Ralph Nader

[FizzingWhizzbees]

#Most are predicting this will be the most ugly campaign in decades with attack after attack from both sides. This will create a huge backlash and will probably help Nadar a great deal. When its all said and done, I predict Nadar will get more votes than he did in 2000.

I agree with you the the campaign will most likely be ugly and this might help Nader. However, the number of people who are desperate to get rid of Bush might mean that many who would otherwise choose to vote for Nader will vote for the Democratic candidate as someone who has a realistic chance of being elected. That could well lead to Nader getting even fewer votes than he received in 2000.

 

[verte76]

This campaign is going to be nasty, no question. But Fizz is right, there are people out there who are absolutely desperate to get rid of Bush, and these include many who voted for Nader in 2000. I mean heck, some of Dennis Kucinich's supporters want to write him in in November, so Nader's not the only "anti-establishment" candidate out there this time around.

 

[Danospano]

Nader will NOT get more votes than in 2000. I'm probably his biggest fan on this website, with a possible exception of one or two others, and I think he'll be history by the summer.

The only reason he'd get a building base of support would be if Fox News keeps him in the picture. I doubt CNN will give me much credit, because they tend to support the left, while FOX would be all too eager to showcase a deterant to Kerry. Now, that I think of this scenerio I take back my prediction; he could easily cost Kerry/Edwards the election if FOX News plays culprit.

Oh Ralph...I love ya, but what are you DOING?!?!?!?!

 

[anitram]

Of course Nader has no chance. The ABBA (Anything but Bush again) coalition will steamroll right over him.

But he has said nothing today that is untrue. Nader was born in the wrong country, simple as that. Were he born in say, Sweden, he'd have been a much more successful politician.

Alas, in the US, his work should be concentrated in grassroots campaigns and college campuses. I believe he can effect change, but not by running for president.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

if the democratic candidate is strong enough to win, he'll win regardless of ralph nader. that's like a football team blaming a close loss on a bad call by the ref at the end of the game, ignoring the fact that they didn't turn the ball over 5 times the ref wouldn't have even mattered.

and i love how apparently fox news will have something to do with effecting the outcome of the election.

 

[verte76]

if the democratic candidate is strong enough to win, he'll win regardless of ralph nader. that's like a football team blaming a close loss on a bad call by the ref at the end of the game, ignoring the fact that they didn't turn the ball over 5 times the ref wouldn't have even mattered.

and i love how apparently fox news will have something to do with effecting the outcome of the election.

Great post headache!! I agree with you 100%!!

 

[ILuvLarryMullen]

headache

 

[Danospano]

Headache, I too love the analogy to football.

Let's have someone take a poll to see where we stand concerning candidates...


1)Bush
2)Kerry/Edwards
3)Nader

Could someone with premium member status do that? I can't start a poll.

 

[BOOMERANG04]

Headache in a Suitcase,

"if the democratic candidate is strong enough to win, he'll win regardless of ralph nader."

This is true, but the democrats do not have a candidate that is that strong. Kerry VS. Bush is going to be a close election. Because of the fact that it will be a close election, perhaps even closer than in 2000, Nadar's move to run for president will have an effect. Most votes that Nadar gets will be votes that normally would have gone to Kerry. This means nothing if Kerry was strong enough to win by a sizable margin. Since that is not the case and Kerry could potentially lose even without Nadar in the race, Nadar's entry could have a critical effect. The Head of the Democratic Party and other Democrats would not be making the criticisms of the past week if they were not concerned about it.

Opinion polls over the next several months will jump back and forth, but for the most part, 45% of the country is solidly behind Kerry, 45% of the country is solidly behind Bush. The remaining 10% is up for grabs. Even if Nadar were to get less votes than in 2000, it could still be enough to impact election.

A Candidate like Nadar will impact the results of an election that is already going to be close without him.

 

[Danospano]

This just dawned on me while reading the preceding message...

Close to 50% of the registered voters in the 2000 election actually participated by casting a vote. In 1996, roughly 50% showed up as well. I'm assuming that between 1996-2000 there were quite a few new voters. It's just makes sense that a chunk of people turned 18 or registered later in their early twenties. That means that Nader, who appealed to the more idealistic demographic (i.e. non-compromising thinkers) recieved a significant portion of his votes from disgruntled former voters, and secondly from first-time voters who chose him as their best option.

Considering these facts it seems a bit erroneous to say that most Nader voters would have supported Gore. Every single Nader voter I met, and I met over 1000 during that summer and fall, would have stayed home if the only options were Gore or Bush, or as we liked to call them Bore and Gush.

 

[STING2]

Statistical Polling done of Nadar voters has found that roughly 2 out of every 3 Nadar voters would have voted for Gore in 2000 if Nadar had not run. Nadar is to the left of Gore and because of that it is very rare that someone who voted for Nadar would have voted for Bush had Nadar not run.

 

[verte76]

Sting, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Nader "siphoned" off any votes from Bush. That'd be crazy. I'd be interested in more information about that poll. I know my experience with individual Nader voters is that they wouldn't have voted for Gore. Perhaps Gore would have won without Nader in the race, but he also couldn't even carry his own damn home state. The guy spent the whole year trying to re-define himself. This is not the way to get elected, and hell, I voted for the guy. In my book saying Nader signigicantly changed the race is a good way for Gore and Co. to say "I didn't screw up, they screwed me". That's . It's claiming that Gore didn't screw up, and that's just not true. The race could have been a repeat of 1976 when Eugene McCarthy's bid did not cost Carter the election. It was not.

 

[Hallelujah Here She Comes]

I don't think you have to hold Nader completely responsible for Gore's loss in order to think it's a bad idea for him to run. And I think you can blame Nader in part for Gore's loss without completely absolving Gore and his campaign. In terms of whether I think Nader should run I don't care, really, that Gore was mostly at fault for his own failure. I care that there's a substantial chance that, without Nader, Gore would have won. To say that Nader was partially to blame does not mean Gore shouldn't have run a better campaign. But neither does saying that Gore should have run a better campaign mean that Nader wasn't partially responsible.

I can't really fault Nader for running in 2000, since it wasn't clear at that point the effect his presence in the election would have. But now it is. So when I argue that Nader shouldn't enter the race, I'm not saying "if the Democrats lose, it will be Nader's fault and Nader's fault alone and the Democrats will thusly be absolved of blame." I'm just saying that since Nader doesn't have a real chance of winning and will likely garner votes that otherwise would have gone to a Democratic candidate, the only effect his candicacy will have will be negative and, therefore, he should not run.

 

[nbcrusader]

Statistical Polling done of Nadar voters has found that roughly 2 out of every 3 Nadar voters would have voted for Gore in 2000 if Nadar had not run. Nadar is to the left of Gore and because of that it is very rare that someone who voted for Nadar would have voted for Bush had Nadar not run.

When was the polling done? If after the election, they may have been influenced by GWB's victory in saying they would have voted for Gore.

How many people would not vote for Gore, choosing instead a candidate who had no chance of winning? My guess is that most of the Nader voters would have stayed home on election day.

 

[STING2]

The poll was mentioned on CNN but I have yet to find it on the web. Certainly there would be a significant group of Nadar voters who would simply stay home if he had not run, but there would still be enough Nadar voters voting for Gore to impact the election.

Again, Nadar's run impacts the election if its going to be close even without him running.

Much worse than Nadar was Perot's run in 1992. Perot got 19% of the popular vote. Most Perot voters would have settled with Bush Sr. if he had not run. The chief reason Clinton won in 1992 was because of Perot. There was a huge backlash to Clinton's first two years in office which helped elect the first Republican controlled congress in 40 years. After the Mid-term 1994 elections, Clinton wisely moved to the center and won re-election in 1996.

 

[verte76]

I think it's entirely possible that Nader's campaign will be a joke by June. He doesn't have the Green Party apparatus to get himself on state ballots. Texas law requires 30,000 *independent* voters to sign the ballot petition by May 12, I think it is. California requires 150,000 signatures to get on the ballot. A total of 1.5 million signatures is required to get an independent candidate on the ballot in all 50 states. Any state can claim that some of the signatures are invalid, tear up the signature sheets, and they are history. Partisan lawsuits keep them off of ballots in some states. He didn't have to fool with this stuff as a Green Party candidate; the party did it for him. They were on the ballot in 24 states as a result of their 1996 polling and didn't have to do signatures on those states at all. I've had friends in independent party politics for 20 years. I used to know the guy who ran Eugene McCarthy's campaign in Alabama in 1976. They couldn't get on the ballot! They've had to go out and get those signatures one by one, only to have the petitions rejected by the state. It's a bh to do independent party politics. Is this fair? It's questionable whether a third party should have to do this in a democratic country. Is it legal? Yes. The system is heavily weighted in favor of the two major party candidates. Independents are basically screwed, which is why so few of them even run. I could go on and on as to why this guy's campaign is basically hype in 2004, unlike 2000. It's not that it's wrong. It's independent politics that doesn't stand a chance of even being on every state ballot in November, let alone getting any votes at all.

 

[STING2]

If you believe this year's election will be close, then any other independent candidates running do have the potential to impact the election. Candidates off the radar screen all year, could play a huge role in a state where who wins the electoral votes is decided by a few hundred votes or less.

 

[verte76]

Anything could happen. It's really too early to call it. I certainly don't have a crystal ball.

 

[verte76]

I don't think you have to hold Nader completely responsible for Gore's loss in order to think it's a bad idea for him to run. And I think you can blame Nader in part for Gore's loss without completely absolving Gore and his campaign. In terms of whether I think Nader should run I don't care, really, that Gore was mostly at fault for his own failure. I care that there's a substantial chance that, without Nader, Gore would have won. To say that Nader was partially to blame does not mean Gore shouldn't have run a better campaign. But neither does saying that Gore should have run a better campaign mean that Nader wasn't partially responsible.

I can't really fault Nader for running in 2000, since it wasn't clear at that point the effect his presence in the election would have. But now it is. So when I argue that Nader shouldn't enter the race, I'm not saying "if the Democrats lose, it will be Nader's fault and Nader's fault alone and the Democrats will thusly be absolved of blame." I'm just saying that since Nader doesn't have a real chance of winning and will likely garner votes that otherwise would have gone to a Democratic candidate, the only effect his candicacy will have will be negative and, therefore, he should not run.

If he's not on ballots, it'll be pretty tough for him to get votes. The ballot-access issue is going to figure this year in a way that it didn't four years ago. It takes a whole slew of gutsy, energetic people to get an independent on a state ballot. I have personally seen this process taking place. Without a party apparatus, your prospects of getting on enough ballots to make a difference are pretty bleak. The Greens, incidentally, are going to run *another* candidate. It'll be someone no one has ever heard of. I saw their slate of people running for the party's nomination on their site. They'll spend their time and effort getting this person on ballots nationwide. That means potentially *two* liberal/lefty independents out there. It should be interesting.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Headache in a Suitcase,

"if the democratic candidate is strong enough to win, he'll win regardless of ralph nader."

This is true, but the democrats do not have a candidate that is that strong. Kerry VS. Bush is going to be a close election. Because of the fact that it will be a close election, perhaps even closer than in 2000, Nadar's move to run for president will have an effect. Most votes that Nadar gets will be votes that normally would have gone to Kerry. This means nothing if Kerry was strong enough to win by a sizable margin. Since that is not the case and Kerry could potentially lose even without Nadar in the race, Nadar's entry could have a critical effect. The Head of the Democratic Party and other Democrats would not be making the criticisms of the past week if they were not concerned about it.

Opinion polls over the next several months will jump back and forth, but for the most part, 45% of the country is solidly behind Kerry, 45% of the country is solidly behind Bush. The remaining 10% is up for grabs. Even if Nadar were to get less votes than in 2000, it could still be enough to impact election.

A Candidate like Nadar will impact the results of an election that is already going to be close without him.

well personaly i think osama bin laden will mysteriously pop out of a spider hole around july, leading to a bush landslide victory in the fall... wether it's ironic or planned, that's for you to decide.

i honestly don't think kerry on his own is as strong a candidate as either al gore was or even as strong as bill bradley was in 2000. the left will go hardcore behind kerry, registering as many voters as they possiably can just out of pure hatred for bush. but when it comes down to it the election won't be decided on the votes that nader pulls away, rather on the voters in the middle. that's why i thought joe lieberman had a better shot at beating bush than any of the others... he's closer to the middle. i really don't know if a hardcore lefty can sway those middle votes away from bush. obviously i'm probably in the minority with that thought on this board, where the see-saw is obviously tilted in one direction... but on the issues that are hot in the news today... the issues that this election, in my opinion, will ultimately be decided on... gay marriage, indecency on the airwaves, terrorisim and homeland security... the middle, unaffiliated voter, right or wrong (no pun intended), tends to swing towards the right on every one of those issues.

 

[sharky]

the other factor you have to add into this is voters who didn't vote in 2000. alot of people realized that their vote DOES count. Jewish grandmas in Palm Springs will make sure they don't vote for Buchanon next year and many others are going to make sure they sounded support an ABB.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

the other factor you have to add into this is voters who didn't vote in 2000. alot of people realized that their vote DOES count. Jewish grandmas in Palm Springs will make sure they don't vote for Buchanon next year and many others are going to make sure they sounded support an ABB.

I don't think before 2000 people believed elections really came down to so few votes. Hopefully that will help convince people that their votes really do count.

 

[verte76]

I don't think before 2000 people believed elections really came down to so few votes. Hopefully that will help convince people that their votes really do count.

I think 2000 was one big wake-up call. One thing I *will* predict about this election is this: turn-out will be very high. And I think that's a positive thing. Even if someone decides to write in Joe Schmuck.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

if the next presidential election was held 3 months after the 2000 election was decided... then i think the voter turn out would be huge.

we americans are notorious for having a short attention span... i'd expect an increase, but only a slight one. i do however forsee a large turn out by the joe schmuck constituent

 

[BVS]

i do however forsee a large turn out by the joe schmuck constituent

Now is Joe Schmuck more like Average Joe or Joe Shmoe?

 

[verte76]

You're right headache Americans do have short attention spans. My own concentration is a bad joke. I do think that *potentially* the voter turnout will be high by our standards.

 

[dazzledbylight]

Fizz--

"Don't let the Good become the Enemy of the Perfect" >quoter unknown<

"...Their lives are bigger, than any big idea...." <U2

oh, man.....

I've been aware & then involved in USA politics since I was around 11. I was raised a Liberal, *still* unrepentant and proud of it. I have added some leftist thots/ideas into my views, too, over the decades.

When I was growing up in the USA, *the differences between* Soviet Union {Russia} & {Red} China's {I don't use the aftfore-mentioned term anymore} Communism and alot of Europes' Socialist-Democrcies countries were *never taught* to us. I had to find it out for myself way later on. And changed my mind.

I was a member of RN's Public Citizen and particularlty "Critical Mass" [Nuclear Power/weapons vs Soloar/Renewable Engeries for several years backin the early eigthties.

In fact being involved in the Renewable Energy movement lead me to hear about and follow the European Green's. It also became a movement to follow from the "wholistic/New Age" banner- something I became/am still involved with.

Continued to admire him alot through the decades till...2000.

I *knew* Bush was going to be bad, because I knew the alot of what the Republican Party was convincing people to vote for them for. This was because I listened {as much as I could take--which sometimes lasted only 5 mins}, >sorry-pinky slip<} to NYC Right-wing Conservative radio here during the Clinton years.

once I GOT TO HEAR THE GENERAL TENNENTS OF THEIR ARGUEMENTS & harranges {Including Limbaugh & Hannity} I knew we were in trouble. Why, because most of them beleive being poor = immorality. It's an old stream of theological thought from early settlement days that work = next to Godliness.

ONe of

 

[dazzledbylight]

cont'd post

--- talk radio conservative phonecallers usually say "it's *my* money."

Here one liberal radio talkshow host's 2000 & current reply to that. "...Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society_ roads, infrastucture, public eduacation, water supply ...etc and...we hwelp those *unable* to help themselves."

I know some people in the disabled community. There's a range. Some ,might never work again, some have slowly started to work {maybe parttime at first} after rehab, and some are seardching for, or doing educational work into what kind og jobs they can/might want to do now.

Between those folks, the poor {working or not}, 'minorities', working class/blue collar workers, the uninsured, peeople on Social Security alone... Many were worried in 2000, now they are *really fearful* if Bush gets 'elected again'.

I begged the few greens I met in 2000, not to do this {vote Nader}. I beg you Now not to vote for him!

Yes, I am a Democrat {i have supported/voted for 2 liberal Republicans in my life Mayor Lindsay and Sen Charles Goodel {they were more liberal on certain important issue then my Democtrats counterparts}. And *YES* it was sure embaressing to see Gore lose in his Homestate!

But *in Florida* if somewhere between 1% - 3% of all nader votes had voted for Gore we'd be a partially differnt USA today in ways *that really count*!

There are smallish changes that are creeping up around in society, for instance there are some Comapanies and newer Corporations that *do* treat their employees like treasured assets and *not like easily* replaceable, disposable Liabilities

This corp change mentioned above came about alot through the Holistic/New Age movement, which has been unfairly, alot of the time--labeled as just 'navel-gazers' etc but had/s in places over the past 15 yrs turned outwaur at society and it's problems.

any way, I'M THINKING OF VOTING FOR eDWARDS IN OUR nyc {SUPER TUES} PRIMARY... ALOT OF TALKING TO DO WITH FRIENDS OVER THE WEEKEND!


sorry --pinky slip { ihave to look down at the keyboard, not at screen to typr fast/alot}

as for RAlph...

 

[verte76]

The reason why I'm venturing to predict that voter turnout will be high is because the turnout in the primaries is breaking records. It's *huge*. It's expected to be absolutely humongous in Georgia next week. Most of the time primary turnout is low. It's not this year.

 

[Danospano]

As of 3/5/04....

I just read a poll that said if the election were held today Bush would get 45%, Kerry 44% and Nader 6%.

It amazing that people are still standing up for Nader after the amount of press we've seen scandalize his name. I think it's great to see so many millions of Americans are still unsatisfied with Washington and are sticking to their guns, but I don't want another 4 deleterious years of the Bush Administration.