Should Nader be allowed to run?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Obviously, most anyone can run for the presidency if they can get the votes to get on the abllot. My question is this: how should the media and others respond to Nader's candidacy? Should Nader get air time in debates, be treatedlike a real candidate, etc?



I would say that his candidacy should be treated as being real by the media and others. He shouldn't be excluded because he will give victory to Bush.



First of all, it is not written in stone somewhere that American democracy is limited to two parties, and if Nader wants to run for the Nader party (kind of an unofficial Green party), then he should not be excluded on the basis of his not being either a Democrat or a Republican. We do a disservice to America when we say that our candidates must be from one of two parties.



Secondly, although some will protest that this gives a defacto victory to Republicans (I don't necessarialy buy that line of thought), you can't exclude a candidate simply because his presence will give a victory to "the other guy". When a candidate like Nader wants to run, it is because one of the candidates has not shored up their base. Obviously, Nader thinks that in choosing Kerry the Democratic party has drifted too close to the Republican party. For example, Ross Perot's candidacy in the 92 election came about out of the frustration that Bush Sr had engendered with his Republican base. Basically, Bush Sr's raising taxes alienated his base and presto, you had a candidate on the far right challenging him (Actually, Bush Sr had two equally looney candidates on the right challenging him- Buchanan and Perot). Kerry has done the same thing in that he has moved very close to Bush in the middle (pro war on terror, pro growth) and this engenders some alienation with the members of his party who are on the far left who don't agree with Kerry on these positions.



Thirdly, I think that there are a good number of people in America who really don't see a large policy difference between Kerry and Bush. Sure, one might be nicer to foreign nations than the other, but is Kerry really going to roll back trade globalization? Is Kerry going to stop fighting the war on terror? Is Kerry going to repeal the Patriot act? Is Kerry going to eliminate the Department of Homeland Security? When people say "if Nader runs, then Bush wins", these people respond "so what? Kerry is pretty much the same as Bush!"



Fourhtly, if we let a nut like Perot run, then why would we exclude a respected candidate like Nader?



What do you all think?
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 48
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Of course Nader should be allowed to run and should probably be given equal media time.



    I doubt you will find anyone sane that says Nader should not be allowed to run, but there are many, many people that actually agree with everything he says and think that he absolutely should not run. It's not that they disagree with him, it's that they think his running is detrimental to the causes he claims he is promoting.
  • Reply 2 of 48
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    "equal" media time for an "also ran" is too much. Is Lyndon LaRouche still running year after year? Certainly the media should not spend as much time on him as they do on the democrats' or republicans' nominee.



    It's up to the editor to decide who gets page 1 and who gets page 20. Nader has no chance of winning and he's not even attached to the Green Party this time around. Why bother with him at all?
  • Reply 3 of 48
    yevgenyyevgeny Posts: 1,148member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    "equal" media time for an "also ran" is too much. Is Lyndon LaRouche still running year after year? Certainly the media should not spend as much time on him as they do on the democrats' or republicans' nominee.



    It's up to the editor to decide who gets page 1 and who gets page 20. Nader has no chance of winning and he's not even attached to the Green Party this time around. Why bother with him at all?




    Because Nader is pulling in something like 7% of the vote in a three way race. That's something like 19 million people who would vote for him. That isn't insignificant.
  • Reply 4 of 48
    Nader should be allowed to run. It's america.
  • Reply 5 of 48
    carol acarol a Posts: 1,043member
    I have to question Nader's wisdom and integrity. When it comes right down to it, he must be an egomaniac of unimaginable proportions. Either that or he's crazy.



    No one wishes to protect the planet more than I. But by entering the last race, Nader gave the win on a platter to the side that puts the environment near the bottom of the list of priorities. If he *really* cared about our water, our air, and our fellow creatures on the earth, he wouldn't have done such a thing. I just can't understand him.



    The only benefit of his actions is that he got his face plastered on tv for a few months. Maybe he was missing that. Getting his points broadcast on the media for a few months is NOT worth YEARS of damage and neglect for the environment.



    I used to have respect for Nader. Now he gives me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.



    I support business and the economy, BUT I equally support the environment. There are ways that can be found by out-of-the-box thinkers to link up the interests of business (profits) with the interests of environment.



    The oil companies should be pouring tons of money into alternative fuels research right now. Then *they* could help free us from dependency on fossil fuels and *still* profit from the alternative energy sources that they themselves develop.



    Workers displaced from the oil industry could be re-trained for the new energy industries.



    Nader should put his talents to better use. Frankly, he makes me sick.
  • Reply 6 of 48
    Considering that the two big parties have also-rans within their debates (Kucinich and Sharpton for the Democrats), and considering how the appearance of Sharpton on Saturday Night Live caused a kerfuffle about equal time - even though people thought it was an issue in a state I can't recall now - why not? If it's good enough for the Dems and Reps, it should be good enough for the populace.



    If democracy means 50% plus one, then a law should be passed allowing only two parties, but that's not what it means, and it's not going to happen.



    The theory that strategic voting can affect a vote is more or less a buy in to the belief that a new grass-roots movement is meaningless. If that was the case, many countries other than the USA would not have the parties contending in them that they do have now. By allowing Nader to run, if enough people vote as they believe, and he got a respectable showing, it just might get even more to vote for him the next time around. And a truly respectable showing (say 20%) might get people demanding a reform to the process in which votes are counted.



    Such candidates could very well be the foundation of new ways of picking governments.
  • Reply 7 of 48
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Scott

    "equal" media time for an "also ran" is too much. Is Lyndon LaRouche still running year after year? Certainly the media should not spend as much time on him as they do on the democrats' or republicans' nominee.



    It's up to the editor to decide who gets page 1 and who gets page 20. Nader has no chance of winning and he's not even attached to the Green Party this time around. Why bother with him at all?




    That's somewhat how I feel and why I haven't formed a definitive opinion. Of course, the flip-side is that lack of media coverage may hurt the electability of an otherwise viable candidate, but even then they would have much, much, much more support than nader has.
  • Reply 8 of 48
    yevgenyyevgeny Posts: 1,148member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Carol A

    I have to question Nader's wisdom and integrity. When it comes right down to it, he must be an egomaniac of unimaginable proportions. Either that or he's crazy.



    No one wishes to protect the planet more than I. But by entering the last race, Nader gave the win on a platter to the side that puts the environment near the bottom of the list of priorities. If he *really* cared about our water, our air, and our fellow creatures on the earth, he wouldn't have done such a thing. I just can't understand him.



    The only benefit of his actions is that he got his face plastered on tv for a few months. Maybe he was missing that. Getting his points broadcasted on the media for a few months is NOT worth YEARS of damage and neglect for the environment.



    I used to have respect for Nader. Now he gives me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach.



    I support business and the economy, BUT I equally support the environment. There are ways that can be found by out-of-the-box thinkers to link up the interests of business (profits) with the interests of environment.



    The oil companies should be pouring tons of money into alternative fuels research right now. Then *they* could help free us from dependency on fossil fuels and *still* profit from the alternative energy sources that they themselves develop.



    Workers displaced from the oil industry could be re-trained for the new energy industries.



    Nader should put his talents to better use. Frankly, he makes me sick.




    Well, I think that Nader basically views the Democratic and Republican parties as being essentially the same with minor variations in how they work things out. So from how he views things, either candidate is a no win. So why not push for a candidacy that ideologically conforms to what you think is right? Nader isn't viewing this as a contininum of right/wrong, he just thinks that both Bush and Kerry are wrong.



    The advantage of Nader's candidacy is that it can force Kerry to be a bit more environmental in what he says.
  • Reply 9 of 48
    carol acarol a Posts: 1,043member
    Of course Nader should be allowed to run.



    But if he had any true concern, he wouldn't....NOT at this point, anyway.



    He was hardly heard from during the primaries.



    Then he drops by at the end to throw the election. He obviously doesn't care *who* gets elected.



    And yes, it DOES matter who sits in the Oval Office. The Bush administration has made all kinds of decisions that negatively affect the environment over the last few years. Decisions large and small.
  • Reply 10 of 48
    yevgenyyevgeny Posts: 1,148member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    That's somewhat how I feel and why I haven't formed a definitive opinion. Of course, the flip-side is that lack of media coverage may hurt the electability of an otherwise viable candidate, but even then they would have much, much, much more support than nader has.



    This is the real problem. How many votes does a candidate need to have before he is given equal time and invited to the debates? Before people start paying attention to him? These aren't easy questions to answer.
  • Reply 11 of 48
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Of course he can run, but if he is after publicity then why is he bothering?....especially after the last 2000 "election" fiasco: Nader was excluded from the "debates" by the promoter, and when he showed up to one of the "debates" as a ticket holding member of the audience, he was physically barred from the event and escorted away from the premises by law enforcement. The idea of Nader partaking in the debates and, thereby allowing a public airing of the issues that both Gore and Bush avoided like the plague, was extremely scary to the republicrat powers-that-be,



    Here is my guess as to the plan he has in mind: Nader is running, even though he knows he has no chance of the White House, to again highlight the economic and social justice issues that both Bush and Kerry will avoid, (Kucinich did a similar thing in his democratic nomination bid). Nader will probably drop out of the race in mid October.
  • Reply 12 of 48
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    While I do think that's there realistically should be a mminimum standard for candidates getting into the big debates (there are a lot of extremely small players who are officially running for pres too), Nader seems to have enough support that he should be allowed to participate in the deabates and so forth IMO. However, the attention the media gives him otherwise is completely up to them. Depends on whether they see covering him as giving them an advantage in the ratings. That's what they're interested in.
  • Reply 13 of 48
    artman @_@artman @_@ Posts: 2,546member
    Sure. Let him run.



    Four years of Nader is four years of complaining.



    Then again...



  • Reply 14 of 48
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Yevgeny

    This is the real problem. How many votes does a candidate need to have before he is given equal time and invited to the debates? Before people start paying attention to him? These aren't easy questions to answer.



    It is a rough issue, because you can't give equal air time for all of them:



    http://www.vote-smart.org/election_p...party_name=All



    Just in terms of independents there are 30.

    http://www.vote-smart.org/election_p...2.x=3&go2.y=15
  • Reply 15 of 48
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    Nader should run.



    If he doesn't I'm not even voting.
  • Reply 16 of 48
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    I think he's already gotten this elections 15 minutes of fame.



    Why should he get any coverage when he doesn't even have an organization OR a party. There's no "movement" just people who feel they wanna vote... but not for a democrat or a republican.



    The very people Nader says he's fighting for will be hurt by another 4 years of Bush.
  • Reply 17 of 48
    yevgenyyevgeny Posts: 1,148member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chu_bakka

    I think he's already gotten this elections 15 minutes of fame.



    Why should he get any coverage when he doesn't even have an organization OR a party. There's no "movement" just people who feel they wanna vote... but not for a democrat or a republican.



    The very people Nader says he's fighting for will be hurt by another 4 years of Bush.




    And they'll be hurt by four years of Kerry. You are really oversimplifying the differences between Nader and Kerry.
  • Reply 18 of 48
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Carol A

    I have to question Nader's wisdom and integrity. When it comes right down to it, he must be an egomaniac of unimaginable proportions. Either that or he's crazy.





    He has ideals. While so many democrats and republicans alike seem to twist and turn in discomfort at the thought of a candidate with actual integrity and ideals, most reasonable people can realize that Nader's existence will force change if he continues to hurt Democrat attempts at the presidency.



    Change your thinking. You're crazy to call yourself an American while supporting a party that has treated the constitution with such utter disregard and contempt.



    The two party strangehold is killing this country.
  • Reply 19 of 48
    kirklandkirkland Posts: 594member
    Of course Nader should be allowed to run.



    However, unless he's polling north of 10-15% of the polls at the time of the debate, he should not be participating in them. There has to be a threshold for this sort of thing, and at a bare minimum that threshold should be 10% in the Gallup Poll or something like that ? enough that it can't be just a weird confluence of demographics and the margin of error that make a candidate "credible."



    So, no, Nader shouldn't be allowed in the debates, most likely. Though he should be allowed to attend, but watched closely to make sure he doesn't cause a scene.



    If he doesn't drop out, he'll certainly drop in the polls. I'll go out on a limb right now and say that Nader won't get half the number of votes he got last time around, nationwide. If he does, I'll donate $25 to the Green Party.



    Kirk
  • Reply 20 of 48
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Yevgeny

    And they'll be hurt by four years of Kerry. You are really oversimplifying the differences between Nader and Kerry.



    But we know how bad Bush is. Bad as Kerry may be, it's highly unlikely that it will be comparable to what Bush has done. Highly unlikely.



    No matter what, you have a choice between Kerry or Bush.
Sign In or Register to comment.