The Nader Thread

[The Senator]

You're misunderstanding my meaning...................I don't like it because the only thing he's been is a spoiler. Man doesn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

He's like a crabby old Economics Prof. that believes he alone has the "solution" and everyone else is wrong. Whatever.

So what? Like I said earlier, if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton feel Ralph Nader will spoil the election again, then they should do everything in their power to convince his voters that they're worth a damn. If they can't do that, then it's their own fault their potential voters went for Nader.

So many people are tired of having to vote for the same politician every election cycle. The fact that there is that alternative makes this Democracy so much better by giving those people a say.

 

[Matt]

You're misunderstanding my meaning...................I don't like it because the only thing he's been is a spoiler. Man doesn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

He's like a crabby old Economics Prof. that believes he alone has the "solution" and everyone else is wrong. Whatever.

But again, isn't it the candidates fault for not reaching out to his side? Sure, he can't win, but that is certainly no reason to put your ideas out there and run. That is what America is all about.

 

[comicgirl]

I'm not dissing alternative choices to the main Parties. I..........just........don't....care......for.........Nader. Period. I'd rather vote for Ross Perot if he was still kickin' it.

 

[jaguarr]

So what? Like I said earlier, if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton feel Ralph Nader will spoil the election again, then they should do everything in their power to convince his voters that they're worth a damn. If they can't do that, then it's their own fault their potential voters went for Nader.

So many people are tired of having to vote for the same politician every election cycle. The fact that there is that alternative makes this Democracy so much better by giving those people a say.

Like Nader who's in nearly every damn Presidential election?

jag

 

[Matt]

I'm not dissing alternative choices to the main Parties. I..........just........don't....care......for.........Nader. Period. I'd rather vote for Ross Perot if he was still kickin' it.

Ah, I see, so under your train of thought, it is okay for someone with no chance of winning to run so long as they play spoiler to the party you dislike. I follow, now.

 

[The Senator]

Like Nader who's in nearly every damn Presidential election?

jag

At least he says different things.

 

[comicgirl]

Ah, I see, so under your train of thought, it is okay for someone with no chance of winning to run so long as they play spoiler to the party you dislike. I follow, now.

Independents tend to float from the Dems more than Rep's. No loyality...or more prone to openminded thinking?.....Who knows.












BTW....................still don't like Nader.

 

[Matt]

Independents tend to float from the Dems more than Rep's. No loyality...or more prone to openminded thinking?.....Who knows.

Please, you have absolutely no way to back that up. There simply has not been a prominent third party, conservative candidate since 1996. In fact, the last prominent third party candidate who appealed to Republicans was Ross Perot who won 19 % of the popular vote in 1992, mostly from disenchanted Republicans. The last prominent third party who spoils for Democrats was Ralph Nader who in 2000 won at the most won 3 % of the popular vote. So yeah, there goes your argument.

 

[jaguarr]

At least he says different things.

I get the point you were trying to make about people trying to break the two-party stranglehold that's around the throat of American politics, but Nader's hardly the guy to do it. It will take a truly enigmatic, charismatic, powerful leader to run as an independent to do that. Someone who doesn't subscribe to the two-party system at all and wants to tear it down. Unfortunately, that person will also probably be a part of the top 2% of the nation that possesses 80% of the wealth and would therefore be unlikely to break the current problem with lobbyists and corporations practically running the damn government like we have today. It takes money to get elected, unfortunately. Sadly, the kind of person we really need to run this country is not going to have the money nor are they going to have the backing of either of the two parties, more than likely.

jag

 

[The Senator]

Independents tend to float from the Dems more than Rep's. No loyality...or more prone to openminded thinking?.....Who knows.












BTW....................still don't like Nader.

There's no such thing as an independent voter. Those who identify as true independents represent roughly 10% of the population-- but 85% of independents vote along party lines the duration of their 'voting career.' Only 15% of independents are truly independent-- that is, they vote sporadically from party to party-- which makes up less than 2% of overall voters. Most Americans stick with one party, whether they are subconsciously aware of it or not.

Oh, and-- surprise, surprise-- you tend to find more right-leaning independents than you do left-leaning ones.

(Citation: Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America by Morris P. Fiorina)

 

[Matt]

CitatOWNed!

 

[Marx]

You're misunderstanding my meaning...................I don't like it because the only thing he's been is a spoiler. Man doesn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

He's like a crabby old Economics Prof. that believes he alone has the "solution" and everyone else is wrong. Whatever.

I think that anyone who wants to run, should be able to run. That being said, I couldn't agree more. At one point in time, Ralph Nader was respected and admired. But after FIVE losing presidential campaigns, he has resigned himself to being nothing more than a public nuisance. I just hope that Barack or Hillary can overpower what little effect he will have. I don't think I could handle another election like 2000.

 

[comicgirl]

I think that anyone who wants to run, should be able to run. That being said, I couldn't agree more. At one point in time, Ralph Nader was respected and admired. But after FIVE losing presidential campaigns, he has resigned himself to being nothing more than a public nuisance. I just hope that Barack or Hillary can overpower what little effect he will have. I don't think I could handle another election like 2000.

me neither. My first thought when I saw that Nader back was $%^&$%^!! not again!!

 

[ScottyBBadd]

I don't buy that Comicgirl. The entire purpose of democracy is dissent. I find it puzzling how Democrats (specifically Barack Obama supporters) are adopting the same 'with us or against us' attitude that the Republicans have used for the past 8 years.

I was recently contacted by an old friend of mine who is the chairman of the local Democratic party. He was asking for a donation and I told him no as there are no local Dems running and I don't support Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Jason Altmire in the Congressional campaign. He went on a rant about how I am handing the White House to the Republicans and leaving our troops to die. I said "Wait a ****ing second. When did the Democrats start using these kinda scare tactics? I thought our party was better than that." I may have not realized it in the past, but this election makes it clear as day. It shows how similiar the two parties are and why candidates like Nader are needed. I probably won't vote for Nader (I am still hoping Bloomberg jumps in). I will write in Richardson if Nader doesn't enter. I will be damned if I am going to be bullied or scared into voting for some pseudo-Democrat, especially when it so goes against the fundamental principals of our entire Democracy.

I would likely vote for Ralph Nader if he ran again.

 

[YsoSerious]

I would likely vote for Ralph Nader if he ran again.

So you're the one!!

 

[hippie_hunter]

I doubt it. Like Jman said, Nader got .3 % of the vote in 2004. He will probably get less this time around. Especially if Obama wins the nomination.

The main reason why Nader got less of the vote in 2004 was because people were serious in trying to get rid of George W. Bush and voting for Nader wasn't going to help in that.

It's a completely new scenario in 2008. Instead of being fed up with the Republicans, the average American is fed up with both parties now. George W. Bush isn't running again either.

I think Nader will do just as well as he did in 2000 this time. Which will be a huge spoiler for the Democrats considering how close the general election polls are between McCain and Clinton/Obama.

 

[Mattchew]

I'm all for decent, but the PROBLEM with Nader is that he spent about 90% of his time on Meet the Press ripping on Obama, the only legit candidate that he has anything in common with, policy-wise.

 

[rdh007]

I wish I believed Nader gave a tinker's damn about the average American. I think at one point he probably did. Now he's just looking to secure an historical legacy to rival that of only one man.

He's become a joke. At least Pat Paulsen was obvious about his comedic intent.

 

[Marx]

I would likely vote for Ralph Nader if he ran again.

Why? What is this man's appeal?

 

[BlackLantern]

Nader is just lonely...somebody said in another thread that maybe Nader and Ron Paul should team up and they could probably get 10 percent of the vote

 

[Cosmic]

Nader is not bitter about anything. Some Democrats are bitter about the way they lost in 2000, and that's why they try to use him as a scapegoat to cover up their own party's shortcomings.

Nader knows what he's talking about. Both major parties are corrupted by the influence of big business. Both parties share and maintain a monopoly on political power in Washington and throughout the whole nation. He's speaking up for our rights as citizens, as voters, and as consumers. He can't win the election, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that Americans get to hear the voice of a candidate who's not part of the big-corporate machine.

 

[BlackLantern]

Nader is not bitter about anything. Some Democrats are bitter about the way they lost in 2000, and that's why they try to use him as a scapegoat to cover up their own party's shortcomings.

Nader knows what he's talking about. Both major parties are corrupted by the influence of big business. Both parties share and maintain a monopoly on political power in Washington and throughout the whole nation. He's speaking up for our rights as citizens, as voters, and as consumers. He can't win the election, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that Americans get to hear the voice of a candidate who's not part of the big-corporate machine.

Yes they hear him, but no one takes him seriously....so he can go on and on about corruption and so forth all he wants, but all people see is some ranting old guy who doesn't matter....

 

[comicgirl]

Yes they hear him, but no one takes him seriously....so he can go on and on about corruption and so forth all he wants, but all people see is some ranting old guy who doesn't matter....

Yeah, he lost all political cred. around Nov, 2000.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

I doubt Nader will ever be an American President. It's a dream he will never achive.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I doubt Nader will ever be an American President. It's a dream he will never achive.

True dat. Some people just don't get a clue