Message to Ralph Nader

bryanfury

MrBrian wrote:

How does one explain the ass kicking Bush gave kerry? That's also when Nader took almost no votes away from anything.

Also, If Obama is worried about Nader taking votes from him, then Obama should take up the issues Nader does. Not just play middle ground or lean right.

here here!

ralph has done more for this country than either of the guys running.

jhinkle1114

_outlaw wrote:

exactly.

Ralph Nader does not take away votes from Obama because Obama never has those votes to begin with.

He does take some votes simply because some people would vote for who they saw as the lesser of two evils rather than writing in a name or staying home.

But I don't see it as having a major impact, and having people from other parties run is a good thing IMO, even though I don't vote for them as the democratic stance on issues is usually closest to my own views.

even flow?

If you had a viable third party that could actually play with the big boys would you still say they stole votes or would they be a valid check mark? Seems that if the democracy worked they would let Nader on stage with them instead of that tool Perot who was just the same as the other two lame parties.

FiveB247x

No candidate is "due" anyone's vote. The Dems would always win election if the Reps didn't run a candidate as well, but it's a pretty dumb point to make right? We don't have a system which only has 2 political parties, we merely have a system which promotes 2 main political parties. You can fault 3rd parties or their voters, rather you need to point to the actual 2 main parties which do not do enough to reach out to these 3rd party voters to win them over in some fashion.

But let's keep talking about "spoilers" or Nader compared to ignore the fact that almost half of the voting population doesn't bother to vote! That's not relevent at all right?

jhinkle1114 wrote:

He does take some votes simply because some people would vote for who they saw as the lesser of two evils rather than writing in a name or staying home.

But I don't see it as having a major impact, and having people from other parties run is a good thing IMO, even though I don't vote for them as the democratic stance on issues is usually closest to my own views.

Milestone

MrBrian wrote:

How does one explain the ass kicking Bush gave kerry?

OHIO

jhinkle1114

Hey, like I said I think candiates from other parties is a good thing and I agree no one is "due" anyone's vote.

I was just saying that regardless of our views on that, 3rd party candidates do take votes from the democrats and republicans as people would have picked one of those if the 3rd parties weren't on the ballot. That's just a simple fact.

I have zero problems with it. It's good for the system IMO.

Strangest Tribe

Dont get me wrong... I have high ideals as well.

But I have to check into the reality hotel occasionally an have some faith that the Dems are listening.
What about Dennis Kucinich? Didn't he speak at the convention yesterday? Sounded like he was supporting Obama to me and you guys usually praise Kucinich.

What do you want? Obama to endorse Nader?
America doesn't respect Nader because he's seen as a shit stirrer.
They won't even listen to him.
They point at him and say "there's the guy that tries to make everything SAFE... but what he's doing is costing us out the ass"

FiveB247x

There are plenty of people who do not cast a vote because they do not like either of the two major party candidates.

Also, you can't assume people who vote 3rd party would sooner vote Dem than Rep simply because you make that connection.

I'd sooner not vote at all than vote for one of those 2 main parties.

People like to assume that 3rd parties are irrelevent unless they "steal" votes somehow, but I got a news flash for you.
Republican voters in a blue state, Democrat voters in a red state, and 3rd party voters all vote and don't influence anything. I highly doubt anyone would claim the first two examples are "wasted votes" or similar. Anyone can vote for whomever they choose or not at all. People like to make unrealistic notions like if a person chooses C, they'd sooner pick B over A and therefore B got shafted by C. It doesn't work that way. People love the idea of free speech and free choice until it breaks their perception or barrier.

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.

jhinkle1114 wrote:

Hey, like I said I think candiates from other parties is a good thing and I agree no one is "due" anyone's vote.

I was just saying that regardless of our views on that, 3rd party candidates do take votes from the democrats and republicans as people would have picked one of those if the 3rd parties weren't on the ballot. That's just a simple fact.

I have zero problems with it. It's good for the system IMO.

jhinkle1114

FiveB247x wrote:

There are plenty of people who do not cast a vote because they do not like either of the two major party candidates.

Also, you can't assume people who vote 3rd party would sooner vote Dem than Rep simply because you make that connection.

I'd sooner not vote at all than vote for one of those 2 main parties.

People like to assume that 3rd parties are irrelevent unless they "steal" votes somehow, but I got a news flash for you.
Republican voters in a blue state, Democrat voters in a red state, and 3rd party voters all vote and don't influence anything. I highly doubt anyone would claim the first two examples are "wasted votes" or similar. Anyone can vote for whomever they choose or not at all. People like to make unrealistic notions like if a person chooses C, they'd sooner pick B over A and therefore B got shafted by C. It doesn't work that way. People love the idea of free speech and free choice until it breaks their perception or barrier.

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.

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. If we're talking Libertarian candidates, you'd expect them to be more likely to go with the republican as the lesser of two evils given their small government preferences. Not that republicans live up to that any more, but the party line is closer to that idea than that of the democrats.

But again, I don't care about this. As I said I think it has little impact and I think 3rd party candidates are a good thing even though I've not remotely agreed with any who have came along in my lifetime. But variety in politics is a good thing and we need more third party candidates.

So I by no means think they are just irrelevant vote stealers. Differing views from politicians is a very good thing for or society. Practically all they're doing is getting votes from people who would have stayed home, wrote someone in, or voted for the lesser of two evils otherwise. But in the big picture of a healthy democratic republic having their views out there is a very good thing.

fuck

Strangest Tribe wrote:

Dont get me wrong... I have high ideals as well.

oh, you certainly do.

What about Dennis Kucinich? Didn't he speak at the convention yesterday? Sounded like he was supporting Obama to me and you guys usually praise Kucinich.

So because Kucinich is behind Obama, everyone should also jump behind him? how does that even make sense? yes, many people agree with Kucinich, but it doesn't mean they'll do anything he does.

America doesn't respect Nader because he's seen as a shit stirrer.
They won't even listen to him.
They point at him and say "there's the guy that tries to make everything SAFE... but what he's doing is costing us out the ass"

'They' are just plain stupid, and I don't care what 'they' think.

I support Obama in this election, but to see his other supporters doing these pitiful 'messages' to Nader's supporters is just sad. There are other ways to win over supporters, and this is not one of them.

fuck

jhinkle1114 wrote:

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.

fuck

FiveB247x wrote:

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.

jhinkle1114

_outlaw wrote:

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.

FiveB247x

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.

jhinkle1114

FiveB247x wrote:

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.

Strangest Tribe

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?

I don't see it at all.

Strangest Tribe

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....

mammasan

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.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

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:

jhinkle1114

mammasan wrote:

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.