You're blasting the wrong guy here as I agree with everything you say. I was just saying there are some votes that go to third parties would have otherwise gone to either the republican or democratic candidate if the 3rd parties weren't on the ballot. Some would just have stayed home, some would have wrote someone in, and some would have picked the lesser of 2 evils and voted however. With Nader the dems likely lose more votes as it's hard to see someone who voted for Nader for his views choosing the republican as the lesser of two evils.
Again, that's wrong. You contradict yourself. You say the dems lose votes with Nader, but you point out that 3rd party voters only vote for dems as an alternative. Meaning the democratic candidate never actually HAS the vote, until the 3rd party candidate drops out. Meaning 3rd party candidates don't STEAL votes, they have them already.
Anyways, none of this matters. Change doesn't occur in a voting booth. Pull a lever or don't, everyone pulling one is pulling their own crank in the end.
Exactly, like I said before, voting is completely overrated. Voting is the least thing people should do in this country because 'change' doesn't come from voting.
Again, that's wrong. You contradict yourself. You say the dems lose votes with Nader, but you point out that 3rd party voters only vote for dems as an alternative. Meaning the democratic candidate never actually HAS the vote, until the 3rd party candidate drops out. Meaning 3rd party candidates don't STEAL votes, they have them already.
That's just a stupid semantics argument. This is all just based on where the vote would go if the 3rd party wasn't on the ballot. If you don't want to call it stealing, then call it something else. I'm not saying the dems/reps deserve these votes, are being robbed of them etc. Just saying it's silly and asinine not to accept the fact that having more people on the ballots splits the votes as many people would have voted even if they didn't totally support anyone on the ballot and just chosen whoever was closet to their views.
The fact is with liberal 3rd parties more of the votes they got would have went to the democrat than the republican, and vice versa with a conservative third party candidate.
Again, I think 3rd party candidates are a very good thing. But there's no denying that at least some of the votes would have went to one party or the other and it usually would have went more to one of the parties than the other based on where the third party candidate stood on the left/right continuum.
Some would stay home, some would write someone in, and some would choose the lesser of two evils, and which way the would have gone will be correlated with the views of their 3rd party candidate of choice who wasn't on the ballot. That's just the way it works.
But 3rd party candidates are a good thing as we need alternative ideas on the table and on the ballot.
2000: Pittsburgh
2006: Camden I & II, DC
2008: DC, Ed DC II
If a person wants a banana, and all of a sudden there's no banana for the taking, it doesn't mean an apple or orange will do instead. That's faulty logic and a mere after thought on how to try and come to gripes with the fact that your side didn't win and rather than face reality, you scapegoat and point fingers at bystanders.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
If a person wants a banana, and all of a sudden there's no banana for the taking, it doesn't mean an apple or orange will do instead. That's faulty logic and a mere after thought on how to try and come to gripes with the fact that your side didn't win and rather than face reality, you scapegoat and point fingers at bystanders.
But some people will eat a different fruit, just like some people will still vote and pick the lesser of two evils. And like I said, some will just not vote, and some will write someone in.
And like I said, I think third party candidates are a good thing, and I don't scapegoat them for Gore or Kerry losing. They both ran crappy campaigns and only have themselves to blame.
People that support third party candidates are over-reacting here. In response to my posts I mean, not to the original post which I totally disagree with given my supportive views of third party candidates being good for society.
2000: Pittsburgh
2006: Camden I & II, DC
2008: DC, Ed DC II
I embrace third parties... I wish we had better choices than just 2 every four years.
But my generation knows what harm people like Nader can cause even with his good intentions.
Most American voters lived in the 50's 60's and 70's.
Here's what they recall about Ralph Nader:
Back in the late 50's and early 60's American automobile manufacturers started producing smaller, lighter, cheaper, faster, and more fuel efficient cars.
However, some people saw small light cars as highly unsafe, especially with the new interstate highway system being built nationwide.
Ralph Nader was at the front of an oncoming consumer safety movement that needed to hold the automobile manufacturers responsible for the safety of their customers. Ralph wrote the book "Unsafe at any speed", whichwas a bestseller. The book primarily attacked GM's new small car the Corvair. GM should have handled the situation better and addressed the problem rather than personally attack Mr Nader who had a strong public backing.
The movement eventually led to the Highway Safety Act and other regulations that forced the automobile manufacturers to produce those larger gas guzzlers of the 70's instead of continuing to develop smaller more fuel efficient cars.
By the late 70's and our first oil crisis Americans soon started pointing their finger at Ralph Nader when gas prices topped $1 per gallon.
Then smaller more gas efficient foreign cars invaded our market and many in the automobile industry still point the finger at Nader for not being able to compete in the marketplace to this very day.
So...Nader's high ideals (by many) are believed to have been the start of a lot of problems we are still experiencing to this very day.
So please tell me... What is it about Nader that we should trust?
This isn't an attack on third parties so some of you can just get that notion out of your head.
This is an attack on those that blindly follow the man that wears the blinders.
Ralph Nader!!!
He doesn't see the entire picture, and neither do you if you want to squabble over petty indifferences.
Let history teach you about Mr Nader. You don't have to believe me.
When Ralph Nader says he believes that Barack Obama will get us out of Iraq, not spend billions on future wars, work toward a better healthcare system, develop alternative energy, and adopt a better system to TAX windfall corporations... What else does he need Obama to say?
If Nader believes his platform is that close to Obama's why doesn't he back off?
And you're still full of shit if you don't think a lot of those Nader votes wouldn't go to the Dems....
This theory that Nader takes votes away from Democrats is simply stupid. The crux of Nader supporters are usually located in states that tend to go Democrat anyway. So it really doesn't matter if he takes a few hundred here and a few hundred there, the state is going to go blue regardless. The Democrats and their supports need to stop blaming everyone else for their defeats.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
reminds me of Bill O'reilly telling people to just shut up...
yes...Ralph...just go away and die somewhere.... I want my liberty....
:rolleyes:
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
This theory that Nader takes votes away from Democrats is simply stupid. The crux of Nader supporters are usually located in states that tend to go Democrat anyway. So it really doesn't matter if he takes a few hundred here and a few hundred there, the state is going to go blue regardless. The Democrats and their supports need to stop blaming everyone else for their defeats.
Agreed, as I said though he undoubtably will get/got in the past more votes that would have went to democrats than republicans, he has had no impact on the outcome.
Gore and Kerry have no one to blame but themselves for running shitty campaigns.
But people who support him have to realize theirs a difference between saying he fucks up the elections (like the original post) versus simply accepting the fact that some of the votes he gets of course would have went to mainstream candidates--while some would have not voted or wrote someone else in.
Accepting that is not scapegoating him for democratic failure, and I agree doing so is absurd. The democrats just did a piss poor job in 2000 and 2004. But it's just common sense that having more people on the ballots will shift some votes that would have otherwise gone to other candidates. Not all shift, as some simply wouldn't have voted or would have wrote someone in but some do.
Obama is doing much better and should have even less to worry about than Gore and Kerry as it seems a lot of past Nader supporters are going for Obama this time--Eddie Vedder being the prominent example as well as some of my friends/acquaintances who were raving about Nader in 2004.
Anyway, I've beat this into the ground and I don't know how to make it anymore clear that saying some votes that would have went to a 3rd party candidate would have went to the major party candidate closest in views to them DOES NOT equal saying third parties are bad, steal votes irrelevantly and fuck up elections. Opposing views are vital to society.
2000: Pittsburgh
2006: Camden I & II, DC
2008: DC, Ed DC II
This theory that Nader takes votes away from Democrats is simply stupid. The crux of Nader supporters are usually located in states that tend to go Democrat anyway. So it really doesn't matter if he takes a few hundred here and a few hundred there, the state is going to go blue regardless. The Democrats and their supports need to stop blaming everyone else for their defeats.
Need I remind everyone about Florida in the 2000 election.
Bush only beat Gore by a little over 500 votes
Yet 97,000 votes went to Nader.....
So you people are telling me that 600 of those that went for Nader out of 97000 wouldn't have placed Gore in the White House.
Sure
Now tell me again that Nader doesn't take votes from the Dems...
Kerry and Gore did themselves in by running poor campaigns. Nader stole some votes, but not enough to turn the tide.
Are you F'ing kidding me???
Did you pay attention to Florida in 2000? That state was decided by FAR less than the number of votes that Nader took from Gore. Now tell me, how much has the cause of the Green party been furthered by his running in '00 and '04? I know you say you didn't support him, but damn.
Nader supporters want to wash their hands clean of any responsibility for a pointless vote, fine, but the rest of us know what effect he has had on our country and the world over the past 8 years, and let me tell you it hasn't been positive. We are no closer to breaking the 2 party monopoly then we were when Nader was born!
I only hope that the Libertarians draw enough from McCain to offset Nader's draw from Obama (which should be pathetically little).
Keep up your idealism everyone, Me, I will be supporting our best chance for the next 4 years and beyond, OBAMA!
If Gore hadn't been such a doorknob it wouldn't have been such a close race. He was, for all intents and purposes, the incumbent. It was his race to lose. He did a fine job at that. Mission accomplished.
I'm glad he has finally found his passion. Had he demonstrated that same passion for the presidency, he might have achieved something.
Don't blame 2000's loss on either Nader or Bush. That loss is all on Gore.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Did you pay attention to Florida in 2000? That state was decided by FAR less than the number of votes that Nader took from Gore. Now tell me, how much has the cause of the Green party been furthered by his running in '00 and '04? I know you say you didn't support him, but damn.
Nader supporters want to wash their hands clean of any responsibility for a pointless vote, fine, but the rest of us know what effect he has had on our country and the world over the past 8 years, and let me tell you it hasn't been positive. We are no closer to breaking the 2 party monopoly then we were when Nader was born!
I only hope that the Libertarians draw enough from McCain to offset Nader's draw from Obama (which should be pathetically little).
Keep up your idealism everyone, Me, I will be supporting our best chance for the next 4 years and beyond, OBAMA!
I'm huge Obama supporter and I voted for Gore and Kerry. Yes it was close in Florida and Ohio in 2000 and 2004 respectively and Nader votes like made a difference.
But Gore and Kerry should have never been in such close races with an opponent like Bush in the first place. Gore couldn't even win his home state for fuck's sake!
They both gave shitty speaches and made big campaign mistakes. Gore in not allowing Clinton to campaign on him and not focusing enough on how the economy was so strong after 8 years of the Clinton/Gore administration. And Kerry in not attacking Bush strongly enough and not being quick and firm in responding to the Swiftboat attacks.
Nader may have had an effect, but I'm not going to bash him or people who voted for him. Again, third parties are healthy for our society as we need opposing viewpoints out there. And if a person agrees with Nader or another third party candidate more than they did the democrats or republicans then they should damn well vote for them rather than choosing what the consider to be the lesser of two evils just because the 3rd party candidate has no chance.
I strongly support their right to do so and that it was the right thing to do to cast their vote for the candidate who most closely matched their own beliefs. Even if it did potentially lead to 8 years of Bush, one should always vote with their heart for the candidate the believe in and not compromise their values and vote for the lesser of two evils if that's how they feel about the main party alternatives.
The only thing that bothers me is I imagine a lot of people here, especially people who were young at the times, voted for Nader without really understanding what he stood for and evaluating how that matched their beliefs vs. Gore/Kerry simply because their idol Eddie Vedder was attacking him.
At least Vedder is backing Obama this time so he'll get the mindless sheep vote among the young PJ fans!
2000: Pittsburgh
2006: Camden I & II, DC
2008: DC, Ed DC II
If Gore hadn't been such a doorknob it wouldn't have been such a close race. He was, for all intents and purposes, the incumbent. It was his race to lose. He did a fine job at that. Mission accomplished.
I'm glad he has finally found his passion. Had he demonstrated that same passion for the presidency, he might have achieved something.
Don't blame 2000's loss on either Nader or Bush. That loss is all on Gore.
I'm huge Obama supporter and I voted for Gore and Kerry. Yes it was close in Florida and Ohio in 2000 and 2004 respectively and Nader votes like made a difference.
But Gore and Kerry should have never been in such close races with an opponent like Bush in the first place. Gore couldn't even win his home state for fuck's sake!
They both gave shitty speaches and made big campaign mistakes. Gore in not allowing Clinton to campaign on him and not focusing enough on how the economy was so strong after 8 years of the Clinton/Gore administration. And Kerry in not attacking Bush strongly enough and not being quick and firm in responding to the Swiftboat attacks.
Nader may have had an effect, but I'm not going to bash him or people who voted for him. Again, third parties are healthy for our society as we need opposing viewpoints out there. And if a person agrees with Nader or another third party candidate more than they did the democrats or republicans then they should damn well vote for them rather than choosing what the consider to be the lesser of two evils just because the 3rd party candidate has no chance.
I strongly support their right to do so and that it was the right thing to do to cast their vote for the candidate who most closely matched their own beliefs. Even if it did potentially lead to 8 years of Bush, one should always vote with their heart for the candidate the believe in and not compromise their values and vote for the lesser of two evils if that's how they feel about the main party alternatives.
I would absolutely love for us to have more than 2 VIABLE choices for president but we DO NOT! Nader running for Pres when he as 0 chance of winning will NEVER bring us closer to having more parties...
Kerry was weak, I'll admit to that. We all seem to forget that when Gore was running for Pres, Clinton was just finishing a 2 year impeachment process. Who the hell wants to embrace a candidate going through all that baggage, regardless of whether it was founded or not.
Third party candidates are wonderfull. Why do you think every "democracy" we set up abroad features a parlimentary government? Nader, who has accomplished a great deal in life, has accomplished nothing in his presidential candidacies.
The damage done by Bush is irreconcilable with ANY justification. I will never allow the principle of a third party allow me to be swayed in my opinion that a democrat like Obama will any day and any year be light years ahead of a run of the mill Republican like McCain.
The damage done by Bush is irreconcilable with ANY justification. I will never allow the principle of a third party allow me to be swayed in my opinion that a democrat like Obama will any day and any year be light years ahead of a run of the mill Republican like McCain.
I likely wouldn't either, but I'm through and through a democrat and it's likely the democratic candidate will always match my beliefs the most closely. But if they day comes that they don't and a third party one is a better fit then they'll get my vote regardless of whether they have a chance to win. So I respect people that feel that way about Nader.
But I'm thoroughly behind Obama. Just made another donation.
2000: Pittsburgh
2006: Camden I & II, DC
2008: DC, Ed DC II
I likely wouldn't either, but I'm through and through a democrat and it's likely the democratic candidate will always match my beliefs the most closely. But if they day comes that they don't and a third party one is a better fit then they'll get my vote regardless of whether they have a chance to win. So I respect people that feel that way about Nader.
But I'm thoroughly behind Obama. Just made another donation.
I hear you completely! I really wish we have more choices. I fully believe in a multi-party system, but lets start at the grassroots level. Lets get some representatives elected into state or federal government before we try to overthrow the 2 party system at the level of pres.
I know you know this based on your posts, but Obama is our best chance, lets take advantage!
what is it.. are you really that uneducated or are you smart and refuse to know facts and history.
Again read the entire thread. I give you history and facts. What else do you want? You're the one that's stupid if you choose to ignore history and facts not me.
Where's your argument for Nader? Bring it!!!
Don't just sit there calling people stupid...
Bring it on... Let's see your facts...
You want to talk about Isreal and Obama bring it..
Be prepared to discuss Nader's Arab heritage though because that is tit-for-tat.
No he doesn't. Those people didn't vote for Gore or Kerry because they didn't like them. Nader doesn't steal votes from anyone. You damn Democrats have to stop fucking blaming everyone for your shitty ass party and start blaming the people responsible, yourselves. Nader received those votes because he FUCKING earned them. If the Deomcrats want to stop loosing elections they need to reach out to those Nader supports, which they haven't done.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
No he doesn't. Those people didn't vote for Gore or Kerry because they didn't like them. Nader doesn't steal votes from anyone. You damn Democrats have to stop fucking blaming everyone for your shitty ass party and start blaming the people responsible, yourselves. Nader received those votes because he FUCKING earned them. If the Deomcrats want to stop loosing elections they need to reach out to those Nader supports, which they haven't done.
You just keep believing that 600 out of 97000 wouldn't have voted for Gore.
Many wish they did..... Ask Michael Moore on his website
Many that voted Green in 2000 wish they had done very different...
Sure, in hindsight. But the fact remains that Gore was a horrible candidate, and the Democrats followed one horrible candidate in 2000 with another one in 2004 as if they were incapable of learning simple lessons. Gore's loss in 2000 had nothing to do with Nader and everything to do with Gore and the Democratic party at the time. It appears in 2008 that they may have learned a thing or two this past decade. Time will tell.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Comments
That's just a stupid semantics argument. This is all just based on where the vote would go if the 3rd party wasn't on the ballot. If you don't want to call it stealing, then call it something else. I'm not saying the dems/reps deserve these votes, are being robbed of them etc. Just saying it's silly and asinine not to accept the fact that having more people on the ballots splits the votes as many people would have voted even if they didn't totally support anyone on the ballot and just chosen whoever was closet to their views.
The fact is with liberal 3rd parties more of the votes they got would have went to the democrat than the republican, and vice versa with a conservative third party candidate.
Again, I think 3rd party candidates are a very good thing. But there's no denying that at least some of the votes would have went to one party or the other and it usually would have went more to one of the parties than the other based on where the third party candidate stood on the left/right continuum.
Some would stay home, some would write someone in, and some would choose the lesser of two evils, and which way the would have gone will be correlated with the views of their 3rd party candidate of choice who wasn't on the ballot. That's just the way it works.
But 3rd party candidates are a good thing as we need alternative ideas on the table and on the ballot.
2006: Camden I & II, DC
2008: DC, Ed DC II
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
But some people will eat a different fruit, just like some people will still vote and pick the lesser of two evils. And like I said, some will just not vote, and some will write someone in.
And like I said, I think third party candidates are a good thing, and I don't scapegoat them for Gore or Kerry losing. They both ran crappy campaigns and only have themselves to blame.
People that support third party candidates are over-reacting here. In response to my posts I mean, not to the original post which I totally disagree with given my supportive views of third party candidates being good for society.
2006: Camden I & II, DC
2008: DC, Ed DC II
But my generation knows what harm people like Nader can cause even with his good intentions.
Most American voters lived in the 50's 60's and 70's.
Here's what they recall about Ralph Nader:
Back in the late 50's and early 60's American automobile manufacturers started producing smaller, lighter, cheaper, faster, and more fuel efficient cars.
However, some people saw small light cars as highly unsafe, especially with the new interstate highway system being built nationwide.
Ralph Nader was at the front of an oncoming consumer safety movement that needed to hold the automobile manufacturers responsible for the safety of their customers. Ralph wrote the book "Unsafe at any speed", whichwas a bestseller. The book primarily attacked GM's new small car the Corvair. GM should have handled the situation better and addressed the problem rather than personally attack Mr Nader who had a strong public backing.
The movement eventually led to the Highway Safety Act and other regulations that forced the automobile manufacturers to produce those larger gas guzzlers of the 70's instead of continuing to develop smaller more fuel efficient cars.
By the late 70's and our first oil crisis Americans soon started pointing their finger at Ralph Nader when gas prices topped $1 per gallon.
Then smaller more gas efficient foreign cars invaded our market and many in the automobile industry still point the finger at Nader for not being able to compete in the marketplace to this very day.
So...Nader's high ideals (by many) are believed to have been the start of a lot of problems we are still experiencing to this very day.
So please tell me... What is it about Nader that we should trust?
I don't see it at all.
This is an attack on those that blindly follow the man that wears the blinders.
Ralph Nader!!!
He doesn't see the entire picture, and neither do you if you want to squabble over petty indifferences.
Let history teach you about Mr Nader. You don't have to believe me.
When Ralph Nader says he believes that Barack Obama will get us out of Iraq, not spend billions on future wars, work toward a better healthcare system, develop alternative energy, and adopt a better system to TAX windfall corporations... What else does he need Obama to say?
If Nader believes his platform is that close to Obama's why doesn't he back off?
And you're still full of shit if you don't think a lot of those Nader votes wouldn't go to the Dems....
yes...Ralph...just go away and die somewhere.... I want my liberty....
:rolleyes:
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Agreed, as I said though he undoubtably will get/got in the past more votes that would have went to democrats than republicans, he has had no impact on the outcome.
Gore and Kerry have no one to blame but themselves for running shitty campaigns.
But people who support him have to realize theirs a difference between saying he fucks up the elections (like the original post) versus simply accepting the fact that some of the votes he gets of course would have went to mainstream candidates--while some would have not voted or wrote someone else in.
Accepting that is not scapegoating him for democratic failure, and I agree doing so is absurd. The democrats just did a piss poor job in 2000 and 2004. But it's just common sense that having more people on the ballots will shift some votes that would have otherwise gone to other candidates. Not all shift, as some simply wouldn't have voted or would have wrote someone in but some do.
Obama is doing much better and should have even less to worry about than Gore and Kerry as it seems a lot of past Nader supporters are going for Obama this time--Eddie Vedder being the prominent example as well as some of my friends/acquaintances who were raving about Nader in 2004.
Anyway, I've beat this into the ground and I don't know how to make it anymore clear that saying some votes that would have went to a 3rd party candidate would have went to the major party candidate closest in views to them DOES NOT equal saying third parties are bad, steal votes irrelevantly and fuck up elections. Opposing views are vital to society.
2006: Camden I & II, DC
2008: DC, Ed DC II
Need I remind everyone about Florida in the 2000 election.
Bush only beat Gore by a little over 500 votes
Yet 97,000 votes went to Nader.....
So you people are telling me that 600 of those that went for Nader out of 97000 wouldn't have placed Gore in the White House.
Sure
Now tell me again that Nader doesn't take votes from the Dems...
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
A few hundred Nader votes go to Kerry in Ohio then Kerry is in the White House right now...
But No we're supposed to believe that Nader didn't have any effect on the 2000 and 2004 elections.
Please don't vote for Nader.
Are you F'ing kidding me???
Did you pay attention to Florida in 2000? That state was decided by FAR less than the number of votes that Nader took from Gore. Now tell me, how much has the cause of the Green party been furthered by his running in '00 and '04? I know you say you didn't support him, but damn.
Nader supporters want to wash their hands clean of any responsibility for a pointless vote, fine, but the rest of us know what effect he has had on our country and the world over the past 8 years, and let me tell you it hasn't been positive. We are no closer to breaking the 2 party monopoly then we were when Nader was born!
I only hope that the Libertarians draw enough from McCain to offset Nader's draw from Obama (which should be pathetically little).
Keep up your idealism everyone, Me, I will be supporting our best chance for the next 4 years and beyond, OBAMA!
Beat me to the puch...
Keep speaking the truth my friend! Go Obama!
I'm glad he has finally found his passion. Had he demonstrated that same passion for the presidency, he might have achieved something.
Don't blame 2000's loss on either Nader or Bush. That loss is all on Gore.
I'm huge Obama supporter and I voted for Gore and Kerry. Yes it was close in Florida and Ohio in 2000 and 2004 respectively and Nader votes like made a difference.
But Gore and Kerry should have never been in such close races with an opponent like Bush in the first place. Gore couldn't even win his home state for fuck's sake!
They both gave shitty speaches and made big campaign mistakes. Gore in not allowing Clinton to campaign on him and not focusing enough on how the economy was so strong after 8 years of the Clinton/Gore administration. And Kerry in not attacking Bush strongly enough and not being quick and firm in responding to the Swiftboat attacks.
Nader may have had an effect, but I'm not going to bash him or people who voted for him. Again, third parties are healthy for our society as we need opposing viewpoints out there. And if a person agrees with Nader or another third party candidate more than they did the democrats or republicans then they should damn well vote for them rather than choosing what the consider to be the lesser of two evils just because the 3rd party candidate has no chance.
I strongly support their right to do so and that it was the right thing to do to cast their vote for the candidate who most closely matched their own beliefs. Even if it did potentially lead to 8 years of Bush, one should always vote with their heart for the candidate the believe in and not compromise their values and vote for the lesser of two evils if that's how they feel about the main party alternatives.
The only thing that bothers me is I imagine a lot of people here, especially people who were young at the times, voted for Nader without really understanding what he stood for and evaluating how that matched their beliefs vs. Gore/Kerry simply because their idol Eddie Vedder was attacking him.
At least Vedder is backing Obama this time so he'll get the mindless sheep vote among the young PJ fans!
2006: Camden I & II, DC
2008: DC, Ed DC II
believe it or not, Gore was a shitty candidate.
why is that?
I would absolutely love for us to have more than 2 VIABLE choices for president but we DO NOT! Nader running for Pres when he as 0 chance of winning will NEVER bring us closer to having more parties...
Kerry was weak, I'll admit to that. We all seem to forget that when Gore was running for Pres, Clinton was just finishing a 2 year impeachment process. Who the hell wants to embrace a candidate going through all that baggage, regardless of whether it was founded or not.
Third party candidates are wonderfull. Why do you think every "democracy" we set up abroad features a parlimentary government? Nader, who has accomplished a great deal in life, has accomplished nothing in his presidential candidacies.
The damage done by Bush is irreconcilable with ANY justification. I will never allow the principle of a third party allow me to be swayed in my opinion that a democrat like Obama will any day and any year be light years ahead of a run of the mill Republican like McCain.
I likely wouldn't either, but I'm through and through a democrat and it's likely the democratic candidate will always match my beliefs the most closely. But if they day comes that they don't and a third party one is a better fit then they'll get my vote regardless of whether they have a chance to win. So I respect people that feel that way about Nader.
But I'm thoroughly behind Obama. Just made another donation.
2006: Camden I & II, DC
2008: DC, Ed DC II
I hear you completely! I really wish we have more choices. I fully believe in a multi-party system, but lets start at the grassroots level. Lets get some representatives elected into state or federal government before we try to overthrow the 2 party system at the level of pres.
I know you know this based on your posts, but Obama is our best chance, lets take advantage!
That's not what I'm saying at all. Please read the entire thread.
what is it.. are you really that uneducated or are you smart and refuse to know facts and history.
Where's your argument for Nader? Bring it!!!
Don't just sit there calling people stupid...
Bring it on... Let's see your facts...
You want to talk about Isreal and Obama bring it..
Be prepared to discuss Nader's Arab heritage though because that is tit-for-tat.
No he doesn't. Those people didn't vote for Gore or Kerry because they didn't like them. Nader doesn't steal votes from anyone. You damn Democrats have to stop fucking blaming everyone for your shitty ass party and start blaming the people responsible, yourselves. Nader received those votes because he FUCKING earned them. If the Deomcrats want to stop loosing elections they need to reach out to those Nader supports, which they haven't done.
You just keep believing that 600 out of 97000 wouldn't have voted for Gore.
Many wish they did..... Ask Michael Moore on his website
http://www.michaelmoore.com/
Many that voted Green in 2000 wish they had done very different...
Sure, in hindsight. But the fact remains that Gore was a horrible candidate, and the Democrats followed one horrible candidate in 2000 with another one in 2004 as if they were incapable of learning simple lessons. Gore's loss in 2000 had nothing to do with Nader and everything to do with Gore and the Democratic party at the time. It appears in 2008 that they may have learned a thing or two this past decade. Time will tell.