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.
While I agree with the sentiment, I do think you Nader supporters (assuming you are or you wouldn't get so heated) go to far with it.
He definitely earned the votes, but that doesn't change the fact that if he had never ran SOME of those votes would have went to Gore/Kerry or Bush and MORE of them would have went to Gore/Kerry because they were ideologically closer to Nader than Bush.
It's foolish to think everyone who voted for Nader would have stayed home or wrote him or someone else in on the ballot. Just as it's foolish for democrats to BLAME him for their candidates failures. As I said above, Nader definitely had some impact on the election by splitting votes a 3rd way, but Gore/Kerry would never have been in a position to have to worry about him if they hadn't ran such god awful campaigns which left them neck in neck with Bush.
Point being democrat whiners need to quit blaming Nader for Gore and Kerry's failures AND Nader supporters need to quit ignoring the common sense that of course him being on the ballot and earning votes did have some level of impact since SOME of those votes would have went to the big parties had Nader not ran.\
It's silly to blame Nader for the losses, but it's just a silly to deny that Nader had some impact. He did, and good for him! Looks like it woke up the democrats this time! Shame we had to suffer through 8 years of Bush first though!
2000: Pittsburgh
2006: Camden I & II, DC
2008: DC, Ed DC II
While I agree with the sentiment, I do think you Nader supporters (assuming you are or you wouldn't get so heated) go to far with it.
He definitely earned the votes, but that doesn't change the fact that if he had never ran SOME of those votes would have went to Gore/Kerry or Bush and MORE of them would have went to Gore/Kerry because they were ideologically closer to Nader than Bush.
It's foolish to think everyone who voted for Nader would have stayed home or wrote him or someone else in on the ballot. Just as it's foolish for democrats to BLAME him for their candidates failures. As I said above, Nader definitely had some impact on the election by splitting votes a 3rd way, but Gore/Kerry would never have been in a position to have to worry about him if they hadn't ran such god awful campaigns which left them neck in neck with Bush.
Point being democrat whiners need to quit blaming Nader for Gore and Kerry's failures AND Nader supporters need to quit ignoring the common sense that of course him being on the ballot and earning votes did have some level of impact since SOME of those votes would have went to the big parties had Nader not ran.\
It's silly to blame Nader for the losses, but it's just a silly to deny that Nader had some impact. He did, and good for him! Looks like it woke up the democrats this time! Shame we had to suffer through 8 years of Bush first though!
I'm not a Nader supporter, but it is ridiculous thinking like this that pisses me off. Gore and Kerry didn't win because they didn't get enough votes. They didn't get enough people to believe in them. If you suscribe to this logic of Nader stealing votes then it can easily be stated that every candidate who lost the presidency did so because the other candidate stole votes away from him. It's sheer stupidity. If Nader had not run I'm pretty sure they people who supported him would have a. not voted or b. voted for another 3rd party candidate. These people would not have voted for Gore or Kerry.
"When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
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.
OK
the debate over Gore and Kerry being horrible candidates is a moot point.
People that support Nader often say this...." well if Gore and Kerry weren't such horrible choices..."
People that support Nader say "....I'm voting Nader because I want the Democrats to listen..."
Nader says " Obama makes strong points toward progress, he has solid ideas.."
So my question is..."Aren't the Democrats listening now?"
if you're voting for Nader as opposed to Obama...what the fuck do you want????
what drives you to vote for Nader??? Just curious
I see Nader supporters as intelligent people, I just don't understand their NEED to always be so "Counter-Culture" all the time
and I know they must be "counter-culture" ....right?
certainly they aren't foolish enough to be racist...are they?
Certainly they aren't anti-semitic enough to be foolish to consider an Obama AIPAC speech as a valid reason to vote for Nader when Nader is clearly of Lebanaese/Arab decent...so that's not clearly an impartial vote IMO.
If Nader had not run I'm pretty sure they people who supported him would have a. not voted or b. voted for another 3rd party candidate. These people would not have voted for Gore or Kerry.
Disagree entirely.
Many people feel it's a civic duty to vote and will do so even if they don't really like either of the candidates. They vote for the lesser of two evils. The other third party candidates were too far from Nader, Gore and Kerry were the closest ideologically.
There were plenty of posts on the net, conversations I had with fellow college students in 2000 and grad students in 2004 that reinforced this. A lot were planning on voting for Gore/Kerry then changed their mind. Many hesitated as they wondered if it was better to still vote for Gore/Kerry rather than vote for Nader who had no chance as they damn sure didn't want Bush.
Again, I think it's silly to blame Nader for the losses, but it's just as silly to think that a decent chunk of those votes wouldn't have gone to Gore/Kerry simply as votes against Bush if Nader hadn't choose to run is just as silly.
It's impossible to no how many, and silly to even worry about it's effect on the election. Certainly people here wouldn't have vote Gore/Kerry. Not when the only reason they were voting at all was because Vedder, their idol, told them to vote Nader. But what do you expect from people taking their political advice from a high school drop out?
2000: Pittsburgh
2006: Camden I & II, DC
2008: DC, Ed DC II
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.
Yes he should take up the same stances as Nader...
And get 2% of the vote.
No thanks I think he's doing just fine right now.
10/31/2000 (****)
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Nader's an egomaniac that wont affect this election at all. He wont be on numerous state ballots again and MIGHT garner 500,000 votes if lucky. The last election he was polling around 5% like this year and ended up with less than 1% of the vote with 410,000 votes. No one should worry about him sucking votes away from anyone this election... but there is always hope for him in 2012 !!
Someone please explain to me why so many concern themselves with Nader? I dont get it. Maybe because I dont buy into the b/s that he cost Gore the election (EIGHT YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) given that 500,000 democrats in florida voted for Bush and that Bush was appointed president by the Supreme court based on the only count out of 8 that tipped the results in Bush's favor.
Anyway, i digress, Nader gets no media coverage, wont be in the debates and wont be on all the state ballots. What the F is the big deal with this guy?
Am I naive??
ps. Oh and I love the ego stuff... hes an ego maniac... that is just about the stupidest thing Ive ever heard... would an ego mainiac stand in from of half filled hungover falling asleep college auditorums speaking about injustices, would an egomaniac continually run in elections only to get ripped by colleagues, the media family members etc and come away with 3% of the vote. Yea that really stokes an ego. (we must be the dumbest nation on earth, we deserve everything we get!)
Comments
While I agree with the sentiment, I do think you Nader supporters (assuming you are or you wouldn't get so heated) go to far with it.
He definitely earned the votes, but that doesn't change the fact that if he had never ran SOME of those votes would have went to Gore/Kerry or Bush and MORE of them would have went to Gore/Kerry because they were ideologically closer to Nader than Bush.
It's foolish to think everyone who voted for Nader would have stayed home or wrote him or someone else in on the ballot. Just as it's foolish for democrats to BLAME him for their candidates failures. As I said above, Nader definitely had some impact on the election by splitting votes a 3rd way, but Gore/Kerry would never have been in a position to have to worry about him if they hadn't ran such god awful campaigns which left them neck in neck with Bush.
Point being democrat whiners need to quit blaming Nader for Gore and Kerry's failures AND Nader supporters need to quit ignoring the common sense that of course him being on the ballot and earning votes did have some level of impact since SOME of those votes would have went to the big parties had Nader not ran.\
It's silly to blame Nader for the losses, but it's just a silly to deny that Nader had some impact. He did, and good for him! Looks like it woke up the democrats this time! Shame we had to suffer through 8 years of Bush first though!
2006: Camden I & II, DC
2008: DC, Ed DC II
I'm not a Nader supporter, but it is ridiculous thinking like this that pisses me off. Gore and Kerry didn't win because they didn't get enough votes. They didn't get enough people to believe in them. If you suscribe to this logic of Nader stealing votes then it can easily be stated that every candidate who lost the presidency did so because the other candidate stole votes away from him. It's sheer stupidity. If Nader had not run I'm pretty sure they people who supported him would have a. not voted or b. voted for another 3rd party candidate. These people would not have voted for Gore or Kerry.
OK
the debate over Gore and Kerry being horrible candidates is a moot point.
People that support Nader often say this...." well if Gore and Kerry weren't such horrible choices..."
People that support Nader say "....I'm voting Nader because I want the Democrats to listen..."
Nader says " Obama makes strong points toward progress, he has solid ideas.."
So my question is..."Aren't the Democrats listening now?"
if you're voting for Nader as opposed to Obama...what the fuck do you want????
what drives you to vote for Nader??? Just curious
I see Nader supporters as intelligent people, I just don't understand their NEED to always be so "Counter-Culture" all the time
and I know they must be "counter-culture" ....right?
certainly they aren't foolish enough to be racist...are they?
Certainly they aren't anti-semitic enough to be foolish to consider an Obama AIPAC speech as a valid reason to vote for Nader when Nader is clearly of Lebanaese/Arab decent...so that's not clearly an impartial vote IMO.
they would have.... a lot of them would have
you're wrong.
sorry
Disagree entirely.
Many people feel it's a civic duty to vote and will do so even if they don't really like either of the candidates. They vote for the lesser of two evils. The other third party candidates were too far from Nader, Gore and Kerry were the closest ideologically.
There were plenty of posts on the net, conversations I had with fellow college students in 2000 and grad students in 2004 that reinforced this. A lot were planning on voting for Gore/Kerry then changed their mind. Many hesitated as they wondered if it was better to still vote for Gore/Kerry rather than vote for Nader who had no chance as they damn sure didn't want Bush.
Again, I think it's silly to blame Nader for the losses, but it's just as silly to think that a decent chunk of those votes wouldn't have gone to Gore/Kerry simply as votes against Bush if Nader hadn't choose to run is just as silly.
It's impossible to no how many, and silly to even worry about it's effect on the election. Certainly people here wouldn't have vote Gore/Kerry. Not when the only reason they were voting at all was because Vedder, their idol, told them to vote Nader. But what do you expect from people taking their political advice from a high school drop out?
2006: Camden I & II, DC
2008: DC, Ed DC II
Yes he should take up the same stances as Nader...
And get 2% of the vote.
No thanks I think he's doing just fine right now.
6/7/2003 (***1/2)
7/9/2006 (****1/2)
7/13/2006 (**** )
4/10/2008 EV Solo (****1/2)
6/25/2008 MSG II (*****)
10/1/2009 LA II (****)
10/6/2009 LA III (***** Cornell!!!)
Keep those PM's coming
Someone please explain to me why so many concern themselves with Nader? I dont get it. Maybe because I dont buy into the b/s that he cost Gore the election (EIGHT YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) given that 500,000 democrats in florida voted for Bush and that Bush was appointed president by the Supreme court based on the only count out of 8 that tipped the results in Bush's favor.
Anyway, i digress, Nader gets no media coverage, wont be in the debates and wont be on all the state ballots. What the F is the big deal with this guy?
Am I naive??
ps. Oh and I love the ego stuff... hes an ego maniac... that is just about the stupidest thing Ive ever heard... would an ego mainiac stand in from of half filled hungover falling asleep college auditorums speaking about injustices, would an egomaniac continually run in elections only to get ripped by colleagues, the media family members etc and come away with 3% of the vote. Yea that really stokes an ego. (we must be the dumbest nation on earth, we deserve everything we get!)