well if it wasn't for nader most likely gore would have won last, so i would think nader will steal away more democratic votes this time around. since i'm a bush supporter i hope this does happen. i honestly don't understand why people would support nader since he doesn't have a good chance of winning. a 3 party system in politics just screws everything up, but hey if some stupid liberals want to waste a vote on some guy who won't win and take away votes from a liberal who can win than i'm all for it.

 

18Sec, it's nice to see that you're completely buying into the spin that Nader has posted on his website just because you want to make the "outsider" choice.

He's not going to get elected, and the issues he's supposedly trying to bring to light as a third party are nothing even close to revolutionary.

Thanks so much for the bump, because we all care so much.

 

ok, if he's against back and forth bs, then he's all for back and forth and back again politics. and for the 60% who wouldn't have otherwise voted, the other 40% would have voted for who:thinking:?? i'm sure that 40% of his FL votes would have turned the ballot the other way.

 

As much as I encourage the principle of a bona-fide third party, and keeping in mind the phenomenal accomplishments Nader made in the 20th Century, he has become a romantic anachronism in the 21st Century.

This is the time for Dems to pull together, set a solid game plan and focus on one thing: ensuring that G.W.B is a one-term-wonder like his father. Starting with Bush's record - something that I feel Gore failed to use effectively in 2000 - is a good starting point. Kerry has the requisite foresight to make this happen.

In short, I doubt Ralph will even make it on the ballots.

 

I learned a long time ago that there are two kinds of discussions not to get entangled in:

-politics
-religion

Therefore, I'm going to keep my opinion to myself and not let you hear it, even though I know you're dying to know.

 

whoa.. we agree on something.. :wtf:

 

Bush Sr was not a one term wonder. The democrats picked a terrible person to run in '88 and perot took bush's votes in '92 much like nader did to gore in '00. a third party is not good, because it allows someone to become president without having a majority vote. the democrats are much smarter this time around and are pulling together like the republicans did in '00, but nader will most likely screw it all up again for the democrats. i'd be pretty pissed off with nader if i was a democrat. unfortunetly the democrats inthe rest if the country don't realize how bad kerry really is. people in MA and NH do, that's all people talk about around here is how much they dislike him.

 

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm very frustrated with Nader, and have expressed these thoughts on RalphDon'tRun. This is not the time for him to go ego-tripping on the campaign trail. Even if Nader makes it on to the California ballot, I feel very confident that his impact will be minimal at best.

And while we're at it...explain to me the argument against Kerry in NH and MA. I'm curious to see what makes him so undesirable...:eh:

 

since he is a MA senator, the people around here have known about him and his past, whereas much of america doesn't. alot of it has to do with his anti-war actions after his military service. most people around here simply don't trust the guy. how can you...he is the richest the senator with a wife who is heir to heinz fortunes, do you really think he cares about the lower/middle class?? he has ties with the kennedys and constantly changes his views. i can understand not liking bush and all and wanting change, but kerry is not the democrat for change. what he is though, is the only guy who can beat bush. so maybe that's reason enough to support him if your a democrat.

 

Kerry's anti-war actions after getting back from Vietnam were actually one of the things that drew me to him back when there were 9 candidates in the race.

Anyway as for Nader, there were essentially two groups of voters I noticed for him back in 2000.

First you had more left-leaning folks that would generally vote for a democrat but decided to go for Nader since they didn't think a bumbling idiot like Bush would actually get elected. Also they were sort of complacent since they thought Gore was a shoe-in what with being the vice president of a two-term incumbent. So they figured it was a good time to make a statement. Stuff like the Alaskan Wildlife Preserve and Nader running with the Green party energized the environmentalists.

The other group were your sort of anti establishment hippie types that can't actually participate in a political dialogue and wanted to vote Nader because of some stoned musings about how "the two parties are all the same, man!" I was pretty stoned at the time myself so don't think these kind of views are simply the product of enjoying a good toke now and again. I like to call this group the stoners in the absence of logic, as opposed to logicians that like to get stoned.