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.
#50 – bobbo,
Obama is liberal? Oh, you said most liberal congressman. Not really. He may be the most liberal senator. Kucinich is far more liberal than anyone “electable” as dictated by the major media corporations that don’t like anyone that isn’t bought by corporate America.
I see a room 100 meters wide with Clinton and Obama standing millimeters apart around 25 meters to the right of center. The republicans are all in a cluster fuck up against the right hand wall and are getting a jack hammer to remove the wall.
In a country where the New York Times, a paper just right of center, is considered a liberal rag, you know the shift in the nation is extreme. Personally, I see myself about 40 meters left of center. And, there are not many people anywhere near me. Where’d everybody go?
Why is everyone so right shifted? Is this about the expanding universe? (No, that’s red-shifted.) Hmm…
Perhaps it has something to do with a large vocal minority that wants a Christian theocracy getting together with a whole lot of misguided folks who mistakenly think the repugs are good for the economy.
In actual fact, the best Repugnican president since 1960, Ronald Reagan, just barely ties the worst Democrapic president since 1960 on GDP increase, Jimmy Carter. Yup. That’s right. These two were equally good for the GDP, not my favorite indicator but frequently the only number available. All other Democraps were much better for the economy than all other Repugnicans.
Don’t take my word for it. Check the numbers here:
http://tinyurl.com/26nkz6
And, if you want to know why GDP is not my favorite indicator, check out my post on the subject here.
http://tinyurl.com/3bqk92
Unfortunately, as bad as the number is, it really is often the only number available.
Presidential Election of 1912.
This is old news.
Sorry Scott, I think you have dyslexia. In your room, the Republican party is about 20 meters left of center. Adjust everyone else appropriately. You’re correct in that the economy is the most important factor, because more people having more money therefore more private property is the most important function of government. The other important factor in that is reducing taxes. Neither party mentions that because that would prevent them from funding their pork.
Nader did not harm Gore. I wish he had because it was far too close as it was. Gore tried every illegal method he could think of and almost stole the election. Thank god he failed. I can;t imagine what kind of mess we’d be in now had he won.
The Republican National Committee put him up to this, because otherwise, they will lose.
#62–Scott==I agree with your characterization of the room.
I just caught Nader on Meet the Press on tape. He is a true voice in the wilderness==correct in everything he says, its a joy/sadness to listen to his views.
Too bad the greens cant get more traction in this two party dominated system.
Given our system, it is sadly only a bonehead that would vote for Nader or any other third party absent thinking there is no difference between the proposed candidates—and thats never the case, even if they are too far “corporatized” (rather than right shifted) for the health of GOUSA.
Gregallen, it doesn’t matter if what I say is true. The greens believed it to the point that activists were protesting about it. It all comes from the company Occidental Petroleum owned by tyhe Gore family, and basically a gift from Armand Hammer to Gore Sr.
Greens might say there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats, but we know they know better given all the websites devoted to trading votes between Gore and Nader.
You guys are forgetting that Nader ran in 2004. He is a nonfactor at this point. He dropped from more than 2% to .38%, getting less than his 1996 run.
#58–HMyers===way to make ME look stupid. YOU took me literally. I should have said you vote your order of preference and if no one candidate gets over 50%, THEN the votes cast get recalculated. I thought this system was sufficiently known that I could misstate it, but thats lazy on my part.
So, this system, the name of which escapes me now, allows people to actually demonstrate their wishes with no real advantage to the 3rd parties. What is advantaged is that a dem or pub vote is not lost by being split between two candidates on the same side of an issue.
A simple change that reflects the aspirations of the people and yet real politik at the same time.
We should do it.
#69 – You’re thinking of “Instant-Runoff” voting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
There are also other types of preferential voting systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting
The problem is these systems also have shortcomings
Well, I suppose this discussion is starting to wind down — even though nobody has called anybody Hitler yet.
Here is a wise word to the Greens:
You guys need to give Nader the boot.
He has made your party loathsome to us liberals, your natural allies.
Before Nader, I was a likely green swing voter — at least in a local election. Now, I am likely to withhold my vote because of 2000.
Surely, there are millions like me and that’s very bad for your movement. The sooner you can get rid of Nader and do a mia culpa, the better for your party.
This is _not_ a threat — it’s just political reality.
#70–thanks bloedump==yes everything has shortcomings. The analysis though is which set of shortcomings and advantages is better than some other set?
Our system has evolved into a two party democracy where minority opinion is not given a chance to express itself and gain influence as in parlimentary systems ((yes it too has problems.))
I’m just agreeing with Nader that our government is overly influenced and subservient to CORPORATIONS and as neither party even admits the issue, how can we get change?
#71–Greg==its not Nader though==its ANY third party candidate. The better the candidate, the more damaging he will be to your second choice.
As everything Nader says is correct, you are not reacting to him, but rather to the two party status quo that is stuck in concrete against third party efforts.
#72 – I agree that both parties are owned by corporations. Problem is we also need corporations to have jobs. Bottom line is everything is totally screwed, there is no hope, we’re all gonna die horribly and that’s the sum of it. The best we can hope for it to get killed quickly…
@69 “I should have said you vote your order of preference and if no one candidate gets over 50%, THEN the votes cast get recalculated. I thought this system was sufficiently known that I could misstate it, but thats lazy on my part.”
Not familiar with the system. I do wish a system that would give voice to 3rd party candidates was in place.
I think to those that scapegoat Nader are being cruel to the man. Saying he can’t run as a presidential candidate except as a Democrat is rather fascist.
Both parties are in the pockets of corporations now, which is why no matter who is elected president it seems that very little will be changing (for better or worse, and it may not be for worse) except who gets the pork and who gets the perks.
#74–Bloedump==knowing that corporations’ power and influence needs to be better controlled in NO WAY implies anyone wants to do away with them–why do you make that leap of illogic?
One move I would like is statutory controls on top executive and board member compensation, stock options and what not. Stock holder control of corporations is now a proven failure. Rules need to tie compensation to performance and to general employee pay.
I’d also look at banning campaign contributions as in money is NOT speech, and I would look at making officers strictly liable for statement fraud. All kinds of things could be done to reign thes e entities in.
bobbo,
Gore and the Greens _say_ they want a multi-party system but they don’t act that way.
In multi-party political systems, politicians make political alliances with their opposition much more freely than we do in our two-party system.
Coalitions of compromised politics is the only way a multi-party system works.
Yet, Nader (and his followers) seem totally incapable of compromising their political principles in order to accommodate those who don’t live up to his standard.
And this is real missed opportunity for the Greens. If Nader had not been so damn recalcitrant he could have traded his Florida votes for directorship of the EPA.
Now, c’mon Greens. Can’t you admit? — wouldn’t having Nader as head of the EPA in a Gore administration been far far better for the Earth than having GW Bush as president?
Gore lost because he couldn’t carry his home state, Tennessee.
#77–Greg==thats a good point. The rap on Nader is that he won’t compromise. He doesn’t compromise when interviewed—-but I wonder how much the dems are willing to “share” power with a 5% faction when they fear such compromises would lose them the moderate conservatives?==as in if Gore had been more competent, they could and should have overcome the Green Party diversion?
How could Nader or most greens (?) compromise and say “OK, we’ll let corporations continue to rape our environment so that we can get elected?” How many dems would agree to go anti-corporate in order to get 5% of a vote that has no where else to go? Few things in politics are straight forward as in A = B. Usually all kinds of other factors in there too.
#80 – BlowDump,
I assume by Eurinal you mean Europe. Yes, you’re correct. They’re doing terribly with their currency up 50% relative to ours, their longer life spans, their lower infant mortality, their lower income discrepancy, etc. Interesting comparison you made. Whose point were you making on that one?
#38…Mister Catshit(love your new name Fusion….fits you perfectly)
First…I never saw your response to the Pelosi thing…Since I don’t come in here everyday anymore I get way behind on posts and can’t remember which ones I have responded to.
Second….Gore lost in 2000, not because of the Supreme’s, but because he was a flawed candidate. He lost states no Democrat had lost in 30 years(includeing his own….who best knows a politician than those of his own state). The ballots were put together by Democratic County Commissioners and they were to smart for their own good. When Gore picked his counties to ask for a recount, he screwed up, when the New York papers later did their recdounts, they showed where Gore screwed up….they also showed that Gore didn’t win by ANY method of recount used. Harris didn’t destroy any ballots….in fact, they are still available(i think, they were, but may be gone now). You Democrat’s need to get over the past and worry about the future….you guys just might be about to lose a sure thing.
You know that changing your name, like a thief in the night, dosen’t hide a warped personality like yours….but nice try. 🙂
I’ll look for the Trial Lawyers/Pelosi article.
Don’t blame Nader for 2000. Gore’s bizarre choice of the VP candidate (Lieberman) is what killed his chances. Lieberman is basically a republican pretending to be a democrat. Its almost like Gore wanted to lose, and losing to Bush/Cheney of all peoples!
It was funny when Nader was on the green party ticket though, talking about industrial hemp. Those pot smokers are always good for laughs! As an ex-green party member I can look back in amusement as the party abandoned rational policies like protecting the environment, pushing for better laws regarding food and product safety in favor of….you guessed it, MARIJUANA. The pothead party is ridiculous, nothing like the greens of europe and its a shame.
#83…Rick Cain….lol….Don’t forget….the Libertarians are pro pot as well. Maybe Ron Paul and Ralph Nader could run on the Green/Libertarian ticket as a couple. 🙂
“What message are the losers who vote for Nader trying to make?”
That we hate Barack Obama and John McCain both (or Bush & Kerry, or Bush & Gore, or Clinton & Dole, as the case may be), and that we like Ralph Nader, including his stated policy positions & public remarks. What the Hell message did you think we were trying to send?!? “We like popsicles,” perhaps?
“They must be incredibly non-connected to the world around them to think a third-party candidate could ever win.”
I voted for Ralph Nader in 2004 and 2008 (and if he runs in 2012, I will probably vote for him again), and I can assure you, I was never under any illusion that he was going to win those elections. Is that really how you people think? I mean, it was pretty clear by Election Day of 2008 that John McCain had about as good a chance of winning ie., “zero,” as did Ralph Nader, yet 50 million plus people still voted for him…but its the 750K or so people who voted for Nader that bothers you? How the Hell does THAT make any sense?
Why would I want to vote for some corporate errand boy, milquetoast asshole like Barack Obama (who was clearly going to win), when I could vote for someone with whom I actually agree, and have respect & admiration for, such as Ralph Nader? The fact Nader was going to lose to Obama was immaterial in the decision. Voting isn’t a game wherein one tries to select the winner. It is an exercise in democracy wherein one votes for whom one would prefer to be the winner. Under the criminal dictatorship of the two wings of the BiPartisan Party, one can argue it makes sense to support the lesser of two evils, and since John McCain (not to mention Sarah Palin) was a deranged old fruitbat who might have started a nuclear war with Russia over South Ossettia, I suppose that had I lived in a swing state like Ohio or Florida, I MIGHT have considered soiling my soul by voting for the otherwise worthless plutocratic prostitute and war-mongering piece of junk we call “Barack Obama.” But I live in California, a state who’s outcome hasn’t been in doubt since the first election I was old enough to vote in (1988, wherein I dutifully voted for Michael Dukakis), so the idea of wasting my vote, by casting it for a Democratic nominee who’s going to carry California in a landslide whether I vote for him or not, seems quite pathetic and stupid. Whereas lodging a protest against this corrupt, vile, and degenerate system, through casting my ballot for an actual rebel against said system, such as Ralph Nader, strikes me as eminently sensible, wise, and virtuous.
You want to me to vote Democrat? Fine, nominate Raph Nader, then. Or Dennis Kucinich. Hell, in 2004, I would have voted for Howard Dean, if you cowardly buffoons hadn’t punked out and nominated John Kerry. I might have even voted for Bill Richardson in 2008 (and certainly would have voted for Kucinich or Gravel), but if you people think I’m going to vote for worthless, disgusting, lying, thieving, downright EVIL scumbags like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John Edwards (or John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Wesley Clark, for that matter), then you can rest well and truly assured to the effect that you are and will forever remain utterly mistaken.