poll analysis of floridas 2000 election results

Danny Boy

Nader won't be altering anything this year in terms of outcomes.

I find it interesting that Vedder backed Nader wholeheartedly in 2000 yet supports Obama this year. Not that who Ed or any celebrity likes means much of anything, but considering we are in a Pearl Jam forum...

Eliot Rosewater

NOCODE#1 wrote:

you can't reason with kabong. he's set on discrediting a black man *gasp* that might be president. its in his blood.

What a bullshit post. Is that seriously the best you can do? Sad.

Eliot Rosewater

Danny Boy wrote:

I find it interesting that Vedder backed Nader wholeheartedly in 2000 yet supports Obama this year. Not that who Ed or any celebrity likes means much of anything, but considering we are in a Pearl Jam forum...

I find it upsetting. I doubt Ed has changed his political stances on the issues but more likely has given in to the bullshit and nonsensical idea of an "electable candidate".

Do we really think that Ed supports Obama more than Nader ON THE ISSUES? I don't think so. And I'll bet anyone on here $50 that if Obama wins and we're STILL occupying Iraq and probably soon Iran, that Ed will be outspoken against him and still protesting the war(s).

Rhinocerous Surprise

NOCODE#1 wrote:

you can't reason with kabong. he's set on discrediting a black man *gasp* that might be president. its in his blood.

Right... anyone that doesn't support Obama, and has valid reasons he can back it up with, is racist. What a pathetic post.

Why don't you support McCain? Ageist? Hate white people?

El_Kabong

flywallyfly wrote:

My argument is weak? I was just backing up what kabong posted. i dont believe his paltry vote numbers cost the Democrats Florida -- that makes him irrelevant in that election -- so you have a diagreement with your own argument evidently.

Nader will have no relevance to the outcome of the 2008 election. He may be relevant to you and your vote but not to this election.

if he's irrelevant why does the democratic party sue to have his name kept OFF a ballot!?!?

if he were actually allowed into the debates, instead of being threatened w/ aresst if he entered a debate he had a ticket for and was invited inside by Faux News, then he'd have more of an impact. Why are the dems so afraid of having his name on a ballot or having his views heard by the nation?

"Democrats are trying to block Mr. Nader's access to the ballot in several swing states. Democrats have recruited Laurence H. Tribe, the Harvard law professor, to argue the case."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiED0xToa48

flywallyfly

El_Kabong wrote:

if he's irrelevant why does the democratic party sue to have his name kept OFF a ballot!?!?

if he were actually allowed into the debates, instead of being threatened w/ aresst if he entered a debate he had a ticket for and was invited inside by Faux News, then he'd have more of an impact. Why are the dems so afraid of having his name on a ballot or having his views heard by the nation?

"Democrats are trying to block Mr. Nader's access to the ballot in several swing states. Democrats have recruited Laurence H. Tribe, the Harvard law professor, to argue the case."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiED0xToa48

Why did they sue to keep him off the ballot in 2004 ?? Maybe THEY thought he would be relevant, maybe they wanted him to follow the rules where suing wouldnt be possible?

Was he invited to be on the stage at that debate? If not then he had no business there. Perhaps they felt if he was in the audience he would be a distraction or perhaps cause a commotion such as flinging his poo at the candidates. Must have been quite an honor to be invited by FOX news.
Edit -- the Democrats didnt exclude him from the debates, the SPONSORS did...big difference.
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_04_16_02.html

So you guys say he had no affect on the Florida vote, you show numbers (up above) that support this contention.... yet you say he was/is relevant to the election. WHICH IS IT ?

Abookamongstthemany

flywallyfly wrote:

Why did they sue to keep him off the ballot in 2004 ?? Maybe THEY thought he would be relevant, maybe they wanted him to follow the rules where suing wouldnt be possible?

Was he invited to be on the stage at that debate? If not then he had no business there. Perhaps they felt if he was in the audience he would be a distraction or perhaps cause a commotion such as flinging his poo at the candidates. Must have been quite an honor to be invited by FOX news.

So you guys say he had no affect on the Florida vote, you show numbers (up above) that support this contention.... yet you say he was/is relevant to the election. WHICH IS IT ?

He is relevant in influencing the platforms of the other candidates and keeping them for going even further towards a centerist platform. If you had bothered reading the washington post piece I just posted you would know this.

He had an invitation to watch the debate, not be on the stage yet he was stoppped by police from being allowed in the building because the DNC didn't even want him on the grounds. I've posted this before, too. Guess you didn't bother to read it either.

It is very relevant in having a functional democracy that allows for choice instead of having the 2 main parties run unopposed. They either have to take on some of the issues Nader is or risk losing votes from people like me. That is very much relevant. But saying that Nader cost Gore the election is stupid when there was a libertarian ticket, socialist party ticket and others on the ballot, as well who got more votes than the difference between Gore and Bush also. Second, it's just plain anti-democratic to say people were supposed to vote for Gore in the first place despite the fact that they chose not to based on their own beliefs.

flywallyfly

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

He is relevant in influencing the platforms of the other candidates and keeping them for going even further towards a centerist platform. If you had bothered reading the washington post piece I just posted you would know this.

He had an invitation to watch the debate, not be on the stage yet he was stoppped by police from being allowed in the building because the DNC didn't even want him on the grounds. I've posted this before, too. Guess you didn't bother to read it either.

It is very relevant in having a functional democracy that allows for choice instead of having the 2 main parties run unopposed. They either have to take on some of the issues Nader is or risk losing votes from people like me. That is very much relevant. But saying that Nader cost Gore the election is stupid when there was a libertarian ticket, socialist party ticket and others on the ballot, as well who got more votes than the difference between Gore and Bush also. Second, it's just plain anti-democratic to say people were supposed to vote for Gore in the first place despite the fact that they chose not to based on their own beliefs.

How does he influence the other candidates' platforms when they wont even talk with him? Who did/has he influence out of the candidates since he ran for office beginning in 2000?? I read the piece you posted, so what? It is an opinion piece in which, I might add, it says, "Nader is undoubtedly a less appealing candidate than he was in 2000, when by winning 97,000 votes in Florida he famously cost Gore the election." -- so I guess you think this guy is stupid (your quote) or do you just nitpick out of articles?


The DNC did not stop Nader from attending the debate, the sponsors did... guess you posted wrong info I didnt read. I guess if people doont read everything you've ever posted then they are misinformed, how elitist...jeez, someone is full of their self-importance.

Nader was not relevant to the OUTCOME of the 2000 or 2004 elections.

So if Nader wasnt running you are saying you would vote for Obama, Clinton, or McCain? Is that what you mean by risking losing your vote? If they dont take his issues as their own then they risk losing your vote....so you would vote for one of them if Nader wasnt in the mix. Interesting.

Eliot Rosewater

flywallyfly wrote:

How does he influence the other candidates' platforms when they wont even talk with him?

There are those of us that believe by keeping Gore more honest to the dem platform, Nader actually helped Gore in the election. But you have to be a little more evolved and NOT watch network news all day to really understand it...

flywallyfly

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

There are those of us that believe by keeping Gore more honest to the dem platform, Nader actually helped Gore in the election. But you have to be a little more evolved and NOT watch network news all day to really understand it...

Hehehe. You have no idea how non mainstream I am. Thanks for your attempt at being elitist but you really just come off as a jackass, fyi.

Eliot Rosewater

but I'm a well-informed and highly evolved jackass. I can live with that...

El_Kabong

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

He is relevant in influencing the platforms of the other candidates and keeping them for going even further towards a centerist platform. If you had bothered reading the washington post piece I just posted you would know this.

He had an invitation to watch the debate, not be on the stage yet he was stoppped by police from being allowed in the building because the DNC didn't even want him on the grounds. I've posted this before, too. Guess you didn't bother to read it either.

It is very relevant in having a functional democracy that allows for choice instead of having the 2 main parties run unopposed. They either have to take on some of the issues Nader is or risk losing votes from people like me. That is very much relevant. But saying that Nader cost Gore the election is stupid when there was a libertarian ticket, socialist party ticket and others on the ballot, as well who got more votes than the difference between Gore and Bush also. Second, it's just plain anti-democratic to say people were supposed to vote for Gore in the first place despite the fact that they chose not to based on their own beliefs.

the 2 main parties shouldn't run unopposed!?!?!?!?

:mad:

but they are so good at it!!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,0,1843097.story?,page=1






















oh, snap

El_Kabong

flywallyfly wrote:

Why did they sue to keep him off the ballot in 2004 ?? Maybe THEY thought he would be relevant, maybe they wanted him to follow the rules where suing wouldnt be possible?

Was he invited to be on the stage at that debate? If not then he had no business there. Perhaps they felt if he was in the audience he would be a distraction or perhaps cause a commotion such as flinging his poo at the candidates. Must have been quite an honor to be invited by FOX news.
Edit -- the Democrats didnt exclude him from the debates, the SPONSORS did...big difference.
http://www.gp.org/press/pr_04_16_02.html

So you guys say he had no affect on the Florida vote, you show numbers (up above) that support this contention.... yet you say he was/is relevant to the election. WHICH IS IT ?

disagreeing is not the same thing as elitism

what rules was nader breaking that they had to have a harvard law professor argue the case for them??

here is a clip on it that has been posted several times, not elitist to think you have seen it, just thought since you are arguing it maybe you have done a little more research?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=loKqri3QOOI

yes, the sponsors, the commision on presidential debates, who own the democrats. it's like w/ the obama donations thing...is there really much of a difference between "exxon-mobil gave X to the dems" and "the execs of exxon-mobil gave X to the dems" ?

no, if not for nader i certainly wouldn't cast my vote for either of the 3. but the fect that they don't take up any platforms that are in tune w/ my beliefs and instead push what their SPONSORS want is what we mean

annnnnnnnd....if there was more of a choice many, many more ppl would vote...but that's one of the least of either parties concern