To All Nader Supporters

freindlyfired

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.

Its a very simple answer... very few people care and get involved in local politics/elections. The masses dont bother to vote in the presidential election let alone a mid-term (with some exception to '06). The system by which an indy or 3rd party is forced to comply with is rigged from top to bottom. Its alot harder than you might think. I have(had) a similar view and tried to run locally, you should try too.

PM me and I will give you countless examples of my experience...

blackredyellow

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 am with you... I have posted similar ones to the post below numerous times on this forum and it just gets ignored...


from :http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5639815&postcount=4
That is my biggest problem with the dream of a Nader presidency (and change from the top down in general)... NOTHING at all domestically would get done in this country. Congress wouldn't pass or even introduce most of what Nader would like to get done, and it would bring our already dysfunctional government to a complete standstill.

While Nader supporters would view this as a victory, thinking it shows how currupt congress is, most of America would view it as the opposite and focus their disqust on Nader. People don't want drastic change... as much as everyone bitches and complains about government, most people have accepted the system we have, and for the most part go along with it.

I will never understand why the Nader/Progressive/Independent system doesn't put in the heavy lifting and money/time consuming work of starting change from the local level up. After 2000, there was genuine support for 3rd parties, with Nader's most successful run, Ventura as a popular governor, etc., but that momentum was left to die instead of embraced. Maybe it's because between all of the 3rd parties/agendas, no one is willing to find common ground and work together, but would rather just sit on the sidelines and complain about our current system.

My local NY State assemblyman is an independent... it's the sort of start that is needed. Once people get comfortable voting/working with independents and 3rd parties on the local level, then state level, etc., it doesn't become such a foreign idea to vote for one on the national level.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

And that's not a cop-out?

ledvedderman

cubbieblue82 wrote:

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%.

The reason Rich Whitney was able to get that much support is because of the other two candidates. The Republicans had Judy Barr Topinka, who is WAAAAAAY too moderate for downstate Republicans. The Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich is also hated downstate. In fact, he has the lowest approval rating of any governor in the US (13%). People were voting for the Green to show their distaste for the two candidates from the major parties.

decides2dream

i rather impassioned/informed voters who go out and vote and support their candidate, even if they have a snowball's chance in hell of winning...than apathetic, uninformed voters......or those who are so apathetic can't be bothered to vote at all.


i am no nader supporter, never was....and while i agree there could be far better ways for him to go about his desired changes, i fully support any/all who back him. that's democracy.


i do believe, and support 3rd parties, have voted for candidates on a more local level and i would do so on a national level as well, if i found a candidate i believed in. i don't think voting for a candidate who has no chance in winning as throwing a vote away, but more that it shows what some want, and putting their votes where their ideals are. nothing wrong with that.


in time, i hope....more and more 3rd parties will have a bigger voice, and more impact. hopefully more candidates that i personally would support will go that route and we will have more choice in our elected officials.....and more likelihood of 'fringe' candidates not being so fringe at all anymore. nader is not the right person for the job imo, but there WILL be someone....someday.....be great to see.

Abookamongstthemany

blackredyellow wrote:

I am with you... I have posted similar ones to the post below numerous times on this forum and it just gets ignored...


from :http://forums.pearljam.com/showpost.php?p=5639815&postcount=4
That is my biggest problem with the dream of a Nader presidency (and change from the top down in general)... NOTHING at all domestically would get done in this country. Congress wouldn't pass or even introduce most of what Nader would like to get done, and it would bring our already dysfunctional government to a complete standstill.

While Nader supporters would view this as a victory, thinking it shows how currupt congress is, most of America would view it as the opposite and focus their disqust on Nader. People don't want drastic change... as much as everyone bitches and complains about government, most people have accepted the system we have, and for the most part go along with it.

I will never understand why the Nader/Progressive/Independent system doesn't put in the heavy lifting and money/time consuming work of starting change from the local level up. After 2000, there was genuine support for 3rd parties, with Nader's most successful run, Ventura as a popular governor, etc., but that momentum was left to die instead of embraced. Maybe it's because between all of the 3rd parties/agendas, no one is willing to find common ground and work together, but would rather just sit on the sidelines and complain about our current system.

My local NY State assemblyman is an independent... it's the sort of start that is needed. Once people get comfortable voting/working with independents and 3rd parties on the local level, then state level, etc., it doesn't become such a foreign idea to vote for one on the national level.

You're free to vote however you choose at the local, state and national level. Why should we discourage more options and competition for the presidency? I don't get what the problem is with people using their vote to vote for the candidate they think is best on any level. I simply view that as using democracy in the true meaning of the word. If I think someone is the best option, I'm gonna say why, I'm going to say it as often I feel is needed. I'll sing it from the roof tops if need be. And I'm going to engage in discussions about it to make my point, as well. I believe that anyhing is possible if you just keep working at, persevering and remaining consistent in your message/what you wish to achieve. The national spotlight is the perfect time to run third parties because everyone is focused on the election...this is the way to gain attention and get exposure for your cause.

blackredyellow wrote:

And that's not a cop-out?

Why don't you tell me why you think it is.

blackredyellow

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

You're free to vote however you choose at the local, state and national level. Why should we discourage more options and competition for the presidency? I don't get what the problem is with people using their vote to vote for the candidate they think is best on any level. I simply view that as using democracy in the true meaning of the word. If I think someone is the best option, I'm gonna say why, I'm going to say it as often I feel is needed. I'll sing it from the roof tops if need be. And I'm going to engage in discussions about it to make my point, as well. I believe that anyhing is possible if you just keep working at, persevering and remaining consistent in your message/what you wish to achieve. The national spotlight is the perfect time to run third parties because everyone is focused on the election...this is the way to gain attention and get exposure for your cause.

I'm not really questioning why someone would vote for a candidate or judging them for it, or discouraging more options and competition... What I am questioning is why the entire movement of change from the two party system only seems to be focused on a top down approach?

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Why don't you tell me why you think it is.

Because you said that, "You have to give someone a chance before they can have one. It doesn't just magically appear." That goes back to exactly my question about the top down approach... You know the media isn't going to cover a 3rd party candidate unless there is a demand for it... You know the voting public will basically ignore a 3rd party candidate because they are set in their ways of a two party system.

That is why the only way to pull it off for real change is from the bottom up.... if people gradually accept 3rd party candidates, and 3rd party candidates get elected and perform at the local and state levels, they will start to be covered by the media as a real alternative.

Knowing that the system is screwed up, and totally against 3rd party candidates, expecting to just be "given" a chance, then complaining year after year that it doesn't happen, is an absolute cop-out. It reminds me of the quote about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

callen

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

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.

Just because one decides to vote for Obama and not Nader doesn't mean they're persuaded by the media....I can't stomach listening to CNN or other "news" channels.
Some listen to the candidate, listen to how they respond to the media, how they respond to questions, hard questions. How they respond to the rubbish that's said about them, the campaign style.

Obama's fresh, he's not your typical washington insider, his parents weren't rich, he worked for everything he has...he's half black and white with a Muslim name...give a lot of respect for that...and this will transend if he becomes elected.

I'd choose Obama over Nader if they were the only two running.

Abookamongstthemany

blackredyellow wrote:

I'm not really questioning why someone would vote for a candidate or judging them for it, or discouraging more options and competition... What I am questioning is why the entire movement of change from the two party system only seems to be focused on a top down approach?

Because people here are from all over and it's pretty much always national issues we discuss in set ups like this board. And with the national level, the messages spreads to a broader base thus getting people to look into their own local levels, too.

blackredyellow wrote:

Because you said that, "You have to give someone a chance before they can have one. It doesn't just magically appear." That goes back to exactly my question about the top down approach... You know the media isn't going to cover a 3rd party candidate unless there is a demand for it... You know the voting public will basically ignore a 3rd party candidate because they are set in their ways of a two party system.

Then you put pressure on the media and we have been. I can't make anyone do anything but I, myself, can always do what I think is right and that includes supporting and putting the time and effort into my goal however long the sentiment might take to catch on. When others see people willing to support a long shot simply because they view it as right then it catches on and spreads. I'm not going to do it half-assed and say I know Obama isn't great but he's the only choice we have...when I know that's a lie and I know we as citizens in this democracy can always get fed up and vote in whomever we choose.

blackredyellow wrote:

That is why the only way to pull it off for real change is from the bottom up.... if people gradually accept 3rd party candidates, and 3rd party candidates get elected and perform at the local and state levels, they will start to be covered by the media as a real alternative.

Knowing that the system is screwed up, and totally against 3rd party candidates, expecting to just be "given" a chance, then complaining year after year that it doesn't happen, is an absolute cop-out. It reminds me of the quote about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

The chance is given based on supporting what one views as right and can be done on all levels...not just one. It's not just given for the hell of it. And you'd have to be blind to say it's been the same results.....looking at 2004 compared with 2008....there has been a strong and constant buzz surrounding the less likely candidates based on ideals and the realization of just how much the 2 major parties are in fact the same. There was hardly any talk of Kucinich on this very board 4 years ago, no Nader supporters hardly and I can't even remember the libertarians starting any threads. Now we have lots of talk about Ron Paul and people are starting to buzz about Barr. There was nothing close to this kind of exposure back in 2004. But now there's facebook, myspace, youtube, bloggers...and they are spreading their thoughts on the candidates without having to rely on the mainstream media to do it for them. Welcome in the age of information! There is always good and bad information out there but at least we are finally getting the chance to hear it and decide for ourselves based on a much broader view of the situation.

'Change don't come at once. It's building like a wave.'

Abookamongstthemany

callen wrote:

Just because one decides to vote for Obama and not Nader doesn't mean they're persuaded by the media....I can't stomach listening to CNN or other "news" channels.
Some listen to the candidate, listen to how they respond to the media, how they respond to questions, hard questions. How they respond to the rubbish that's said about them, the campaign style.

Obama's fresh, he's not your typical washington insider, his parents weren't rich, he worked for everything he has...he's half black and white with a Muslim name...give a lot of respect for that...and this will transend if he becomes elected.

I'd choose Obama over Nader if they were the only two running.

What about Obama makes him seem better to you? Just his style and his race? Nader's parents were poor and from Lebanon. He's also quite articulate and a pro at responding to media questions.

I guess he's young so he's got that going for him but I couldn't see myself ignoring all Obama has supported or not supported just because he's young and fresh.

FiveB247x

We do not have a general election in the US. Therefore every vote doesn't count. You may claim a 3rd party voter who votes for Nader is somehow spoiling the election, but this is not true. Would you claim a Republican voting in a projected to win Blue state a wasted vote or "spoiler"? Our election is not a popularity contest - ie, let's try and pick the winner. It is about voting for the person who most closely resembles your believes and views. To some, "electability" comes into play, for others it does not. In my opinion, basing your opinions and vote upon the "electability" of a candidate means nothing more than going along with the popular candidate cause it is what others want or veer towards or even the best (i use that term lightly) candidate parties have to offer. No one has a right to tell others who to vote for, not to mention blame others for their candidate or party not winning. Accountability should be that factor - ie, if a candidate doesn't do enough to win votes and voters, it's their own fault - not the people who didn't vote for them.

Abookamongstthemany

FiveB247x wrote:

We do not have a general election in the US. Therefore every vote doesn't count. You may claim a 3rd party voter who votes for Nader is somehow spoiling the election, but this is not true. Would you claim a Republican voting in a projected to win Blue state a wasted vote or "spoiler"? Our election is not a popularity contest - ie, let's try and pick the winner. It is about voting for the person who most closely resembles your believes and views. To some, "electability" comes into play, for others it does not. In my opinion, basing your opinions and vote upon the "electability" of a candidate means nothing more than going along with the popular candidate cause it is what others want or veer towards or even the best (i use that term lightly) candidate parties have to offer. No one has a right to tell others who to vote for, not to mention blame others for their candidate or party not winning. Accountability should be that factor - ie, if a candidate doesn't do enough to win votes and voters, it's their own fault - not the people who didn't vote for them.

Where have you been?

FiveB247x

Watching the world burn and ignorance rule.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Where have you been?

Abookamongstthemany

FiveB247x wrote:

Watching the world burn and ignorance rule.

Yeah, I hear ya on the frustration. Far too many have been swept into the lull.

FiveB247x

Well to each their own - if you want to dig a hole, expect to lay in it!

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Yeah, I hear ya on the frustration. Far too many have been swept into the lull.

cubbieblue82

I can understand what many of you are arguing in support of Nader. It is a good point that discouraging running based on chances of success is a dangerous game to play.

I'm still not convinced that this top to bottom campaigning is the best way to go though.

I was also unaware that Nader is an independent candidate in this election so thanks for pointing that one out.


I will be proudly casting a vote for Obama this November, as I feel he is our best chance at the moment of getting this country back on track.

Abookamongstthemany

cubbieblue82 wrote:

I can understand what many of you are arguing in support of Nader. It is a good point that discouraging running based on chances of success is a dangerous game to play.

I'm still not convinced that this top to bottom campaigning is the best way to go though.

I was also unaware that Nader is an independent candidate in this election so thanks for pointing that one out.


I will be proudly casting a vote for Obama this November, as I feel he is our best chance at the moment of getting this country back on track.

It's certainly your right to think so and vote however you please. What most of us Nader supporters aren't seeing though is how Obama's policies will be getting this country back on the right track when so much of them mirrors what's wrong with this country instead.

The Champ

http://www.hereinstead.com/THE-REAL-RALPH_files/image002.jpg

Abookamongstthemany

The Champ wrote:

http://www.hereinstead.com/THE-REAL-RALPH_files/image002.jpg

I like cartoons, too!

You should check out the Mr. Fish thread:

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=284901

Rhinocerous Surprise

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I like cartoons, too!

You should check out the Mr. Fish thread:

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=284901

Careful... posting cartoons can get you in trouble with some people on here... It's just backslapping and echo chambers. :rolleyes:

Abookamongstthemany

Rhinocerous Surprise wrote:

Careful... posting cartoons can get you in trouble with some people on here... It's just backslapping and echo chambers. :rolleyes:

Good, let's sit back and enjoy today's meltdown then.