To All Nader Supporters

cubbieblue82

Why do you insist on trying to get a 3rd party started at the highest level of office? Nader has absolutely NO chance of ever being elected president. I don't believe any 3rd party candidate does in this day and age.

It makes so much more sense to start at local and state levels and work up from there. For one, it is easier to get a smaller number of people to get behind an alternative candidate than convincing a nation 300 million strong. Last gubenatorial election in IL, the Green party candidate made a double-digit showing against the Repubs and Dems. Nader would be lucky to get 2%.

Why not build up from the bottom until there is enough grassroots support for the party to challenge the 2 party system on the main stage?

Not trying to offend any of you out there, but idealism with no basis in reality wont get us any farther than if you don't vote at all.

SundaySilence

You don't sound like a cubs fan.

rebornFixer

SundaySilence wrote:

You don't sound like a cubs fan.

LOL. Good one.

cubbieblue82

SundaySilence wrote:

You don't sound like a cubs fan.

I guess I exhaust all of my hopeless optimism rooting for the Cubs each year.

he still stands

cubbieblue82 wrote:

Why do you insist on trying to get a 3rd party started at the highest level of office? Nader has absolutely NO chance of ever being elected president. I don't believe any 3rd party candidate does in this day and age.

It makes so much more sense to start at local and state levels and work up from there. For one, it is easier to get a smaller number of people to get behind an alternative candidate than convincing a nation 300 million strong. Last gubenatorial election in IL, the Green party candidate made a double-digit showing against the Repubs and Dems. Nader would be lucky to get 2%.

Why not build up from the bottom until there is enough grassroots support for the party to challenge the 2 party system on the main stage?

Not trying to offend any of you out there, but idealism with no basis in reality wont get us any farther than if you don't vote at all.

I support Nader because I agree with his policy principles more than the other candidates, and at the local level I typically support the green or libertarian parties too. I don't think there are many Nader supporters who don't support a 3rd party at the local level too.

It is this sort of pessismism that will be a self-fulfilling prophecy that will inevitably produce more of the same centrist politics and politicians.

Urban Hiker

he still stands wrote:

I support Nader because I agree with his policy principles more than the other candidates, and at the local level I typically support the green or libertarian parties too. I don't think there are many Nader supporters who don't support a 3rd party at the local level too.

It is this sort of pessismism that will be a self-fulfilling prophecy that will inevitably produce more of the same centrist politics and politicians.

Thanks for your post. I've seen this question so many times, it really gets tiring.

Abuskedti

Nader is a third party candidate.. he is just more of the same. He is perhaps the lesser of three evils.

Nader is a critic.. Critics ae very valuable, and he has been a great one, his research and discoveries have served us well

he is not a leader..

The president of the united states must lead - bring direction to a mob. Ralph Nader can not do that...

unsung

And Obama can? Wow. hahaha.

Abookamongstthemany

cubbieblue82 wrote:

Why do you insist on trying to get a 3rd party started at the highest level of office? Nader has absolutely NO chance of ever being elected president. I don't believe any 3rd party candidate does in this day and age.

It makes so much more sense to start at local and state levels and work up from there. For one, it is easier to get a smaller number of people to get behind an alternative candidate than convincing a nation 300 million strong. Last gubenatorial election in IL, the Green party candidate made a double-digit showing against the Repubs and Dems. Nader would be lucky to get 2%.

Why not build up from the bottom until there is enough grassroots support for the party to challenge the 2 party system on the main stage?

Not trying to offend any of you out there, but idealism with no basis in reality wont get us any farther than if you don't vote at all.

What would be the problem with voting for third parties on local/state levels AND presidential?

Are there rules that say this has to be an either/or situation?

This is a cop out...pure and simple. We can most certainly do both.

flywallyfly

Abuskedti wrote:

Nader is a third party candidate.. he is just more of the same. He is perhaps the lesser of three evils.

Nader is a critic.. Critics ae very valuable, and he has been a great one, his research and discoveries have served us well

he is not a leader..

The president of the united states must lead - bring direction to a mob. Ralph Nader can not do that...

Nicely put.

fuck

On what basis do you people say that Nader cannot be a leader?

Abookamongstthemany

Abuskedti wrote:

Nader is a third party candidate.. he is just more of the same. He is perhaps the lesser of three evils.

How so?

Abuskedti wrote:

Nader is a critic.. Critics ae very valuable, and he has been a great one, his research and discoveries have served us well

He's much more than just a critic. He's proven himself as a man who turns words and ideas into direct actions. Can you say the same for the other candidates?

Abuskedti wrote:

he is not a leader..

The president of the united states must lead - bring direction to a mob. Ralph Nader can not do that...

How is he anything BUT a leader?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_nader#Activism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_nader#Non-profit_organizations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_nader#Taking_on_the_automobile_industry


Again, how have the other candidates shown any leadership skills even remotely close to rivaling the decades of dedication and leadership Nader has shown?

cubbieblue82

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

What would be the problem with voting for third parties on local/state levels AND presidential?

Are there rules that say this has to be an either/or situation?

This is a cop out...pure and simple. We can most certainly do both.

Of course you can do both. However, does voting for a candidate with 0% chance of winning a single state accomplish anything towards validating a 3rd party? Is anyone paying attention to how many people vote for Nader?

It isn't a cop out to criticize the methods of the Green Party. When they should be emphasizing grassroots local politics, instead they focus on a futile national campaign. Why not devote more energy to local politics first?

Using IL as an example, Whitney was the first viable Green Party candidate during my political awareness, and he reverberated with a lot of people. I believe that more people are willing to break with the mold of Dem and Rep on less significant levels than the Presidency. If these parties could accumulate a significant number of representative in state and local govs then they would hold a LOT more weight when taking on Congressional or even Presidential elections.

Just my 2 cents. Not saying he shouldn't run, I just think that the approach is flawed.

cubbieblue82

he still stands wrote:

I support Nader because I agree with his policy principles more than the other candidates, and at the local level I typically support the green or libertarian parties too. I don't think there are many Nader supporters who don't support a 3rd party at the local level too.

It is this sort of pessismism that will be a self-fulfilling prophecy that will inevitably produce more of the same centrist politics and politicians.

How is being realistic pessimistic? I don't think any sane person would challenge the fact that Nader has absolutely no shot.

I am disagreeing with the strategy of these so called 3rd parties, not whether they should have a voice. I completely agree that more political parties could only be a good thing for America.

However, I feel that these parties are unable to set realistic goals that could help them to establish themselves on a national level.

Abookamongstthemany

cubbieblue82 wrote:

Of course you can do both. However, does voting for a candidate with 0% chance of winning a single state accomplish anything towards validating a 3rd party? Is anyone paying attention to how many people vote for Nader?

It isn't a cop out to criticize the methods of the Green Party. When they should be emphasizing grassroots local politics, instead they focus on a futile national campaign. Why not devote more energy to local politics first?

Using IL as an example, Whitney was the first viable Green Party candidate during my political awareness, and he reverberated with a lot of people. I believe that more people are willing to break with the mold of Dem and Rep on less significant levels than the Presidency. If these parties could accumulate a significant number of representative in state and local govs then they would hold a LOT more weight when taking on Congressional or even Presidential elections.

Just my 2 cents. Not saying he shouldn't run, I just think that the approach is flawed.

Nader is running as an independent so it has jack to do with any party only focusing on the presidency.

And as I've stated sooo many times already...these people will have a chance as soon as we get fed up and decide to give them one...it's that simple. We don't have to choose to vote against our own interests...we CHOOSE to because we are told it's the only possible options and we seem to be looking for cues as to what everyone else is doing before we make our own decisions....I don't live my life like that. I make my own mine up based on what I view as right...not what the media tells me is viable.

Anon

unsung wrote:

And Obama can? Wow. hahaha.

with Obama, there's the possibility of some fresh start.

ask ralph nader. they are his words.

possibility of some fresh start. better than what we've got now.

Abuskedti

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

How so?



He's much more than just a critic. He's proven himself as a man who turns words and ideas into direct actions. Can you say the same for the other candidates?




How is he anything BUT a leader?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_nader#Activism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_nader#Non-profit_organizations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_nader#Taking_on_the_automobile_industry


Again, how have the other candidates shown any leadership skills even remotely close to rivaling the decades of dedication and leadership Nader has shown?

Its easy to lead activists. It the rest of the world that needs leadership. I never said anything about the other candidates, other than the fact that Nader may perhaps be the least of the three evils.

We need to somehow harvest cooperation between each other and other nations. That is the major task... Nader is a fighter for truth, and that is the other major task. We need someone that sees and speaks the truth and inspires community.

Nader can be annoying and can often get lost in the details chasing unreachable goals. We need to take baby steps in a positive direction, and bring more and more people on board at each milestone. Right now there is no direction and everyone proudly pulling in different directions. Its no wonder we are falling apart.

Urban Hiker

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/07/09/DI2008070901801.html

Olney, Md.: Mr. Nader, I voted for you in the past two elections and I applaud your efforts to challenge the status quo. However, I wonder if some of the issues you care about might be addressed more effectively through local politics, which then could lead to larger, national movements. Have you considered running for elected office as either a senator or governor? Would you consider doing so if your bid for the presidency is unsuccessful this year?


Ralph Nader: My purpose is to have a national impact to arouse people all over the country to challenge the two-party dictatorship and to encourage people to run as independents and third-party lines at the local state and national level. In this manner, you stimulate the local through the national and the national through the local. This could not be done running in a state for senator or governor.

El_Kabong

cubbieblue82 wrote:

Why do you insist on trying to get a 3rd party started at the highest level of office? Nader has absolutely NO chance of ever being elected president. I don't believe any 3rd party candidate does in this day and age.

It makes so much more sense to start at local and state levels and work up from there. For one, it is easier to get a smaller number of people to get behind an alternative candidate than convincing a nation 300 million strong. Last gubenatorial election in IL, the Green party candidate made a double-digit showing against the Repubs and Dems. Nader would be lucky to get 2%.

Why not build up from the bottom until there is enough grassroots support for the party to challenge the 2 party system on the main stage?

Not trying to offend any of you out there, but idealism with no basis in reality wont get us any farther than if you don't vote at all.

3rd party candidates have won at the local level...and??? i'm pretty sure the founding fathers would be upset at the notion that there are only 2 parties you should vote for as president and they'd probably dislike how near impossible it is for other options to even be allowed on the ballot

and i guess you think rosa parks should've been realistic and just moved? maybe the ppl thought women should have the right to vote or equal rights should've been realistic and just accepted that's how it is? what about civil rights? these things only changes b/c ppl kept pushing and fighting for it instead of just giving in and accepting it like you seem to be saying

Abuskedti

El_Kabong wrote:

3rd party candidates have won at the local level...and??? i'm pretty sure the founding fathers would be upset at the notion that there are only 2 parties you should vote for as president and they'd probably dislike how near impossible it is for other options to even be allowed on the ballot

and i guess you think rosa parks should've been realistic and just moved? maybe the ppl thought women should have the right to vote or equal rights should've been realistic and just accepted that's how it is? what about civil rights? these things only changes b/c ppl kept pushing and fighting for it instead of just giving in and accepting it like you seem to be saying

I think the "third Party" candidate is just the suger to help the election go down. No chance to win. We need lots of reform..

Abookamongstthemany

Abuskedti wrote:

I think the "third Party" candidate is just the suger to help the election go down. No chance to win. We need lots of reform..

We need people willing to support what they think is right instead of looking to the media polls for their decision making.

You have to give someone a chance before they can have one. It doesn't just magically appear.