Ralph Nader on Sunday Feb 24 "Meet the Press"

[BonosSaint]

Originally posted by Utoo


The majority of Nader supporters I knew in college (Georgetown--a fairly political college at that) liked him because 1). he was neither a Democrat nor a Republican, and 2). because he said he favored legalized weed (obviously a strike to get young voters). Maybe 1 in 3 would talk about his business skills and principles, and even those touted reasons #1 and #2 as strong influences, as well.

We met different voters. All of the ones I spoke to were beyond college age. It'd be interesting and absolutely irrelevant to do a minor paper on the demographic of the Nader voter. I stand somewhat corrected based on your experiences (even though I support the decriminalization of grass).

[corianderstem]

I figured since no one said anything about it after Meet the Press this morning, all the pondering here was unfounded.

Apparently not.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/...ics/index.html

[BVS]

What's wrong with this guy?

[Diemen]

I can only come to two conclusions. Either Nader has completely lost touch with reality, or he's been paid off by Republicans.

[martha]

Originally posted by Diemen
Either Nader has completely lost touch with reality,

This has got to be the one.

[anitram]

You should try to see "An Unreasonable Man" - it gives a lot of insight into his character.

My guess is ego.

[Diemen]

Here's my main problem with Nader. For someone who supposedly represents the little man, we've heard awfully little from him during these past 7 years, except during elections. Abu Graib? Nothing. Billions of dollars lost in Iraq? Nothing. Katrina? Nothing. Warrantless wiretapping? Not a word. For someone so tirelessly dedicated to protecting the consumer and the little guy (as he never fails to remind us when he runs), you'd think he'd be more vocal about it during non-election times. Oh, but when it's election time suddenly he decides he needs to run for the good of the country.

I think he's more shameless and opportunistic than any of the other candidates we've had in this election so far.

[Diemen]

Found this little gem via metafilter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIFEceopAUI

[maycocksean]

Originally posted by Diemen
Here's my main problem with Nader. For someone who supposedly represents the little man, we've heard awfully little from him during these past 7 years, except during elections. Abu Graib? Nothing. Billions of dollars lost in Iraq? Nothing. Katrina? Nothing. Warrantless wiretapping? Not a word. For someone so tirelessly dedicated to protecting the consumer and the little guy (as he never fails to remind us when he runs), you'd think he'd be more vocal about it during non-election times. Oh, but when it's election time suddenly he decides he needs to run for the good of the country.

I think he's more shameless and opportunistic than any of the other candidates we've had in this election so far.

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.

[verte76]

I was hoping Nader wouldn't run. Now he'll just throw the election to the Republicans. Of course Obama is a better candidate than Gore was.

[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.

[unico]

Originally posted by verte76
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.

[unico]

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]

Originally posted by unico
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.

[unico]

Originally posted by martha


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.

[unico]

Originally posted by Diemen
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