Ralph Nader on Sunday Feb 24 "Meet the Press"

[verte76]

That's right, he hasn't said a damn thing except when it's time to have an election. I don't think he's running for the Greens.

 

[redhotswami]

I was hoping Nader wouldn't run. Now he'll just throw the election to the Republicans.

I mean, we have our own opinions about the man, but I really don't agree with this sentiment. I say it is about damn time we get out of this ridiculous two-party system. Both sides have disappointed myself and many others. I don't see anything wrong with other candidates stepping up to the plate.

 

[U2democrat]

I wouldn't have a problem with 3rd party candidates bringing up issues and getting involved if it weren't for the winner take all Electoral College system. As long as we have that, unless a viable 3rd party comes along (which doesn't seem likely in our lifetime), 3rd parties will continue to split votes.


Congressional races however are a different matter. We're already seeing an increase of 3rd parties in congress.

 

[redhotswami]

ugh. yeah you're right about the EC. i'm convinced the EC's presence single-handedly makes any progress in this country impossible. it's time for it to go.

 

[martha]

I don't see anything wrong with other candidates stepping up to the plate.

McCain for president, then?

Just like last time Ralphie boy ran.

 

[redhotswami]

McCain for president, then?

Just like last time Ralphie boy ran.

if we continue to live in an archaic 2 party system then i'm moving out before the next election. people shouldn't have to vote to stop someone else. they should vote for their top choice candidate. that sort of "only one or the other" or "steal the votes" mentality is nothing but a trap to perpetuate an already flawed system.

 

[Diemen]

Well, moving out certainly isn't going to fix it, either...

 

[U2democrat]

While I'm all for more people bringing in new ideas, multiple parties would generally mean someone would win based on plurality. If the vote broke down to 40-30-30, then nearly 2/3 of the people did not elect the president.

So, while people may not necessarily be happy with the current 2 parties, elections won based on plurality may not be that much better.

So really, it's hard to have a system that isn't inherently flawed, I guess it's up to you which system is "less flawed", and I can see the arguments of both

 

[Diemen]

Nader actually hurts the cause of opening up the political system to more parties when he does these last minute entries. Had he actually built up support over the last 4/8 years by remaining active and visible in the political landscape, who knows, there might actually be a real, strong and viable grassroots movement to reform the system and allow for more political parties.

But he didn't. We didn't hear a damn thing from him or any other major third party candidates during the off election years, so I don't know if I'd hold the rest of the people to blame for feeling a little duped when we don't hear a peep out of Nader when all sorts of things are going wrong with the country, but if there happens to be an election going down then he throws in his hat late in the race and suddenly has the cures to America's ailments. I don't buy it. You can't expect change if you only come around every 4 years to try it.

 

[redhotswami]

Well, moving out certainly isn't going to fix it, either...

it fixes it for me
everyone else who is content with the 2 party system can stay, by all means.

i do agree though, that throwing one's hat so late into the game is foolish. it has already been pointed out before but he clearly has kept his head in his shell until now.

i'm not necessarily defending him in particular. believe me, he won my heart back when i saw him speak on campus eons ago. but then i saw him drinking a coke. that was the end of that. i just think that it shouldn't be so taboo to have a 3rd party candidate.

i still prefer a multi-party system, is all. which is why i should pack my bags

 

[U2democrat]

Also, most American 3rd parties are driven by a narrow set of issues. The main exception being the Libertarian party, which seems to be the most legitimate party as of late. For 3rd parties to be considered more viable they ought to present more broad platforms.


Mia, maybe you should just start a 3rd party of your own

 

[redhotswami]

Also, most American 3rd parties are driven by a narrow set of issues. The main exception being the Libertarian party, which seems to be the most legitimate party as of late. For 3rd parties to be considered more viable they ought to present more broad platforms.


Mia, maybe you should just start a 3rd party of your own

I agree. People aren't going to vote for a different party altogether just for 1 or 2 issues. Well, I would hope not anyway. And I'm all about starting a 3rd party. But what's so wrong with fleeing??? Think of all the beer and the men with accents!!!

 

[indra]

I think you're right. If he really wanted to run a viable third party candadicy he should have taken the time to build the national support. He should have been making his case for the past four years so that when he decides to run he's got substantial support and an actual shot at winning. Most candidates quit when they realize they don't have the support for a possible win (most already have). Nader STARTS his campaign at that point. Ridiculous. And yes, very much about his ego.

I basically agree although I think it would take longer than four or even eight years to build a viable national third party. As much as it pains me to say it the US is a conservative and very conventional nation which does not at this time deal well with rapid change. Any third party needs to build support from the ground up instead of "trickle down" support from a poorly planned and supported presidential bid.

A third party or independent presidential bid with the current political system in the US is nothing more than ego stroking exercise by the candidate -- and I feel it's also an ego stroking exercise for many if not most of the people who vote for said candidate. Voting for a no-hoper might feel good ("Oh look, I'm so radical, I'm not voting for either major party candidate."), but it is, given the current political system, nothing more than that. Yes a few percentage points to a third candidate in a tightly contested state can change the outcome of an election, but it's not enough to force any substantive changes in either major party so what the hell real, long term good does it do? None.

If you really want a viable third party presidential candidate then take the time and effort to help build a viable national party base. And realise that will take years, even decades. Don't just vote for some loon with a huge ego.

 

[anitram]

Ralph Nader will not be a factor this time around. He really wasn't in 2004 and frankly in 2000, all Al Gore had to do is WIN HIS OWN STATE and what happened in Florida would have been irrelevant.

This run is ill-conceived, but there is no point in complaining about it, now you have to make sure your margins are bigger if you're the Dems, that's all.

I'm still waiting on Lou Dobbs. That would be really fun.

 

[martha]

What is so great about a multi-party system? Is it the fragile coalition governments?

 

[redhotswami]

you mean besides having more points of view represented??

what's so great about the two party system? having one party controlling 2/3rds of the branches? low voter turn out due to gridlock of both parties who can become so lukewarm that people like myself feel alienated in elections?

 

[melon]

What is so great about a multi-party system? Is it the fragile coalition governments?

I don't exactly see how our system is any more stable. There seems to be a choice between one-party domination and complete gridlock.

The main reason I like the idea of multi-party governments is that you just flat out get more ideas. And guess what? If a coalition fractures in parliamentary democracy and government ceases to effectively function, you, at least, get another election sooner rather than later, rather than in our system, where nothing gets done for who knows how many years until the next election.

Either way, it is pretty damn clear that we won't have multi-party democracy, as long as we have this crappy party machine-driven primary process. This current method for choosing our candidates is outright unacceptable.

 

[redhotswami]

if i had your eloquence i'd make so much more sense to the rest of the world.

 

[joyfulgirl]

But he didn't. We didn't hear a damn thing from him or any other major third party candidates during the off election years,

Nader is first and foremost, an excellent citizen. He has been consistently and not all that quietly working away in the background as he always has his entire career. He has written numerous open letters to Bush throughout the last 8 years on everything from torture to Darfur, and has his opinions published wherever he can. He may not have been on yours and MSM's radar and hasn't received the media coverage he does during an election cycle, but he most definitely has not been quiet. That is precisely the point of Ralph Nader. He is always working as a watchdog and an involved citizen.

 

[U2democrat]

I'm still waiting on Lou Dobbs. That would be really fun.

 

[meegannie]

people shouldn't have to vote to stop someone else. they should vote for their top choice candidate. that sort of "only one or the other" or "steal the votes" mentality is nothing but a trap to perpetuate an already flawed system.

 

[martha]

I don't exactly see how our system is any more stable. There seems to be a choice between one-party domination and complete gridlock.

The main reason I like the idea of multi-party governments is that you just flat out get more ideas. And guess what? If a coalition fractures in parliamentary democracy and government ceases to effectively function, you, at least, get another election sooner rather than later, rather than in our system, where nothing gets done for who knows how many years until the next election.

Either way, it is pretty damn clear that we won't have multi-party democracy, as long as we have this crappy party machine-driven primary process. This current method for choosing our candidates is outright unacceptable.

Ok then.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I don't exactly see how our system is any more stable. There seems to be a choice between one-party domination and complete gridlock.

The main reason I like the idea of multi-party governments is that you just flat out get more ideas. And guess what? If a coalition fractures in parliamentary democracy and government ceases to effectively function, you, at least, get another election sooner rather than later, rather than in our system, where nothing gets done for who knows how many years until the next election.

Either way, it is pretty damn clear that we won't have multi-party democracy, as long as we have this crappy party machine-driven primary process. This current method for choosing our candidates is outright unacceptable.

 

[Vincent Vega]

What is so great about a multi-party system? Is it the fragile coalition governments?

Not every multi-party country is Italy.

 

[martha]

Not every multi-party country is Italy.

They were who I was thinking of.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I've once heard someone say: "The Germans are interested in and know of the politics of every country... except the Italian ones, that's too confusing even for them."

I don't know if he was an Italian himself, but it was no German.
They are a special breed.

 

[maycocksean]

Nader is first and foremost, an excellent citizen. He has been consistently and not all that quietly working away in the background as he always has his entire career. He has written numerous open letters to Bush throughout the last 8 years on everything from torture to Darfur, and has his opinions published wherever he can. He may not have been on yours and MSM's radar and hasn't received the media coverage he does during an election cycle, but he most definitely has not been quiet. That is precisely the point of Ralph Nader. He is always working as a watchdog and an involved citizen.

But he apparently has been unable to build a movement strong enough to make a credible run at the presidency. Which makes me, again, wonder, why he's running if not because of an inflated ego. Again most candidates bow out when they realize they don't have the support of the people (who are supposedly the ones that this government is of, by, and for). This guy STARTS running when he doesn't have the support of the people. If you can explain to me how that is NOT an ego exercise, I'm willing to listen and be corrected.

 

[joyfulgirl]

But he apparently has been unable to build a movement strong enough to make a credible run at the presidency. Which makes me, again, wonder, why he's running if not because of an inflated ego. Again most candidates bow out when they realize they don't have the support of the people (who are supposedly the ones that this government is of, by, and for). This guy STARTS running when he doesn't have the support of the people. If you can explain to me how that is NOT an ego exercise, I'm willing to listen and be corrected.

He knows full well he won't ever be President but I'm glad his voice continues to be out there. I'm not interested in having you listen to me and "be corrected," that's not the point. If during an election cycle is how he can be heard, then I'm glad he's running. People need to hear more ideas, to hear that A or A- aren't the only options out there--not just for President but as a way of thinking and handling problems. I won't be voting for Ralph Nader but I am certainly not threatened by his presence in any election, regardless of how that plays out. Third party candidates need to be heard. Al Gore won the popular vote of the election Nader so-called "stole" and everyone's anger about that is sorely misplaced.

 

[maycocksean]

He knows full well he won't ever be President but I'm glad his voice continues to be out there. I'm not interested in having you listen to me and "be corrected," that's not the point. If during an election cycle is how he can be heard, then I'm glad he's running. People need to hear more ideas, to hear that A or A- aren't the only options out there--not just for President but as a way of thinking and handling problems. I won't be voting for Ralph Nader but I am certainly not threatened by his presence in any election, regardless of how that plays out. Third party candidates need to be heard. Al Gore won the popular vote of the election Nader so-called "stole" and everyone's anger about that is sorely misplaced.

Truth be told, I'm not angry at all. I don't blame Nader for Gore's loss nor do I feel he'll have much of an impact in this year's election. This dicussion is really just an academic exercise for me (which is perhaps why I'm more willing than usual to be corrected ) I just think that his presidential run is basically about his ego--he doesn't need to think he can win for it be about his ego. I'm all for more ideas out there, I'm just not convinced that running a hopless presidential campaign is the best way to do that. Shoot, he didn't have to run for president to make a huge difference in terms of highway saftey. Now suddenly the only way for him to be heard is to run for president? I don't buy it.

I think we may be misreading eachother? Because I'm really not as pissy as I must sound to you

 

[joyfulgirl]

Truth be told, I'm not angry at all. I don't blame Nader for Gore's loss nor do I feel he'll have much of an impact in this year's election. This dicussion is really just an academic exercise for me (which is perhaps why I'm more willing than usual to be corrected ) I just think that his presidential run is basically about his ego--he doesn't need to think he can win for it be about his ego. I'm all for more ideas out there, I'm just not convinced that running a hopless presidential campaign is the best way to do that. Shoot, he didn't have to run for president to make a huge difference in terms of highway saftey. Now suddenly the only way for him to be heard is to run for president? I don't buy it.

I think we may be misreading eachother? Because I'm really not as pissy as I must sound to you

Yeah, you sounded kinda pissy but I slept it off.

People are paying more attention now than they normally do. It was already mentioned "where was Nader during Abu Ghraib?" Well, he was right there doing what he always does and no one paid any attention to him. I think he is seizing an opportunity when people are dissatisfied and paying attention, many for the first time. He's there to say the "change" people are saying they want is not going to come in the form of an Obama or a Clinton, both working within a deeply corrupt system. Obama stands for the idea of change, not for change itself because as long as anyone is holding up the corrupt system their ability to effect real, meaningful, lasting, change is limited. I'm not taking a dig at Obama here (I'll probably be voting for him in Nov) I'm saying, anyone in his shoes will be limited.

So Nader, right or wrong, is taking another stand when people are paying more attention. He got 2.7% of the vote in 2000, and 0.3% in 2004. Obviously, his impact on this election will be smaller (if he even gets on the ballot, he'll probably only get the votes of people who wouldn't vote at all otherwise), so it's silly that people are even bothering to come out and denounce him. The fact that the Democrats aren't going to win in November by a landslide is really pathetic; the fact that the Democrats won Congress back but have done nothing, is pathetic. I think this is Nader's point. He believes the Democratic party and the two-party system has to collapse, that things have to get even worse before people will see that, and therefore he continues to run and get media coverage. I don't think his ego is any bigger than anyone else's running for President but unlike the others, I do think he would not be easily corrupted. Unfortunately he's not the electable guy we need with his ideas but I hope someday someone electable with his ideas will run and win. There should always be a Ralph Nader out there.