The Nader Principal: Is a Vote for Dennis, a Vote for HRC?

[Wiley50]

Dennis is perfect. He is the best of all possible presidents.

I think Edwards is the next best. He has many faults, but wants to help the poor.

I am very poor.

I don't trust HRC as far as I could throw the entire DLC


So, if I vote for Dennis and take that vote away for Edwards,

Am I giving it to HRC?


I know it's early, but the situation is forcing us all to think about it now.

[mudesi]

1. The Nader effect is a fallacy, and so is this

A vote for Dennis is a vote for Dennis, nothing more, nothing less. A vote for Nader was a vote for Nader, nothing more, nothing less.

It is a logical fallacy to say Nader cost Gore the election.

Stop letting the media decide your vote! Vote for Kucinich. If everybody does, he wins. It's that simple.

[TahitiNut]

2. Agreed.

:thumbsup:

[aquart]

4. As all Nader voters desperately need to believe.

Nonetheless, it is a betrayal of every principle of democracy if you throw away your vote by NOT voting for your choice. You will never know how many Americans stood with you, and you are abandoning those who had the courage that failed you.

If Kucinich is your choice, you have the obligation to vote for him.

[mudesi]

6. I wouldn't say they need to believe it, because it's true

Those who voted for Nader had decided, for whatever reason, that Gore was not worthy of their vote. If Nader hadn't run, they would've voted for some other candidate (and that does not include Bush) or not voted at all. It wouldn't have made an iota of difference.

The media sure loves to cram this lie down everybody's throat though. I wonder why, given that the media cares only for the status quo of a two party system controlled by conservatives on both sides.

[hfojvt]

15. "for whatever reason"

Maybe because they heard Nader give a speech bashing Gore, since Nader mainly ran AGAINST Gore.

"It wouldn't have made an iota of difference"

You simply cannot prove that. Hey, I voted 3rd party in 1992, but at least I had my eyes open. I knew that I might, in some small way, be helping George HW Bush to win. If Bush had carried Wisconsin, then I would have had to admit that I was at least partly responsible. Same thing in 1996, I only voted 3rd party then because I was assured (by the M$M) that Clinton would win handily.

Nader said before the election that he DID NOT CARE if his campaign helped Bush to win. Does he care yet?

[mudesi]

17. Your vote was irrelevant

You chose to vote for a third party candidate, and you had your reasons. You did not "help" or "hurt" any other candidate. The only candidate that your vote affected was the candidate that you voted for.

I'm amazed that the media has been able to convince so many of you to believe this nonsense that a vote for a third party candidate in any way affects the results of the front runners.

Let's say George HW Bush did take Wisconsin. How would you have been at all responsible? You wouldn't have voted for the Democrat anyway, because you had your reasons to not vote for him. You wouldn't have voted for the Republican, of course, because you're not a Republican. So your vote didn't help Bush, didn't hurt Clinton, didn't do anything except give a vote to the person you voted for.

That's it. Period. End of story. Nothing to see here.

[hfojvt]

33. Have you ever taken an economics class?

The concept here is an 'opportunity cost'. By voting 4th party, my opportunity cost was NOT voting for Bush, Clinton or Perot.

I certainly would have voted for the Democrat in 1992 if I had thought there was one running. The reason I did not vote for Clinton was because I saw him in a very Nader-like way - as a moderate Republican virtually indistinguishable from Bush Sr, who BTW I had voted against in 1988, being one of the 5,358 people who voted for Dukakis.

My vote, as you so kindly point out, is always irrelevant. No candidate ever wins by 1 vote. However, let's say Bush had won Wisconsin by 3,000 votes, and that 4,500 people had, like myself, voted for Williamson. And further suppose that Wisconsin's electoral votes would have determined the election. Then suppose that the Gingrich revolution still takes place and Republicans control all three branches of Federal Government, and George Sr. starts governing like Dick Cheney. Then we, collectively could get together and lament 'we were fu$%ing idiots, we elected Bush' and there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

At least for me, because I understand math. I made a choice on election day. A choice I was aware of. That I could vote for Clinton and help to defeat Bush, or vote 4th party and possibly allow the re-election of Bush. It's simply wrong to say that I would not have voted for Clinton. I would have, if I cared about defeating the Republican. I knew that in 1992, before the media supposedly brain-washed me about Nader-may-his-name-be-cursed.

[Puregonzo1188]

22. I'm just curious (and this is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand),

but who did you vote for in '92 and '96?

[More Than A Feeling]

3. That's something you have to decide for yourself.

Helpful, aren't I?:hide:

[eleny]

5. Dennis is a gift

He wants to accomplish what I'd like a president to do. That's all I need to know right now.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

7. oh god, I feel nauseous

I hadn't considered that. :scared:

on edit: I feel better after reading this thread. Thanks for talking me down! lol

[mudesi]

9. Well, don't

Vote for Kucinich. Just vote for him. Everybody else do the same. Then he'll win.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

14. Well, actually... I'm leaning more towards Edwards

I love Dennis, and I will vote for him even though it will be all over by the time Oregon rolls around, but I don't think he can win in the General. I know that's a terrible thing to say, and many here will give me hell for it, but I just can't convince my formerly Repug voting friends to vote for Kuch. I CAN get them to vote for Edwards (and he's my second choice anyway), or maybe Obama. They will not vote for a dem if their choices are Dennis or Hillary. These are the sad facts I deal with. :(

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. They will not vote for a dem if their choices are Dennis or Hillary.

Which is peculiar, as they are polar opposites.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

23. yes, they hate them for different reasons...

Hillary is a "strong woman" and they just can't abide that.
Dennis is a Peace-loving-Leftist-Commie-Short guy who they just can't relate to.

:(

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. I'm not so sure about her being a "strong woman" at that.

I caught a bit of her talking on TV tonite as I was flipping channels, and she looked exhausted. Maybe it was just bad lighting or something, but if she really is so worn out this early in the primary contest, I don't see how she's ever going to hold up running the distance.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

29. definition of "strong woman" from the Fundy Book of 'Facts'...

noun. Woman (see below) who will speak up for herself, have a career and not be submissive to her husband (deemed her ruler by GOD himself).

"Woman
an adult female person (as opposed to a man); "the woman kept house while the man hunted" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:woman&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

[jgraz]

8. No, it's an artifact of our fucked-up winner-take-all system

I continue to maintain that the majority of Democrats do NOT want Hillary Clinton to be our nominee. Her only advantage is that the ABC (anybody but Clinton) vote is split between several more-deserving candidates.

[Gregorian]

10. The only thing that makes Dennis "unelectable" is not voting for Dennis.

I was wondering the same thing. I never bought into the Nader theory. And by god I'm voting my heart this time.

And it goes without saying I will vote for the nominee.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. Yes, You're Right. But The Consequences Aren't Anywhere Near As Harsh As They Were When The

misguided and woefully uninformed cast their votes for nader.

So since that's the case, and it's only the primaries, I'd say simply vote for who you truly feel good about.

[Truth2Tell]

32. So you think a split vote will help Hillary then? n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

12. A vote for Dennis is a vote for Dennis

If memory serves, the media destroyed Dean's campaign in 2004, and anointed Kerry to the candidacy, thereby robbing all who didn't vote in IA or NH the right to vote for anyone--well, just about anyone. Dennis Kucinich was the only one who stayed on the ballot, and for whom I proudly voted in 2004. I will vote for him in 2008 because I think he can win the nomination. I am sick of having the media telling us who will win and who will lose.

[onehandle]

13. I can guarantee you one thing. Dennis will not win the nomination.

So, maybe.

[spindoctor]

36. Who are you to give guarantees?

Do you have any particular dealings in the electoral process, or did you simply intend to say that the odds are against DK winning the nomination?

[onehandle]

37. Odds against. nt

[rjones2818]

39. Odds against are not

a guarantee! :)

Go Dennis! :woohoo:
http://dennis4president.com
http://www2.kucinich.us
Choose Peace!

[EST]

16. I was reading, this morning, about the hedge fund fiasco that is

rapidly enveloping the worlds financial system. The people who are the leading fund losers are the ones who have all the computers and complicated investment strategy.
Pick the candidate who best represents your point of view, apply whatever english and Kentucky windage you feel comfortable with and put DK in the oval office.

[GeorgeGist]

18. Obviously you didn't mean ....

P-R-I-N-C-I-P-L-E

[Demobrat]

19. Vote for the person who speaks for you.

If everybody does that the person who speaks for the majority will win.

[billyoc]

20. Vote for the candidate you want to win. If you vote for Dennis,

it takes a vote away from EVERYONE else, not just Edwards. :hi:

[BlooInBloo]

24. If I understand this so-called "Nader Principal [sic]"...

... wouldn't it follow, given Clinton's lead, that ANY (primary) vote is a vote for Clinton?

[Wiley50]

26. Have you checked her numbers against Edwards going into the Iowa Straw poll?

He's kicking everyone's ass by at least 10 points
against any puke challenger

I don't see it that way

It is an honest OP
one that I've been thinking about for weeks

And for the record I don't believe Nader lost FL 2000 for Gore

IT WAS A BLATANTLY STOLEN ELECTION

DECIDED BY JUST A 5-4 Vote

If you wanna blame anyone for that

start with Lana (whatever her name was) in Volusia County

and Jeb and Katherine Harris and ChoicePoint..........

I just used "Nader Principal" because anyone would instantly understand what I meant

[BlooInBloo]

30. Ah. That's what "Nader Princpal [sic]" was for. Thanks.

[rucky]

25. By the time the primary gets to my state...

I may consider a strategic vote.

[Mutineer]

27. If you have to ask the question,

you already know the answer.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

31. I'll always vote in the primary with my heart

The choice that I honestly believe will represent my views the best gets my vote.

I love the beautiful, raw and real feeling that I've done my best to represent the better interest of my country.

I'm not giving that up for anything. Ever.

What I dream of for 2008 is a GE where my vote evokes that same pure and beautiful voting afterglow.

[fujiyama]

34. I'm really confused as to the point of this thread...

Dennis is perfect? Honestly? This is just getting silly.

I agree with many of his positions. I think he has been correct on many major issues. But he's not perfect.

Edwards is a good candidate. He as well as Obama, Hillary, or anyone else is far from perfect. But they are all better than the republican candidates.

As for Nader, he's an egomaniacal douchebag. He's there to have his ego stroked. He hasn't done anything worthwhile or meaningful in thirty years...and has burned many bridges along the way.

[spindoctor]

35. It is NOT a horse race. You don't have to pick the winner. VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE!

DK needs to stop making the analogy with horse racing and the whole Seabiscuit analogy. The election process as it was designed is intended to produce a representation of what the people _want_.

There are those who call Kucinich a populist because he does just that. He voices the will of the people. I realize that DU is not a fair representation of the population, but I can't understand that anyone here would not vote for the one candidate who takes the right stance on every single issue.

I can't believe that once Kucinch crosses the threshold of being considered a serious candidate to the mainstream, that people won't notice this either. The USA NEEDS a man like Kucinich. We need to restore political integrity and moral now more than ever. We need to show Kansas that THIS is how things should be done. We need to show the world that we are not the nitwits they take us for. But most importantly, we owe it to ourselves to have a person in the White House who will actually CARE about what we need and how we feel and who will act accordingly.

MOVE CORPORATE AMERICA OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, MOVE DENNIS IN!

YOU DON'T WASTE YOUR VOTE ON KUCINICH, YOU WASTE YOUR VOTE IF YOU USE IT ON ANYBODY ELSE!

[rjones2818]

38. No!

Period. Your vote is your own. If you think Dennis is the best candidate, then you should vote for him.

Go Dennis! :woohoo:
http://dennis4president.com
http://www2.kucinich.us
Choose Peace!