Nader 2004
Here he comes once again. Will he play the "spoiler?" I for one am all for him running, me makes a good point about how this shouldn't be just a two party system. What do you think?
Nader 2004
Nader 2004
Comments
Remember Bush will do a lot more damage in another 4 years.
This time around he doesn't have the Greens backing him. No way he'll be able to suck as many votes from Kerry as he did with Gore. Maybe he'll make a difference and maybe he won?t. We'll have to wait and see.
I was watching the Press conference today, and he had a lot of good things to say. He had something that were kind of wonky, a lot of "Repiblicrats!, I'm calling you out" type attitude, but really, in his position, I see no harm in that. One thing that struck me about this press conference was how it was so.. informal, almost unprofessional, very refreshing from the same cut and dry bullshit that is being served up most of the time.
My friend told me(I can't confirm this) that bush, and I'm assuming clinton, and bush, and reagan...etc. too, control who is at press conferences like these, and likewise they only select the people that won't ask the tough questions, and the ones that will give them an opportunity to spew their stuff. However with Nader, being independent and much smaller on the scale of things, does not screen his interviews like this, and likewise he gets people that are genuine and *do* ask the tough questions. As I said, I can't really vouch for the authenticity of the aforementioned, but that aside, If this is the case, then I respect nader even more.
it seems to me that if the dems lose the election, they will blame nader, even if he barely rakes in anything in terms of votes, that's kind of sad. But I guess people are always looking to pass the blame away from them.
And, to reiterate what groverat said, Nader did not cost the Dems the election. It was either stolen in Florida (Katherine Harris) or they just didn't do a good enough job of winning the votes. You can't blame Nader because all of a sudden 2.7% of the population didn't vote for the lesser of two evils and instead voted for who they thought was the best candidate.
Originally posted by groverat
Nader did not cost the Democrats the 2000 election, Gorebot did. Try sucking less and maybe you'll get the Nader vote. Grow a spine and the people that voted for him might like you.
Yes, but Nader still cost Democrats the election because our voting system allowed him to.
Originally posted by groverat
Nader did not cost the Democrats the 2000 election, Gorebot did. Try sucking less and maybe you'll get the Nader vote. Grow a spine and the people that voted for him might like you.
Yeah, that's the ticket, go further left so that the centrists, the majority of American voters, don't vote for you, but hey at least you'll have Nader's votes. Maybe. But even that's a toss-up.
Need I remind you that Gore got the popular vote in 2000
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Yes, but Nader still cost Democrats the election because our voting system allowed him to.
No he didn't. The antiquated electoral college cost the democrats the vote. If anything needs to be changed look directly at the ****ed up system we've got in place.
It's a two party system, and due to its structure can never be anything but. Voting for a third party is effectively a vote in favor of the major party that is FURTHEST from your interests.
Kirk
Originally posted by torifile
No he didn't. The antiquated electoral college cost the democrats the vote. If anything needs to be changed look directly at the ****ed up system we've got in place.
It's simple. Nader's candidacy ultimately siphoned off enough votes in key states to allow George W. Bush to win. You can't get around that fact.
(I defer to our political science expert, Kirkland, on the specifics)
I have wacky ideas about stuff like civil rights and corporate responsibility and maybe doing good by mother nature. That makes me a loony lefty here, whereas I think it is rather moderate of me. Whatever. I do not care.
I will likely vote for Nader in 2004 like I did in 2000. I may not pick the winning horse but at least I will have honestly voted with my conscience.
Dean had a chance at winning me over to the Dem side, but then he acted like someone slapped him in the face when they asked if he supported gay marriage. And then he dropped out. Bye bye Democrats.
If you Democrats want to beat Bush by acting more like Bush that is your own business, do not expect me to participate in your imitation parade.
I owe the Democrat party nothing. Fake "liberal" bastards.
Originally posted by groverat
I will likely vote for Nader in 2004 like I did in 2000. I may not pick the winning horse but at least I will have honestly voted with my conscience.
But you're not voting with your conscience. Your conscience tells you that you're effectively voting for Bush. That isn't a bad thing, given that the Democratic nominee has *NO* chance of winning Texas anyway...
Originally posted by torifile
No he didn't. The antiquated electoral college cost the democrats the vote. If anything needs to be changed look directly at the ****ed up system we've got in place.
Ah, yes, the screed of the political ignorant: "Damn the Electoral College!"
Yes, let us cast aside the Electoral College, and turn the entire presidential race into a horserace in New York City, LA, Houston and Boston.
The Electoral College ensures that voters who are in our plains states have a voice, because they have important issues to raise that don't show up on the political radar in the cities. A straight-popular vote race would mean that only a couple states get any attention ? why run a national campaign when you can finish about even in most of the nation and run up a big win in one or two states and swamp your opponent?
The Electoral College ensures that the president is nationally chosen. And it tracks well with the popular vote, as well.
It'll also never go away, so don't be an idealist, and learn to accept it.
Kirk
Originally posted by jimmac
[B]Bush didn't win the popular vote. That means some americans voted for nothing.
No, he didn't. The popular vote was effectively a tie, however. Just like the electoral vote. It just so happens that the tie edged a bit in one direction in the popular vote and a bit in the other direction in the electoral vote. Usually the electoral vote amplifies the margin of the popular vote (like if Gore had won Florida, his electoral victory would have been much larger than his popular victory). In an election that is either razor-close or muxxed up by third parties,
Even before the election people were calling for reform of the electoral college. The last election was a good example of why.
The Electoral College will never be undone, nor largely reformed. The smaller states would never allow it.
Kirk
But you're not voting with your conscience. Your conscience tells you that you're effectively voting for Bush. That isn't a bad thing, given that the Democratic nominee has *NO* chance of winning Texas anyway...
You know what my conscience tells me?
"meaningless votes"...
Poor petty, angry little Democrats. Have one of your candidates take a stand on an important issue and I will pay attention. Sorry ladies, but RepublicanLite doesn't do it for me.
Democrat votes will "mean nothing" if that is your logic, Bush is going to win.
I feel no need to validate my choices against a mass of people.
Originally posted by groverat
ShawnJ:
You know what my conscience tells me?
"meaningless votes"...
Poor petty, angry little Democrats. Have one of your candidates take a stand on an important issue and I will pay attention. Sorry ladies, but RepublicanLite doesn't do it for me.
Democrat votes will "mean nothing" if that is your logic, Bush is going to win.
I feel no need to validate my choices against a mass of people.
My point is that you're effectively voting for the Republican! Who's voting with his conscience here? Now, you're even more willing to sacrifice your principles than I am- despite the fact that we would favor the same candidate if all things were equal. It's an undeniable paradox of voting in this country.
Kirkland said it best: "voting for a third party is effectively a vote in favor of the major party that is FURTHEST from your interests."