Ralph Nadar to Run again!

mike65

Oh God noooooooo! Thats Bush 2004-2008 then.

Mike.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

shotamoose

How many states did Nader actually make a difference in in 2000, assuming that all his supporters would have voted Democrat otherwise?

I didn't realise Dean had that many Nader supporters? Any source on this?

Sparks

Seems a bit OTT to bitch at Nader like this. Look at the numbers. In 2000, he got a total of 3% of the vote. In Florida, yes, he got 95,000 votes or thereabouts, while Bush won by 537 votes - but Jeb Bush struck a few thousand voters off the lists illegally, so the "cause" of Bush winning lies quite happily with Jeb, not Ralph.

Blaming Nader for Bush's win is like blaming the last pint for your hangover the next day instead of the 14 that came before it....

Mark

Originally posted by Sparks
In 2000, he got a total of 3% of the vote.

Then what the hell makes him think he's going to win now.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

Originally posted by Mark
Then what the hell makes him think he's going to win now.

Beats me. He's not even running with a party. His point is that any citizen of the US is entitled to run for the post, and he's doing just that. So I don't see how anyone can actually say he's doing anything wrong...

Zombrex

Originally posted by Mark
Then what the hell makes him think he's going to win now.

The fact that he runs is more important than if he can win or not. While he is running he can high-light issues, which is what Nader is brilliant at

mike65

Daveirl hit the nail on the head earlier, Nadar is "running" as an independent so he can be bought off by Kerry or Kennedy. "Hey Ralph, fancy a job with the big boys?"

Mike.

sceptre

Originally posted by Mark
Then what the hell makes him think he's going to win now.

I doubt very much that he thinks he can win. However if he gets 5% of the total votes then he (or the next green party candidate) will get funding for the next election, which could amount to anything up to about 100 million dollars.

edit: this presumably doesn't apply if he's running as an independent.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mr_angry

The sad thing is, he's the candidate with the policies I respect the most. He made an excellent speech last week on how government policy, and hence massive influence on American society, was up for sale. i.e. Any commercial interests can buy themselves influence in the government by supporting the appropriate Presedential campaign.

In all honesty, there is very little difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, and Nadar is the only one offering an alternative. Its a shame that for not being a member of the big 2, he'll be completely shunned at the ballot. Ironic that America is one party away from psuedo-communism. :ninja:

sovtek

Originally posted by mr_angry
Ironic that America is one party away from psuedo-communism. :ninja: [/B]

Do you mean authoritarianism?
Supposing my absentee ballot makes it across the Atlantic and back (which I have some doubts based on 2000) it will be checked next to his name. That's assuming Kucinich isn't the Democratic candidate.
Of course all the rhetoric from the media and the DNC isn't going to help Nader's chances. I'm really glad he's running though. He will push the other candidates to possible form true opposition.
I just don't buy that logic that he will cause Bush to be in power for another 4 years. Remember Gore didn't actually loose. That's besides not being all that different (on appearance) to Bush.
It's only three years later that the differences show.

mr_angry

I was really musing on the possibility of a single-party election. More of a trait of communism, than communism itself. Sorry for any confusion.

TwoShedsJackson

How dare Ralph Nader declare himself a candidate in a democratic election? Those votes he's going to steal belong to Kerry!!!

Listen, Gore practically had the election handed to him last time around and he still ****ed it up. If Kerry can't beat Bush with a near-insignificant 3rd party candidate also running, he doesn't deserve to win.

Tommy Vercetti

Exactly, Democrats have only themselves to blame for losing last time around, best of luck to Nader.

Pink Bunny

I like Nader. I think it's a shame that there isn't a 3rd party that is strong enough to make a real difference though. The US NEEDS a strong 3rd party if any changes are really to be made. Unfortunately, when it all comes down to it, as much as I like Nader, a vote for him will be like throwing a vote away, because he just can't compete against the 2 major parties. And the Bush supporters will vote for Bush, they won't lose any voters to the Nader ticket. However, the Dems might, so it can split the votes off of Kerry (or whoever wins the primary) and weaken that side.
Someone mentioned Nader getting support that will help him in the next election. Do you mean in 4 more yrs? I think Nader is aged 70, so his time for politics is running short.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by Pink Bunny
I like Nader. I think it's a shame that there isn't a 3rd party that is strong enough to make a real difference though. The US NEEDS a strong 3rd party if any changes are really to be made. Unfortunately, when it all comes down to it, as much as I like Nader, a vote for him will be like throwing a vote away, because he just can't compete against the 2 major parties. And the Bush supporters will vote for Bush, they won't lose any voters to the Nader ticket. However, the Dems might, so it can split the votes off of Kerry (or whoever wins the primary) and weaken that side.
Someone mentioned Nader getting support that will help him in the next election. Do you mean in 4 more yrs? I think Nader is aged 70, so his time for politics is running short.

There will never be a third party in American politics if that was the case. Nader will never win an election, but maybe in 20 years time an alternative candidate will. It has to start somewhere.

Pink Bunny

I agree, I just wish I knew how someone is going to go about changing things.
It's like the primaries. I don't really know why they are streched out over time like they are, but since Kerry is ahead (and the media has a lot to do with this-they focus on the negatives or positives depending on who their favorite is) by the time the primary gets to the later states a lot of people have their mind made up by who has won in the earlier states. People who are unsure tend to go with who looks like the winner. It's kind of like that with the 3rd party things. (I hope this makes sense...I can't quite get my point out clearly, I'm afraid).

Tommy Vercetti

I know what you're saying...I suppose the only way a third party could come onto the scene in a short period of time would be with massive financial backing from someone...and that would probably defeat the purpose of an alternative like Nader.

Sand

I dont get the problem with Nader taking votes from the democrats - if Nader better represents the viewpoint of a sizeable proportion if people then they are better voting for him. If the democrats are too moderate or "of the center" for a lot of their voters then they need to examine their positions - party politics in general needs to be less about being everything to everyone and more about taking an honest an open stance on issues so that the democratic process can actually work.

Originally posted by sovtek
I just don't buy that logic that he will cause Bush to be in power for another 4 years. Remember Gore didn't actually loose. That's besides not being all that different (on appearance) to Bush.
It's only three years later that the differences show.

I'm just wondering Sovtek about that and would be interested in your comment.
I heard a democratic Governor on the last word on today fm this evening being interviewed in relation to Nader.
Unfortunately I was quite busy at the time, so I neither caught the start of the interview or the governors name.

But I did hear him clearly state two things
One was that in the 2000 election, it was potential democratic voters who made up the majority of naders 3% and that this lost Gore three states.

If that is true, Nader did play a part in winning the whitehouse for Bush.

In our part of the world there is as you know always several candidates and parties running, and usually depending on the way the electorate is thinking a chance that more than one candidate /party/coalition could win.

So we have developed a system which many use called tactical voting.
That is, some people vote, not for to get their favourite candidate in, but they take a bite of the " lets be realistic as to who can actually win here... " cherry and vote for the candidate who is most likely to keep the person you least want in ...out!

In other words, your vote for Nader while it is the laudable and the principled way to vote.... if you actually voted for the Democrat candidate ( as bitter a pill as that may be to swallow for whatever reason ) your vote would actually help elect someone who ousts Bush rather than be wasted on Nader who has no chance of defeating Bush at all.

I say this because, you state that you intend to vote, many hundreds of thousands or millions won't bother and even if they despise Bush, they will never have any say where as you will so perhaps you should reflect on whether you want Bush out or not.

Sand

In other words, your vote for Nader while it is the laudable and the principled way to vote.... if you actually voted for the Democrat candidate ( as bitter a pill as that may be to swallow for whatever reason ) your vote would actually help elect someone who ousts Bush rather than be wasted on Nader who has no chance of defeating Bush at all.

You say this as if the purpose of an election is to beat George Bush (and snr, and Reagan before him ) rather than for every voter to vote for the candidate they feel best represents their views? Voting is then not a positive action based on agreeing with some manifesto, but based on negativity. How exactly is it possible for any other political faction, to better represent peoples views, to emerge when the logic of "Yeah, were bad but wait till you see the other guys - and dont bother wasting your vote on someone you actually agree with".

What exactly do the Democrats stand for beyond being the "Were not Bush" Party? Let them fight and win elections based on their own manifesto. Nader has his and shouldnt be bullied into going with the status quo of corporate mainstream politics because one party is *relatively* good, and the other is *relatively* evil.

pickarooney

I must say a hearty (though secular) Amen to that.

Tommy Vercetti

Originally posted by Earthman

If that is true, Nader did play a part in winning the whitehouse for Bush.

I totally disagree with that. If Democrats decided to vote for Nader, then it is the failure of the Democrats to gain these votes who played the part.

Originally posted by Sand
You say this as if the purpose of an election is to beat George Bush (and snr, and Reagan before him ) rather than for every voter to vote for the candidate they feel best represents their views?

No, I say that based on a judgement call.
It is self evident that only two parties are in the running for the Whitehouse.
It's also evident that the crazy system used for voting for that office needs tactical voting if theres to be an ousting of Mr Bush.
Theres little point in complaining about him if the opportunity to turf him out is wasted.

I'm just being realistic on that score, there is an awful, lot of work to be done to build a third political force in the U.S and Nader hasnt a hope,this time around, that is obvious.

I'd find it very difficult to be honest finding anything negative with tactical voting if the objective is to get Bush out of the Whitehouse.
All the principle in the world is fine, but it ain't worth a penny candle if it has no effect.
There is a time and a place for it and it needs to grow, using it at the wrong time, just hands a victory to in this case Bush.

What exactly do the Democrats stand for beyond being the "Were not Bush" Party? Let them fight and win elections based on their own manifesto. Nader has his and shouldnt be bullied into going with the status quo of corporate mainstream politics because one party is *relatively* good, and the other is *relatively* evil.

I can see the principle in your point, and it's exactly what I would advocate myself if and only if there was an electable third political force in the U.S

The fact, this election year is that there isn't, which in my view is all the more reason to vote to achieve at least one objective... and then continue afterwards to work for the other, supporting and growing a third force.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

sovtek

Originally posted by daveirl
What you can argue is that it's tough luck for the Dems but I don't see how you can totally disagree that Nader cost Gore the White House

Because Bush wasn't elected. He was selected by the Supreme Court.

Originally posted by sovtek
Because Bush wasn't elected. He was selected by the Supreme Court.

Yes but sovtek, the point is, that they wouldnt have got the opportunity to do that, if nader voters went for Gore.

It's a flaw in the system that can be cured by increasing public awareness on the need for a third political force.

TomF

Well, as turn-about is considered fair-play, let us not forget the disaster in 1992 when Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate allowing Bush, Sr. to be defeated and Beelzebubba to be elected by a minority of the voters.

I was saddened to see Howard Dean drop out when the voters finally got a chance to vote, because he would have been wonderfully easy to defeat, with some people looking forward to the greatest landslide since James Monroe. Now that JF'nK ("Lurch") is looking nominatible (is that a word?) America needs Ralph Nader as a candidate even more than in 2000.

sovtek

Originally posted by TomF
Well, as turn-about is considered fair-play, let us not forget the disaster in 1992 when Ross Perot ran as a third party candidate allowing Bush, Sr. to be defeated and Beelzebubba to be elected by a minority of the voters.

And in '96? More of a comment on our electoral system than on the "problems" of a "third party". Still doesn't have anything to do with Nader.

I was saddened to see Howard Dean drop out when the voters finally got a chance to vote, because he would have been wonderfully easy to defeat, with some people looking forward to the greatest landslide since James Monroe.

Or....he would have been close to true opposition to the policies of the shrub regime and brought out the other half to vote, which would likely end in a landslide against Bush.
You really should have been rooting for Leiberman to loose the election for the Democrats if your so in favor of incompetance and cronyism.