Will Nader siphon off enough votes to allow Shrub to win again?

[_Jumper_]

A recent poll shows him at 4% but I can't imagine him getting more than 2% given how much as at stake this November.

[Blue_Chill]

1. Even 1000 votes could screw us.

And I am getting really sick of this "don't be a Nader Hater" bullshit. If you support Nader you are a enemy of dems. No one should be nice to these back stabbing bastards who would have Bush win and install supreme court justices that will damn us all to a psuedo theocracy just to prove a damn point.

These morons don't realize that if Bush wins again the damage is not something a liberal pres can fix. It will take a few supreme court justices retiring to change it and it will last a long time.

Say bye to abortion rights
Say bye true seperation of church and states
Say bye bye to gay rights

But hey as long as you stick it to those traitor dems right?

[coltman]

2. nader

Yep I think the repukes will hand the ass hole enough money to get more than 2 or 4%.Lets not underestamate the bastards again.

[lancdem]

3. That's a Fox poll

Nader's getting more publicity now than he will once he's a candidate.

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Quite possibly -- we've only a fighting chance at best,

given the power and money arrayed against us. Even 2% could do it.

[Padraig18]

5. There's no proof he did last time.

:)

[poskonig]

7. "Ralph Nader: the best thing to happen to George Dubya Bush"

"since the last Florida recount! Go. Ralphie! LMAO :-)"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082873/posts?q=1&&page=51

[mydawgmax]

34. No proof but...

if, of the 90something thousand votes Nader got in Florida, just 600 had voted for Gore, Bush would not have been able to claim Florida's electoral votes. Maybe all Nader voters would have gone somewhere other than Gore absent a Nader candidadcy, but I don't think its too far a reach to think that a small fraction of nader voters would have voted Gore had Nader not run or had he encouraged voters in close states to vote Gore. Gore should have run a better campaign and has to take responsibilty for that. Nader, however, did make an independent contribution to Bush's election that he too has to take responsibility for.

[Padraig18]

35. Yes, and if Gore hadn't run such an awful campaign...

... he'd have likely won TN, WV and OH, which would have made FL a factoid of no great interest to anyone at this late date.

[mydawgmax]

36. Like I said

Gore ran a terrible campaign. He should have won big given the Clinton economy and the weak opponent he had. Nevertheless, Gore's presence in the race had an impact. Arguably significantly enough of an impact, given Gores poor campaign, to elect Bush.

[Paulie]

6. Why are we worried? I thought we were running people who were ELECTABLE

Ham Sandwich (D) beating bush in a landslide.... :wtf:

I've been sold a bill of "lading"!!!! A pallet of ham, and no where to go.

[Iverson]

8. He didn't win before.

Only Republicans and the suggestible accept that Bush won. He was essentially installed by an activist Supreme Court's subversion of the democratic franchise.

[Padraig18]

9. It was you and ulysses who finally convinced me of that, Iverson.

*hats off to you* :hi:

[Iverson]

11. Thank you for the kind word.

I trust, then, that you can see how enormously frustrating it is to see a supposedly enlightened sector of the voting pubic so easily taken in by irrelevancies.

[Padraig18]

14. Yes, I do now.

You should check out my post on page one about anger at Nader. :)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. The Argument That Nader Made It Close Enough To Steal Is Of No Moment To

You Then....

According to exit polls of every four Nader voters without Nader in the race two would have voted for Gore, one would have voted for Bush, and one would have stayed home...

Nader got 97,000 votes....


Without Nader Gore wins FL by 50,000 votes...

[Forkboy]

16. Who cares...the votes weren't counted

remember?

[Padraig18]

18. Exactly.

Th media consortium recount showed that a statewide recount using 8 of 9 standards (including the one specified in the statute) would have given Gore a victory. It doesn't matter if it was 50k, 5k or 500---if they don't count them, it doesn't matter.

Blame the SCOTUS and Bush, not Nader.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. He Made It Possible

Without Nader it would not have been close enough to steal....


I really don't think that's debatable...


Unless you have an agenda....

[Padraig18]

22. I do have an agenda.

And it doesn't involve lots of wasted time and effort over a candidate who will be a statistical blip, if that.

[Iverson]

23. no

It is debatable. In fact, considering the extensive plans for electoral fraud, the evidence is moreso on the side of those who would blame the criminals as opposed to blaming Nader.

And please resist framing disagreement as agenda-driven. Everyone, including you, has preferences, but some of us are especially moved by evidence.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. I Believe The Official Recount Had * Winning BY 537 Votes....

Nader made this possible...

[Padraig18]

24. Not true.

The 'official recount' was not a complete recount, and there is no evidence whatsoever (beyond rank speculation) that the Nader voters would have voted for Gore. Furthermore, what about the absolutely CRAPPY campaign Gore ran, one so bad he lost his home state of TN, not to mention WV and Ohio, which any competent campaign could likely have taken?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Exit Polls Suggested That Nader Voters Would Have Broken Two To One For

Gore.....


I could give a rats' ass if Gore lost his home state...


The evidence suggests Gore would have won Florida if not for Nader's candidacy......

[Padraig18]

30. I don't buy that.

What about the Dems in FL who voted for Bush? What about Gore's own failed campaign? You may not 'care', but it is relevant to the issue. Had Al Gore run a competent campaign, FL would have been irrelevant.

[Iverson]

17. correct

The extensive planning of crime, notably involving ChoicePoint and voter purges, had nothing to do with the Nader candidacy and was clearly proceeding without regard to it.

Further, I reject the argument that the Democratic candidate enjoyed a proprietary claim on the Green votes. That is the warrant that underlies the "close enough to steal" argument.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. I Agree And Disagree

There were plenty of factors that contributed to Gore's "loss" in Florida and in the absence of any of these factors Gore would have won.....


I'm not as smart as some of the posters here so I'll ask a very simple question...

If Nader wasn't on the ballot in 00 would Gore or Bush have carried Florida?

[Iverson]

27. a better question

Is a Constitutional crime more deserving of our ritualistic denunciation, or is a third party candidacy?

See, so often the answer you get depends upon the question you ask.

I note that you have not been concerned to rebut my point about the systematic organization of electoral fraud (i.e.- voter purges, etc.), so I assume that you are granting the point.

[Forkboy]

28. simple question back atcha

If all the Dems that voted for Bush in Florida had voted for Gore,who would have carried the state?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. Gore....

but I'm honest...


If all the votes were counted in FL Gore would have won...


If qualified voters in FL weren't purged Gore would have won...


If 27,000 spoiled ballots from predominately African American precints in Duval County weren't discarded Gore would have won...


If it wasn't for the butterfly ballots in Palm Beach County Gore would have won...


And despite all that Gore would still have won if Nader was on the ballot...


Here's my take....

Bushco is a danger to democracy and to the world....

We need a united front against him not more parlor games...


Peace

Brian

[Padraig18]

33. I agree.

The real enemy is not Ralph Nader.

[Cocoa]

10. no

Nader get twice as much as Kucinich?

No way. Not even close. Very few of those Kucinich votes, including dk himself, will go to Nader. My guess is he'll get 0.4%

[Walt Starr]

12. I don't believe he even siphoned many votes off in 2000

and he won't siphon any off this year. In fact, I'd say the Democrat will get even more votes because Greens from 2000 know the stakes this year.

I honestly believe those who vote for Naderr this year for the most part wouldn't have voted at all if he had not gotten into the race again.

[mzmolly]

13. I guess it depends on how much $$ Republicans spend on his campaign.

:hi:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. No. n/t

[Padraig18]

26. Donna Brazille cost Gore more votes than Nader ever did

Donna Brazille ran one of the most incompetent campaigns in modern Democratic Party history.

Ralph Nader did not cost Al Gore TN--- Brazille did!

Ralph Nader did not cost Al Gore WV--- Brazille did!

Ralph Nader did not cost Al Gore OH--- Brazille did!

Hello, Democrats???? :wtf:

[Padraig18]

31. *crickets chirping*

:shrug:

[poskonig]

37. Nader was *a* cause, not the cause.

Why one would want to team up with the GOP in a close election is beyond me.

Unless one *was* a Republican, of course.

[Iverson]

38. team up?

Do you mean like renting cops to keep Nader off debate grounds even though he had a ticket?

Yeah, why they did that is beyond me too.

[Padraig18]

39. I will agree he was *a* cause.

I've never denied that, nor would I be foolish enough to do so. I'm just trying to get people here to see the BIG picture, and not focus on the periphery. :)

[liberalhistorian]

40. Don't even get me started.

I'm so fucking disgusted with Nader, and he makes me so damn ill I can hardly stand to even THINK about him, that I'm beyond sickened and infuriated that the egotistical, arrogant, selfish fuckhead has actually decided to run again.

He must be in the pocket of repukes. Seriously, that's the only thing I can think of, he can't possibly be dumb enough as not to realize just how critical this election really is and how even one or two percentage points can throw the election back to the Bushistas, thus ensuring the destruction of this country as we know it. Just the thought of how the repukes are rubbing their hands and cackling in glee over Nader's decision (and rest assured that that is EXACTLY what they're doing!) ought to be enough to make his supporters face reality. And he obviously doesn't give a shit about this country at all, if he did he wouldn't even consider running.

And if you think that's an hysterical exaggeration, then you just haven't been paying any attention at all to what's really been happening these past few years, you know nothing at all about American history and how radically damaging this misadministration has been, more so than any other in this country's history. And if he actually does win this time, instead of being selected by his family buddies on the Supreme Court, there will be no restraining the Bushistas this time. Not only will they believe they have a legitimate mandate, but they will not feel constrained by the prospect of having to run for reelection, and anything, and I do mean ANYTHING, goes.

Those of you who don't see this, and who actually believe Nader's bullshit rhetoric about there being no difference between the major parties, need to pull your heads out of your ass. And if you don't, and you get sent off to a Bushista "re-education camp" just like the rest of us after he's won, (and believe me, you WILL) don't expect any kind of warm welcome from the rest of us, because you will have been among those responsible.

And I've pretty much had it with being given guilt trips over being a "Nader hater", and being told how "intolerant" we are, etc., etc. BULLSHIT!!!! I'm so fucking angry, disgusted, and sickened right now and so disheartened over our future as a country that I WILL NOT APOLOGIZE FOR WHAT I'M SAYING ABOUT NADER BECAUSE I'M RIGHT!

[Iverson]

41. eh?

Could you say that again? I couldn't hear you.

[liberalhistorian]

42. LOL!

Okay, I guess I could have been a LITTLE quieter, but when it comes to this issue, we can't afford to be, I'm afraid.

[Iverson]

44. Look:

If you expect to be listened to, you can't denounce people and then insist upon their vote.

The ugliness about Nader, Greens, and third parties on these boards is shameful. It will not persuade anyone.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

46. Those That Know Are Afraid....

And those that aren't afraid don't know...

[Padraig18]

50. Nice insult.

How's the air up there on Mt. Olympus? :eyes:

[liberalhistorian]

53. Then I guess I must

be with him on Mt. Olympus because he's exactly right.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. What About The Author's Point That The Freepers Are Cackling At

This Development?


Doesn't the fact that a Nader candidacy is met with glee by the most reactionary elements of American politics trouble you?

[Padraig18]

45. The freepers would cackle if Kerry got hemorrhoids.

Are we to be concerned with every drooling utterance from that bunch of morons? :eyes:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. How Come They Don't Cackle At Polls Showing Kerry's Cleaning *s Clock?

The first rule of war is to never "misunderestimate" your opponent....

[Padraig18]

49. Why do you even CARE what freepers think?

If you're going to run a campaign based on reacting to what a bunch of knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing morons at FreeRepublic say, we might as well get ready for the 1000-year Reich now...

[Iverson]

47. since you asked

I refuse to take into account a damned thing that Freepers do or say when it comes to thinking through my own political decisions.

I do not support a Nader candidacy in 2004, but I like even less the ugliness that centrists around here seek to raise to an art form. Furthermore, the majority of the arguments offered against it are extremely poor and involve demonizing those who, in the next breath, find their votes demanded.

Doesn't all that trouble you?

[liberalhistorian]

51. No, what really troubles me is what

will happen if Nader actually does run and gets even one or two percent of the vote, because we simply will not survive another four years (hell, another TWO years) of the Bushistas. We won't. THAT is what troubles me, not whether the feelings of Naderites are hurt or not.

There is so much at stake, and this is such a critical election, with our country's future literally riding on the results, that I'm not concerned over being "nice", we can't afford that right now.

And I understand what you're saying about not caring what freepers think, but look at how much power the RW wingnuts have right now and how much a Bush election (not selection, like last time) will increase and solidify that power, and we need to start caring.

[Iverson]

54. OK, let's explore this.

We agree that Bush is completely disastrous.

After that, you don't think that I and like minded people necessarily deserve civility, but you do demand our votes.

Pardon me if I don't find that to be terribly persuasive.

[liberalhistorian]

55. If you agree and understand that

Bush is "completely disastrous", then I find it hard to understand why you'd vote for anyone who doesn't have a chance of beating him, thus throwing the election to him. I agree that, ideally, people should vote on principle and not practicality, but this election is different.

With so much at stake, with our very future riding on it, we can't afford to not vote for the candidate who has the best chance at beating Bush. I'm sorry, I wish it were different, but that's just the way it is.

[Iverson]

57. I'll have to explain it sometime.

It occurs to me that many of my 4,000-odd posts elaborate on this, but the rest of the family wants to use the computer now.

However, at no point will you find me screaming "fuck" at anyone or conducting myself with the ugliness that the mainstream believes is their divine right. Substance, substance ...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. Doesn't Trouble Me....

Mere parlor games....


A * victory in 04


Now that ttroubles me....

[arewethereyet]

56. I guess it depends

If we run Kerry its very close at best so, yes it really does hurt.

If we run Edwards its very close leaning our way so it still hurts but not as badly.

If we run Kucinich it hurts Nader but Bush wins huge.

If we run Sharpton hell freezes over and the Earth dies out from the dramatic climate change and it really doesn't matter.

If we run LaRouche all of America will be laughing so hard that they completely forget to vote and its a wash.

[dfong63]

58. what do you mean "again"?

dubya didn't win the first time.

[arewethereyet]

64. well, he is the one in the White House

perhaps that might not be without Mr Nader's distraction.

[Darranar]

59. We will have to see...

I think he will do worse this time, and with Bush doing so badly in the polls Kerry could pull through with a victory.

Gore did, after all.

[annagull]

60. I think more people see how full of shit Nadar is than in 2000

He said there was no difference between Gore and Bush*. He has been proven more than wrong, over 500 dead Americans in Iraq that would still be here if Gore were POTUS. Also, he's no longer in the Green party, just another independent running for President like Larouche.

[liberalhistorian]

61. The Green Party, to its great credit,

doesn't want him anywhere near their ticket this year, he's going to have to run as an independent.

[dawn]

62. No. nt

[Deanisourman]

63. ATTENTION ALL DEAN SUPPORTERS

I am planning on supporting Ralph Nadar, and I want to urge all of my fellow Dean supporters to do the same.

I cannot support John Kerry or John Edwards, who voted FOR the war, and voted FOR the Patriot Act. It is very nice that Kerry is now pretending like he didn't vote for these things, but I'm not going to go along with the crowd because that is what we are "supposed" to do.

I am going to try to call up Howard Dean and talk to him. I don't know if I can get a hold of him or not, but I want him to run with Ralph Nadar on the ticket. I saw another thread that speculated Kucinich may run with Nadar. That would be a great ticket but Dean would be much much better.

I intend to do all I can to collect petition signatures to get him on the ballot in my home state of Maine, and I will also help in New Hampshire and Mass.

The Democratic party establishment sent out Toricelli and their media friends to smear Dean and destroy his campaign. As far as I'm concerned, Howard Dean and his supporters DON'T OWE JOHN KERRY OR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY A FUCKING THING!

[poskonig]

65. Go Bush 100%!!

Who needs health care access, progressive taxation, jobs, etc. Let's team up with corporate crooks and warmongers in the Bush administration instead!

[freeforall]

66. I hate to say this, but...

as an interested onlooker, if people vote for Nader just because they don't like the Dem nominee, and Nader siphons off enough votes to cause another screw-up and you get stuck with Bush for another 4 years - then the country will deserve the leader it gets.

I would say that now is the time to focus on picking the Dem candidate you can most live with, and then in the election, vote for the Dem - no matter who the candidate is.

Sometimes I think we're more fortunate in Canada to have a system where we elect the party, based on its policies, and don't have to fight over personalities. True, sometimes we like the party and its policies, but not necesessarily the leader, but it sure beats hell out of having a bunch of leaders for the same party from which to choose.

[MurikanDemocrat]

67. Balony! He only got 3% last time, and he'll get far less this time.

Most nader voters plan on voting Dem this time around. Nader will be lucky to get 1% this time.