Nader Runs Again

[yeahwho]

Yep, here he comes (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004198391_apnader24.html), with a fancy website chockful of interesting data (http://www.votenader.org/index.html).

Who's jumping on the Nader train?

[EN[i]GMA]

Me.

And since I love in Ohio, I can hold out hope that MY VOTE will be the one causes the Democrats to lose again, and if takes 2012, once again, until they finally get the picture that their candidates fucking suck and they deserve to lose until adopt some decent ideas or candidates.

[yeahwho]

GMA;1560842']Me.

And since I love in Ohio, I can hold out hope that MY VOTE will be the one causes the Democrats to lose again, and if takes 2012, once again, until they finally get the picture that their candidates fucking suck and they deserve to lose until adopt some decent ideas or candidates.

I cannot blame you. Things are fever pitched at this moment and the shallow battle between Obama and Clinton skirts anything of interest to me. Judging each others character with character assassination is ridiculous. People are still being killed at an unacceptable rate. They need to focus on that and not each other.

McCain is out of his ever lovin' mind.

Nader is going to impact this race (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23321310#23321310), maybe in a positive way, we'll see. His anger and being pissed is much more justified (http://www.votenader.org/issues/).

[DIGI]

YYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNN.

[yeahwho]

YYYYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNN.

DIGI is riding the Nader train... WAKE UP America!

[RobMoney$]

You say you want a candidate for change?

[saz]

me too, i'll be rooting for him. but if he doesn't get the green party nomination, it'll be a tough choice between ralph and cynthia mckinney.

His anger and being pissed is much more justified (http://www.votenader.org/issues/).

man, it certainly is justified. that issues link speaks volumes about the dems.

[DroppinScience]

I say good for him for running and all other 3rd-party players should do the same (will Bloomberg get in the race?).

Predictably, many Dems screamed "bloody murder!" at this piece of news, but you know what would be the ideal Democratic response? If they spent all the time that they do demonizing Nader (which is a complete waste of time and energy) and instead just chose to adopt even a modest handful of those "key issues for 2008" (click Yeahwho's link) that Nader stands for, then not only would the Democrats sweep the November election, but they'd actually start siding with the interests of the American people like they're supposed to be about.

Will he be a spoiler for this election? I seriously doubt it. He wasn't the case in '04. 2000 is more arguable, but if you actually look at the facts, the case for spoilage falls apart (and I used to adamantly think he sealed the deal for Bush). But this time around, if Obama gets the nod, he's got the unbridled enthusiasm of a broad range of Americans (transcending age, race, gender, etc.), which was nothing that Kerry or Gore could brag about, so I'm thinking the American people can use their best judgement and decide on whether Obama, Nader or McCain is the best for them. A little choice never hurt anyone. If Clinton gets the nod, then I think somebody like Nader is desperately needed. Like Enigma says, if the Dems insist on playing it the same way as they've been doing for the last 8 years, they deserve to lose time and time again until they wake up. Only now is there a sense that the party may be getting their act together, so I really hope they don't fuck it up (again).

Moreover, I do think it's a terrible shame that Nader is perceived the way he's perceived thanks to the last 8 years. If you guys haven't watched it, do see "An Unreasonable Man" which is essentially a biography of Nader and his 40 year history of public interest and consumer advocacy. With achievements like auto safety, environmental protection, freedom of information, food safety (you name it), the guy is nothing short of a hero for what he's lobbied for in Washington during the '60s and '70s. In addition, it presents all sides to the "spoiler" argument in 2000 (even some choice words from people who worked with him during the '70s) and probably provides the best context surrounding that debate. But frankly, he's just a scapegoat when the truth of the matter was the blame rests squarely with the Supreme Court ruling than with anything Nader may or may not have done.

Bottom line: with or without Nader in the race, the Democrats need to run the best campaign they can with a message and candidate that works and prove they can take the country in a direction away from the Bush nightmare. If Nader ends up lighting a fire under their ass, then I'm happy. But if they play the same tired shit again, they deserve what comes to them.

[King PSYZ]

honestly, this late in the game what is the point of Nader running other than fracturing the liberal vote and an attempt to cut the legs out from under Obama's campaign?

I wouldn't be suprised if years later we find Nader has some of the same backers as Clinton... or maybe someone from the GOP.

He knows he hasn't got a snowballs chance in hell of getting even the 10% he needs to get the green party formally recognized. But say he even takes away 5-9%... that could be enough to give the win to the GOP again and then I'm gonna have to become a Canadian...

That's if the Canadian's don't (and rightly so since we don't even know how to select a competent leader) close the border.

Please any of you that think Nader running at this point in the race tell me one thing. What is the pupose of placing a vote for president?

Let's just save the time of block quoting back and forth and I'll answer for you, the purpose of placing a vote for anyone for a seat in government is to place a CANNIDATE THAT BEST REPRESENTS YOU IN THE OFFICE FOR WHICH THEY ARE RUNNING.

That's it, there's nothing about making a grand statement to stick it to the man. The only people scared by your vote aren't the establishment, but the people who had the best chance of representing you.

To everyone who would vote for Nader, tell me something. If in 2000 the only Canidates were Nader and Bush you'd vote for Nader right? And if Nader never ran would not most if not all of you had voted for Gore?

If the answer to both of those questions is yes than you have no basis to vote for Nader.

Yes politics need a sea change, and in case nobody's been paying attention we're well on our way right now. This is not the time to further fracture the voting public. We have a canidate getting ever closer to the largest grassroots support ever and that comes as no small feat.

Nader would, if somehow lightning struck every other nominee down on election day be the ultimate lame duck president. He'd have no real allies in the Senate or the House. He'd be hobled to the point of being completely moot.

So even if it were mathmatecially possible for him to win he'd be totally ineffective. Nothing would get done what so ever.

Now lets go back to the heart of my initial statement, since we know he won't win we do know he can't even garner 10% of the vote, less so now with the support Obama has compared to Gore. BUT, BUT there is a large portion of neo-bohemiens, far left liberals, and very independant people who might vote for Nader over Obama because they want to send their message to Washington.

That small percentage of people, even if it is only 3-4% of the liberal vote, could change the outcome of the election greatly. Considering the margin of loss in the 2000 race it's clear as crystal that the small percentage could in fact determine the outcome.

So for thos of you looking at Nader I pose you a simmilar question to earlier. If your only choice this November was Nader or McCain you'd obviously vote Nader. Before this announcement had say Obama gotten the nod vs. McCain with no other canidates running which would you vote for?

We need a third or hell even forth or fifth party in washington right now, but the seat of president is the worst possible place to start. It needs to start on the local levels and work it's way up into the system to where a third party might actually have a shot or be viable.

[DroppinScience]

Nader got less than 1% of the vote in 2004. I predict maybe half that amount for 2008. Unfortunately (and fortunately, at the same time), he'll be a non-issue in terms of stealing votes. But I'd still like the Democrats to shift to the left to counter Nader's candidacy. That's how you battle him. You don't continue shifting to the right.

[saz]

honestly, this late in the game what is the point of Nader running other than fracturing the liberal vote and an attempt to cut the legs out from under Obama's campaign?

I wouldn't be suprised if years later we find Nader has some of the same backers as Clinton... or maybe someone from the GOP.

He knows he hasn't got a snowballs chance in hell of getting even the 10% he needs to get the green party formally recognized. But say he even takes away 5-9%... that could be enough to give the win to the GOP again and then I'm gonna have to become a Canadian...

That's if the Canadian's don't (and rightly so since we don't even know how to select a competent leader) close the border.

Please any of you that think Nader running at this point in the race tell me one thing. What is the pupose of placing a vote for president?

Let's just save the time of block quoting back and forth and I'll answer for you, the purpose of placing a vote for anyone for a seat in government is to place a CANNIDATE THAT BEST REPRESENTS YOU IN THE OFFICE FOR WHICH THEY ARE RUNNING.

That's it, there's nothing about making a grand statement to stick it to the man. The only people scared by your vote aren't the establishment, but the people who had the best chance of representing you.

To everyone who would vote for Nader, tell me something. If in 2000 the only Canidates were Nader and Bush you'd vote for Nader right? And if Nader never ran would not most if not all of you had voted for Gore?

If the answer to both of those questions is yes than you have no basis to vote for Nader.

Yes politics need a sea change, and in case nobody's been paying attention we're well on our way right now. This is not the time to further fracture the voting public. We have a canidate getting ever closer to the largest grassroots support ever and that comes as no small feat.

Nader would, if somehow lightning struck every other nominee down on election day be the ultimate lame duck president. He'd have no real allies in the Senate or the House. He'd be hobled to the point of being completely moot.

So even if it were mathmatecially possible for him to win he'd be totally ineffective. Nothing would get done what so ever.

Now lets go back to the heart of my initial statement, since we know he won't win we do know he can't even garner 10% of the vote, less so now with the support Obama has compared to Gore. BUT, BUT there is a large portion of neo-bohemiens, far left liberals, and very independant people who might vote for Nader over Obama because they want to send their message to Washington.

That small percentage of people, even if it is only 3-4% of the liberal vote, could change the outcome of the election greatly. Considering the margin of loss in the 2000 race it's clear as crystal that the small percentage could in fact determine the outcome.

So for thos of you looking at Nader I pose you a simmilar question to earlier. If your only choice this November was Nader or McCain you'd obviously vote Nader. Before this announcement had say Obama gotten the nod vs. McCain with no other canidates running which would you vote for?

We need a third or hell even forth or fifth party in washington right now, but the seat of president is the worst possible place to start. It needs to start on the local levels and work it's way up into the system to where a third party might actually have a shot or be viable.


the point of running is that it is providing a voice, or choice for millions of americans who don't identify with the two party system. the point of running is to provide progressives with a true progressive voice, being the green party, or an independent platform.

nader takes money from anyone. however with nader, we know that he isn't going to adopt a right of centre, corporate agenda.

well, what would help the green party, and all of the other parties, is that if they were included in the debates. but we know that's not going to happen, considering the great lengths nbc went to, to exclude dennis kucinich from the nevada debate (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22672634/). it also doesn't help when the democratic party bans kucinich from the texas ballot (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22735804/), and launches countless lawsuits against nader to exclude him from many ballots in various states. it seems that the democratic party wants to continue the monopoly of the two party system, while the media ignores edwards and drools over hillary and obama, annointing them as the only true candidates, while persecuting kucinich. and then of course you have the democratic party, democratic supporting bloggers, and the mainstream corporate media crucifying nader and the green party.

what you're also failing to take into consideration is that the green party, and independent candidates, also take votes away from the republicans. it also doesn't help the democrats cause when over 200,000 registered dems vote for the republican candidate, ie florida 2000, or when gore couldn't even win his home state, when even walter mondale and george mcgovern did.

"the purpose of placing a vote for president" is your individual choice to make to say who you would like to be president of the united states. there are people who vote for what they believe in, and not just vote for who they think is going to win.

if nader had not run in 2000, or if the green party did not field a candidate in 2000, i wouldn't have supported the al gore of 2000. i also would not support or root for obama if the green party did not field a candidate.

and with nader having very few allies in the house or senate, that just goes to show you the current state of the democratic party. and as if the democratic congress and senate is getting anything accomplished anyways. they've done such an outstanding job (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18349197/the_chicken_doves) of giving into bush's every whim, continuing to fund the war, to have impeachment "off the table", with the senate democrats caving on fisa etc.

i wonder if those who vote democrat and look down upon nader and the greens, would feel the same way about previous third parties running in presidential elections, ie the national women's party and the right of women to vote etc.

[DroppinScience]

Probably the best analysis of Nader's run so far:

Nader Runs, Obama Responds Wisely
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/25/7274/

Here's a key quote from the article, and echoes why he is necessary:

The public-interest crusader worries far less about poll numbers and even vote totals than about saying what he feels needs to be said — and using the forum of the electoral process to say it. And he is certainly not the first progressive — inside the Democratic Party or out — to suggest that Obama needs to be prodded on issues ranging from labor law to corporate regulation to single-payer health care and Middle East policy.

Nader’s greatest value in any race is — like Socialist Norman Thomas in his races against Democratic Franklin Roosevelt — as a source of pressure on the Democratic nominee to address fundamental questions and perhaps to take more progressive stands on a few issues. As in 2000 and 2004, Nader’s appeal will be determined in large part by the extent to which the Democratic candidate is willing to be bold.

Obama seems to understands this. Unlike Gore or Kerry, who never quite “got” the point of Nader’s runs in 2000 and 2004, the Illinois senator appears to recognize that it is pointless to grumble about Ralph Nader as a “spoiler.” Rather, the point is to be more appealing to progressive voters who might consider voting Green or independent.

“I think the job of the Democratic Party is to be so compelling that a few percentage [points] of the vote going to another candidate is not going to make any difference,” says Obama.

That is the bottom line with regard to Nader’s latest bid.

If Obama runs as a progressive, Nader will have little room to maneuver. If Obama runs to the center, Nader’s space will open up — a bit.

[QueenAdrock]

So my question is, how can someone influence the Democratic platform if the platform is mainly focused on charisma/personality, rather than the issues?

[alien autopsy]

charisma and personality seem to be what elections are all about. certainly, history has shown that campaigns are full of empty and broken promises- words at the right place and time, to grab the attention and excitement of the people. we'll see how it pans out.

i think its great nader is running. i hope him and cynthia team up, they could really stir washington on end if they got elected. fat as chance as it may be.

i think the more genuine good people the better. the more options the better. the more freedom to choose the better. i frown on the idea that nader, and other candidates "take votes away" and are to blame for the wrong people getting into office. thats a pathetic excuse.

[yeahwho]

I do feel that with as much as has happened post 9/11 Nader has no real solution to foreign policy on his page. This makes him as isolating as Ron Paul.

I feel there should be a run-off debate, the Paul/Nader debate. That would be something else to watch, one who wants to regulate everything, one who wants to not regulate anything and two of a like mind.. fuck foreign policy.

It would be a fantastic debate.

[alien autopsy]

its hard to come up with a worse foreign policy than that which we already have

[alien autopsy]

maybe mccains is worse!

[yeahwho]

Letterman's TOP 10 Ralph Nader Campaign Promises

10. Fund universal health care by making Wesley Snipes pay his taxes
9. Give the presidency a rumpled, Walter Matthau quality
8. The freezing over of Hell should solve our global warming crisis
7. Get those people off that island in "Lost"
6.Send Gary Busey in to annoy and confuse our enemies
5. Can fill out a pantsuit better than Hillary
4. Will hover in polls between 1% and "Statistically Insignificant"
3. Force Starbucks to identify their sizes "Small," "Medium," and "Large" -- am I right people?
2. Will not sleep with lobbyists, or for that matter anyone else
1. Get Bush re-elected like in 2000