions:

  1. Without Kerry, the legal harrassment against Nader would end, and he would appear on every state's ballot;
  2. Without Kerry, 95% of his supporters would vote for Nader, who they really agree with anyway;
  3. Without Kerry, Nader would get into the debates and flay Bush, winning 60% of his votes;
  4. Nader's strong, unobstructed campaign would inspire the 50% of eligible voters who don't vote, and 97% of those would vote Nader;
  5. David Cobb and Pat LaMarche would switch their votes to Bush because Congressional Democrats would feel more comfortable working with him.
Here is the electoral map as it stands today, WITH the Kerry Factor:

Electoral College Projection with the Kerry Factor

And WITHOUT the Kerry Factor:

Electoral College Projection without the Kerry Factor

We appeal to all people of good conscience--tell Kerry, "DON'T RUN!"

Posted by convener at 12:41 AM

October 01, 2004

Frequently Asked Questions, Part 1

Often on election day, we feel we have a choice: do we vote our conscience, or our fears? Fortunately, there's finally a way to do both! Using the science of vote swapping, now perfected after a botched trial run in 2000, voters in swing states and spoiled states join forces to assure that we get one vote of conscience (Ralph Nader) and one vote of abject terror (Bush/Kerry).

How do you participate? Simply register as a swinger or spoiler (to match your location to a swing state or spoiled state) and we will match you up with an appropriate "swap." It's simple, particularly when compared to registering to vote (sometimes necessary; check local laws and statutes) and finding your polling place (the standard limit is one; again check your local laws and statutes).

Isn't this backwards? Shouldn't you be helping people to vote for Ralph Nader in spoiled states while everyone in swing states votes for John Kerry?

No, but we understand your confusion! In 2000, some web sites mistakenly called for just such an arrangement. Its flaws are obvious. Following this logic, votes against war and for basic human rights would be relegated to such spots as Texas and Massachusettes. Although technically part of the United States, these two states (red and blue, respectively) do not participate in national elections, as their electoral votes are automatically placed directly into the column of their owners. Think of them as US colonies or protectorates, much like Puerto Rico, Iraq, or the UK. This process takes place sometimes as much as two months prior to election day. (The Rhode Island 2004 Presidential "election" was actually completed several weeks ago.) Under these circumstances, it clearly makes no sense to vote for anyone other than the owner of the state in question, if vote you must.

Conversely, voting for John Kerry in a swing state, although technically feasible, is not sensible. If we have learned one thing from the last election, it is that the votes in swing states are of great importance and are highly scrutinized. Thus it is important for us to send a message to George Bush in the swing states, by voting for someone who does not actually agree with him on the issues. Any other version of vote swapping is more than likely in the beta testing phase and should not be taken seriously.

Didn't Ralph Nader cost George Bush the election in 2000?

No. Whereas it is true that some registered Republicans did indeed vote for Ralph Nader, it must be asserted that the real reason Mr. Bush lost the election is the fact that he is a right wing zealot with far more money than brains, not because some members of the GOP voted for a third party. (Note: the fact that Mr. Bush was ultimately appointed President by the supreme court is immaterial in this particular matter. We are concerned with election reality, not post-election theft.)

Aren't there clear differences between Bush and Kerry?

Yes. They have different opinions about stem cell research.

Isn't it important to vote for John Kerry to make sure that the Democrats maintain ballot status?

Certainly, in the eyes of some pro-war voters, it is important to support the war movement by having more than one war candidate per election. We are not insensitive to this sentiment, but we beg of you: only vote for John Kerry in spoiled states! Only in such states can we be assured that a vote for Kerry will do no harm.

How do I know if I'm in spoiled state, or in a swing state?

This can indeed be a difficult question to answer, but we here at have developed a convenient algorithm. Please consult the following guidelines:

Aren't there big differences between the candidates?


Aren't there Massive differences between the candidates?


Aren't there Massively Enormous differences between the candidates?


Aren't these the two most different candidates in the history of modern elections?




Huh. OK.

Yeah. Sorry.

Won't we be sending the world a terrible message if Bush is re-elected?

No. Remember that the main "message" that our country exports abroad is in the form of military bombardment. This "message" will be interpreted in basically the same way, whether delivered by Bush or by Kerry.

Isn't Nader getting tons of support from Republicans who just want to support Bush?

No. Most wealthy Republicans understand that their best bet is to support the two candidates they agree with most (Bush/Kerry) rather than to help in any way the one they agree with least (Nader). This is illustrated by the fact that the Kerry campaign and its assorted subsidiaries have spent $500 million dollars, while the Nader campaign has mustered a somewhat smaller figure.

I am for less healthcare, more wars, and a ban on gay marriage. Whom should I vote for?

This is an excellent question, and one we get frequently. It can be difficult to sort this one out, and we encourage you to consult with your local mystic. However, rest assured: no matter who wins in November, your agenda will carry the day!

Is vote-swapping legal?

Vote-swapping has indeed been scrutinized for its legality. Our lawyers have researched it thoroughly, and have advised us to inform you that it is indeed a legal gray area. They also noted that the standard electoral practices of the two major parties (blocking third parties, harassing voters of color, creating confusing ballots, committing war crimes, etc) are far worse. Hence we are confident that you can participate in Reverse Vote Swapping without a fear!

Posted by convener at 11:38 PM

The Reverse Vote Swap Manifesto

A specter is haunting America--the specter of REVERSE VOTE SWAPPING! All the powers of the two-party system have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this specter: bosses and unions, McAuliffe and Gitlin, liberal bloggers and provincial attorneys-general.

Where is the Ohio voter who has not been "pre-emptively" enjoined not to Reverse Vote Swap? Where the Massachusetts voter who is not eyed with suspicion, lest he make contact with his Ohio brethren to arrange a Reverse Vote Swap?

Two things result from this fact:

  1. REVERSE VOTE SWAPPING is already acknowledged by all corporate parties to be itself a power.
  2. It is high time the Reverse Vote Swappers should openly, in the face of the whole nation, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the specter of Reverse Vote Swapping with a manifesto of the practice itself.


There are millions of people in states like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Texas, and Idaho who hate the war, the PATRIOT Act, No Child Left Behind, NAFTA/WTO/FTAA, tax cuts for the rich, etc, and would like to vote against it. Unfortunately they live in "spoiled states," which means that either the Republicans or Democrats are entitled to the states' electoral votes by gentleman's agreement. It would surely be possible to prove mathematically that Rhode Island, for instance, will go to John Kerry even if not a single person votes on Election Day, given the Democrats' lock on the votes of the dead.

On the other hand, there are millions in states like Ohio, Florida, or Pennsylvania who love the war, home-school their kids, and are opposed to modern medicine (thereby having no need for health insurance); but they would nonetheless enjoy the opportunity to fuck shit up. Unfortunately, a vote for either of the two major parties in these "swing states" would be considered uncontroversial and uninteresting.

REVERSE VOTE SWAPPING has the answers.

By mutual agreement, the "spoiled state" voter punches his ticket for Bush/Kerry, and the "swing state" voter marks his ballot for Nader. Thus the spoiled-stater gets to put his political agenda forward in the most effective way possible, and the swing-stater gets the satisfaction of knowing that shit has been fucked up.


In what relation do the Reverse Vote Swappers stand in relation to the other "strategic" voters as a whole?

The Reverse Vote Swappers form a separate trend opposed to all other strategic voters. We set up sectarian principles of our own and seek to mock and demoralize all other tendencies.

Lesser-Evil Voting

We agree that one candidate is the clear lesser evil on such critical issues as the Iraq occupation, military expansion, and the oppression of the Palestinians. Still, we don't think this excuses voting for Bush.


In some isolated areas, the polls show a greater than zero, but way less than one, percent result for a mysterious phenomenon called "Cobb/LaMarche." We consider these to be random deviations explained by the Uncertainty Principle, and therefore beyond analysis.

"Standard" Vote Swapping

The first vote swappers deserve credit for discovering the revolutionary methods of vote swapping; but they applied it in backward and absurd ways. In their topsy-turvy plan, Nader votes were transferred from swing states to spoiled states! What foolishness! It is like a man who gives Viagra to his acquaintances in order to make himself seem more impotent.

Posted by convener at 11:19 PM

The Day of Your Liberation Is Near

Fellow citizens, events in America have now reached the final days of decision.

For more than a century, progressives and other agitators have pursued patient and polite efforts to destroy the two-party regime without devious methods. Our good faith has not been returned.

The two-party regime has used lesser-evilism as a ploy to gain time and advantage. Over the years, third parties have been threatened by government officials, bugged by hysterical liberals, and systematically deceived. Honest efforts to break the regime have failed again and again--because we are not dealing with honest men.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of non-wealthy Americans and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al-Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of the military-industrial complex, Bush or Kerry could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq, or any other country.

Fellow citizens! has arrived to liberate you! Reverse vote swap to increase your influence! Reverse vote swap to wound the major parties! Reverse vote swap to make Democrats hilariously angry!

The time has come to show those motherf*ckers you're serious!

Posted by convener at 10:13 PM