Oh, good Lord - Ralph Nader just declared his 2008 Presidential run on MtP

[derby378]

Working against the Democrats again, Ralphie? That's essentially what you're doing...

I'm a big ol' "gun nut," but you don't see me touting any Republican candidates, now, do you? Why do you so desperately want Republicans to win, Ralph?

[still_one]

1. The most important person that has always been in ralph naders life has been ralph nader

He has made himself irrelevent, and he IS irrelevent

[KatyaR]

2. Rachel Maddow was right on Friday--

she said she thought he'd be announcing his candidacy, since he's done it before on MtP.

Can't this guy get a REAL job?

[madokie]

3. he draws nuts like shit draws flies

I really don't think anyone who was really going to vote for the dem is going to vote for ralphie babie so to me its a none issue, but thats just me

[robbedvoter]

4. Remember his formidable ran in 2004? Exactly.

[Selatius]

5. What's sad is people don't recognize that Nader is a symptom of an even greater problem.

That is, the restrictive nature of single-member district plurality (SMDP) voting. In general, it leads to only two viable parties in cases where there are no strong regional parties. The US hasn't had strong regional parties since before the Civil War.

You would think that with a diverse country such as the US, it would adopt something more akin to proportional representation or some mixed system like France's, but that would mean both the Democratic and Republican hierarchies must give up power. In the reality of things, power is never given without a demand.

[SteelPenguin]

9. It'll never change

Heck we can't get campaign finance reform, there's no way in hell they'd sign off on changing the fundamental structure of our government. Particularly because probably a good solid 70-80% of them would never even ADMIT that their could even EXIST a flaw in our constitution (ignoring the fact that it's been amended so many times).

In addition those representatives, on both sides, gerrymander the districts to such a degree that each election, less than a third of the house seats even have a chance to be competitive. The parties have essentially ceded each other a certain base of power where the competition is only within the party primaries.

Also, our system not only whittles everything down to 2 parties, but slants representation to rural regions to such a degree that over half our senate (51 Senators) represent a mere 16% of our population. 51% of Wyoming voters can effectively oppose 51% of California voters in the Senate. One Republican voter in Wyoming has as much representative weight as 69 Democratic voters in California.

It's not like this is even a new issue. There's a reason Delaware is the constitution state and ratified the constitution first. They saw that the representation was so disproportional that it gave them as much say in the new senate as Virginia, who at the time had 11 times the population.

I love our country, and I love democracy, and for that reason I hate the plutocratic disproportional and corrupt system that we have. I realize though that when you ask for a plutocratic and corrupt system to change, that even hoping for that to happen is the height of foolishness. The only way our system will ever change is either a slowly built and MASSIVE civilian movement, or revolution. My faith in the ability of the American people to follow either path, at least at present, is non-existant.

That's probably why it's never mentioned. Most people either don't know, don't care, or are way too optimistic about humanity.

[Selatius]

13. I tend to agree but only if we exclude future revolutions and civil wars.

Fredrick Douglass once said, "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will."

If people want to change the voting system, they must be prepared to force the government and the establishment parties to do so under fear of being completely stripped of power either peacefully or violently.

Personally, I favor a peaceful dissolution of the Union precisely because rural areas hold urban areas hostage in terms of representation. This is not the old United States of the Thirteen Colonies anymore. This nation bares more resemblance to the British Empire of old with massive naval fleets and armies stationed all over the world.

[derby378]

6. Randi Rhodes vs. Ralph Nader - Air America, 3/31/04

Here, Randi presents some great arguments against a Nader campaign, and they still hold true today:

http://wilem.com/rrs/interviews/rrs_20040331_nader.mp3

[nookiemonster]

11. Yup. First day of Air America. Remember it well.

She cleaned his fucking clock that day. He ran away with his tail between his legs.

The arguments still hold true, but Mr. Nacissistic fuck pulls his shit anwyay. AGAIN.

[cloudythescribbler]

7. Trying to meaningfully assess Ralph Nader's candidacy (especially in 2000) (repost)

(I can't say that I have read a whole lot of material from the Obama campaign myself, but on the other hand, I don't put so much stock in all the specifics outlined by candidates in these documents). I have watched some 8 debates and several speeches by Obama during the campaign, and seen plenty of detail for my purposes there and in extensive social commentary.

Actually, the advantage of figures like Nader, to the extent that in an election where the ONLY significant impact they could possibly have is to be a spoiler helping the Repukes get power, is that they advocate positions, details or no details, like single payer health insurance ignored by the mainstream.

Nevertheless, as in the past, including Nader's MOST SUCCESSFUL (both in getting votes and in possibly tipping the election FROM the Democrats to the Repugs) in 2000, the MSM attention on Nader has been almost exclusively on his role as a spoiler, and he has done little to counteract that. In 2000 in particular, he spent LOTS of time campaigning in swing states like Penn, Ohio, and FL, and relatively little both in solid blue states (like MA, CT, and CA) AND IN SOLID RED STATES WHERE HE WOULDN'T ACT AS A SPOILER (such as TX, WY, and IN). Most states and jurisdictions fall into one of those two categories, even in widely contested races with many states "in play" such as in 2000.

What this and other factors show me is that Nader is more interested in drawing attention than in 'going hunting where the ducks are'. After all, the logic of the two MAIN candidates under the present system is to FOCUS on all the "purple" and 'purplish' states such as CO, MO, MN, OH, and FL, while the logic of someone running to get at least the minimum 5% threshold to qualify for federal financing (and possibly being included in the debates as well) is, as noted, exactly the opposite.
Nader, even in 2000, didn't even come CLOSE to getting 5% of the national vote.

As for building up a progressive movement (something I am very interested in, in its proper context, with groups like sds/mds -- the newly reconstituted students for a democratic society/movement for a democratic society) the fact that at Nader's main appearances in DC, his audience(s) were reportedly almost entirely white belies any notion that he is really effective in pursuit of that at least ostensible goal either

[javadu]

8. Nader's Time Has Past

He will be lucky to have more than a dozen people show up at his rallies during the coming year. This will be devastating to his ego. But, he will get invited to the talking head shows, which may stroke his ego a little, but this will be the end of his so-called and misguided dissent.

[Swamp Rat]

10. He's also declared it in GDP

[VP505]

12. Nader again used the

same old tired arguments to justify his candidacy. The same ones that overlook one very important fact, he is unelectable. No matter how much he thinks he offers an alternative to those disgusted with either party he will only accomplish one thing and that is to siphon votes away from more viable candidates. :banghead: