NH recount a sinister Nader plot? (Tiny Winky Theory II)

[LoZoccolo]

Look at the numbers:

Kerry: 340,019
Bush*: 330,848
Nader: 4,447

Kerry won by a 1% margin in a small state. Maybe Nader is getting this recounted in hopes that he might be able to switch it to red and claim his role as something of a spoiler again this year.

I. just. don't. trust. him.

Addendum: I'm not trying to stop the recount with this theory. He wants to recount, he can knock himself out.

[George_S]

1. Why? What would he get out of it.

That's ridiculous. If Nader is anything he is pro-democracy and anti-corporation, and that is exactly what this is about.

[LoZoccolo]

Ha ha ha ha ha!

What would he get out of running for President?

[AuntPatsy]

4. Geez guys, who do you think funded Nader this election?

It is well know that the Gop did after the Green party severed all ties with him, anyone care to wonder why the Green party turned it's back to Nader early on in this election? Sorry, I don't trust anyone who would take blood money...

[TimeToGo]

12. Nader is pro-Nader

[Eloriel]

17. Have a look at this

It explains a LOT (IMO)

[Stephanie]

2. I understand your point of view

But do you imagine that Rove has set up a double-cross, and that the recount will favor Bush? It doesn't gibe with the exit polls.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. At this point...

That is moot and this is about the technolgoes that count the vote.

An interesting speculation crossed my mind: Did Kerry concede knowing, at least, some of this and is hoping that we will pick up the baton?

An interesting speculation. I am sure there is nothing to it.

[alittlelark]

5. They are doing it because NH has already found evidence

of fraud. Nader was talked into it. And, believe me, I am not a Nader-lover (but I did help call different states to get recount requirements).

I think he is trying to rehabilitate his image - if it gets Kerry to recant his concession, He will have.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

8. And if that happens...

Ralph has real political capital.

[Carolab]

6. Yeah, go ahead

shoot the one person with power who has agreed to help.

That's right. Jeez.

[LisaL]

7. And so what?

It's not like we have something to loose, is it?

[LoZoccolo]

9. Yes, we do have something to lose.

Stalin-strategy far-left kamikaze-ists will be further encouraged by their power to spoil electoral votes for the Democrats.

[LoZoccolo]

10. That having been said...

...all said and done, there will probably be even less of them next time.

[tinrobot]

11. Maybe it was his plan all along

Stay in the race so he could challenge the voting machines.

He does like taking on corruption in the system -- this is the perfect type of issue for him.

[LightTheMatch]

13. how could it be sinister?

We're trying to save the future of democracy. Kerry didn't have enough electoral votes anyway, our goals are much bigger than that! It's nothing sinister, I would say.

[LoZoccolo]

14. I explained how it could be sinister.

It could be a recruiting tool for his next generation of electoral suicide bomber activists, a way of encouraging them.

[LightTheMatch]

15. Maybe...

If he succeeds and exposes massive fraud, he DESERVES all the activists and followers he would get!

[LoZoccolo]

16. He's the Michael Jackson of politics.

He relies on impressionable youth for his support, having alienated many of his older supporters.*

In your scenario, the recount would be his Neverland Ranch.

*NOTE: I am not in this post accusing Michael Jackson of the crimes he is on trial for (it's more in comparison to his substitution of relationships with children for those with adults), nor am I accusing Ralph Nader of same.