Nader in 2004

[Makalakumu]

Today on Meet the Press, Ralph Nader announced his candidacy for President of the United States. He is running as an independent rather then a Green this time. Check out his site...

http://www.voteNader.org/

Will he have any effect on the 2004 election? Is he worth supporting?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Will he win?

Nope.

Will he drain crucial votes away from the Dem?

Yup.

Will he drain votes away from his royal highness?

Yes, but not enough to matter.


In order to unseat the upserper-in-chief, the democratic candidate must be elected. Votes for anyone else only lead to 4 more years of Bush. This time by his actually winning the election.

 

[TonyM.]

Oh great! Four more years of the SOS. Thanks Ralph. Way to go buddy. Can I offer you a lift in my Corvair?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

The bumper stickers need to read "Bush/Nader 2004".

I don't think he anticipated his candidacy leading to Bush winning in 2000...but there is NO excuse for him to act as a spoiler now.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Makalakumu]

What about other third parties? Didn't they have enough votes to "throw" the election in other directions? So is there any such thing as a spoiler? I think that Nader makes a good point. Most of our progressive change comes from third parties and its contemptuous to democracy to say that we need to make a choice between the lesser of two evils.

So, is it really as Nader says, "there is no difference between the two parties"?

Remember he is talking about control by corporate money.

 

[MisterMike]

I'll check out his site. But yea, I say run, that way a clear win for Bush in 04 will only solidify the fact he won in 00.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The other 3rd parties didn't make much of a dent. Most of them never make it onto the ballet in all the states. Without that, not much of a chance.

Course, theres also the tidbit for the consperacy folks...
Guy whose the CEO of the company that makes voting equipment recently said he'd do anything to guarentee a win for W. His company recently suplied the state of Georgia with a bunch of new gear...and Geogia elected its 1st Republican in over 100 years gov. That election was off the projections by almost 20%...especially considering the Dem. Incumbant was supposedly riding a wave of popularity. This equipment reportadly has some serious bugs and little to no accountability. A Florida style recount isn't possible with these as once the votes cast, it /nulls the data.

I really wish I'd hit that 230mil....I'd be planning my relocation to New Zealand right now...and checking on hobbit hunting licences.

 

[OULobo]

Sooooo, true. I'm sooooooo pissed that Ralph is back. I can't stand Bush. Most of my buddies can't stand Bush. We are all willing to vote for anyone else, but with Ralphy sucking out the greenies and some others. It's just gonna hurt the chance that a viable contender will raus the dictator.

 

[Cruentus]

For those of you that missed it, here is the transcipt of Naders announcement:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4304155/

I am not angry that he is running. 3rd parties have been landmark in changing issues in our countries. The abolition of slavery and womens right to vote were all introduced by third parties. The fact is, we have had many parties in this country that have been influential...not just "dems and repubs."

He feels that right now we are dominated by a 2 party system, where both parties are in the pockets of corporate interest. He feels that even if the Democratic canidate is better then Bush, and has good intentions and ideals, that because the "party" itself is in special interest pockets, we won't get the results we need. He feels that because of this problem, we need to have more then 2 parties involved to give people more choices, and to address more issues. His running this time is more of a protest against our system rather then the canidates, although I am sure he will protest Bush as well.

Nader has some very good points, and a good reason for running. I say, more power to him. He is a smart man, and I am of the opinion that many of the issues that are addressed by the democratic party today wouldn't even be on the table if it wasn't for Naders run in 2000.

I wouldn't be too worried about the Nader swing vote handing the election to Bush. It happened last time because Gore was not a good canidate. He was stale, he ran a sh**ty campaign, and he wasn't able to differentiate himself on the issues. Did Ralph Nader take some "Gore Votes" in 2000? Were there some shady dealings in Florida with the election? Yes to both. These hurt Gore. But, the main reason he lost wasn't because of Nader or anything else; Gore lost because he sucked. Period. With the Momentum and popularity of Clinton, a smart Dem would have taken the election in 2000. Gore being a poor canidate is what caused him to lose.

Now, we have better canidates on the table. Yes, Bush has some momentum in certain special interests and certain circles. However, I can't see the majority of the people out there voting for him. I think a Dem is going to win, regardless of Naders campaign.

I think that the biggest obstical for the democrates right now is apathy, more then any independent canidate, and even more then Bush himself. What people forget is that the polls are done among "voters," meaning people who voted in the last election. In these, Bushes approval ratings have declined. However, there are over 100 million people out there who are eligable to vote who haven't been voting. Many of these people dislike Bush, are angry at the state of unemployment, the war, the economy, and our list of problems. They will be coming out of the woodwork now that things are not so good, unlike 2000 where everyone was happier with the way things were going. The only problem the Dems face with this is apathy; that not enough of these voters will come out and vote.

I personally don't see myself supporting Nader this year because my main concern is getting Bush out of office; and it seems that we will have a good Dem canidate on the ballot. But, I really can't fault the man for taking a stand.

PAUL

 

[Rick Wade]

Just my personal opinion It really doen't matter what ticket Ralph Nader runs under he will still have the same voters. His veiws havend changed. I think that all that he will do is steal votes away from the democrats.

Thanks

 

[Ender]

I gotta send Nader some money!!

where's me check book???

 

[someguy]

Got to love Nader. To remove Bush from office he will remove support from the group who has a potnetial to do so. Nader man he's such a genious man I think I am going to vote for him.

 

[michaeledward]

I applaud Ralph Nader for the courage of his convictions. He absolutely has the right to run for president. I wish him well.

I think this year, he will not fair well. In the 2000 election, the Green party, with Nader at the top of their ticket, received about 2.7% of the popular vote.

This year, he is running without the support of the Green Party. He will be lucky to receive 15% of the votes he received in 2000.

In 2000, Nader claimed there was little difference between Bush and Gore. Certainly, looking at the campaign statements of the two, he was correct. I think, however, when progressives look back at the Bush record, they will observe that Bush's record is very much to the extreme right. Many progressives will, in this election, see a greater difference between Kerry/Edwards (Edwards/Kerry) and Bush/Cheney (Bush/???).

Also, in this election year, Progressive Democrats have the opportunity to vote for Kucinich, who shares many opinions and policies with Ralph Nader. And, unfortuneately, Dennis is not doing much better than Nader did 3 years ago.