If Nader decides to run, it virtually GUARANTEES another four years of George W. Bush in my mind. He not going to win...EVER, so really, he's only helping the republicans...especially this election.
Any comments?
Any comments?
Nader for president...
- Thread starter BurlyShirley
- Start date
Nader sucks, Auto manufacturers should be required to make small, fast, dangerous cars. I hope he chokes on his own self rightiousness.
I spell his name incorrectly...Nadir...on purpose. 
I agree that too many candidates thin out the votes and make it easy for one party to dominate the electoral college. But I also think that our two party system sucks, and needs to be shaken up a little. If a candidate that isn't part of the big two can run and make a noticable dent in the votes, then I am all for that.
While I agree with that, I think Nader is a total tool, and he does all this just to advertise himself. After all, if he really did care about getting Bush out, he'd do better to not run at all, to give the Dems a better chance.
Very true, but if there are more than two major parties there should be more than one stage of elections unless one candidate recieves more than %50 of the popular vote. A third candidate can win an election if there are two similar candidates, but the wining candidate could reflect the least popular public opinion. We need to trash the two party system and the electoral college.
I don't think the democrats are any better than the republicans, just a different kind of bad. At least Nader has shown that he cares about American citizens.
If the electoral college were done away with, I personally would feel more motivated to vote for the president.
Huh? Vote for the "President", or vote in the presidential elections?
Yes
Still, at least they're both on some level of being liberal....at least compared to the Repubs.
How has nader "Shown that he cares about American citizens" more than anyone else?
He did lobby congress to force automobile makers to produce safer cars. He is also largely responsible for the safe drinking water act.
Interestingly most of his lobbying was timed perfectly with the release of a book. He is an author by profession, testifying in front of congress is fantastic publicity.
EXACTLY.
So is running for President.
So what have George Bush or Howard Dean done for us?
Depending on your spin on things...........Bush has kept the forrests open to MTB's, unlike Clinton who pushed shutting down the forrests under the guise of a past presidents national forrest plight.
But that is a very squed look on it............
Rhino
You're missing the point here dude. The fact is that he doesnt truly care about his causes, because if he runs, he ENSURES a republican victory. Now, thats a good thing for me, but not most Naderites.
In the 2000 race Ralph Nader got exactly zero electoral votes. I fail to see how him running did anything to change the outcome of the race in the electoral college...
You do know how the Electoral College is supposed to make their selection, right?
Beleive it or not, the popular vote does have some meaning, as much as people like to downplay it. Why do you think Florida was such a big deal?
If the popular vote really mattered we would have Al Gore as president right now. He did win by over 540,000 votes.
Not much. Having people like Nader is good. They act as a balance of power to the right wing loonies and corporate greed. I just think he is more of a self promoter than a humanitarian and would certainly not make a good president. A president should be fairly moderate, right wing and left wing crackpots suck.
Yes, but in the wrong places man. Im not saying that the electoral college is even worth having, Im just saying that Gore would have won by many more votes, possibly in the right places had Nader not run.
Maybe it does/did dillute the liberal vote, but you also have other conservatives running to that do the same thing for that side. If it wasn't Nader running it would just be someone else, and limiting our country to a strict two party system is no better answer.
And hey if the democrats didn't win due to the competition maybe they didn't deserve to.
I can't remeber exactly but if all of Perot votes went republican, wouldn't have Bush Sr beat out Clinton??
I hear -- but the electoral college (in theory, and actually in practice, except for once, I think, back in the 1800s) vote the way the plurality or majority vote.
Perot swung the vote towards Clinton and the democrats were fine with it at the time, so I don't see how Democrats could cry foul now. However, you'd think they would try to organize themselves to prevent a third person from running.
Tenchiro, you probably already know this (and were being sarcastic in your email), so sorry for recapping, but if a third person runs and, in effect, democrats vote for him/her, then the republican might win with a plurality (i.e. 47% of the vote if 8% voted for 3rd person and 45% voted for the Democrat, whereas the Democrat would've (in theory) had 53% if the third person did not run (and obviously all of the people who voted for him/her voted for the democrat). Hence giving the state to the republican.
Hey, you're right. But i just feel like if Nader truly cared, the way he acts like he does, he should let the lesser of two evils (the Dems in his case) win, rather than ensuring a Repub victory just so he can sell books or whatever. He is not so stupid to beleive he can actally WIN the presidency, so he' just playing a spoiler for the dems. Good for me, bad for libs.
Perot had actually like 19% of the popular vote, so yes, absolutely. 3rd parties definitely can make a difference.
If he really cared he would have campaigned for president to float the issues he cared about to the top. But then withdraw and support Gore while negotiating for a position in the Gore administration so he could keep his issues relavent. Gore knew that Nader could have screwed him out of the presidency and would have been more than happy to appease him.
BS is right.
Nader did cost the election for Gore.
Look no farther than New Hampshire and Florida.
Bush narrowly beat Gore in both states in the popular vote (the determining factor in who gets the electoral votes.
In New Hampshire Bush beat Gore by 7,221 votes. Nader recieved 22188 votes.
In Florida the numbers are even more telling. The final (disputed difference) was only 547 votes. Nader received 97,488 votes.
It can be assumed in both casesby the normal make up of those voting for Nader that most, if Nader hadn't run, would have voted for Gore.
So just in those two states that is a swing of 29 electoral votes which would have comfortably put Gore in the White House.
Ralph Nader was George Bush's best weapon in the 2000 election. In what is most likely to be another close election, the presence of Nader again could do the same sort of thing. However, my guess is that many Democrats may have learned their lesson.
Personally I would rather give my vote to a candidate that I respect, even if I know they have no chance of winning than vote for the lesser of two evils. I have abstained from many elections because I disliked both sides of the ballot.
Ralph nader may or may not be in it for the publicity, but the fact remains that he has done alot of good for the citizens of this country. He wrote 'Unsafe at Any Speed' not to make money but to inform people of life threatening problems in the automobile industry because nobody else at the time was doing anything about it.
If he can inform as well as make his own living, I don't see a problem with that.
Perot's backers were definately more diverse than those of Ralph Nader. In most circles the breakdowns were thought to be in the 60 / 40 range for Bush Sr, not enough of a swing to close the election especially based on electoral votes. The Nader breakdowns are much more one sided. Conservatively estimated to be closer to 85 / 15 for Gore. Which as I pointed out in my other post would have been more than enough especially in NH and FL.
EDIT: I lost a whole paragraph somehow.
It was determined during exit polling that in the neighborhood of a third of those voting for Perot would not have even voted if he hadn't been on the ballot. The 60/40 split is based on the balance that indicated they would have voted for one or the other.
(watch out, climbing up onto my pedestal....)
HEY! I'm ok with people who say they're not going to vote because they don't like the candidates -- but then, you still should go to the voting booth. First of all, there are generally other things you have to vote for that day (i.e. judges, amendments, etc). Secondly, if you really don't want to vote as a political statement -- then go to the booth, be counted as a citizen, exercise your rights and don't pull that lever -- however, I suspect a great majority of people who do not vote (and say they don't like the candidates) are really too lazy (to find out about the candidates, find where they are supposed to vote, remember voting day and then drive (or ride!) the 8 blocks to the polling booths.
Whew! Ok, I'm done now...
..tissue?
:devil:
In effect, when you do this, you're actually voting for the greater of two evils. I dont see the logic.
It may indrectly help one of the candidates, but even if a miniscule amount it helps to perpetuate a multiple party system. Even if that is not yet viable, you have to start somewhere.
I'd much rather see Nadar run in 2008 with Hillary in the mix.
Although, I still have a nagging suspicion that she just might yank the nomination right out from under the other contestents at their convention in 04.
Although, I still have a nagging suspicion that she just might yank the nomination right out from under the other contestents at their convention in 04.
I dont have any suggestion for how to get any further with the current situation. Your point is well taken.
Not a big fan of Nader.
I'm no lover of Detroit steel and on certain issues am a raging liberal, but speaking as an engineer... "Unsafe at Any Speed" was sensationalist BS.
He's just as much the attention whore and politician as the rest of him. Don't kid yourself. He's a Sky-Is-Falling grandstander.
I'm no lover of Detroit steel and on certain issues am a raging liberal, but speaking as an engineer... "Unsafe at Any Speed" was sensationalist BS.
He's just as much the attention whore and politician as the rest of him. Don't kid yourself. He's a Sky-Is-Falling grandstander.