Ralph Nader - Page 4 - 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 02-24-2004, 12:02 AM   #46
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:44 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 12:59 AM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 11:44 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 10:06 AM   #48
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:44 AM
Anything could happen. It's really too early to call it. I certainly don't have a crystal ball.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 01:38 PM   #49
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 02:34 PM   #50
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,464
Local Time: 06:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 02-24-2004, 07:16 PM   #51
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 06:44 AM
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.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 07:29 PM   #52
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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.
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 02-24-2004, 07:39 PM   #53
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


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.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-25-2004, 03:57 PM   #54
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,464
Local Time: 06:44 AM
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
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 02-25-2004, 04:08 PM   #55
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 05:44 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Headache in a Suitcase
i do however forsee a large turn out by the joe schmuck constituent
Now is Joe Schmuck more like Average Joe or Joe Shmoe?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 02-25-2004, 08:29 PM   #56
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:44 AM
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.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 07:21 PM   #57
Blue Crack Supplier
 
dazzledbylight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: in the sound dancing - w Bono & Edge :D
Posts: 33,002
Local Time: 06:44 AM

Fizz--

[COLOR=purple] "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 is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 09:02 PM   #58
Blue Crack Supplier
 
dazzledbylight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: in the sound dancing - w Bono & Edge :D
Posts: 33,002
Local Time: 06:44 AM
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...
__________________
dazzledbylight is offline  
Old 02-26-2004, 09:05 PM   #59
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 11:44 AM
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.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 03-05-2004, 02:13 PM   #60
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 06:44 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
Danospano 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 06:44 AM.


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