Nader is not the problem.

[Brian Sweat]

The media is the problem. The media hypes Nader to the max while ignoring other third party candidates like Harry Browne and Pat Buchanan. If either of these candidates had received the press that Nader received the in 2000, they would have siphoned off two or three percent of Bush's votes and we would not be in the mess we are in today.

[denverbill]

1. Don't blame the media.

The reason Nader did better than Buchanon was that conservatives had 8 long years of Clinton-hating saved up. They weren't going to risk letting a Democrat back in so they sucked it up and voted for Bush even though he wasn't a 'real conservative'.

In 2004, conservatives are sick of Bush and I'm betting large numbers bail on him.

How many liberals bail on the Democratic party will be a function of how liberal the party platform is. If Kerry (or the eventual nominee) comes across as a corporate tool, Nader and/or the Greens will do better. If he comes across as truly looking to help progressive causes, rather than just tinker around slightly with conservative ones, he won't have any problem with Nader.

[Gman]

2. I'm hoping that the GOP crossovers

will more than offset the votes lost to Nader.

[AndyTiedye]

3. Diebold is the Problem, but Nader Enables Them to Steal Twice as Many...

...votes before it becomes obvious to everyone that they rigged the election.

They explained away a double-digit shift from Max Cleland to
Saxby Chambliss in 2002, so presumably they are prepared to
do it again for Bush* this year.

They can blame a 15-20% shift on "Angry homophobes",
but * is looking like he may need more of a boost than that.

Nader to the rescue, again. :-(

[mobuto]

5. Forget crossovers

2004 will be about base. There is no reason why a single registered Democrat should stay home from the polls.

[Gman]

7. 2004 will ultimately be about GOTV

you are correct about that. Bush may be the best thing that ever hapapened for Dem GOTV.

[qb]

4. Nader's "Burn the village to save it" rationale sucks.

How many people have died?
How many billions of dollars have been transferred to the ultra-wealthy?
Just because Ralph said there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans.
I noticed he recently changed his tune - he no longer claims there's "no difference", just that they're both corrupted by special interests.

He is conducting an ill-conceived vendetta against the two-party system.

If he had focused on a House or Senate seat, he could have really opened the door for the Greens in national politics and brought important issues to the forefront without wreaking destruction on the world.

[Skittles]

6. ignoring Harry and Pat?

How about Wesley and Dennis?