Message to Ralph Nader

Strangest Tribe wrote:

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

Beat me to the puch...

Keep speaking the truth my friend! Go Obama!

cubbieblue82 wrote:

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!

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!

this is definitely one of the most ridiculous threads the AMT has ever seen.

jhinkle1114 wrote:

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.

jhinkle1114 wrote:

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!

my take: not enough politicians have brain cancer. i wish it was contagious.

Strangest Tribe wrote:

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

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.

Strangest Tribe wrote:

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.