Nader won't make a differece

[Monty__]

In 2000 Nader made a difference. Many people (were wrong) but did not see the difference between Bush and Gore (oh man were they wrong) and Nader received 2.9 million votes and 2.7% of the popular vote. In 2004 he wasn't even the Green Party's candidate, almost everyone learned their lesson and saw Nader for what he truly had become (I say had become because I did admire...never would have voted for) but did admire him before 2000. In 2004 Nader received 463,000 votes or 0.38%. He will receive even less this time around (assuming Obama is the nominee).

[bluestateguy]

1. Anybody who voted for Nader in 2004 was not a regular Democratic voter

His supporters in 2004 were the real Kool-Aid drinking moonbats, people who probably vote for a fringe crank candidate every four years like Lenora Fulani (1988) or Bo Gritz (1992).

[Monty__]

2. Or LaRouche

They still call me every other day

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. One vote for Nader is too many.

I hope people have learned their lesson this time.

[Monty__]

4. I agree

but it didn't make a difference in '04 and I don't think it will in '08.

[powergirl]

5. OBAMA Still wins - he Shines on his own

I think it is sad that when he feels that he needs some attention, he tries to jack with the election. I would admire him if I thought he was sincere about his cause. But he's not. His "campaign" is not about Americans. It's about him. Ultimately, any presidential candidate must win on their own merits. He/She must shine on their own. You cannot win just by denigrating another person. Obama is strong enough to win on his own. Sen. Clinton thought she would win because she had no competition - until Obama showed up. That is why Sen. Clinton can't win the general election and why Nader could take votes from her but not Obama. Clinton, a worthy public servant and opponent, does not have the je ne sais quoi to win on her own. Obama does and he will win - with or without Nader.

[Monty__]

6. I agree with this as well

He was sincere (or at least it seemed so) before the 2000 election. Since then it's been all about him.

[AndyTiedye]

7. The Nader Difference: Making It Easier for the Repigs to Steal Elections

It isn't about Nader getting enough votes so that a plurality of the voters vote for the Repiglikins.
Even in 2000 it was about making it close enough to steal, and giving the vote-stealers another place to dump some of Gore's votes.