Not that Nader doesn’t have a point to some of his positions, but aside from all the shenanigans in Florida and Ohio, George Bush won because Nader was in the race in 2000, sucking votes from Gore. At least this time, because of Bush, a majority of the country seems to be anti-Republicans so he probably won’t have the effect he did back then. Hopefully.
Ralph Nader joins US presidential race
Independent candidate Ralph Nader has announced that he is entering the US presidential race, a move which many Democrats fear could deprive their party of vital votes.
Mr Nader was accused by supporters of Al Gore of handing the 2000 election to George W Bush by attracting voters who would otherwise have backed their candidate.
The consumer rights activist announced on NBC television’s Meet the Press that he was launching a third-party campaign for the White House because voters were disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties.
Nader is an egomaniac who loves to see his name in print. There is no other explanation for the fact that he is running even though he must know that he put Dubya in the White House. Nader (and Dubya) have done more harm to this country and the world than any other politicians in recent times.
Democrats who do not want to vote for a Democrat will do one of two things. First option is not to vote at all. The second option is vote Republican. The first option is more likely than the second. Very seldom will a Democrat vote for a third party just because they do not like their candidate. Republicans more likely do the same but for the second option vote for a Democratic candidate.
People who vote for a third party candidate usually are tired of the other two parties. These people would not vote Democratic or Republican anyway.
Blaming third parties with stealing votes is just an excuse so that Democrats and Republicans do not have to think about the bad candidate choices they have.
Vote for garbage, get garbage. If you want to change the political system, vote third party.
Bush won because of the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach county, which confused old people who couldn’t be bothered to follow the ballot instructions.
Bush won Florida by 500-800 votes, but Pat Buchanan got 3000 votes in Palm Beach County which was WAY out of line with 1% of the vote he got elsewhere.
Nader and his 0.035% of the vote had nothing to do with Gore losing.
Yes, that’s an exaggeration, he actually got maybe 1% of the vote, but Gore would have easily won the 2000 election if he wasn’t such of a gun control nazi which caused him to lose states like West Virginia and Tennessee.
First…. Nader didn’t cause Gore to lose Florida or anywhere else…. Gore did. In Florida he had help from stupid county election officials (all Dems) that made up their county ballots.
In 2004 Nader took less than a half million votes nationwide(0.38%) and he will do about the same now or less….if that hurts the Dems, then they deserve to lose.
#17…Julieb….I’m sure McCain will appreciate your warm wishes….but it shows how much you know about politics when you accuse him, of all people of pressing for a Theocracy. You’re exactly the kind of voter they want in Florida…no clue as to what you’re doing.
Obama is recruiting people just like you to help him and his cult worship movement along.
For those of you who think this election will be a cake walk for the Dems…..well….better be ready for a rude awakening. If they aren’t careful, they will lose. The picture is already looking good for the Republicans. McCain makes California playable, he also puts Penna., New Hampshire and Minnesota in play for the Rep.s….meanwhile only losing Ohio and Colorado from Bush’s take in 2004.
The New York Times article kind of let the cat out of the bag….not only did their attempt to cut McCain off at the knee’s fail, but the backlash was swift and furious not only from Conservatives, but Independents and Democrats as well. Democrats found out very quickly that McCain isn’t leading a fractured party as they thought, nothing stirs up conservatives like the New York Times and in one fell swoop they not only showed their left wing bia’s, but united the Republicans behind McCain. I hope he sends them a thank you note.
When McCain is inaugurated in 2009….remember, it wasn’t Nader but the NYT’s. 🙂
How much is the repugnican party paying this guy?
I am pleased to see responses counter to the blame Nader comments. I still feel that I should point to the people I normally agree with that no matter what you think someone should vote it is their right to vote as they choose for the candidate they choose. It is also Mr. Nader’s right to run for office. I am sorry but the only type of person who says people spoil their vote by not voting for who you want them to vote for is an asshat. In many other countries there is at least three if not a many more parties to vote for and the only time that people in those countries complain about how people vote is when they vote for the candidate for the party they always vote for no matter what their qualifications. Which is what you are doing when you say vote Democrat or vote Republican only. If you stopped trying to make so damn many excuses as to why your candidate did not get elected you would be able to think of ways to get the next candidate elected. Blaming Gore or Santa Claus or the Abominal Snowman for your ills only shows the type of person you are.
John S
#14, hmeyers,
Bush won because of the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach county, which confused old people who couldn’t be bothered to follow the ballot instructions.
Uummm, hey. They did follow directions. The directions told them to pick a candidate from each page.
#15, Joshua
First….Nader didn’t cause Gore to lose Florida or anywhere else….Gore did. In Florida he had help from stupid county election officals(all Dems) that made up their county ballots.
Little boy, please quit with the right wing nut radiohead bullshit. The Florida courts said to count the disputed ballots. The Federal Court said count the disputed ballots. The Court of Appeals in Atlanta said to count the disputed ballots. The Supreme Court of the US said stop. In a non-binding decision (which means they purposely didn’t want to set a precedent) they handed the election to Bush.
And I guess you also never heard of Kathrine Harrison. The one who illegally destroyed the ballots so they can’t be truly counted.
Joshua, a while back I called you on your outlandish claim that Nancy Pellosi was bribed by the Trial Lawyers. You never backed it up. Of course everyone knows it is bullshit, but why can’t you make statements that are true? And when called, why can’t you either admit you bullshitted your way to denigrate your opposite number instead of engaging in an active, truthful exchange. I realize how morally bankrupt the Republicans are right now. Sheet, yesterday there was some right wing nut moran dragging up a Democratic scandal from 1981 in an effort to defuse all the Republican scandals since 2001.
The NYTimes article? Sheet, I’ll bet 95% of you whiny crybabies didn’t even read it and have no idea what was really in it. Just read the Times ombudsman editorial in today’s paper.
# 33 bac said, Blaming third parties with stealing votes is just an excuse so that Democrats and Republicans do not have to think about the bad candidate choices they have.
But in 2000 we had a pretty darn good candidate in Al Gore — especially for the Greens
Goodness gracious, Gore had written a significant book on the issue by then. Nobody and I mean nobody had done more to push the green agenda then and now.
Yet, the Greens kept declaring that there was absolutely no difference between Al Gore and GW Bush. How incredibly stupid is that?
I’ve been following politics for decades and I have to say, the Greens may have the worst political judgment of any I’ve ever seen… just plain boneheaded.
@#38
Gore had all of the advantages going into the 2000 election. The economy was solid. He had name brand recognition and was pretty well respected by both parties.
The fact that Gore by the very narrowest of margins lost in 2000 with all of the little small things that could have made the election go his way (Nader votes, butterfly ballot) was a testament to some severe flaws in his campaign.
Gore could have won handily in 2000 and had everything in his favor, but at the end of the day his absolute zeal for wanting to attack the right to own guns was his downfall.
Gore supporters always point to Florida, the Supreme Court decision, the Butterfly ballot and what not.
But what about losing West Virginia? A state that had never voted Republican in decades? They went Republican because of Gore’s commitment to attack the 2nd amendment.
Gore lost 2000, regardless of the asterisks, because he wasn’t run to win but running to force an agenda on people.
Bully politics don’t work. Notice how “inevitable” Hillary who wants to force a mandate on people to MAKE them buy insurance is now just about toast. Kerry probably lost in 2004 solely because he was ok with allowing the courts to force gay marriage on the populace, which brought the church hordes out on election day.
Bullying the people doesn’t work.
#16 Don’t you mean CHAD. Chad is plural; the singular is ‘a piece of chad’, just like a piece of dirt, a drop of rain, a speck of dust or a snow flake, etc are singular.
People don’t say “You’re covered with dirts.”; “Rains are falling.”; ” The dusts are thick” or “The mountain top is covered with snows.”
I know, after the election Newscasters made the mistake and a lot of people followed. To those of us who worked with computers back in the sixties “chads” sounds so silly. The concept of chad being singular was hard to conceive. They were and went everywhere!
Even my auto-spell redlines chads! 🙂
#39 The fact of the matter is that your post and others like it does not counter the base right of an individual to run for election and of another individual to vote for that individual. Calling someone boneheaded for voting the way they want to does not take away rights to run and vote in elections. Opinions and insults do not make facts. Insulting people does not win friends or convert those peoples positions on whom to vote for or what to believe.
John S
I’ve already posted why Gore wasn’t green.
He didn’t deserve those votes, and Nader wasn’t ‘sucking’ votes away from him.
Al Gore was drilling for oil on Indian lands.(Hey if he can claim he created the internet, i’ll say hes drilling)
>>> # 43 MikeN said, I’ve already posted why Gore wasn’t green.
He didn’t deserve those votes, and Nader wasn’t ’sucking’ votes away from him. <<<
May I use you can a case study in why Greens have absolutely horrible political judgment?
OK, if what you say is true (big “if”) then you’d rather throw-away your vote and let GW Bush win.
Man, that’s warped.
>>>>>>>>>># 42 John S said, on February 24th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
#39 The fact of the matter is that your post and others like it does not counter the base right of an individual to run for election and of another individual to vote for that individual. Calling someone boneheaded for voting the way they want to does not take away rights to run and vote in elections. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I will defend your right to vote in boneheaded ways!
C’mon, man, even you have to admit it — saying (like the Greens did in 2000) that there is no difference between GW Bush and Al Gore is about as politically boneheaded as it gets. It’s just pure cluelessness.
But that’s your right.
#40–HMeyers==I like what you said: “Bully politics don’t work.” and I think that is true.
Thats why most politicians lie most of the time.
I just do not understand you Greg. Do you want people to hate you? I hate George Bush and the people who support him. You have a person here who would be willing to agree with you that Electing Bush was a horrendous mistake. Yet you seem to be going out of your way to make a supporter of your position an enemy. I cannot understand this. You also seem to assume that because I do not hate Ralph Nader or people that voted for him that I voted for him. You are actually assuming so many things that I am not sure if pointing out one assumption should not be followed by questioning the other assumptions. The reason I am responding to you is that in spite of what you have said I am really trying to understand your position. If you are simply going to say I am an idiot than save your reply as you have posted that opinion already.
John S
@46 “Thats why most politicians lie most of the time.”
Yeah, probably true. I think half the reason anyone wants to get elected to office is for the “personal enrichment” that seems to happen where they are very wealthy by the time they leave office.
Yet on the other hand, in reference to “bully politics”, I find Obama’s lack of a bogeyman that is ruining America inspiring.
I get sick of listening to politicians who are “going to take the drug industry” or “take on the atheists” or take on “”.
Assuming Obama gets the nomination and goes on to become the president, it will be interesting to see if he is able to put a more positive and inclusive spin on governing the country.
Negative politics and divisive politics seems to attract the worst kind of politicians, the worst kind of supporters and seems to have the goal of stifling debate instead of encouraging it.
#47–John S==and I would really like to understand YOUR post. Greg said voting for Nader was boneheaded. A statement you can’t disagree with and is devoid of any other attitude.
How do you get HATE out of that?
#48–HMyers==sadly, I don’t expect much from Obama. He is “the most liberal congressman” and so forth. The extremes of either opposed position is not as healthy for this country as something more centrist. I hold hopes for some kind of divided government and like with Clinton, maybe a willing and opposing Congress can moderate the social activist programs of this liberal dem. Now, I am a liberal myself, but I don’t want to over tax and kill the golden goose.
I think he is the best of the candidates remaining, but sadly that doesn’t say much.
I’m so sick of seeing people make the claim that Ralph Nader is responsible for Al Gore’s loss in the 2000 presidential election. Could it be possible that Gore is actually responsible for his own loss? I guess not. Or that he actually did win the majority of votes that were not fully counted? You’re probably the type who blames everything on others and never takes personal responsibility for himself. Seriously, get a clue.
Bobbo when someone insults me “I hate them!”. I hate being insulted and I hate people who insult me. That is clear. If you are someone who likes being insulted than you can not hate some one who insults someone who insults you. Greg stated an opinion about voting for Nader being boneheaded, and insulting opinion. He also assumed I voted for him. I can and will disagree with an opinion. And an opinion that insults has the attitude that you are less than the person insulting you. I have read comments from both of you and agreed with you. Congrats you say big deal idiot you say. I don’t need you to agree with me you anonymous loser you say. I will agree with opinions that you make that are well written and that make sense. I will not be bullied into agreeing with you or Bush or some other asshat. I am also pissed that you knew what my post meant and ignored that fact just to insult me. Go ahead people like to be insulted, right. Just like you said and I cannot disagree with statement of fact right.
John S
David you are forgetting that the wonderful candidate John Kerry lost because of Nader. You also forgot to mention that when passing the buck for their failures they insult everyone who won’t agree with them.
John S
By the way, Al Gore was not only in favor of invading Iraq, he went on a cross-country tour drumming up support for it. Just because you conveniently forgot about his pro-war record doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. gregallen, you need a reality check.
#53–JohnS==you are not answering the question. OK, I get it that YOU hate people that disagree with you ((or with the benefit of the doubt, you write that you do)) BUT the question was why do you post that Greg HATES you or Nader or Nader voters or whatever? He never said that, and I’m not trying to bully you. All I’m asking you is why do you think that people that disagree with you either hate or are bullying you? Surely, the world and the people in it are not so limited in their feelings and responses?
47 John S,
OK, truce. I’m probably coming on too strong.
I guess I still remember — and resent it — arguing with the Greens in 2000 and having them tell me again-and-again that there was no difference between Al Gore and GW Bush. And then when — even in Florida — they stuck to their guns, it’s a hard thing to let go.
Especially since I honestly believe that America would be a MUCH MUCH better place if Al Gore had been president.
For one, I honestly believe 911 may have been prevented just like the thwarted Millennium bombings. Of course, Gore wouldn’t have abandoned the Kyoto Treaty or let the oil companies right our energy policy.
It’s easy to say that if a few thousand Greens in Florida had just had better political judgment it all would be different. But I fully understand that there were a number of factors in play — not just the Greens withholding their vote.
And — of course — the real villains are Bush and those who cheered him on — not the Greens.
Have a conceded enough to make you not hate me?
#56–Greg==Who cares about whining JohnS? Now, I HATE YOU for your condescending attitude!!!! (Just joking.)
Seriously though, voting for a loser IS boneheaded in all that the word means, and the greens are one of many elements that gave us 8 years of BushieBoy.
What we should have is that system of voting where you rank your preferences, and if your #1 vote doesn’t win, then your second vote is used. That way the “real” will of the people could be expressed along with not throwing it away. Much harder to oversee though, but with error proof computer system, should be doable?
#56 “What we should have is that system of voting where you rank your preferences, and if your #1 vote doesn’t win, then your second vote is used.”
Well, that system would eventually produce an unbelievable nutjob for a president.
Think Ross Perot in 1992. Clinton voters Clinton #1, Perot #2. Bush 41 voters do Bush #1, Perot #2.
Then one morning we wake up and Captain Underpants has won the presidency.
It wouldn’t work because partisan people wouldn’t vote their conscience on #1/2/3, they’d vote in a manner to obtain a result. i.e. their guy #1 and his main opponent #last.
And then imagine a situation where the guy with the most #1 votes lost to a guy with more #2 votes. That would be as frictional as when someone loses but won the popular vote.
However, this idea would make a third party candidate much more likely to become president.
Greg saying “And — of course — the real villains are Bush and those who cheered him on — not the Greens.” was what I was trying to say myself. Having to have to deal with people saying Gore was no better than Bush would drive me up a wall too, so I empathize with you. This is what you until last post seemed to be missing. This is also a bit of a discourse on the problems of democracy. Majority rule does not always work. In fact as of late it seems to be a real fiasco for at least a few countries. When people are voting for people they would have a beer with we have a real problem. I do not expect people to agree with me as most often they do not. I take offense to being insulted by people who disagree with me. In response to your concession I will concede that it would have been much much better had Gore won than Bush. Not that you need me to do so but I will accept your Truce offer.
John S
bobbo trying new ways to get the best results in a democracy can be dicey as HMeyers posted but can also be worth it in the end. Many times what seems good in theory does not work in practice and vice-versa. From what I am aware a language is said to be dead when new words are not added. This does not people do not speak that language (IE Latin) it just means people do not add to words to it allowing it to live and grow (IE English). If as you seem to suggest we tackle other aspects of our lives with this same thought we would “keep democracy alive”. In a sadistic way the Bush years could be the inspiration needed to get people motivated to become more involved in Democracy. I hope so anyway.
John S
The Republicans should be in jail and the Democrats are useless…but you still think this guy is the problem?