Ralph Nader - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-22-2004, 02:23 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 11:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BOOMERANG04
#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.
__________________

__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 02:41 PM   #32
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:05 PM
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.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 03:48 PM   #33
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 06:05 PM
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?!?!?!?!
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 04:49 PM   #34
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,294
Local Time: 06:05 PM
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.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 02-22-2004, 06:36 PM   #35
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,426
Local Time: 06:05 PM
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.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 09:36 PM   #36
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
Great post headache!! I agree with you 100%!!
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 10:34 PM   #37
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
ILuvLarryMullen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: in the sunshine
Posts: 6,904
Local Time: 03:05 PM
headache
__________________
ILuvLarryMullen is offline  
Old 02-22-2004, 10:52 PM   #38
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 06:05 PM
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.
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 02-23-2004, 01:29 AM   #39
Babyface
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5
Local Time: 06:05 PM
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.
__________________
BOOMERANG04 is offline  
Old 02-23-2004, 02:02 AM   #40
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 06:05 PM
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.
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 02-23-2004, 09:40 AM   #41
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:05 PM
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.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-23-2004, 11:29 AM   #42
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:05 PM
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.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-23-2004, 07:27 PM   #43
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Hallelujah Here She Comes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 3,528
Local Time: 06:05 PM
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.
__________________
Hallelujah Here She Comes is offline  
Old 02-23-2004, 07:34 PM   #44
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 03:05 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-23-2004, 08:21 PM   #45
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:05 PM
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.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com